AllThingsPLC Magazine 09-02 by Solution Tree

PLC things MAGAZINE all

9, Issue 2

PLC things all

Volume 9, Issue 2

Features

Havoc to Harmony

Nathaniel Provencio

Leading difficult professional behaviors in a professional learning community.

SSR

Jasmine Kullar

A leader’s framework for having tough conversations.

Word of Mouth

Rob J. Meyer

What we can learn from educators in model PLCs.

Cascading Goals

Janel Keating, Tracy Nelson, Meagan Rhoades, and Janel Ross

Connecting district goals to student success.

Tools & Resources

PLC things all MAGAZINE First Thing

From Helplessness to Hope

Matthew Treadway

a toxic trait that I imagine many others are afflicted with as well.

SOLUTION TREE:

CEO

Jeffrey C. Jones

Ihave12

PRESIDENT Edmund M. Ackerman

SOLUTION TREE PRESS:

PRESIDENT & PUBLISHER

After a long day’s work, once the kids are down for the night and I should be winding down for some much-needed sleep, I fall into a familiar trap: scrolling through social media videos. The algorithm knows me too well— ’90s WWF wrestling clips, funny animals, and the occasional educational gem. These videos pull me into an endless abyss, keeping me up far later than I should be.

Kendra Slayton

ART DIRECTOR

Rian Anderson

PAGE DESIGNERS

Laura Cox, Abigail Bowen, Kelsey Hergül, Fabiana Cochran, Julie Csizmadia, Rian Anderson

AllThingsPLC (ISSN 2476-2571 [print], 2476-258X [Online]) is published four times a year by Solution Tree Press.

555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404

800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: 812.336.7790

email: info@SolutionTree.com SolutionTree.com

POSTMASTER

Send address changes to Solution Tree, 555 North Morton Street, Bloomington, IN, 47404

One night, during one of these scrolling sessions, I came across a video that stood out. It was a clip from an early 2000s college classroom, complete with Aéropostale and Gap shirts as era-de ning staples. In the video (Nixon, 2007), a professor conducted a fascinating experiment to demonstrate learned helplessness. She gave the students a simple task: resort the letters in three words to create new ones. e instructions were straightforward—use all the letters, wait for her cue to move on, and raise your hand when nished.

What the students didn’t know was that there were two versions of the quiz. Half the class received words like bat, which could easily be rearranged into tab. e other half received words like whirl, which had no solution. As the exercise began, hands quickly shot up from those with solvable problems, while the others grew frustrated.

When the class moved to the second word, the pattern repeated. e bat group breezed through lemon to form whirl group struggled again with slapstick zle. By the time they reached the third word, lenging but solvable problem—the results were striking. Nearly all of the bat group solved it, while only a handful of the group did.

For the bat group, success came quickly. e rst problem was straightforward, and solving it gave them an immediate boost of condence. e second problem was slightly more challenging but still doable, reinforcing their belief they could succeed. By the time these students reached cinerama, they were willing to wrestle with it to form American. E ort felt worthwhile because success seemed within reach.

e inverse was true for the whirl group. Immediate failure on the rst problem was discouraging, and the second problem reinforced that sense of inadequacy. By the time they arrived at the solvable word, most had given up entirely, convinced there was no point in trying. ey had internalized helplessness. is experiment highlights something crucial for classrooms: success breeds con dence, while repeated failure fosters discouragement. When students are given opportunities to succeed early on, they are more likely to persevere through challenges. But when they encounter constant barriers, they may stop trying altogether. As educators, how we structure learning and provide support can have a profound impact on whether students learn to persist or give up.

In knowing this truth, a signi cant part of the work collaborative teams engage in should be centered around student access to grade-level learning. If we think about each grade-level essential standard as a tower, with full pro ciency at the top, it’s clear students need a set of steps to reach that goal. You wouldn’t begin instruction with the most rigorous components of the standard. Instead, you start at an access point where students can enter the stairway. Each step forward becomes a progression of learning that gradually increases in rigor, leading to full pro ciency. is progression mirrors the early success seen in the experiment’s bat group. When students start with manageable tasks, they build con dence and are more likely to persevere. It also allows teachers to pinpoint where learning breaks down and respond with targeted support. Research underscores the importance of understanding these learning progressions. As Heather Friziellie, Julie Schmidt, and Jeanne Spiller (2016) explain, “Understanding the learning progression and the complexity of the skills the standard requires helps teachers plan time and support appropriately to ensure students master these components” (p. 69).

3.NBT.3. Multiply one-digit whole numbers by multiples of 10 in the range of 10–90 using strategies based on place value and properties of operations.

Learning Target 7 Full Proﬁciency

Learning Target 6

Learning Target 5

Learning Target 4

Learning Target 3

Learning Target 2

Learning Target 1

Prerequisite

I can explain how I solved a multiplication problem with a one-digit number and a multiple of 10.

I can solve multiplication problems with a one-digit number and a multiple of 10. For example, 6 × 50 = 300

I can use place value to multiply a one-digit number by a multiple of 10.

For example, 3 × 40 = 3 × 4 × 10

I can use repeated addition to multiply a one-digit number by a multiple of 10. For example, 4 × 20 = 20 + 20 + 20 + 20

I can use pictures or objects to show how to multiply a one-digit number by a multiple of 10.

I can explain how many tens are in a number. For example, 30 is 3 tens.

I can identify multiples of 10, like 10, 20, 30, and 40.

I can explain how many tens and ones are in a two-digit number. For example, 34 has 3 tens and 4 ones.

I can identify the value of each digit in a two-digit number. For example, in 47, the 4 means 40 and the 7 means 7.

By sca olding grade-level standards into a progression of learning targets, teachers create a pathway to success for every student. Sometimes that might just mean you have to go backward slightly to move forward. Let me show you an example. is progression illustrates how each step builds on the previous one, guiding students toward full pro ciency of the standard. Notice the two prerequisite skills at the base of the tower. Ideally, every student would enter the classroom with these foundational skills mastered. However, that’s not always the case. In this scenario, the third-grade team recognized that many students lacked key place value understandings from second grade. ey had two options:

1. Ignore it and push forward, risking the need to reteach later.

2. Proactively address the prerequisite skill, providing early success and building student con dence. e choice was obvious for this intuitive group of teachers. ey decided to spend a short amount of time addressing the prerequisites, giving students the

foundation they needed to succeed as the rigor increased. Every cohort of students has di erent learning needs. Collaborative teams that design logical progressions of learning—grounded in a clear understanding of where students are starting—create equitable access points and pathways to success. By tailoring support to the individual learning needs of students on the pathway to grade-level learning, we can help them move beyond learned helplessness to learned con dence.

Success becomes a habit, and perseverance becomes a mindset. is shift doesn’t just impact their ability to master a single standard—it transforms the way they approach all learning. When collaborative teams work together to structure learning intentionally, they unlock a powerful tool for building student con dence. By providing an accessible entry point and a clear pathway forward, we empower every student to climb the tower to pro ciency—and to believe they belong at the top.

References

Friziellie, H., Schmidt, J. A., & Spiller, J. (2016). Yes we can! General and special educators collaborating in a professional learning community. Solution Tree Press. Nixon, C. [zooeygirl]. (2007, March 8). Learned helplessness [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=gFmFOmprTt0

A proven path to educational excellence

When a school or district functions as a professional learning community (PLC), educators within the organization embrace high levels of learning for all students. With Global PD Teams, you’ll explore how to implement the PLC at Work® process to focus on learning, build a collaborative culture, and ensure results.

HARMONY Havoc TO

LEADING DIFFICULT PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIORS IN A PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY

NATHANIEL PROVENCIO

In today’s educational landscape, transforming schools into healthy and thriving professional learning communities is key to unlocking sustainable, high levels of success for all students. When educators have the opportunity to consistently and collectively multiply their skills, capacities, and experience to understand essential standards, share and deliver sound instructional strategies, create common formative assessments, analyze the impact of their practices, and adjust strategies to meet the needs of students who need intervention and remediation, student learning ultimately improves.

John Hattie and his team of educational researchers are clear that the work of collective teacher e cacy is one of the essential keys in sustaining schoolwide growth and achievement for students (Donohoo, Hattie, & Ells, 2018). e essential question, however, isn’t why this work matters—research has proven that it does—but who is driving it forward. For me, the most successful and consistently excellent school cultures have gured out not only what processes to implement to ensure all students are learning at high levels but also how to support the people who are doing the work. e best school leaders are remarkably capable of uniting diverse individuals with varied experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives to actually engage in the right work.

Studies consistently show that highly engaged, empowered, and aligned teams are more productive. Gallup's (2017) research found that teams with high engagement levels see a

21 percent increase in pro tability and 17 percent higher productivity compared to teams with low engagement. Engaged employees and teams are more likely to be invested in their work, resulting in better focus, e ciency, and output. A report by McKinsey & Company (2021) showed that highly engaged teams are 50 percent more likely to demonstrate open communication, leading to faster decision-making, problem-solving, and innovation. Teams with high engagement tend to be more innovative as well. A study by Harvard Business Review (Zenger & Folkman, 2016) found that companies with the most engaged employees reported three times higher innovation levels than those with disengaged workers. Engaged team members are more open to creative thinking and collaboration, which drives new ideas and improvements in business processes.

On the other hand, toxic behaviors from employees and dysfunctional teams in a school environment, if not addressed, can signi cantly hinder both workplace harmony and student learning outcomes. Research has shown that challenging individuals negatively impact team cohesion, which is critical for collaborative teaching and fostering a positive school culture. Disruptive behaviors among educators can reduce team e ectiveness, leading to increased stress and burnout for other sta members, ultimately detracting from their teaching performance (Tepper, 2000). Toxic employee behaviors can lower motivation and engagement, causing teachers to become less invested in their work, which in turn a ects the quality of instruction students receive (Mitchell, Vogel, & Folger, 2012). ese negative team dynamics also sti e creativity and innovation in the classroom, limiting the development of new teaching methods or approaches that could bene t student learning. Additionally, toxic behavior from colleagues can erode psychological safety, making it di cult for teachers to share ideas or collaborate, which is crucial for fostering an open, supportive educational environment that promotes student success (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006). As stress levels rise and

teamwork falters, the overall impact of toxic employee behavior becomes a barrier not only to sta performance but also to student achievement.

e art of leading teachers and sta is far from straightforward—it's a dynamic, complex process because people are dynamic and complex. In my experience, most school leaders are not equipped with the skills and training necessary to help their teachers consistently work harmoniously as members of high-performing collaborative teams to carry out the processes needed to ensure students are learning at high levels. In our schools, just like in any workplace, there are certain types of personalities and behaviors that tend to be more challenging than others to work with. In many cases, such behaviors can lead to more team havoc than team harmony.

As school leaders are working to invest in and cultivate a professional learning community culture, even if every PLC-based system and framework is put into place and practiced, a failure to invest in the professionals will ultimately cause the culture of a PLC to fail. Research on workplace collaboration reveals that certain negative personality behaviors can pose signi cant challenges in school team environments. I have compiled a list of ve of the most signi cantly challenging school employee behaviors I have experienced in my work in supporting schools and suggestions on how to utilize the tenets of the PLC process to support those types of behaviors. e ve challenging behaviors are the micromanager behavior, the passive-aggressive behavior, the egoist behavior, the know-it-all behavior, and the complainer behavior.

MICROMANAGER BEHAVIOR

Employees who micromanage often feel the need to control things because they struggle with trusting others. is can come from a fear of mistakes, a desire for perfection, or feeling responsible for every outcome. Sometimes people who micromanage worry that if they don't oversee every detail, things won't get done the way they want and it will make them look bad. ey might also feel pressure to show results, leading them to believe they need to stay involved in every part of the process. is type of behavior can be challenging for team members working in a PLC because e ective teams need the ability to be exible and innovative with their practices and decisions. E ective teams also need to feel safe about their results and know that their student outcomes won't de ne them as people. Employees who display micromanaging tendencies may not always be toxic, however. Teams may need members who have a high level of attention to detail in the development of lessons, assessments, and di erentiated supports—but not to the detriment of team harmony.

WORD OF M O U

WHAT

WE CAN LEARN FROM EDUCATORS IN MODEL PLCS

“People don’t really do this work, do they?” I have often heard this question regarding the PLC at Work process. As a theory, the Professional Learning Communities at Work process receives very little pushback. Colleagues and audiences generally seem to understand that focusing on learning, collaboration, and results— the three big ideas of a PLC—has a positive impact on student outcomes (DuFour et al., 2024). However, I have gotten a lot of questions about whether people are actually implementing this work. Perhaps this is because of the assumption there isn’t enough time, the thought that collaboration is impossible in the real world, or the instinct that collaborative work is additive rather than

T H

Rob J. Meyer

Cascading Goals

CONNECTING DISTRICT GOALS TO STUDENT SUCCESS

When Ezekiel started kindergarten at the Early Learning Center in the White River School District, he knew one uppercase and two lowercase letters and didn’t know any sounds. He couldn’t write his name and didn’t know how to hold a pencil. By the end of the school year, he knew all his letter names and sounds and could read 18 words a minute with 86 percent accuracy. He had met his goal for letter sounds and names and was well on his way to fluency. Ezekiel was applying phonics skills and reading high-frequency words in context. We knew it was important for Ezekiel to read with accuracy, and time during the literacy block was also dedicated to working with him on the comprehension standards. He could write his name and a sentence independently, with finger spaces. With a clear goal and intentional collaborative work, Ezekiel and other students like him who enter school well below kindergarten entry level can finish the year on grade level or above.

JANEL KEATING TRACY NELSON MEAGAN RHOADES JANEL ROSS

The goal ﬂows down, and the student learning data ﬂows up.

In the White River School District, structures are in place that ensure all teams—the district leadership team, building leadership teams, and collaborative teacher teams— receive clear direction from the school board and superintendent team. is clarity facilitates holding educators accountable, clariﬁes priorities, establishes goals, and motivates and inspires staﬀ to work together to ensure high levels of learning at all levels.

Robert Eaker, Mike Hagadone, Janel Keating, and Meagan Rhoades (2021) point out, “An important part of successfully leading a school is that all staﬀ do the hard work of learning and understanding best practices and coming to consensus on the why. Once they have done that work, it’s easy to expect and require because there is a common understanding regarding why the work is so important” (p. 18).

DISTRICT GOALS

High-stakes state assessments begin in third grade, but what happens in kindergarten, first, and second grades directly impacts third-grade student achievement. Although the third-grade assessment is often considered an assessment of the early years, that’s not always the common understanding among kindergarten, first- and second-grade teachers. e third-grade results are often the first public-facing achievement data, which belongs to the kindergarten through third-grade teacher teams.

In White River, we realized we had to create district goals within those grade levels to see more students meeting grade-level essential standards and achieving at higher levels by third grade. We no longer wanted to hear the comments “ ey aren’t ready yet. ey will get it next year.” We knew that students magically don’t get ready. We needed to set goals based on essential standards, align the support in the district oﬃce to achieve

District Goals

District O ce Team Goals

School SMART Goals

Team SMART Goals - Unit by Unit

Student Growth Goals - Target by Target

the goals, and work with both certificated and classified staff on effective Tier 1 instruction and Tier 2 and Tier 3 instructional supports to ensure more students learned grade-level standards. We also knew that this would be a multiyear goal.

e graphic highlights how a school district’s goal-setting process should cascade. Often in school districts, district departments and schools operate in silos. Each silo is tied to a budget code. Districts can move from operating in silos to operating as a system by establishing a goal that all are mutually accountable for achieving, from the superintendent and board of directors to the students. e goal ﬂows down, and the student learning data ﬂows up. Remember, you never reach a goal you don’t set. So set the goal!

Tim Kanold (2025) shares, “Yearning for something meaningful, such as a connection to the reason we are showing up for work each day (improved student learning), can lead to a profound and lasting joy when our deeper aspiration of student learning is fulﬁlled” (p. 33).

Eaker, Hagadone, Keating, and Rhoades (2021) highlight, “ e board and superintendent can establish district learning goals when they work with the district oﬃce team and principals to analyze student learning data by grade level, subject, and course. As a result of the data analysis, the school board and superintendent team can provide focused direction and goals for each academic year. ere’s an

expectation that individual schools and teacher collaborative teams within them mirror the same process—analyzing data, setting school SMART goals, establishing team goals, unit by unit, and student goals, target by target. It’s this process that ensures teams are doing the right work at the right time, for the right reason, and in the right way” (pp. 18–19).

For example, after analyzing student learning data over the last year, a 90 percent reading goal was developed for grades K–2 using data from the previous few years. e goal states that 90 percent of students will read at grade level; 10 percent will meet a portion of the learning targets within a standard, but they are not there yet. Various measures are used to determine whether we are meeting this goal.

e district uses the following to determine reading at grade level for kindergarten:

• Spring AIMSWEB Benchmark data (students in the 50th percentile or higher)

• A stand-alone ﬂuency passage—administered during the same week as Spring Benchmark by the classroom teacher or support sta (19 WPM and 95 percent accuracy)

e idea of checking ﬂuency at the end of kindergarten was already in place at two of the four schools at the time it became a districtwide measure. Staﬀ at these buildings were

CONCLUSION

When our little friend Ezekiel entered school at the Early Learning Center in White River School District, he didn’t know that he was entering an entire system that was designed to meet his needs determined by where he was on entry and provide him the support he needed to move to ﬁrst grade having met the kindergarten standards. From our school board to his teacher team, clear goals provided the expectations that led to his success. Ezekiel and his parents may not know that being able to read at grade level by third grade is a predictor for high school graduation. But they didn’t need to know that because our system is aligned to meet the needs of every student in every skill. at’s what equity in education looks like.

Anthony Muhammad (2024) states, “It is logical to expect a return on investments if you have made the proper investments” (p. 121).

REFERENCES

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. W., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press.

Eaker, R., Hagadone, M., Keating, J., & Rhoades, M. (2021). Leading PLCs at Work districtwide: From the boardroom to the classroom. Solution Tree Press.

Kanold, T. (2025). JOY: Growing strong throughout your seasons of life as a teacher and leader. Solution Tree Press.

Muhammad, A. (2024). e way forward: PLC at Work and the bright future of education. Solution Tree Press.

Rasinski, T., Homan, S., & Briggs, M. (2009). Teaching reading ﬂuency to struggling readers: Method, materials, and actions. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 192–204.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Do you have district and school goals that are focused on student learning? Do your school goals align with the goals of your district?

2. Does your sta ’s learning time focus on professional development related to the school goals?

3. How are you celebrating successes?

JANEL KEATING is a former White River School District superintendent, Solution Tree author, and PLC associate. Janel and her team led White River to Model PLC District status.

TRACY NELSON is a former White River School District ELA teacher on special assignment and PLC associate. Tracy’s leadership was key to White River achieving Model PLC District status.

MEAGAN RHOADES is a retired White River School District data, assessment, and communication coordinator and Solution Tree author and presenter. Meagan’s leadership was key to White River achieving Model PLC District status.

JANEL ROSS is currently the principal of Mountain Meadow Elementary School, an internationally recognized Ambassador Model PLC at Work School. Janel was the former principal of the White River Early Learning Center, where she helped lead the school to Model PLC status.

Tania Amerson

Achieving Compliance and High Levels of Learning in Special Education

In the dynamic eld of special education, directors often nd themselves struggling to balance the rigorous demands of compliance with the overarching mission of fostering high levels of learning for all students. Compliance demands your attention and your time. Without intention, your true purpose, improving outcomes for all students, can be lost to the ever-increasing demands of compliance. e best way to combat this is to be intentional in your weekly goal setting. Set apart dedicated time to focus on the work that matters most: student learning. Surround yourself with colleagues who share your mission and understand the challenges. Finally, utilize the resources available to you. ere are so many resources that you should rarely have to invent the wheel to solve a problem. Use what is available and tailor it to your speci c situation. is article explores key resources tailored for special education directors, o ering practical tools and strategies to e ectively manage compliance requirements and drive educational excellence.

Council for Administrators of Special Education (CASE). As a director, being a member of the national and state chapters of CASE has been an invaluable resource for me over the years. CASE membership has allowed me the opportunity to interact with other special education administrators in my state and across the country. It has also provided robust, professional development opportunities for me and my staff. Finally, as a member of CASE, you have an opportunity to advocate for changes in legislation that will positively impact the students we serve.

Yes We Can! General and Special Educators Collaborating in a Professional Learning Community by Heather Frizielle, Julie A. Schmidt, and Jeanne Spiller. The authors use this book to challenge educators to action on their belief that all students can learn at high levels by examining the actions required to put this belief into practice. Topics such as goal setting, collaboration, specialized instruction, progress monitoring, and responding when students don’t learn are tackled by the authors and will challenge you to examine whether your actions align to your proposed beliefs.

Visible Learning Meta website (www.visiblelearningmetax.com). This website has all the information from John Hattie’s research around variables that impact student achievement. The variables studied are categorized into nine domains. This is a great place to research practices that positively inﬂuence student achievement so you and your team can work smarter rather than harder.

The ABCs of CBM: A Practical Guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement, second edition, by Michelle K. Hosp, John L. Hosp, and Kenneth W. Howell. This is a valuable resource that you can recommend to your staff for the creation of efficient, aligned progress-monitoring measures. Our mandate to provide a free, appropriate public education is met by ensuring that each student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is developed and reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress in light of their circumstances. Developing probes that accurately demonstrate a student’s progress is critical to accomplishing this mandate. This book provides speciﬁc guidance in developing measures to assess progress in various components of reading, math, writing, and spelling.

TANIA AMERSON is executive director of exceptional education for the Bartow County School System, where she cultivates a professional learning community culture. With 30 years of experience in special education, she’s served as a teacher, instructional coach, and administrator.

Why I Love PLCs

Purpose and Clarity

Our school was full of passionate teachers giving their all in the classroom, but what we lacked was a uni ed focus on the work that would truly drive student success. Our teacher leadership team embarked on a journey to uncover the story hidden within our data. What we discovered was both humbling and motivating. While e ort was abundant, alignment and intentionality were needed to ensure every student could thrive. is realization marked the beginning of a transformative journey in our elementary school.

To guide this effort, we quickly established our guiding coalition. Full of energy and ideas, we eagerly took our first steps together. After a year of using Learning by Doing as our guide, we culminated our efforts with a June trip to Minneapolis to attend a PLC at Work conference.

After several intense days immersed in learning and planning at the conference, we decided to unwind with the Twins and Red Sox baseball game. The experience was a memorable break, but what happened afterward became an unexpected metaphor for our journey. As we made our way back from the stadium, we got lost navigating the unfamiliar city streets. In those moments, it became clear that our school’s journey needed the very thing we were seeking that night: a clear road map. Just as we needed directions to nd our way, our teachers needed a structured path to follow, one that was well-paced, intentional, and manageable. A journey that built our capacity and strengthened our resilience.

In the early days, we often found ourselves moving at warp speed, tackling challenges, and applying quick xes. Our meetings often started with us searching for documents in a sea of computer les, and we lacked clarity of agreement on what we wanted students to learn. While we were driven, we needed a more focused and sustainable approach. e PLC process quickly gave us a road map for purpose and clarity.

We came to understand that the pacing of our collaborative work was just as critical as the unit pacing charts we developed for our students. is insight prompted us to create a clear and intentional road map for our collaborative teams—one that was sustainable, purposeful, and focused on achieving meaningful outcomes for both educators and students.

Our commitment to the PLC at Work process began with bold steps toward continuous improvement. Guided by teacher leaders, we re ned our mission, vision, and goals, fostering collaboration and shared accountability. Success became a shared responsibility, driven by intentional collaboration and teamwork. Our focus and momentum were guided by the four essential questions, starting with, “What do we want students to learn?”

Our collaborative teams began designing unit plans centered around essential standards. ese plans included addressing prerequisite skills, de ning clear learning targets, crafting student-friendly “I can” statements, creating common formative assessments, and planning targeted interventions. rough this process, we prioritized academic vocabulary, agreeing on the critical terms that all students would know. We even took to cutting and sorting standards on paper, ensuring alignment across grade levels and year-to-year consistency. We brought our vision to life with scissors, highlighters, and tape, creating a seamless representation of our guaranteed and viable curriculum. Each year brought its challenges, but we committed to addressing them with a focus on the principles of the PLC process: (1) focus on learning, (2) build a collaborative culture, and (3) focus on results.

Each collaborative team included classroom teachers, special educators, multilingual teachers, and interventionists, all working together to review data and share

responsibility for student learning. is collective e ort became the cornerstone of our success, creating a thriving community of educators united in their mission.

e results were transformative. Not only did we see improved outcomes for students, but we also built a culture of empowerment and support among educators. By 2022, our school became the rst Model PLC in our state, a testament to the hard work and dedication of our entire learning team.

As I embark on a new journey this year in middle school, I carry with me the lessons of our PLC experience. I am inspired by the clarity and focus that transformed our work and am energized by the opportunities ahead. When we engage in the right work, our students engage in the right work.

How will you create a road map to keep your collaborative teams focused with clarity and purpose?

SUZANNE GRUENDLING is dedicated to empowering educators and fostering student learning through collaboration. She served as the elementary principal of a Vermont PLC Model School and is currently a middle school principal.

SUZANNE GRUENDLING

Discussion Questions

Use this convenient tear-out card to go over and reinforce the topics discussed in this issue with the members of your team.

Havoc to Harmony (p.

1. In what ways can team members’ behaviors influence the effectiveness of the team?

2. As a leader, what are your responsibilities in ensuring the effectiveness of the collaborative teams in your school?

3. Which of the five behaviors are present in your teams? How can you help the employees who exhibit those behaviors?

SSR (p. 13)

1. Why are tough conversations necessary?

2. How are tough conversations typically handled in your school?

3. With your team or colleague, create a stituation that would require a tough conversation and work through it using the SSR framework.

Word of Mouth (p.

25)

1. Do you agree that professional learning is essential for greater student outcomes? Why?

2. In what specific ways can educators’ voices benefit the conversation on the effectiveness of PLCs at Work?

3. What do you believe is important to add to this conversation?

Cascading Goals (p.

33)

1. Do you have district and school goals that are focused on student learning? Do your school goals align with the goals of your district?

2. Does your staff’s learning time focus on professional development related to the school goals?

3. How are you celebrating successes?

Because everyone needs a reminder now and again.

The fundamental purpose of the school is to ensure high levels of learning for all students. This focus on learning translates into four critical questions that drive the daily work of the school. In PLCs, educators demonstrate their commitment to helping all students learn by working collaboratively to address the following critical questions:

1. What do we want students to learn? What should each student know and be able to do as a result of each unit, grade level, and/or course?

2. How will we know if they have learned? Are we monitoring each student’s learning on a timely basis?

3. What will we do if they don’t learn? What systematic process is in place to provide additional time and support for students who are experiencing difficulty?

4. What will we do if they already know it?

• No school can help all students achieve at high levels if teachers work in isolation.

• Schools improve when teachers are given the time and support to work together to clarify essential student learning, develop common assessments for learning, analyze evidence of student learning, and use that evidence to learn from one another.

• PLCs measure their effectiveness on the basis of results rather than intentions.

• All programs, policies, and practices are continually assessed on the basis of their impact on student learning.

• All staff members receive relevant and timely information on their effectiveness in achieving intended results.