Professional Learning Communities and Collective Teacher Efficacy

Unless you're an educator who's been on a deserted island, you've probably been included in some sort of "research-based" school improvement plan. If you're lucky, you and your colleagues were included in the decision making process for how to implement that plan. Maybe you were even asked for input before it was decided. Many aren't so lucky.

You've surely heard of John Hattie's research. His rankings of influences and their "effect sizes" allegedly provide teachers a list of strategies ordered by how effective they are for producing student growth. An effect size of 0.4 is said to represent a year's worth of learning growth. Strategies with an effect size greater than 0.4 suggest the strategy produces more than a year's growth. Effect sizes less than 0.4 indicate the strategy does not produce a full year's growth over the course of a year. The larger the effect size, the more effective that strategy is for producing academic growth. That's the general idea. 

At the top of the list of Hattie's rankings lies "Collective Teacher Efficacy," which isn't a teaching strategy at all. Collective teacher efficacy exists in schools or departments where the teachers believe they have the power to produce positive results in student learning. In other words, it's when teachers believe what they do makes a difference.

This seems like it should be obvious, but a lot of teachers have heard presentations on Hattie's research without ever hearing a reference to collective teacher efficacy. Presenters are quick to mention the Jigsaw technique, RTI, learning goals, and scaffolding, and other strategies on the list, but it seems they fail to notice the number one, top influence on student learning according to Hattie's research--collective teacher efficacy.

What??????????? Why???????????? How??????????? How can the most influential of Hattie's influences be missed by so many people telling teachers how to teach????????????

I have some ideas on that, but they're for another post at another time. For now, let's focus on how to build collective teacher efficacy.

My state, Arkansas, has pushed the PLC (professional learning community) model from the state department of education. Some districts have made tremendous gains using the PLC approach, while others haven't seen much success. 

Does that mean the PLC model is flawed? 

I'd say no. I've been a PLC fan since long before PLC was cool, or even noticed by the department of ed. In fact, I'd say when a PLC model is put into play correctly, as it is designed, it's probably the surest, fastest, most dependable way to build that collective teacher efficacy that creates the biggest positive impact on student growth. 

I'd venture to say that most schools who've tried to implement the PLC model with lackluster, or even negative, results have failed to implement it correctly. Let's look at what PLC is supposed to be, then we'll talk about what it is sometimes interpreted to be. 

First, a realist recognizes that 100% of the members of any organization of any size will seldom every agree on any single aspect of anything. A PLC seeks to build a consensus, not a unanimous decision. A group of reasonable people working with a common goal to improve the educational outcome of students may not all agree on what will work best in every case, but should be capable of agreeing stand together as a unified body when a substantial majority of them agree. 

Second, once a consensus is reached on what approach to take, data is collected and analyzed by the PLC, by the members of the professional learning community, to gauge its effectiveness and recommend any needed tweaks and changes to the approach. It's a continuous team effort to find the best way to help every student reach their potential. Eventually, it may look completely different than the initial consensus, if that's what it takes to get the best outcome.

Essential to a PLC's success is the ability for every team member to feel respected, heard, and valued. Even if your original idea doesn't make it to the implementation phase, you know your colleagues and your bosses respected you enough to let you voice it. You know they heard what you had to say and they placed real value on your opinion, even if it wasn't the idea that prevailed.

Talking to teachers from schools where the PLC idea didn't work, that's the primary chink in the armor of those schools. Their schools' PLCs weren't really ever PLCs at all. 

Take another glance at the preceding paragraphs and remember, a real PLC gives all team members a voice. Initially, it's not a clean, pleasant process. It's a lot of hashing out ideas, sometimes ideas that contradict each other. Oftentimes two or more sides that disagree are all passionate they have the right approach. The initial phase of implementing a PLC can be, and often is, a messy and sometimes painful process. Passionate people defending their ideas with fervor until a consensus among the group emerges can even generate some tears. I've seen it. 

It's messy in the beginning, but it's all part of the process of finding what works best to improve student achievement. 

That, I think, is the number one impediment for some schools trying to implement real PLCs--the initial mess.

Some administrators just can't stomach the mess. They can't handle opposing sides with opposing ideas passionately defending their stances. They can't believe that chaotic part of the journey could ever end with a cohesive staff operating in harmony. So they shut it down. They stop the debate before it ever has a chance to be settled. This inevitably results in one or more ideas being shut down, the defenders of those ideas feeling alienated, unheard, and unvalued. The exact opposite of what MUST exist to have a real PLC. Once it turns to this, collective teacher efficacy is no more than a shattered dream. 

Other administrators may not be so bothered by the mess of implementing a PLC as they are bothered by allowing their subordinates some level of control over how the school operates. These are your micromanagers. They're the ones, PLC or no PLC, who feel the need to tell their teachers how to do every minute part of their jobs. Teacher input or autonomy was never on the table with these bosses. 

When these admin hear PLC, they interpret it as a cohesive team implementing a plan, but not the team's plan. It's the administrator's plan. These admin can be building or district level, but it's their way or the highway. They get the "community" together, issue their directives, and demand the community follow orders. There never was input. Their teachers never had a voice. Their teachers don't feel respected, trusted, or valued. There's almost no chance this flawed interpretation of the PLC model can result in collective teacher efficacy. 

Administrators who can't handle a real PLC model, for either of the reasons above, defer to the less effective influences on Hattie's scale, skipping over the influence deemed MOST effective--collective teacher efficacy--because achieving it is either too messy or requires them to give up some level of control. 

The fact is, collective teacher efficacy results from administration trusting teachers to figure out what's best for their students, trusting them to do what they think is best for their students, and enabling them to analyze, evaluate, and adjust their approaches to achieve what's best for their students.

It's not enough to call your school a PLC. Calling yourself a PLC but acting as a totalitarian regime does not make one's school a true PLC. But real professional learning communities that function AS INTENDED are probably the surest, fastest way to achieve the influence on student learning that Hattie found most impactful--collective teacher efficacy.