Written by Steven Haag

The Case for Professional Learning Communities
The best way to make your school great is to empower teachers by boosting their collective efficacy. Hattie (2017) found this made schools four times more effective than typical schools. Professional learning communities (PLCs) create that kind of teacher empowerment. When teachers work together to further develop their craft, they are building their collective efficacy, and PLCs provide the structure for them to do just that.

A professional learning community is a structure in which supportive professional relationships foster a collaborative culture that continually drives for successful change. PLCs affect positive school outcomes, primarily in the form of improved teacher efficacy (Kruse & Seashore Louis, 2009; Hord, 1997) and increased student performance (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005).

What Is a PLC?
PLCs consist of five key aspects:

1. Shared beliefs: The development (not just by the principal and school board) of a set of beliefs, a vision, and values to guide future decisions and actions is a foundational step in establishing a PLC (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 2008).
2. Shared leadership: PLCs are most effective when teachers hold the responsibility for student learning collectively (Hilliard and Newsome, 2013) and the principal leads from the middle—not the top—as the lead learner (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997; DuFour & DuFour, 2006).
3. Supportive conditions: Teachers need professional learning support, time, and effective communications systems (Song & Choi, 2017; Hord, 2008) within an environment of mutual collegiality and trust (Rubin, Abrego, & Sutterby, 2015; Holland, 2002; Cranston, 2009) for PLCs to run most effectively.
4. Collective and focused learning: Professional development in a PLC, focused on the classroom happenings of teaching and learning, happens over the long term with the support of fellow professional learners (Hord, 1997). After all, it takes teachers up to 50 hours of practice and coaching (French, 1997) or at least 20 separate practices (Joyce & Showers, 2002) to master a new skill.
5. Peer-sharing of practice: Teachers do more than just collaborate in a PLC; they open their classrooms to one another as a means of objectively examining and building upon their professional craft (Hord, 2008).

PLCs in the WELS
Encouragingly, PLC characteristics are generally present in Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) elementary schools (Haag, 2019). All five aspects of professional learning communities, except for peer-sharing of practice, are evident. Perceived barriers to PLC implementation, such as current responsibilities of teachers and principals and lack of sufficient time and structures, do exist. Furthermore, a number of potential helps to PLC implementation have been identified, including, most prominently, enhanced faculty professional development, improved collaborative structures, and training on the aspects of PLCs.

How to Create a Lutheran School PLC
Clarify the structure and purpose of PLCs. The elements of a PLC are most certainly applicable in Lutheran schools. It’s a mistake, for example, to dismiss the use of PLCs in Lutheran schools that are too small to have multiple grade-level teachers. PLCs provide a model for school improvement, particularly in increased teacher efficacy and improved student achievement, that Lutheran schools could take advantage of—just as they could implement and reap the benefits of other initiatives (i.e., STEM or social emotional learning). PLCs can be used as a structure to enhance the implementation of school improvement efforts, these other initiatives included, by means of group discussion, shared learning, and collective efforts.

Address the time factor. How can teachers be expected to be successful within a PLC when they don’t have sufficient time to do so? This legitimate concern can be remedied in a couple of ways. First, the intention of PLCs needs to be clarified. They are not intended to give more work to teachers and principals who are already worn thin by the responsibilities of their positions. Rather, PLCs are meant to streamline their work, to help them become both more effective and more efficient, by providing a structure within which they can collaboratively make decisions, draft plans, and analyze practices that they otherwise would in isolation. Second, Lutheran schools can be creative with how they schedule teachers’ time. For example, schools could make time for PLC work by lengthening each school day of a 175-day school year by only five minutes. This would create about 14 hours of additional time to hold two or three 90-minute PLC meetings per quarter.

Collaborate on practice-based professional development. Peer observation and feedback allow teacher pairs or teams to provide specific encouragement to one another. Various faculty members (i.e., a teacher’s aide or a teacher not responsible for recess supervision) could step into another’s classroom, perhaps for only 15 minutes, to allow one teacher to observe another—not to evaluate but to offer insight and encouragement on a previously discussed goal. In brief follow-up meetings, teacher pairs or teams could set a pathway for continued work. Smaller schools could partner with each other, either face to face if they are close by or through the use of technology. This collaborative work should focus on practice-based professional development (the MLC Micro-Credentials program offers a worthwhile and practical starting point) that allows teachers to develop a particular skill within the environment of a PLC, both before and while using the instructional or assessment strategy in the classroom, thereby providing ongoing support to the teacher on the path to mastery.

Steven Haag (MLC ’10, MS Ed ’19) serves as principal at New Hope Lutheran Academy—West Melbourne Florida. He recently completed his MS in Education with a leadership emphasis. This article is a brief synopsis of his thesis.

CLICK HERE to read Steven’s thesis, Professional Learning Communities in WELS Elementary Schools.

References
Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themesfrom research on principals’ perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842519

DuFour, R. & DuFour, R., et al. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook of professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

DuFour, R, & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

French, V. W. (1997). Teachers must be learners, too: professional development and national teaching standards. NASSP Bulletin, (585), 38. Retrieved from https://emil.mlc-wels.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.19104943&site=eds-live&scope=site

Haag, S. (2019). Professional learning communities in WELS elementary schools. New Ulm, MN: Martin Luther College.

Hattie, J. (2017). Visible Learning. Corwin.

Hilliard, A. T., & Newsome, E. (2013). Effective communication and creating professional learning communities is a valuable practice for superintendents. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(4), 353–364. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1073185

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/plc-cha34.pdf

Hord, S. (2008). Evolution of the professional learning community. National Staff Development Council, 29(3), 10-13.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Kruse, S. D., & Seashore Louis, K. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rubin, R., Abrego, M., & Sutterby, J. (2015). Less is more in elementary school: Strategies for thriving in a high-stakes environment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Song, K. O., & Choi. J. (2017). Structural analysis of factors that influence professional learning communities in Korean elementary schools. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(1), 1-9. Retrieved from https://doi-org.emil.mlc-wels.edu/10.26822/iejee.2017131882