Supporting A Learning School

When considering the professional learning needs of my school, I also consider the district wide mandates that all the schools must adhere to as well. I think our school, and district, could benefit from investing more interest in standards based professional learning and targeted outcomes. Two outcomes in particular could make a significant impact on student learning. Specifically, using comprehensive, sustained, intensive professional learning and utilizing the evaluation of collaborative professional learning would deliver the results the school and district have always aimed.

Killion and Roy (2009) describe the outcome of comprehensive, sustained, intensive professional learning in a school in four key areas. These areas include effectiveness in raising student achievement, collective responsibility for student learning, team configuration for addressing goals for teacher and student learning, and frequency of professional learning per week. In addition, the evaluation of collaborative professional learning would help guide the efficacy of the professional learning on an ongoing basis and reveal areas in need of improvement. By working to improve these two outcomes, our school will move closer to the ideal of enhancing student learning through professional learning.

According to the National Staff Development Council, there are six levels on their rubric to measure schools as they try to improve their professional learning programs. Currently, our school, and probably the district as a whole, is at a level 4 for effectiveness. Killion and Joy (2009) describe level 4 as a school that is engaged in “short-term, intentional, professional learning focused on raising student achievement by improving teaching quality and leadership.” This would describe the literacy collaborative efforts to date. Unfortunately, other subject areas are not included in this type of professional development. Math, Science, Social Studies, and the arts have little to no sustained professional development, leaving them at the lowest level of 6. With some adjustments, and the addition of other subject areas, the effectiveness of professional learning could improve substantially. To help people connect with each other, I could make available digital tools to facilitate meetings for people at multiple sites.

Similarly, the collective responsibility for student learning is currently a level 3. Killion and Roy (2009) describe this as members working and learning together “so that each individual team member can improve the success of his or her students.” Yet, compared to a level 1 that states members “work and learn together sharing collective responsibility so that each individual and team contributes to the success of ALL students within the school,” we can see the responsibility of the individual move to a team of people. True collaborative efforts are not a singular effort and together people can effect powerful change. This team effort includes even those like me, in a technology role, who may have resources and ideas beyond what others may know is available.

In addition to working collectively, the actual team configuration is important as well. The ideal is to have met in a “variety of team configurations over time, addressing specific goals for teacher and student learning, including vertical and whole-school problem or topic-focused school improvement teams and grade-level department, or course teams with members who share common curriculum and/or students” (Killion & Roy, 2009). From my observations and experience, our schools are at a level 4 because we “Meet over time in a single team, addressing specific goals for teacher and student learning, school improvement, and student results” (Killion & Roy, 2009). This could be expanded to include more groups and team configurations; at the elementary level there are many types of groups to be found. In my role as a technology coordinator, I could help facilitate cross subject teams because I often times help plan lessons that bring multiple subjects together.

Then there is the frequency of the meetings. Ideally, a level 1 states “the meetings should take place several times a week within the school day for teacher collaborative team meetings and periodic whole-school collaboration” (Killion & Roy, 2009). The school and district is not far from this ideal, currently team meetings are scheduled to take place several times a week, but there is no whole-school collaborative process as well. This frequency is however skewed because there are no formal guidelines for the several times a week meetings and, to make matters more difficult, they are held during precious teacher planning times in which all manner of responsibilities must be tended to. The fidelity to the meetings is easily broken and other alternatives must be found to preserve the integrity of these meetings.

Finally, the area of ongoing evaluation of the professional learning process is necessary so that fidelity to the process as a whole is not sacrificed. With a comprehensive evaluation process, leadership will be able to identify the areas that need improvement and work to rectify the problems. Currently, the school and district is at a level 4, and they “Engage in ongoing evaluation using multiple sources of data to assess team results and operation” (Killion & Roy, 2009). To bring us up to the highest level of evaluation, team members and individual members’ contributions to teams would be measured, as well as how teams adjusted using individual input. I could assist in the evaluation process by making an online form so that data from it could be easily interpreted. Follow up on the results would be necessary to keep the process operation at the highest levels possible.

Standards based professional learning is a rigorous method to use to determine the effectiveness of educator learning. As in student learning, there are many elements that impact the development, implementation, and outcomes of professional learning. I look forward to helping my school become a stronger professional learning community in all the many forms and adaptations it may require to get there.




References

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Tool 14.5. Companion disk to Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Standards. (2012). Retrieved September 21, 2013, from http://learningforward.org/standards#.Ukd5On_L43I 

Why Standards-Based Professional Learning?

Using standards-based professional learning is important for educators for many reasons. According to Learning Forward (2009), “The standards make explicit that the purpose of professional learning is for educators to develop the knowledge, skills, practices, and dispositions they need to help students perform at higher levels.” Standards for professional learning have the primary focus upon educator learning and what is needed to support those efforts whose primary goal is to increase student outcomes.


Two standards in particular are important in moving my school forward in their professional learning goals. The learning community standard maintains that professional learning that improves educator effectiveness and student outcomes happens within learning communities that share goals and responsibility for ongoing improvement. Another standard that has bearing upon my school’s success is in leadership. Learning Forward (2012) states that increased “educator effectiveness and results for all students requires skillful leaders who develop capacity, advocate, and create support systems for professional learning.” For teacher learning to move forward, having leaders in such a supportive role can make the difference between the success and failure of their efforts.


Community is important for many initiatives because members share the same goals and vision for progress. Killion and Roy (2009) observed that, “Schools in which teachers work in collaborative teams make steady progress towards improvement goals, have a clear focus, share goals, and produce results” (p. 30). According to current practices, district collaboration is not a true PLC (professional learning community). What is misunderstood, according to Killion and Roy (2009), is that PLC’s in and of themselves are not the goal of professional learning. They are, however, “the supporting structure for schools to continuously transform themselves through their own internal capacity” (p. 29). Educators in our school need to know this critical difference so they may find success in collaboration.


Similarly, transforming the leadership to support a true collaborative structure is imperative. The leadership standard states that leaders are supportive of professional learning in all ways. Beyond seeing that district mandates are followed, there are responsibilities to the building level educators. Killion and Roy (2009) identify important principal responsibilities. Leaders need to nurture teacher leaders, provide organizational support, set the expectations, schedule time, provide further training, review plans and give feedback on actions and results, handle member obstinacy, and support divergent thinking (p. 78). Leadership and support for PLC’s does not require a hard set of rewards and punishments, but rather a system of expectations and standards driven practices that will support work to improve student outcomes. Oftentimes school administrators feel threatened by teachers that emerge as leaders and they do not support those individuals. The paradox in this situation is that as administrators support teacher leaders, they actually foster loyalty and support for themselves.


The transformation to a standards based learning school with effective and supported PLC’s will be a journey well worth the time and effort. The learning community standard will take us from a district with a narrow focus to a district with a wide scope of options and opportunities. It will bring our school from one where educators attend professional development to one where teachers participate and become part of the solution. Similarly, the leadership standard will take us from a district where administrators mandate participation in professional development to leaders that participate equally in school PLC’s. In addition, we will move from a school that fears leaders and views them as impediments to innovation to leaders that work with teachers to support and develop solutions with teachers.

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Standards. (2012). Retrieved September 21, 2013, from http://learningforward.org/standards#.Ukd5On_L43I