creating professional learning communities: the work of professional development schools
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 09 November 2014, At: 15:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20
Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Workof Professional Development SchoolsGini Doolittle a , Maria Sudeck b & Peter Rattigan ca Educational Leadership , Rowan Universityb Elementary Education/Early Childhood , Rowan Universityc Health and Exercise Science , Rowan UniversityPublished online: 14 Oct 2009.
To cite this article: Gini Doolittle , Maria Sudeck & Peter Rattigan (2008) Creating Professional Learning Communities: TheWork of Professional Development Schools, Theory Into Practice, 47:4, 303-310, DOI: 10.1080/00405840802329276
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840802329276
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Theory Into Practice, 47:303–310, 2008
Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/00405840802329276
Gini DoolittleMaria SudeckPeter Rattigan
Creating Professional LearningCommunities: The Work ofProfessional Development Schools
If professional learning communities offer oppor-
tunities for improving the teaching and learning
process, then developing strong professional de-
velopment school (PDS) partnerships establish
an appropriate framework for that purpose. PDS
partnerships, however, can be less than effective
without proper planning and discussion about
the aims of those partnerships. We argue that
creating effective partnerships requires time up-
front to establish ground rules, clarify the tasks
to be undertaken, identify supports required for
Gini Doolittle is an associate professor in Educational
Leadership, Maria Sudeck is an associate professor in
Elementary Education/Early Childhood, and Peter Rat-
tigan is an associate professor in Health and Exercise
Science, all at Rowan University.
Correspondence should be sent to Gini Doolittle,
Department of Educational Leadership, Rowan Uni-
versity, 201 Mullica Hill Rd, Glassboro, NJ 08028.
E-mail: [email protected].
successful implementation, and ensure that a
shared vision and mission exist between partners.
Utilizing essential questions for organizing such
a collaborative venture, and illustrating effective
partnerships in three schools, the researchers
describe strategies for developing P–12 profes-
sional learning communities that are positive,
effective, and durable.
IN OUR EXPERIENCE AS FACULTY liaisons
to our network of 12 professional develop-
ment schools, we observe that our public school
partners sometimes lack practical or collabo-
rative strategies that allow for refocusing en-
ergies and articulating priorities (Doolittle &
Rattigan, 2007; Murphy & Meyers, 2008). We
also observe that schools, in general, struggle
with meeting the multiple priorities generated by
303
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Collaborative Learning Communities in Schools
the intensification of No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB; U.S. Department of Education, 2001)
benchmarks. Further, Fullan (2007) and Reeves
(2004) reported the absence of leaders who are
highly skilled in the change process; Housman
and Martinez (2001) found that “teachers and
principles in low performing schools tend to
work in isolation from one another rather than as
colleagues in a professional learning community”
(p. 7). Our own extended conversations with our
public school partners suggest that agreement
about student learning outcomes and support
systems for improving instruction were absent
(Mazzeo & Berman, 2003).
In this article, we posit that critical elements
for engaging in school improvement efforts re-
side in effective professional development school
(PDS) partnerships. First, we define the architec-
ture of an effective PDS and the role of learn-
ing communities in improving learning. Then,
we present three examples of PDS partnerships
where this intersection and concomitant school
improvement is currently taking place. Finally,
we share key insights about this process and
offer implications for school-university partner-
ships.
Defining the Challenges of
Standards-Based Reform
A Center on Education Policy (2007) re-
port asserts that the NCLB Act is partially
responsible for recent gains in state-level test
scores. At the same time, critics counter that
schools and state departments of education sim-
ply lower standards to create the illusion of
raising academic achievement (Reeves, 2004).
With annual testing determining whether a school
or district lapses into corrective action under
existing NCLB regulations, failure to achieve
Adequate Yearly Progress inevitably predicts
the imposition of new layers of rules and
regulations. Compounding what already resem-
bles an endless cycle of intense efforts aimed
at producing change, responding to bureau-
cratic mandates dissipates the time and en-
ergy available for improving teaching and learn-
ing.
In addition to the already cumbersome ac-
countability reporting required of schools and
districts, other interruptions detract from a
school’s core mission (Doolittle & Rattigan,
2007). One such concern relates to the growing
need to respond to multiple sets of stakeholders,
standards, and competing views of teaching and
learning that intrude on classroom operations
(Elmore, 2004). A second issue includes the need
for meeting multiple sets of standards, namely
national, state, and even PDS standards with
each set creating additional layers of bureaucratic
challenges and confusion about learner outcomes.
For example, teachers are expected to know and
address content standards at both the national and
state level (National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education, 2000), yet, such standards do
not always align, creating confusion about what
teacher learners are expected to know and do.
Consequently, this confusion may result in frag-
mented efforts to improve teaching and learning
(Elmore, 2004).
Doolittle and Rattigan (2007) reported that
teachers may have exposure to different inno-
vations in both content and curriculum, how-
ever, most lack clarity about what constitutes
best practices. Moreover, rarely, are they pro-
ficient in implementing these innovations (see
New Jersey Department of Education Quality
Single Accountability Continuum Reports, 2007,
available from http://www.nj.doe.edu). Doolit-
tle and Rattigan argued that the lack of ad-
equate common planning time and support
for professional development confirm Little’s
(1990) observation that schools become dis-
tanced from efforts to improve learning when
school cultures maintain norms of privacy
and isolation. Often manifested in an “isolat-
ing and compartmentalized structure” (Darling-
Hammond, Mullmaster, & Cobb, 1995, p. 103),
such norms limit and discourage meaningful
interaction between teachers. As a result, ef-
fective teaching practices are seldom shared
and shoddy teaching is rarely identified or
confronted (Little, Gearhart, Curry, & Kafka,
2003).
304
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Doolittle, Sudeck, Rattigan Creating Professional Learning Communities
What Is a Professional
Development School?
Centering on student needs, university and
school faculty recognize that learning, grounded
in research and practitioner knowledge, occurs
best in a real-world setting. With the ability
to generate new knowledge, school–university
partnerships benefit multiple stakeholders and
incorporate the potential to impact policy. Blend-
ing expertise and resources through redesign and
restructuring supporting their complex mission,
PDS partners agree to be intentional and trans-
parent in meeting the needs of a diverse body of
students through their focus on building learning
communities. Agreement with PDS goals be-
comes critical in bridging reform strategies that
close the research and practice gaps identified
in teacher preparation programs. To avoid the
in name only status of many partnerships, the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (2000) provides standards to ensure
rigor and accountability.
In fully matured PDSs, university faculty ex-
ercise a significant role in the school and develop
authentic relationships with faculty and staff
so that teacher candidates spend considerable
time reflecting with clinical teachers on their
observations and experiences. Additionally, K–12
teachers may coteach or be in charge of college
teacher preparation courses, and college courses
may be taught at PDS partner sites; consequently,
teachers learn from college faculty, college fac-
ulty learn from teachers, teacher candidates learn
from both, and everyone, including the K–12
students, benefits (Teitel, 1997).
What a Learning Community Does
A learning community classroom functions
in partnership with the entire school commu-
nity, and also with stakeholders outside the
school building. According to Putnam and Burke
(2006), learning community members exhibit
seven propensities: a sense of common purpose;
viewing peers in the group as colleagues; seek-
ing self/group actualization; perceiving outside
groups as similar to one’s own group; individual
and communal reflection; giving and seeking
help; and celebrating accomplishments. Putnam
and Burke stated further that learning community
teachers act as educational leaders rather than
classroom managers, and see learners from a de-
velopmental perspective because they recognize
that everyone can learn, but at different rates
and under different conditions. Learning com-
munity teachers and administrators enhance their
effectiveness so that students benefit through five
key organizational structures: supportive, shared
leadership; collective creativity; shared values
and vision; supportive conditions; and shared
personal practice (Hord, 1997). Through these or-
ganizational structures, a PDS extends its school
learning community to a college of education or
university partner.
When a learning community has been de-
veloped through an effective PDS relationship,
educational change can be effectively undertaken.
PDS partners can begin by developing essential
questions that move them through the change
process effectively. Next we frame questions for
leading change and illustrate their application
in two partner school sites located within the
PDS network of a mid-Atlantic university. We
also describe a school–university event that has
developed as an outgrowth of the formal PDS
partnership. The schools in the case studies are
all members of a Professional Development Dis-
trict within this PDS network.
Framing the Work of Professional
Learning Communities
Over the years, we observed that, without
intentionally pursuing systematic change, univer-
sity PDS liaisons risk becoming glorified staff
developers, metaphorically tossed amid a stormy
sea of mandated programs and onsite crises.
However, by focusing on a mutually agreed-
upon educational initiative and using a systemic
change model, real work can be accomplished
and even sustained. To create an environment
that supports professional learning communities,
we argue that PDS partners must acquire a
general understanding of the change process. We
305
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Collaborative Learning Communities in Schools
also believe that they must infuse four critical
components of group process to be successful:
a clear understanding of the communication pro-
cess; a clear mission, with goals and objectives; a
strategy for accomplishing the group’s work; and
group membership and group decision-making.
Additionally, two features of the group com-
munication process are essential: having oppor-
tunities for meaningful feedback, and having a
mechanism or strategy to deal with group tension
and defensiveness. Underpinning this is clarity of
mission with a written set of goals and objectives
(Napier & Gershenfeld, 2001).
Effective groups monitor themselves. Group
members must ask, “Why are we here and what
are we doing?” With the mission providing the
vision and the heart of the group, PDS partner-
ships can then develop specific, quantifiable, and
outcomes-based learning. As partners analyze
goals, members can develop specific learning
objectives to achieve the group’s goals. More
specifically, the strategy for accomplishing the
group’s work answers the question, “How will
we achieve these goals and objectives?” Re-
sponding to these questions should help groups
identify functional tasks and activities focusing
on improving student achievement (Napier &
Gershenfeld, 2001).
As PDS liaisons, starting by reviewing a
rubric for guiding PDS school improvement work
(Monahan & Doolittle, 2004), we developed our
own essential questions for initiating change in a
PDS. These could become a regular part of the
organizational culture and serve to keep change
efforts focused on the goals at hand:
1. Does the PDS have a shared vision, mission,
and beliefs about teaching and learning?
2. What are the instructional priorities for the
classroom, and how are they determined?
3. What changes has the PDS partnership pro-
duced that has resulted in the integration of
theory and practice?
4. How are decisions about professional devel-
opment activities made within the PDS?
5. How do the PDS partners jointly arrange for
the implementation of new innovations?
6. How do the PDS partners decide upon goals
and objectives, and how do they know that
these are being met?
7. What systems are in place to evaluate the
overall effectiveness of the PDS initiatives?
These questions help faculty initiate a fo-
cused change effort. However, integral to the
group decision-making process are strategies for
creating cohesiveness and productivity. In order
for PDS partnership members to believe that
their voice is important, decision-making that
involves all stakeholders is key, since top-down
decisions rarely increase productivity and erode
group cohesiveness (Fox, 1987). In addition,
PDSs must establish their own system for solv-
ing problems. Hirokawa’s (1980, 1983) research
suggests that successful problem-solving groups
tend to develop a systematic procedure that helps
them analyze a problem in a step-wise fashion,
reducing the tendency to leap to premature solu-
tions.
Example 1: Creating Small
Learning Communities
An example of leveraging the PDS model
occurred with one of our high school partners.
Asked to respond to a new state initiative for
improving the learning climate of secondary
schools, a committee of administrators, guidance
counselors, teachers, and university faculty were
charged with investigating the piloting of a 9th-
grade learning community using Breaking Ranks
II (National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 2004) as a framework for imple-
mentation. Considered resistant to change, the
high school lagged behind the district’s other
five schools in their efforts to improve student
achievement. Although a school improvement
team existed, there was no official university
liaison to the committee. With the building ad-
ministration expressing a preference for working
in isolation, little communication existed between
the high school and the university.
After the first few meetings of the committee,
it became obvious that the group was stuck on
306
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Doolittle, Sudeck, Rattigan Creating Professional Learning Communities
the complexities of transforming a typical high-
school schedule into a small learning community
for incoming 9th-grade students. Issues related
to recruiting and releasing teachers for the pilot
year, acquiring approvals from the board and
school leadership team, and establishing an in-
structional philosophy and a framework obfus-
cated progress. The researcher’s meeting notes
reflect this conundrum:
The team continues to wander through the vari-
ous detours introduced by committee members.
Sometimes the initiative seems headed in an
entirely different direction than our original
intent. We help by refocusing everyone on the
task at hand. It’s amazing that there are so
many departures [from the task at hand]. This is
probably due to the team’s inexperience at truly
collaborative or joint work. (November, 2006)
By modeling learning community precepts and
focusing conversations on strategies for imple-
menting the proposed change, university faculty
kept discussions centered on the mission, vision,
and the intended learner outcomes listed in our
essential questions. Drawing on the research,
university partners redirected conversations that
headed toward possible abandonment of the
project back to developing a collaborative 9th-
grade learning community.
In late spring 2007, the principal finally sug-
gested, “Perhaps we should adjourn until the
fall.” Understanding that this statement represents
Fullan’s (2001a) implementation dip, and, with
the majority of work for implementing the in-
novation largely completed, university liaisons
reiterated Fullan’s strategy of ready, fire, aim,
reminding the team that, “In all likelihood, con-
sensus [about the innovation] already existed as a
comprehensive assessment plan had already been
agreed to” (SLC Minutes, April, 2006). The team
was persuaded to move ahead with the project
rather than throw away a whole year’s work.
Throughout, faculty served as critical friends
who asked tough questions, but were not viewed
as adversaries or critics by school administrators
or teachers. Helping the team navigate through
a maze of best practices, university faculty
identified factors crucial to the success of the
project, including the need for generating suffi-
cient monies for building staff capacity, creating
the curriculum, monitoring and evaluation, and
providing time for joint planning. Understanding
that there are “too many disconnected, episodic,
fragmented, superficially adorned projects” (Ful-
lan, 2001b, p. 21) already operating in the school,
faculty members were able to forestall detours
as teachers became mired in matters unrelated to
the project. Scheduled for piloting in fall 2007,
the PDS building team and principal attributed
their planning success “to the ability of the uni-
versity faculty to keep them on track” (Principal,
personal communication, May, 2006) and helped
them work through their values and beliefs about
what and who should change.
Example 2: Professional Learning
Communities Over Time
In one of the partner elementary schools,
focus group discussions with teachers led to the
development and implementation of a charac-
ter education program in 2002. Three recurring
themes emerged: (a) the concern about an add-
on curriculum to an already full teaching day of
mandated curricular related lesson blocks; (b) the
lack of character education curriculum materials;
and (c) the lack of a clear understanding of the
purpose and goals of the initiative.
In response, the principal, site coordinator,
university liaison, and site-based management
team organized a series of voluntary summer
curriculum development workshops that paid
teachers a modest stipend. After completing
the workshops, character education curriculum
guides that integrated social studies, language
arts literacy, and science with a meaningful char-
acter education component for each grade level
were completed and distributed to all the teachers
in the school district. After teachers had acquired
appropriate curriculum materials, they saw that
character education could and should be infused
into the core content areas (Sudeck, 2003).
In addition, the researcher constructed a fac-
ulty personal rating scale for character education.
The scale consisted of 5 Likert-type statements
307
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Collaborative Learning Communities in Schools
to which respondents could select a 0 to 4 rating
where 0 D none and 4 D very clear. The survey
was administered in January of 2002 and again in
April of 2007, as a pre- and postassessment of the
character education initiative. The purpose of the
survey was to glean information about the school
personnel’s understanding and involvement in
the character education initiative and subsequent
curriculum implementation. All teachers, admin-
istrators, support staff, and instructional aids took
the survey in 2002 and 2007.
Of particular note are the responses to Item
#1; “I have a clear understanding of the specific
components of a character education curriculum.”
In January of 2002, 80% of the respondents had
“no understanding or a vague understanding,” as
contrasted to the April, 2007 survey, in which
100% of the respondents had a “clear or very
clear” understanding of the specific components
of a character education curriculum.
Another important finding is that 91% of the
stakeholders now have a “clear/precise sense of
the vision and mission” of the character edu-
cation initiative, in contrast with the previous
survey, in which over half the respondents had
“no idea or only a vague idea” of the vision
and mission, with the remainder of respondents
having an “OK” understanding.
Regardless of whether a change is voluntary
or imposed, it involves grappling with some
unpleasant emotional responses such as loss, anx-
iety, and struggle (Marris, 1975). Schön (1971)
described zones of uncertainty within which
these responses to change take place. Both Marris
and Schön suggested that real change involves
working through these zones, confronting them,
and being able to move forward in a systematic
way. Understanding that the meaning of the
change will rarely be clear at the outset and
that participants generally experience a sense
of disequilibrium (Fullan, 2007) helped stake-
holders jointly develop a sense of the purpose
and goals of the initiative. Equally important,
periodic reviews of the project helped members
of this professional learning community identify
their contributions and build on key ideas. As a
result, 6 years later, this work continues. Mem-
bers constantly revisit their mission and revise
the program focus, refining and improving the
program, which has won official recognition from
the U.S. National Character Education Partner-
ship (available at http://www.character.org).
Example 3: Beyond Formal Professional
Learning Community Relationships
At a second elementary school, 4th-grade
students and their teachers participated in a
semiannual field trip to the elementary physical
education methods class taught at the university.
Intended as a culminating activity, candidates
revised and applied microteaching presentations
by writing a lesson plan and then teaching it
to their peers. Reflecting on what went well,
what they would change, and how they thought it
would work with elementary classes, candidates
then taught a similar lesson to an elementary
group. Both teacher candidates and students then
reflected on the experience. Finally, the elemen-
tary students created a bulletin board in their
school and sent cards to the teacher candidates.
Typically, students wrote in their cards that they
had a “lot of fun” and that they “learned a lot.”
As part of their course assessment, the teacher
candidates responded to a course survey, created
by the instructor as part of the student course
evaluation. The survey consisted of three open-
ended response items, one of which asked what
course component helped most in preparing can-
didates to teach elementary-level physical edu-
cation. The field trip previously described was
overwhelmingly mentioned as beneficial in their
response on the spring 2007 survey. A typical
response to the question was:
My favorite part [of the course] and the most
helpful for me was the culminating teaching
experience. To me this is where I see my activ-
ities and skill themes [fundamental movement
skills] come to life. It is very different teaching
a movement or theme to a college student than
to an elementary student. (May, 2007)
Interestingly, the field trip activity resulted from
past teacher candidates’ survey responses re-
308
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Doolittle, Sudeck, Rattigan Creating Professional Learning Communities
questing contact with real elementary students as
part of the course.
For this event, both classroom and physical
education teachers accompanied their students to
campus and observed that the experience was
“great for the kids.” This activity extended the
PDS relationship by expanding the scope of the
learning community already established. It was a
democratic undertaking where teacher candidates
ran the show and where the school and university
faculty were observers.
Lessons for the Researchers
When we assembled as a team to analyze
our field notes, surveys, meeting minutes, and
classroom observations, we recognized that each
school learning community had its own set of
unique challenges for improving the teaching
and learning process. The schools in our ex-
amples were unfamiliar with educational change
models and lacked sufficient capacity to initiate,
implement, or institutionalize the initiatives by
themselves. In example 1, the existing PDS struc-
ture allowed university faculty to act as critical
friends and prevented abandonment of the 9th
grade learning community project. In example
2, educational change was seen as successfully
operationalized by emphasizing effective group
processes. Example 3 demonstrates how a uni-
versity faculty member, building on existing re-
lationships, implemented a collaborative teaching
activity benefiting both elementary students and
teacher candidates.
We realized how developing a common mis-
sion and vision aimed at improving student
achievement across our 12 school–university
partnerships contributed to the success of these
three efforts. Multiple opportunities to discuss
our professional learning community values not
only developed the necessary trust with school
partners, but also helped build commitment to
the improvement process. Subsequently, partners
reported on their growing clarity about what is
important and their practical efforts to improve
learning.
In sum, we contend that effective PDSs help
schools function as effective learning commu-
nities. Clearly, our projects would not have ex-
perienced success without the PDS architecture
in place, because it supplied an infrastructure
for improved communication and connectedness,
trust, and equity between school and univer-
sity partners. We concur with Fullan, Hill, and
Crevola’s (2006) claim that “shared vision and
ownership are less a precondition for success
than they are an outcome of a quality process”
(p. 88). Further, as we consider how school dis-
trict personnel struggle with multiple challenges,
we acknowledge that sustainable change requires
time and effort given to a systemic, inclusive
process that is monitored through each stage of
implementation.
Inasmuch as real change requires time for im-
plementation, it is necessary to build capacity and
deal with faculty concerns early on, when com-
municating and obtaining agreement about the
intended outcomes of the partnership. Because
a PDS partnership provides a venue for con-
sidering, analyzing, and addressing a nonlinear
change process, participants can learn to address
their concerns during each phase of the change
process. Because educational change is com-
plex, PDS partnerships can provide a supportive,
yet rigorous structure with attention centered
on research-based models and systems. Such a
productive environment evidences a strong and
positive relationship between and among stake-
holders, leading to expanded teacher commit-
ment, openness to innovation, and meaningful
professional involvement (Murphy & Meyers,
2008; Sheppard, 1996).
References
Center on Education Policy. (May 31, 2007). Answer-
ing the question that matters most: Has student
achievement increased since No Child Left Behind?
Washington, DC: Author.
Darling-Hammond, L., Mullmaster, M., & Cobb, V.
(1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through pro-
fessional development schools. Elementary School
Journal, 96, 87–107.
309
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Collaborative Learning Communities in Schools
Doolittle, G., & Rattigan, P. (2007). Real time ac-
tion research: A community PDS retreat. School–
University Partnerships, 1(1), 50–59.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside
out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Fox, W. (1987). Effective problem solving. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2001a). Leading in a culture of change.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Fullan, M. (2001b). The new meaning of educational
change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, F. (2007). The new meaning of educational
change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Break-
through. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hirokawa, R. (1980). Structured conflict and consen-
sus outcomes in group decision-making. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hirokawa, R. (1983). Group communication and
problem-solving effectiveness: An investigation of
group phases. Human Communication Research,
9(4), 291–305.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities:
Communities of continuous inquiry and improve-
ment [Monograph]. Austin, TX: Southwest Educa-
tional Laboratory.
Housman, N. G. N., & Martinez, M. R. (2001). A brief
for practitioners on turning around low-performing
schools: Implications at the school, district, and
state levels. Washington, DC: National Clearing-
house for Comprehensive Reform.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy:
Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional
relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509–536.
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka,
J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher
learning, teacher community, and school reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 184–192.
Marris, P. (1975). Loss and change. New York: Anchor
Press/Doubleday.
Mazzeo, C., & Berman, I. (2003). Reaching new
heights: Turning around low performing schools.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices.
Monahan, T. C., & Doolittle, G. (2004, April). The role
of critical self-inquiry in an integrated assessment
model for professional development schools: The
realities of implementation in a practical model.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA.
Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2008). Turning around
failing schools: Leadership lessons from the or-
ganizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cor-
win.
Napier, R., & Gershenfeld, M. (2001). Groups: Theory
and experience. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
(2004). Breaking ranks II: Strategies for leading
high school reform. Providence, RI: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Ed-
ucation. (2000). Professional standards for the
accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments
of education. Washington, DC: Author.
Putnam, J., & Burke, J. (2006). Organizing and man-
aging classroom learning communities. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Reeves, D. B. (2004). The daily disciplines of lead-
ership: How to improve student achievement, staff
motivation, and personal organization. San Fran-
cisco: Wiley.
Schön, D. (1971). Beyond the stable state. New York:
Norton.
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational
nature of instructional leadership. Alberta Journal
of Educational Research, 42(4), 325–344.
Sudeck, M. (2003). Building “character” into educa-
tion: A partnership takes shape. Social Studies and
the Young Learner, 16(1), 6–8.
Teitel, L. (1997). Changing teacher education through
professional development school partnerships: A
five-year follow-up study. Teachers College Record,
99(2), 311–334.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left
Behind Act. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://
www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?srcDpb
310
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Tex
as]
at 1
5:16
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14