creating professional learning communities: the work of professional development schools

9
This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas] On: 09 November 2014, At: 15:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Theory Into Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20 Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools Gini Doolittle a , Maria Sudeck b & Peter Rattigan c a Educational Leadership , Rowan University b Elementary Education/Early Childhood , Rowan University c Health and Exercise Science , Rowan University Published online: 14 Oct 2009. To cite this article: Gini Doolittle , Maria Sudeck & Peter Rattigan (2008) Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work 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”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: peter

Post on 12-Mar-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 2: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 3: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 4: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 5: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 6: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 7: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 8: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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

Page 9: Creating Professional Learning Communities: The Work of Professional Development Schools

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