Teachers work in isolation from one another. They view their classrooms as their personal domains, havelittle access to the ideas or strategies of their colleagues, and prefer to be left alone rather than engage withtheir colleagues or principals. Their professional practice is shrouded in a veil of privacy and personal au-tonomy and is not a subject for collective discussion or analysis. Their schools offer no infrastructure to sup-

WorkTogetherBut Only if You Want ToWe cannot waste another quarter century inviting or encouragingeducators to collaborate.

By Rick DuFour

kappanmagazine.org V92 N5 Kappan 57

RICK DuFOUR is an education author and consultant on the implementation of the professional learning community concept in dis-tricts and schools. © 2011, Rick DuFour.

Thin

ksto

ck/iS

tock

pho

to

port collaboration or continuous improvement, and,in fact, the very structure of their schools serves as apowerful force for preserving the status quo. Thissituation will not change by merely encouragingteachers to collaborate, but will instead require em-bedding professional collaboration in the routinepractice of the school.

Sound familiar? These were the conclusions ofJohn Goodlad’s study of schooling published in PhiDelta Kappan in 1983. Unfortunately, these findingshave been reiterated in countless studies from thatdate to the present. The reason for the persistenceof this professional isolation — not merely of teach-

ers, but of educators in general — is relatively sim-ple. The structure and culture of the organizationsin which they work haven’t supported, required, oreven expected them to collaborate.

Attempts to promote collaboration among edu-cators inevitably collide with this tradition of isola-tion. Defenders of this tradition argue that profes-sional autonomy gives each educator the freedom toopt in or out of any collaborative process. Requiringeducators to work together violates their right asprofessionals to work in isolation and can result onlyin “contrived congeniality” rather than a true col-laborative culture (Hargreaves 1991). Some criticsof systematic collaboration even offer a conspiracytheory, arguing that any effort to embed collabora-tive processes into the school day represents an ad-ministrative ploy to compel teachers to do the bid-ding of others and demonstrates a lack of commit-ment to empowering teachers. Thus proponents ofvolunteerism greet any attempt to ensure that edu-cators work together with the addendum, “but onlyif they want to.”

I’ve searched for the dictionary that defines “pro-fessional” as one who is free to do as he or shechooses. I can’t find it. I see references to occupa-tions in which people must engage in specializedtraining in order to enter the field and are expected

to stay current in the practices of the field. I see ref-erences to expertise and to an expectation that mem-bers will adhere to certain standards and an ethicalcode of conduct. I simply cannot find any dictionarythat defines a professional as someone who can dowhatever he or she pleases.

PROFESSIONAL DOESN’T MEAN AUTONOMOUS

Time spent in collaboration with colleagues isconsidered essential to success in most professions.When professional airline pilots prepare to take off,they coordinate their work with air traffic control. Ifthe tower informs a pilot that he or she is to move

to runway 24L and be fourthin line for takeoff, the pilotdoes not, as a professional, havethe autonomy to declare, “Iprefer runway 25 and I refuseto wait.” He or she is notmerely expected, but is actuallyrequired to work interdepend-ently with others to achieve thecommon goal of a safe takeoff.

The law firm that repre-sented our school district whenI was superintendent requiredall of its attorneys to meet ona weekly basis to review the is-sues and strategies of various

cases assigned to individual members. Each attorneypresented the facts of the case and his or her thoughtson how to proceed. The others offered advice, sug-gested relevant precedents, and shared their experi-ence and insights. Attending the meetings was notoptional. One might say this law firm coerced its mem-bers to attend. The firm, however, believed that allof its clients should have the benefit of the collectiveexpertise of the entire firm, not merely the single at-torney to whom the case had been assigned.

When our school district underwent a major con-struction project, the professionals engaged in theproject always worked as a team. Each week, archi-tects, engineers, and the construction manager con-vened in a collaborative meeting to make certain theywere pursuing a common objective according to theirestablished plan. They monitored progress towardclearly defined benchmarks and observed agreed-onprotocols for identifying and solving problems. Themeetings were not optional, and it might be said thatmembers were compelled to be there.

When I went for a comprehensive physical exam-ination, a doctor who reviewed one of the tests ini-tially recommended that I undergo an immediate an-gioplasty. The hospital protocol, however, demandedthat his recommendation be reviewed by two spe-cialists. Those specialists examined the data from the

58 Kappan February 2011 kappanmagazine.org

I simply cannot find anydictionary that defines aprofessional as someone whocan do whatever he or shepleases.

Deepen yourunderstanding ofthis article withquestions andactivities on pagePD 13 of thismonth’s KappanProfessionalDevelopmentDiscussion Guideby Lois BrownEaston, free tomembers in the digital edition atkappanmagazine.org.

test, but they also sought additional information.Based on that information, the team concluded thatthe procedure was not necessary as long as I engagedin alternative treatments.

In each of these instances, the professional is ex-pected to collaborate with others. In fact, collabo-rating effectively with others is a condition for mem-bership in their profession. Certainly, they will spenda great deal of their time working individually andautonomously. The pilot will work in isolation dur-ing some portions of a flight. A lawyer in the court-room must be able to respond to the immediate sit-uation. The engineers, architects, and constructionmanagers return to their individual realms to workat their respective tasks in the joint effort to com-plete their project. And the cardiologist will makedecisions based on his or her individual judgment

when in the operating room. In every case, however,these professionals are required to work with otherson a regular basis, and a structure is created to en-sure that they do so.

When schools are organized to support the col-laborative culture of a professional learning commu-nity, classroom teachers continue to have tremen-dous latitude. Throughout most of their workdayand work week they labor in their individual class-rooms as they attempt to meet the needs of each stu-dent. But the school will also embed processes intothe routine practice of its professionals to ensure thatthey co-labor in a coordinated and systematic effortto support the students they serve. Like the profes-sionals described above, they work interdependentlyin the pursuit of common purposes and goals. Theyshare their expertise with one another and make thatexpertise available to all of the students served by theteam. They establish clear benchmarks and agreed-on measures to monitor progress. They gather andjointly examine information regarding student learn-ing to make more informed decisions and to enhancetheir practice. They will not have the opportunity to

opt out, because the entire structure of the schoolwill be designed to ensure that they collaborate withtheir colleagues.

THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

Professionals make decisions based on the evi-dence of the most promising strategy for meetingthe needs of those they serve. In a profession, evi-dence trumps appeals to mindless precedent (“Thisis how I have always done it”) or personal preference(“This is how I like to do it”). So, let’s apply the stan-dard of the “weight of the evidence” to the question,“Do schools best serve their students when educa-tors work collaboratively or when each educator canelect to work in isolation?”

Professional organizations. Almost all of the profes-sional organizations in education, including the Na-

tional Education Association and the American Fed-eration of Teachers, have specifically endorsed thepremise that educators should work collaboratively.In addition, advocacy organizations, such as the Na-tional Commission on Teaching and America’s Fu-ture (NCTAF), also call on educators to work asmembers of a professional learning community.NCTAF’s president wrote:

Quality teaching is not an individual accomplish-ment, it is the result of a collaborative culture thatempowers teachers to team up to improve studentlearning beyond what any of them can achieve alone.. . . The idea that a single teacher, working alone,can know and do everything to meet the diverselearning needs of 30 students every day throughoutthe school year has rarely worked, and it certainlywon’t meet the needs of learners in years to come.(Carroll 2009: 13)

Principals have been advised by their professionalorganizations that one of their key responsibilitiesand a core strategy for improving student achieve-ment is building the capacity of staff to work as mem-bers of a collaborative professional learning commu-

kappanmagazine.org V92 N5 Kappan 59

There is abundant research linkinghigher levels of student achievementto educators who work in thecollaborative culture of a professionallearning community.

nity. When advocating collaboration, neither prin-cipal nor teacher professional associations haveadded the caveat, “but only if each person wants to.”

Research. There is abundant research linkinghigher levels of student achievement to educatorswho work in the collaborative culture of a profes-sional learning community. A recent study of schoolsand districts that doubled student achievement con-cluded, “it should be no surprise that one result of

the multiplicity of activities was a collaborative, pro-fessional school culture. . . what is commonly calleda ‘professional learning community’ today” (Oddenand Archibald 2009: 78). A study of the best schoolsystems in the world found that schools in those sys-tems focused on providing the “high-quality, collabo-rative, job-focused professional development” char-acteristic of “professional learning communities” inwhich teachers work together to help each other im-prove classroom practice (Barber and Mourshed 2009:30). The most comprehensive study of factors affect-ing schooling ever conducted concluded that themost powerful strategy for helping students learn athigher levels was ensuring that teachers work col-laboratively in teams to establish the essential learn-ings all students must acquire, to gather evidence ofstudent learning through an ongoing assessmentprocess, and to use the evidence of student learningto discuss, evaluate, plan, and improve their instruc-tion (Hattie 2009).

A useful exercise for a school or district that claimsits purpose and priority is to help students learn athigh levels is to gather all the evidence faculty canfind that supports the idea that students learn betterif educators work in isolation. At the same time,gather all the evidence that students learn at higherlevels when educators work as members of collabo-rative teams. The web site www.allthingsplc.infoprovides specific quotes from organizations and re-searchers who have concluded that a collaborativeschool culture raises student achievement. I’m un-

able to include research indicating students learn athigher levels when educators work in isolation, be-cause I’m unaware of any.

If the group determines that the preponderance ofevidence indicates the school will be more successfulif its members work together rather than in isolation,then structures should be created to support collab-oration, and all members of the staff should be re-quired to participate. An individual’s desire to work

in isolation does not trump aprofessional’s obligation to ap-ply what is considered the mosteffective practice in his or herfield.

The fact that schools createthe infrastructure to ensure ed-ucators work as members of col-laborative teams does not pre-clude those educators from form-ing additional, voluntary collab-orative communities. Many ed-ucators use technology to formvirtual communities based oncommon interests. However,these voluntary communities

should not substitute for school structures and cul-tures in which working together interdependently isthe norm.

ONLY ON WHAT WE WANT

A corollary to the volunteerism argument is thatif educators work in collaborative teams, each teammust have the autonomy to determine the focus ofits work. The issue is presented as a question of power— who will have the authority to decide what we willcollaborate about. In a mature profession united ina joint effort to best meet the needs of those it serves,the more relevant questions are: Can we agree thatthe purpose of our collaboration is to improve ourprofessional practice and the learning of our stu-dents? Do we recognize that we must resolve certaincritical questions if we are to accomplish that pur-pose? Can we demonstrate the discipline to focus onthe right work?

FOCUSING ON THE RIGHT WORK

Collaboration is a means to an end. Collabora-tion alone will not improve a school, and in a toxicschool culture, providing educators with time to col-laborate is likely to reinforce the negative aspects ofthe culture and deteriorate into complaint sessions.Team meetings that focus on the deficiencies of stu-dents, better strategies for punishing students whowear hats, or determining who will pick up the fieldtrip forms will not improve student achievement;however, in many schools topics like these dominate

60 Kappan February 2011 kappanmagazine.org

Can we agree that an individual’s desire to work inisolation does not trump theprofessional’s obligation to applywhat is considered the mosteffective practice in his or herfield?

the discussion. Providing educators with structuresand time to support collaboration will not improveschools unless that time is focused on the right work.

What is the right work? As members of collabo-rative teams, educators in a PLC work collectivelyto develop a guaranteed and viable curriculum to en-sure that students have access to the same essentialknowledge and skills regardless of the teacher towhom they are assigned. The team gathers ongoinginformation regarding the learning of their studentsthrough a comprehensive, balanced assessment processthat includes common formative assessments devel-oped by the team. The team then jointly analyzes theevidence of student learning from the assessmentsand uses the information to improve the professionalpractice of individual members and collective effec-tiveness of the team. As members look at actual ev-idence of student proficiency in the knowledge andskills the team has deemed essential, on an assess-ment the team has agreed is valid, they are able tolearn from one another and continually enhancetheir ability to meet the needs of their students.

Finally, in a professional learning community, theschool creates a systematic process that ensures thatstudents who are struggling receive additional timeand support for learning. Rather than continuingwith the education lottery, where what happens whena student experiences difficulty will depend almostsolely on the individual teacher to whom that stu-dent is assigned, the school will create a multi-tiered,coordinated, and collective response to support thatstudent.

Schools committed to higher levels of learning forboth students and adults will not be content with thefact that a structure is in place to ensure that educa-tors meet on a regular basis. They will recognize thatthe question, “What will we collaborate about,” is sovital that it cannot be left to the discretion of eachteam. Educators in these schools will collectivelyidentify the right work and then create processes tosupport teams as they focus their efforts on thosematters that improve student learning.

POWERFUL CONCEPTS CAN BE APPLIED BADLY

The concept of a collaborative culture of a pro-fessional learning community is powerful, but likeall powerful concepts, it can be applied badly. Schoolscan create artificial, rather than meaningful and rel-evant, teams. Educators can make excuses for lowstudent achievement rather than develop strategiesto improve student learning. Teams can concentrateon matters unrelated to student learning. Gettingalong can be a greater priority than getting results.Administrators can micro-manage the process inways that do not build collective capacity, or they canattempt to hold teams accountable for collaborating

kappanmagazine.org V92 N5 Kappan 61

“Daydreaming is a serious problem in my classroom. I can’tstop thinking about retirement, summer vacation, winterbreak, snow days . . .”

while failing to provide the time, support, parame-ters, resources, and clarity that are crucial to the suc-cess of teams.

Creating a PLC is fraught with difficulty, but thatdoesn’t mean educators should reject the concept orallow individuals to opt out. If they are to be mem-bers of a profession, educators must work together ingood faith to develop their collective capacity to im-plement this powerful concept effectively.

More than a quarter century has passed sinceGoodlad warned that overcoming the tradition ofteacher isolation will require more than an invitation.We must do more than exhort people to work to-gether. In order to establish schools in which inter-dependence and collaboration are the new norm, wemust create the structures and cultures that embed col-laboration in the routine practice of our schools, en-sure that the collaborative efforts focus on the rightwork, and support educators as they build their ca-pacity to work together rather than alone. K

REFERENCES

Barber, Michael, and Mona Mourshed. “Shaping the Future:How Good Education Systems Can Become Great in theDecade Ahead. Report on the International EducationRoundtable.” Singapore: McKinsey & Co., July 7, 2009.www.mckinsey.com/locations/southeastasia/knowledge/Education_Roundtable.pdf.

Carroll, Tom. "The Next Generation of Learning Teams." Phi

Delta Kappan 91, no. 2 (October 2009): 8-13.

Hargreaves, Andrew. "Contrived Congeniality: TheMicropolitics of Teacher Collaboration." In The Politics of Life in

Schools: Power, Conflict, and Cooperation, ed. Joseph Blase:46-72. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.

Hattie, John. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-

Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge,2009.

Odden, Allen R., and Sarah Archibald. Doubling Student

Performance . . . And Finding the Resources to Do It. SanFrancisco: Corwin Press, 2009.