Bayou High Case Study 1 Assessing Schools as Professional ...

Bayou High Case Study 1

Assessing Schools as Professional Learning Communities Symposium

Building a Framework for a PLC: A Case Study of Bayou High School

Submitted by

Ron Cormier

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Iberia Parish Public School System

[email protected]

[email protected]

Paper Presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Education Research Association

Lafayette, Louisiana

March 5-6, 2009

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Table of Contents

Introduction to Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

School Demographics and Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Methodology for Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Results and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conclusions and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Comparison of the Six Dimensions, Table 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Implications for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Summary of the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Table 1: Shared and Supportive Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Table 2: Shared Values and Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3: Collective Learning and Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 4: Shared Personal Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 5: Supportive Conditions-Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 6: Supportive Conditions-Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45


Building a Framework for a PLC: A Case Study of Bayou High School

Introduction to Case Study

In the age of No Child Left Behind and state accountability programs, the progress of a

school is measured in one and two year increments. The emphasis of growth targets is on student

achievement. Every public school shares similar challenges, while each possesses its own unique

traits and dilemmas. One reform movement in education providing schools with a framework for

dealing with their unique challenges is the nurturing of a professional learning community

(PLC).

Bayou High School

The faculty of Bayou High School (BHS) resembled carpenters building a structure with

a vague blueprint. Some areas of the school’s reform efforts were built on the proverbial blood,

sweat, and tears, yet only to collapse under the strain of more construction. The school had

fluctuated at the minimum allowable growth target under the state’s accountability plan over the

last five years. In fact, three of the last five years, BHS had fallen below the required minimum

growth target and designated as a school in academic decline.

Each of the last four years, the school district has performed audits of BHS per state

accountability mandates. The data collected through state-developed observation rubrics, needs

assessments, and focus groups indicated inconsistency in instructional and managerial practices.

Remedies for the deficiencies were required to be addressed in the school’s improvement plan.

Prescribed among the short and long term goals was enabling the development of a professional

learning community that would foster the facilitation of literacy strategies across the curriculum.

District Intervention


In year three, the district assigned two supervisors to provide guided instruction to BHS

in professional development. The concept of developing a professional learning community

(PLC) was initiated using the protocol embedded in the Professional Teaching Learning Cycle

(PTLC) (SEDL, 2005). The district trained four Lead teachers to serve as coaches and facilitators

under the premise of a professional development initiative. The PTLC model was intended to

promote action research and foster collaboration of teachers to ensure instructional coherence.

The six steps of the teaching and learning cycle included study the problems, select a strategy,

plan instruction and common assessment, implement the strategy, analyze student work, and

adjust instruction and provide intervention.

Although the Lead teacher initiative provided a consistent professional development

venue, the effects on instruction were evaluated to have mixed results. District audits indicated

that administrative management and consistent strategy implementation by teachers remained

deficiencies. BHS was on the brink of falling below the minimal allowable growth target again

with high stake consequences including students having the choice to enroll in another district

school.

The Blue Print

At the end of year three, Bayou High’s school performance score (SPS) reflected a slight

increase of three points and received the new label of minimal academic growth. This adjustment

in its SPS spared the school from the accountability penalty of choice. However, the two year

projected growth target of ten points for year five exceeded the current pace of three points in

which BHS had grown. So in year four, the district maintained the interventional effort. In

addition, the district funded a resident curriculum coordinator to assist the administration with

instruction and professional development. The district facilitated the banking of instructional

hours in its master schedule as to allow nine job-embedded professional development sessions.


Now the blueprint for school improvement was given to the administration and staff members of

Bayou High to begin building their PLC.

The Case Study

The data collected in this case study reflects the perception of the faculty at the

conclusion of the school’s fourth year of a reform effort. The key data collection source was the

Professional Learning Communities Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R) (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman,

2008). The researcher’s rationales offered in the data interpretation are based on information

collected through school audits consisting of focus groups, observations, and needs assessments

provided through the state’s department of education.

School Demographics and Background Information

Rural setting

Bayou High School is best described as a ninth to twelfth grade school serving a rural

community. The district has been concerned that the student population has been declining over

the last four years. The town of Bayou is located on the border of two school districts which

allows students on the south side of the community to attend BHS or a high school in a

neighboring district. Two larger cities with each approximately ten miles north and south from

the town of Bayou both have large parochial schools that have enrolled a significant number of

the community’s more affluent students.

Socio-economic status

Bayou is a community experiencing a severe economic decline. The one manufacturing

facility located in the town has closed as did the large agricultural mill. The average median

household income for the community of Bayou is $26,000. The crime rate within the community

is 45% higher than surrounding communities of similar size. The student population consists of

80% African American, 19% White, and 1% Hispanic. Seventy-nine percent of the student body


is eligible for free lunch. Fifty-one percent of the students are male. The BHS special needs

students make up an average of 13% of the enrollment. It is worth noting that in BHS had 108

freshmen enrolled in year four, but graduated only 49 students. The annual student enrollment

fluctuates between 300 to 350 students. The student population is not as transient as the district’s

urban schools, but is declining annually.

Student Achievement

In 2006-2007, 33.3% of freshman scored an Unsatisfactory achievement level in English

on the state assessment, while 29% of the sophomore class failed to meet the state requirement

for graduation in English. Thirty percent of the freshmen scored Unsatisfactory in math, while

18.7% of the sophomores failed the state graduation exit examination. Of the eleventh graders

taking the graduate exit examination, 36.6% of the students failed to meet the state’s minimum

requirements in science, while 24.4% failed the state assessment in social studies. The low

performance scores reflect a trend in student achievement of the last six years.

Faculty

The BHS school faculty consists of twenty-four teachers serving a student population of

approximately 300 students. A teacher to student ratio during the fourth year averaged 1: 9. The

faculty averages three teachers per core content area with twelve additional teachers assigned to

electives, vocational courses, and special education inclusion. During the fourth year, district

interventionists recommended that five teachers receive additional support or be placed on

programs of assistance due to poor performance ratings. Four of the teachers identified for the

instructional interventions were veterans of three or more years.

Annual Audits

In the last four years, the district has performed annual audits assessing both instructional

and management practices. The audits were conducted in reaction to BHS’s low school


performance scores. The audits included classroom observations, interviews, and focus groups

with staff, students, and parents as well as needs assessment questionnaires. The audit findings

have (a) indicated inconsistency existed in instructional practices, (b) evident were varying

degrees of the school improvement plan’s implementation, and (c) a growing critique of the

school’s leadership and managerial practices.

Methodology for Case Study

PLCA-R

The researcher selected the Professional Learning Communities Assessment-Revised

(PLCA-R) survey (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2008) to determine the status of BHS’s progress

towards establishing a PLC in year two of the reform effort. The survey consists of fifty-two

questions subdivided into six dimensions. The six dimensions include shared and supportive

leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal

practice, and supportive conditions subdivided into relationships and structures.

Teachers were asked to represent their perception for each of the 52 variables using a

Likert scale rating from 1 to 4. The rating of 1 indicated the respondent strongly disagreed (SD)

with a statement, while 4 represented the opinion of strongly agreed (SA). The intermediate

rankings were represented by the numerals 2 and 3 indicating that the respondent disagreed (D)

and agreed (A) respectively.

PLCDR

The results of the PLCA-R (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2008) were evaluated with the

Professional Learning Community Development Rubric (PLCDR) (Hipp, 2003) and the

Professional Learning Community Organizer (Huffman & Hipp, 2003). The central core of the

PLCDR is the phases of PLC development designed by Fullan (1990) which includes initiation,

implementation, and institutionalization. The intent of the survey assessment was to determine


the various stages in which the faculty of BHS was functioning inclusive of the six identified

dimensions.

Data Collection

Permission to perform the survey was secured from the parish and school

administrations. The administrators expressed an interest in using the data to assist in refining the

2008-2009 school improvement effort. A cover letter was composed soliciting the input from all

twenty-four teachers. The four page survey consisting of 52 items was converted into a two page

questionnaire using the front and reverse side of each sheet of paper. An envelope labeled

Bayou High School was attached to the cover letter and two page survey. Teachers were given

three days to complete and return the survey sealed in the envelope provided.

A survey packet was placed in each teacher’s mailbox. The school administration

announced daily an encouragement for each teacher to complete and return the survey to either

the curriculum coordinator or the school secretary. As the surveys were submitted, the

curriculum coordinator and school secretary checked the teachers’ names on the list of faculty

members. The curriculum coordinator politely encouraged the teachers not having turned in the

survey to do so prior to the deadline.

Each of the sealed envelopes were opened and labeled by the researcher with a B for

Bayou followed by a number in a sequenced manner. A total of twenty-three completed surveys

were collected from the potential twenty-four teachers yielding a return rate of 95.83 %. Each

survey form collected was reviewed for missing data or irregularities, while none were found.

Using an Excel spreadsheet, the researcher electronically recorded each of the denoted Likert

scale ranking between 1 and 4 per variable.

The data on the Excel spreadsheet was calculated through the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) program. The statistical descriptors determined included the mean and


standard deviation per variable and categorized by dimensions. In addition, the range of

responses was denoted. The intent of the statistical analysis was to determine the degree of

agreement regarding the BHS faculty’s perceptions of key dimensional attributes associated with

PLCs as well as the differentiation of the reported perceptions.

Results and Data Analysis

The Professional Learning Communities Assessment (PLCA) survey (Olivier, Hipp, &

Huffman, 2008) provided responses with scale rankings reflecting 1 = strongly disagree,

2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. Each of the 52 variables received a mean value as

determined through SPSS calculation based on the four point scale. A composite mean was

determined for each of the six dimensions. The corresponding tables featured in the appendix

also provided standard deviations and ranges of responses.

Shared and Supportive Leadership

Disagree. Four variables received ratings statistically reflecting disagreement in the

dimension of shared and supportive leadership as reflected in Table 1. All four variables centered

on the principal’s role. Variable two (m = 2.08, sd = .504) involved the principal incorporating

advice from staff members to make decisions. The staff members indicated similar

disagreements with variable four (m = 1.67, sd = .482) that stated the principal is proactive as

well as variable six (m = 2.08, sd = .504) indicating the principal shared responsibility and

rewards for innovative actions. A strong disagreement was indicated with the statement in

variable seven (m = 1.92, sd = .654) which referred to the principal participating democratically

with staff sharing power and authority. It is worth noting that the responses from the twenty-

three participants for the four variables were collectively differentiated by only a half standard

deviation (sd = .536).


Agree. According to the data in Table 1, the variables receiving significant levels of

agreement included variables three, nine, and eleven. Variable three (m = 3.08, sd = .584) stated

staff members have accessibility to key information, which aligned with variable eleven

(m = 3.46, sd = .509) stating that staff members used multiple sources of data to make decisions

about teaching and learning. The responses for variable nine (m = 3.00, sd = .780) indicated an

agreement that decision-making takes place through committees and communication across

grade and subject areas. Although these three variables received a more positive rating from the

twenty-three respondents, the variability in their responses were diverse in range (s = .624).

Shared Values and Vision

Disagree. Only one variable received a statistical rating reflective of disagreement in the

dimension of shared values and vision. In Table 2, variable 19 (m = 2.12, sd = .992) stated that

stakeholders are actively involved in creating high expectations that serve to increase student

achievement. One should note that the range in responses to stakeholders addressing high

expectations is separated by a whole standard deviation.

Agree. The two variables in shared values and visions receiving the highest rating

favoring a consensus of agreement were variables 13 (m = 3.12, sd = .201) and 20 (m = 3.13, sd

= .741). Variable 13 related to shared values in regards to supporting norms of behavior that

guided decisions about teaching and learning. Data used to prioritize actions in a shared vision

was the basis of variable 20.

Somewhat contradicting to the results of the higher ranking variables was that the range

of the faculty’s responses differed almost a whole standard deviation. The issues were policies

and programs being aligned to the school’s vision (m = 2.71, sd = .908) as reflected in variable

18. Variable 15 (m = 2.75, sd = .989) which addressed decisions being made in alignment with

the school’s values and visions also indicated that faculty members differed in their views.


Collective Learning and Applications

Disagree. An interesting contradiction indicated in Table 3 involved the results between

variables 29 and 30. The faculty favorably agreed with variable 29 (m = 3.17, sd = .565) which

reflected collaboration in analyzing multiple sources of data to assess instructional practices.

However, the reaction to variable 30 (m = 2.88, sd = .741) addressing collaboration in analyzing

student work was of a lower level of agreement although that strategy was a center piece of the

professional teaching learning cycle. Variable 27 (m = 2.58, sd = .830) which referenced

stakeholders collaboratively solving problems was among the lowest rated attributes and offered

the greatest range in responses in the dimension of collective learning.

Agree. The data in Table 3 reflecting collective learning and application indicates a more

agreeable perception among the faculty with a dimensional mean value of 3.05. The key

variables receiving among the highest mean values may reflect the faculty’s attempt at

professional development through the professional teaching learning cycle (SEDL, 2005).

Variable 21 (m = 3.29, sd = .550) addressed that staff members work together to gain knowledge

and apply to instruction. Variable 26 (m = 3.33, sd = .637) indicated that professional

development focused on teaching and learning. The staff working collaboratively to analyze

multiple data sources was the emphasis of variable 29 (m = 3.17 sd = .565).

Shared Personal Practice

Disagree. As reported in Table 4, an area of disagreement in the dimension of shared

personal practices was reflected in variable 32 involving the provision of feedback between

peers. The mean for variable 32 was 2.50 with a range of responses almost one standard

deviation of .933. Although receiving ratings reflecting an agreement, variable 31(m = 2.71,

sd = .908) which also addressed peer interaction in the form of observations was among the

lower rated attributes with a larger range of diverse responses.


Again, the collaborative review and use of student work was not as pronounced. The

lower ratings provide an interesting statistic about the focus of student work even though it was a

venue for the school’s PTLC effort. According to the data in Table 4, variable 34 (m = 2.88,

sd = .680) addressed the collaborative review of student work, while variable 37 (m = 2.83,

sd = .702) addressed the use of student work to guide school improvement. Neither response

provided strong evidence that analysis of student work is practiced school-wide.

Agree. Potential areas of strength within the Bayou High School community were the

recognition of informal sharing and opportunities for coaching. The faculty soundly agreed that

informal professional sharing exist as reflected in their responses to variable 33 (m = 3.21,

sd = .509). A related response with potential for quality professional development was indicated

in the faculty’s responses to variable 35. Variable 35 (m = 3.04, sd = .624) indicated an

agreement in the recognition that opportunities exist for coaching and mentoring.

Supportive Condition-Relationships

Disagree. The staff members expressed disagreement with variable 40 (m = 2.50,

sd = .933) which addressed the recognition and celebration of outstanding achievement. The

large standard deviation for variable 40 indicates diversity in the responses. Another variable

receiving a low level of agreement was variable 41. Variable 41 (m = 2.58, sd = .776) stated the

staff and stakeholders exhibit a sustained effort to embed change into the culture. It is worth

noting that each variable referring to stakeholders, including variables 10 (m = 2.63, sd = .970),

19 (m = 2.12, sd = .992), 27 (m = 2.58, sd = .830), and 41 (m = 2.58, sd = .776) collectively have

a mean equal to 2.47.

Agree. Among the attributes listed in Table 5 that indicated a higher agreement level was

variable 38 (m = 3.42, sd = .504) which included caring relationships between staff and students.

There appears to be a general sentiment among staff members that relationships among


professionals are strong as indicated in variable 42 (m = 3.00, sd = .780). This sense of

relationships among colleagues was reflected in the holistically high means of collective learning

(m = 3.05, sd = .652) and to a lesser degree but consistent in shared personal practice (m = 2.89,

sd = .711) and supportive conditions regarding relationships (m = 2.88, sd = .693).

Supportive Conditions-Structures

Among the variables addressed in Table 6 that were highly agreed upon included a clean

school facility (m = 3.67, sd = .482) and the proximity of department personnel for ease of

collaboration (m = 3.29, sd = .624). Additional variables receiving a strong agreement rating

were the availability of technology and resources (m = 3.25, sd = .676), access to resource

people with expertise (m = 3.25, sd = .897), access to data (m = 3.21, sd = .658) and

communication with district personnel and the community (m = 3.21, sd = .881).

Comparison of the Six Dimensions

According to Table 7, the dimensions receiving the highest level of agreement among

staff members were supportive conditions-structures (m = 3.08, sd = .693) and collective

learning and applications (m = 3.05, sd = .652). The dimension receiving the lowest level of

agreement was shared and supportive leadership (m = 2.59, sd = .655). It is worth noting that

responses for all six dimensions collectively ranged between a .652 to .752 standard deviation.

Conclusions and Assumptions

The following conclusions are drawn using the data provided from the Professional

Learning Communities Assessment (PLCA) survey (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2008) as

interpreted through the Professional Learning Community Development Rubric (PLCDR) (Hipp,

2003) and the Professional Learning Community Organizer (Huffman & Hipp, 2003). The


central core of the PLCDR is the phases of implementation designed by Fullan (1990) which

identifies the phases of developing a professional learning community including initiation,

implementation, and institutionalization. In an attempt to derive at a rationale for some of the

data results, selected incidents from the researcher’s knowledge gained through multiple focus

_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 7

Comparison of the Six Dimensions

Standard Development

Dimensions Mean deviation phase

1. Shared & Supportive Leadership 2.59 .655 Initiation

2. Shared Values & Vision 2.87 .752 Initiation

3. Collective Learning & Application 3.05 .652 Implementation

4. Shared Personal Practice 2.89 .711 Initiation

5. Supportive Conditions-Relationships 2.88 .742 Initiation

6. Supportive Conditions-Structure 3.08 .693 Implementation

______________________________________________________________________________

Note: The mean and deviation values are collective of the attributes for each dimension

groups and needs assessments performed over the last four years are referenced. The school

audits were performed according to the criteria and protocol prescribed by the Louisiana

Department of Education.


Problem area. The statistical flags being waved in the BHS’s staff members’ responses

are the four variables receiving disagreements for shared and supportive leadership. Viewing the

variables in Table 1, the common thread among all four variables involved the role in which the


principal plays in the professional learning committee. The major traits addressed in the variables

included incorporating advice from staff members in decision-making (m = 2.08, sd = .504),

taking proactive stances in problem areas (m = 1.67, sd = .482), sharing responsibility and

rewards for innovative actions (m = 2.08, sd = .504), and participating democratically with staff

in sharing power and authority (m = 1.92, sd = .654). In previous conversations with staff

members, they tend to be more critical of the principal’s lack of organization and indecisiveness

as opposed to any display of authoritative leadership style. This phenomenon is described by

Lambert (2003) as a lack of mutual reciprocity on behalf of the principal regarding expectations

of teachers and self-accountability of the administrator.

A related critique by staff members in previous interviews was the administration’s lack

of follow-through on school-wide initiatives, especially when involving classroom instruction

and innovations. Although variable 10 (m= 2.63, sd = .970) in Table 1 received a collective, but

low rated agreed, the diverse responses indicate various opinions about the assumed shared

responsibilities and accountabilities for student learning. Using state department’s formatted

observation assessments in previous school audits, the prescribed instructional initiatives were

being implemented without consistency and without administrative supervision. A passive

resentment between teachers who have progress with the initiatives and those characterized as

laggards has evolved. Professional accountability among staff members was perceived as not

being addressed by the administration. Thus, progress appears to be at a stalemate and innovation

tends to be based on volunteerism as one teacher stated. Hord and Sommers (2008) would advise

that strategies for resolving the conflict between the factions should be considered and prioritized

as the school attempts to move forward with collaboration in the dimension of shared leadership.

Strengths. The theme among the higher rated variables in Table 1 was decision-making

among staff members as illustrated in variable 9 (m =3.00, sd = .780) and access to data as


reflected in variable 11 (m= 3.46, sd = .509). A rationale for the strong agreement reflected in

these variables may have been the addition of a curriculum coordinator to the staff and the

precedence of data-driven decision-making by the district through the Professional Teaching

Learning Cycle (PTLC) (SEDL, 2005). The role of the curriculum coordinator is to serve as a

facilitator of professional development and the initiatives prescribed in the school’s improvement

plan. The coordinator’s role is intended to work collaboratively with administration, Lead

teachers, school improvement team members, and all staff members. The professional

development venue followed the format of the PTLC which promoted action research, reflection,

and decision-making.

One additional variable worth noting is the agreement reflected in variable 5 (m = 2.96,

sd = .751) which addresses opportunities for staff members to initiate change. The district has

been facilitating a Lead teacher program for the last two years which prepares four teachers per

school to serve as presenters and coaches of instructional initiatives. It was noted that the BHS

Lead teachers were involved for the first time in the professional development delivery under the

support of the curriculum coordinator. One of the strategies enacted was showcasing best

practices being performed by different teachers in the school. This acknowledgement of sharing

experiences among staff members was expressed in a variety of variables. The effort to continue

building leadership capacity among the Lead teachers will require opportunities to exercise skills

in collaboration, facilitation, planning, action steps, and evaluation as well as reflection

(Danielson, 2006).

Initiation phase. According to the PLCDR (Hipp, 2003), Bayou High School is at the

initiation phase in shared and supportive leadership. Hipp describes the initiation phase in this

dimension as having pockets of leadership that function outside of the realm of administration.

The description reflects BHS’s situation considering the roles of the curriculum coordinator and


Lead teachers in professional development, in comparison to the perceived inactivity of the

school principal. However, an initial framework for shared and supportive leadership has been

haphazardly manifested from the bottom-up. Although potential for growth exists, the PLCA-R

(Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2008) data does not offer convincing evidence that the staff

consistently shares the authority and responsibility of teaching and instruction. Evidence of an

existing leadership deficiency is that the initiatives are still being advertised and marketed by a

few to staff members whose participation is still fostered on a voluntary basis (Hord & Sommers,

2008).


Agreement. Of the variables in Table 2 receiving strong moderate agreements were 13

(m = 3.12, sd = .201) identifying that shared values support norms of behavior and 20 (m = 3.13,

sd = .741) which acknowledges that data is used to prioritize a shared vision. In previous

interviews, the staff members have consistently stated that improving student achievement is the

top priority of the school. Thus, the standard deviation of .201 indicated little diversity in

response to that statement.

Although a strong agreement was calculated for data used as a guide in shaping the vision,

the range of responses did differ as indicated by the standard deviation of .741. One possible

explanation is that almost half of the BHS faculty is made up of vocational and elective teachers.

State and district criterion standards and assessments are the intended core data sources used in

driving instruction. It has been previously stated by school leaders and teachers that a gap exists

between the available data on core content assessments and the assumed role perceived by

non-core instructors in addressing student achievement.

Role confusion. A point of contention in professional development activities has been

how to involve the non-core teachers in addressing student achievement. The district has recently


fostered and articulated the promotion of literacy across the curriculum. This connection and

desired level of understanding has not transcended well across the staff membership at BHS as

indicated in variables 15 and 18. Variable 15 (m = 2.75, sd = .989) cites that decisions are made

in alignment with the school’s values and vision. Whereas, variable 18 (m = 2.71, sd = .908)

citing policies and programs are aligned with the school’s vision received a low level of

agreement. A possible rationale is that a lack of understanding exists among individual teachers

on what each person’s role is in association to the school’s vision and goals.

Awareness. In comparison to previous audits, the data from the PLCA-R (Olivier, Hipp,

& Huffman, 2008) provides some evidence that an embedded process for sharing visions and

values is being established and recognized in the school setting. Variable 12 (m = 3.08,

sd = .584) indicates a recognition of the collaborative process for developing a shared vision.

The consistent focus in job-embedded professional development sessions on student achievement

and the facilitation and support of the curriculum coordinator may have aided in the fostering a

shared vision. Although a strong moderate agreement was indicated for variable 17 (m = 3.08,

sd = .881), the higher range of responses about school goals exceeding beyond test scores and

grades leaves open the prospect that a general concept exists among staff members, but specific

strategies on achieving those goals may not.

Disagreement. It is an interesting observation that variable 19 (m = 2.12, sd = .992) in

Table 2 received a collective disagreement. It is not only significant that the individual variable

which addresses stakeholders involved in creating high expectations for student achievement

received a disagreement, but a trend of lower levels of agreement exists throughout the survey

associated with variables citing the term stakeholders. In Table 2, the response to variable 19 (m

= 2.12, sd = .992) is similar to other variables containing the term stakeholders including


10 (m = 2.63, sd = .970), 27 (m = 2.58, sd = .830), and 41 (m = 2.58, sd = .776). This statistical

commonality has two potential rationales.

One possible rationale for the statistical trend involving the term stakeholders is that a

conflict exists among two groups of staff members. One group perceives themselves as

progressive teachers that have implemented the school’s initiatives, which has been publicly

validated through external observations and assessment data. The second group is perceived to

be laggards. These individuals have not actively participated in the school’s initiatives and

traditionally have the reputation of exhibiting less than stellar instructional practices.

The lack of administrative follow-up and support to teachers in both factions has resulted

in finger pointing and stagnation of progress. In this context, stakeholders may be viewed

inclusive of staff members by some respondents, thus the statistical disagreement. Unless the

conflict or even the perception of a conflict is addressed, the ability to progress as a professional

learning community is diluted (Hord & Sommers, 2008).

A second possible rationale for the lower level of agreement regarding the role of

stakeholders is that many of the staff members have repeatedly stated in focus groups that too

often students, parents, and the community have been left out of the school’s operation.

According to staff members, the reasons range from an isolationist’s attitude of the

administration to the culture of the community is simply non-participatory in nature. However,

one optimistic sentiment that has been consistently expressed by the staff members is the

recognition that the exclusion of all stakeholders is indeed a barrier. Marzano (2003) identifies

parent and community involvement as a critical school-level factor for schools to operate

effectively. This omission has been expressed repeatedly by multiple staff members.

Initiation phase. Interpreting the data collected in Table 2 with the rubrics outlined in the

PLCDR (Hipp, 2003), the researcher would rate BHS at the initiation level. The PCLA-R


(Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2008) data coupled with previous focus group and needs assessment

feedback indicated that the mechanics for a collaborative process is present at the school level.

Although generic, the values and norms are being articulated in a procedural manner, but to a

lesser degree in action. It is evident that the professional development theme targets increasing

student achievement. However, the data indicates the reform efforts and their assessments are not

systemic in the school setting. The success of a school reform initiative is dependent on the

degree it is implemented systemically (Marzano, 2003).

Collective Learning and Application

Shortfalls. The dimension of collective learning and its application is one of two

dimensions that received a collective agreement for all variables. However, among the themes

receiving a lower level of agreement included the involvement of all stakeholders in problem

solving and collaboratively analyzing student work. According to the data in Table 3, variable 27

(m = 2.58, sd = .830) included the term stakeholders in the context of learning together and

problem solving. As referenced earlier, it is a general consensus among staff members that the

inclusion of stakeholders in school related activities is a possible barrier.

Although variable 30 received a moderate level of agreement (m = 2.88, sd = .741), the

issue of collaboratively analyzing student work to improve teaching and learning is viewed with

a diverse perspective. The recognition by staff members that student work is not a higher valued

variable in combination with the response for variable 27 leaves open a possible missed

opportunity for effective collaboration in increasing student achievement. The proper use of

formative assessment in the classroom inclusive of student work samples for guiding instruction

have been identified as lacking in the public school classrooms and should become a major

venue in professional development (Stiggins, 2001).


Strengths. The concept of a collaborative effort as related to school improvement

received strong statistical levels of agreement. In Table 3, variable 26 (m = 3.33, sd = .637)

indicated that professional development in the school setting does focus on teaching and

learning. This response provides evidence of a shift in emphasis. In previous surveys, staff

members referred to professional development events as faculty meetings and reported that the

meetings traditionally addressed management issues only. Variables 21 (m = 3.29, sd = .550) and

22 (m = 3.21, sd = .509) addressed collaborative efforts of inquiry and their commitment to

school improvement efforts. A possible interpretation of these results may indicate that a purpose

for professional development has been recognized and the process of collaborative learning has

been initiated.

Implementation phase. According to the PLCDR (Hipp, 2003), BHS may be embarking

upon the phase of implementation regarding collective learning and application. The data in

Table 3 indicated recognition by staff members that professional development targeted teaching

and learning. The job-embedded sessions have created a regular schedule dedicated to

professional development. The use of Lead teachers has provided the school with a vehicle for

peer sharing. Under guidance of the curriculum coordinator, a venue had been created for peer

sharing and idea exchanges. An area for continued growth is expanding the role of peer sharing

to other staff members. The basis for peer sharing should be relevant to meet specific needs and

based on an individual’s expertise regarding the content being advised (Moller, 2006).


Areas of need. In the shared personal practice dimension, one variable received a

collective disagree. According to Table 4, variable 32 (m = 2.50, sd = .933) received a statistical

disagreement regarding that staff members provide feedback to peers related to instructional

practices. Considering the potential conflicts that exist among staff members, peer observations


could be problematic unless a protocol would be established and facilitated by good managers.

The observation and feedback process at BHS has been limited to authoritative positions

normally associated with required observations and audits. The performance and reporting of

classroom walk-through visits by the BHS school administration was initiated by a directive

from the district. However, according to teacher focus groups it is performed with little

consistency and even less feedback. A more concentrated effort should be undertaken regarding

post-observation feedback. Individual conferences with reflective questions are one of the more

effective means of positively impacting classroom behavior, but often underutilized in school

settings (Hord & Sommers, 2008).

Along the same theme, variable 31 (m = 2.71, sd = .908) addresses opportunities for staff

members to observe peers and offer encouragement. Based on observation and interviews with

administration and staff members, the practice of teachers observing peers has been limited to an

activity related to a corrective plan of assistance. The routine is that the struggling teacher

observes a model teacher, which has left a stigma on the practice. Peer observations are an area

for further examination at Bayou High.

Strengths. A positive attribute reflected in variable 33 (m = 3.21, sd = .509) was the

agreement that staff members informally share ideas and suggestions for improving student

learning. Based on the researcher’s observations and summaries documented by the curriculum

coordinator, the sharing of ideas does occur in departmental meetings where specific content and

skills are discussed. The process of peer sharing across the curriculum has been attempted under

the guidance of the curriculum coordinator. The major challenge has been convincing teachers to

share their expertise with their peers through demonstrations or at least illustrated talks.

Two additional variables receiving strong agreement values involved the recognition of

opportunities for coaching and applying learning. Variable 35 (m = 3.04, sd = .624) indicated


recognition that opportunities exist for coaching and mentoring. This response may be a direct

effect of the efforts performed by the curriculum coordinator in context of a support person.

Variable 36 (m = 3.04, sd = .624) acknowledges that individuals and teams have the opportunity

to apply learning and share the results of their practices. Although, the concept of action research

in the classroom is fostered through the PTLC (SEDL, 2005), its actual implementation has been

limited to the Lead teachers. However, the key word in these variables is opportunity and the fact

that it has been statistically noted is promising.

Initiation phase. According to the PLCDR (Hipp, 2003), the level of shared professional

practices would be interpreted as a well established initiation phase. The wording that some staff

members work collaboratively to observe, support, share, and provide feedback is limited to a

few key stakeholders among them the curriculum coordinator and Lead teachers. The level in

which the peer sharing and support that is offered by the five to six individuals on a faculty of

twenty-four is sophisticated and by all accounts effective. The logical next phase is gradually

expanding the coaching role to other teachers based on expertise. The intended result is to create

a level of trust and comfort where peer sharing is more of an embedded routine and less of an

event.

Supportive Condition-Relationships

Strength. In the dimension reflecting supportive conditions-relationships, variable 38

(m = 3.42, sd = .504) received a statistical strong agree. The variable indicated the existence of a

caring relationship among staff and students based on trust and respect. The second highest rated

attribute was variable 42 (m = 3.00, sd = .780) which reinforced the acknowledgment of

relationships among staff members regarding the examination of data to enhance teaching and

learning. The responses given in this dimension reflect a researched observation that of the


various configurations of professional relationships that can exist in a PLC, the most significant

will be the relationship between teachers (Hord & Sommers, 2008).

Area of concern. Variable 40 (m = 2.50, sd = .933) received a collective disagree on the

issue of recognition and celebration for outstanding achievement. In past interviews, teachers had

expressed a concern among the student population that success in academics was not as revered

as achievements in athletics. A cultural peer pressure, according to teachers, exists among the

students which discourages high achievement or at least deter a student desiring to publicly

receive that recognition.

In the context of celebrating success or recognizing outstanding achievement, the

researcher offers this reflection. Are the staff members addressing the student behavior in this

variable? Is there acknowledgment that the same attitude that exists with the students is present

among staff members? The researcher offers the rationale with some confidence that the rating is

more of a reflection that underachievement among staff members is readily tolerated more than

teachers having an issue with outstanding achievement not being recognized. If staff members

are less apt to accept individual praise, the individual’s work and its relevance on student

achievement should be recognized in a celebratory fashion. In a struggling school climate, good

work should be recognized as often as possible (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).

Initiation Phase. According to the PLCDR (Hipp, 2003), the researcher would identify

BHS at the initiation phase of supportive conditions in relationships. Some efforts have been

enacted in an attempt to promote change in the culture of both students and professionals.

However, the limitations indicated in the school’s efforts are that the factors for supportive

conditions of relationships are not yet at a sustainability level. The continuous reinforcement of

trust, capacity-building, recognition, and success needed for a PLC’s sustainability may


eventually manifest at a level that relationship building becomes an expectation and not a

periodic event (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006).

Supportive Conditions – Structures

Strengths. In addition to a strongly agreed rating of variable 48 (m = 3.67, sd = .482) for

having a clean school facility, the staff members of BHS indicated statistically strong agreements

for variables referencing access to material resources and resource people. Variable 46 (m =

3.25, sd = .676) reflected agreement of access to technology and instructional materials.

Through grants and district input, BHS is considered one of the best technology equipped

schools per student capita in the district. In terms of teaching and learning, instructional use of

technology has the similar effect on teachers as it does on students. The integration of technology

fosters the systems of thought (self system, metacognitive, and cognitive) and knowledge

domains (information, mental procedures, and psychomotor) which enhances educators with the

ability to dialogue expeditiously and comprehensively (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski,

2007).

The data collected through previous focus groups have indicated a favorable response to

the presence and involvement of the district supervisors in their professional development

efforts. In addition, the assistance provided by the curriculum coordinator has become another

venue of instructional support. This acknowledgment may have been reflected with the responses

given for variable 47 (m = 3.25, s = .897) which referenced having resource people provide

expertise and support for continuous learning. In struggling school settings, leadership through

expertise as opposed to authoritative positions has a more pronounced effect on school reform

efforts and teacher attitudes (Moller, 2006).

As part of the district’s intervention effort, an emphasis had been placed on interpreting

student achievement data as well as other factors included in the school’s accountability scores.


The presentation and availability of this data was a possible influence to the staff members’

agreed responses for variable 52 (m = 3.21, sd = .658) referencing access to data and in variable

51(m = 3.21, sd = .881) recognizing available information from the district and other sources.

Data serves as a critical venue for the beginning professional learning community. Data analysis

requires collaborative dialogue deciphering what it represents and what it does not. The

component often neglected in data-driven decision-making is defining and identifying the roles

of each staff member in reacting to the data implications (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004).

Implementation phase. According to the PLCDR (Hipp, 2003), BHS may actually have

reached the implementation phase and maybe moving towards institutionalization of supportive

conditions of structures. The claim towards institutionalized status is initially waived due to the

lack of full utilization of the available resources. The school’s resources are being utilized to

support the efforts in the other dimensions, but have not yet fostered innovation in of itself in the

context of continual staff and student learning.

Implications for the Future

The Framework

Referring to Table 7, the two dimensions receiving the highest collective mean values

were supportive conditions for structures (m = 3.08) and collective learning and application

(m = 3.05). The researcher would classify that these two dimensions at Bayou High School are

at the implementation stages (Fullan, 1990). The presence provided by the two dimensions offers

evidence that the school is beyond the blueprint of establishing a PLC and may have some

foundation for the building of a framework. In laymen’s terms, BHS has the basic machinery in

place, but it is not yet running on all cylinders.

Structural supportive conditions. The key components of the structural supportive

conditions indicate that staff members have access to critical data, embedded professional


development opportunities, and the expert resources to interpret the data and guide its conversion

to instructional intervention which are key staples of a PLC (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006). In the

context of supportive conditions, the attributes acknowledged in the collective learning

dimension indicates a process has begun with an infrastructure in place. It is the support and

conditions within the school setting that can support the continuous dialogue and experiences

needed to build the professional capacity to support the sustainability for ongoing collective

learning and its application (May, 2007).

Collective learning and its application. Using the construction metaphor, the BHS staff

must reinforce the framework before adding to the structure. One key task is to utilize the job-

embedded professional development opportunities efficiently and effectively. It is critical that

the integrity of time on task and the content of the activities connect and reinforce the goal of

improving teaching and learning (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). One would advise that

a protocol such as the Professional Teaching Learning Cycle (SEDL, 2005) continue to be

employed. School leaders may consider addressing critical issues with content-related sessions

and awareness of the various levels of readiness towards innovations possessed by individual

teachers (Huffman, 2003).

The second reinforcing brace to insert in the framework may require more emphasis on

student work samples in the collaborative learning activities (Marzano, 2003). Assessing student

work is applicable in all content areas. In addition to meeting the standards of the individual

content area, common deficiencies shared by the student population can be addressed across the

curriculum. Creating effective formative assessment opportunities in the classroom provides the

greatest opportunity for effective instructional intervention (Stiggins, 2001). The continued use

of standardized assessment data is critical in the summative analysis of student achievement, but


analyzing formative assessment data in a collaborative setting is a proactive approach according

to Stiggins.

The Foundation

In the building of any structure, the key architectural element is having a solid

foundation. In terms of building a professional learning community one could correctly

rationalize that shared values and vision as well as shared and supportive leadership are the

bedrock on which to build. According to the PLCA-R (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2008) the

foundation dimensions in this case study collectively had the lesser valued means and both were

determined to be only at the initiation phase.

Shared Values and Visions. In the case of Bayou High School, the staff members

statistically indicated that the shared values and vision dimension was at a lower level of

agreement (m = 2.87) and resulted in a greater range of opinions (s = .752). The data collected in

this dimension in relation to the school’s case history revealed a lack of belief that all staff

members are involved in creating high expectations to increase student achievement. Although

passive, a conflict exists between progressive and laggard teachers. In an effort to build trust, the

conflict must be addressed through professional protocol if future progress can be made in

enacting on the vision (Hord & Sommers, 2008).

A concept related to the conflict within was the negative perceptions related to the

school’s involvement of stakeholders. Although this theme appears in other dimensions as well,

unless the major stakeholders are included in the shaping of the values and vision of the school,

the issue may remain a barrier. The school leaders must recognize that the shared vision reflects

the school’s norms and expectations (Huffman & Hipp, 2003). The school leadership will have

to make a concerted effort to be more inclusive of stakeholders in decision-making as well as

holding each accountable within the context of duties. The realm of stakeholders may be


expanded to include student and parent representation as well as community involvement not

only in planning, but in problem solving as well (Cowan, 2003).

Shared and Supportive Leadership. The dimension of shared and supportive leadership

received the lowest collective mean value (m = 2.59, s = .655). According to the PLCDR (Hipp,

2003), BHS is at a low level of initiation regarding shared and supportive leadership. The areas

having received the more pronounced disagreement were statements addressing the principal’s

role. As was stated earlier, previous focus groups and needs assessments indicated more

dissatisfaction with the principal’s indecisions and disorganization than with authoritarian

leadership style. Additional criticism was targeted to a lack of active engagement in professional

development and holding staff members accountable for implementing the school’s initiatives.

The expressed negative perceptions toward the role of the school principal are an issue to

be addressed through administrative coaching in terms of fostering a professional learning

community. Emphasis is to be placed on the strengthening of skills in shared and supportive

leadership as well as establishing shared values and vision (Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers,

2007). In an effort to foster a PLC at BHS, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) recommend

the principal will need to become more proficient and engaged in the training and assessment of

the school’s instructional initiatives. In addition, the principal should at minimum support the

existing leadership team and to a degree take cues of the school’s curriculum and instructional

needs from this team in the areas the administrator is unable to devote the desired quality time.

Two attributes that have received moderate to strong expressions of agreement have been

the acknowledgement of a collaborative process and the goal of increasing student achievement.

An opportunity exists for the scaffolding of trust among staff members through the fostering of

teacher leadership. Moller (2006) recommends that leadership prominence should be determined

through an individual’s expertise as it relates to the professional development needs. School


leaders should be aware teachers may possess various levels of expertise in teaching as well as

different levels of readiness in learning when designing professional development (Brownell,

M.T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S., 2006). The results of this case

study do offer some statistical cues for school leaders.

By providing opportunities and encouraging teachers to share their knowledge in

demonstrations with reflection on student learning, a school leader may encourage capacity

building in both shared leadership and instructional expertise. The principal, curriculum

coordinator, and Lead teachers at BHS should expand the opportunities to showcase the existing

talent pool and expertise as it progresses in the evolution of the PLC.

Scaffolding

The fostering of a PLC is an intricate braiding of skills, opportunities, and procedures

from the stakeholders (Giles and Hargreaves, 2006). Leadership roles should gradually transform

from initiators to facilitators, thus the scaffolding of leadership skills. According to the PLCDR

(Hipp, 2003), the dimensions of shared personal practice and supportive condition in

relationships are in initiation stages, but have several developmental strengths to build upon.

Shared personal practice. The two areas of shared personal practice receiving the lower

collective mean values involved peer observations which are not a common practice in the BHS

school setting. One might observe that these attributes of shared practices may be more difficult

to implement (Hord, 2004). The procedure would require a protocol and attitude that is based on

collegial sharing and support as opposed to critique and judgment (Copland, 2003). This process

may have a modest beginning with demonstrations of activities performed by the curriculum

coordinator or the Lead teachers. The reflection and sharing of pros and cons of a technique as

opposed to the teacher’s performance will serve as a model and an incentive. As the routine


becomes more accepted, the ideal can be expanded among teachers within a department and

eventually across curriculum areas.

Another area of recognition was opportunities for coaching and applying techniques

learned. Both variables received a collective mean of 3.04 indicating an acknowledgement and to

a degree the acceptance of peer sharing. In relation to student achievement, as teachers become

more collegial in sharing teaching practices a shift toward sharing student progress may occur

(Stiggins, 2001). Teachers have been traditionally guarded about the achievement levels of their

students. Often teachers relate their students’ competencies to their own competencies (Arter,

J.A. & Busick, K.U., 2001). A key milestone to improving skills in sharing personal experiences

will be when the staff members are able to collaboratively analyze student work samples to

address common needs.

Supportive condition – relationships. The obvious strength among staff members is

caring about relationships and working toward a goal of increasing student achievement.

However, the disagreement depicted in the lack of recognition of outstanding achievement may

either be a result of frustration over lack of progress or that individual needs are not being

addressed (Copland, 2003). In previous interviews, the perception was expressed that successful

teachers were less concerned about individual recognition and more concerned about the

tolerance of mediocre teaching. Traditionally, those sentiments were usually expressed in the

context of discussing leadership and accountability.

Observations by the researcher can substantiate that efforts are made at Bayou High to

recognize best practices and efforts are celebrated. However, the perception that good work is

taken for granted may be an element of contention. One must keep in mind the perception the

BHS teachers have of how others perceive their school as a chronic low performer. The

researcher has observed a unity among staff members not in so much of pursuing a goal, but


rather in a mentality of we are surviving together. Often one can sense that staff members

perceived being neglected and feel they are victims of demographics, so the attitude is us against

the world.

The survival rationale may offer a possible explanation for the higher mean values

associated with variables inclusive of the term relationships, while the lower rated variables

possess the terms stakeholders and outstanding achievement. Studies have indicated that schools

possessing teachers with negative attitudes about the school environment often foster similar

attitudes among the students and parents (Thompson, Warren, & Carter, 2004). Among the PLC

exercises to foster cooperation among stakeholders, an awareness of the effects of teachers’

attitudes may be worth investigating.

There is a strong connection between the supportive condition for relationship with the

dimensions of shared and supportive leadership as well as shared values and visions. Those

dimensions would need to be addressed simultaneously and interdependent of each other. The

school leadership would need to recognize any progress in these areas and celebrate growth in

frequent, but meaningful ways (Marzano, 2001).

Summary of the Case Study

On previous occasions, the teachers at Bayou High School have expressed the perception

that their situation is unique considering the community’s culture as well as the obstacles that

come with the students’ demographics. Yet, as one deciphers the dimensions of the professional

learning community in context of BHS, they are not so unusual. Despite the backdrop of student

demographics and accountability, the articulation of a vision and struggling to make it a reality

are shared by many high schools (McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J., 2001). What BHS has that some

school organizations do not is a modest start and some attributes to build upon in fostering a

PLC.


Although it appears that only collective learning and structural supportive conditions are

at an implementation phase, the school leadership can begin recognizing what tasks need to be

addressed and to what degree. Statistically, the data indicated various levels of trust and

willingness to cooperate exists. The data results indicated that staff members recognized and

even accepted that a process for sharing personal practices exist in the school setting.

The staff membership is in agreement that opportunities for implementing ideas and

coaching exist. The generic goal of improving student achievement is understood and the access

to data has been acknowledged. Relationships are evident at least on the informal level and have

potential to serve as a conduit to elevate the interaction to a professional level. These are indeed

indicators that an effort is underway and these are footholds in which to begin climbing.

However, the challenges are centered on further developing the needed skills as a community

and the efforts for sustainability.

One key element to be addressed is building capacity. Leadership capacity and

sustainability can be addressed through engagement, synergy, and self-organization (Lambert,

2003). Add to that recommendation the skills of reflection and shared leadership (Marzano,

Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Leadership capacity must be elevated within the school

administration as well as among the staff membership. A key routine to be enacted is modeling,

coaching, and reflection (Hord & Sommers, 2008). However, the term accountability must be

addressed on a scale beginning with support for struggling members and sliding to the degree

necessary to encourage behavior that contributes to the benefit of the school community. Skills

can only be developed if exercised and sustainability can only be fostered if educators think they

are making a difference (Lambert, 2003).

The dimension of shared and supportive leadership can also be addressed in the context

of building capacity. According to Moller (2006), the leadership opportunities should be fostered


through abilities and expertise. This approach facilitates a practitioner’s approach to leadership.

The greatest level of trust in a school setting traditionally exists among teachers (Hord &

Sommers, 2008). Thus, this approach enables the building of support, sharing, and leadership

from within the ranks. As the capacity of the individual staff members elevates so will their

ability to function within the existing framework that has been initiated, thus closing in on the

goal of achieving a productive learning community.

A foreseeable challenge in the efforts of developing a professional learning community at

Bayou High School is sustaining what has been created. Lambert (2003) offers the advice that in

building leadership capacity the organization must focus on systemic and sustainable traits.

Among those traits are a sustained sense of purpose, succession planning and selection, and a

rhythm of development. However, it is the traits of enculturation and conversion of practice into

policy that will elevate BHS in Fullan’s (1990) change model progressing from the initiation

phase to implementation phase to institutionalization.

The prospect of Bayou High School developing a professional learning community is not

necessarily a strategy for school reform, but an investment in human capital for the future. Giles

and Hargreaves (2006) suggest that PLC is a model that may enable the public school to develop

the capacity in remaining a viable institution. A major criticism of American public schools is

that it is slow to change (Tarnoczi, 2006). The school’s ability to adjust and manifest itself to

address inevitable changes will not only be an effective practice, but a necessary one. Thus

exists, the prospect of Bayou High School developing a framework for not just responding to

accountability challenges, but the challenges of education.

References

Arter, J.A., & Busick, K.U. (2001). Practice with student-involved classroom assessment.


Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute, Inc.

Brownell, M.T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from

collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169-185.

Copland, M.A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school

improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395.

Cowan, D. F. (2003). The PLC connection to school improvement. In J.B. Huffman & K.K. Hipp

(Eds.). Reculturing schools as professional learning communities (pp. 75-82).

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria,

VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fullan, M. (1990). Initiation-Implementation-Institutionalization in J.B. Huffman

& K.K. Hipp (Eds.). Reculturing Schools as Professional Learning Communities. (pp.

23-26). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Giles, C. & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning

organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-156.

Hipp, K.K. (2003). Professional Learning Community Rubric designed for Milwaukee Public

Schools.

Hord. S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through

professional learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hord, S.M. & Sommers, W.A. (2008). What are the skills needed to lead professional learning

communities? In Hord, S.M. & Sommers, W.A. (Eds.) Leading professional learning

communities: Voices from research and practice. (pp. 95-111). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.


Huffman, J. (2003). The role of shared values and visions in creating professional learning

communities. National Association of Secondary School Principals,87(637), 21-34.

Huffman, J.B. & Hipp, K.K. (2003). Professional learning community organizer in J.B. Huffman

& K.K. Hipp (Eds.). Reculturing Schools as Professional Learning Communities.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA.:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

May, S. (2007). Sustaining effective literacy practices over time in secondary schools: School

organizational and change issues. Language & Education: An International Journal,

21(5), 387-405.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,

VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works.

Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From

research to results. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school

teaching. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Moller, G. (2006). Teacher leadership emerges within professional learning communities.

Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 520-533.

Olivier, D.F., Hipp, K.K., & Huffman, J.B. (2008). Assessing and analyzing schools as PLCs. In


K.K. Hipp & J.B. Huffman (Eds.). Professional learning communities: A practical

approach (working title in progress). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (text, also in

progress).

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom

instruction that works. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Scribner, J.P., Cockrell, K.S., Cockrell, D.H., & Valentine, J.W. (1999). Creating professional

communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school

improvement process, Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 130-160.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). (2005). Professional teaching and

learning cycle. Austin, TX: Author.

Stiggins, R.J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.

Tarnoczi, J. (2006). Critical reflections on professional learning communities in Alberta.

Electronic Journal of Sociology, ISSN: 1198 3655. Retrieved on October 10, 2008 from

http://www.sociology.org/content/2006/tier2/tarnoczi.html.

Thompson, G.L., Warren, S., & LaMesha, C. (2004). It’s not my fault: predicting high school

teachers who blame parents and students for students’ low achievement. High School

Journal, 87(3), 5-14.

Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of

continuous improvement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development:

Alexandria, VA.

http://www.sociology.org/content/2006/tier2/tarnoczi.html


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 1


Standard Frequency

Variables Mean deviation 1 2 3 4

1. Staff members are consistently involved in discussing

& making decisions about most issues 2.83 .637 0 7 14 3

2. The principal incorporates advice from staff members

to make decisions. 2.08 .504 2 18 4 0

3. Staff members have accessibility to key information. 3.08 .584 0 3 16 5

4. The principal is proactive and addresses areas where

support is needed. 1.67 .482 8 16 0 0

5. Opportunities are provided for staff members to

change. 2.96 .751 1 4 14 5

6. The principal shares responsibility and rewards for

innovative actions. 2.08 .504 2 18 4 0

7. The principal participates democratically with staff

sharing power and authority. 1.92 .654 6 14 4 0

8. Leadership is promoted and nurtured among staff. 2.79 .833 1 7 10 5

9. Decision-making takes place through committees and

communication across grade and subject areas. 3.00 .780 1 4 12 6

______________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 1


Standard Frequency


10. Stakeholders assume shared responsibility and

accountability for student learning without evidence

of imposed power and authority. 2.63 .970 3 8 8 5

11. Staff members use multiple sources of data to

make decisions about teaching and learning. 3.46 .509 0 0 13 11

______________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 2


Standard Frequency


12. A collaborative process exists for developing a shared

sense of values among staff. 3.08 .584 0 3 16 5

13. Shared values support norms of behavior that guide

decisions about teaching and learning. 3.12 .201 0 1 19 4

14. Staff members share visions for school improvement

that have an undeviating focus on student learning. 2.96 .751 0 7 11 6

15. Decisions are made in alignment with the school’s

values and vision. 2.75 .989 3 6 9 6

16. A collaborative process exists for developing a

shared vision among staff. 2.92 .717 1 4 15 4

17. School goals focus on student learning beyond test

scores and grades. 3.08 .881 2 2 12 8

18. Policies and programs are aligned to the school’s

vision. 2.71 .908 3 5 12 4

19. Stakeholders are actively involved in creating high

expectations that increase student achievement. 2.12 .992 8 7 7 2

20. Data are used to prioritize actions to reach a shared

vision. 3.13 .741 1 2 14 7

_____________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 3


Standard Frequency


______________________________________________________________________________

21. Staff members work together to seek knowledge, skills

and strategies and apply new learning to their work. 3.29 .550 0 1 15 8

22. Collegial relationships exist among staff members

that reflect commitment to school improvement. 3.21 .509 0 1 17 6

23. Staff members plan and work together to search for

collective learning through open dialogue. 2.96 .624 0 5 15 4

24. A variety of opportunities and structures exist for

collective learning through open dialogue. 3.04 .690 0 5 13 6

25. Staff members engage in dialogue that reflects respect

for diverse ideas that lead to continued inquiry . 3.08 .654 0 4 15 5

26. Professional development focuses on teaching and

learning. 3.33 .637 0 2 12 10

27. School staff members and stakeholders learn together

and apply new knowledge to solve problems. 2.58 .830 3 6 12 12

28. School staff members are committed to programs that

enhance learning. 2.92 .717 0 7 12 5

______________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 3


Standard Frequency


______________________________________________________________________________

29. Staff members collaboratively analyze multiple sources

of data to assess the effectiveness of instructional

.practices. 3.17 .565 0 2 16 6

30. Staff members collaboratively analyze student work

to improve teaching and learning. 2.88 .741 0 8 11 5

______________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 4


Standard Frequency


______________________________________________________________________________

31. Opportunities exist for staff members to observe peers

and offer encouragement. 2.71 .908 3 4 12 4

32. Staff members provide feedback to peers related to

Instructional practices. 2.50 .933 4 7 10 3

33. Staff members informally share ideas and suggestions

for improving student learning. 3.21 .509 0 1 17 6

34. Staff members collaboratively review student work to

share and improve instructional practices. 2.88 .680 0 7 13 4

35. Opportunities exist for coaching and mentoring. 3.04 .624 0 4 15 5

36. Individuals and teams have the opportunity to apply

learning and share the results of their practices. 3.04 .624 0 4 15 4

37. Staff members regularly share student work to guide

overall school improvement. 2.83 .702 0 8 12 4

______________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 5

Supportive Conditions-Relationships

Standard Frequency


______________________________________________________________________________

38. Caring relationships exist among staff and students

that are built on trust and respect. 3.42 .504 0 0 14 10

39. A culture of trust and respect exists for taking risks. 2.92 .717 0 7 12 5

40. Outstanding achievement is recognized and celebrated

regularly in our school. 2.50 .933 5 4 13 2

41. School staff and stakeholders exhibit a sustained and

unified effort to embed change into the school culture. 2.58 .776 2 8 12 2

42. Relationships among staff members support honest

and respectful examination of data to enhance

teaching and learning. 3.00 .780 0 7 10 7

______________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 6


Standard Frequency


______________________________________________________________________________

43. Time is provided to facilitate collaborative work. 2.96 .464 0 3 19 2

44. The school schedule promotes collective learning

and shared practice. 2.96 .550 0 4 17 3

45. Fiscal resources are available for professional

development. 2.83 .816 2 4 14 4

46. Appropriate technology and instructional materials

are available to staff. 3.25 .676 1 0 15 8

47. Resource people provide expertise and support for

continuous learning. 3.25 .897 1 4 7 12

48. The school facility is clean, attractive and inviting. 3.67 .482 0 0 8 16

49. The proximity of grade level and department personnel

allows for ease in collaborating with colleagues. 3.29 .624 0 2 13 9

50. Communication systems promote a flow of

information among staff members. 3.00 .885 0 9 6 9

51. Communication systems promote a flow of

information across the entire school community

including: central office personnel, parents, and

community members. 3.21 .881 3 11 6 3

______________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 6


Standard Frequency


______________________________________________________________________________

52. Data are organized and made available to provide

easy access to staff members. 3.21 .658 0 3 13 8

_____________________________________________________________________________

Bayou High Case Study 1 Assessing Schools as Professional ...

Documents

Transcript of Bayou High Case Study 1 Assessing Schools as Professional ...