The Three Biggest Reasons PLCs Matter

We’ve all heard the cliche. There’s no “I” in team. Teamwork makes the dream work. Together, we are better. These expressions are so overplayed that one would think that by now, we understand their importance. For years, the most functional schools have prioritized PLC (professional learning community) planning structures, emphasized the importance of alignment, and celebrated collaborative successes. However, much as one might wish to assume that everyone is on the same page when it comes to the importance of working together in a way that serves students, that is not always the case. 

Recently, I spoke with a school leader who had an unusual point of view about how instruction and assessment should be designed when more than one teacher is assigned to instruct a specific subject. This conversation came about when a concern came to light that students in one building who were all taking the same class (in this case, biology) had different final exams. How, the individuals who questioned this practice asked, could this possibly be fair? What if one test were far more difficult than another? What if students had learned completely different things, despite being enrolled in the same course?

Unfortunately, the school leader addressed the concern in a way that left much to be desired by expressing the view that because teachers have different styles, students would be ill-served if all of them received the same assessment at the end of the year. While perhaps well-intentioned, this response was not only backward; it also normalized a system of teaching and learning that is far more damaging to students. For all the challenges and struggles that collaborative planning can present, there are reasons it matters so deeply.

Student success should not be determined by teacher preference, capacity, and/or style.

Imagine a sixth-grade student who is enrolled in English like every other kid in her grade, but when she talks to friends in other classes about what they’re reading and writing, their experiences are incredibly different. It’s not just the materials they are given, like text selections that seem a lot more fun to read. More upsetting is the fact that while this student has a big assignment due every week or two, her peers are barely doing anything at all.

From this student’s perspective, there is probably a lot of jealousy at what is perceived at being enrolled in a class that seems harder and more arduous. From a more expert perspective, there are widespread concerns for all students in this situation, including those who have a more lenient teacher. In their seemingly easier class, they might not be writing enough or reading books that are aligned to their appropriate grade level. Therefore, it’s entirely possible that both groups are being given the short end of the stick, just in different ways. 

When collaborative PLC structures don’t exist, teachers cannot plan their courses in a way that serves all students. The implications of this dysfunctionality extend far beyond just one class, potentially undermining progress and growth for everyone involved. However, when teachers have the same curriculum goals and learning outcomes at the forefront of their planning, student success is not based on the arbitrary luck of the draw based on teacher capacity.

The focus of instruction remains clearly on standards-based learning outcomes.

Teaching might feel highly intuitive, but relying too much on gut instinct only acts a disservice to students. Certain as we might be that students either know something or that they’re struggling with it, any identified learning goals could go down the wrong path without the data to back up assumptions. To compound the problem, providing instruction that is based on hunches rather than a clearly delineated progression of course standards usually puts students in the wrong place.

To design instruction appropriately, PLCs should begin weekly planning with a specific standard of focus. Ideally, the selected standard is not just aligned to the correct grade level; it is also clear through performance data (student work or formative assessment) that students are struggling with associated skills and need some support. When teachers work on approaching learning in a more surgical, precise way by collaborating to determine where to go next, the rewards are numerous. Students do not perceive large differences from class to class, certainly, but more importantly, they all make progress in a more visible, appropriate way. 

Targets for success are visible to students.

While it’s important for teachers to have a data-driven understanding of what students need to know and be able to do, students also need that clarity. I recently spoke to a student who told me, “We write the exact same essays, year after year, about the same things. I don’t think I’ve learned anything in years.” Whether or not that perception was correct, the damage that accrues when students lack a solid understanding of what they’re doing (and why they’re doing it) has far-reaching implications. Furthermore, when students see success or failure as random because they have no idea what is expected of them, they lose the motivation to do their best; class seems like a rigged game. However, when teachers hold one another accountable to setting clear learning objectives in PLCs and communicate learning targets clearly to students, kids are far less likely to feel a sense of disenfranchisement. 

Ideally, educators should see the benefits of working collaboratively and buy into PLC structures wholeheartedly, rather than having a lack of cohesion be something that is brought to anyone’s attention after cracks in how instruction and assessment are delivered at any given school from teacher to teacher begin to appear. Cheesy cliches about being better together aside, the quality of teaching and learning experiences a downward slide when there are no checks and balances. Even the most brilliant teacher in the world needs to hear other voices and appreciate fresh perspectives. That way, after skillful teachers gather in spaces to achieve ideal outcomes for their students, they can go forth into classrooms and give kids exactly what they need.

Written by Miriam Plotinsky, Education World Contributing Writer

Miriam Plotinsky is an instructional specialist with Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, where she has taught and led for more than 20 years. She is the author of Teach More, Hover Less and Lead Like a Teacher. She is also a National Board-Certified Teacher with additional certification in administration and supervision. She can be reached at www.miriamplotinsky.com or via Twitter: @MirPloMCPS

Copyright© 2023 Education World