the Effect of Professional Learning Communities on Student Achievement

At FrancisHowellCentralHigh School

by

A project submitted to the Education Faculty of the LindenwoodUniversity

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Education Specialist

Education Division

Table of Contents

Chapter I - Introduction1

Background1

Purpose4

Rationale4

Independent Variable5

Dependent Variable6

Hypothesis6

Limitations of the Study6

Definition of Terms7

Summary9

Chapter II - Review of Literature10

Introduction10

Theory12

Research17

Summary24

Chapter III - Method25

Overview25

Subjects25

Sampling Procedures30

External Validity31

Table of Contents

(Continued)

Research Design31

Instrument32

Procedure34

Summary37

Chapter IV - Results39

Introduction39

Results39

Analysis of Data48

Deductive Conclusions51

Summary52

Chapter V – Discussion57

Introduction57

Implication for Effective Schools57

Recommendations57

Summary57

Introduction

Background

Since the 1983 National Commission on Excellence in Education’s report titled A Nation at Risk, accountability has become a key word in public education. As a result of measurements of student achievement such as those found in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) legislation, school leaders have aggressively pursued school improvement initiatives that promise greater results in student achievement. The offerings available across the past twenty years have been prolific. However, the results from these “movements” have been poor (Joyce, 2004)

The Professional Learning Communities (PLC) model of school improvement has been offered as a common-sense, grass-roots, hands-on way to improve schools (DuFour, 2004). In their book Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement, DuFour and Eaker write “If schools are to be significantly more effective, they must break from the industrial model upon which they were created and embrace a new model that enables them to function as learning organizations” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).

DuFour and Eaker describe Professional Learning Communities as having Four Pillars and answering Three Questions, all of which are critical to the PLC model for school improvement.

The Four Pillars are mission, vision, values, and goals, and can be briefly described as below.

  • Mission-answers the question “why do we exist?”
  • Vision-answers the question “what do we want to become?”
  • Values-answers the question “how must we behave in order to make our shared vision a reality?”
  • Goals-answers the question “which step will be take first, and when?”

DuFour and Eaker explain “Each of these building blocks takes its shape and form from the answer to a specific question addressed to the people in the school. If these people all take the time to consider the questions, engage in deep discourse about them, and reach consensus on how the questions are to be answered, the foundation of a learning community will have been established. Much work will remain, but the reconstruction work will have the benefit of a solid foundation” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998).

The Three Questions that guide Professional Learning Communities are:

  • What do we want students to know and be able to do?
  • How do we know if students know and are able to do it?
  • What do we do if they do not know it or are not able to do it?

Answering these questions leads small groups of teachers to examine curriculum, assessment, and best practices. In the PLC model, this process should lead to high student achievement.

Collective inquiry, collaborative teams of teachers, action orientation and experimentation, and continuous improvement are also all hallmarks of a school that is using the Professional Learning Communities model for school improvement (Dufour, Eaker, and Dufour, 2005).

Collective inquiry could be described as groups of teachers working together to ask the right questions and working to answer those questions. For example Chemistry teachers might give a common formative (or unit) test and compare the results. If one teacher had excellent results on a particular part of that test, and others did not, the group would inquire of the “successful” teacher regarding his pedagogy.

In PLC’s, teachers are required to collaborate on a regular basis. The ideal is for this collaboration to occur during the contracted day. The purpose of collaboration is for the team of teachers to answer the Three Questions.

“Action orientation” involves just what these words imply—action! Groups of teachers are required to “take action” to improve the academic achievement of their students by answering the Three Questions. This action involves inquiring, revising, collaborating, testing hypotheses, looking for answers, etc.

The goal of PLC’s is continuous academic improvement. Much research and anecdotal information is quoted, by proponents of PLC’s, that supports their assertions that PLC’s result in this desired improvement. An example of this information is that quoted by Mike Schmoker inResults: The Key to Continuous School Improvement Fieldbook(Schmoker, 1999). The “model” school for the incorporation of PLC’s into a school that showed a dramatic academic turn-around, including National Blue Ribbon School status, is AdaliStevensonHigh School in Lincolnshire, Illinois. Dr. Richard DuFour was the principal of Stevenson for over twenty years, and led the school in this approach to school improvement. Today, Dr. DuFour is the foremost authority on the PLC model for academic improvement, and is championing the cause, along with his co-authors on a number of books and publications, his wife, Rebecca DuFour, and Dr. Robert Eaker.

This model began to be incorporated at FrancisHowellCentralHigh School, and in the school district at large, during the 2003-2004 school year. During that first year, an attempt was made to establish mission, vision, values, and goals at FrancisHowellCentralHigh School. This signaled the beginning of the implementation of PLC’s.

The implementation of the PLC model for school improvement continued to be refined and made a part of the culture of Francis Howell Central High School during the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year, during the entirety of the 2004-2005 school year, and during the current (2005-2006) school year.

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to study the effects of the Professional Learning Communities model for school improvement on students’ academic achievement at FrancisHowellCentralHigh School. Improvement was measured by Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) scores and ACT scores.

Rationale

Schools in Missouri, and across the country, have come under increasingly more scrutiny and have been subject to greater accountability in recent years. Examples of this include the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) and the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. The major factor that is considered in determining school success under both of these programs is student academic achievement on standard measurements of achievement such as Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) scores and ACT results.

While school improvement efforts have existed for years, MSIP and NCLB have caused school officials to look closer than ever before at how to improve student academic achievement. The impetus for this interest in increased academic achievement is closer scrutiny by the public, due to the annual posting of academic achievement data in local newspapers, and the consequences spelled out in MSIP and NCLB for schools that are not meeting academic standards.

For these reasons, and others that are less practical and more moral and ethical in nature, it was essential for students at FrancisHowellCentralHigh School to continue to show gains in academic achievement. Realizing that improved academic achievement would likely not occur without a change in the elements contributing to this achievement (curriculum, pedagogy, school schedule, etc.) the leadership of FrancisHowellCentralHigh School realized that change was essential.

In 2002, Francis Howell Central’s leadership began to look at educational research in an effort to determine what changes in the school would be likely to produce the desired results. The examined research seemed to point to PLC’s as a viable model to attain improved academic achievement. The PLC model began to be implemented in the 2003-2004 school year, and this research was needed to determine whether the implementation of the model at FrancisHowellCentralHigh School is resulting in improved academic achievement for students.

Independent Variable

The independent variable in this study was the use of the Professional Learning Communities model of school improvement. This model includes, as discussed earlier, Four Pillars and Three Questions. This model also incorporates:

  • Collective Inquiry
  • Collaborative Teams of Teachers
  • Action Orientation and Experimentation
  • Continuous Improvement

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study was student academic achievement, as measured by MAP and ACT scores. MAP scores for 2003 were compared with MAP scores for 2005, and ACT scores for the Class of 2003 were compared with ACT scores for the Class of 2005.

Hypothesis

If the elements of the PLC model for school improvement are implemented at FrancisHowellCentralHigh School, student academic achievement, as measured by MAP and ACT scores, will improve.

Limitations of the Study

Subject Threat. The MAP test is taken by 10th graders in the areas of Math and Science, and by 11th graders in the areas of Social Studies and Communication Arts. Therefore, the scores that were examined were not for the same group of students. Likewise, the ACT scores for the Class of 2003 and the Class of 2005 were for different groups of students.

Testing Threat. A testing threat, relating to the MAP test, may exist in this study. Teachers, from year to year, have become more accustomed to the types of questions that are asked on the MAP test. Teachers, therefore, have helped to prepare students for the test by exposing them to the types of items that will be found on the MAP test.

Attitude of Subjects. Since its inception, one of the drawbacks of the MAP test has been that there are few motivators for students to perform at their best on the test. As a result, the staff of FrancisHowellCentralHigh School has attempted to incorporate incentives into the MAP testing process that would result in motivating students to do their best. These incentives have varied from year to year, and may have had an effect in test results for 2003 versus test results for 2005.

Definition of Terms

Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s). This is a school improvement model, developed primarily by Rick DuFour. In this model, school personnel attempt to answer the three questions:

  • What do we want students to know and be able to do?
  • How do we know if students know and are able to do it?
  • What do we do if they do not know it or are not able to do it?

By answering these three questions, in small collaborative teams, teachers can concentrate both on what students need to succeed, and what teaching strategies work best to that end.

Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Test. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), describes the MAP test as follows, while also giving some history about the test:

“During the spring of 1997, Missouri began implementing a performance-based assessment system for use by all public schools in the state, as required by the Outstanding Schools Act of 1993. The assessment system, known as MAP (Missouri Assessment Program), is designed to measure student progress in meeting the Show-Me Standards. The 73 Show-Me Standards, created by Missouri educators and adopted by the State Board of Education in 1996, describe what graduates of the state's public schools must know and do(Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2006).”

In the FrancisHowellSchool District the MAP is given at the high school level in grades 10 and 11. Math and Science are tested in the 10th grade, and Communication Arts and Social Studies are tested in the 11th grade. At this point, due to budget constraints at DESE, only the Math and Communication Arts tests are mandatory at the high school level.

ACT Test. The ACT, as referred to in this study, is a college placement test that predicts a high school student’s success in college. The independent, not-for-profit organization known as “ACT” was formerly known as the American College Testing Program, Inc. The name was shortened to “ACT” in 1996.

MissouriSchool Improvement Program (MSIP). “A program of comprehensive assessments of school districts' educational resources, instructional processes and educational outcomes designed to stimulate and encourage improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction, and provides information which will enable the State Board of Education to accredit and classify the districts as required by state law.” (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2006).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). “…the historic, bipartisan education reform effort that President Bush proposed his first week in office and that Congress passed into law on January 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) -- the main federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. NCLB is built on four principles: accountability for results, more choices for parents, greater local control and flexibility, and an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research” (United States Department of Education, 2001).

Summary

Schools must continue to show academic improvement, and have come under closer scrutiny in recent years, at the local, state, and national levels, to do so. As a result, schools are looking for new ways to accomplish this goal.

At FrancisHowellCentralHigh School, the Professional Learning Communities model for school improvement was introduced during the 2003-2004 school year. This research studied the effects of this model for school improvement on students’ academic achievement as measured by Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) scores and ACT scores for 2003 (before implementation of the model) and 2005 (after the model had been implement for two school years).

Review of Literature

Introduction

Dr. Seuss’ 1965 children’s book titled I Had Trouble in Getting To Solla Sollew (Geisel, 1965) tells the story of one of Seuss’ classic creatures (who is unnamed) and the adversity that he faces in getting to the mythical City of Solla Sollew. In Solla Sollew, the fellow learned, there were never any troubles, or “at least very few.” But this paradise eludes the character, because he has trouble in getting there, and he returns home, where his troubles had begun. Upon returning, he says, “But I’ve bought a big bat. I’m all ready, you see. Now my troubles are going to have trouble with me!”

A high level of academic achievement has been something that, across the years, has eluded educational institutions, according to such reports as the 1983 work A Nation at Risk, which concluded that “the educational foundations of American society werebeing eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Researchers such as Coleman (1966) and Jencks (1972) have gone as far as to say that schools don’t make a difference—that a student’s background and the social context in which he is raised is simply too much to overcome.

Schools, like Dr. Seuss’ mythical character, have certainly had “troubles.” Many programs have promised a “Solla Sollew,” or educational paradise—a place without (academic) troubles. Programs offered over the years have included Site Based Management, Team Teaching, and the Middle School Model, to name a few. But, as educational leaders, using some of these approaches and others, “We Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew.”

Now, however, many school leaders believe that they have found a solution to their “troubles”—so much so that they might say, “But I’ve found a big bat. I’ve discovered PLC. Now my troubles are going to have trouble with me.”

The book On Common Ground, edited by Professional Learning Communities “gurus” Richard DuFour, Robert Eaker, and Rebecca DuFour, is a collection of works by authors who tell about the successes of PLC’s, and why they believe that PLC’s work. Contributors to this work include such notable figures, from the field of education, as Larry Lezotte, Robert Marzano, Michael Fullan, Mike Schmoker, and Rick Stiggins, to name a few (DuFour, et. al., 2005).

The Professional Learning Communities model for academic improvement can be thought of as a relatively new set of ideas. Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker wrote their groundbreaking book Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement in 1998 (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). However, as Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker point out in On Common Ground, “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of schools that have used the themes we outline in this chapter to help their students achieve at higher levels…the evidence of such schools is now so pervasive that no fair-minded person could refute what Edmonds and Larry Lezotte asserted almost 40 years ago: the practices of educators—what we do in our schools—can have a positive impact on student learning” (DuFour, et. al., 2005). There is some evidence, then, that indicates that Professional Learning Communities are not new at all, but have roots that are forty years deep.

This chapter will review the theory behind why Professional Learning Communities should positively affect student academic achievement, and the research that both supports and refutes this theory.

Theory

DuFour and Eaker describe Professional Learning Communities as having Four Pillars and answering Three Questions, all of which are critical to the PLC model for school improvement.

The Four Pillars are mission, vision, values, and goals, and can be briefly described as below.