I work with so many schools that have worked hard to carve out time for PLCs in their schedule. That’s a great first step. But the more important question is this:
How do you know if PLC time is improving student learning?
I was recently working with a district leadership team that adapted schedules so all teachers had protected time for PLCs every week. They shared that there were clear protocols, assigned roles, and that when they attended meetings, the conversations felt productive. I asked them the question above.
There was a pause and some furrowed brows. Not because they weren’t thoughtful or committed, because they were, but because that question hadn’t been the anchor for how PLCs were designed or supported. PLCs don’t become impactful simply because time is scheduled. They become impactful when leaders are clear about the purpose of that time and support teams in using it well.
PLCs were never meant to be meetings where we only focus on common planning. They were meant to be ongoing processes where we improve instruction based on evidence of student learning. That shift doesn’t happen automatically, which is why instructional leadership is so important. As we had a conversation about PLCs, we looked at the four essential questions that guide PLCs:
- What do we want all students to know and be able to do?
- How will we know if they have learned it?
- How will we respond when some students do not learn?
- How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?
The leaders realized that while these questions were familiar, they weren’t consistently driving what teams did during PLC time. So they made one small adjustment. Instead of starting PLCs with planning, they created a norm that all PLCs started with evidence.
When teams brought student work and common assessment data to the table, the leaders noticed that the conversations changed. They moved away from what teachers planned to teach and toward what students were learning, and more importantly, what barriers were preventing learning. They started asking questions like, “What might this student data tell us about our instruction?”
In one team, a group of teachers noticed that students struggled to explain their thinking about a text’s main idea in writing. In the past, the next step might have been to provide intervention for the students who struggled. Instead, the team asked a different question: “Why did so many students struggle in the first place?” That question shifted the conversation. It led to a deeper look at language demands, the need for more intentional scaffolding and modeling, and the importance of giving students opportunities to practice explaining their thinking in different ways before writing. The focus moved from reteaching content to redesigning the learning experience.
This is also where a UDL lens becomes essential. When leaders support teams in asking not just who didn’t learn yet, but what barriers may have existed, the conversation becomes more productive and more equitable. Instead of defaulting to intervention, teams begin to examine how Tier 1 instruction can be designed to support more learners from the start.
Learn more about how you can shift this process in your own leadership practice by accessing the resource below.
I often think about how much time schools invest in PLCs over the course of a year without seeing a significant return on that investment. The answer isn’t to stop carving out time for PLCs, but to be more intentional about their design and the expectations for how that time is used. When we get that right, PLCs become what they were always meant to be: a space where educators learn from one another, challenge one another, and ultimately improve learning for every student.
