How to Run a Successful PLC
A Community With An Expiration Date
Last fall, I began using standards-based grading (SBG) in my computer science class. A few other teachers at our school had already been using SBG in smaller ways but this was the first instance in which an entire course was graded using this system. By spring, there were three of us fully using SBG in our classes and this fall we have grown to a cohort of about 15 teachers. As a result, I have started to facilitate a professional learning community (PLC) at our school for those of us using SBG and those who may be interested in using it in the future. Overall, this has been a great way for our cohort to support each other as we make this technological, procedural, philosophical, and cultural transition.
PLCs are a hot topic right now in education and like many (most) education initiatives, they have been implemented in a huge variety of ways. In fact, the term PLC has become so loose as to describe virtually any collection of educators. As Richard DuFour notes, “the term has been used so ubiquitously that it is in danger of losing all meaning.” In light of this, here are some essential characteristics of our PLC that I believe are shaping its success and help define what a PLC is and does.
Ad-Hoc
As we rolled out PLCs at our school, the biggest criticism that came from teachers is that it felt like yet-another-responsibility was being put on their already-full plate. In light of this, I think it’s essential that a PLC be born only when there are a specific set of problems for it to solve and/or goals for it to achieve. Which leads us to our overall guiding principle:
A PLC should exist to address actual needs that actual teachers actually have in their actual classrooms RIGHT NOW.
PLCs should make our work better, not bigger. Furthermore, as soon as those solutions have been found/goals have been met, the PLC should dissolve. Our PLC started with exactly two goals:
- Address questions that come up as a result of transitioning from a traditional to a standards-based grading system (both individually and institutionally).
- Research SBG gradebook software and make a recommendation to the administration about which software we should be using in future school years.
Having specific goals has kept the momentum of the group going by giving participants a reason to be there. Plus, since the PLC has an eventual expiration date, participants do not have to feel like they are taking on a permanent professional responsibility. If we meet these two goals and no additional goals have been added through that process (see below), I fully intend to dissolve the group right away.
Flexible and Adaptive
While having specific goals is essential, it is also important that goals of the PLC must be able to grow and change as the needs of the participants grow and change. In working through the goals of the group, additional goals or subgoals can emerge. As our group worked through the transition from traditional to standards-based grading, we realized that finding a sensible way to report quarter grades was a difficult problem that needed a solution. We spent most of the first quarter working through this together.
With that said, the group should also be aware of when new goals fall outside of the scope of the PLC. I have a feeling our group will at some point want to extend our research beyond gradebooks and into full-fledged learning management systems that support SBG. At that point, I think we will have to ask ourselves if that research is truly a project for our group, or for a new PLC focusing specifically on learning management systems.
100% Voluntary, No Prerequisites
No mandatory meetings. Ever. Stemming from the first principle that the group must only exist to meet actual needs, participants must also be able to jump ship when they no longer have needs to be met. Similarly, new participants should be able to join as soon as they discover a need that the PLC can help solve.
Short & Collaborative Agendas
Our PLC is not run like a classroom with an overarching curriculum and planned activities, since this model does not allow for the flexibility to meet needs in a just-in-time fashion. Rather, every meeting must be responsive to the current needs of the group.
We typically reserve an hour for our PLC meetings. I try to put only 20 minutes of items on the agenda beforehand, which are always a combination of topics from the last meeting that we pushed off for the future and time to work toward our overall goals. I share this agenda with all participants beforehand and encourage them to add, delete, and change anything and everything about it. Also, the very first thing we do at each meeting is collaboratively edit the agenda based on the present needs of the group.
Non-Hierarchical
As the facilitator of the group, I believe that my role is to keep us on track toward meeting our goals and to call a meeting together when we have needs to address. Still, an essential guiding principle of our group is that anyone can call a meeting at any time. There is no reason to wait for a designated meeting time to roll around if needs emerge that should be addressed sooner rather than later.
Furthermore, participants should be able to form mini working groups at will. Our 9th grade teachers have particular needs to address around SBG that the rest of us do not (e.g., reporting interims grades for all students). They can and do meet separately at times to work through those problems.
Self Aware
Finally, and directly related to our overall guiding principle, the group must constantly reflect on its effectiveness and usefulness. When needs are not being met, change the structure, and when needs no longer exist, no more PLC!
