ERIC EJ915859: Professional Learning Communities in Partnership: A 3-Year Journey of Action and Advocacy to Bridge the Achievement Gap

2009·0.09 MB·English

by  ERIC

09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:03 PM Page 28
Professional Learning Communities in
Partnership: A 3-Year Journey of Action and
Advocacy to Bridge the Achievement Gap
Patricia Hoffman
Anne Dahlman
Ginger Zierdt
Minnesota State University, Mankato
ABSTRACT: This article details a strategic planning model and concurrent 3-year research study
focusing on the benefits of preK–16 professional development school learning communities for
the participating preK–16 educational leaders in a midwestern school–university partnership
network. Results of the study, along with the strategic plan’s success at achieving identified
outcomes on a fixed timeline, indicate that participating educational leaders developed deeper
understanding of issues relating to early-childhood school readiness, English-language learn-
ers, and family–school–community partnerships; they transformed educational practices; they
built leadership capacity within individual organizations to facilitate change; and they devel-
oped and implemented action plans for advocacy.
No Child Left Behind legislation has identified Professional development school (PDS)
an achievement gap for students placed at risk. partnerships between school districts and uni-
School districts that do not make adequate versities have the potential for ongoing staff
yearly progress must develop improvement development that bridges theory and practice
plans that include staff development training. (National Council for Accreditation of
Administrators often attempt to implement Teacher Education, 2001). Carefully deter-
change by inviting knowledgeable practition- mining mutually meaningful, relevant, and es-
ers and researchers to make presentations to sential joint work to serve children, families,
district staff on best-practices instruction. and communities is at the core of PDS part-
However, research has shown that in-service nerships. When stakeholders share a vision,
staff development in the form of one-shot pre- they eagerly embrace responsibility for action.
sentations does little to generate lasting insti- This vital interplay between mutual coopera-
tutional changes. Many believe that tion and responsibility uniquely characterizes
the midwestern PDS partnership that is the
if there is anything that the research com-
subject of this research.
munity agrees on, it is this: The right kind
The purpose of this article is to describe
of continuous, structured teacher collabo-
how a professional learning community (PLC)
ration improves the quality of teaching
model was developed within the plan of this
and pays big, often immediate, dividends
in student learning and professional PDS partnership, how networking and rela-
morale in virtually any setting. (Eaker, tionships evolved over time, and how action
DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. xii) plans resulted from 3 years of implementing
28 School–University Partnerships Vol. 3, No. 1
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:03 PM Page 29
Professional Learning Communities in Partnership 29
the PLC model. Finally, as the PDS relation- meet online. The key elements are commit-
ships and connections deepened, a transfor- ment and engagement.
mation occurred whereby systemic educa- PreK–16 leadership matters in the creation
tional reform became the focus for leadership and long-term maintenance of PLCs. Further-
and staff development training in several part- more, the quality of teaching, learning, and re-
ner districts. lationships that stem from involvement in PLCs
hinges on the quality of leadership (Dietz,
Green, Piper, & Williams, 2001). With the
Review of the Literature
ever-increasing demands placed on schools,
teachers can become lost in the action of daily
PLCs: Developing a Shared Vision teaching routines and so feel powerless to effect
for Continual Improvement systemic change. Educators will be equipped to
meet these increasing demands only through
The review of literature for this study ad- strong leadership that supports a vision of indi-
dresses three themes: PLCs, developing a vidual professional development for teachers
shared vision for change, and planning for and works for systemic improvements in the
continual improvement. To better understand school organization. The commitment to the
the concepts, it is important to know that systematic ongoing staff development that PLCs
provide is one way to inform and empower edu-
the PLC conceptual framework includes cators to collaborate for enduring change.
(1) a solid foundation consisting of collab-
Although individuals may personally ben-
oratively developed and widely shared
efit from participation in a PLC because of the
mission, vision, values, and goals, (2) col-
complex, multilayered variables that exist in
laborative teams that work interdepend-
schools, real change at a building level will not
ently to achieve common goals, and (3) a
occur without the involvement of key person-
focus on results as evidenced by a commit-
nel representing the various stakeholder
ment to continuous improvement. (Eaker,
DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 3) groups (Sparks, 2005). There must be a broad
vision for change, and it must include key
However, in-depth PLC collaborations among leaders, as well as a grassroots understanding of
preK–16 educators in multiple districts are the multiple diverse factors that exert influ-
rare, particularly when it is for an extended pe- ence on any given classroom—such an under-
riod. Rarer still are policy changes and advo- standing that can be provided only by class-
cacy resulting from these collaborations. A re- room teachers. Profound change in leaders
view of the literature concerning PLCs results from, and is revealed through, deeper
revealed no studies that included multiple dis-
trict collaborations; rather, most PLCs occur understanding of complex issues related to
in a school or a district. professional learning communities, beliefs
that are aligned with quality teaching and
The PLC model has as its core the assump-
high levels of learning for all students, and
tion that the mission of formal education is not
“next action thinking” that moves learn-
simply to ensure that students are taught, but to
ing into action and sustains the momen-
ensure that they learn (DuFour, 2005). PLCs
tum of change over time. (p. 10)
can be structured in various ways. In general, a
group determines a time, location, duration, According to Lucas (2000), the National As-
and focus for its PLC meetings. Participants are sociation of Secondary School Principals ad-
asked to commit to regular attendance, reading, vocates that principals foster the following
and preparation before each meeting. Partici- practices within their school communities:
pants must be willing to engage in and con-
tribute to discussions. Leadership is often • encourage and support teachers and
shared, although it can be delegated. PLCs are others to learn about students and their
usually face-to-face interactions, although some communities
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:03 PM Page 30
30 PATRICIA HOFFMAN ET AL.
• cultivate caring, engaged relationships powerful means to understand and address is-
with students and their families sues associated with ongoing, sustainable, and
• provide information about the educa- effective school improvement.
tional system and the larger U.S. society
• build collaborative relationships with
PLCs: A Process for PreK–16
agencies and institutions that serve the
students and their communities Continual Improvement via
• support professional development to Strategic Planning
build knowledge, skills, and disposi-
tions for teaching ELLs, and According to Dietz and colleagues (2001),
• facilitate and participate in collaboration members of an effective PLC must first clarify
to bring about educational change. (p. 4) the purpose for their efforts (“What do we
want? and “What do we hope to accom-
When university and preK–12 faculty wres-
plish?”). Second, they need to identify an en-
tle together with these complex issues, faculty
try point for the learning and change efforts.
can better tap into the school districts’ perspec-
Third, they need to consider the organization’s
tives and bring real-world issues of achievement
culture and commitment to learning, as well as
to the forefront of their instruction—all of
its readiness level for change, to determine
which results in better preparation of teacher
what skills will need to be developed to
candidates. To meld these calls to action on the
achieve their purposes. Through the process of
part of preK–16 educators, skillful PLC facilita-
defining purpose, entry point, and readiness, a
tion is required. According to Sparks (2005),
PLC can establish its focus for facilitating a
change effort, which leads to the next two
well-implemented PLCs are a powerful
steps—namely, building a plan and designing
means of seamlessly blending teaching
the process for how to implement the plan. Fi-
and professional learning in ways that pro-
nally, after beginning implementation and in
duce complex, intelligent behavior in all
the spirit of continual improvement, the PLC
teachers. Teachers create knowledge
must establish opportunities for feedback and
about teaching and learning, communi-
cate it to one another, organize it within adaptation. In this midwestern PDS, a needs
themselves and for others to make it more assessment was conducted as part of the over-
meaningful and accessible, and act on all strategic plan. It was this assessment that
that knowledge for the purpose of improv- helped determine that PLCs should be imple-
ing student learning. (pp. 9–10) mented. The strategic plan also called for a
continual feedback loop to be incorporated
In PLCs where participants operate from
into the structure of the PLCs.
different educational realities, each educator
In the following section, we report on the
has a different role to play. According to Ellert-
process of initiating five PLCs, the ongoing
son’s (2006) research, midcareer university fac-
professional development that resulted, the
ulty are often interested in finding new and
participants’ reactions, and the actions that
creative outlets, networking and collaborating,
occurred in response to participants’ increas-
developing solutions to institutional problems,
ing understanding and awareness of complex
engaging in interdisciplinary work, and more
educational issues.
deeply engaging in teaching and mentoring
students. They may also provide information
on current best practices. PreK–12 faculty Quality Matters in Collaboration:
bring classroom experience and the current re-
The Midwestern PDS-Based
alities of teaching. Community partners bring
PLC Project
experience from the world of work. As such,
this community-based focus provides multiple
lenses for viewing school reform. Therefore, in The midwestern university that is the subject
teacher education, a preK–16 PLC can be a of this article established PDS partnerships
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:03 PM Page 31
Professional Learning Communities in Partnership 31
with seven area school districts in 2001. This 1st-year teachers and concurrently
PDS is atypical of most partnerships in that it participate in a Fellows Learning
comprises a focal university and seven partner Community, as facilitated by the direc-
districts. This partnership features ongoing tor of the CSUP. This relationship al-
clinical placements with partner districts at lows the teacher on special assignment
all stages of the teacher candidates’ educa- to be released from teaching duties.
tional path, and it includes the following
stakeholders: The effort to sustain such a far-reaching
PDS partnership organization initially taxed
PDS Governance Council: a leadership the entire system. However, in the fall of
team composed of authorized decision 2004, as it became clear that there were sig-
makers—superintendents from each nificant areas of common concern, the uni-
district, the dean of the College of Ed- versity and partner districts focused on how to
ucation, and the director of the Cen- collaborate to address a continual improve-
ter for School–University Partner- ment plan, subsequently making a resolution
ships (CSUP). This council allocates to “serve the whole learner to bridge the
resources (such as release time and achievement gap” (as written in internal doc-
funding), brings forth common dis- uments). During the 2004–2005 academic
trict and university concerns (particu- year, the PDS Governance Council met with
larly in regard to staff development), other district and university leaders to iden-
and charts the course of the PDS part- tify key issues that would present significant
nership based on priorities identified challenges to the PDS partners over the next
by each unit (school district or univer- decade. They identified the three most impor-
sity). tant challenges as
Teachers on special assignment:teachers who
are released from regular classroom • early-childhood school readiness,
teaching duties and work half-time for • English-language learners (ELLs), and
the university, serving as district-level • family–school–community partnerships.
clinical placement coordinators and
student teacher supervisors, leaders of The council and the leaders determined
district-level mentoring and induction that systemic improvement would occur only
programs for new teachers, PDS com- if staff development for leaders, as focused on
munications liaisons, and expediters these areas of concern, happened before they
for curriculum and leadership initia- brought forth any initiatives to member dis-
tives for their home district. Teachers tricts. A 3-year strategic plan was developed to
on special assignment form a core guide the partnership. As part of the plan, five
cadre of engaged leaders who act as PLCs were formed with the intention of shar-
communication links between their ing resources and expertise. Participants were
home district and the university. They invited and so included PDS leaders who were
meet regularly with the director of the university faculty from the College of Educa-
CSUP to facilitate communication, tion, preK–12 administrators and teachers,
brainstorm ideas, and help implement and several key community members. Faculty
overall planning for the partnership. members from two other nearby private col-
Teaching fellows: teachers working in the leges were also invited to participate in the
school districts as graduate assistants. PLCs. The PLCs met once every 3 weeks for 3
Fellows are fully licensed teachers who years while the university was in session. As
continue their education in graduate- members of a PLC, educators engaged in dis-
level course work at the university and cussion of professional readings, viewed web-
who are mentored by teachers on spe- based conferences, spoke with regional ex-
cial assignment. Fellows are considered perts, shared resources and local expertise, and
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:03 PM Page 32
32 PATRICIA HOFFMAN ET AL.
networked with one another regarding impor- to their own learning and sense of efficacy, (2)
tant issues in education. to determine what direct actions and advocacy
could be attributed to membership in the
PLCs, and (3) to determine what changes
Organization of the PLCs
would make these PLCs more effective. The
As part of her job as director for the CSUP, following questions guided the research:
one of the authors was responsible for the
overall organization of the PLCs. This in- • What were the most important benefits
cluded facilitating the meeting where the that members ascribed to participation
strategic priorities were identified, developing in a PLC?
the PLC model, building understanding of the • What concrete actions occurred as a re-
PLCs’ form and function, and arranging all de- sult of members’ participation in a PLC?
tails in the preparation for each PLC. • What would members change about
As described in the review of the literature, the PLC?
the director utilized a process generated by Di-
etz and colleagues (2001) to develop the PLC
model. This process included defining purpose, Research Methodology
entry point, and readiness, which helped to es-
tablish a focus for facilitating change and We were participant observers in the PLCs, al-
which led to the next steps—building a plan though we each played a different role. The
for the PLCs, designing how they would be im- first author participated in the ELL learning
plemented, and establishing opportunities for community from its inception; the second au-
feedback and continual improvement (p. 2). thor participated in the ELL learning commu-
The director also utilized Thomas Guskey’s nity for 1 year; and the third author was the
(2005) five levels of professional development CSUP director, who coordinated the learning
evaluation in a continual feedback loop that communities. To reduce bias, she did not par-
noted participants’ reactions and their new un- ticipate in the data analysis but provided es-
derstanding, learning, and use of skills; in re- sential background information about the
sponse, she fine-tuned organizational support PLCs.
and made any necessary changes:
Participants
The five levels in this model are arranged
hierarchically from simple to more com-
In total, 57 persons attended the PLC meet-
plex. With each succeeding level, the
ings. The CSUP director attended all PLCs.
process of gathering evaluation informa-
Forty-nine participants were women and eight
tion requires more time and resources. Be-
were men. PLC members included administra-
cause each level builds on the preceding
tors and teachers from all seven PDS partner
level, success at one level is necessary to
districts, as well as faculty from four depart-
succeed at higher levels. (p. 13)
ments in the College of Education at the pub-
The director also followed Guskey’s recom- lic university and three faculty members from
mendation that “educators must plan back- the English department who taught course
ward, starting with the final goals and then work dealing with ELLs. In several PLCs, com-
working back” (p. 17). munity members, as well as faculty members
from a nearby private college, also partici-
pated. This diverse group of educators formed
Research Questions
five learning communities. Two focused on
Because PLCs had not been implemented at early-childhood education; they were the most
the university or in most of the partner dis- homogeneous and they later merged into one
tricts, it was important (1) to assess the beliefs group. Two focused on ELLs; they were the
of the participants about how they contributed most diverse PLCs and they later merged into
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:04 PM Page 33
Professional Learning Communities in Partnership 33
Table 1. Participants in the Professional Learning Communities (n)
English-Language Early-Childhood Family–School–Community
Institution Learninga Learninga Partnership Total
District A 3 2 2 7
District B 3 0 5 8
District C 1 0 0 1
District D 2 1 2 5
District E 2 0 0 2
District F 1 0 1 2
District G 1 0 0 1
Other participants 1 0 3 4
College of Education:
Public institution 6 9 3 18
College of Education:
Private institution 3 3 0 6
University, other 2 0 0 2
Total 25 15 16 56b
aStarted as two groups, then merged into one.
bThis total does not include the director of the Center for School–University Partnerships, who attended all professional learning community
meetings.
one group. One PLC focused on family– dividual interview with the CSUP director.
school–community partnerships; it had the During the focus groups, follow-up questions to
largest percentage of administrators and the surveys were asked (see appendix). These
higher education faculty. Table 1 shows the focus groups were tape-recorded and tran-
demographics for the PLCs. scribed. The transcripts were then coded with
an open-coding methodology using NVivo soft-
ware, which resulted in the following broad
Data Collection
themes being identified: overall satisfaction and
During the 3-year period that the PLCs met, benefits, key factors for effectiveness, organiza-
activities and impressions were recorded tion, group forming and norming, personal
through field notes, which consisted of self- growth and benefits, participation, leadership,
reflections of PLC activities, feedback and follow-up, actions/results, and suggestions for
comments from participants, and notes from change.
meetings. Data analysis also included docu-
ments generated by the PLC participants, such Data Sources: Participants in the
as reports, action plans, meeting materials, and
Survey and Focus Groups
memos. Further examination and analysis
were undertaken of several districts’ action An online survey was sent to all of the PLC
plans, staff development minutes, and reports, members, with a response rate of 39%. In to-
to corroborate the claims of the surveys re- tal, 22 participants completed surveys. Al-
garding the effectiveness and impact of the though the response rate was low, it did repre-
learning communities. sent a cross-section of participants from each
At the conclusion of the 3-year commit- unit as well as from each PLC study group.
ment to the PLCs, further data were gathered, Further triangulation confirmed most of the
both quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative results from the surveys—namely, through
data included a self-report via an anonymous three representative focus groups and through
online survey developed by the researchers and a review of documents, including meeting
sent to all participants. Qualitative data in- minutes and action plans. Nine persons (seven
cluded three focus groups that occurred after women and two men) participated in focus
the PLCs had finished meeting, as well as an in- groups, which were held at various locations,
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:04 PM Page 34
34 PATRICIA HOFFMAN ET AL.
Table 2. Responses to Surveys and Focus Group Participation (n)
Participants Survey Focus
K–12
Teachers 6 2
Administrators 3 3
Others 3 2
Higher education faculty 6 2
Early-childhood (community members) 4 0
Participated in community
Early-childhood learning 9 3
English-language learning 8 3
Family–school–community learning 5 3
for the convenience of the participants. The to add to the discussion. Their comments were
director for the CSUP was interviewed indi- more likely to be generated as questions. Sev-
vidually. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the eral university faculty who participated in the
survey responses and focus groups. ELL community, which had the greatest dis-
crepancy in background knowledge among the
membership, reported that they held back
Participation
comments because they wanted all participants
According to the survey data, participation to develop ownership for their learning rather
varied in each learning community. Participa- than look to the faculty as the resident experts.
tion in the PLCs is rated in Table 3. All groups However, K–12 educators in the family–
are combined. About half the participants had school–community partnership PLC reported
a high level of commitment, which did not that higher education faculty tended to domi-
significantly vary by unit or job description. nate the discussions. In the early-childhood
However, participation did fluctuate because PLC, participation focus group data confirmed
many participants were in leadership positions that participation was more balanced.
or had teaching schedules that varied by se- Table 5 identifies the questions asked in
mester. Members received readings at each the survey, along with overall combined re-
meeting, and if they were not present, they sults (reported in percentages). Results indi-
were sent the information by mail. Members cate positive views of the PLCs. All the partic-
who had lower levels of participation generally ipants responding to the survey reported that
expressed regret at not being able to attend they agreed or strongly agreed that their voices
more meetings and reiterated the importance were heard in the PLC. More than 95% re-
of the PLCs. ported that the PLC was a place that helped
Participants were also asked to rate their them develop new knowledge and skills, es-
level of participation. Data from all groups tablish or strengthen professional networks,
were combined. Focus group comments indi- and plan a course of action, whereas more
cated that some who were generally accus- than 94% believed that the PLC would have a
tomed to speaking out said less during the long-term impact on them. Ninety percent of
meetings because they did not feel as though participants felt a sense of belonging and be-
they had the background knowledge necessary lieved that their participation translated into
Table 3. Participation in Professional Learning Community Meetings
Descriptor Participants (%) Indicator: Attended . . .
Very active 54.5 Four to six meetings per year
Somewhat active 40.9 One to three meetings per year
Other 4.5 Via e-mail or sporadically over the 3 years
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:04 PM Page 35
Professional Learning Communities in Partnership 35
Table 4. Level of Participation
Descriptor Participants (%) Indicator
Very involved 27.3 Took a leadership role. Spoke often. Frequently contributed
resources or ideas.
Somewhat involved 40.9 Spoke frequently. Occasionally contributed resources or ideas.
Minimally involved 18.2 Spoke occasionally. Occasionally contributed ideas. Did not
contribute resources.
Did not get involved 4.5 Rarely spoke and did not contribute in other ways.
tangible, concrete actions. More than 86% be- number of participants, and there was more
lieved that PLC participation had an impact turnover in group membership. The unity of
on their work with colleagues, as well as on the group was initially slower to develop, but
their ability to affect student achievement. over time the original two ELL communities
became cohesive and eventually combined to
form one large group. They also had the great-
Findings
est differences in participants’ initial level of
background knowledge. Some of the univer-
In the next section, we discuss the differences sity faculty and the teachers of English as a
among the PLCs, the participants’ satisfaction second language brought years of experience
with the PLCs, the key factors that helped and in-depth understanding, whereas other
make the PLCs successful, the concrete ac- participants had minimal knowledge of ELLs.
tions that stemmed from the PLCs, the A sense of community was quite slow to
changes in district policies or procedures as a develop in the family–school–community part-
direct result of PLC participation, and the sug- nership PLC, where participants indicated that
gestions for improvement. In some cases, a it was difficult to find a common focus. Atten-
specific PLC is referenced where reported in- dance for this group was sporadic. This group
formation deviated from the norm. All other illustrated the differences that can occur when
reported information reflects a composite of a group has difficulty with the forming phase
the findings because most of the identified be- (i.e., developing a sense of community, respect,
liefs were shared by the majority of the partic- group norms). In this PLC, mostly comprising
ipants, as evidenced in the qualitative and higher education faculty, several voices became
quantitative data sources. dominant, which had a negative effect on the
cohesiveness and positive feelings of this
Similarities and Differences group. Several members indicated that they
thought that discussions went around in circles
in the PLCs
and that they became confrontational on cer-
According to an interview with the CSUP di- tain occasions. Participants also indicated a
rector and an analysis of focus group data, each lack of direction. However, the confronta-
PLC went through similar paths of metamor- tional nature of the group—with several indi-
phosis, although the changes occurred at dif- viduals dominating the conversations and ex-
ferent rates. All PLCs began by forming group pressing generally negative attitudes—actually
functions, establishing ground rules, and de- served to bond the rest of the group members.
veloping trust. This occurred quickly in the Even though this group struggled, one group
early-childhood groups because these were member said in an interview how excited he
smaller and less diverse and because they was to be able to call on others for support. In-
shared a common knowledge base about early- terestingly, those dominating individuals left
childhood education. their positions at the close of the 3 years.
The ELL community was the most diverse, Whereas the other PLC members were feeling
as well as the most fluid. There was a greater a sense of closure at this point, the remaining
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:04 PM Page 36
e
bl
a
c
Appli 0.00.00.04.513.69.19.10.00.00.04.50.027.3a 4.5
ot
N
e
e
gr
a
s
Di
y
Strongl 4.54.59.09.022.718.231.80.04.59.013.64.513.69.0
e/
e
gr
a
s
Di
e
e
gr
A
y
Strongl 95.595.590.086.363.672.759.1100.094.490.081.895.559.186.4
e/
e
gr
A
nt.
e
m
e
v
e
C. hi
Table 5.Survey Questions and Responses (in Percentages) Question Participating in a PLC assisted me to develop new knowledge and skills.Participating in a PLC helped me establish or strengthen professional networks.I felt a sense of belonging in my PLC.Belonging to the PLC has impacted my work with colleagues in my work area.Belonging to the PLC has impacted my work with parents.Belonging to the PLC has impacted my relationship with my community.I completed the outside readings and was fully prepared to participate at each PLI believe the PLC was a place where my voice was heard, respected, and valued.I believe my participation in the PLC will have a long-term impact.My participation in the PLC translated into tangible, concrete actions.I believe a PLC is a place to be social.I believe a PLC is a place to develop a plan of action.I believe it is possible to measure the progress of a PLC.Believe their participation in this PLC has impacted their ability to affect student ac Note. PLC = professional learning community.Undecided.a
09_119 (06) Hoffman.qxd 4/2/09 6:04 PM Page 37
Professional Learning Communities in Partnership 37
participants in the family–school–community said that their beliefs changed somewhat.
partnership PLC refused to stop meeting; they Nine indicated that their beliefs did not
believed that with the departure of those indi- change as a result of their interaction in the
viduals, they were just beginning to understand PLC. Although at first glance this seems to in-
the direction that they wished to head with dicate less effect than what would be hoped
their group. Rather than disband, they contin- for, it is important to note the experience base
ued to gather for discussion, and they worked of the educators: No one had fewer than 11
to write a successfully funded grant on years of experience in education; 7 reported 11
family–school partnerships. to 15 years of experience; 4 reported 16 to 20
For most of the groups, the second phase years of experience; and 11 reported more
of the PLCs focused on learning. The ELL than 20 years of experience.
community spent 2 years in this phase. The In focus group discussions, all nine partic-
early-childhood PLC had a great deal of back- ipants indicated their enthusiasm for the PLC
ground knowledge and so was able to move format, with comments such as “The diversity
immediately into a deep understanding of spe- of experiences provided for rich dialogue and
cific issues. The family–school–community also kept the groups focused on real issues.”
partnership group had no one who was consid- Focus group participants also reported high-
ered an expert in this area. Members reported lights in the form of networking and develop-
that it was initially difficult for them to find a ing contacts with other partners. They ex-
clear focus and to find helpful literature. They pressed appreciation of this time to share
finally found a focus when they were presented concerns and successes; to generate discus-
with copies of Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essen- sions of importance; and to read, study, and di-
tial Guide to Family–School Partnerships (Hen- alogue around best-practice research. When
derson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007). This asked whether there were any drawbacks to
book laid the groundwork for the grant that participating in a multidistrict PLC, every fo-
was written. cus group participant said that it was a great
The third phase in each group was a call to advantage. One participant stated that the va-
action. For the early-childhood PLC, this oc- riety of jobs, districts, and communities and
curred during the 1st year, when they wrote the multiple perspectives and voices helped to
position papers to present to the state legisla- increase awareness and knowledge. The few
ture. For the ELL community, the same action drawbacks were that districts of various sizes
(writing position papers) occurred in the 3rd have different needs and that different admin-
year. The family–school–community partner- istrators have implemented different policies
ship group entered the action phase at the end such that one-size-fits-all philosophies and
of the 3rd year, when they decided to write a practices could not be developed. Rather, each
grant and continue with its implementation. district needed to contextualize the informa-
tion based on its needs, priorities, and re-
sources. As a result, action plans varied. Nev-
Satisfaction and Benefits
ertheless, many participants made statements
In survey data and focus group discussions, such as “I gained valuable insight from hearing
participants indicated a high level of satisfac- how other districts were addressing issues of
tion with the PLCs. When asked whether they concern.” Several people mentioned that
would participate in a PLC in the future, 18 of ideas from one district were modified to fit the
those surveyed indicated yes, 4 said maybe, context of their district. One example of this
and no one said no. Of the 22 participants was the implementation of the PLC model
who responded, 21 said that their knowledge within the districts. One small district had
increased as a result of participation in the been engaging in PLCs before the advent of
PLC and 1 said that it did not. However, when the multidistrict PDS-based PLCs. Their ex-
asked whether one’s beliefs changed as a result periences were shared with the other districts,
of the PLC, only 6 strongly agreed, whereas 7 although the implementation of PLCs in a