Walden University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Tracy Lloyd

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.

Review Committee
Dr. Amy Sedivy-Benton, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Laura Onafowora, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Edith Jorgensen, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Walden University
2012

Abstract

A Program Evaluation of a Professional Learning Community

By
Tracy Lloyd

M.A., Walden University, 2007

B.A., Northern Illinois University, 1999

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Teacher Leadership

Walden University
November 2012

Abstract
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2001 increased the stakes for all schools
to increase student achievement by mandating all students meet or exceed state standards
by 2014. A small rural school responded 5 years ago to their failure to make adequate
yearly progress (AYP) by implementing professional learning communities (PLC) as a
school wide reform effort to increase achievement. However, AYP status has not
changed. An explanatory mixed methods design was used to discover the implementation
steps already taken, the strengths and weaknesses of the program, and what prior efforts
to address weaknesses had been attempted. Descriptive statistics calculated from a
quantitative survey included the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and frequency
response rates. Five PLC variables of shared mission and vision, collaboration,
supportive conditions, shared and supportive leadership, and results oriented were
analyzed. Qualitative data were collected in administrative and faculty interviews to
provide greater depth to the quantitative results and determine if different program
perceptions existed. The results of the study indicated strengths in collaboration and
supportive conditions and weaknesses in the development of a shared mission and vision,
use of results, and communication. The leadership variable revealed conflicting
perceptions between faculty and administration. Six research based recommendations
were provided in order to move forward successfully and ensure sustainability.
Implications for positive social change include increasing the number of students who
meet or exceed standards on the state exam, graduate from school, and enter into higher
education institutions.

A Program Evaluation of a Professional Learning Community

By
Tracy Lloyd

M.A., Walden University, 2007

B.A., Northern Illinois University, 1999

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Teacher Leadership

Walden University
November 2012

UMI Number: 3545430

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3545430
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Dedication
This doctoral study is dedicated to my parents who always encouraged me to do
my best, to my husband for believing in me even when I stopped believing in myself, and
to my two boys as inspiration to always set lofty goals and never stop working until they
are achieved.

Acknowledgements
It is impossible to complete a doctoral study without the support of multiple
people in my life. I would like to thank my husband, Duane, for providing unlimited love,
patience, and support throughout this entire process. Without your faith in me, even when
I lost faith in myself, I never would have made it to the end. Thank you for understanding
that some days I had to forsake family time to work on this dissertation!
I would like to thank my boys, Wade and Gabriel, for their patience, love, and
understanding over the course of the past year when Mommy had to work on her big
paper!
I would also like to thank my parents, Robert and Anita Lombardi, for instilling in
me throughout my life the values, drive, and determination that gave me the confidence
to embark on this journey. Thank you to my husband and my parents for the countless
times you stepped up to give me the quiet time (translation: watching the boys!) I needed
to complete this dissertation.
I would like to thank all of my friends for understanding why I have been MIA
over the past year and for your support and understanding throughout this entire process.
Along with members of my family and friends, I also have to extend a special
thank you to Dr. Amy Sedivy-Benton for her fantastic and quick feedback on every line
written in this dissertation. Your support during the best and worst times of this process
has been invaluable and played a pivotal role in my ability to complete my dissertation
quickly. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Laura Onafowora and Dr. Edith Jorgensen for
their constructive feedback to further improve my writing.

Table of Contents
List of Tables..iv
List of Figures..v
Section 1: The Problem1
Introduction.1
Definition of the Problem1
Rationale..3
Definitions...5
Significance.6
Guiding Questions...7
Review of the Literature..8
Implications30
Summary31
Section 2: Methodology.33
Introduction...33
Research Design33
Setting and Sample............................................................................................35
Data Collection Instruments..37
Data Analysis and Validation41
Participant Protections...42
Data Collection Process.44
Data Analysis Process47
Data Findings.48

Limitations..109
Evidence of Quality....109
Conclusion...110
Section 3: The Project..112
Introduction.112
Project Description and Goals.112
Rationale..113
Review of the Literature..116
Project Implementation....148
Potential Resources and Existing Supports..148
Potential Barriers.149
Timetable and Roles and Responsibilities...149
Project Implications.150
Social Change..150
Local Change...151
Conclusion...151
Section 4: Reflections..153
Introduction..153
Project Strengths..153
Project Limitations...155
Alternative Recommendations.157
Reflection on Analysis of the Process.158
Reflection on Analysis of Self as Scholar, Practitioner, and Project Developer.159

ii

Implications, Applications, and Future Research....165

References167
Appendix A: The Project.177
Appendix B: Cover Letter...190
Appendix C: Informed Consent for Quantitative Survey191
Appendix D: Informed Consent for Qualitative Survey..193
Appendix E: Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R).195
Appendix F: Demographics.200
Appendix G: Interview Protocol..201
Appendix H: Curriculum Vitae202

iii

List of Tables
Table 1. Faculty Member Demographics...45
Table 2. Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 12-20 on the
PLCA-R Survey.....................50
Table 3. Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 21-30, 32-33, and
49 on the PLCA-R Survey.....................................................................................53
Table 4. Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 31, 35, 38-48, and
50-51 on the PLCA-R Survey57
Table 5. Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 1-11 on the
PLCA-R Survey.60
Table 6. Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 20, 29, 30, 34, 36,
37, and 52 on the PLCA-R Survey62
Table 7. Research Questions in Relations to Interview Questions84
Table 8. Matrix of Sources for Data Triangulation by Theme....110

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 12-20 on the PLCA-R
survey.....51
Figure 2. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 21-30, 32-33, and 49 on the
PLCA-R survey.54
Figure 3. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 31, 35, 38-48, and 50-51 on the
PLCA-R survey.58
Figure 4. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 1-11 on the PLCA-R
survey.61
Figure 5. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, and 52 on
the PLCA-R survey63

1
Section 1: The Problem
Introduction
Educators spend their entire careers searching for the best pedagogies and
methodologies to use in their classrooms to provide a quality education for all students.
With the pressure for school-wide improvement often coming from government entities,
the community, parents, administrators, and teachers, part of this search includes careful
reflection on teaching practices to discover weaknesses to improve upon (Lunenburg,
2010). The school reform movement is not unique to the United States with countries
around the world searching for the best method to ensure the success of all students in
their educational setting (Harris & Jones, 2010). Professional learning communities
(PLCs) have been implemented in schools across the United States as one way to reform
schools, improve teaching pedagogies, and increase student achievement. A literature
review has supported the viability and feasibility of PLCs to improve teaching
pedagogies and increase student achievement in multiple schools across the nation and
around the world.
Definition of the Problem
The passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001 and its
delayed reauthorization in 2007 gave the Obama administration in 2012 an opportunity to
propose a waiver program that will allow states to opt out of the 100% proficiency
requirement in 2014 in exchange for reform implementations on a state level. Even with
the possibility of reform of NCLB, American public schools and their faculties still
remain under increasing pressure to demonstrate student learning and achievement
through performance on state standardized exams. Until the future of NCLB (whether it

2
will continue mostly unchanged or become radically different) is determined, educators
will either have to meet the 2014 deadline for 100% proficiency in meeting or exceeding
standards or demonstrate some sort of state mandated student achievement, most likely
with test scores as a partial component. As this date quickly approaches, an increasing
number of schools find themselves not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) and
facing increasing pressure to increase student test scores through school reform efforts.
According to a report published by the Center on Education Policy (2011), the percentage
of American schools not making AYP in 2010 increased from 33% to 38% from the
previous year, with 39 states reporting 25% of their schools not making AYP. In addition,
12 of those states and Washington, DC reported at least 50% of their public schools did
not make AYP for the 2010 school year, including Illinois, which reported that 51% of its
public schools did not make AYP (Center on Education Policy, 2011).
RTHS is one of those Illinois schools that did not make AYP for the 2010-2011
school year with only 41.2% of the students meeting or exceeding standards in reading
and 43.8% of students meeting or exceeding standards in math (Illinois State Board of
Education, 2012a). This is the 7th year RTHS has not made AYP and they are currently
in the Restructuring Implementation category as a means to improve test scores (Illinois
State Board of Education, 2012a). RTHS is a school district located in rural Northern
Illinois that currently serves approximately 983 students with the following
characteristics: 65.4% White, 28.2% Hispanic, and 3.7% African-American, 27.6% low
income, and 2.6% with limited English proficiency.
The faculty and staff of approximately 75 professionals have begun implementing
the PLC model based on the work of DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) as a means of

3
increasing teacher effectiveness in the classroom and student achievement on state
standardized exams. However, even though the school is in its 5th year working as a PLC,
there has never been an evaluation of the implementation of the PLC model at RTHS to
determine if teacher effectiveness and student achievement have begun to improve.
Rationale
Due to increasing demand for improved test scores, PLCs have been implemented
in schools across the nation as a school reform effort. PLCs have been shown to be highly
effective in school settings if they are implemented correctly with specific attention paid
to multiple factors and a conscious effort is made to overcome common obstacles
(Caskey & Graham, 2007; Hipp, Huffman, Pankake, & Olivier, 2008; Lujan & Day,
2010). While multiple factors must be present for PLCs to be successful and sustainable,
major factors include leaders who are open to sharing decision-making powers and are
supportive, trust between all members, time and opportunity to collaborate in a
meaningful manner, group acceptance of the schools mission and values, a shared
vision, and peer collaboration that provides feedback designed to bring about changes in
practice (Cranston, 2011; Hipp et al., 2008; Hord, 2009; Lujan & Day, 2010; Nelson,
LeBard, & Waters, 2010).
Unfortunately, as with any successful educational reform initiative, schools often
pursue reform without first researching the initiative fully to ensure correct
implementation. PLCs have fallen into this category with schools claiming to be working
within the PLC framework simply because their teachers meet in large groups
occasionally throughout the school year (DuFour, 2007). These schools are superficially
utilizing the PLC model and, not surprisingly, are not experiencing the promised

4
improvements in teacher and student learning (DuFour, 2007). Consequently, these
educators become disillusioned with the model and move on to the newest reform
initiative within a year or two (DuFour, 2007) without first evaluating whether the PLC
model they tried to implement had been used correctly. According to DuFour (2007),
schools must determine if all the elements of a PLC are being practiced before assessing
the impact of PLCs on student and teacher achievement alike. An evaluation of the PLC
implementation progress is one way to determine if the PLC model is being practiced
correctly and is necessary to ensure the reform initiative is long-lasting, sustainable, and
has a deep impact on teaching pedagogies (Aubusson, Steele, Dinham, & Brady, 2007).
An absence of evaluation and reflection of practices within the PLC model may impede,
slow down, or prevent the development of a sustainable PLC, causing disillusionment
with the reform initiative among professional educators and preventing the improvement
of student achievement and test scores (DuFour, 2007; Aubusson et al., 2007).
RTHS has been working within the PLC model for the last 5 years as a solution to
failing to make AYP and increase student and teacher learning. However, scores on the
state assessment, the Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE), indicate RTHS has not
seen an increase in student achievement (Illinois State Board of Education, 2012a). In
fact, RTHS recently saw a decrease in the percentage of students who met or exceeded
state standards for the 2010-2011 school year in the areas of reading (45.8% in 2010 to
41.2% in 2011) and math (51.4% in 2010 to 43.8% in 2011) (Illinois State Board of
Education, 2012a).
The PLC program at RTHS has never been evaluated, either internally or
externally. Based on evidence found in the literature on the effectiveness of PLCs in

5
creating improvement in teacher and student learning, the unchanging AYP status of
RTHS, and the decreasing state testing scores even with the implementation of PLCs, an
evaluation of the PLC model implementation process is needed to determine if RTHS is a
PLC in practice or in name only (DuFour, 2007).
Definitions
The following definitions are used in this project study.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): As part of the NCLB legislation, schools must
demonstrate increasing test scores every year until 100% proficiency is met by all
students on the state standardized exam by the year 2014 or risk losing federal funding
for education. Steps were to be implemented for schools that do not make AYP for two
years in order to improve test scores. Each consecutive year of not making AYP beyond
two years requires a school to implement more changes and eventually, if AYP is
continuously not met, could result in the replacement of the entire schools staff.
Collaboration: Teachers working together in an interdependent fashion to
analyze and impact professional practice (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 16) in order to increase
achievement for students, staff, and the school. Collaboration also involves the
development and use of common goals in both smaller teacher teams and school wide
goals (DuFour et al., 2008).
Distributed Leadership: Also referred to as shared leadership, this style directs he
principal to use the expertise and knowledge of the staff and provide multiple leadership
opportunities to all staff members thereby relegating the principal to a role of the leader
of leaders (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 310).

6
Instructional Leadership: School leaders, usually the principals, who aggressively
bring their personal vision for school reform to fruition through assertiveness, but rarely
see their reforms last after they have left their positions (DuFour et al., 2008).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Passed by Congress and signed into
law by President George W. Bush in 2012, the NCLB legislation was a reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The law requires all states
to implement a standardized testing program for grades 3-8 and once during high school
and sets a benchmark of 100% of students meeting or exceeding standards on these
exams by 2014. Schools who fail to meet this benchmark are considered not making AYP
and risk losing federal funding for education.
Professional Learning Community: A school reform initiative centered on the
belief that students will achieve at higher levels when educators work collaboratively
during the school day using inquiry and action research on a continual basis (DuFour et
al., 2008).
Transformative Leadership: Leadership style in which principals provide an
environment of empowerment to allow teachers to make their own school reform
decisions and grow to their fullest potential (DuFour et al., 2008).
Significance
The educational success of the next generation is vital to the economic, social,
cultural, and political future of the United States. School reform efforts using the PLC
model emphasize the changing roles of teachers from being isolated in the classroom to a
role of collaborative learners focusing on the best way to increase student achievement
(Hord, 2008). As most elementary and secondary educational systems are funded by

7
taxpayer money and the future success of the country will be based upon the educational
abilities of the younger generation, citizens are rightfully concerned with increasing
student achievement in the classroom and the methods used by educators to achieve those
results.
Schools correctly implementing the PLC model have shown significant increases
in teacher and student achievement in the classroom (Caskey & Graham, 2007; Curry &
Killion, 2009; Harris & Jones, 2010; Maxwell, Huggins, & Scheurich, 2010; Vescio,
Ross, & Adams, 2008). Studying the implementation of the PLC model at RTHS will be
useful for the school board, administration, teachers, and community members because
the study will provide all stakeholders with the tools necessary to understand areas of
strength and weakness in the PLC program. Additionally, stakeholders will be able to
make adjustments to the program to increase the number of students who meet or exceed
standards on the state exam, graduate from RTHS, enter into higher education
institutions, and become productive citizens in their communities.
Guiding Questions
I collected quantitative data through the use of an existing instrument along with
qualitative data through focus group interviews to add depth to the quantitative survey
results to answer the following research questions:
x

What factors for the successful use of the PLC model are present at RTHS to
improve teacher effectiveness and prevent RTHS from becoming a PLC in name
only?

8
x

What factors for the successful use of the PLC model are present at RTHS to
improve student achievement and prevent RTHS from becoming a PLC in name
only?

What stages or steps of the implementation of PLCs at RTHS have been executed
thus far to ensure program effectiveness?

What are the areas of weakness evident at each stage or step in the
implementation process?

Additionally, the collection of qualitative data through the focus group interviews
answered the following research question:
x

What prior efforts have been made to address weaknesses of the PLC model
implementation process?
RTHS has been implementing the PLC model for 5 years and has not seen an

increase in student achievement scores on the state standardized exam. A program

evaluation of the PLC implementation process at RTHS will be conducted to discover the
areas of strength and weakness in the program and provide options to all stakeholders for
moving forward with the PLC model to increase teacher effectiveness and student
achievement.
Review of the Literature
A systematic search of the databases was conducted to reach a saturation of the
literature pertaining to the issue of PLCs. A list of possible search terms was first
generated and then entered into the databases individually. Search terms included PLC,
professional learning communities, communities of learning, communities of practice,
cooperative learning, collaborative learning, learning community, and professional

9
development. Booleans search terms included the following terms: challenges and
professional learning communities, professional learning communities and secondary
education, successes and professional learning communities, sustainability and
professional learning communities, results and professional learning communities, and
roadblocks and professional learning communities. Peer-reviewed journals were gathered
from the dates between January 2007 and June 2012 and taken from the following
databases: ERIC, Academic Research Complete, Education Research Complete, Political
Science Complete, ProQuest Central, and Teacher Reference Center. Citations in
multiple journal articles were gathered and other resources, including textbooks, were
referenced where appropriate.
Theoretical Framework
Social constructivism recognizes learning occurs best with the learner working
collaboratively with colleagues, rather than alone, on issues that have real-world
applications (Hellner, 2008; Hord, 2009). The goal of the PLC is to provide educators
with an opportunity to expand their knowledge base and critically analyze their current
practices to increase student achievement through improved pedagogy in a collaborative
setting (Harris & Jones, 2010). According to DuFour et al. (2008) and Hord (2008),
effective PLCs are characterized by a shared mission, vision, values, and goals focused
on student achievement, a culture of collaboration with teachers searching for effective
classroom practices, supportive conditions, shared and supportive leadership, and are
results oriented. The characteristics of the PLC framework provided the structural
parameters for the program evaluation to determine if the PLC model is being utilized
correctly.

10
Shared Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals
The development of the shared mission, vision, values, and goals of a school
focused on teacher and student achievement begins with the principal of the school acting
as a key player in bringing together all of the different components of the school to start
the process of becoming a PLC (Lunenburg, 2010). First, a mission statement should be
jointly created by the members of the school community to outline the purpose of the
school, including acknowledgement that the reason the school exists is to provide a high
quality education for all students, and it is the responsibility of the adults in the building
to provide this education (DuFour et al., 2008; Lunenburg, 2010). It will become
necessary for members of the school leadership, particularly the principal, to engage the
faculty in lengthy discussions about the purpose of the school (Lunenburg, 2010). This
mission statement should be embraced by all staff members and articulated to the
students to ensure they also understand exactly what the purpose of their school is
(Nathan, 2008). DuFour et al. (2008) stated that the mission statement of any school
needs to be embraced by students and staff and revolve around the concept . . . that the
fundamental purpose of the school is to help all students learn the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions most essential to their success. . . (p. 118). Once all the stakeholders believe
this to be the foundation of their mission, the remaining components of the PLCs become
clear-cut and . . . begin to fall into place (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 118).
Second, a shared vision for the school that expresses the type of school the faculty
envisions for themselves and their students with all members taking responsibility for
their role in the educational environment must be jointly developed (Lunenburg, 2010).
This process will need to include the entire faculty and be based on educational research

11
(Lunenburg, 2010), even if this means discussions will take longer and be messier to
achieve the development of a vision all members of the school can support. The
development of a shared vision statement cannot be possible unless the leadership and
faculty take deliberate steps to change some negative cultural aspects of their school,
including ending teacher and faculty isolation and moving away from a top-down
hierarchal management structure (Lunenburg, 2010). According to DuFour et al. (2008),
one common mistake school leaders make is to develop vision statements by themselves
because the development of . . . a shared vision is a constant challenge of building
consensus and unity. . . (p. 139). Additionally, Hoffman, Dahlman, and Zierdt (2009)
argued part of the process of developing a shared vision includes the need to involve all
members of the school community, from the administration to the grassroots level,
because many factors leading to student success in the classroom can best be understood
by the teachers who witness it on a daily basis. A shared vision can also help the faculty
fulfill their responsibility to provide a quality education found within the mission
statement because, When stakeholders share a vision, they eagerly embrace
responsibility for action (Hoffman et al., 2009, p. 28). As student and faculty needs
change and as the definition of what comprises a high quality education constantly
evolves, it will be necessary for schools to revisit and revise their vision statements
periodically (Luneburg, 2010).
The third component in this aspect of PLC development is the creation of shared
value statements, focused on what the faculty and teachers believe are the shared
attitudes, behaviors, and commitments they will demonstrate to move their school
forward (Lunenburg, 2010). These shared value statements will allow the faculty to

12
determine . . . how we will fulfill our purpose and make our desired future a reality
(DuFour et al., 2008, p. 148). However, teachers and faculty must remain mindful these
value statements should be developed with the teachers focusing on what they need to
help move the school in a forward direction (Lunenburg, 2010). Whereas the previous
discussions about missions and visions focused on the future direction of the school,
shared value statements allow members of the school to discuss what action steps they
can take right away to have an impact on the achievement of teachers and students
(DuFour et al., 2008). Shared value statements give a focus and a sense of immediacy to
the daily activities of the faculty and staff, yet will only be effective if the number of
value statements are not too numerous, avoid vague wording, and are not phrased as
beliefs; they . . . are intended to clarify what we intend to do, not what we believe
(DuFour et al., 2008, p. 158).
Finally, to help the staff carry out their shared vision, goals must be jointly
established that represent the implementation of the PLC model into the culture and
improvement plan of the school, although it is this area where the principal needs to take
a more active and leading role (Lunenburg, 2010; Thessin & Starr, 2011). This is
especially the case if some of the goals require the allocation of school funds to purchase
educational materials or equipment, a job usually under the discretion of the school
administration (Lunenburg, 2010). Goals are also meant to represent the end product of
what schools want to achieve and will need to be written using plain and direct language
(Lunenburg, 2010). According to DuFour et al. (2008), goals are the . . . clear
benchmarks of progress and milestones on the improvement journey (p. 159) and are
easily pointed at to demonstrate and celebrate achievement. In this manner, goals are a

13
motivating force in PLCs because teachers are able to see how what they are doing is
moving the school forward leading to positive feelings about their place in the
educational organization (DuFour et al., 2008). To prevent teachers from becoming
overwhelmed or only superficially implementing PLCs, schools will need to set priorities
and commit to fewer goals and initiatives in order to deeply focus on carrying out their
shared vision (Lai, McNaughton, Timperley, & Hsiao, 2009; Lunenburg, 2010; Many &
King, 2008). Goals should always be aligned with the original mission of the school, to
help students succeed, and therefore have a measureable impact on student success
(DuFour et al., 2008). DuFour et al. (2008) referred to the acronym SMART as a tool to
utilize when developing goals. SMART goals are ones which are strategic and specific
(linked to the vision and are direct), measureable (to assess achievement), attainable
(know it can be accomplished), results-oriented (focuses on the outcomes), and
timebound (clearly articulate a deadline for accomplishment) (DuFour et al., 2008).
The foundation of a successful PLC must be built on the development of what is
referred to as the four pillars of a PLC (DuFour et al., 2008). A shared mission gives the
school a purpose and should be focused on helping students achieve, a shared vision
describing what the school will look like in the future, shared value statements that are
action oriented, and goals that are developed using the SMART acronym (DuFour et al.,
2008).
A Culture of Collaboration
Educators must work together in a collaborative nature to carry out the shared
mission, vision, values, and goals that focus on teachers improving their pedagogical
practices to increase student achievement where all educators accept responsibility for the

14
final outcome of all students (DuFour et al., 2008). Collaboration embraces the social
constructivist belief that learning by doing is the best method and provides teachers with
the empowering feeling that they have an active role in what is occurring not only in their
classrooms but in the school building as well (Borrero, 2010). Collaboration allows
teachers to adapt, grow, and successfully change their teaching and instructional practices
to increase teacher and student achievement in the classroom when there is a shared
purpose, levels of inquiry, decision-making, and evaluation present (Corcoran &
Silander, 2009; Gajda & Koliba, 2007; Hipp et al., 2008; Kilbane, 2009; Nelson et al.,
2010). Additionally, for collaboration to be successful, it is necessary for teachers to
spend their time together focusing on teaching strategies and pedagogies that promote
best practices through the collection, management, and analyzing of student data to drive
instructional changes (Borrero, 2010; Kilbane, 2009). During their collaboration, teachers
should be able to discuss best teaching practices but also use the time to research
different teaching strategies that are based on scientific research and have been proven to
increase student achievement (DuFour et al., 2008). This research should not be limited
to just what strategies others are using in the classroom but also how effective the
strategies they are using are for increasing student achievement (DuFour et al., 2008).
Most importantly, collaborative inquiry into teaching strategies should not become a
mandate for telling teachers how they should deliver instruction in their classrooms
(DuFour et al., 2008). Rather, the autonomy of teachers to design their own practice
should be protected with teachers taking time to discuss the impact of their chosen
strategies and how the future use of that particular strategy could be improved to increase
student achievement (DuFour et al., 2008).

15
Collaboration also gives teachers a sense of collegiality with their peers and a
connection to the activities of the building as a whole, moving them away from the
traditional isolated nature of the schools of the past where teachers rarely, if ever,
interacted with one another or shared lessons, ideas, or data on student achievement
(Borrero, 2010; Lujan & Day, 2010; Mullen & Schunk, 2010). DuFour et al. (2008)
discussed the vast amount of research in the literature pointing to the negative
consequences of teacher isolation and summed it up by saying, Isolation is the enemy of
school improvement (p. 177). This increased collegiality can also provide a support
system for teachers and give them fellow trusted colleagues they can turn to when they
have questions about their teaching or encounter difficulties in the classroom (DuFour et
al., 2008).
However, an impediment to successful collaboration has been in the lack of
teacher training in how to effectively collaborate so that teacher meetings can move
beyond superficial discussion and delve deeply into issues of data analysis to increase
teacher effectiveness and student achievement in the classroom (Thessin & Starr, 2011).
It is necessary to provide teachers with training so that they can . . . come to a common
understanding of the meaning of the word team (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 179). Providing
professional development activities focused on educating teachers on how to become
successful collaborators will give them the skills they need to have meaningful
conversations (Kilbane, 2009), learn the art of inquiry (Nelson et al., 2010), successfully
handle conflict among members of the community (Dooner, Mandzuk, & Clifton, 2007),
and create conditions of teachers supporting teachers in their quest to improve their
practices (Hamos, Bergin, Maki, Perez, Prival, Rainey, Rowell, & VanderPutten, 2009).

16
Schools operating on the PLC model must realize that just having meetings or having
teachers working on the same project do not necessarily make them a collaborative team
(DuFour et al., 2008). Professional development activities may require a collaboration
coach to be present to guide teachers practice in being part of a collaborative team
(Jettson, Cancienne, & Greever, 2008). However, over the course of time the
collaboration coach will need to reduce the amount of time guiding teachers in
collaboration and allow the teachers to take greater control of the discussions generated
during collaboration time (Jettson et al., 2008). Implementers of professional
development focusing on collaboration must remain mindful of the other job-embedded
demands of teacher practices to avoid overwhelming teachers and creating an
environment where collaboration becomes just another thing the teachers have to do
rather than something they see as necessary and beneficial to do (Nelson, Slavitt, Perkins,
& Hathorn, 2008).
Finally, collaboration requires time during the school day for teachers to meet,
interact, share, and reflect on teaching practices (Borrero, 2010; Kilbane, 2010). Shared
planning time for educators is necessary for effective collaboration and needs to be part
of the daily routine of the school to maintain a successful PLC (Kilbane, 2009; Lai et al.,
2009; Lujan & Day, 2010; Thessin & Starr, 2011). During their collaboration time it is
important for teachers to focus on the . . . things that actually impact student learning
(DuFour et al., 2008, p. 183). According to DuFour et al. (2008), effectively collaborating
means focusing discussions on answering the . . . four critical questions of learning (p.
183): what do we want students to know, how will we know they know it, what do we do
for students who have not learned, and how do we address the learning needs to those

17
who have mastered the material? Time is also required for the long-term if the goals of
the PLCs are to be met (Sweetland, 2008). Finally, time should be set aside for the
process of team building within the PLC because it provides time for all members of the
school staff, not just the faculty and administration, to gather, join together, and take
collective ownership of the mission, vision, values, and goals of the school while
breaking down the culture of isolation (Sweetland, 2008).
Collaboration is a key component of PLCs that allows educators to work together
to implement the mission, shared vision, values, and goals of the school. When presented
with an opportunity to collaborate, teachers welcome the opportunity to share ideas with
their fellow colleagues and wish to see the collaboration remain part of the school culture
(Cifuentes, Maxwell, & Bulu, 2011). However, in order for collaboration to be effective
and meaningful, teachers must be provided professional development and time during the
day to ensure conversations during collaboration have the necessary focus to impact
teacher and student achievement in the classroom (Borrero, 2010; DuFour et al., 2008).
Supportive Conditions
Along with professional development training on how to properly collaborate
within the PLC model, other supportive conditions must be present within the school
building to facilitate the successful implementation and sustainability of PLCs.
According to Cranston (2011), the issue of trust is essential to the development and
sustainability of PLCs with the principals role being critical not only to establishing
building-wide trust but also to gaining the trust of the faculty. Trust among all members
of the community develops over time, supports collaboration, and creates a climate where
educators feel comfortable taking risks (Cranston, 2011). Developing and sustaining a

18
PLC by simply providing time and space for teachers to collaborate without the presence
of trust between principal and faculty cannot be possible (Cranston, 2011). Furthermore,
within the framework of trust between the principal and faculty, relational trust must exist
where there is an understanding of and agreement on the expectations and obligations of
each groups role in the school environment (Cranston, 2011). Principals who seek out
and use strategies that build trust and encourage teachers to take risks in their classroom
will find their PLCs are stronger and more sustainable over the years (Nathan, 2008).
Effective communication between all members of the PLC is essential for the
sustainability of the model within the school system. Effective communication within the
PLC begins with a principal who is capable and willing to articulate to themselves and
the staff what their responsibility to the school is (DuFour et al., 2008). This clarity of the
principals role within the PLC will . . . increase the likelihood that their day-to-day
decisions will be aligned with the big ideas that drive PLCs (DuFour et al., 2008, p.
309). However, effective communication must be consistent and received from all levels
of the school administration (DuFour et al., 2008). One common error administrators
make in communication, especially when it comes to distributing the vision to the
faculty, is that a few e-mails or office memos will be enough to articulate the vision and
generate teacher buy-in (DuFour et al., 2008). All forms of communication within the
school must be consistent with the actions taken by school officials in order to avoid
confusion on the mission and vision of the school (DuFour et al., 2008). One tool
administrators can use to see how consistent their message is, how it is being received by
the faculty, and if the communication is consistent with their actions is to periodically
survey the staff for feedback (DuFour et al., 2008). Effective communication is a two-

19
way street and it is necessary for teachers to practice the same communication concepts
of administrators to sustain the PLC in the future (DuFour et al., 2008).
A final condition that needs to be present for the PLC to be successful is the
component of utilizing and respecting teacher knowledge. According to Bausmith and
Barry (2011), PLCs develop better and lead to higher student achievement when teachers
have a deep knowledge of their content and a deep understanding of how students learn.
Tapping into this reservoir of teacher knowledge requires a building-wide respect for the
knowledge teachers have about their profession and an ability to access these collective
experiences to solve problems (Lai et al., 2009; Liebermann & Mace, 2009). Providing
differentiated support and resources for teachers when beginning the PLC
implementation process respects the abilities and knowledge they bring to the table while
ensuring their movement forward in the PLC model is set up for success (Levine, 2011;
Liebermann & Mace, 2009; Thessin & Starr, 2011).
Shared and Supportive Leadership
Since the 1980s, principals have been asked to primarily use three different
leadership styles beginning with instructional leadership in the 1980s when it was
expected a strong principal would personally direct school improvement (DuFour et al.,
2008). However, once the principal left his/her leadership position at the school, the
change initiated by that principal rarely remained in place (DuFour et al., 2008). In the
1990s, principals were called upon to become transformational leaders by providing more
autonomy and power to the faculty and staff in the school (DuFour et al., 2008).
However, increasing student achievement does not necessarily occur just by giving
teachers more control over their classrooms (DuFour et al., 2008). At the beginning of the

20
21st century, shared and supportive leadership was seen as a key to developing and
sustaining PLC schools with a change in school leadership creating a possibility of a
changed direction for the school in a positive or negative manner (Kilbane, 2009). Most
of the literature on leadership styles within a PLC school focus on the importance of
shared or distributed leadership with a need for superintendents and principals to move
away from the top-down hierarchical leadership model toward a new model where
leadership is needed at all levels within the school (Gajda & Kolina, 2011; Kennedy,
Deuel, Nelson, & Slavit, 2011; Thessin & Starr, 2011; Wells & Keane, 2008).
However, according to Mullen and Schunk (2010), these three types of leadership
styles can be used in PLC schools with instructional and transformational leadership
styles best suited to the PLC model because of their emphasis on collaboration and focus
on improving teacher and student learning. Mullen and Schunk (2010) emphasized the
roles and obligations of instructional and transformational leaders by stating,
Instructional leaders focus on school goals, the curriculum, instruction, and the school
environment. Transformational leaders restructure the school environment by improving
working conditions (p. 188). Transactional leadership practices can be necessary in a
PLC school on a limited basis, especially when it comes to setting priorities within the
school to keep the focus on student learning (Mullen & Schunk, 2010). Transactional
leadership provides the school administration with an avenue for . . . setting clear goals,
aligning goals with actions, and using rewards and/or punishments to achieve stated
objectives (Mullen & Schunk, 2010, p. 188). Schools that are on the way to becoming
effective PLCs have leaders at the helm who are capable of using all three leadership

21
styles and have the understanding to know which leadership style is best suited to the
given situation at hand (Mullen & Schunk, 2010).
DuFour et al. (2008) essentially supported the simultaneous use of different
leadership styles by discussing the place in all schools for the top-down hierarchical
leadership model to be present. DuFour et al. (2008) made the distinction between
leadership styles that are top-down in nature versus leadership styles that are distributed
in nature by calling them loose and tight leadership styles. In certain circumstances, it is
acceptable for school leaders to adopt a tight, or top-down, leadership style, particularly
when it comes to implementing and advancing ideas that are likely to enhance and
increase student achievement and when implementing . . . clear, nondiscretionary
priorities and practices (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 342). For example, it is acceptable to use
a top-down leadership style when implementing changes to the school schedule to
provide additional time during the day to students who are struggling to master essential
material, providing time during the schedule for teachers to meet in collaborative groups,
or communicating with parents about how the school is impacting their childs education
and what they can do at home to support their child (DuFour et al., 2008). At the same
time there must be room for a loose leadership style to provide an atmosphere for the
teachers that fosters . . . autonomy and creativity. . . (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 342)
within their own classrooms to improve student achievement. Loose leadership not only
provides an opportunity for teacher autonomy and creativity, but it also gives . . .
tremendous latitude for individual and collective innovation. . . (DuFour et al., 2008, p.
107). The difficulty for school leaders is striking a balance between tight and loose
leadership and knowing when it is appropriate to use each style. DuFour et al. (2008)

22
offered the following four pieces of advice to the administrative leaders in schools for
striking this balance: Leaders are aware of common mistakes made when initiating
change and take deliberate steps to avoid these mistakes while providing a solid reason
for making these changes; leaders practice effective communication skills; leaders do not
allow too many change initiatives to take place at one time; and they provide professional
development for the administration and teachers to work together to improve student
achievement.
Not only does the entire administrative staff have leadership roles to play within
the PLC model, but principals have specific leadership roles they need to play in order to
move the school forward and the dawn of the 21st century has brought with it a new
leadership style principals are encouraged to embrace. Shared leadership is based on the
premise that no one person can have complete knowledge of everything that goes into
making a school function and the principal should use the knowledge, skills, and
expertise of the people in the school . . . to assume leadership roles and view himself or
herself as a leader of leaders (DuFour et al., 2008). Schools are complex institutions that
are too large for one person to control, leading to a need for administrators to embrace a
new leadership model where principals lead their schools from the center by providing
opportunities for teachers to become co-leaders within the school (Goduto, Doolittle, &
Leake, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2011). Principals can accomplish this by setting up
leadership teams comprised of members of the administrative team and teacher leaders
who are tasked with the responsibility of . . . creating conditions that enhance student
and adult learning (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 311). Further, principals will need to
encourage leadership at all levels of the school by asking individual teachers to lead

23
grade-level or disciplinary content teams or setting up task forces of teachers who are
instructed to investigate a specific issue within the school and develop a plan of action to
address the problem (DuFour et al., 2008). The principal must also be able to provide . .
. the resources, training, mentoring, and support to help them successfully accomplish
what they have been asked to do (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 312). By providing teachers
with the opportunity to take on leadership positions within the school, administrators
boost their teachers self-efficacy and self-esteem and run the possibility of damaging the
development of PLCs in their school when not providing leadership roles for their
teachers (Friedman, 2011).
Results Oriented
The success of the PLC should be based on the results demonstrated by students
on different types of assessments (DuFour et al., 2008). Data need to be taken from
assessments other than the state standardized exams, including data from classroom
activities and assessments, to allow for changes and adjustments in instructional practices
that can best address the educational needs of teachers and students (Borrero, 2010;
Corcoran & Silander, 2009; Lai et al., 2009). Just as teachers should be taught how to
properly collaborate, teachers also need professional development on how to properly use
data to inform and drive their instructional techniques and make necessary changes
(Borrero, 2010; Many & King, 2008). During their collaboration time, teachers must take
an improving approach to evaluating student work in order to discover the precise areas
where teaching can be improved upon to increase student understanding and achievement
(Nelson et al., 2010).

24
Understanding and using data from both formative and summative assessments
can give teachers a clear picture of what their students have achieved and guide future
instruction to ensure that all students learn in the classroom (DuFour et al., 2008).
Although summative assessments, such as state standardized exams, are used by states as
an accountability measure for both teachers and students, . . . they do very little to
inform or improve professional practice (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 202). It can take months
to obtain results from these state exams and usually do not provide specific feedback on
the performance of each individual student (DuFour et al, 2008). The lack of specificity
denies the teacher useful educational information that can help improve their students
achievement (DuFour et al, 2008). Furthermore, results often arrive at the school late in
the school year or over the summer, denying the teacher an opportunity to change or
adjust instruction to increase student achievement (DuFour et al., 2008). Summative
assessments can also be chapter or unit exams given in the classroom to determine how
well the students mastered the content, yet these exams are not helpful to catch students
during the unit when they may begin to struggle with the content (DuFour et al., 2008).
Therefore, teachers also need to implement formative assessments on a regular, if not
daily, basis to measure the understanding of their students in order to change or modify
instruction to ensure students understand the content as they move through the unit
(DuFour et al., 2008). Formative assessments . . . allow teachers to analyze student
learning in time to be able to respond to the students who are failing (White & Feun,
2008, p. 43). By evaluating and analyzing student work and testing data, teachers will
have evidence to assist them in identifying and addressing the learning needs of teachers
and students and increase their achievement levels in the classroom (Lai et al., 2009).

25
Questioning PLCs
While the literature overwhelmingly supports the use of PLCs to increase teacher
effectiveness and student achievement, there is evidence in the literature that suggests
PLCs may not be as effective as their proponents portray. Those who question PLCs
point out the negative impacts PLCs have on the profession of teaching. Additionally,
some who question PLCs provide evidence that it is not the PLC causing changes but
effective pedagogy. However, the majority of researchers who have discovered
weaknesses in the PLC model have evidence that suggests it is the incorrect
implementation of one or more characteristics of PLCs that have caused the model to be
ineffective at the schools they have studied.
One criticism levied at PLCs comes from researchers who believe the way PLCs
are currently carried out end up having negative impacts on the teaching profession.
Servage (2008) contended PLCs can have a negative impact on the teaching profession
through collaboration time that focuses solely on the means of teaching rather than on the
end product. Servage (2008) further believed PLCs focus on reforming what is already in
place in schools rather than working to transform the entire system to generate better
results in the classroom. Without the component of critical reflection of teaching
practices and the impact those strategies are having in the classroom, teachers are unable
to move beyond dialogue about best practices to determine how and why those practices
are leading to improved results for students, thus leading to a true transformation of the
teaching profession (Nathan, 2008; Servage, 2008). An additional negative impact on the
teaching profession can be found in the push for accountability and the standards-driven
system currently in effect. PLCs have been utilized in a negative fashion by focusing too

26
much on the quantitative data found in test scores with little focus on the quality of
education found in the classrooms (Harris, 2011; Servage, 2009). This overreliance on
quantitative data have caused schools who claim to operate as PLCs to use those
standardized test scores to drive everything that occurs in the classroom rather than using
those scores as one piece of evidence among many to inform instructional strategies in
the classroom (Harris, 2011). Servage (2008) and Harris (2011) both argued the reliance
on simple reform and quantitative data prevent schools from fully benefiting from the
PLC model.
There are a small number of researchers who believe the successes found in
schools operating as PLCs comes not from the implementation of the PLC model, but
from effective pedagogies being utilized within the classroom. A study conducted by
Glassett (2009) compared the professional development of 8th and 9th grade teachers, one
group was a PLC and one was not, to determine if the reading strategies introduced
during the professional development had any impact on the success of the students.
Glassetts (2009) results found that although the teachers in the PLC group had more time
to reflect on their own teaching practices, the students in both groups performed on the
pre- and post-tests at about the same level, indicating it was not the existence of the PLC
that impacted student learning but rather the use of a specific pedagogy. Another study
conducted by Louis and Marks (1998) showed similar results indicating the use of
effective pedagogies in the classroom had a greater impact on student achievement than
on the existence of the PLC model at that particular school. Finally, Bausmith and Barry
(2011) contended much of the literature on PLCs glance over or completely ignore the
importance of strong teaching strategies and deep content knowledge. Without a primary

27
focus on pedagogy and content knowledge, students will not be prepared to meet the new
demands found in the Common Core standards (Bausmith & Barry, 2011). Rather,
Bausmith and Barry (2011) recommended schools operating under the PLC model would
see greater student achievement if their professional development focused primarily on
pedagogy and increasing teacher content knowledge rather than on changing school
climate or teacher practices.
Although there is some evidence the PLC model may have a negative impact on
the teaching profession or may not be the reason for increased student achievement in the
classroom, the vast majority of the literature questioning the effectiveness of PLCs comes
from researchers who have found schools are not implementing the PLC model correctly
leading to disappointing results. In fact, some researchers have found it particularly
difficult to locate many schools, especially high schools, which have truly been
transformed because of implementation of the PLC model (Jetton et al., 2008; Louis &
Marks, 1998; Wells & Feun, 2008). Rather, they have discovered a pattern of incorrect
implementation of PLCs in the areas of collaboration and how that time is used, school
culture, and resistance to change leading to disappointing failures of the PLC model in
multiple schools. Often collaboration time was being used ineffectively with teachers
focusing their discussions on operational matters such as student homework, staff
meetings, and discipline rather than on reflective and critical conversations about
teaching practices and student achievement (Maloney & Konza, 2011; Sigurardttir,
2010). Another area of concern addresses the issue of school culture, particularly at the
high school level. Traditionally, at the high school level, teachers work in isolation of
each other with little time for sharing and collaboration (Jetton et al., 2008;

28
Sigurardttir, 2010). The continued practice of teacher isolation, the lack of time
provided to teachers to effectively train how to collaborate properly, and teacher
resistance to changing the status quo of the school structure have all led to the failure of
multiple schools to fully become PLCs studied across the nation and around the world
(Cifuentes et al., 2011; Jetton et al., 2008; Sigurardttir, 2010; White & McIntosh,
2007). Finally, failure to fundamentally change the school culture when implementing
PLCs has caused numerous teacher groups to superficially practice the characteristics of
PLCs, particularly when analyzing student data in collaborative groups (Wells & Feun,
2008).
Although there is evidence of questioning the PLC model found within the
literature, most of the recent criticisms focus less on the fact that PLCs do not work and
more on the fact that PLCs have not been implemented properly in most schools,
particularly high schools, across the nation and around the world. Even those criticisms
that indicate teacher pedagogy and content knowledge are better explanations for
increased student achievement also acknowledge that the PLC model of shared mission
and vision, collaboration, shared leadership, and use of results can be tools to aid teachers
for improving their pedagogy and content knowledge (Bausmith & Barry, 2011).
PLCs, Common Core, and Race to the Top
For professionals directly involved in the educational system in the United States,
it seems as though the laws and requirements are constantly changing. The current
educational climate is no different with the reauthorization of the ESEA by the Obama
Administration under the program name of Race to the Top (RTT). Although it is too
soon to determine the effects of RTT and the adoption of the Common Core Standards by

29
most states, it is clear that accountability, high stakes testing, and standards-based
education are here to stay (Hershberg & Roberston-Kraft, 2010). Onosko (2011) and
Mathis (2011) have both argued the RTT and Common Core reforms of continued highstakes testing, student-outcome teacher evaluation systems, and state competition for
funding are being implemented with little to no scientific evidence of effectiveness
towards increasing student achievement in the classroom and caution that these reforms
may have devastating effects on education. However, Hershberg and Robertson-Kraft
(2010) believed there is opportunity to work within the RTT and Common Core
framework to bring dramatic improvement in student and teacher achievement so long as
teachers are allowed to take on a greater role in schools including shared decision making
and peer evaluations. It is not difficult to see that RTT and the accompanying Common
Core Standards have already begun to impact education, including Illinois, and may have
implications for the use of PLCs in schools.
In 2011, Illinois applied to waive the 2014 100% proficiency requirement under
NCLB and to receive RTT funds from the federal government. Illinois appeal was
successful and they received $42.8 million in 2011 because of their progress toward
fulfilling many of the requirements to receive RTT funds including implementing the
Common Core Standards and beginning the process of changing teacher evaluations so
they are partially tied to student growth (Illinois State Board of Education, 2012b).
Additionally, Illinois has joined with 26 other states to develop and administer a new
yearly assessment of students based on the Common Core Standards by the 2014-2015
school year known as Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC) (Illinois State Board of Education, 2012b). Even with all of the

30
changes coming due to RTT and Common Core, there is still a focus on standards-based
education, accountability, and high-stakes testing. This can leave plenty of opportunity
for schools to continue striving for correct implementation of the PLC model to improve
teacher and student achievement in the classroom through the development of a schoolwide mission, vision, values, and goals focused on student achievement, a collaborative
culture, supportive conditions, shared and supportive leadership, and one focused on
results.
Implications
The literature review framework sets the parameters for a possible project study
based on evaluating the implementation of PLCs. Possible characteristics of successful
PLCs were discussed as including the presence of a shared mission, vision, values, and
goals, a culture of collaboration, supportive conditions, shared and supportive leadership,
and are results oriented. The need to periodically evaluate the implementation of PLCs in
schools to expose areas of strengths and weaknesses and develop a plan for moving
forward to ensure the sustainability of the PLC was supported by the research. The proper
implementation of PLCs allows for increases in learning and achievement for both
teachers and students and should be regularly evaluated.
Based on the anticipated findings of collected and analyzed data, this project
study may provide information to the major stakeholders within the RTHS community,
including the school board, administrators, teachers, and community members, on
changes to the PLC program that may need to be undertaken to ensure the feasibility and
sustainability of the program at this time. Additionally, the project may inform the
stakeholders of areas of strengths of the PLC program at RTHS to encourage them to

31
keep those aspects of the program going. Administrators and faculty members will be
asked to complete a quantitative questionnaire rating their agreement with statements
pertaining to the presence of the characteristics of PLCs at RTHS ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. Members will also be asked to indicate their willingness to
participate in focus group interviews whose questions will be largely developed from the
responses to the quantitative questionnaire to provide a greater depth to the quantitative
responses. Response rates to the questionnaire are expected to be high as is the
willingness of members to be a part of the focus group interview.
Summary
As educators come under increasing pressure to increase student achievement in
the classroom as a result of the NCLB legislation, school reform efforts take center stage
in schools around the nation and the world. One school reform effort being implemented
by numerous schools around the country is the PLC model because of its promise to
deliver greater achievement for teachers and students alike. With its focus on developing
a shared mission, vision, values, and goals, building-wide collaboration, supportive
conditions, shared leadership, and student results, PLCs present educators with an
opportunity to provide a high quality and meaningful education to all students who enter
the classroom. However, as with any popular school reform effort that shows positive
results, educators run the risk of jumping on the newest school reform bandwagon. The
program may be half-heartedly implemented without all stakeholders fully understanding
it, causing teachers to become disillusioned with a program that truly works and
jeopardizing the sustainability of the PLC model within their school building.

32
This project study will add to the body of research on the importance of
evaluating the PLC model within school buildings to prevent schools from becoming a
PLC in name only and offer schools a way to increase the sustainability of the PLC
model. Evaluating the PLC program offers stakeholders the opportunity to gather
knowledge about the aspects of the PLC model in their school that is working and
identify areas for improvement.
Section 2 of this project study will lay out the research approach and design,
defend the setting and sample, and describe the instrument being used for data collection.
Section 2 will also describe the data collection and analysis process and describe the
assumptions, limitations, and scope of the project study. Protection of participants rights
will also be explored. Section 3 will introduce the project itself by describing the goals
and rationale for the study. A review of the literature supporting the project and
implementation of the project will be provided with a special focus on social change.
Section 4 will conclude the project with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of
the project, recommendations for how to approach the problem differently, and an
analysis of scholarship embedded in the study. Section 4 will also include a description of
the development of the project and evaluation, an analysis of myself as a scholar and
project developer, and potential for social change as a result of this project. Finally, the
project will conclude with an exploration of the implications, applications and direction
future research in this area may take.

33
Section 2: Methodology
Introduction
The need to evaluate the implementation of PLCs was highlighted in Section 1
and justified the collection of data to determine areas of strengths and weaknesses in the
PLC program at RTHS. The purpose of this project is to inform all stakeholders at RTHS
of these strengths and weaknesses so the school leaders may begin the process of
improving the PLC and increasing student achievement. Section 2 will focus on the
research design, setting and sample, data collection instruments, participant protections,
procedures for data collection and analysis, data collection processes, research findings,
study limitations, and evidence of quality.
Research Design
The project study will explore the strengths and weaknesses of the
implementation of PLCs at RTHS over the past 5 years. A mixed methods research
design was employed to gather, analyze, and disseminate quantitative and qualitative data
to evaluate the implementation of PLCs at RTHS over the past 5 years in an effort to
reveal the strengths, weaknesses, and feasibility and sustainability of the program. A
mixed methods design is used when combining both types of research methods provide
a better understanding of the research problem and question than either method by itself
(Creswell, 2012, p. 535). An explanatory sequential strategy was used for this project
study with the distribution of a quantitative survey to the administration and faculty
occurring first followed by qualitative data collection through focus group interviews
(Creswell, 2012). The purpose of the explanatory sequential strategy is to allow the
qualitative data to provide a deeper explanation of the results revealed from the

34
quantitative data analysis (Creswell, 2012). The explanatory sequential strategy is
preferred for this project study over an exploratory sequential strategy because the
purpose of the study is to design a qualitative survey based on the themes that emerge
from the quantitative data (Creswell, 2012). The explanatory sequential strategy is also
preferred for this project study over an embedded strategy because the purpose of the
study is to use the qualitative data to support the findings of the quantitative data
(Creswell, 2012). The quantitative survey investigated the degree to which the
components of a successful PLC were present at RTHS and the emerging themes from
the data analysis provided the framework for the qualitative questions asked during the
focus group interviews. The qualitative data was then used to add depth and details to the
general picture (Creswell, 2012, p. 542) of PLCs at RTHS. The quantitative data were
analyzed by calculating the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation of the individual
survey statements and the five overall PLC characteristic categories. A percentage
comparison of the data of the individual statements and the five categories between the
teachers and administration was not conducted due to the low response rates of the
administration for the quantitative survey. Frequency statistics for the individual survey
statements for the faculty members were also run with frequency tables included in the
final results section. The qualitative data were analyzed through focus group interview
transcription and axial coding to narrow down the information to five to seven emerging
themes. Therefore, a mixed methods explanatory sequential design was an appropriate
choice for this project study because the quantitative data provided the evaluation results
of the progress in numbers toward PLC implementation. The personalized, in-depth data
obtained from the qualitative study gave the stakeholders at RTHS a clearer picture of the

35
emerging themes from the quantitative data and can generate discussion on the future
sustainability of the program.
The project study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design as
part of a program evaluation of the implementation of PLCs at RTHS. The
implementation process began 5 years ago and has yet to be evaluated either internally or
externally. Since there has not been any evaluation of the program thus far and there is
not any intention of declaring full implementation of PLCs at RTHS, the program
evaluation will need to be formative in nature (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). The
goal of formative evaluations is to change or make better the thing that is being
studied (Lodico et. al., 2010, p. 318) at the time the data are collected in order to make
informed decisions about what the program is doing well and areas the program can be
improved upon. PLCs were implemented at RTHS as a way to increase student
achievement scores and change AYP status. As the AYP status at RTHS has remained
unchanged, the goals of the program evaluation were to determine the areas of strengths
and weaknesses within the PLC and to open a dialogue among all stakeholders on how to
best maintain the feasibility and sustainability of the PLC program at RTHS.
Setting and Sample
RTHS is a one school district which employs approximately 100 administrative,
faculty, and staff members. Due to this relatively small population size, the entire
administration and faculty comprised the population for this study. It was expected the
four members of the administrative team would respond to the quantitative survey and
participate in the administrative focus group interview. It was also expected that 40
faculty members would respond to the quantitative survey and 10 teachers would

36
volunteer to participate in the faculty focus group interviews. A convenience sampling
method was used based on the availability and willingness of administrators and teachers
to participate in the project study and is commonly used in educational settings (Creswell,
2012). The convenience sampling method was appropriate for the project study because
the intent of the results was not to generalize the findings to other schools. Rather, the
intent of the study was to use the results to improve the PLC model at RTHS (Lodico et
al., 2010). Other sampling techniques such as intensity sampling, snowball sampling, and
homogeneous sampling were considered and not found to be appropriate for this project
because the project needed to gather the views of a diverse group of participants at the
same time and not just those with passionate views about PLCs (Lodico et al., 2010).
The quantitative survey was distributed to all of the administrators and teachers in
the building and response rates were moderately high because the administrators and
teachers have a vested interest in improving the achievement levels of the students they
work with. Response rates were also moderately high because of the positive working
relationship that developed between myself and the participants over the 5 years I have
worked at RTHS. The inclusion of the entire population in the quantitative data collection
was appropriate because I sought to measure how accurately the PLC model has been
implemented at RTHS based on the perceptions and knowledge of those who work within
the school walls. The qualitative data collection included a focus group of the
administration and a focus group of the teachers. Participation in the administration focus
group included three of the four administrative members. Since there are only four
administrators working at RTHS, it is appropriate and necessary to interview the entire
group in order to understand their perceptions. The teacher focus groups participation

37
was comprised of five teachers. The inclusion of a teachers focus group was appropriate
in order to understand the perception of PLC implementation at RTHS from a teachers
perspective which may differ from the perceptions of the administration. The
administrative focus group was separated from the teacher focus group to protect the
confidentiality of the teachers who participated and to provide the teachers with an
opportunity to speak their opinions freely without the risk of people in positions of power
hearing their responses. The quantitative survey asked demographic information along
with a question on willingness to participate in the focus group. If there were a large
number of volunteers for this group, a maximal variation sampling technique would have
been employed to choose teachers who span the continuum of differences within the
school environment to ensure different departments, years of experience, educational
levels, age, and genders are represented (Creswell, 2012). However, it was not necessary
to use a maximal variation sampling technique and five teachers participated in the
faculty focus group.
Data Collection Instruments
Quantitative Data Collection
An existing instrument measuring the five components of a successful PLC
located in the research literature was used for the quantitative portion of this study.
According to Creswell (2012), using an existing study is the easiest approach for new
researchers and should be no more than 5 years old, cited by other authors, peer
reviewed, contain information about its reliability and validity, and have accepted scales
of measurement that match the research question. The survey chosen for this project
study was the Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R)

38
(Appendix E) by Dianne F. Olivier, Kristine Kiefer Hipp, and Jane Bumpers Huffman
(Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2010) and written permission to use this survey was obtained
from Dianne Olivier. The survey met the criteria for using an existing measure in a
project study because it has been field tested and revised within the last 5 years, has an
accepted scale of measurement, is peer reviewed and cited by other authors, and contains
information about its reliability and validity.
The five components of successful PLCs-- shared mission, visions, values, and
goals, a culture of collaboration, supportive conditions, shared and supportive leadership,
and results orientation-- were measured by this quantitative survey. A Likert-type scale
was used to measure 52 statements relating to PLCs with respondents rating each
statement as Strongly Agree = 4, Agree = 3, Disagree = 2, or Strongly Disagree = 1.
Descriptive statistics were used to explain the results of the quantitative survey with the
mean, median, mode, and standard deviation calculated using Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 18. Statistics were calculated for each of the 52
statements and for the overall grouping of the statements into the five PLC components.
Frequency statistics were also calculated for each of the 52 individual statements. The
raw data will be available by request and kept in a locked file cabinet only accessible by
me. Further description of the sample is provided through the demographic survey found
in Appendix F (Lodico, et al., 2010). To ensure the confidentiality of survey participants,
the survey was placed in their school mailboxes with an informative letter (Appendix B)
to complete the survey and return it sealed in a provided envelope to the researcher by the
specified date.

39
When scores from an instrument are consistent and stable when given to multiple
groups at different times, the instrument is said to have reliability (Creswell, 2012).
Validity addresses the ability of the survey to accurately measure what it is supposed to
measure (Lodico et al., 2010). The Professional Learning Community Assessment
(PLCA) was first developed for use in 2001 and its widespread use over the past 5 years
has provided statistical data on its reliability as a measurement instrument (Olivier et al.,
2010). The PLCA has the following Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for each of
the five components of successful PLCs: Shared and Supportive Leadership (.94);
Shared Values and Vision (.92); Collective Learning and Application (.91); Shared
Personal Practice (.87); Supportive Conditions-Relationships (.82); Supportive
Conditions- Structures (.88); and a one-factor solution (.97) (Olivier et al., 2010, p. 30).
According to Lodico et al. (2010), correlations of 0.84 or higher indicate a very strong
reliability with correlations falling between 0.35 and 0.64 moderately strong and
acceptable. The PLCA-R was developed using an Expert Opinion Questionnaire to
include a missing characteristic of the PLC, namely the use of data to drive instruction
and change (Olivier et al., 2010). Interviews with principals, doctoral students, and
researchers confirmed the need to add the seven data statements to the revised PLCA
survey and continued research using the measurement tool will increase the reliability
and validity of this instrument with the additional seven data statements (Olivier et al.,
2010).
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative data collection began once the quantitative survey analysis was
completed and took the form of focus group interviews. Participants volunteered to

40
participate in the focus group interviews by indicating their interest on the demographics
survey. There were two focus groups, one for teachers and one for administrators to
protect the confidentiality of the participating teachers and provide them with an
opportunity to freely express their opinions without the fear of their bosses hearing
negative comments and taking action against that particular teacher. The focus group
interviews lasted about an hour in length and each group only needed to meet once to
fully capture their answers to the questions (Appendix G). Three of the four
administrators at RTHS participated in the focus group interviews and this was
considered an ideal number of participants because the small number allows for group
members to have a chance to fully participate (Creswell, 2012). The number of teachers
who indicated their willingness to participate in the focus groups negated the need to use
a maximal variation sampling technique to keep the focus group number below six
participants, and the faculty focus group consisted of five faculty members (Creswell,
2012). Interviews were recorded for later transcription. The findings of qualitative data
needed to be validated in order to ensure their accuracy and credibility (Creswell, 2012).
The use of data triangulation between the quantitative surveys and interviews and
member checking was the primary means of validating these findings (Creswell, 2012).
The interviewees in this study are my professional colleagues, many of whom I
have known for the 5 years I have been employed at RTHS, therefore a working
relationship exists with most RTHS faculty members. While there is familiarity between
the researcher and the interviewees, the following considerations were addressed in an
interview protocol to avoid researcher bias and influence on data collection: I kept
opinions to myself and spoke very little during the process, confidentiality of the subjects

41
was assured, participants were informed of the purpose of the study, participants were
allowed to opt out of interviews at any time, focus groups were conducted in a neutral
location to minimize disruption to the school setting, interview probes were utilized, the
interview was recorded, and respect for cultural groups was given (Creswell, 2012;
Lodico et al., 2010).
Data Analysis and Validation
Data analysis took the form of an explanatory analysis design with quantitative
data collected and analyzed first and the qualitative data collected to provide greater
depth and a deeper explanation of the results of the quantitative survey (Creswell, 2012;
Lodico et al., 2010). The quantitative survey was analyzed using descriptive statistics to
summarize the findings. The mean, median, mode, and standard deviation was calculated
to provide average scores for each of the 52 statements measured in the PLCA-R along
with average scores calculated to represent the five categories of PLC components within
the PLCA-R survey for the teaching staff only due to the low response rates of the
administration for the quantitative survey. Responses were assigned on the following
interval scale: 4 = Strongly Agree, 3 = Agree, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly Disagree.
Percentage comparisons for the 52 individual statements and the five categories of PLCs
were not conducted to compare the response rates of administrators and teachers due to
the low response rates of the administration for the quantitative surveys. Frequency
statistics for the 52 statements were also calculated with frequency tables created and
revealed in the results section for the faculty members. Data were analyzed and reported
using the SPSS Version 18 computer software. The reliability and validity of the PLCAR has been demonstrated in multiple field tests nationwide since its creation. Emerging

42
results from the quantitative survey were the basis for the questions asked during the
qualitative phase of the research.
Qualitative data were obtained through focus group interviews that was recorded
and transcribed by the researcher when the interviews were completed. Transcripts were
then read to begin the process of axial coding to determine emerging themes in the data
(Creswell, 2012). Transcripts were read multiple times to narrow down the coded themes
from many different codes to five themes common throughout all of the transcripts
(Creswell, 2012). The trustworthiness of the qualitative data was demonstrated through
data triangulation of the quantitative surveys, the focus group interviews, and additional
existing data pertaining to PLCs at RTHS. Additionally, trustworthiness of the qualitative
data was achieved by selecting members of the focus group to check the transcripts and
data analysis to ensure views were expressed accurately in the study.
The overall findings of the research study were presented in written and visual
format with an emphasis placed on the quantitative survey results (Creswell, 2012).
Direct quotations from the qualitative research were used in the findings to elaborate on
and provide greater depth to the results from the quantitative survey. Findings from the
quantitative and qualitative phases were reported to determine the areas of strength and
weakness in the PLC program at RTHS and to spark a dialogue on what steps need to be
taken in the future to ensure the feasibility and success of the PLC program at RTHS.
Participant Protections
The protection of the rights of the participants is of the upmost importance in any
research study conducted and various actions were taken to ensure their rights were
protected. Permission to collect data from participants was gained from RTHS and

43
Walden Universitys Institutional Review Board. Participants were clearly informed in
the cover letter (Appendix B) and consent form (Appendix C) given to them with the
quantitative surveys and with the consent form provided at the beginning of the focus
group interview (Appendix D) of all of their rights including the understanding that their
participation was voluntary, their right to withdraw from the study at any time, and the
lack of risks involved in this study. Furthermore, participants had the right to ask
questions about the study before, during, and after their participation and have their
identities remain anonymous for the quantitative survey. Those who participated in the
qualitative survey had their identities protected in the following manner: all interviews
were transcribed with specific names and identifying information removed, focus group
interviews occurred in a room specifically reserved for the interview with the door closed
and a Do Not Enter sign placed on the door, and references in focus groups to anything
not pertaining to the study at hand were deleted from the record and participants were
asked to refrain from making further comments. Additionally, a separate focus group
interview of administrators was conducted based on the results of the quantitative survey
to ensure faculty participants did not feel their jobs are in jeopardy by having an
administrator present in their focus group interviews. All raw data collected, including
audio files of the focus group interviews, are stored in a locked file cabinet in my home;
only I have keys to it. All electronic data files, including digital voice recordings of the
focus group interviews, are stored on my personal computer in a password encrypted file.
All raw data will be kept for 5 years and then destroyed.

44
Data Collection Process
In order to begin the process of data collection, permission to survey the faculty
was obtained by the superintendent of the high school district. As RTHS is a one school
district, it was necessary and appropriate to obtain the permission of the superintendent to
use the facility for this project. An application was sent to Walden Universitys
Institutional Review Board (IRB) and approval was provided to the researcher to begin
data collection.
Once approval was given to collect data, I placed the cover letter (Appendix B),
quantitative consent form (Appendix C), PLCA-R survey (Appendix E), and
demographic survey (Appendix F) attached to a large manila envelope in the faculty and
administrators mailboxes. It was requested that all materials be returned within seven
days sealed inside the provided envelope to the researcher in her classroom. As surveys
were returned the raw data was entered into the SPSS program. Of the 65 staff and 4
administrator surveys distributed, 28 faculty surveys and one administrator survey were
returned. In order to protect the identity of the administrator, their demographic
information will not be disclosed in this study. The demographics of the 25 faculty
members who chose to complete the demographic survey are shown in Table 1.

45
Table 1
Faculty Member Demographics
Age
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
Male
Female
White
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
20 +
Bachelors Degree

Gender

Race

Years of Teaching
Experience

Highest Level
of Education

4
8
4
8
1
9
15
25
4
3
7
6
5
1

Bachelors Degree
plus additional
Masters Degree

5
5

Masters Degree
plus additional

14

Once all the surveys were returned and entered into SPSS, statistical analysis was
conducted. The mean, median, mode, and standard deviation were calculated for each of
the 52 statements on the PLCA-R and were also calculated for the five categories of
PLCs. Percentage comparisons were not made between the faculty responses on the 52
statements and five categories with the administrator responses due to the low response
rate for the administration. Additionally, frequency responses for each of the 52
statements on the PLCA-R were calculated for the faculty surveys. Results of the data

46
analysis were used to add questions to the interview protocol (Appendix G) for the
faculty and administrator interviews.
An e-mail was sent to the four administrators at RTHS to request a time to
interview them for the study. The principal and two assistant principals were able to meet
for an interview the following week but the superintendent had a prior commitment and
could not make the interview. There were seven faculty members who indicated their
willingness to participate in a focus group interview. The date, time, and location of the
interview were distributed to the seven faculty members and five faculty members were
able to participate.
The faculty focus group interview took place first and the interviews began with
the distribution of the qualitative consent forms (Appendix D). The participants were also
informed their participation was voluntary, their identification would remain confidential,
the reasons for recording the interview, and the purpose of interviewing the faculty.
Additionally, the faculty members were asked to not reveal anything that was discussed
during the interview. Once the signed consent forms were returned, the interview began
using the interview protocol (Appendix G) and lasted for 65 minutes. Audio files and
transcripts of the interview are stored in a locked file cabinet that only I have a key for
and on a password encrypted file on my computer. The faculty focus group interviews
were transcribed within 2 days of the interviews. Transcripts of the interviews were
offered to all five participants so they may check the accuracy of the data. Three chose to
read over the transcripts and only one faculty member had a minor correction to the
information.

47
The administrator focus group interview took place about 1 week later and the
interviews began with the distribution of the qualitative consent forms (Appendix D). The
participants were also informed their participation was voluntary, their identification
would remain confidential, the reasons for recording the interview, and the purpose of
interviewing the administration. Additionally, the administrators were asked to not reveal
anything that was discussed during the interview. Once the signed consent forms were
returned, the interview began using the interview protocol (Appendix G) and lasted for 55
minutes. Audio files and transcripts of the interview are stored in a locked file cabinet
that only I have a key for and on a password encrypted file on my computer. The
administrator focus group interviews were transcribed within 2 days of the interviews.
Transcripts of the interviews were offered to all four participants so they may check the
accuracy of the data. One chose to read over the transcripts and indicated there were no
corrections necessary.
Data Analysis Process
The data were analyzed by first looking at the results of the quantitative survey
returned by the faculty and one administrator. The data were entered into SPSS and an
analysis was conducted to determine the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and
frequency response rates for the 52 individual survey statements. Additionally, the mean,
median, mode, and standard deviation were calculated for the five categories of PLCs.
The faculty and administrator data were kept separate in order to conduct percentage
comparisons for all data points to determine if there was a difference in response rates
between these two groups. However, this comparison was not feasible to conduct and
was not included in this study due to the fact that only one administrator survey was

48
returned. Therefore, the perception of the administration on the implementation of PLCs
comes from the qualitative interviews. Using large pieces of paper, trends in the data for
each of the 52 statements and five categories of PLCs were noted separately for the
faculty and administrator surveys. The means of the five overall categories of PLCs were
then ranked from showing a strongest agreement to a least agreement among the faculty
and administrator to determine areas of strengths and weaknesses in the PLC model at
RTHS.
The qualitative data were then analyzed using an axial coding method to narrow
down the emerging themes in the data from multiple themes to five coded themes.
Interview transcripts were read over multiple times and notations were made through
underlining and writing in the margins. For both the faculty focus group and the
administrative focus group, the themes that emerged from the data analysis fit within the
five categories of PLCs found in the quantitative survey. The administrator focus group
interview also revealed an additional theme focused on the future vision of the PLC at
RTHS. Once the codes were narrowed down to five for the faculty and six for the
administrators, different colored highlighters were used to separate the relevant quotes
into the different categories. Relevant quotes were then linked to the data that emerged
from the quantitative analysis to provide greater depth and detail to the statistical results
of the survey.
Data Findings
Faculty Quantitative Survey Results
The survey results were the perceptions of the faculty relating to the
implementation of the five categories of PLCs of a shared mission, vision, values, and

49
goals, a culture of collaboration, supportive conditions, shared and supportive leadership,
and a results orientation. The quantitative data results were supported by the qualitative
focus group interviews. The qualitative results revealed five coded themes that reflected
the five characteristics of PLCs. The faculty survey results answered the following
research questions: What factors for the successful use of the PLC model are present at
RTHS to improve teacher effectiveness and prevent RTHS from becoming a PLC in
name only?; what factors for the successful use of the PLC model are present at RTHS to
improve student achievement and prevent RTHS from becoming a PLC in name only?;
and what stages or steps of the implementation of PLCs at RTHS have been executed
thus far to ensure program effectiveness and what are the areas of weaknesses evident at
each stage or step in the implementation process?
Theme 1: Shared mission, vision, values, and goals. According to the faculty
surveys, the category of shared mission, vision, values, and goals ranked third out of the
five characteristics with a mean score for questions 12-20 on the PLCA-R of 2.7310 with
individual statement mean and standard deviation scores shown in Table 2. This was also
the one category where the scores on the individual statements were consistent and
lacked any major score changes from one statement to the other. The ranking of this
category in the middle of the five characteristics indicated there has been some success in
implementing this part of the PLC model at RTHS but that weaknesses remain within this
category of PLCs.
Figure 1 shows that most faculty members agreed that RTHS has a good
collaborative system in place for developing the school vision and values (questions 12
and 16) and that the policies, programs, and decisions of RTHS were tied to the vision

50
(questions 15 and 18). The faculty further believed the common values of the staff do
guide the decisions made about teaching and learning at RTHS (question 13). Also, most
faculty members agreed school improvement was tied to student learning with data being
utilized to determine what actions need to be taken to reach the stated vision of RTHS
(questions 14 and 20). However, the faculty disagreed that the stakeholders were actively
involved in creating high expectations for student achievement (question 19). The faculty
also disagreed that the goals of RTHS extended beyond student test scores and grades
(question 17).
Table 2
Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 12-20 on the PLCA-R
Survey
Question

Mean

Standard Deviation

12

2.6296

.62929

13

2.7407

.59437

14

2.7857

.56811

15

2.7407

.59437

16

2.8846

.51590

17

2.5357

.74447

18

2.8846

.43146

19

2.4231

.64331

20

2.8519

.45605

51

Y
Y
Y
^
Y

Y


^

Y
Y
Y

Figure 1. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 12-20 on the PLCA-R survey.
Theme 2: Culture of collaboration. According to the faculty surveys, the
category of collaboration was the strongest out of the five characteristics with a mean
score for questions 21-30, 32-34, and 49 on the PLCA-R of 2.8821 and individual
statement mean and standard deviation scores as shown in Table 3. Collaboration was
considered by the faculty to be a characteristic of PLCs that had been implemented
successfully, although there appeared to be areas they would like to see improved for the
future.
Figure 2 shows that most faculty members surveyed agreed that the teachers work
well together (questions 21, 22, and 25) with a strong emphasis placed on focusing on the
diverse needs of the students at RTHS (questions 23 and 28). The faculty also agreed they
do a good job informally sharing ideas with each other about student learning (question
33), do well reviewing student work during collaboration time (question 30), and

52
continue to place emphasis during collaboration on the students and their learning
(questions 28 and 30). Although a majority of respondents believed they use student
testing data during collaboration time, there were some respondents who believed there
was less emphasis placed on using student testing data (question 29) and there were some
respondents who indicated there was less emphasis during collaboration time placed on
improving teacher effectiveness (question 26 and 29). The majority of faculty members
found weakness in the use of collaboration time to focus on teachers learning together
and applying knowledge to solve problems (question 27). Linked to this outcome was the
belief by a number of respondents that there was not enough time provided for open
dialogue among the staff (question 24). Furthermore, the faculty did not believe they
provided enough feedback to each other on instructional practices (question 32).

53
Table 3
Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 21-30, 32-33, and 49 on the
PLCA-R Survey
Question

Mean

Standard Deviation

21

3.1071

.11885

22

3.3214

.11563

23

3.0741

.12993

24

2.7500

.12199

25

3.0370

.11299

26

2.8929

.11885

27

2.3333

.15097

28

3.1071

.10714

29

2.7407

.13705

30

2.9643

.13095

32

2.0741

.11847

33

3.2500

.12199

49

2.8148

.11979

54

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

^




^
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Figure 2. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 21-30, 32-33, and 49 on the
PLCA-R survey.
Theme 3: Supportive conditions. According to the faculty surveys, the category
of supportive conditions ranked second out of the five characteristics with a mean score
for questions 31, 35, 38-48, and 50-51 on the PLCA-R of 2.8612 with individual
statement mean and standard deviation scores shown in Table 4. Supportive conditions
covered a wide array of topics including building cleanliness, mentoring, funds for
professional development, time for collaboration, peer observation, staff relationships,
and communication. The overall mean score for this category was very close to the
overall mean score for collaboration, indicating this was another category of PLCs that

55
had been implemented well at RTHS. However, particularly in the area of
communication, there appeared to be areas for improvement with supportive conditions
to increase the sustainability of PLCs at RTHS.
Figure 3 shows the cleanliness, attractiveness, and inviting nature of RTHS as the
highest ranked supportive condition per the faculty surveys (question 48). The faculty
also believed there were some resource people available to support the learning of the
staff (question 47), opportunities were available to observe their peers and offer
encouragement (question 31), and opportunities were available for staff mentoring
(question 35). The faculty also believed there was time provided in the school schedule
for collaboration with a good availability of needed technology and instructional
materials support (questions 43, 44, and 46). Although a majority of the faculty felt there
was enough money for professional development (question 45), there were also 10
faculty members who indicated there was not enough professional development funds to
meet their needs.
The sub-topics of relationships and communication within the supportive
conditions category revealed important trends that were also discussed in the focus group
interviews. The faculty overwhelmingly believed that trust and respect existed in the
relationships between teachers and students at RTHS (question 38). The faculty also
believed they were honest with each other when looking at student results to change and
improve teaching and learning at RTHS (question 42) and that successes at the school
were recognized and celebrated (question 40). It was agreed by most faculty members
taking the survey that a culture of respect and trust existed at RTHS, which allowed them
to take risks (question 39). However, most faculty members did not believe there was a

56
unified effort on the part of the staff and other stakeholders at RTHS to change the school
culture (question 41). Finally, an interesting result in the sub-topic of communication
revealed most faculty members believed communication between staff members was
stronger (question 50) than communication between all of the stakeholders of RTHS
including the central office, parents, and community members (question 51).

57
Table 4
Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 31, 35, 38-48, and 50-51 on
the PLCA-R Survey
Question

Mean

Standard Deviation

31

2.7143

.11336

35

3.1154

.08462

38

3.4286

.10824

39

2.8929

.11885

40

2.9643

.09598

41

2.4444

.13433

42

2.9615

.10349

43

3.0000

.13587

44

2.7600

.13266

45

2.6000

.15275

46

2.6296

.14271

47

2.6800

.11136

48

3.6154

.11200

50

2.7037

.13934

51

2.4074

.14381

58

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

^




^
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Figure 3. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 31, 35, 38-48, and 50-51 on the
PLCA-R survey.
Theme 4: Shared and supportive leadership. According to the faculty surveys,
the category of shared and supportive leadership was the weakest out of the five
characteristics with a mean score for questions 1-11 on the PLCA-R of 2.3909 and
individual statement mean and standard deviation scores are shown in Table 5. Shared
and supportive leadership was considered by the faculty to be a characteristic of PLCs
that had not been implemented successfully, although there were some positive aspects of
leadership at RTHS.

59
Figure 4 shows the strongest aspect of leadership in the PLC model at RTHS was
the use of data by the staff to inform teaching and learning (question 11) and the
availability of key information for the staff to use when making decisions about teaching
and learning (question 3). The majority of the faculty also believed that leadership among
the faculty at RTHS was promoted and nurtured (question 8), which was an interesting
contradiction to other responses about the sharing of leadership and responsibility by the
principal at RTHS. The faculty was split fairly evenly between agreeing and disagreeing
with the idea the principal was proactive and provided support to the staff where it was
necessary (question 4). The faculty was split evenly between agreeing and disagreeing
about the decision making process that took place at RTHS through staff committees and
across grade and subject levels (question 9).
However, the faculty responded to the category of leadership in a manner that
suggests there was much room for improvement. The faculty disagreed the most with the
belief the principal shared power and authority with members of the staff (question 7).
The staff also indicated a belief that the principal did not share responsibility with the
staff or reward staff innovations (question 6). Most faculty members believed that shared
responsibility and accountability at RTHS for student learning was imposed upon the
staff (question 10). The faculty responded negatively to the statement about their role in
discussing and making decisions in school issues (question 1) and believed they have few
opportunities at RTHS to enact change (question 5). Finally, the faculty believed advice
given to the principal was not used when school wide decisions were made (question 2).

60
Table 5
Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 1-11 on the PLCA-R Survey
Question

Mean

Standard Deviation

2.3214

.12655

2.2593

.13705

2.5000

.12062

2.5185

.13472

2.3214

.13660

2.3571

.13815

1.8929

.13934

2.5357

.14069

2.5556

.12327

10

2.2222

.15408

11

2.8148

.14159

61

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

^




^
Y
Y
Y
Y

Figure 4. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 1-11 on the PLCA-R survey.
Theme 5: Results oriented. According to the faculty surveys, the category of
results orientation was ranked fourth out of the five characteristics with a mean score for
questions 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, and 52 on the PLCA-R of 2.6920 and individual
statement mean and standard deviation scores shown in Table 6. The survey results
revealed that the use of data by the faculty was one part of the PLC implementation
process that had seen some success but had areas of weaknesses that needed to be
addressed. The use of data by the faculty to guide instruction in the classroom was seen
as a strength at this point but the lack of using the same data to guide school
improvement was the weakness in the PLC implementation process at RTHS.

62
Figure 5 indicates the strongest agreement among faculty members was the belief
they used student work to improve pedagogy and student learning (question 37). The
faculty agreed data was utilized and prioritized to reach the shared vision of RTHS
(question 20) with data being organized and located in an easily accessible place
(question 52). The collaborative use of data and ability to share data (question 36) among
faculty members was considered to be a strength in the PLC model at RTHS with a
majority of the faculty agreeing multiple data points were used to assess the effectiveness
of teacher practice (question 29) and student work was reviewed by staff to improve
instructional practices (question 34). However, the weakness of data use to drive teacher
instruction and both teacher and student achievement was evident with the faculty
disagreement that they share student work to guide school improvement (question 37).
Table 6
Teacher Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Questions 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, and
52 on the PLCA-R Survey
Question

Mean

Standard Deviation

20

2.8519

.08777

29

2.7407

.13705

30

2.9643

.13095

34

2.6154

.12499

36

2.7778

.09745

37

2.2400

.13266

52

2.6538

.09515

63

Y
Y
Y
^



Y

^

Y
Y

Figure 5. Faculty frequency response rates for Questions 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, and 52 on
the PLCA-R survey.
Faculty Qualitative Survey Results
Theme 1: Shared mission, vision, values, and goals. During the faculty focus
group interview, the topic of mission and vision was discussed on several occasions. Part
of the discussion on vision focused on a desire by the faculty focus group members to
have the mission, vision, values, and goals of RTHS not based on what other schools in
the state have accomplished. When asked what the faculty members believed the vision
of RTHS was, one participant, P2, stated, I dont see one.
Another participant, P1, responded immediately to that when it was stated, I
think they know where theyre going and they are just placating us.

64
Later during the interview this issue of vision came up again and P2 stated, And
I dont know if it is the political game of well just keep the teachers happy and well just
tell them whatever they want and then were still going to do our own agenda.
Participant 3 (P3) responded, I think that is what we are all sensing is that we
[the administration] are going to be choosy about what we pick. If you want us to be part
of your community, then you have to allow us to see where your vision is and where your
mission is.
The issue of being a teacher of a non-tested subject was briefly discussed when P2
stated, Sometimes it is a little disheartening because I sit in a room all by myself and it
doesnt seem like anyone even cares about what I do because I am not tested.
Finally, towards the end of the faculty focus group interview, a brief discussion
occurred that reflected a belief by the participants that the mission, vision, goals, and
values as articulated by the school administration no longer be based on what other
schools in the state are doing but rather be based on the culture of RTHS. Adali
Stevenson High School is located in the Chicago suburbs and is considered to be one of
the best schools in the state with a successful PLC model in place. Faculty and members
of the administration have visited Stevenson High School on numerous occasions to
observe their PLC in action and have reported back to the entire staff at RTHS what is
happening at Stevenson High School. P2 stated:
Can I just throw out there that we are not Adali Stevenson High School? And that
we will never be Stevenson High School and it is because of our demographics. . .
You know those kids, they were like 54th ranked or something like that or top ten
high school in the U.S. Those kids are college bound. They know where they are

65
going and they have a drive behind them at home telling them they are going to
this high school for a reason. My kids are just excited to graduate high school. . .
You know so many times they are like we went and visited Stevenson. And I am
glad that we are getting out there and seeing but can we see a lot of other things?
Can we go to a smaller school? Can we go to a bigger school?. . . Instead of
focusing all of our energy on that one school. I understand that we need a vision
and we need a target and we need something to aim for but we are never going to
be them. We are always going to be RTHS and we are always going to have our
own little problems here and our own little issues. Were going to have our
current demographics, and it may get worse, especially if the recession continues.
You cant tell me that Johnnys worried about getting As and Bs in classes if
mom has to work three jobs and he has to take care of four little brothers and
sisters. Its just not the same. So, for me, every time they say, well, we went to
Stevenson. . . Quit comparing us to Stevenson. Quit telling us that this is where
we will be because we wont. We certainly can make changes. We can certainly
make adjustments. We can make this place better. But, we are never going to be
them. And I know they had to start somewhere too but they have the support from
the community, they have the support from home, they have the resources to
make it better.
Theme 2: Culture of collaboration. The faculty at RTHS has multiple
collaboration opportunities provided to them throughout the school year and the topic of
collaboration was discussed quite often during the faculty focus group interview. RTHS
faculty members have met every Monday morning from 7:45 am until 8:35am to

66
collaborate in academic departments for the past three years. During the Monday
morning collaboration times, students were given the option to come to school during
those times and work in the library, sit in the commons, or attend peer tutoring sessions.
Students were not required to be at school on Monday mornings until the first class
begins at 8:55 am. Some members of the faculty have also joined one of two smaller
collaborative groups. One group worked on common issues pertaining to working with
the freshman class. Another inter-disciplinary group decided to focus their attention on
the issue of homework because the faculty members in that group believed it was an issue
facing the faculty that many struggled with. Finally, during the 2011-2012 school year
the faculty was organized into study groups by the RTHS administration based on the
results of a survey passed out at the beginning of the school year asking the faculty what
their areas of expertise were and what topics they would like to learn more about. The
faculty members were then placed into these study groups based on their responses to the
survey and were to work together on the study group topic during School Improvement
Days.
When asked what they believed to be the components of PLCs evident at RTHS,
P2 responded immediately, Our Monday morning collaboration times. Definitely. The
teacher driven inter-disciplinary and freshman teams that are out there. The other four
participants quickly agreed with this statement.
P2 further elaborated on collaboration:
In my opinion PLCs are supposed to be teacher driven, its supposed to come
from the bottom up. It is this reform that we want to change things, we want to
make it where if you want to meet with some people and talk about it, if you want

67
to meet with other professionals and discuss what you are doing in your
classroom or how learning is happening, you should be able to. And I think that is
how the freshman team and inter-disciplinary team kind of formed because we
were interested. If we are supposed to be doing these study groups or working in
collaborative environments, lets pick something that we want to talk about, and
that we are interested in. For me with the inter-disciplinary group, thats kind of
how it was fostered and how it was born.
There were many instances during the interview were the respondents indicated
an appreciation for the professional collaboration times provided at RTHS and further
indicated a desire to continue with collaboration time. P2 stated, . . . I think it is nice to
be able to share those thoughts with each other. . . and I think allowing us to have that
time to talk and get together and share those ideas and have those discussions. . .
P1 stated:
I think our department does a very good job about collaborating. And we do use
the time and we could use more. . . I think we collaborate pretty well. We dont
have to do the same thing or turn the same page on the same day. . . we have
enough freedom to have our individual strengths and creativity but we still work
together.
When asked what they considered to be the most positive aspect of being a
member of a PLC at RTHS, the topic of collaboration was the immediate response of the
participants. P3 stated, Sharing frustrations and being able to talk to other people.
P2 agreed:

68
And realizing everyones kids dont do homework and everyone may have the
same questions about am I doing this right, am I not doing this right, and should I
be doing this, to understand that we are all in the same boat. . . And to be able to
have that freedom to do that and talk about that, to have those conversations.
The participants even discussed the possibility of creating new classes together
with teachers from different disciplines to increase student achievement at RTHS. The
implementation of collaboration at RTHS has been well received by the faculty and there
does not seem to be any desire to end those collaborative discussions. However, the
participants in the interview did discuss some aspects of collaboration they did not like
and would like to see changed in the future. One area the respondents would like to see
changed is in the time when departments meet for collaboration on Monday morning. The
participants agreed that Monday was not the best time to meet collaboratively while at the
same time having opportunities available for students to receive extra help in different
subject areas. P3 stated, Like, like, the Mondays are not going to change. . .
P1 quickly responded, Even though weve been asking for the change for three
years.
P3 stated, Yeah, go to the afternoons. Put it on a different day.
The topic of Monday morning collaboration came up later in the interview with
an exchange between P1 and P4 that started when P4 stated:
Ill tell you something from the first week I was here, the early Mondays just
dont work. Youve got all these kids and the only way a kid is going to learn is
with the teacher. . . And youve got to catch them on the spot. . . I couldnt
understand why we were all in meetings and the kids are out there. . .

69
P1 interjected, In the commons. . . Monday mornings was supposed to be about
mainly for us working together and then one teacher in the department would stay out
and tutor.
P4 stated, I think we would be much more productive if each one of us had a
student we were working with instead of coming in and talking in a meeting.
P1 followed up by defending the collaboration time through the statement, Well,
I do think the collaboration time is needed but. . .
P4 clarified, Maybe not every Monday but one-on-one with the kids, we need
that.
When asked about components of the PLC the participants would like to see
improved, P3 immediately responded:
No Monday mornings but have them in the afternoon on a Tuesday. Make it
mandatory that the kids are here and let those kids who have the criteria of A, B,
and Cs, they get to go home but the ones who have Ds and Fs, they have to stay. .
. but we are certainly not going to do it in the mornings. Because they can sleep
in.
P2 agreed with this statement and added, Yeah, because like Dr. Many says, it is
education not by invitation. . . The collaboration is great. The student help room, the
student STAR rooms, that does not need to be by invitation.
Another issue the participants had with collaboration had to do with a lack of
freedom to decide what to collaborate on in some instances and this was indicated by P2:
And when we came up with those lists on those huge sticky notes, I dont know
how many of the departments said we want to meet department wide all the time.

70
The number one thing was we wanted to get rid of the study groups. I mean that
was our big thing, if youre going to give us collaboration time, dont tell us what
we have to collaborate on.
P3 also raised a concern about the lack of faculty control of collaborative meeting
and stated, We have to meet because we have to do these things because we are directed
by our principal to do these things.
Theme 3: Supportive conditions. Supportive conditions came up in the faculty
focus group interviews on a number of different occasions and covered the concepts of
faculty time, professional development, communication, and trust. However, in relation
to this topic, most of the focus in the interview was centered on communication and trust.
In many cases, the issue of trust was discussed as it pertained to faculty trust of the
leadership of RTHS, making it difficult to separate the category of supportive conditions
from shared and supportive leadership. Therefore, there will be some overlap between
these two categories of PLCs in the discussion of the qualitative findings.
When discussing the work of the inter-disciplinary team, the issue of the
availability of time for teachers to meet came up. P2 stated:
Our second semester focus was going to be on parental involvement. However, it
always seemed like the day we were supposed to meet in our inter-disciplinary
teams, that was also the faculty meeting day. Which, by the time we got in here,
that gave us a whole 15 to 20 minutes to discuss anything and get the ball rolling.
Time was also discussed in the context of teachers believing they did not have
enough time to complete all of the tasks required of them to perform their jobs. The
faculty of RTHS is going to spend the 2012-2013 school year working on individual

71
department goals developed by the departments for school improvement rather than the
entire faculty working on the same school-improvement objectives that were developed
by the administration and school improvement team. At the end of the 2012 school year,
each department was required to submit their department goals to the administration.
When discussing this presentation of goals to the administration, P2 indicated a
frustration with a lack of time and stated, I have so many other things on my plate that I
am here at this school for.
P1 also indicated later in the interview some of the same frustrations with lack of
time and stated:
We have also asked for time, that we be paid for, to redo some curriculum and
they denied that. So it is like they want you to do it but they dont give you the
time or the tools or the money.
The faculty interviews also revealed a desire by the participants to have more time
provided to them to visit and observe other teachers in the building during the school day.
P3 stated, And I would like the freedom to go visit other classes. . . But I want to be free
to go visit other teachers, I want to be able to visit other people, especially new teachers. .
.
However, there was time provided to the faculty for collaboration on Monday
mornings and it was something the faculty values and would not want to see taken away,
as discussed in the collaboration theme before. When discussing the school improvement
plan for the 2012-2013 school year, P2 stated:
I am looking forward to being able to have those conversations as a possibility. I
do know that each department is working on their own things but if I can have the

72
ability to see what I am not focusing on, or see where there are gaps or see what I
can do to help. . . I like that opportunity. I think that is a big positive, the freedom
to talk about it.
Professional development was another supportive condition that was discussed
during the focus group interviews and it reinforced the findings in the PLCA-R survey by
some respondents that there was no money for professional development. The following
exchange occurred between P1 and P3 when asked if there were any improvements they
would like to see in the area of professional development. P1 stated, That we should be
able to have professional development.
P3 quickly followed, Or going to workshops, what about going to conferences,
what about, why is there no money for that stuff? Why are they thumbing that down?
One of the most discussed supportive condition in the interview centered on
communication at RTHS and the perception by the participants that their ideas were not
being heard by the administration. When discussing the department goals with the
administration for next year P2 described the following exchange about communicating
the need to document the goals for next year:
I understand if its a living breathing document, that if its something you need to
submit to the state that it needs to be specific but that was never really outlined to
us. . . and some of the experiences I have had, one side is saying one thing, the
other side is saying the other and as teachers we are caught in the middle. We are
in the middle of the crossfire.
Another example of a possible communication issue was described by P2 during a
discussion about a course that participant taught:

73
So to me in the same conversation I got make it rigorous, push it, Common Core,
Common Core, Common Core, dont make it too rigorous because then you wont
have too many kids. And so for me sometimes that communication is lost in
translation.
The desire by the faculty to see more direct and improved communication
between themselves and the administration was discussed on multiple occasions
throughout the interview. P2 stated:
Tell me what you want and I will give it to you. Its like students- they keep
telling us show your students the objective, show your students where you want
them to go and they will go there. Show me what you want. You know, I think the
whole thing with the PLC model is if you would have told us you would like to
develop a, have a PLC here, how can we do that? How is it beneficial to you?
And have those communications with us as this is what we want, how do you do
this?. . . For the communication, sometimes it seems like when I try to reach out
and communicate, it just falls on deaf ears.
Both P1, P3, and P4 simultaneously stated, I agree.
P5 also added:
And I think one of the communication things is we wanted more communication
with the administration and the school board as a whole. I think there is a
disconnect between what the administration tells the school board what we do and
what we actually do. . . granted they probably dont need to know about the
everyday running of the school. But when it comes to things that affect programs

74
or decisions or things like that then I think they should be involved in that. They
should be more involved with what goes on.
The exchange about communication continued with a comment by P2:
. . . when we said we wanted more communication, for me I wanted more open
communication and I wanted to feel free to walk into their office and say this is
my problem. Or this is what I am hearing in the community. . .Instead of well
were just going to bombard you with all of the information we get from the state
and from. . . you know I dont need that kind of communication. I need more of
those conversations. . . its great that they started communicating with us a ton but
is it what we need to know? Is it what we want to know? Because for me
communication is a two-way street. I want to be able to feel, you know, when I
walk into that room, and I tell them something about my classes, my courses, my
department, that I am being heard.
P1 continued:
They tell us all this stuff that I dont really need to know yet. Well this is coming
down the pipe. Well dont tell me until it is already approved of. But then they
dont reciprocate by letting us talk about what we need to talk about.
P2 finished this part of the communication discussion and stated:
I think what happened was when that survey went out and we said that we wanted
more communication, for me at least, it was I want more of those conversations. I
want this to be more open, I want to be able to trust my administrator. I want to be
able to sit down in a room and believe that whatever I have to say, good or bad, is
being valued. And I think that is not happening.

75
The final supportive condition that was discussed at length during the faculty
focus group was the issue of trust. Although the PLCA-R survey data revealed that
majority of respondents felt a culture of trust existed to allow for risk taking at RTHS, the
focus group respondents were less positive in their remarks about the existence of trust
between teachers and administrators at RTHS. However, many of the remarks dealing
with the issue of trust focused more on trust in the leadership at RTHS, not in the trusting
culture for risk taking at RTHS. Due to the overlapping nature of trust and leadership,
many of those comments will be discussed in the leadership category. The issue of trust
was brought up with a question asked by P1 to P2 when discussing the inter-disciplinary
team when P1 asked, So you are still at the bottom stage of this? So you dont know
how any suggestions you would make would get handled or if they would get
implemented?
This line of questioning implied the participating members do not trust the
administration to listen to their ideas about change at RTHS and was reinforced when P2
replied, As far as taking steps to change things, not quite sure because we are not at that
point yet.
The participants indicated at the end of the interview their apprehensiveness about
trust at RTHS when asked about what they would like to see changed for the future and
P1 stated, I would like to see the homeroom idea. Or at least considered. Truly, truly
considered.
Theme 4: Shared and supportive leadership. Shared and supportive leadership
was discussed frequently during the faculty focus group interviews. The qualitative data
was similar in many ways to the quantitative survey results and the discussion revealed a

76
dissatisfaction with the leadership at RTHS on a number of different fronts including the
perception there is a top-down leadership model used at RTHS, past experiences leading
to a lack of trust in the RTHS leadership, and a belief that the facultys opinion was not
being heard at RTHS. Shared and supportive leadership was an area perceived by the
faculty participants as a weakness in the PLC model at RTHS.
The issue of leadership was brought up almost right away during the discussion
about the inter-disciplinary team meetings when P1 asked, Do you think the
administration has so far been supportive of the team. . .?
P2 responded:
I think supportive in the fact that they let the teams happen. Theyve been
supportive with allowing us to do that. Its just this year, as with everything else,
everything was to be documented and we had to have evidence that we were
meeting, that we were having these discussions. Which I am not opposed to
evidence of the meetings. Thats not it. Its just that it didnt feel like it could be
as free as possible. Because of we need to have that agenda set ahead of time, we
need to do this.
A belief by the faculty participants of their inability to freely guide their own
meetings and professional activities was highlighted during an exchange about the
presentation of department goals to members of the administration for the 2012-2013
school year. P5 stated that, . . . they pretty much just sat down and told me what my
department goals should be. Or at least my rationale.

77
P1 related a similar situation with a different department when presenting the
goals for the following year by stating that a faculty member, . . . came up with several
suggestions and they shot them all down.
This frustration with a leadership style that was less distributive and more topdown was evident in the quantitative survey results as well and led the faculty focus
group participants to question whether they had any ability to create change at RTHS. P3
stated, Change doesnt seem like they, theyre not interested in, theyre interested in the
process of change, or maybe us discussing change, but God forbid we ask change happen
immediately.
Another example of the frustration with the perception that a top-down leadership
model was being employed at RTHS came at the end of the focus group interview when
the group was asked what they considered to be the most frustrating aspect of being part
of a PLC at RTHS. P2 responded:
I think for me it was the forced PLC. The this is what it will be, you get this role
in it. I think at one point we were shown a video of what a PLC looked like in
action and it was a bunch of elementary school teachers in action in a library or
something. And I was like heck yeah, that looks pretty awesome. They are talking
about stuff, they are developing stuff, they are working on stuff. But I think one of
the big things that video kept reiterating was that this was a change the teachers
made and it was teacher driven. I dont feel like this has been teacher driven. It
was, were a PLC, and we really are not.
The past experiences of the faculty focus group members with RTHS leadership
shone further light on why they believed they do not have a lot of input in the area of

78
leadership and why many teachers at RTHS did not have a lot of trust and faith in the
current leadership. P1 stated that teachers have gone to the administration with different
ideas and have . . . been met with nope, nope, nope.
P2 discussed the frustration with trying to present a plan to the administration on
creating a homeroom schedule as an option for assisting all students at RTHS once a day
with areas they may be struggling with instead of just giving students study hall that
many do not use. P2 stated:
I think my disheartening thing with that was yes, I think it would be extremely
valuable because it gives your study hall a purpose. . . But we started those
discussions and then we had all three schedule options laid out and they
automatically crossed one off.
P2 went on to say later in the interview:
But, I get extremely disheartened whenever it gets to that next step of lets go
present this. And watch them shake their heads and go Uh huh, Uh huh, we are
listening to you, we are taking that into consideration, yeah no.
P1 stated, Well it is frustrating when you have ideas and suggestions be turned
down time and time again.
The feeling by the faculty participants that their suggestions were not listened to
was also seen in the previous discussion on moving the Monday morning collaboration
time to a different part of the week and time of the day to be more effective. This was
exemplified when P1 stated, Even though weve been asking for the change for three
years.

79
Another past experience by members of the faculty focus group that have hurt the
ability to form a relationship of trust with the leadership was brought to light with the
following exchange begun by P2:
. . . the first year that [the principal] stepped in he had fresh ideas. And that first
meeting we ever had with him he was like if you ever want to go watch somebody
else teach I will sub for your classes, I will make sure that you can. And I went to
him once and asked for that and he denied me.
P3 stated, No.
P1 added, Ive heard that.
P2 continued by describing the impact this experience had on the relationship
with the principal at RTHS and commented, Done. I went Im done with you. And I
think so many people have lost the trust, have lost the respect, have lost that professional
courtesy to him.
P1 interjected, Because we know he is always going to say no.
P2 continued:
That we, I think, we have just kind of shut it off and were like we will do
whatever you want us to. We will fill out whatever paperwork you want us to, we
will jump through your hoops because does it really matter what we have to say?
Does it really matter what we want?
P2 continued the discussion by highlighting the impact of the leadership at RTHS
and the negative perception faculty members have and stated:
And I think that is where the disconnect comes from. It may be that the
communication is there, it is just that after so long that as a staff we are just, you

80
know, that you can tell us whatever you want but you are going to do whatever
you want. . . Its just, I think, for so long so many of us in our individual
capacities went in and requested things or wanted to have those conversations or
wanted that communication, and we didnt get it. And, I think, its like a kid. You
tell them so many times and theyre just going to put up a wall. Im done with
you. I dont want to deal with you.
P3 added, Or you dont want to go to them what-so-ever because you have been
shut down so many times. I mean how many times do you keep going back to him to ask
for certain things?
P2 continued:
At one point a staff member said that perception is reality and that whatever you
perceive is reality. They were told that by [the principal] and I think that, for us,
our perception is that of our reality for him; that we perceive you as not caring or
P5 interrupted by stating, He has his own agenda.
The possible impact of the past experiences of the faculty with the leadership of
RTHS and the perception that the faculty has little opportunity to enact change because
they were not being heard was stated by P1:
Sometimes I worry that many teachers are like I am not even going to be on these
committees because after we do all this and visit places and do all that, they dont
listen to us anyway. They tell us why we cant instead of how can we.
The strained relationship and mistrust between the faculty and the leadership at
RTHS was having a negative impact on the ability of the school to move forward and
offer different options to enable student and teacher achievement. P5 described a

81
conversation with the RTHS principal about a possible class offering at RTHS to help
struggling students with a specific course required for graduation and the reaction of P5
was:
It would be a good class but in the past they havent kept their word. . . I know he
has broken his word to me time and time again. . . And I dont even want to talk
to him about it.
Theme 5: Results oriented. Using data to drive instructional practices and
increase student achievement was only briefly discussed on two separate occasions
during the faculty focus group interview, suggesting this was either an area the faculty
had not begun focusing on since it was only year five of PLC implementation or that the
faculty may have been unsure of how to properly use data to change instructional
practices. The first discussion of data was in reference to the changing demographics of
RTHS, the lack of a changing curriculum, and a concern of the impact on the new
double-down program at RTHS on elective courses. Double-down in English and Math
was begun two years ago as a way to assist those students who were behind in English
and Math at the freshman and sophomore level by keeping them in English and Math
classes for two periods rather than just one. P1 began that discussion and indicated, And
they also have to understand that our demographics have changed and are changing. You
know, when I first started here we had a completely different group of kids. More
college-bound kids, kids who came in with skills.
P1 went on to describe a particular class the participant taught that year and the
low skill level many of the students in that class had according to the Pearson Warehouse
reports handed out to the faculty in the middle of the school year. These reports provided

82
data points available to the school on each individual student that could include scores on
the Explore, Plan, and practice ACT exams depending on the grade level of the student.
Each teacher was given this information for every student they had in their classes that
school year. In one of P1s courses the participant indicated:
I had only three kids above a 14 ACT reading score. Three. . . . At what point
does this become a skills class? At what point do I get an aide?. . . So, you know,
our demographics have changed and our curriculum has not changed. I mean, yes,
we have done the double down and that has hurt electives and it has hurt the
numbers there, but I dont see any significant improvements?. . . We havent been
given any data or maybe it is too soon?
P3 continued with concerns about the low test scores at RTHS:
Maybe well never get AYP. I mean, I dont hear the AYP watch or the talk about
it anymore because they are saying that nobody is going to do it. . . We have
invited the state down to come and look at our numbers and look at what we have
been doing. . . for the past six years and we are still on AYP watch. What do you
want us to do? And the state. . . is saying we are doing everything we can do with
the population we have. At this point they dont seem to be worried about AYP
unless the state wants to come in and fire us and start all over again.
The only other time the discussion of data was touched upon was in response to
the question about using data during collaboration meetings. P5 stated:
The only time I use assessment data as far as when I look at our assessment at the
end of the year finals. I will go in and change those questions that I think need to
be changed. So I will go in and use that time to look through last years or last

83
semesters data and be like, Oh, OK, I need to change number 13, and I will
change number 13. Or I will modify it, or I will update. But that is about as much
as I will use that data because my curriculum is not rocket science. I am not
teaching AP. This is basic stuff that if you dont get it or if you dont care to study
I am not going to change my entire curriculum because you dont understand this
concept. I may notice over two or three classes that they dont understand the
same concept. OK, then how am I going to teach this differently next year. . .
Administrator Survey Results
The survey results were the perceptions of the administration relating to the
implementation of the five categories of PLCs of shared mission, vision, values, and
goals, culture of collaboration, supportive conditions, shared and supportive leadership,
and results orientation. Of the four administrators that were given the quantitative survey,
only one was returned and caution must be taken when reviewing these results as they
only describe the views of one administrator rather than the entire administrative team.
Therefore, those results will be briefly discussed and the majority of the findings for the
administrator portion will be based on the qualitative focus group interview with three of
the four administrators. The administrator survey results answer the following research
questions: What factors for the successful use of the PLC model are present at RTHS to
improve teacher effectiveness and prevent RTHS from becoming a PLC in name only?;
what factors for the successful use of the PLC model are present at RTHS to improve
student achievement and prevent RTHS from becoming a PLC in name only?; and what
stages or steps of the implementation of PLCs at RTHS have been executed thus far to
ensure program effectiveness and what are the areas of weaknesses evident at each stage

84
or step in the implementation process? Table 7 illustrates the relationship between the
focus group interview questions asked at both the administrative and faculty focus group
interviews to the research questions.
Table 7
Research Questions in Relation to Interview Questions
Research Question
1. What factors for the successful use

Interview Question
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

11, 12
of the PLC model are present at RTHS to

13, 14, 16, 17, 18

improve teacher effectiveness and prevent

RTHS from becoming a PLC in name only?
2. What factors for the successful use of the PLC

6, 14

model are present at RTHS to improve student

achievement and prevent RTHS from becoming
a PLC in name only?
3. What stages or steps of the implementation of
PLCs at RTHS have been executed thus far to

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 16,
17

ensure program effectiveness?

4. What are the areas of weakness evident at each

1, 3, 4, 5, 14, 16, 18

stage or step in the implementation process?

5. What prior efforts have been made to address
weaknesses of the PLC model implementation process?

1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 16,

17, 18

85
Administrator quantitative survey results. The PLCA-R surveys were
distributed to the four members of the RTHS administration at the same time the surveys
were distributed to the faculty. Of the four surveys distributed, one was returned by the
administrative staff. Due to the low response rate from the administration on the
quantitative portion, it would be impossible to describe the demographics of the
administrative response group without revealing the identity of the respondent.
Furthermore, caution must be taken when reviewing the results of the survey as they
represent the views of one member of the administrative team. The views of the
administrative team at RTHS were represented more accurately in the qualitative section
of the findings centered on the same five themes or characteristics of PLCs found in the
faculty qualitative results with an additional theme of improving the effectiveness of the
PLC in the future.
The survey results indicated an agreement or strong agreement with 50 out of the
52 statements on the PLCA-R suggesting the administrative team does not see many of
the same issues with the PLC implementation process at RTHS that was revealed in the
faculty responses. The first statement on the survey that was marked as disagree indicated
the respondent did not believe the vision of the staff members for school improvement
were completely focused on student learning (question 14). The second statement on the
survey that was marked as disagree indicated the respondent did not believe members of
the RTHS staff gave feedback to their colleagues as it related to their instructional
practices (question 32).
Theme 1: Shared mission, vision, values, and goals. The administrative focus
group discussed the shared mission, vision, values, and goals of RTHS on several

86
different occasions. The administrative team has a clear grasp of the progress the school
has made from the beginning of the PLC implementation process and what the big picture
for the school is. The administration team saw the shared mission, vision, values, and
goals of the RTHS PLC as expressed in the student-centered focus of the building, in a
framework for approaching school problems, and in an emphasis on the whole child. The
theme from the view of the administration demonstrated a strength in the PLC
implementation process with an opportunity to learn from past actions and make
corrections as necessary in order to move forward as a PLC.
One aspect of the mission and vision of RTHS was keeping a student-centered
focus on everything that occurs in the building. When asked what they believed the focus
and vision of the school was, A2 immediately responded, Collaboration and studentcentered.
A2 followed up and stated:
. . . if you are student-centered, that has far less impact than if you are how is that
going to impact me and then as another thought or question, well how is that
going to impact students? It is keeping the student centered first and foremost.
Another expression of the mission and vision of RTHS was discussed during
multiple exchanges throughout the administrator interview with descriptions of how the
PLC implementation process began at RTHS five years ago. PLCs at RTHS were
supposed to be guided by focusing on four essential questions. A1 summarized the four
questions:
. . . the four questions are what do want the students to know? How will we know
when they know it? So, curriculum and assessment. What will we do what they

87
dont know it? So, intervention. And then, what will we do what they know it?
So, its enrichment. So, its that complete picture.
A2 discussed the beginning of the PLC implementation model at RTHS:
Weve really, in the first four years, it was really working hard on questions one
and two. And I dont know if you remember in the faculty meeting where we said
what we are doing is called a PLC. We didnt have the collaboration time at that
point but all of the pieces, this is what we are doing. And that brought up
questions of what is this new-found thing we are doing? No, you guys
misunderstood, this is what we are already doing, this is just the name for it. So,
as we have progressed, because I think it is important that you have to have the
background first to understand and then implement. We did a lot of that in the
beginning. A lot of working with departments and setting norms and working
together and its OK to disagree and giving permission for that. All of those
pieces were pivotal and working hard at our guaranteed viable curriculum as we
worked forward. All of those pieces are now in place. So now its what does that
mean then for your specific department?. . .
The focus on the four questions of the PLC model at RTHS was further discussed
in the context of the first year of daily interventions for students who were struggling. A1
stated:
. . . we are starting to get to the individual student level with our daily student
intervention and it still needs work. It wasnt perfect. It was our first year pilot but
addressing question number three at the high school level is so challenging. . .
A2 further elaborated:

88
With that third question, what do we need to do for students who dont know it?
That is, we are continuing to evaluate that, the pieces that we have in place and
are they having the best benefit that we can possibly have for those learners. We
have really solidified how we identify those students, and that has been beneficial
for them. It is looking at the outcomes and we definitely need to continue to focus
on that and not forgetting that fourth, for the kids who are getting it, continuing to
offer them opportunities and to make sure their needs are being met as well.
The need to reevaluate was discussed by A2:
And making decisions as to are we going to stay with this? Do we need to
improve it? That is where we have thrown in the Plan-Do-Study-Act framework
so that we have that guidance. Making sure that we are not just doing things over
and over again. That if they are not having the desired impact then lets switch or
change or modify.
A final component of the shared mission, vision, values, values and goals was
briefly discussed in the context of educating the whole child rather than just focusing on
testable subjects. A1 stated:
I think also with these department goals [for next school year] perhaps it is
becoming a little more whole child which the board has talked about. They dont
want to just be math and reading focused, which is important. And I would hope
that with these new department developed SIP goals that each department is
feeling a renewed credibility to what their content is, why their content is
important to students.

89
A2 added, [A students speech] on Saturday [graduation] is going to talk about
the whole child. So even at the student level they see that it is much more than just a test
score.
Theme 2: Culture of collaboration. The administrative focus group interview
revealed a shared belief with the faculty the collaborative culture begun under the PLC
model implementation has been a strength for both the teachers and students at RTHS.
Collaboration was discussed in the context of what collaboration was like before PLCs
were implemented at RTHS, what collaboration currently looks like at RTHS, the
evolution of collaboration for next school year, and how collaborating can be scary.
Although seen as a strength, the administrative team, along with the teachers, saw room
for improvement in the practice of collaboration at RTHS.
The use of collaboration before the implementation of PLCs was discussed when
A1 stated, I would say that before it was very collegial, but dont confuse that for
collaborative. . . I think it was exceptionally collegial and the staff was different then.
A2 added, A lot more people lived in the community.
A1 continued:
Yeah. And people were residents here and they had character in that old building.
. . But from what Ive heard I dont think it was a PLC, collaborative, focused on
students, focused on data. Data, I dont think data even existed before this new
building, if at all. Six years ago is when we bought Remark to start looking at
common summatives. . . So, there may have been pockets of teachers who would
scan their data somehow and through a scantron do an item analysis
independently. But yeah, I dont think it existed. I think they were very collegial.

90
Collaboration for the faculty occurred each Monday morning. The administrative
focus group interview revealed a strong desire to continue with the current collaboration
schedule, a satisfaction with the facultys use of collaboration time, and areas for
improvement. When asked what they believed to be the greatest impact of PLC
components that were currently in place at RTHS, A1 responded, I think common
collaboration time, even though it is limited to just once a week, which ideally it would
be daily. Thats been huge because at least it sets time aside for those conversations.
Although the administration believed the majority of the faculty used
collaboration time effectively, there were areas they would like to see improved. A1
stated, Now I know there is variance in the departments of who uses it most effectively
and who uses it in a less effective way.
A2 discussed a desire to keep collaboration time focused on what was best for the
students when it was stated:
We have had these discussions especially during this last month in going over
those goals. Sometimes we, different departments were focusing a little bit too
much on the adults and so we had those conversations where we said this isnt
about the adults, this is about the learner. So lets shift that and lets get to that
level because that is why we are here. So through that perpetual reminding of
some and then our actions, I think as always, those speak louder than words. So it
is important that we focus on the kids and take that adult aspect of how is that
going to affect me personally.
Later during the interview, A2 indicated a belief that most of the faculty
collaborated very well with pockets that needed additional guidance:

91
I think overall that the communication during that collaboration time is very
effective. . . I do think in pockets it depends on the personalities that are involved.
I will say that I am really proud of some of our departments that clearly have
passed the personalities and now realize this is a professional dialogue, that its
not a personal dialogue. So I see it continually progressing and continually getting
better. And there are times when we have to step in and help, which is fine. That
is what we are here for.
A1 also stated when asked what areas of the PLC at RTHS needed to be
improved, I think one area is providing support to departments that arent using their
collaboration time most effectively. I think that is going to happen with this new SIP we
have got going where the departments set their own goals.
A2 also discussed the department goals for next year as an aspect of
collaboration:
So now as they are setting goals to support our school improvement/restructuring
plan, so those pieces will continually be monitored and updated and its a living
breathing document. I will see how next year goes but I am hopeful that it will be
a great model and will then keep on going and it would be a continual model. But
again we have to look at that and see what effect is it having, is it beneficial, get
feedback, make decisions off of that.
Another improvement for collaboration was discussed during the administrative
focus group in the context of improved communication during collaboration time. A1
stated:

92
I think sometimes having a really good plan of action helps the departments.
Those that sent an agenda, that gives them something to do, probably get more
done. Rather than, Oh were meeting on Monday? What are we going to talk
about? Because then they kind of drift around for the first 15 minutes and not a lot
happens.
A final component of collaboration was acknowledged by the administrative
focus group members during a discussion about how uncomfortable and sometimes scary
sharing professional practices can be in response to a question about teachers being good
communicators during collaboration time. A2 stated:
I think we did a good job and we will pat ourselves on the back for not
overlooking that because we spent a couple of weeks on that process of setting up
department norms. I think where the rubber meets the road and some struggle
more than others is that they dont want to, some people dont like confrontation
or they dont like to tell their peers that theyre not doing something or theyre not
carrying their weight. . . But, at some point in time, some people need to stand up
and beat their chest and say this is what we are going to do because this is whats
best.
The concept of having teaching strategies open for criticism was further discussed
in an exchange between A2 and A3. A3 stated, I think there is some animosity with staff
members because of the [new] evaluation system, especially with the CFAs, CSAs.
Hopefully we will be able to get those people through that. . .
A2 interrupted, And a lot of that is misunderstanding.
I then asked for further elaboration on this point and A3 responded:

93
Well, the new tiered evaluation system. There are the comparisons now between
teachers. But again, I think our staff puts students first, they know thats what
they have to do. . . there are pockets of teachers who have already done that. That
have gone to professional dialogue, put themselves ahead of, taken themselves out
of the picture to do whats best for students. And I know thats one of the things
thats tough to do in a PLC. So, I think that is something that we need to work on
and weve talked about that.
A2 continued:
Our staff needs to be reassured that this new evaluation model, a lot of its a local
decision. So, were going to try and guard against losing that collaboration, that
piece of the PLC because that is what is best for kids. And if we get too much into
comparing. . . our results against each other, then why am I going to share with
you? If it comes down to my job? So, its ironing out all of that and making sure
that our intent is still. . . student-centered. And thats where it needs to be.
Theme 3: Supportive conditions. The topic of supportive conditions at RTHS
for the implementation and success of the PLC model covered a variety of components
including a positive school culture, the trust and relationships that exist between
administrators, teachers, and students, the involvement of the parents and community,
professional development, mentoring, and communication. The consensus of the
administrative focus group members was this was an area with some strengths and
weaknesses, with a particular weakness in communication that needed to be addressed for
the future success of the PLC model.

94
The positive school culture at RTHS impacted both staff and students alike and
helped to create a great support for implementing PLCs. A3 stated:
The way I perceive the culture is it is a positive culture where kids feel
comfortable learning and teachers are able to teach because we dont have as
many distractions as other schools. . . . discipline referrals. . . are down a
thousand from last year. I think kids know how to behave here. You know, there
will always be those kids that act out inappropriately. I would like to think things
are dealt with quickly and the kids are learning from their mistakes. I think
teachers feel comfortable here. I believe they feel comfortable here and think it is
a positive place to be.
Another supportive condition that was discussed was the positive relationships
that exist between the administration, faculty, and students that impact the development
and sustainability of PLCs at RTHS. A1 stated:
I think we have an amazing staff of professionals that really build these
relationships with kids, which is what it is all about. And I have heard [the
principal] say it before that he would put our staff up against anybody. Any staff,
anywhere because we have some really, really talented and capable teachers. And
so that has the direct impact on student learning and it is because the teachers are
committed and they are willing to go the extra mile.
A3 added:
This is one school where I, and I have been in a couple, where the teachers know
the kids and the relationships are just incredible. Because teachers connect with
them and the kids feel like they belong and when kids feel like they belong, they

95
do better. It is just really neat to see the kids and how they work with teachers and
talk to them.
A2 continued the discussion, I think that is part of the PLC that it is a
collaborative culture. So, it is you are getting to know the kids on a deeper level.
A3 stated:
And with our community too, teachers in the community know the kids in the
community. I think that take, has a big effect on kids. Hey, you did really well
with this, I saw your name in the paper or. . . So, just taking an interest in that
way, you get a lot of buy in.
A2 continued:
Well, its that Daggets three Rs. The rigor, relationships, relevance. The
information that comes through PLCs and the collaboration definitely affects the
relationships. And it should affect the relevance and it should affect the rigor.
The involvement of the parents of RTHS and the surrounding community has
been, in the past, a source of concern for all parties involved. However, with the
implementation of PLCs, improving those relationships became a goal and there were
signs of positive progress made in this area. When asked about the role of parents and the
community members in RTHS, the following discussion ensued. A2 stated:
I will start by saying sometimes, well not sometimes, but all the time we want
parents to be more involved in the students education. . . When people hear
parental involvement at the elementary school theyre thinking theyre coming
into the building, theyre helping with reading groups, theyre on the PTO, theyre
serving muffins and muffins for moms. All of those different things, thats

96
parental involvement. When you get to middle school and high school there needs
to be that transition where the kids are becoming more independent and the kids
are naturally pushing their parents away. And its hard for parents. And there are
some helicopter parents that are, feel that every parent should have that right there
in their kids face approach. And a lot of times the very heavily opinionated
helicopter parents think that they speak for the majority and I think they are the
vast minority. Its trying to help the kids to become more independent. But I want
them to be involved and have those conversations at home about what did you do
in school today? What are your goals? What are your aspirations? How are we
going to get there? That type of involvement is needed. And I dont have any data
to say that its not happening. And weve tried through our, different statements
on our calendar or through. . . an AlertNow call. Talk about setting goals, have
those conversations coming up with a plan. So, it is embedded with a lot of our
communication that thats healthy and we need that.
Parent surveys were also sent out to gather data on the opinions of the parents of
students at RTHS to increase the achievement of students and staff. When asked about
the response rate for those surveys, A2 stated, It was 18, 18 was the response rate.
A1 asked, 18? 18 parents responded, not 18%?
A2 confirmed and A1 commented, 18 out of the probably 800 families that we
have, maybe 700 families
A2 continued:
So again, when we you know, the squeaky wheel usually is heard the most? So
thats when we look at that, I really feel that with the community involvement that

97
there are people that are vested in the community. And I think that [the
superintendent] through Rotary and through Chamber has done a really good job
trying to get the businesses. We are going to start a business class through KEC
for some of our senior leaders next year. Well have some businesses that will
come in next year and do lessons and will come in and do some speaking with
those kids. And theyll be able to go out and do some, not internships, but site
visits, where they look at that. So, I think its the leaders in the community start
rallying around that all together, its definitely becoming stronger, instead of
finger pointing and saying thats why business wont come to Rochelle or
whatever. Its lets work together and make sure that there is no reason that they
shouldnt.
A1 continued:
And I think some parents have also started to come to our defense because they
realize we do have great programs here. And they are starting to say wait a
second, test scores are not the end all, be all. And theyve started to tell us either
through e-mails or in writing or face-to-face, hey what you are doing for our kids
is really great. And our kids have had every opportunity they should have had.
[An RTHS family] wrote that letter to the editor last year that was just glowing
about Rochelle. And so I think there are pockets that are starting to realize that we
really do provide a great education for students that take advantage of it.
Professional development was an additional supportive condition that was
discussed during the administrative focus group interview. When asked about
professional development activities at RTHS the discussion focused initially on the staff

98
working on answering the first two questions of the four questions of PLCs (see A2 quote
under shared mission, vision, values, and goals). A1 continued:
. . . there are these two paradigms of professional development where one is the
sit and get. And we had to do some of that in the beginning where everybody is in
the same room getting the same information because it was really the foundation
of PLCs. CSAs [common summative assessments], CFAs [common formative
assessments], power standards, all of those things. Then there is the concept of job
embedded, on-going and continuous professional development, which I think we
hit on our Mondays and I think we are starting to hit it more next year with that
new SIP [school improvement plan].
A2 discussed professional development over the last few years at RTHS,
specifically addressing the formation of teacher study groups this past school year and
stated:
. . . I hope that the staff sees in the last couple of years that we have tried to
differentiate more and that was the whole intent of this year. To differentiate, to
meet your needs as a classroom teacher. So, thats the direction of OK, what is it
that your needs are and then trying to meet those needs.
The topic of the past school years formation of study groups was discussed later
in the interview as a means of decreasing teacher isolation and how that worked when A1
stated:
And I think a lot of teachers miss that [collegiality] because they would keep
constantly hearing themes about isolation. I feel so isolated, I am down in the, I
never see you, Oh you still work here? And so we have worked really hard this

99
year to try and bring teachers together so there is less isolation. Its been received
in an interesting way. But I think teachers are still hungry for collegiality along
with collaboration.
The positive relationships that exist building wide at RTHS was further
exemplified by the mentoring program which pairs up new teachers with experienced
teachers in the building to help new teachers through the first two years of employment at
RTHS. The mentoring program was considered a success by the administration and
faculty of RTHS and was discussed in the context of professional development when A1
stated:
And I think part of our professional development too that we cant overlook is the
mentoring program because talking about teacher needs and how different they
are, makes me think about our brand new teachers. To have a state certified or
state approved program in place that gives them great support for that first year or
two that they are in the building.
When asked about the success of the mentoring program, A3 stated:
Since we have such a good staff, the mentor program runs really well because
they just take care of each other. Most schools are getting, struggling to get people
to do the mentoring program. . . there are 20 that are capable of doing it and . . .
four or five more that are interested in doing it. Again, I think its because this
staff is really wonderful. . . it just runs itself.
The final supportive condition that was discussed in the administrative focus
group interview was communication. Like the faculty responses, the administrative focus
group interview acknowledged weaknesses in communication within the RTHS PLC and

100
a desire to find a way to improve communication. The acknowledgement of a weakness
in communication and need to improve communication was expressed by A1:
I will tell you one thing that I think would improve our PLCs as a whole, is if
teachers felt more freedom in approaching us. I am not sure where that barrier is
or why that barrier is perceived to be there. Sometimes we find out later that oh,
we have this question. Well ask, we will answer for you. Dont brew on it for
three, five, six months. Ask. So I think that would help, some kind of, it is always
improved communication. You can communicate as best as possible and it needs
to be both directions and you can always do better.
A2 added, Clarifying questions. A lot of that is that relationship and that trust.
So, it is building that and continuing to build on those relationships. It is vitally
important.
The frustration with communication was expressed later on in the interview when
discussing leadership styles when A2 stated:
Whatever needs to be done, I am going to do it. That means continually saying. . .
if you need something, stop by. And that is probably where my greatest
frustration as a leader is, is that our staff doesnt do that. And they need to realize
that that is genuine and anyone who has taken advantage of that, theyve been
helped as much as possibly can be helped.
The frustration with communication was expressed at the end of the interview
when the administrative team was asked what the most frustrating part of participating in
the PLC at RTHS and A2 immediately replied, As an administrative member . . . it
would be the lack of two-way communication. That would be mine.

101
A3 also expressed a desire for better communication with the staff and stated, I
know [the principal] does a good job of being there for people if people would just
approach him. Come down to our office. Its nice when teachers come down and talk.
When asked to provide their opinion on why the administration believed the
faculty did not communicate better or take advantage of the help that was offered by the
administration, A2 replied:
I think it is the perpetual management versus worker mentality approach.
Whatever, um, that frustrates the hell out of me. It is ridiculous. Personally, I am
not out to get anyone. If they are not doing their job, we are going to have that
conversation. But I am not out to get anybody and if they feel that way, I am not
sure where they are getting that from and that is a frustration of mine.
A different aspect of communication within the PLC model at RTHS was briefly
discussed that centered on teachers communicating with other teachers informally
throughout the school day. A1 stated:
. . . I think another area where our teachers are really good communicators,
especially in pockets, is the informal communication. Seeing someone at the pod,
Hey what are you copying? Hey, can I have a copy of that because I would need
to use it for my next class. That looks like an awesome instructional strategy.
Those sorts of things, those are hard to measure, but I know they go on. People
share in the O drive [school network]. They go, Oh I just uploaded into O. Just go
clicking into my files and there it is. So, I think that cant be overlooked because
it works. And its not documented, its not structured. We dont have minutes on
those meetings, there is no voting. But, its an effective way of communicating.

102
Theme 4: Shared and supportive leadership. The topic of leadership was
discussed during the administrative focus group interview and focused on the leadership
styles of the administrative team, how the administrative leadership team worked together
within the PLC model, and the need to recognize and encourage leadership among the
faculty. The administrative focus group indicated a belief that this theme was a success
within the PLC model implementation process and a desire to increase the number of
teacher leaders in the future.
When asked what leadership styles the administrative team uses at RTHS, A2
replied:
. . . one of them is servant leadership. I truly feel like I am here to serve and
provide whatever is needed and whatever that means. I am not above anything.
Whatever needs to be done, Im going to do it. . . also situational leadership is a
big piece because you have to read the situation and then know whether do you
need to step in and made an executive decision or do you need to pull back and let
it find its way with providing support. So, part of that communication, we have
tried to communicate why it is a decision is made or not, but then the
encouragement of if you dont understand or know why something is being done,
the way it is being done, or the decision was made, come in and we can talk
about. We may not agree at the end of the day when you walk out of the door, but
at least you have some more information to base your judgments on instead of
assumptions. . . I think if anyone doesnt use the situational leadership style and
they just have one [leadership style], it is not going to work very well.
A3 indicated their philosophy applied to leadership situations:

103
. . . my philosophy is to be a resource to the teachers and be very supportive. I
think I like to use a lot of positive reinforcement when talking with teachers and
kids. In a lot ways, staff are just like kids. You need to get to know them, again,
figure out what is going on with them, just be there for them. Lead from the front.
. . Show that you are able to be a part of that.
When asked how leadership was accomplished within the administrative team of
the superintendent, principal, and two assistant principals the discussion showed the PLC
model was at work among those four members. A1 stated:
. . . he [the superintendent] does have a very clear direction that he wants the
district to go in and, I think, sometimes not everyone realizes what a great leader
he is as a superintendent. Getting everybody rowing in the same direction to use
that analogy.
A2 described how the administrative team works together in the PLC model:
So, it hasnt been a dictatorship. There has definitely been flexibility. It has
definitely been a team approach where we sit around and one of the three of us
will say, Hey what about this and well have those discussions. Very much
modeling what a PLC should be. We disagree and we talk those out and at the end
of the day we come out with a unified focus. . . that vision for really focusing,
having collaboration, focusing on data and implementing those pieces. . . I think
the staff would be amazed if they knew how much we met and talked. And
dialogued and brainstormed and really worked together as a team to get to where
we are at and where we want to go.

104
A1 continued, I think he is that new model of a superintendent that focuses on
school improvement and learning. . . Just the fact that he knows the four questions and
knows where we are at. He has his fingers on it. . .
A2 added:
So there hasnt been this is exactly what you are going to do. It is this is what I
want to do, that is the tight part. The loose part is how are we going to get there.
We have to, again, get feedback from the staff through communication and
talking and make those decisions based off of the information that we have. You
are only as good as the information that you have in your decisions.
The administrative team also discussed the importance of cultivating and
encouraging teacher leadership at RTHS. A1 stated:
One area that I think we are proud of and should be proud of is we are starting to
target areas where teachers can be leaders. So, the round-robins that weve done
[on institute days], the technology one and the effective teaching practices where
the teachers led the sessions. We had the one in the auditorium with the special
learners. . . where the teachers were able to get up there. I think that has been
really effective. And I think we will continue as a district to look for those
opportunities to let teachers guide professional development and to give them
leadership.
A few moments later during the focus group interview, A1 reiterated the belief in
the appreciation for teacher leaders at RTHS:
I think also in our building we have some non-titled teacher leaders that have
leadership roles, influential roles even if that are not department chairs, if they are

105
not head of the union, not a head coach somewhere. But, they still have great
influence in our staff. And I think that is a good thing because it is important to
have a lot of people that can carry the torch.
The importance of encouraging teachers to act as leaders was expressed when A2
stated:
. . . our staff is morphing as well. We had a lot of experienced teachers that left
the district last year, so other people are finding their leadership roles. So, what
does that look like? How do we meet that? Do we need to offer more support in
other areas where some of those other leaders were?
Finally, A1 expressed a gratitude for the work being done on the leadership team
when asked the question on the most positive aspect of being a member of the PLC at
RTHS and stated, I am going to say for me it is personal growth. Professional growth.
Because we are able to challenge each other as an administrative team, which is great.
Theme 5: Results oriented. The use of results to guide decision making in the
PLC model at RTHS was a topic the administrative focus group acknowledged had
strengths and weaknesses. While there was evidence of data being used at RTHS to drive
curriculum and instruction, there were multiple areas for improvement in getting data into
the hands of the teachers and in getting more teachers to use data during collaboration
time to adjust instructional strategies to improve teacher and student achievement.
The use of data to inform instruction was discussed almost immediately at the
beginning of the administrative focus group interview in response to a question about
what components of PLC at RTHS have had the biggest impact. A3 responded, I
personally think that data had has the biggest impact and the Pearson Warehouse had has

106
really helped things out. . . See the trends and what we are lacking at and what we are
good at.
A2 added:
. . . it pulls it all in and we can pull them [student Plan, Explore, and ACT data
points] out in the reports. So having that information at our fingertips has been
beneficial. . . so that we are focusing on the needs of the students and making
good adjustments.
Improvements moving forward in the PLC model implementation for using more
data were addressed when A1 stated:
I think the other area that we are starting to do better on, but there is still room for
improvement, is getting relevant student data into the teachers hands. . . I think
we do a great job evaluating common summatives, I think the final exam,
semester end finals. I think common formatives have kind of a spotty track
record. I think some departments are doing a great job looking at common
formatives and I think some departments need a little more support.
During the administrative focus group interview the administrators were asked to
elaborate on how they would envision the use of common formative data by teachers. A1
responded:
I would always love for teachers to have more time to look at more data that is
relevant to their student-centered classroom. I think a goal would be to do some
common grading, especially on subjective assignments. Do we have a rubric for
how we evaluate all essays? Do we have a rubric for what we are looking for in
the short answer? So that there is some consistency. And I know there, sometimes

107
people hackle about having to be too lock step. But, I dont know if that is lock
step when you are able to talk about students and what you are looking for. . . In
certain ways I think data protocols can help. But, we had Kevin Ryan in two
Octobers ago [for a teachers institute day to explain data protocols] and I know it
was a flop. The teachers werent ready for it yet. Somehow it didnt take hold on
how to evaluate CFAs in a systematic way. But, its not to say that it cant be
done and wont be done eventually.
A2 added:
I think that definitely needs to be incorporated more because that forms the
learning and instruction. So, that is a pivotal piece. I think a lot of it is information
right now. I think we are in a better stage than we were. . . Weve made progress.
How do we get that as an on-going piece? Some of that is knowing what Monday
time is for. Some people are still trying to figure that out. I struggle with that too.
This will be year five of this, this focusing on the four questions of a PLC.
A1 echoed a similar frustration:
. . . the frustration for me and, it is absolutely out of anybodys control, is how
long it takes. . . I mean we started this five years ago and we are not there yet.
And this is just the way it is in education. . . So, it is out of our control but it is a
professional frustration to say gosh, this takes a long time. And youre moving a
big system: 1200 kids and new ones are coming and old ones are leaving and staff
comes and goes.

108
Theme 6: Improving effectiveness in the future. The administrative focus
group interview ended with a question about improving the effectiveness of the PLC at
RTHS in the future. A1 stated:
Ill start by saying that if we continue to look at questions three and four, it is
going to do great things for the district. Four is hanging over us. We need to
address four because we have some phenomenal students here that we can
challenge even more. We have great programs in house and at KEC, but I think
we can do more with three and four. And one and two with Common Core. . .
A2 added:
. . . I am still going to say student centered. So, when we look at data, taking away
the possibility of saying, hey my kids didnt do as well as yours so I really dont
want to talk about it. Instead of just saying what did you do? Im interested
because I want to get better. I think those conversations do happen but there is
hesitancy with sharing because you are opening up. Youre saying heres me as a
teacher. These are the results of the kids. Youre vulnerable and I understand that.
Its getting to that level. I would say staying at student-centered in all of those
PLC, RtI, but then getting even more so where we can take ourselves out of it.
A3 concluded:
I think the biggest thing is we have to relay to teachers why we are doing things,
that way they all buy in. . . Its about the students. Theyve got to understand
were doing this to try to help the students. Sometimes theyre [the teachers] like
well, why are we doing this? Well, were doing it to help the students and theyve

109
got to understand that is why we are doing the things we are doing is to work
towards that.
Limitations
As this study focused solely on the implementation of PLCs at RTHS and the
population surveyed was small in number, a limitation of this study was the inability to
generalize the findings to other schools and locations. Due to the small population size
and the single location of the school being studied, this project study was more of a case
study whose results were limited to the school being researched. The program evaluation
of PLCs at RTHS was designed to be formative in nature and only evaluated the progress
the program had made up until the point the survey and interviews were conducted.
Therefore, another limitation of this study was the inability to use the data from this study
to evaluate the RTHS PLC at a later date. It will be necessary to evaluate the PLC
program again in a few years to determine the future progress of the program after this
study. Another limitation of this study was the inclusion of only five faculty members in
the focus group interviews. With a staff of 65 faculty members, it was difficult for five
faculty members to speak for all 65 professionals in the building and they only spoke to
their own opinions and perceptions as they related to the study. A final limitation of this
study was the return of only one quantitative survey from the administrators. Too much
emphasis should not be placed on those results as they only represent the views of one
member of the administrative team.
Evidence of Quality
The use of triangulation of data, member checking, and rich, thick descriptions
were incorporated to provide a true portrayal of the perceptions of the study participants.

110
Data triangulation was used to bolster the evidence found within the quantitative survey
results and the qualitative focus group interviews to support the emerging themes of the
study results. Table 8 provides a matrix of the data triangulation sources. Member
checking was employed to ensure the accuracy of interview results and analysis. Shortly
after the transcripts were recorded, copies were distributed to participants for review.
Corrections based on that feedback were made to the interview transcripts and returned to
the participants for a second check. Rich and thick descriptions were used in the findings
section to further bolster the accuracy of the findings.
Table 8
Matrix of Sources for Data Triangulation by Theme
Research Theme

Source of Data
S

FI

AI

Theme 1: Shared mission, vision, values and goals

Theme 2: Culture of Collaboration

Theme 3: Supportive Conditions

Theme 4: Shared and Supportive Leadership

Theme 5: Results Oriented

Theme 6: Improving Effectiveness in the Future

S= PLCA-R Survey, FI= Faculty focus group, AI= Administrator focus group
Conclusion
The data analysis results of the quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews
provide all stakeholders at RTHS with information about the strengths and weaknesses of

111
the PLC program. The results also provide information to allow a discussion to begin on
ways to move the PLC program forward so that it is feasible and successful for the
teachers and students in the future. Information from the quantitative and qualitative data
was presented in chart and table format to ensure ease of understanding by all
stakeholders at RTHS.
Section 3 will discuss the project itself through goal description, study rationale,
and a literature review that supports the project. An implementation of the project will be
provided with a special focus on social change. Section 4 will contain an analysis of the
strengths and limitations of the project, the scholarship of the study, recommendations for
how to approach the problem differently, and a description of the development of the
project and evaluation. Finally, the project will conclude with an evaluation of myself as
a scholar and project developer, the potential for social change as a result of this project,
and an exploration of the implications, applications and direction of future research.

112
Section 3: The Project
Introduction
The data findings found in Section 2 indicate significant strengths and weaknesses
in the PLC implementation process that has occurred so far at RTHS. In order to
effectively increase teacher and student achievement through the sustainability of the
PLC model, a program evaluation of the PLC implementation process at RTHS is
necessary to prevent the PLC from becoming a superficial program. An analysis of
different types of program evaluations is provided in the literature review along with an
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the PLC program at RTHS and what
strategies can be employed to improve upon those weaknesses. An implementation plan
for this project study is discussed as well as implications for social and local change that
is embedded within this project study.
Project Description and Goals
PLCs are an educational reform movement intended to increase teacher and
student achievement in the classroom and on state standardized exams when
implemented and used correctly (Caskey & Graham, 2007; DuFour et al., 2008; Hipp,
Huffman, Pankake, & Olivier, 2008; Lujan & Day, 2010). As revealed in the academic
literature, PLCs can be successful in increasing the achievement levels of teachers and
students (Cranston, 2011; DuFour et al., 2008; Hipp et al., 2008; Hord, 2009; Lujan &
Day, 2010; Nelson, LeBard, & Waters, 2010). However, many reform movements are
implemented incorrectly giving the reform a bad name even though it was never used
correctly (DuFour, 2007). In order to prevent PLCs from becoming superficial at schools
that choose to implement this school reform model, program evaluations are necessary to

113
reveal strengths and weaknesses in the program implementation process and to ensure the
sustainability of the PLC program (Aubusson et al., 2007; DuFour, 2007).
PLCs were implemented 5 years ago at RTHS as a solution to not making AYP
for the past seven years and to increase teacher and student achievement. However, an
internal or external program evaluation of this implementation process has never been
conducted to ensure the school was on the correct path. Data were collected using a
mixed methods approach and explanatory sequential design to determine where in the
PLC implementation process RTHS was currently at in order to improve and sustain the
PLC model. Quantitative surveys were distributed to the faculty and administration and
then analyzed for question development in the qualitative portion. The faculty was
interviewed separately from the administration to gain each groups perspectives on the
progress RTHS has made under the PLC model. The data analysis revealed both strengths
and weaknesses in the PLC model at RTHS and these results are important to the
stakeholders of the school community. Therefore, this project study (Appendix A) was a
program evaluation of the PLC implementation process at RTHS that was formative in
nature. The goals of the program evaluation were to expose the strengths of the PLC
program so those characteristics can continue, reveal any weaknesses in the PLC
program, and provide recommendations that will lead to changes in the PLC model at
RTHS to allow for the future sustainability of the program.
Rationale
As recent research in the literature shows, schools can and do make mistakes
when implementing PLCs as a school reform movement causing the model to fail to
achieve the promised results of increased teacher and student achievement (DuFour,

114
2007). Current research indicated PLCs can and do increase teacher and student
achievement when implemented correctly (Cranston, 2011; DuFour et al., 2008; Hipp et
al., 2008; Hord, 2009; Lujan & Day, 2010; Nelson, LeBard, & Waters, 2010). RTHS
began the PLC implementation process 5 years ago to address student test scores that
were not meeting the increasing passing rates for AYP. However, the standardized test
scores for the 2010-2011 school year indicated a decrease in student achievement even
though RTHS had been working as a PLC for 4 years. As an evaluation of PLCs at
RTHS has never been conducted and RTHS has not seen the increases in student
achievement on state standardized exams they should have under the PLC model, a
program evaluation was necessary to determine if RTHS erred in the implementation
process and has become a PLC in name only (Aubusson et al., 2007; DuFour, 2007).
Program evaluations can be formative or summative. Summative evaluations are
designed to provide a report at the end of the program to determine if the program was a
success or not (Spaulding, 2008). In this way, summative evaluations are not meant to
lead to changes in the program, but to offer an evaluation of the program as a whole when
the program has been completed. On the other hand, formative evaluations provide data
while the program is still taking place to help participants keep what is working and
change what is not working (Spaulding, 2008). A formative program evaluation was the
appropriate choice because RTHS has not completed the implementation process and will
be able to use the data in the project study to make any necessary changes and move
forward to a successful and sustainable PLC that increases teacher and student
achievement (Lodico et al., 2010; Spaulding, 2008).

115
The formative program evaluation uses an objective-based approach with the
evaluation goals of exposing the strengths of the PLC model in order to continue with
what is working, exposing the weaknesses of the PLC model in order to fix what is not
working, and provide recommendations to the stakeholders at RTHS on how to make
changes to the program in order to move forward and increase the feasibility and
sustainability of the PLC model at RTHS. Additionally, improving the PLC program at
RTHS could increase teacher and student achievement in the classroom and increase
student test scores on the state standardized exams in the future. This could lead to an
increasing graduation rate for the students at RTHS, setting them up for success beyond
the school walls upon graduation. By addressing weaknesses in the program, there could
be an increase of buy-in of the mission and vision the stakeholders have for the school.
Finally, continually evaluating the progress RTHS is making toward becoming a fully
functioning PLC will prevent the school from becoming a superficial PLC, ensuring the
feasibility and sustainability of the program for years to come.
The quantitative and qualitative data collected and analyzed revealed both
strengths and weaknesses in the current PLC program at the high school. As RTHS is
only in year 5 as a PLC, this project study is timely to allow for changes to the program
before the weaknesses sabotage any potential for increasing teacher and student
achievement. Additionally, improving upon the weaknesses of the program now prevents
the stakeholders from moving onto a different educational reform based on the erroneous
belief that PLCs do not work, allowing the reform to take root and achieve the promised
results offered by implementing the PLC model correctly. Finally, the data revealed
differences between the faculty and administration on the level of implementation of the

116
various components that make up successful PLCs. These differences need to be exposed,
discussed, and addressed in order to move forward with a sustainable PLC at the high
school where all teachers and administrators are working on the same page with the same
beliefs about the progress of the program. If these differences are not addressed in a
timely matter, the school runs the risk of moving forward with the implementation
process when the foundation of the PLC has not fully taken root causing the school to
become a PLC in name only and preventing an increase in teacher and student
achievement in the future.
Review of the Literature
A systematic search of the databases was conducted to reach a saturation of the
literature pertaining to program evaluations and PLCs. A list of possible search terms was
first generated and then entered into the databases individually. Search terms included
PLC, professional learning communities, communities of learning, collaborative
learning, learning community, professional development, program evaluations,
educational evaluations, and goal-based evaluations. Booleans search terms included
the following terms: program evaluations and professional learning communities, goalbased evaluations and professional learning communities, professional learning
communities and leadership, professional learning communities and collaboration,
professional learning communities and communication, results and professional learning
communities, and professional learning communities and mission and vision. Peerreviewed journals were gathered from the dates between January 2007 and July 2012 and
taken from the following databases: ERIC, Academic Research Complete, Education
Research Complete, Political Science Complete, ProQuest Central, and Teacher

117
Reference Center. Citations in multiple journal articles were gathered and other
resources, including textbooks, were referenced where appropriate.
Program Evaluation
When used appropriately, program evaluations can be a powerful tool to address
problems found within a program and help sustain a successful program. According to
Olson (2010), program evaluations include resources and activities directed towards one
or more common goals. . . (p. 188). Travers and Evans (2011) contended program
evaluations provide a systematic way to determine what needs to be improved or changed
and helps to validate the practices of the program to the program stakeholders and to
outsiders observing the program. Researchers conducting program evaluations need to
identify the program stakeholders, describe the program and its goals, and choose the
correct evaluation model and methods to link the evaluation to the program goals (Olson,
2010). Furthermore, program evaluations use the collected data to draw conclusions
about the value of the program and evaluators should share their conclusions to allow the
stakeholders to make changes to the program (Olson, 2010). Zohrabi (2012) stipulated
program evaluations are meant to critically analyze the particular elements of a program
in depth and, as such, require specific characteristics in order to increase the reliability
and validity of the evaluation. These characteristics include collecting and using data
from multiple sources, using and collecting multiple data points, making necessary
changes to the program based on the results, and viewing the evaluation as an essential
component of the program rather than just an extra thing to do (Zohrabi, 2012). Slavin
(2008) echoed the need to carefully conduct program evaluations with correct
conclusions based on solid evidence and data collected in an open and transparent

118
manner because educational program evaluations can impact the lives of students,
making them very high-stakes. Evaluations must lead to the use of scientifically proven
programs and practices in educational settings, not programs that conform to previously
held opinions or programs that are the latest educational fad (Slavin, 2008). Finally, in
order for program evaluations to be meaningful and useful for all stakeholders they need
to be conducted periodically to ensure the sustainability of the program. Joyce and
Calhoun (2011) stipulated program evaluations should be executed yearly because
programs with . . . good content and a good design that will get them good
implementation. . . (p. 50) should see positive results within the 1st year of the program.
If good results do not come within the 1st year of implementation, then program designers
need to . . . go back to the drawing boards and redesign content, process, or the
organizational approach to implementation (Joyce & Calhoun, 2011, p. 50).
There are multiple models to choose from when conducting a program evaluation
and consideration must be taken to ensure the correct model is chosen to achieve accurate
results. Otherwise, the evaluators run the risk of recommending changes to a program
based on incorrect results and conclusions. A summative evaluation is designed to occur
at the end of the program to determine the successes and failures of the program as a
whole and is not designed to encourage changes to the program while it is still being used
(Lodico et al., 2010; Spaulding, 2008). A formative evaluation model is designed to
evaluate a program while it is still in operation to determine how well the program is
doing in obtaining its goals and exposing any weaknesses so they can be improved upon
(Lodico et al., 2010, Spaulding, 2008). According to Spaulding (2008), the type of data,
quantitative or qualitative, collected does not determine if the evaluation will be

119
summative or formative. Rather, the use of a summative or formative evaluation is
determined by when the data is collected (Spaulding, 2008), allowing for both types of
data to be collected.
Evaluators can take multiple approaches when conducting both formative and
summative evaluations. Evaluations can be objective-oriented by designing clear and
concise objectives and goals that are then evaluated to determine if they have been
achieved by the program (Lodico et al., 2010; Ross, 2010; Spaulding, 2008). Evaluations
can also be management-oriented with the need of the program manager to have those
results to make good decisions or they can be consumer-oriented with a need to get
information to customers of the program so they can make informed decisions (Ross,
2010). Another approach can be the expertise-oriented approach, considered to be the
most common form of summative evaluations, where the evaluator is considered an
expert on the particular program (Ross, 2010; Spaulding, 2008).
Evaluations can also be participant-oriented when the participants in the program
are actively involved with the entire evaluation process (Ross, 2010; Spaulding, 2008).
Based upon the participant-oriented approach is the collaborative participatory evaluation
with the participants and evaluators working together to evaluate the program (Bovill,
Aitken, Hutchison, Morrison, Roseweir, Scott, & Sotannde, 2010). Although not a widely
used evaluation model and similar to the participatory-oriented approach discussed by
Spaulding (2008) and responsive evaluation discussed by Smolin and Lawless (2011),
these approaches involve the participants in the development, data collection, and
reporting results of the evaluation in a partnership with the evaluators and no one
persons view is excluded (Bovill et al., 2010). Evaluation-led projects are another type

120
of evaluation to identify and correct problems in the program as they happen, allowing
the program to move forward (Giambona & Birchall, 2011). However, what makes this
type of evaluation unique is the evaluation is developed at the same time the program is
being developed, is continually used throughout the existence of the program helping to
bring focus to the goals and aims of the program, and helps to reveal and address
differences of opinion about the program immediately increasing communication and
program buy-in (Giambona & Birchall, 2011).
The goal-free evaluation approach is another less frequently used method and is
based on the belief the evaluation can reveal outcomes unknown to the developers and
evaluators if they are not constrained by particular objectives (Spaulding, 2008). These
unknown outcomes could be more important to the program itself and could go
unreported if the evaluator is focused solely on the written objectives of the program
evaluation (Spaulding, 2008). One final approach for conducting program evaluations is
the developmental evaluation. According to Smolin and Lawless (2011), the
developmental evaluation requires the evaluator to work closely with the participants,
goals and outcomes emerge as the evaluation is on-going, and is used to support the
growth and enact change in the program where needed.
Based upon the review of the literature for program evaluations, a summative
evaluation would not be the appropriate choice for this project study because the PLC
program at RTHS has not been fully implemented and the goal of the evaluation was to
expose the strengths and weaknesses of the program to determine what changes need to
be made in order to create a strong PLC for the future. Therefore, a formative evaluation
using an objectives-based approach was the correct choice to evaluate the implementation

121
of PLCs at RTHS to expose strengths so they may continue and weaknesses so they may
be improved upon with research-based recommendations to ensure the feasibility and
sustainability of the PLC program at RTHS.
PLC Strengths and Weaknesses
Shared mission, vision, values, and goals. The faculty survey and focus group
interview findings revealed this PLC component to have both strengths and weaknesses
in its implementation. The faculty believed the strengths in this component included the
vision being tied to the policies, programs, and decisions at RTHS, that decisions about
teaching and learning were guided by common values, and that school improvement was
tied to student learning with data being used to reach the vision. Many of the faculty also
believed there is a good collaborative system at RTHS to help develop the vision and
values of the school. However, some faculty members disagreed with this concept
making it one that needs to be addressed to determine where the collaborative system has
weaknesses in order to move forward with the PLC model into the future.
The faculty saw a few weaknesses in this component as well by indicating they do
not believe the goals of the school focus on more than just student test scores and that the
many stakeholders at RTHS are not actively encouraging high expectations. The faculty
focus group interviews revealed the participants did not see the existence of a vision at
RTHS. However, the faculty believed that the administration has a vision for the school
but they are not sharing it with the rest of the faculty. This belief was best summed up by
the participant who felt the PLC at RTHS was a forced PLC because the faculty was
told they were a PLC rather than one being developed by the faculty on their own.
However, as revealed in the administrative focus group, the faculty was not meant to

122
believe this to be a forced PLC but rather to understand RTHS had already been working
as a PLC without the collaboration time set aside. A study conducted by Hipp et al.
(2008), found schools that had successfully implemented the PLC model were ones
where all stakeholders were actively involved in creating the shared mission and vision of
the school. This joint creation of the vision generated a feeling of shared responsibility
and accountability for student outcomes, caused faculty members to actively embrace and
promote the mission and vision, and allowed for the shared mission and vision to become
an integral part of culture of the school (Hipp et al., 2008).
Finally, the focus group interviews revealed a desire to stop having the vision for
the PLC at RTHS tied so closely to the visions of other schools that were practicing
PLCs. The administrative team allowed for outside visitors to come to RTHS to observe
the early stages of implementation along with sending groups of teachers to schools in the
region that had successfully implemented the PLC model. Richmond and Manokore
(2010) found that dependence on the advice of experts outside of the school community
can have both positive and negative impacts on the sustainability of the PLC model.
Outside facilitators can provide guidance and ideas during the early stages of the
implementation process while keeping teachers on the right track toward becoming a
PLC (Richmond & Manokore, 2010). However, continued use of outside facilitators can
undermine the sustainability of the PLC as teachers can become too dependent on the
facilitator and be unable to work as a PLC on their own or create a PLC model that is
based on the culture of the school (Richmond & Manokore, 2010). Furthermore, Louis
(2008) believed in the value of observing different schools to generate new ideas and
assist in the PLC implementation process but cautioned against spending too much time

123
observing different schools. Even schools that are separated by just one town can be
vastly different making it imperative that schools design their PLC around their own
particular school culture (Louis, 2008) to ensure greater teacher buy-in of the mission and
vision.
In contrast to the faculty findings, the administrative focus group revealed a
leadership team belief that this component was strong at RTHS with minor areas for
improvement as the PLC model moves forward in the implementation process. Based on
the findings from the administrative focus group interviews, the leadership team had a
clear picture of what the mission, vision, values, and goals of RTHS were and included
the themes of a building-wide, student-centered focus, a whole-child approach, and a
PLC implementation process that focused on four questions. Supovitz and Christman
(2003) believed schools looking to implement a PLC model need all stakeholders to
remain focused on student learning, including providing the necessary supports to allow
for this student-centered focus to be successful. Additionally, the implementation process
has been guided by a Plan-Do-Study-Act framework to ensure programs implemented
and actions taken are done correctly or, if incorrect, allow for modifications to be made
almost immediately. One area of weakness was revealed in the one survey returned by an
administrative team member and indicated a belief that the school improvement vision
held by the staff was not completely focused on student learning. A study conducted by
Supovitz and Christman (2003) found that PLCs that remained focused on the students
with discussions centered on the impact of instructional practices on student work saw
the greatest gains in student achievement.

124
Culture of collaboration. Collaboration was considered by both the faculty and
administrative team to be a successful aspect of the PLC model at RTHS. However, both
groups agreed there were some areas that needed to be improved for the future
sustainability of the PLC model. The faculty survey and focus group interview revealed
multiple strengths in the collaborative culture that had been implemented including a
strong belief that teachers work well together through the formal and informal sharing of
teaching strategies and reviewing student work in order to keep the focus on the diverse
learning needs of the students they teach. This belief was exemplified during the faculty
focus group interviews with the positive comments about the interdisciplinary and
freshman teams that were formed last school year. Richmond and Manokore (2010)
contended successful and sustainable PLCs were those where teachers were able to share
their experiences and expertise with each other in order to increase student achievement
in the classroom.
There were some areas of mild weakness in the collaborative culture as revealed
in the faculty surveys. A majority of those who responded to the survey indicated they
use student testing data during collaboration time and focus on improving teacher
effectiveness in the classroom. However, there were enough respondents who disagreed
with these statements to warrant a closer look at how collaboration time was being
utilized by the entire staff. Another mild weakness for collaboration was revealed during
the faculty focus group interview during the discussion on the Monday morning
collaboration schedule with the participants expressing a belief that the need to share and
collaborate with their colleagues was important and necessary. A study conducted by
Owens (2010) concluded teachers were able to grow professionally as a result of their

125
participation in collaborative groups and sharing their classroom experiences. This
continual sharing of professional knowledge allowed the teachers to consider and
investigate alternative pedagogies they may have never contemplated before
collaboration existed (Owens, 2010). However, scheduling the collaboration time on
Monday morning with the students having the option to come in for tutoring help on a
Monday morning was not the best time and allowed for students to opt out of receiving
help. DuFour (2004) advised schools looking to implement successful and sustainable
PLCs create a student intervention plan that does not invite students to come to teachers
for assistance when they are struggling but rather requires students to attend tutoring
sessions until they have mastered the material necessary to be successful in school.
Weaknesses in the collaborative culture revealed in the quantitative survey and
discussed during the faculty focus group interviews included the lack of focus by the
teachers during collaboration time on learning together and applying that new knowledge
to solve common problems, not having enough time for open dialogue, and teachers not
giving each other enough feedback on instructional practices. In order for PLCs to
become successful and sustainable, collaborative discussions need to focus on creating,
implementing, and improving instructional practices and content knowledge in order to
see the promised gains in student achievement (Richmond & Manokore, 2010; Supovitz
& Christman, 2003). During the faculty focus group interviews the participants revealed a
possible reason for these quantitative survey results when they expressed a belief that
their collaboration time was micro-managed by the administration because the teachers
believed the administration was telling them what they were supposed to talk about
during collaboration time. This belief was expressed when the participants talked about

126
the use of an agenda during the interdisciplinary team preventing teachers from freely
bringing up topics that were not on the agenda. This belief was also expressed about what
needs to be discussed during collaboration time with the participants stating what was
talked about during collaboration time was determined by the administration and a desire
to have greater control over the topic of those discussions. Curry (2008) found that PLC
schools that gave teachers greater freedom over topics to discuss during collaboration
were able to respect the different interests of the teachers in the school. Finally, the
faculty focus group expressed displeasure with the study group school improvement
initiative from last school year. The participants referred to these as forced study groups
and saw them as another example in the participants beliefs of having collaboration time
micro-managed by the administrative team.
Similar to the faculty, the administrative team expressed a belief that the
collaborative culture at RTHS was strong and had been implemented correctly in the
early part of the PLC implementation process but saw room for improvement in the
future. The administrative focus group revealed an evolution in collaboration from one of
collegial relationships to collaborative relationships at RTHS with the Monday morning
time being utilized correctly by most departments. DuFour (2004) warned against
equating collegiality with collaboration and creating a collaborative structure that focuses
more on operational procedures, such as how they will respond to tardiness. . . (p. 3)
instead of focusing on instructional practices. However, teachers place a value on
collegiality in order to develop trusting relationships with their colleagues (Richmond &
Manokore, 2010) indicating a need to balance collegiality with professional
collaboration. There was an acknowledgement that some departments need some support

127
in using the Monday collaboration time most effectively, particularly with a focus on
moving away from discussions centered on the adults in the building to discussions
centered on the students. Supovitz and Christman (2003) found those schools that
engaged in collaborative meetings focused on instructional practices and continually
reviewing student work saw the greatest increases in student achievement. While the
faculty felt restricted by the use of meeting agendas, the administrative team revealed a
belief that meeting agendas allow departments to get more accomplished during
collaboration time. Although the study conducted by Curry (2008) concluded that
providing teachers freedom to guide their own collaborative meetings promoted respect
for teacher interests, she also concluded providing too much freedom created a situation
where multiple ideas and topics that were brought up in collaborative meetings were not
pursued and it was unclear how those discussions helped to advance the mission and
vision of the school.
Similar to the faculty, the administrative team saw some areas for concern in the
current collaborative structure. One weakness was revealed in the administrative survey
with the respondent indicating a belief that staff members do not provide enough
feedback to their colleagues on instructional practices. An acknowledgement and possible
explanation was revealed in the administrative focus group interview with a discussion on
teachers fears associated with having their professional actions questioned and critiqued
by their peers leading to a resistance towards sharing what happens in their classrooms
and the results of student performance. Servage (2008) acknowledged the risk involved
when teachers come out of their isolated classrooms and begin to share their teaching
strengths and weaknesses to the professionals they work with in the building. However,

128
the expected gains promised by implementation of the PLC model cannot be achieved
without a transformation in thinking and teaching practice from one of isolation to one of
taking the risk that comes with sharing professional practices (Pancucci, 2007; Servage,
2008). This fear could possibly be exacerbated in the future with a new faculty evaluation
system that requires student performance on state standardized exams to be a partial
component of teachers annual evaluations. However, the administrative team expressed
a belief the collaborative culture will be improved the following school year with the
implementation of a school improvement plan where each department will focus on
department generated goals focused on improving teacher and student achievement. This
department led school improvement plan for next year is supported by the Curry (2008)
study that concluded giving teachers more control over their collaborative meetings
demonstrates respect for the diverse needs of teachers.
Supportive conditions. Supportive conditions were considered by both the
faculty and administrative teams to be an area of strength in the PLC implementation
process with a few areas in need of improvement, particularly in the area of
communication. Supportive conditions included a diverse selection of topics with most
topics receiving a favorable rating from the faculty. The faculty surveys expressed a
belief that the building was clean, there were resource people available to advance staff
learning, and the mentoring program was of high quality. Wollman (2007) concluded a
major component of successful and sustainable PLCs was the existence of a mentoring
program that allowed . . . new teachers to become engaged and active participants in
both enacting and shaping a schools philosophy and vision (p. 417). The surveys also
showed the faculty believed there was enough time for collaboration, although as

129
discussed before, the timing of collaboration was an issue for the faculty. The faculty
believed there was enough technology and instructional materials to meet their needs.
The faculty agreed there was trust and respect between the faculty and students and that
they were honest with each other when evaluating student work to improve their
instructional strategies. Finally, the faculty expressed a belief that a culture of respect and
trust existed in the building to allow them to take risks in their classroom. Increasing trust
and creating an atmosphere in schools that allows for risk taking helps to create
supportive conditions in schools hoping to become successful and sustainable PLCs
(Nathan, 2008). However, the faculty focus group interview revealed a lack of trust
between the respondents and the leadership team with the respondents expressing their
frustration by indicating they do not believe some statements made by the administration.
The existence of trusting relationships has been linked to higher student and teacher
achievement, but trust between teachers and administrators tends to be lower than trust
between teachers (Louis, 2008). Lower levels of trust have been linked to teacher burnout
and an inability of schools to grapple with sensitive issues that can arise during the school
year (Louis, 2008; Cranston, 2011).
An interesting contradiction between the surveys and focus group manifested
itself during the focus group interview. Although most faculty members responded on the
survey they have the ability to observe their peers and offer encouragement, the focus
group interview revealed a frustration by the participants with a lack of time and
administrative permission to observe their peers in a classroom setting. A further
frustration with a lack of professional development funds was also expressed during the
faculty focus group interview. Whether these frustrations are shared by the entire faculty

130
or just the participants in the focus group is unknown and worth further study. A possible
explanation and interesting revelation in the faculty survey results was the belief the
faculty has better communication among themselves than with members of the
administrative team; a finding also acknowledged by the administrative team as well. The
faculty survey revealed a weakness in the area of supportive conditions with a belief there
was no unified effort to change the culture. Finally, the focus group interview also
revealed a belief that the administrative team does not listen to the suggestions for
improvement made by the faculty. Examples were provided and included a belief that the
administrative team says no to most requests, refuses to change the Monday morning
collaboration time to a different day or time, and a belief the homeroom idea will most
likely go nowhere based on past actions taken by the administration.
The administrative team agreed with the faculty that the category of supportive
conditions was strong in the PLC implementation process thus far with a notable
weakness in the sub-topic of communication. The administrative focus group discussed
multiple facets of supportive conditions that had been implemented successfully
including the existence of a positive school culture and a great staff of professionals, a
successful mentoring program that was approved by the state to help new teachers ease
into their careers at RTHS, and an existence of great relationships between the teachers
and the students. The administrative team saw professional development at RTHS as
strong and evolving over the last few years to include more differentiated activities to
meet the diverse needs of the teachers but still focused on the four essential questions of a
PLC. Supovitz and Christman (2008) believed it was necessary for school leaders to

131
provide professional development opportunities that meet the diverse needs of their
teaching staff.
The contradiction in views between the administration and faculty on the topic of
professional development could be explained by a communication gap that was
acknowledged to exist by both the faculty and the administration. This weakness in
supportive conditions was a frustration for the administrative team and one they would
like to see improved while still being able to protect the faculty from being overwhelmed
with too much communication and information. Teachers need to be provided with
pertinent and timely data in order to make informed decisions about instructional
practices without giving teachers so much information they are unable to focus on
improving teacher and student achievement (Supovitz & Christman, 2003). Another
weakness in the PLC implementation process was one that was slowly beginning to
improve. The administrative team saw a recent improvement with parental and
community communication with many parents beginning to come to the defense of the
school and acknowledging the good things that were happening at RTHS. This
improvement was credited to the activities of the superintendent and his involvement in
various community organizations. However, the low parental survey response rates
indicated this was an area that needs to continue to be focused on in order to increase the
involvement of all stakeholders in the PLC at RTHS.
Shared and supportive leadership. The category of leadership was where the
greatest disconnect existed between the faculty and administrative team responses with
the faculty seeing shared and supportive leadership as a weakness in the PLC model and
the administrative team believing this category to be strong. The faculty surveys

132
identified the use of data by the staff to inform teaching, the availability of data to the
staff to make decisions, and the promotion of leadership among faculty members to be
strong components of this category in the PLC model. The faculty surveys revealed an
even split between agreeing and disagreeing among respondents when asked about the
principal being proactive, providing support to the staff, and the ability of the community
and grade level teacher to make decisions. Supovitz and Christman (2003) contended
when teachers were given greater decision making authority, they had greater investment
in their professional community.
The weaknesses in the survey responses and focus group interview indicated the
faculty believed there were multiple weaknesses in leadership. The faculty surveys
displayed a belief that the principal does not share power and authority with the staff and
this belief was further discussed during the focus group interviews. Zepeda (2004) found
that schools with successful PLCs models were led by principals that were able to share
power with the staff allowing the staff to see the willingness of the administration to
change their practices while the teachers were expected to change theirs. The participants
indicated a perception that the leadership team at RTHS had a tendency to say no to most
requests made to change the way things were done at RTHS including changing the
Monday morning schedule and a fear the homeroom idea would not be taken seriously.
The surveys also revealed the staff did not see the principal sharing responsibility with
the staff or rewarding staff innovations and that shared responsibility and accountability
was imposed upon them. DuFour (1999) concluded PLCs cannot be successful or
sustainable unless the leadership team included the faculty in its decision-making
processes. Louis (2008) contended rewarding individual staff achievements was a

133
necessary component of successful PLCs to create teacher buy-in of the schools mission
and vision. The faculty surveys also revealed the staff did not feel they were able to
discuss or make decisions about most school issues. This belief was also discussed during
the focus group interviews with the participants believing they had little power to guide
their collaboration meetings, too much documentation for those meetings were required,
and most decisions made were done using a top-down approach. Leadership teams that
promote PLCs but do not allow for teacher involvement for decision-making and
mandate policies and decisions from the top-down run the risk of generating cynicism for
the PLC model among the teaching staff (Supovitz & Christman, 2003). Finally, the
surveys showed the faculty believed the advice they provided to the principal on school
issues was not listened to. The Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2011) and
Vescio et al. (2007) concluded the use of teacher expertise was a vital component in
successful PLCs that allows teachers to grow professionally and fundamentally change
their roles in the classroom and in leadership positions in the school to increase teacher
and student achievement. The focus group interviews exemplified this concept with
comments made by participants that change at the school was not happening at all and the
administrative team liked to talk about change but rarely enacted major changes.
In contrast to the faculty results, the administrative team believed this category of
shared and supportive leadership had been successfully implemented thus far and they
had been working to expand leadership roles among the staff. The administrative team at
RTHS focused on using servant and situational leadership styles when making decisions
that impact RTHS. The administrative team had been working for the last few years to
encourage an increasing number of teachers to take leadership roles and saw this as an

134
area they will continue to develop and encourage. Owens (2010) concluded that
successful and sustainable PLCs were founded on the premise that teachers need the
freedom and ability to guide their own learning and share what they have discovered with
their professional colleagues. This sharing of professional discovery increased the belief
shared by teachers that they were leaders in their professional community and increased
the sustainability of the community (Owens, 2010).
However, a weakness in shared and supportive leadership was revealed during the
administrative focus group interview that could explain why the teachers were frustrated
with this particular category. The focus group interview revealed numerous occasions the
administrative team met to develop and execute the various functions of running an entire
school. At one point an administrator indicated the teachers would be amazed at how
often they met as a leadership team and what the vision of the superintendent was for the
PLC at RTHS. The administrative team also indicated they employ a PLC collaborative
model during those meetings with all members of the administrative team coming
together to discuss, disagree, and come together on the path of the PLC at RTHS.
However, those meetings occurred during the school day behind closed doors and away
from the observations of the staff. In order for PLCs to be successful and for teachers to
be willing to change their own practices, they must see the administrative team willing to
change their practices as well (Louis, 2008). This discussion implied the decisions made
about the focus and vision of the PLC at RTHS were largely decided by the
administrative team when they met, indicating a largely top-down leadership model still
exists at RTHS. Although there are instances where a top-down leadership can be
appropriate, for example in designing the master school schedule or when promoting the

135
PLC mission and vision to the stakeholders in the community, PLCs cannot and will not
be sustainable without a transformative shift away from the top-down model to a more
inclusive leadership model (Owens, 2010; Pancucci, 2007).
Results oriented. The category of results orientation was revealed by both the
faculty and administrative team as another weakness in the implementation of PLCs with
strengths as well. The faculty survey indicated the staff used data to help guide
instruction in the classroom but were not yet using data to guide school improvement
decisions. The faculty survey findings revealed the teachers used student work to
improve teaching strategies to improve student learning, prioritized data to reach the
shared vision of the school, and that data was organized well in an easily accessible
place. The faculty also believed multiple data points were used to determine the effect of
their practice on students and they had the collaborative ability to share student data.
However, the faculty found weakness with the lack of teachers using data and
student work to guide school improvement efforts. Furthermore, the lack of discussion of
the use of data during the faculty focus group beyond analyzing final exams exemplified
this categorys weakness in the PLC implementation process. What the findings did not
reveal at this point was if the teachers were not using data to guide school improvement
because they did not know how to use data in that manner or if the school was not at that
point in the PLC implementation process. One area that was discussed during the faculty
focus group interview was a need to acknowledge the changing demographics of the
school when reviewing the state testing data and possibly changing the expectations for
student achievement based on these new demographics.

136
The implementation of the use of student results to guide instruction was a
category of PLCs the administrative team believed had both strengths and weaknesses.
The focus group interview with members of the administrative team revealed they
believed the teachers do well with evaluating summative exams, particularly the
evaluation of final exams to assist the teachers in making instructional decisions about
next school year. They also saw the introduction and use of the Pearson Warehouse
program to get important testing data into the teachers hands about individual students in
their classrooms as a vital component of moving forward with the PLC model.
However, the administrative team readily agreed this was an area where
improvements need to be made in order to increase student and teacher achievement in
the classroom and cement the sustainability of the PLC model at RTHS. Although there
were organizational and supportive structures in place to allow teachers to analyze
student results, there must also be a cultural shift within the school encouraging teachers
to utilize data to drive and change instructional practices before the gains promised by
PLCs can be achieved (Supovitz & Christman, 2003). The administrative team would like
more analysis by teachers of formative evaluations in order to guide and drive
instructional changes in the classroom. DuFour et al. (2008) contended the use of
formative assessments led to greater student achievement because formative assessments
reveal student struggles when they occur. Additionally, when formative assessments were
developed by teachers working as a team, teachers were able to articulate exactly what
knowledge students should have and increase the effectiveness of their teaching practice
(DuFour et al., 2008). They also acknowledged that an attempt to help teachers use data
protocols a few years ago to do this was not successful because they believed the teachers

137
were not ready. However, the use of data protocols and common grading systems was a
future goal of the administrative team to give teachers another tool to drive instructional
changes in the classroom and increase student and teacher achievement. Curry (2008)
found that the use of protocols encouraged the faculty to bring examples of student work
to collaborative meetings, engage in professional critique, and generate discussion on
improving instructional practices. However, too much reliance on protocols can have a
limiting factor on what was discussed during collaboration time (Curry, 2008). Finally, a
frustration with the amount of time it takes to see the results of efforts was evident during
both the faculty and administrative focus group interview. Doolittle et al. (2008) also
found that creating successful and sustainable PLCs required a large amount of time and
determination that must be embraced by all stakeholders involved.
PLC Recommendations
The analysis of the research findings revealed significant strengths and
weaknesses in the PLC implementation process and six recommendations have emerged
from this program evaluation. These recommendations are supported by a review of the
literature and will increase the success and sustainability of PLCs at RTHS. Some of
these recommendations are fairly simple, can be implemented quickly, and their impact
will be seen almost immediately. However, other recommendations will take some time
to investigate the best course of action for making changes and will require the
participation of all members of the PLC in order to see their impact. As the faculty and
administrative team agree there is a positive school culture at RTHS, these
recommendations are meant to build upon and expand this positive school culture. A
positive school culture is vitally important to the success and sustainability of a PLC

138
because it lays the foundation for reestablishing trusting relationships at RTHS. A
recurring theme in the findings analysis was a lack of trust between all the stakeholders at
RTHS. Therefore, all of the following recommendations are designed to not only improve
the PLC model at RTHS but also reestablish and build trusting relationships between all
the stakeholders involved. Zepeda (2004) found establishing and building trusting
relationships was critical to creating a successful PLC model and must be accomplished
in the very beginning for a PLC to take hold.
Revisit the mission and vision. The difference in perceptions of the shared
mission, vision, values, and goals of RTHS between the faculty and administrative team
presents a weakness in the PLC implementation process, but is one that can be overcome
in a short period of time. It is possible the development of a shared mission and vision
could be accomplished in one or two faculty meetings, allowing the staff to quickly move
to the remaining recommendations. Wollman (2008) found that the creation and
implementation of a shared mission and vision demonstrated the greatest promise and
potential to transform schools into PLC with high levels of teacher and student
achievement. When the administrative team and faculty are actively involved in
discussing, developing and implementing a shared mission and vision for their schools,
they will simultaneously be establishing trust and a school-wide commitment to
becoming a functioning and long-lasting PLC (Doolittle et al., 2008; Owens, 2010).
Leaders who want to implement sustainable learning communities must be able to
lead through the shared mission and vision of the school rather than leading through
procedural and rule enforcement (DuFour et al., 2008). The administrative team has a
clear mission and vision for the school, including a vision for the future of the PLC

139
implementation process that the school needs to begin focusing on questions 3 and 4
while remaining student-centered. However, the faculty is unaware of the mission and
vision indicating they do not play an active role in designing the current and future
mission and vision for the school. As teachers grow professionally while PLCs are being
implemented, so does their vision for what they want to see themselves and their students
achieve in the classroom and within the school as a whole (Owens, 2010).
Therefore, the first recommendation based on the findings of the program
evaluation and a review of the literature is to revisit the current mission and vision of
RTHS, involve the entire faculty in this process, and be open to the possible need to
revamp the mission and vision. The current and future mission and vision of the school
may be exactly what the faculty wants as well but they need to be invited to and
participate in a discussion about the mission and vision so that it can be a truly shared
statement. Once the mission and vision is developed by the entire staff, shared values and
goals must be developed that are linked to the mission and vision (DuFour et al., 2008).
These must then become part of the culture of RTHS and prominently displayed
throughout the school in both written format and through action.
Daily collaboration and student intervention. Collaboration was identified by
both the faculty and administrative team as a strong component in the PLC
implementation process with no desires to end the collaborative structure. There was also
a strong desire by both the administration and faculty to increase the amount of student
intervention time to reach struggling students as soon as possible. However, improving
the collaborative structure and increasing student intervention time at RTHS will take
some time and effort by all stakeholders. Implementing this particular recommendation

140
could take an entire school year or more as it will require the input of multiple
stakeholders working together to either revise or devise an entirely new master schedule.
DuFour et al. (2008) contended students need intervention as soon as they begin to
struggle and must continue with the intervention on a regular basis until they have
mastered the material. This intervention cannot be presented as an option to the students
but must be a required component of their education (DuFour, 2004).
Vescio et al. (2008) concluded successful PLCs include respect for teacher
expertise and knowledge which can help to build trusting relationships between
administration and faculty. The faculty has expressed their dislike of the Monday
collaboration time since the first year it was implemented but perceives this concern has
not been adequately addressed by the administration. This has led to a faculty belief the
administration does not respect their ideas and has led to a fear the homeroom schedule
idea will not be taken seriously by the administration. Increasing the time spent
collaborating has been linked to successful and sustainable PLCs as long as the time set
aside for collaboration is viewed as sacred time (Lujan & Day, 2010). Common planning
time for teachers in the same department has been viewed as an essential component in
PLC schools because it allows for daily teacher discussions that focus on increasing
teacher content knowledge and research based pedagogical practices designed to increase
teacher and student achievement in the classroom (Cook & Faulkner, 2010; DuFour et al.,
2008; Lujan & Day, 2010).
In order for common planning to be effective and deliver the necessary results of
PLC implementation, commitments from all levels in the organization to using common
planning time effectively and keeping the time sacred is absolutely necessary (Cook &

141
Faulkner, 2010; Lujan & Day, 2010). These commitments must come from the
administration through . . . establishing and maintaining a professional, supportive
climate that encourages team members to use their common planning time to meet the
academic and relationship needs of the students (Cook & Faulkner, 2010, p. 8). These
commitments must also come from the teachers through the use of meeting agendas to
stay on track, an unwavering focus on examining and improving student achievement,
and a willingness to come out of their isolated classrooms and embrace a culture based on
sharing effective practices (Cook & Faulkner, 2010; Pancucci, 2007; Vescio et al., 2007).
Collaboration time must then be utilized correctly to assist teachers in strengthening their
content and pedagogical knowledge by focusing time on examining instructional
practices, moving away from asking what the students did incorrectly to asking the more
pertinent why they did not achieve as expected, and setting personal discussions aside in
favor of professional dialogue about how best to help students succeed (DuFour et al.,
2008; Hipp et al., 2008; Maxwell et al., 2010; Nathan, 2008; Richmond & Manokore,
2010). By placing collaborative discussions in a professional context rather than a
personal context, teachers will begin to reduce the fears they have about opening
themselves to critique because the goals of student achievement and teacher
accountability for that achievement will be shared by all (Maxwell et al., 2010; Nelson,
2009; Richmond & Manokore, 2010).
Therefore, the second recommendation based on the findings of the program
evaluation and a review of the literature is comprised of two parts. First, adopt a common
planning schedule structure for all departments to increase the amount of time spent
collaborating and ensure the faculty is collaborating efficiently by remaining student-

142
centered. Daily collaboration was acknowledged in the administrative focus group
interview to be the ideal. This includes maintaining a focus on increasing teacher content
and pedagogical knowledge and instructional practices through the sharing, reviewing,
and critiquing of student achievement in the classroom using professional dialogue.
Teachers will need to open their classrooms and practices to everyone in the building and
demonstrate a willingness to accept shared responsibility for the growth of their
colleagues (Aubusson et al., 2007). Changing the master schedule to allow for common
planning times for multiple departments will be a massive undertaking that requires the
commitment of all stakeholders and may take an entire school year to plan and
implement. However, enlisting the assistance and knowledge of faculty members in this
process may make implementing this recommendation less complicated for the
administration. Second, based on the desire of the faculty to end the Monday schedule
and proceed with the homeroom suggestion and an acknowledgement by the
administration that daily student intervention is a goal they wish to reach, the homeroom
committees work needs to be seriously considered and implemented. The homeroom
schedule will end the education by invitation problem associated with the Monday
schedule and allow for daily student intervention to assist struggling students.
Additionally, with the implementation of common planning for all departments, Monday
morning collaboration will no longer be necessary. However, if the homeroom idea is not
feasible in the near future, at a minimum the Monday morning meeting time needs to be
moved to the afternoon and/or to a different afternoon time because the morning time
allows for students to opt out of getting assistance.

143
Improve communication. Communication was a sub-topic of supportive
conditions that was acknowledged by the administration and faculty to be a weakness
when it came to communication between the administration and faculty. Improving
communication will take some time and patience to realize, possibly as long as a school
year or more. The administration revealed a frustration with teachers not feeling free
enough to communicate problems with them and the faculty revealed their frustration
with the types of information communicated or not communicated to them from the
administration. For example, the administration created the study groups school
improvement plan for last school year based on the belief the faculty desired more
interaction with teachers in different departments and wanted to focus more on teaching
strategies rather than test scores. However, when the faculty was asked to pick strategies
they were proficient in and strategies they wanted to learn more about, the faculty was
not informed of the purpose behind the form they had to fill out. The faculty was unaware
the form they filled out was going to be used to create and place them in specific study
groups for the entire school year. This communication gap led to a lack of trust between
the actions and words of the administration and faculty. Once trust is established between
the faculty and administration, communication should begin to improve.
Therefore, based upon the findings of the program evaluation and a suggestion
found in the literature review, the third recommendation is to increase two-way
communication between the faculty and administration. Hipp et al. (2008) found an
effective PLC school was able to overcome their communication gap through the creation
of a faculty and administrative newsletter e-mailed out on a periodic basis. RTHS has
numerous committees to conquer a variety of issues but is lacking a committee to address

144
a problem acknowledged by the administration and the staff. A communication
committee should be established to address this issue and come up with possible
solutions that increase communication and trust.
Distribute leadership. Leadership was the component with the greatest
divergence of views between the faculty and administration. This wide gap in perceptions
between these two groups represents a weakness in the PLC implementation model that
can be partially explained by the communication gap and lack of trust that exists. Sharing
and distributing leadership will take the involvement of all stakeholders and will be an
evolving process that may take multiple school years to fully develop and implement. As
there are always newly emerging leadership roles to fill in any school setting, distributing
leadership is an area that will require constant attention and reworking each school year.
Owens (2010) and Pancucci (2007) found the use of distributed leadership was crucial to
the success and sustainability of the PLC model with the need to engage all members of
the community in multiple leadership activities. However, there is a time and place when
a top-down leadership approach is appropriate to implement (Owens, 2010). Shared and
distributed leadership has been shown to provide teachers with a stronger voice and more
authority within the PLC framework leading to greater ownership by teachers for student
achievement, increased student achievement, and greater teacher accountability for the
success and shortcomings of all the students in the building (Cook & Faulkner, 2010;
Maxwell et al., 2010; Vescio et al., 2008). Distributing leadership roles to all members of
the community sends a signal of trust to the members (Cook & Faulkner, 2010). A study
conducted by Hipp et al. (2008) provided an example of shared leadership where the
teachers focused and led on issues related to teaching and learning and the principal

145
focused on providing strategies and the necessary resources to support the teachers in
their leadership roles. DuFour (1999) and DuFour et al. (2008) proposed principals need
to lead by asking pertinent and timely questions rather than a top down approach of
imposing their solutions on the staff. Whether these types of shared leadership can be
implemented successfully at RTHS is unknown but clearly defining and accepting
leadership roles for all the participants in a PLC is essential (Supovitz & Christman,
2003).
Therefore, based on the findings of the program evaluation and a review of the
literature, the fourth recommendation is to increase shared and distributed leadership.
Increasing shared and distributed leadership can be accomplished through the joint
development of clearly defined leadership roles. This could be accomplished through the
formation of a leadership committee with representatives from the committee surveying
the staff and administration to determine what types of leadership roles the faculty and
administration would like to assign each other and accept responsibility for. Shared and
distributed leadership requires the administration to refrain from automatically denying
faculty requests and offering detailed explanations for denials. In return, faculty members
must accept denials when they occur and communicate with the administration to see if a
compromise can be reached on those issues. This give and take will help to reestablish
and build trust between the faculty and administration. Finally, shared and distributed
leadership requires all members of the PLC to work towards building community and
collegiality while maintaining a professional atmosphere. Involving the faculty in more
leadership positions and decisions can provide teachers with a sense of being part of what
is happening at the school and increase their accountability leading to closer relationships

146
for all community members that is still based on professionalism (Curry, 2008; Louis,
2008). Celebrating achievements on a regular basis, whether it is through a faculty
newsletter, encouraging e-mails, or some other form of communication, will also help to
build the community and collegiality while remaining professional.
Improve data use. The use of data to drive curriculum and instruction was
another weak component in the PLC implementation process with the administration
signaling a desire for teachers to increase their use of data in their instructional practices.
Implementing this recommendation will take considerable time, possibly additional
training over the course of multiple school years, and multiple supports in order to be
successful. Dufour et al. (2008) cautions schools against the DRIP syndrome (data rich
but information poor) and the administrative team acknowledged their attempt to heed
this caution in the focus group interview. Data should be analyzed to help teachers focus
on the successes and struggles of individual students and drive instructional changes
necessary to increase student success (DuFour et al., 2008). However, PLCs cannot focus
solely on data analysis because the ability to discuss, change and improve upon
instructional practices will be taken away (Louis, 2008). Data analysis must also move
beyond a focus on state standardized test scores and other summative evaluations (i.e.
final exams) and towards the deliberate collection and use of formative evaluations (i.e.
quizzes and chapter exams) that are better indicators of student struggles (Borrero, 2010;
DuFour et al., 2008). Analysis of formative evaluations allows teachers to identify
student weaknesses as they occur and adjust instructional practices to increase student
achievement and mastery of content before moving on to the next topic (DuFour et al.,
2008).

147
Therefore, based on the findings of the program evaluation and a review of the
literature, the fifth recommendation is to improve the use of data to drive instructional
changes and increase teacher and student achievement. Although a sole focus on
formative data is not enough to improve teacher and student achievement, it is still
necessary to analyze this form of testing data. In the last year, RTHS has begun using the
Pearson Warehouse software program to provide teachers with individualized student
formative testing data to provide teachers with a big picture of how their students perform
on these tests. The data in this software program comes from tests given to the students in
the month of November and was distributed to the teachers after January. The faculty
indicated in the focus group interview a desire to have this type of information in their
hands sooner. As RTHS continues to input data into this software program it would be
beneficial during the first few weeks of school for the teachers to be given access to the
data from the previous year that has already been entered into the system on their new
students. They should also be provided with the updated data after the November testing
as well. Additionally, the need to move towards analyzing common formative
assessments to drive instructional changes and increase student achievement is necessary
and was indicated as a future goal for the administrative team. Although the first attempt
to train teachers on analyzing common formative assessments and using the results to
change instruction was not a success and may have been attempted too soon in the PLC
implementation process, enough time has passed and another attempt would be beneficial
at this time. However, one issue the faculty had with the data analysis trainer was his
position in an elementary school district. When the next training session is scheduled, the
administration should look for a trainer whose experience is at the secondary level.

148
Finally, it was stated during the administrative focus group interview that the PLCs at
RTHS are based upon the four outlined questions and that it was that simple. However,
PLCs are not that simple and reliance upon these four questions, although a good starting
point, focus too heavily on testing data and not enough on instructional practices,
pedagogies, and content knowledge. Analysis of data is an important component of PLCs
but it cannot be the only component.
Evaluate again. PLCs are an on-going school reform effort that require lots of
time and constant monitoring and adjustments along the way to ensure they are
successful, sustainable, and do not become just another program the school has to do
(Louis, 2008). To prevent schools looking to implement PLCs from becoming a PLC in
name only, periodic evaluations of the program are necessary (Joyce & Calhoun, 2011).
Therefore, the final recommendation is to re-evaluate the PLC program at RTHS within
the next two years to determine how well the previous recommendations have been
implemented, reveal what weaknesses still need to be addressed, and prevent the PLC at
RTHS from becoming a superficially implemented program.
Project Implementation
Potential Resources and Existing Supports
This program evaluation required the collection of multiple types of data from a
large group of people. Quantitative surveys (Appendix E) were distributed to both the
administration and faculty. Faculty and administrative focus group interviews were
conducted after surveys results were analyzed to evaluate the PLC implementation
process. The results of the program evaluation will be presented to the school board,
administration, and faculty through the use of a Power Point (Appendix A) at a future

149
school board meeting held in the school library. Additionally, the researcher will request
permission to present the evaluation results to the faculty and staff at a future teacher
institute day or faculty meeting. In order to present the program evaluation, a computer
and projector will be required.
Potential Barriers
A potential barrier to implementing this project would be the school board
denying my request to present the evaluation or the administration denying my request to
present my evaluation to the faculty during a teacher institute day or faculty meeting.
Should this barrier present itself, I will stress the importance of the information contained
within the evaluation and request reasons why they do not want to hear the presentation
so that I can address and ease any concerns discussed. Another potential barrier would be
the unwillingness by some stakeholders to implement and follow through on the
recommendations for changes to the PLC program, especially those recommendations
that may require years to implement. Should this barrier present itself, I will be available
for questions from any stakeholder to discuss the importance of creating a successful and
sustainable PLC program.
Timetable and Roles and Responsibilities
The program evaluation presentation will occur at the February school board
meeting and at a faculty meeting or teacher institute day during the month of February. I
will continue to work with the school board, administration, and faculty throughout the
2012-2013 school year and into the 2013-2014 school year to implement the
recommendations. I will also offer to conduct another program evaluation at the end of

150
the 2013-2014 school year to determine the progress of the PLC model at RTHS and to
determine if the recommendations implemented have had the desired impact.
I was the primary collector and analyzer of the quantitative and qualitative data. I
will have the role and sole responsibility for presenting the program evaluation to the
school board, administration, and faculty. Finally, I will work in conjunction with all the
members of the PLC community at RTHS to assist in implementing any and all
recommendations to improve the success and sustainability of the PLC.
Project Implications
Social Change
Increasing test scores continue to be the benchmark used by society to determine
the success and failure of students, teachers, and schools leading school officials and
community members to demand school reform efforts that increase student achievement
on high stakes standardized exams. PLCs have become one such popular school reform
effort because of their promise of delivering noticeable and drastic changes in teacher and
student achievement (Hipp et al., 2008; Hord, 2009). However, the success of PLCs and
their increasing popularity also run the risk of incorrect implementation of the program
leading to no noticeable gains in teacher and student achievement and disillusionment
with the PLC model (DuFour, 2007) Therefore, it is necessary to periodically evaluate
the implementation of PLCs to ensure the program is successful and sustainable, avoid
disillusionment with the program, and increase teacher and student achievement
(Aubusson et al., 2007; DuFour, 2007).

151
Local Change
RTHS began implementing PLCs five years ago as a way to address decreasing
test scores but results on the Illinois state exam have declined rather than increased. As
the PLC program at RTHS has never been evaluated and test scores are not increasing, a
program evaluation will help to expose the strengths and weaknesses in the
implementation process. Further, the program evaluations recommendations will help
create a successful and sustainable PLC in the future and could lead to an increase in the
number of students who successfully meet or exceed standards on the state exam. Finally,
improving the PLC at RTHS will increase student achievement leading to higher
graduation rates with RTHS graduates becoming more productive members of society.
Conclusion
The program evaluation of the implementation of PLCs at RTHS revealed a
number of strengths and weaknesses that have developed over the past five years.
Research found in the literature formed the basis for the recommendations made to
improve the PLC program. A description of how and when the evaluation results will be
delivered to the stakeholders was provided along with a discussion of potential barriers to
implementing the project. Finally, Section 3 discussed the social change impact the
project will have on society and the local community.
Section 4 will discuss the strengths and limitations of the project and provide
recommendations for how to alternatively approach the problem. An analysis of
scholarship embedded in the study, project development and evaluation, and an analysis
of myself as a scholar and project developer will be provided. The project will conclude

152
with a discussion of its potential for social change and an exploration of the implications,
applications and direction future research in this area may take.

153
Section 4: Reflections
Introduction
The project study was a formative program evaluation of the implementation of a
PLC to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation process.
Collecting both quantitative and qualitative data from the faculty and administration
provided information on the progress of the PLC program from multiple perspectives
allowing me to expose both the strengths and weaknesses perceived by both groups.
Recommendations for moving forward with the PLC program were based on a review of
the literature and addressed actions the administration and faculty need to pursue to
create a successful and sustainable PLC that increases teacher and student achievement.
Section 4 will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the project, analyze how the
problem may have been addressed differently, and analyze what I learned about the
process of creating a program evaluation. Section 4 will conclude with an analysis of
what I discovered about myself during the project study, the importance of the project
and what was learned, and the implications, applications, and direction of future
researcher in this area.
Project Strengths
The project was partially grounded in the work of DuFour et al. (2008) and
supported in numerous research articles found in the educational literature indicating
PLCs have the potential to reform schools by increasing teacher and student achievement
when implemented correctly. Correct implementation requires a focus on the
development of five characteristics found within successful PLCs, including creating a
shared mission, vision, values, and goal, collaborative culture, use of shared and

154
supportive leadership, implementing supportive conditions, and focus on results to drive
instructional changes (DuFour et al., 2008). A strength of this project was the use of a
reliable qualitative measurement created by Dianne F. Olivier, Kristine Kiefer Hipp, and
Jane Bumpers Huffman called Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised
(PLCA-R) (Appendix E) (Olivier et al., 2010). The survey used during this project was
peer reviewed, had acceptable scales of measurement that matched the research
questions, had been revised within the last five years, and demonstrated reliability and
validity in its use by other researchers (Creswell, 2012).
RTHS implemented PLCs 5 years ago as a way to increase student and teacher
achievement because of declining test scores and an inability to make AYP. However, the
program had never been evaluated to determine if there were any weaknesses in the
implementation process. The current project was based on a need found in the literature
to frequently evaluate programs and make adjustments to allow for greater success in
program implementation (Joyce & Calhoun, 2011). As discussed in Olivier et al. (2010),
PLCs are more valuable if they are evaluated, as many PLCs are being implemented
without on-going and periodic evaluation. An additional strength of this project is it adds
to the literature confirming the importance and need to . . . examine programs to
determine their worth and to make recommendations for programmatic refinement and
success (Lodico et al., 2010, p. 317).
A final strength of this project was the addition of the findings to the literature of
the strengths and weaknesses experienced by one school in their progress toward
becoming a PLC and the use of research based recommendations to improve the PLC
program and change educational practices (Lodico et al., 2010). Other schools working

155
toward becoming a PLC may learn from the strengths and weaknesses experienced by
RTHS as they work towards becoming a stronger PLC. Additionally, providing
recommendations grounded in the research adds legitimacy to the recommendations
making it more likely they will be considered and implemented in some form. Finally,
conducting a program evaluation and disseminating the results to all stakeholders
engages the members of the PLC in open and honest dialogue about the assumptions and
beliefs they hold about the organization, leading to an environment where change can
take place (Olivier et al., 2010). Whereas the purpose of experimental research is to add
knowledge about a particular topic, the purpose of a program evaluation is to make
changes in practice, preferably faster than one would observe from experimental research
(Spaulding, 2008).
Project Limitations
The project presented several limitations for addressing the problem. Limitations
were evident in the data collected for this project study. Only one administrator returned
the quantitative survey so I was unable to compare the survey results of the faculty to the
results of the administration. However, the participation by most members of the
administration in the focus group interview did allow me to discover some differences in
perceptions of the PLC between the faculty and administration. Also, out of the 65
surveys delivered, only 28 were returned. Therefore, caution must be taken against
assuming these results represent the beliefs of the entire faculty. Additionally, the
participation of five faculty members in the focus group interview cannot represent the
views of all 65 faculty members on the strengths and weaknesses on our PLC program.

156
Limitations were also evident due to the type of program evaluation that was
conducted. As this was a formative program evaluation, the results represent a snapshot
of the PLC program as it existed at the time data were collected, and those results cannot
be applied to an evaluation of the PLC program at RTHS at a later date (Spaulding,
2008). The results of this program evaluation also cannot be generalized to a larger
population, as the goal of the evaluation was to pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of
the PLC program at RTHS and not to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the
PLC concept as a whole. Therefore, careful consideration must be taken before applying
any conclusions drawn from this project study to any other location.
A final limitation evident from this project study is the requirement of resources
and collective will to implement the proposed recommendations to the PLC program at
RTHS. One resource that may be required is additional training for community members
on how to effectively collaborate and maintain a focus on student learning and how to
analyze assessment data for individual students to drive instructional changes in the
classroom. Joyce and Calhoun (2011) discussed the need for additional training when
new programs are implemented in order to increase the success of the program and allow
for changes in the educational setting to occur. The training that may be required will
take professional development time and money, something that may be in short supply as
school budgets have been shrinking due to the recent economic downturn. Outside
assistance to train community members for proper collaboration and data use can cost a
considerable amount of money. Resistance by community members to spend the time
necessary to implement changes could present another problem as administrators and
teachers are already overworked and do not necessarily want to serve on another

157
committee (Louis, 2008). Fears that the work by committees will go unheeded may also
prevent community members from investing their time. As discussed by Lodico et al.
(2010), failure to take action based on the findings from the program evaluation
represents wasted time and resources on the part of the evaluator.
Alternative Recommendations
The problem addressed in this project study was the inability of RTHS to meet the
AYP standards as established under NCLB. Therefore, PLCs were implemented as a
school reform solution in the hopes that an increase in student and teacher achievement in
the classroom would translate into higher achievement on the state standardized exams.
However, the problem of not making AYP could be viewed from a different angle. The
problem could be defined that current structural features of the educational system are not
adequate enough to meet the needs of students in the 21st century. As the world continues
to rapidly change, particularly in the area of technology advancement, the educational
structure of the United States has not changed fast enough and remains bogged down in
an educational system with features designed to meet the needs of the United States
during the Industrial Revolution. Alternative solutions to this problem could have
required the investigation of the impact of changing many features and structures of the
current educational system to determine if any of those could have allowed for an
increase in student achievement on state standardized exams. For example, this project
study could have investigated the impact of changing the school calendar to keep students
in school year round rather than taking three months off during the summer. This project
study also could have investigated the impact of longer school days or school weeks that
are six days long on student achievement. Finally, this project study could have

158
investigated the structure of teacher preparation programs around the country and
proposed an alternate teacher preparation curriculum. DuFour et al. (2008) proposed that
the most important factor in student achievement is the presence of a highly qualified
teacher in every classroom. Changing the way teachers are trained at the college level
could increase student achievement in the future.
Reflection on Analysis of the Process
Scholarship
An analysis of the process of the scholarly knowledge gained as a result of
completing this project study revealed numerous insights. One of the first scholarly
insights I gained from completing this project study was the need to use current, peerreviewed literature as the basis for developing the problem for the study and for
discussing the strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for the PLC program I
evaluated (Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010; Spaulding, 2008). Unfortunately, too
many educational decisions are made based on popular opinions found on television or in
non-scholarly magazines made by people who are not professionals in the educational
system (Mathis, 2011; Slavin, 2008). These opinions are given by commentators who see
themselves as knowledgeable about schools simply because they attended schools when
they were younger. However, sitting on the student side of the desk is completely
different from the view afforded to teachers and administrators who sit on the other side
of the desk. Using peer-reviewed research provided this project study legitimacy in the
conclusions drawn because they were based on research developed and disseminated by
educational professionals who are intimately involved with the educational system, some
of whom have first-hand knowledge of what it means to work in schools (Zohrabi, 2012).

159
Another insight gained during this project study was the need to immerse myself
in the literature to gain a deep understanding of what a fully implemented and successful
PLC looked like and what could be done to improve struggling PLCs. It was also
necessary to seek out those articles in the literature that were critical of PLCs and add
those divergent viewpoints to my research. Including differing opinions about the
effectiveness of PLCs and how PLCs have been implemented incorrectly provided
greater focus to the weaknesses in the PLC program at RTHS and what reforms needed to
be made to help the program move forward in a successful manner. The ability to
immerse myself in the literature would not have been possible without first becoming
familiar with the various databases utilized for the research portion of this project. Not
only was ERIC, EBSECO, and ProQuest vital for my research, but so was familiarizing
myself with and using generic internet searches through Google Scholar and Wikipedia.
Wikipedia was an excellent source not for actual information that could be used in this
project but for generating alternate search terms that could be used in the educational
databases provided through Waldens library.
Finally, this project revealed the importance of using program evaluations as a
tool for initiating and driving educational change (Olson, 2010; Travers & Evans, 2011).
Rather than simply looking at leadership models or teacher collaboration as tools for
increasing teacher and student achievement, evaluating the entire PLC allowed this
project study to link the five characteristics of PLCs together and demonstrate how all
characteristics are necessary to increase teacher and student achievement. For example,
narrowing the focus of this project to simply reviewing leadership would have prevented
me from discovering and recommending the importance of providing common planning

160
time to increase collaboration time for teachers. Program evaluations are powerful tools
that provide schools with the ability to initiate changes at a faster pace (Spaulding, 2008;
Zohrabi, 2012).
Project Development and Evaluation
In order for this project to deliver the necessary social change through improving
the PLC model at RTHS, it was necessary to choose the correct project evaluation design
and method, set the correct goals, be realistic in how much data I could collect and
analyze, and take the necessary steps to protect the participants involved in the study. In
order to provide the clearest possible picture of the PLC program at RTHS, I believed it
was necessary to use a mixed methods approach in order to collect both quantitative and
qualitative data. I designed my study to be explanatory in nature with the collection of
quantitative data occuring first following by the collection of qualitative data (Creswell,
2012). Additionally, I separated the data provided by administrators and faculty to
determine if there were different perceptions in each of the five characteristics of
successful PLCs. The analysis of the quantitative data brought focus to the questions
asked during each of the focus group interviews conducted (Creswell, 2012). The focus
group data was able to provide further insight into the quantitative data results and offer
greater depth into the reasons for the quantitative results (Creswell, 2012). This depth of
data helped to provide recommendations to improve the PLC program at RTHS that were
more focused on the specific weaknesses in the five categories and this specificity would
not have been possible if the data would have been restricted to quantitative data.
The program evaluation also required the need to set specific goals that centered
on exposing the strengths and weaknesses of the PLC program at RTHS in order to arrive

161
at specific recommendations that could realistically be adopted by the entire community
(Lodico et al., 2010; Ross, 2010; Spaulding, 2008). I also had to be realistic about how
much data I would be able to gather and analyze in order to provide the results of my
study back to the stakeholders in a timely fashion (Olson, 2010). As this was a formative
evaluation, it will be necessary to provide the results to the stakeholders as soon as
possible for the results to remain relevant and for change to be enacted to improve the
PLC. Once the changes have been implemented another formative evaluation will need to
be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the recommendations and allow for the
program to move forward.
Finally, it was necessary to take steps to protect the rights of the participants in
this study. Faculty members who participated needed to have their identities protected so
they could feel free to express their opinions without fear of anyone who had power over
their positions at RTHS from discovering their identities. This required the anonymous
distribution and collection of quantitative data and the separation of the focus group
interviews into a faculty group and an administrative group.
Leadership and Change
The project study allowed me to explore multiple aspects of leadership theory and
how all members of the PLC can become leaders that enact change. The use of shared
and distributed leadership was shown throughout the literature to be an essential
component of effective PLCs because of its ability to allow members of the PLC to
become leaders who initiate change. Putting many people in leadership positions by
ending a top-down leadership model can be difficult because it requires a lot more time
for decisions to be reached and enacted as many perceptions have to be heard. Even

162
though the predominant use of a top-down leadership model is easier to use because
decisions are made faster with little discussion, it is not nearly as effective. Giving
community members decision making powers creates a greater amount of buy-in of the
particular program which can make it more successful in the long run. Also, increased
decision making power allows community members to know they were a part of the
process and gives them a greater accountability for the success of the program. Finally,
shared and distributed leadership also acknowledges, respects, and celebrates the expert
knowledge of teachers.
The process of researching, collecting and analyzing data, and creating the
evaluation for this project study allowed for the development and growth of my personal
leadership capabilities at RTHS. As a result of my research I have now become someone
who is viewed by members of the faculty and administration as an expert on the topic of
PLCs. I am excited about the prospect that the recommendations provided as a result of
my research will allow the PLC at RTHS to grow and improve for the future through
increased effective collaboration, effective use of data, increased teacher leadership roles,
development of a shared mission and vision, and an increase in two-way communication.
Reflection on Analysis of Self as Scholar, Practitioner, and Project Developer
Throughout the process of researching and writing the project study I have
discovered and developed different beliefs about myself as a scholar, practitioner, and
project developer. As a scholar I have come to understand and appreciate the necessity of
having as much information about education as a whole from multiple perspectives. With
this belief comes the knowledge that I must be picky about where I receive my
information by ensuring the educational research I read to update my own practices is

163
based on scientifically based research practices, is current, and is published in a peerreviewed journal. In order to increase my success as a classroom teacher I must avoid
educational information disseminated by those whose findings are not based on scientific
research or by those who have an alternative agenda not based on advancing the
profession of education. I have also become very accomplished at research with an ability
to navigate multiple databases using search terms that provide relevant articles by
successful researchers. I am able to critically analyze articles to discover weaknesses in
research designs and methods that may make the conclusions suspect. Through critical
analysis of the educational literature I am now very critical and suspect of any conclusion
that offers a quick fix to complicated educational problems or presents information in a
simple black and white context. Those research articles that are of high quality have the
ability to discuss and incorporate multiple perspectives and solutions to complex
problems.
As a practitioner of research I have discovered several important aspects about my
chosen profession and my role within the school I teach at. Even though I learned a great
deal about research and what it takes to lead and enact change, I remain passionate and
dedicated to being a classroom teacher. The project study has provided me with a vested
interest in the outcome and success of the PLC I work in and I remain dedicated to
changing and improving the program. However, I would prefer to work on changing and
improving our PLC program from the grassroots level and through my professional
practice as an educator. Through my leadership example and knowledge of how effective
PLCs function, I wish to enact change by participating in the PLC as an experienced and
knowledgeable teacher.

164
Additionally, as a researcher practitioner and project developer I have learned
how to effectively conduct research by keeping out my own personal biases and
remaining impartial when collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data and results. I
have also become adept at effectively delivering bad news by exposing the weaknesses in
the PLC program to all the stakeholders. In the beginning I struggled with how best to
explain to both the administration and faculty the mistakes they were currently making
that were preventing the PLC from functioning effectively and decreasing teacher and
student achievement. However, as I delved deeper into the research and become more
vested in the successful outcome of the program evaluation, I realized I did not want to
hide or sugarcoat the weaknesses I had found. The only way our PLC is going to move
forward, become successful and sustainable, and increase achievement for everyone is if
an open and honest conversation can be had about our weaknesses. It is impossible to
improve upon what we refuse to acknowledge is wrong and only when evidence of our
weaknesses is presented to us can we begin to work toward changing our weaknesses into
strengths.
Finally, this process has opened my eyes to how long it takes to accomplish
reliable and valid research that will lead to the awarding of my degree. Each time I
created a timetable or set a goal for completing an aspect of my research, something
would come along and push back my own personal deadlines. The most time consuming
and frustrating aspect was waiting for IRB approval which took about two weeks longer
than I had anticipated. The process of analyzing the quantitative data was time consuming
but made easier by the use of the SPSS software. The process of data transcription and
analysis of the qualitative interviews was tedious and, at times, I wondered why I had not

165
taken the easier route and only collected quantitative data. However, the results I
obtained and the insights I was able to glean from triangulating all of my data points gave
greater depth and meaning to the work I was able to complete. The ability to back up the
statistical results from the quantitative data with quotes provided my project study with a
personalized touch that gave the project even greater depth and detail. The mixed
methods approach and use of quotes will generate deeper conversations about the
solutions that need to be enacted to change our PLC into an effective program that
increases the achievement of students and teachers.
Implications, Applications, and Future Research
The implications and applications of the research contained in this project study
offer a variety of insights into the direction RTHS can take in the future to improve their
PLC. The results of this study provide a clear picture of what aspects of the PLC program
have been implemented correctly and are working effectively to increase teacher and
student achievement. On the other hand, the results also highlight the weaknesses of the
PLC implementation process to expose to all the stakeholders at RTHS areas that will
need to be addressed to move forward with the PLC model. The project study provides
research-based information and recommendations for improving the current PLC at
RTHS so it can move forward into the future in a successful and sustainable way that
prevents RTHS from falling into the trap of becoming a PLC in name only. The
stakeholders at RTHS, armed with the information provided in this project study, are
given an opportunity to have greater ownership in the outcomes and future of the PLC
model. Finally, this project study can lessen the divide evident between the members of

166
the RTHS PLC, improve their respective practices, and increase the achievement
acquired by all that are involved in the PLC process.
Provided with an opportunity to continue on with the research begun in this
project study, I would explore three possibilities for future research. First, I would
suggest researching the impact PLCs are having on student learning in the classroom
specifically rather than a singular focus on the implantation process. For this particular
topic I believe it would be necessary to move beyond the use of standardized test scores
and delve into the day-to-day successes or failures of the students to examine the impact
PLCs are having on their educational experiences. Second, as I recommended in the
findings section, I would evaluate the PLC program at RTHS in the future and on a more
regular basis to continually examine the strengths and weaknesses of the program and
ensure problems are addressed as soon as possible. Finally, future research on this topic
could be broadened to include the surrounding elementary and middle schools in the
town. The four elementary schools and one middle school in town have also implemented
the PLC model to increase teacher and student achievement. Future research that includes
an evaluation of those PLC programs could increase the effectiveness of the programs
and possibly increase the success of students at the lower levels before they enter into
high school at RTHS.

167
References
Aubusson, P., Steele, F., Dinham, S., & Brady, L. (2007). Action learning in teacher
learning community formation: informative or transformative?. Teacher
Development, 11(2), 133-148. doi:10.1080/13664530701414746
Bausmith, J. & Berry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to
increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge.
Educational Researcher, 40(4), 175-178. doi:10.3102/0013189X11409927
Borrero, N. (2010). Urban school connections: A university-K-8 partnership. Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 14(1), 47-66.
Bovill, C., Aitken, G., Hutchison, J., Morrison, F., Roseweir, K., Scott, A., & Sotannde,
S. (2010). Experiences of learning through collaborative evaluation from a
masters programme in professional education. International Journal for Academic
Development, 15(2), 143-154.
Caskey, M. & Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured
collaboration: A case study of a professional learning community. RMLE Online:
Research in Middle Level Education, 31(1), 1-17.
Center on Education Policy. (2011). How many schools have not made adequate yearly
progress? Washington, DC: Author.
Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology integration through
professional learning community. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
44(1), 59-82. doi:10.2190/EC.44.1.d

168
Cook, C. M., & Faulkner, S. A. (2010). The use of common planning time: A case study
of two Kentucky schools to watch. RMLE Online: Research In Middle Level
Education, 34(2), 1-12.
Corcoran, T., & Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the
challenge. Future of Children, 19(1), 157-183.
Cranston, J. (2011). Relational trust: The glue that binds a professional learning
community. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(1), 59-72.
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Curry, M. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations imbedded in
teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and school
reform. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 733-744.
Curry, M., & Killion, J. (2009). Slicing the layers of learning: Professional learning
communities fill the gaps as educators put new knowledge into practice. Journal
of Staff Development, 30(1), 56.
Doolittle, G., Sudeck, M., & Rattigan, P. (2008). Creating professional learning
communities: The work of professional development schools. Theory into
Practice, 47(4), 303-310. doi:10.1080/00405840802329276
Dooner, A., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the
realities of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education:
An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(3), 564-574.

169
DuFour, R. (1999). Help wanted: Principals who can lead professional learning
communities. NASSP Bulletin, 83(604), 12-17.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community"?. Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth
considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal,
39(1), 4-8.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning
communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Friedman, H. (2011). The myth behind the subject leader as a school key player.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(3), 289-302.
Gajda, R. & Koliba, C. (2007). Evaluating the imperative of intraorganizational
collaboration: A school improvement perspective. American Journal of
Evaluation, 28(1), 26-44. doi:10.1177/1098214006296198
Giambona, G. G., & Birchall, D. W. (2011). An evaluation-led virtual action learning
programme: Was the theory put into practice?. Educational Media International,
48(1), 55-65.
Glassett, K. (2009). A comparison of two types of professional development for content
area teachers. Southeastern Teacher Education Journal, 2(4), 17-23.
Goduto, L. R., Doolittle, G., & Leake, D. (2008). Forming collaborative partnerships on a
statewide level to develop quality school leaders. Theory Into Practice, 47(4),
345-352. doi:10.1080/00405840802329425

170
Hamos, J., Bergin, K., Maki, D., Perez, L., Prival, J., Rainey, D., Rowell, G., &
VanderPutten, E. (2009). Opening the classroom door: Professional learning
communities in the math and science partnership program. Science Educator,
18(2), 14-24.
Harris, A. & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system
improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172-181.
doi:0.1177/1365480210376487
Harris, A. (2011). Reforming systems: Realizing the fourth way. Journal of Educational
Change, 12(2), 159-171. doi:10.1007/s10833-011-9156-z
Hellner, J. (2008). The professional learning community: A fulcrum of change.
Kairaranga, 9(1), 50-54.
Hershberg, T., & Robertson-Kraft, C. (2010). Maximizing the opportunity provided by
"race to the top". Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 7(1), 128-131.
Hipp, K., Huffman, J., Pankake, A., & Olivier, D. (2008). Sustaining professional
learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173195. doi:10.1007/s10833-007-9060-8
Hoffman, P., Dahlman, A., & Zierdt, G. (2009). Professional learning communities in
partnership: A 3-year journey of action and advocacy to bridge the achievement
gap. School-University Partnerships, 3(1), 28-42.
Hord, S. (2008). Evolution of the professional learning community: Revolutionary
concept is based on intentional collegial learning. Journal of Staff Development,
29(3), 10-13.

171
Hord, S. (2009). Professional learning communities: Educators work together toward a
shared purpose. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 40-43.
Illinois State Board of Education (2012a). 2011 Illinois school report card: Rochelle
Township High School. Retrieved from
http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2011&code=4
707121200001_e.pdf
Illinois State Board of Education (2012b). Select Illinois districts accelerate education
reform under federal race to the top program. Retrieved from
http://www.isbe.net/new/2012/may8.html
Jetton, T. L., Cancienne, M., & Greever, B. (2008). The evolving roles of faculty learning
communities: A university/high school literacy partnership. Theory into Practice,
47(4), 327-335. doi:10.1080/00405840802329342
Joyce, B. R., & Calhoun, E. F. (2011). Learning designs: Study, learn, design; repeat as
necessary. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 46-51.
Kennedy, A., Deuel, A., Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2011). Requiring collaboration or
distributing leadership?. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 20-24.
Kilbane, J. r. (2009). Factors in sustaining professional learning community. NASSP
Bulletin, 93(3), 184-205.
Lai, M., McNaughton, S., Timperley, H., & Hsiao, S. (2009). Sustaining continued
acceleration in reading comprehension achievement following an intervention.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 81-100.

172
Levine, T. H. (2011). Experienced teachers and school reform: Exploring how two
different professional communities facilitated and complicated change.
Improving Schools, 14(1), 30-47.
Lieberman, A. & Mace, D. (2009). The role of 'accomplished teachers' in professional
learning communities: Uncovering practice and enabling leadership. Teachers &
Teaching, 15(4), 459-470. doi:10.1080/13540600903057237
Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in educational research: From
theory to practice. (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.) San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons.
Louis, K. & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 532-575.
Louis, K. (2008). Creating and sustaining professional communities. Sustaining Learning
Communities, 1-15.
Lujan, N. & Day, B. (2010). Professional learning communities: Overcoming the
roadblocks. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(2), 10-17.
Lunenburg, F. (2010). Creating a professional learning community. National Forum of
Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 28(1), 1-7.
Maloney, C., & Konza, D. (2011). A case study of teachers' professional learning:
Becoming a community of professional learning or not?. Issues In Educational
Research, 21(1), 75-87.

173
Many, T., & King, D. (2008). Districts speak with one voice: Clarity and coherence come
from professional learning communities. Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 2830.
Mathis, W. J. (2011). Race to the top: An example of belief- dependent reality.
Democracy & Education, 19(2), 1-7.
Maxwell, G., Huggins, K., & Scheurick, J. (2010). How one historically underperforming
diverse rural high school achieved a successful turnaround. Planning and
Changing, 41(3/4), 161-186.
Model Standards Advance the Profession. (2011). Journal of Staff Development, 32(3),
16-24.
Mullen, C. & Schunk, D. (2010). A view of professional learning communities through
three frames: Leadership, organization, and culture. McGill Journal of Education,
45(2), 185-203.
Nathan, L. (2008). Teachers talking together: The power of professional community.
Horace, 24(1).
Nelson, T., Slavitt, D., Perkins, M., & Hathorn, T. (2008). A culture of collaborative
inquiry: Learning to develop and support professional learning communities.
Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1269-1303.
Nelson, T. (2009). Teachers' collaborative inquiry and professional growth: Should we be
optimistic?. Science Education, 93(3), 548-580.
Nelson, T., LeBard, L., & Waters, C. (2010). How to create a professional learning
community. Science & Children, 47(9), 36-40.

174
Olivier, D. F., Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2010). Assessing and analyzing schools. In
K. K. Hipp & J. B. Huffman (Eds.). Demystifying professional learning
communities: School leadership at its Best. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Olson, L. E. (2010). Developing a framework for assessing responsible conduct of
research education programs. Science & Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 185-200.
doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9196-4
Onosko, J. (2011). Race to the top leaves children and future citizens behind: The
devastating effects of centralization, standardization, and high stakes
accountability. Democracy & Education, 19(2), 1-11.
Owens, R. (2010). New schools of thought: Developing thinking and learning
communities. International Journal of Learning, 17(6), 43-54.
Pancucci, S. S. (2008). A retrospective analysis of a professional learning community:
How teachers' capacities shaped it. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1),
62-69.
Richmond, G., & Manokore, V. (2010). Identifying elements critical for functional and
sustainable professional learning communities. Science Education, 95(3), 543570. doi:10.1002/sce.20430
Ross, M. E. (2010). Designing and using program evaluation as a tool for reform. Journal
of Research On Leadership Education, 5(12.7), 481-506.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning
communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77.

175
Servage, L. (2009). Who is the "professional" in a professional learning community? An
exploration of teacher professionalism in collaborative professional development
settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(1), 149-171.
Sigurardttir, A. (2010). Professional learning community in relation to school
effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal Of Educational Research, 54(5), 395-412.
doi:10.1080/00313831.2010.508904
Slavin, R. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education: What works?
Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher,
37(1), 5-14.
Smolin, L., & Lawless, K. A. (2011). Evaluation across contexts: Evaluating the impact
of technology integration professional development partnerships. Journal of
Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(3), 92-98.
Spaulding, D. (2008). Program evaluation in practice: Core concepts and examples for
discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Supovitz, J. A., Christman, J., & Consortium for Policy Research in Education, P. A.
(2003). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons from
Cincinnati and Philadelphia. CPRE Policy Briefs. RB-39. Consortium For Policy
Research In Education.
Sweetland, J. (2008). Making dissatisfaction divine: An inspired approach to wholeschool reform. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 4(1), 13-21.
Thessin, R. A., & Starr, J. P. (2011). Supporting the growth of effective professional
learning communities districtwide. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 48-54.

176
Travers, N. L., & Evans, M. T. (2011). Evaluating prior learning assessment programs: A
suggested framework. International Review of Research in Open & Distance
Learning, 12(1), 123-133.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A Review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and
Studies, 24(1), 80-91.
Wells, C. M., & Feun, L. (2008). What has changed? A study of three year of
professional learning community work. Planning & Changing, 39(1/2), 42-66.
Wells, C., & Keane, W. G. (2008). Building capacity for professional learning
communities through a systems approach: A toolbox for superintendents. AASA
Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 4(4), 24-32.
White, S. & McIntosh, J. (2007). Data delivers a wake-up call: 5-year plan unites
teachers into a collaborative culture. National Staff Development Council, 28(2),
30-35.
Wollman, J. (2007). Are we on the same book and page?: The value of shared theory
and vision. Language Arts, 84(5), 410-418.
Zepeda, S. J. (2004). Leadership to build learning communities. Educational Forum,
68(2), 144-151.
Zohrabi, M. (2011). An introduction to course and/or program evaluation. Journal of
Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 59-70.

177
Appendix A: The Project
The project will consist of a Power Point presentation of the program evaluation
conducted for this research study. The presentation will be given to the school board,
administration, and faculty and is expected to last 35 to 40 minutes with a question and
answer session at the end that could last another 15 to 20 minutes. The objective of this
presentation will be to provide all of the interested parties with the pertinent information
from this research project, including the strengths and weaknesses found in the evaluation
and the recommendations based on a review of the literature to move the PLC model
forward.
The presentation will begin with a brief explanation of the problem, rationale and
importance of the research, and the research questions that guided this project. A brief
discussion on the five characteristics of effective PLCs will be provided along with
information about the data collection tools, process, and response rates. It is expected this
portion of the presentation will be approximately five to ten minutes long. The majority
of the presentation will be the discussion of the findings of the evaluation and the
research-based recommendations provided. A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses
will be presented from the perspectives of both the faculty and the administrative team
and will highlight those areas of the greatest disconnect between the two groups. The
presentation will conclude with a presentation of the six research-based recommendations
found in Section 3 of this project study. It is expected this portion of the presentation will
be approximately 30 minutes long. At the conclusion of the presentation of the program
evaluation results, a question and answer session will be held that could last up to 20

178
minutes long to allow thee attendees to ask clarifying questions of the evaluation results
they were presented with.
The Power Point ppresentation is provided below.

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190
Appendix B: Cover Letter
May 21, 2012
Dear Teacher/Administrator,
We have been working as a school towards becoming a Professional Learning
Community (PLC) for the past four years as part of a wider reform effort to increase
student achievement at RTHS. Your participation and response to this survey can help all
of us at RTHS pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of our PLC.
I am conducting a program evaluation of our progress toward becoming a PLC with the
goal of discovering the strengths and weaknesses of our PLC in order to spark a dialogue
on what parts we need to keep and areas that need to be changed. The population I will
study is the administration and faculty of RTHS.
You participation in this study is completely voluntary and your confidentiality is
assured. No one at RTHS will treat you differently if you decide not to be in the study.
The demographic survey you will be given is coded for data organization only and your
identity will remain completely anonymous. If you complete this survey, your consent to
participate is assumed. If you choose to participate in the focus group interviews, your
identity will continue to remain anonymous. This data is being used as part of a doctoral
study project authorized by Walden University with the intention of publishing the results
in professional journals. The results will also be presented to the stakeholders of RTHS at
a future school board meeting. You have the right to ask me questions at any time during
this study by contacting me at the number below, contacting my doctoral study chair, Dr.
Amy Sedivy-Benton, or Walden Universitys Institutional Review Board.
This survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Please return the survey
sealed in the envelope provided to Tracy Lloyd in Room B-108 by May 29, 2012.
I appreciate your participation and thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tracy Lloyd
(815)757-6374
Dr. Amy Sedivy-Benton
Doctoral Program Chair
Walden University
Amy.sedivy-benton@waldenu.edu
Walden University Instructional Review Board
IRB@waldenu.edu

191
Appendix C: Informed Consent for Quantitative Survey
Program Evaluation of the RTHS Professional Learning Community
You are invited to take part in a research study involving a program evaluation of
Professional Learning Communities at RTHS. The researcher is inviting all members of
the administration and teaching staff to be a part of this study. This form is part of a
process called informed consent to allow you to understand this study before deciding
whether to take part.
This study is being conducted by a researcher named Tracy Lloyd, who is a doctoral
student at Walden University. You may already know the researcher as a Social Studies
teacher at RTHS, but this study is separate from that role.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate your beliefs about the progress RTHS is making
toward becoming a Professional Learning Community.
Procedures:
If you agree to this study, you will be asked:
x to rate 52 separate statements about Professional Learning Communities as
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree
x you may also write comments in the comments sections throughout the survey if
you choose to
x to answer a short demographic survey for categorization purposes only
x if you would like to participate in focus group interviews
The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete and will only be administered for data
collection this one time.
Here are some sample questions found on the Professional Learning Community
Assessment-Revised (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2010):
x Staff members are consistently involved in discussion and making decisions about
most school decisions.
x Opportunities exist for staff members to observe peers and offer encouragement.
x Caring relationships exist among staff members and students that are built on trust
and respect.
Voluntary Nature of the Study:
This study is voluntary. Everyone will respect your decision of whether or not you
choose to be in the study. No one at Rochelle Township High School will treat you
differently if you decide not to be in the study. If you decide to join the study now, you
can still change your mind later. You may stop at any time.

192
Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:
Being in this type of study involves some risk of the minor discomforts that can be
encountered in daily life, such as fatigue, stress, or becoming upset. Being in this study
would not pose risk to your safety or wellbeing.
Your participation in this study can benefit RTHS by improving the PLC through
exposing its strengths, weaknesses, and helping the PLC move forward in a positive
fashion.
Payment:
There is no payment provided for participating in this study.
Privacy:
Any information you provide will be kept anonymous. The researcher will not use your
personal information for any purposes outside of this research project. Also, the
researcher will not include your name or anything else that could identify you in the
study reports. Data will be kept secure by storing all paper copies associated with the
study in a locked file cabinet in the researchers home with the key in the sole possession
of the researcher. All electronic data will be stored on the researchers home computer in
a password encrypted file. Data will be kept for a period of at least five years, as required
by the university.
Contacts and Questions:
You may ask any questions you have now. Or if you have questions later, you may
contact the researcher at 815-757-6374 or at tracy.lloyd2@waldenu.edu. If you want to
talk privately about your rights as a participant, you can call Dr. Leilani Endicott. She is
the Walden University representative who can discuss this with you. Her phone number
is 1-800-925-3368, extension 1210. Walden Universitys approval number for this study
is 05-21-12-0113624 and it expires on May 20, 2013.
Please keep this consent form for your records.
Statement of Consent:
I have read the above information and I feel I understand the study well enough to make a
decision about my involvement. By returning a completed survey, I understand that I am
agreeing to the terms described above.

193
Appendix D: Informed Consent for Qualitative Survey
Program Evaluation of the RTHS Professional Learning Community
You are invited to take part in a research study involving a program evaluation of
Professional Learning Communities at RTHS. The researcher is inviting all members of
the administration and teaching staff to be a part of this study. This form is part of a
process called informed consent to allow you to understand this study before deciding
whether to take part.
This study is being conducted by a researcher named Tracy Lloyd, who is a doctoral
student at Walden University. You may already know the researcher as a Social Studies
teacher at RTHS, but this study is separate from that role.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate your beliefs about the progress RTHS is making
toward becoming a Professional Learning Community.
Procedures:
If you volunteer on the demographic survey and agree to this study, you will be asked:
x to participate in a focus group interview with other professionals in the building
x to provide your opinion when answering questions about the PLC at RTHS
x to agree to a voice recording of the focus group interview
The focus group will take about 60 minutes to complete and participants will be asked to
be a part of the focus group one time.
Here are some sample questions that will be asked during the interview:
x What would you say are the components of professional learning communities at
RTHS?
x What impact do teachers have on student learning?
x Before PLCs were established at RTHS, how did you feel about collaboration
among your colleagues?
Voluntary Nature of the Study:
This study is voluntary. Everyone will respect your decision of whether or not you
choose to be in the study. No one at Rochelle Township High School will treat you
differently if you decide not to be in the study. If you decide to join the study now, you
can still change your mind later. You may stop at any time.
Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:
Being in this type of study involves some risk of the minor discomforts that can be
encountered in daily life, such as fatigue, stress, or becoming upset. For example,
comments could be made during the focus group that may cause you discomfort, to be
offended, or cause damage to your professional reputation that could affect your job.
Being in this study would not pose risk to your safety or wellbeing.

194

Your participation in this study can benefit RTHS by improving the PLC through
exposing its strengths, weaknesses, and helping the PLC move forward in a positive
fashion.
Payment:
There is no payment provided for participating in this study.
Privacy:
Any information you provide will be kept confidential. The researcher will not use your
personal information for any purposes outside of this research project. Also, the
researcher will not include your name or anything else that could identify you in the
study reports. Data will be kept secure by storing all paper copies associated with the
study in a locked file cabinet in the researchers home with the key in the sole possession
of the researcher. All electronic data will be stored on the researchers home computer in
a password encrypted file. Data will be kept for a period of at least five years, as required
by the university.
Contacts and Questions:
You may ask any questions you have now. Or if you have questions later, you may
contact the researcher at 815-757-6374 or at tracy.lloyd2@waldenu.edu. If you want to
talk privately about your rights as a participant, you can call Dr. Leilani Endicott. She is
the Walden University representative who can discuss this with you. Her phone number
is 1-800-925-3368, extension 1210. Walden Universitys approval number for this study
is 05-21-12-0113624 and it expires on May 20, 2013.
The researcher will give you a copy of this form to keep.
Statement of Consent:
I have read the above information and I feel I understand the study well enough to make a
decision about my involvement. By signing below, I understand that I am agreeing to the
terms described above.

Printed Name of Participant:

__________________________________________

Date of consent:

__________________________________________

Participants Signature:

__________________________________________

Researchers Signature:

__________________________________________

195
Appendix E: Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R)
Directions:
This questionnaire assesses your perceptions about your principal, staff, and stakeholders
based on the dimensions of a professional learning community (PLC) and related
attributes. This questionnaire contains a number of statements about practices that occur
in some schools. Read each statement and then use the scale to select the scale point that
best reflects your personal degree of agreement with the statement. Circle the appropriate
letter(s) provided to the right of each statement. Be certain to select only one response for
each statement. Comments after each section are optional.
Key Terms:
x Principal: Principal, not associate or assistant principal
x Staff/Staff Members: All adult staff directly associated with curriculum,
instruction, and assessment of students
x Stakeholders: Parents and community members
Scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree (SD)

2 = Disagree (D)
3 = Agree (A)
4 = Strongly Agree (SA)

STATEMENTS
Shared and Supportive Leadership
1. Staff members are consistently involved in discussing
and making decisions about most school issues.

SCALE
SD D A

SA

SD

SA

2. The principal incorporates advise from staff members to

make decisions.

SD

SA

3. Staff members have accessibility to key information.

SD

SA

4. The principal is proactive and addresses areas where

support is needed.

SD

SA

5. Opportunities are provided for staff members to initiate

change.

SD

SA

6. The principal shares responsibility and rewards innovative

actions.

SD

SA

7. The principal participates democratically with staff sharing

power and authority.

SD

SA

196
STATEMENTS
Shared and Supportive Leadership

SCALE
SD D A

SA

8. Leadership is promoted and nurtured among staff members. SD

SA

9. Decision making takes place through committees and

communication across grades and subject areas.

SD

SA

10. Stakeholders assume shared responsibility and accountability SD

for student learning without evidence of imposed power and
authority.

SA

11. Staff members use multiple sources of data to make decisions SD

about teaching and learning.
Comments:

STATEMENTS
SCALE
Shared Values and Vision
SD D A
12. A collaborative process exists for developing a shared sense SD D A
of values among staff.

SA

SA
SA

13. Shared values support norms of behavior that guide decisions SD

about teaching and learning.

SA

14. Staff members share visions for school improvement that

have undeviating focus on student learning.

SD

SA

15. Decisions are made in alignment with the schools values

and vision.

SD

SA

16. A collaborative process exists for developing a shared vision SD

among staff.

SA

17. School goals focus on student learning beyond test scores

and grades.

SD

SA

18. Policies and programs are aligned to the schools vision.

SD

SA

19. Stakeholders are actively involved in creating high

expectations that serve to increase student achievement.

SD

SA

197
STATEMENTS
Shared Values and Vision

SCALE
SD D A

SA

SD

SA

STATEMENTS
SCALE
Collective Learning and Application
SD D A
21. Staff members work together to seek knowledge, skills, and SD D A
strategies and apply this new learning to their work.

SA
SA

20. Data are used to prioritize actions to reach a shared vision.

Comments:

22. Collegial relationships exist among staff members that

reflect commitment to school improvement efforts.

SD

SA

23. Staff members plan and work together to search for

solutions to address diverse student needs.

SD

SA

24. A variety of opportunities and structures exist for collective

learning through open dialogue.

SD

SA

25. Staff members engage in dialogue that reflects a respect for

diverse ideas that lead to continued inquiry.

SD

SA

26. Professional development focuses on teaching and learning.

SD

SA

27. School staff members and stakeholders learn together and

apply new knowledge to solve problems.

SD

SA

28. School staff members are committed to programs that

enhance learning.

SD

SA

29. Staff members collaboratively analyze multiple sources

of data to assess the effectiveness of instructional practices.

SD

SA

30. Staff members collaboratively analyze student work to

improve teaching and learning.
Comments:

SD

SA

198

STATEMENTS
Shared Personal Practice
31. Opportunities exist for staff members to observe peers and
offer encouragement.

SCALE
SD D A
SD D A

SA
SA

32. Staff members provide feedback to peers related to

instructional practices.

SD

SA

33. Staff members informally share ideas and suggestions for

improving student learning.

SD

SA

34. Staff members collaboratively review student work to share SD

and improve instructional practices.

SA

35. Opportunities exist for coaching and mentoring.

SD

SA

36. Individuals and teams have the opportunity to apply learning SD

and share the results of their practices.

SA

37. Staff members regularly share student work to guide overall

school improvement.
Comments:

SA

SD

STATEMENTS
Supportive Conditions- Relationships
38. Caring relationships exist among staff and students that
are built on trust and respect.

SCALE
SD D A
SD D A

SA
SA

39. A culture of trust and respect exists for taking risks.

SD

SA

40. Outstanding achievement is recognized and celebrated

regularly in our school.

SD

SA

41. School staff and stakeholders exhibit a sustained and

SD
unified effort to embed change into the culture of the school.

SA

42. Relationships among staff members support honest and

SD
respectful examination of data to enhance teaching and learning.
Comments:

SA

199

STATEMENTS
Supportive Conditions- Structures
43. Time is provided to facilitate collaborative work.

SCALE
SD D A
SD D A

SA
SA

44. The school schedule promotes collective learning and

shared practice.

SD

SA

45. Fiscal resources are available for professional development. SD

SA

46. Appropriate technology and instructional materials are

available to staff.
Comments:

SA

SCALE
SD D A
SD D A

SA
SA

48. The school facility is clean, attractive, and inviting.

SD

SA

49. The proximity of grade level and department personnel

allows for ease in collaborating with colleagues.

SD

SA

50. Communication systems promote a flow of information

among staff members.

SD

SA

51. Communication systems promote a flow of information

SD
across the entire school community including: central office
personnel, parents, and community members.

SA

52. Data are organized and made available to provide easy

access to staff members.
Comments:

SA

STATEMENTS
47. Resource people provide expertise and support for
continuous learning.

SD

SD

200
Appendix F: Demographics
Please answer the following demographic questions. The information will be kept strictly
confidential and will be used for categorization purposes only. Please feel free to leave
blank any question you do not wish to answer.
Age
21-30 ______
31-40 ______
41-50 ______
51-60 ______
61-70 ______
70 + ______
Gender
Male ______
Female ______
Race
White _____
Black _____
American Indian and Alaskan Native _____
Asian _____
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander _____
Hispanic and Latino _____
Years of Teaching Experience
1-5 _____
6-10 _____
11-15 _____
16-20 _____
20 + _____
Highest Level of Education Attained (please circle one)
Bachelors Degree
Bachelors Degree plus additional college credit
Masters Degree
Masters Degree plus additional college credit
Doctorate Degree
Would you be willing to participate in a focus group interview?
Yes _____
No _____
If yes, please provide your name. Your identity will be kept confidential and is only
being asked for contacting purposes.

201
Appendix G: Interview Protocol
Project Study: PLC Program Evaluation
Time of Interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Interviewees:
Position of Interviewees:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate your beliefs about the progress RTHS is making
toward becoming a Professional Learning Community. The members of the focus groups
include teachers and administrators. All data that is being collected will be coded to
ensure confidentiality and protect your identity. Your name will be omitted from all
transcripts of this interview and all digital recordings will be encrypted and password
protected on my computer. All transcribed documents will be kept in a locked file cabinet
that only the interviewer has access to. This interview will take approximately one hour.
Please read and sign the distributed consent forms. Test that the tape recorder is working
and turn it on.
Questions:
1. What would you say are the components of professional learning communities at
RTHS?
2. Of these components, which would you say had the greatest impact?
3. Describe the culture of RTHS.
4. What is the focus at RTHS?
5. What support systems are in place?
6. What impact do teachers have on student learning?
7. Describe what professional development looks like at RTHS.
8. Describe what leadership looks like at RTHS.
9. What roles do parents and community members have at RTHS?
10. What role does the central office play in school improvement efforts?
11. Describe the faculty and department collaboration at RTHS.
12. How would you describe the status of open communication during collaboration
time? Do you feel that your suggestions are given serious consideration?
13. What are your ideas for improving effectiveness at RTHS in the future?
14. How do you use assessment data in your collaboration meetings?
15. Before PLCs were established at RTHS, how did you feel about collaboration
among your colleagues?
16. Do you feel as through your collaborative teams efforts to collaborate are
supported by the PLC structure at RTHS? Please explain why or why not.
17. What is the most positive aspect of being a member of a PLC at RTHS?
18. What is the most frustrating aspect of being a member of a PLC at RTHS?

202
Appendix F: Curriculum Vitae
Tracy A. Lloyd
Social Studies Teacher
Rochelle Township High School
(815) 562-4161

tlloyd@rths.rochelle.net

EDUCATION
Walden University
Walden University
Northern Illinois University

Teacher Leadership
Reading and Literacy
Political Science

Ed.D.
M.S.
B.A.

2012
2007
1999

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Social Studies Teacher
AP United States History/United States History
Rochelle Township High School

Aug. 2007-Present

Responsibilities include teaching various courses in the Social Studies department

including Advanced Placement (AP) United States History, United States History,
World History, and American Government. Serve as the Student Council advisor.
Successfully wrote two grants for the departments to increase technology use in
the classroom.
AP/College Board U.S. History Reader

June 2008-Present

Serve as a reader for a week in June scoring essays written by students on the AP
United States History exam using a rubric designed by College Board and ETS.
Social Studies Teacher/Department Chair
AP United States History/United States History
Luella High School

Oct. 2004-May 2007

Responsibilities included teaching various courses in the Social Studies

department including AP United States History, United States History, and
Geography. Served as the department chair, attended meetings with the
administration, and conducted department meetings.
Social Studies Teacher
United States History/World History
Freeport Junior High School

Aug. 2001-May 2002

Responsibilities included teaching United States and World History. Served as the
cheerleading coach.