Effective professional learning communities? The possibilities for teachers as agents of change in schools

Abstract

The concept of the professional learning community (PLC) has been embraced widely in schools as a means for teachers to engage in professional development leading to enhanced pupil learning. However, the term has become so ubiquitous it is in danger of losing all meaning, or worse, of reifying ‘teacher learning' within a narrowly defined ambit which loses sight of the essentially contestable concepts which underpin it. The primary aim of this paper is therefore to (re-)examine the assumptions underpinning the PLC as a vehicle for teacher led change in schools in order to confront and unsettle a complacent and potentially damaging empirical consensus around teacher learning. This paper examines the characteristics and attributes of the ‘effective' professional learning community as identified in the literature, drawing out the tensions and contradictions embodied in the terms professional, learning and community. The paper considers the implications of this analysis for practice, and concludes by offering some insights into the nature of ‘school improvement', and the role of PLCs in realizing this

Professional learning communities as drivers of educational change: The case of learning rounds

“…This links to Watson's (2014) concerns about the pedagogisation of PLCs, in which complex ideas can be reduced to oversimplified teachable procedures once again resulting in a focus on procedure rather than purpose.…”

“…Fendler (2006, p. 304) argues community is a notion that "seems never to be used unfavourably and never given any positive opposing or distinguishing term" even though communities can reinforce existing social power relationships and "foreclose possibilities for diversity" (ibid, p. 310). Concerns about "mandated" (Servage 2009, p. 150) community have been expressed in relation to PLCs, in which "co-operation turns into co-optation" (Stickney 2015, p. 490) such that teachers are positioned as both agents and subjects in a process of adopting an imposed policy agenda and conducting surveillance of colleagues to ensure that it is implemented (Bottery 2005;Codd 2003Fendler 2006Watson 2014;Ellis et al 2015).…”

“…A number of researchers argue that diversity and dissent are necessary for collaborative learning, particularly transformative learning , and that emphasis on shared vision and values can be inimical to this (Fendler 9 2006;Servage 2008;Watson 2014;O'Keeffe 2012;Ellis et al 2015;Stickney 2015). There is also concern that teachers' well established social community can be mistaken for the type of robust professional community that can productively manage fundamental disagreements (Dooner, Mandzuk & Clifton 2008;Nehring and Fitsimmons 2011;O'Keeffe 2012).…”

“…Linked to these concerns about horizons and discourse are concerns about how the practices of PLCs naturalise a particular ontology and epistemology (Watson 2014;Roegman & Riehl 2015;Stickney 2015). The notion of evidenced-based teaching associated with PLCs gives rise to a particular view of the questions that teachers can and should ask about education in terms of scope (i.e.…”

“…There is also uncertainty about how individual learning in PLCs relates to collective or systemic learning (Sleegers et al 2013;Watson 2014;Ellis et al 2015). If the focus of PLCs is on community and culture building, the assumption is that system change will result from an aggregation of local improvements.…”