Assessment of PLC Culture and Climate

In the past, the presence of a true PLC has been absent at my school. It began to take

form two years ago, but knowing now how a PLC should function, it is clear that we had

department meetings as opposed to PLCs. There was one goal for every teacher in every

department—get every student to pass every class—and teachers had no role in determining the

aim. We would go through our grade books, review scores on assignments, and determine which

students to target for reinstruction. Though well intentioned, this approach catered to a

particularly limited student population and yielded little to no results in building the collective

efficacy of the staff.

This year, with the leadership of a new principal at the high school, our PLCs are

beginning to emerge. We are still in the developing stages as to how it will fully function, but

much of the foundation has already been built. We’re organized by content areas, meet for an

hour and a half about every other week, and have identified a common SMART goal across all

grade levels. The goal is based on common concerns identified by each of the four English

teachers in the building. Much of our conversation has been reflecting on what we’ve been

doing, why it hasn’t worked, and what research we can do in order to find new tools and

strategies to improve our practice.

Unfortunately, there has already been some resistance in making data-driven decisions

and data analysis. Instead of taking the time to analyze data, two teachers often refer to their

observations instead of numbers and percentages. While I don’t entirely discredit their judgment,

I think that sometimes individuals may skew their perception by only focusing on what they

want to see and, consequently, ignoring other issues. In my opinion, this loose approach tends to

veer from an authentic data analysis, one of the fundamental and essential components of an
effective PLC. Additionally, it makes it unnecessarily difficult to measure and monitor our

progress of accomplishing our SMART goal. Even though we initially established mutual

accountability with the commitment to provide data and implement new ideas, a lack of follow

through is proving to make things difficult.

The climate of my PLC is somewhere near lukewarm. It is certainly far from cold, but it

could use a new fire to heat things up. I would not describe two of the three teachers in my PLC

as seekers of feedback from individuals outside of the English department. It’s not that these

teachers are recycling the same exact content and assessments year after year, but they are less

than welcoming of ideas, processes, and approaches to instruction that come from an

administrative role within the district. Though they are not critical of other teachers, they are a

bit critical of the insight and direction provided by those who are not actively working with

students in classrooms. It’s worth noting that the two least cooperative teachers in my PLC have

been teaching for around 15 years each. While they don’t necessarily pine for “the good ol’

days,” there is a moderate level of bantering, and sometimes groaning, that accompanies each

new district or school initiative.

Thankfully, all teachers in my PLC have proven to be effective through their own

methods. However, my concern is that a lack of willingness to try new ideas will result in an

eventual stagnation of their success as educators. Despite their apprehensive view of “orders

from the top,” every teacher in my PLC is notably passionate about connecting with students and

establishing a comfortable, safe learning environment. Also, despite their defiance of feedback

from people outside of our PLC, they are receptive to ideas I share with them. There is an

evident openness between each member of the PLC regarding the ideas, content, and concerns
brought into our meetings. This allows for meaningful and productive collaboration as well as a

smooth vertical alignment of standards, skills, and depth of knowledge.