Dr. Teresa A. Hughes, Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair

8/8/2019 Dr. Teresa A. Hughes, Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-teresa-a-hughes-dissertation-dr-william-allan-kritsonis-dissertation 1/132

ABSTRACT

The Relationship between Professional Learning Communities and

Student Achievement in High Schools

(October 2006)

Teresa Ann Hughes: B.S. – Stephen F. Austin State University

M.Ed., Sam Houston State University – Huntsville

Dissertation Chair: William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation has mandated that

schools increase their student achievement and has encouraged

schools to establish creative programs that will meet the needs of all

children regardless of their backgrounds. One such program is

professional learning communities where the emphasis is on teacher

learning through collaboration, for the improvement of teacher

instructional strategies and student assessment.

The research questions addressed in this study were: (1) To what

degree do principals rate their school as functioning as a professional

learning community as measured by the School Professional Staff as

Learning Community instrument? (2) Is there a relationship between

student achievement, based on change in Mathematics Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores, and the degree to

which the principals report that the school is functioning as a

professional learning community? and (3) Is there a relationship

between student achievement, based on change in Reading/English

iii



Language Arts TAKS scores, and the degree to which the principals

report that the school is functioning as a professional learning

community?

Descriptive statistics were used to compile demographic

information of principals. Pearson correlation coefficients were then

calculated to establish whether or not a meaningful relationship

existed between the degree to which schools function as learning

communities and student achievement. Stepwise multiple regression

analysis was conducted to determine predictability of each of the five

descriptors covered by the instrument as they related to student

achievement.

The findings from this study were as follows: (1) A positive

correlation existed between the length of time the campus had been a

professional learning community and the developmental level of the

campus as a professional learning community. (2) Professional learning

community schools improved in their Mathematics and Reading/English

Language Arts TAKS scores. (3) A significant relationship did not exist

between the change in Mathematics TAKS scores and the

developmental level of the school. (4) The change in Reading/English

Language Arts TAKS scores from 2004 to 2005 exhibited a positive

relationship with two of the professional learning community

descriptors. The two descriptors were:

iv



(1) “Shared visions for school improvement have an undeviating focus

on student learning and are consistently referenced for the staff’s

work” and

(2) “Conditions and capacities support the school’s arrangement as a

professional learning organization.”

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Reform has become a constant concept for educators. Reform

efforts were traced back to the nineteenth century when Frederick

Taylor’s factory model was replicated in the public school system.

Politicians, business leaders, and school administrators believed public

schools could be run more efficiently under Taylor’s model. Taylor

believed, “One best system could be identified to complete any task or

solve any organizational problem” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 20).

Within the factory model, teachers were told what material to teach,

how to teach and when to teach. Teachers were then closely monitored

for adherence to the standards. Taylor’s “one size fits all” model

continues to prevail in the majority of public schools throughout the

United States.

Increasing diversity of students in public schools rendered

Taylor’s model obsolete. All student needs were not being met and

learning was not taking place for all students. An essay, History of

Reform and Restructuring noted, “The school bureaucracy imposes

v



terrible restrictions on professional educators who seek to work with

individual students” (Educational Reform, 1997). Because of policies

and standardized testing, learning environments were created that

encouraged sameness, but discouraged individuality. A number of

political educational platforms rose to the top of U. S. Presidents’

agendas in their efforts to reform schools so all learners could succeed.

In 1983, a report to the Nation titled A Nation at Risk: The

Imperative for Educational Reform was released to the public. The

study found that education in America was in crisis. As a result of the

report, many educational leaders sought new reform initiatives. “A

Nation at Risk became the call to arms for administrators and policy

makers and ushered in what became known as the first wave of

educational reform” (Carvin, n.d.). After the report was released, one

of the greatest changes that came about was standardization. More

schools created standardized curricula and testing programs. Another

change that resulted was merit pay programs. Several states offered

merit pay plans to teachers who demonstrated proficiency in their

knowledge of the subject and their ability to educate children.

In 1998, Congress passed Goals 2000: Educate America Act.

Goals 2000 focused reform efforts on high expectations with

achievement for all children as the end result. Local school districts

were encouraged to align content and develop performance standards.

The purpose of Goals 2000 was to support school districts with meeting

the educational needs of all children and to help children achieve their

vi



potential by improving parental involvement, and developing teachers’

instructional skills.

In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) became the newest

reform effort. The goal of NCLB is to ensure that all students,

regardless of background, obtain a quality education. From No Child

Left Behind: Expanding the Promise Guide to President Bush’s FY 2006

Education Agenda by the U.S. Department Education, “To reach this

goal, NCLB refocused federal education programs on the principles of

stronger accountability for results, more choices for parents and

students, greater flexibility for states and school districts, and the use

of research-based instructional methods” (2005).

A Nation at Risk, Goals 2000, and NCLB are examples of external

factors that compelled educational leaders at local schools and districts

to explore reform initiatives in order to meet federally required results.

Because of political mandates to improve student learning and

instruction, educational leaders are searching for initiatives to ensure

success for all children. A number of initiatives designed to improve

student performance and the quality of teaching are available for

educational leaders. One such initiative is professional learning

communities.

Professional learning communities empower the teaching staff to

work together with administrators and other teachers to provide

quality instruction and improve student learning. According to Hord

(1997), the professional learning community is seen as an effective

vii



staff development approach and a potent strategy for school reform

and improvement. Hord created an instrument titled School

Professional Staff as Learning Community (see Appendix A) designed

to measure the degree a school

was functioning as a professional learning community. Five indicators

of

a professional learning community are prevalent on the instrument:

Supportive and shared leadership, collective creativity, shared values

and vision, supportive conditions, and shared personal practice.

Many leaders have embraced and implemented communities of

learners; however, the reform has not endured over time. According to

Fullan (2000), it takes approximately three years for an elementary

and six years for a high school to achieve successful change. “Put in

terms of the change process, there has been strong adoption and

implementation, but not strong institutionalization” (Fullan, 2000, p. 1).

Educational leaders who desire to create an environment of

professional learners will systemically transform the organizational

culture of their schools so that learning communities become “a way of

life.” The organizational structure will change as leaders empower

teachers to become an integral part of the decision making process.

Skilled leaders are needed for this kind of change to endure time.

Background of the Problem

Political leaders have continued to create legislation for student

achievement, placing educators on the forefront of reform. Often

viii



teachers say, the “pendulum is swinging” referring to reforms that

were initially popular but abandoned after a year or two. Several years

later the same idea reappeared. “…most innovations at best got

‘adopted’ on the surface, but did not alter behaviors and beliefs”

(Fullan, 2001a, p. 2). Because implementing new initiatives happened

so often, an attitude of “this too shall pass” has permeated districts

and campuses. Today’s educational leaders must be equipped not only

to implement initiatives but to sustain them and if proven effective “…

create a fundamental transformation in the learning cultures of schools

and of the teaching profession itself” (Fullan, 2002a, p. 5). Effective

leaders are required in the field of education to reculture schools to

meet political mandates and still meet the needs of all students.

Statement of the Problem

As stated before, NCLB is the most recent education reform

effort. NCLB legislation mandates achievement for all students

regardless of their background, thereby placing student achievement

on the forefront of reform efforts. Because of NCLB accountability

standards, educational leaders are actively seeking various reform

initiatives that will aid their campuses in meeting or exceeding student

performance expectations. So it is clear that student achievement

continues to be a priority for educators.

The responsibility of the principal in the reformation process is

integral to the success of educational reculturing efforts. “While

research on school improvement is now into its third decade,

ix



systematic research on what the principal actually does and its

relationship to stability and change is quite recent” (Fullan, 2000).

Countless improvement initiatives have been available that directly

affect student learning and quality of teaching. One such initiative is

professional learning communities.

Frederick Taylor’s nineteenth century-factory model of “one size

fits all” is no longer effective in terms of addressing every student. A

successful professional learning community does whatever is

necessary to ensure student learning takes place for every child.

According to Richard DuFour (2005) “The Professional Learning

Community model flows from the assumption that the core mission of

formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but

to ensure that they learn” (p. 32).

The principal’s role as leader is critical to the success of

professional learning communities. As advocate for professional

learning communities, motivational leader for faculty and staff, and

finally administrator of the program, the principal is the key player in

the effort. If professional learning community reform efforts are to

succeed, educational leaders must be trained or re-trained in

contemporary leadership strategies.

Many educational leaders recognize the need for educational

reform, but lack the skills to implement or sustain reculturing efforts.

“In sum, we are at the beginning of a period in which leadership

x



development is the primary strategy for large-scale, sustainable

reform” (Fullan, 2002a, p. 8).

Schools are bound by state and federal accountability mandates

to improve student achievement for all. Leaders who successfully

transform schools into professional learning communities are expected

to have the tools in place to improve student achievement thus

satisfying political educational mandates. This study sought to

determine if professional learning communities indeed hold such

promise.

Research Questions

The following questions guided the study:

1. To what degree do principals rate their school as functioning

as a professional learning community as measured by School

Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument?

2. Is there a relationship between student achievement, based

on change in Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills (TAKS) scores, and the degree to which the principals


community?


on change in Reading/English Language Arts Texas Assessment

of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores, and the degree to which

xi



the principals report that the school is functioning as a

professional learning community?

In order to answer the last two of the above research questions the

following research hypotheses were formulated:

Null Hypotheses

H01 - There is no statistically significant relationship between student

achievement, as measured by Mathematics Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores, and the degree to which a school

is functioning as a professional learning community.


achievement, as measured by Reading/English Language Arts Texas


which a school is functioning as a professional learning community.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, to identify the

degree to which each school was functioning as a professional learning

community. Second, to identify whether improved student

achievement in Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

scores increased as a result of creating professional learning

communities. Transforming a school into a community of professional

learners creates a change in the culture of the school. Information from

xii



this study will be important to educational leaders who are committed

to reforming schools into communities of professional learners.

Significance of the Study

In order to meet political mandates to improve student learning

and instruction, educational leaders have been turning to professional

learning communities. Knowledge gained from this study provided

educational leaders information about student achievement as it

related to learning communities. Leaders will be able to ascertain

whether shared governance, shared vision, collective learning, peer

reviews, and/or school conditions impacted student achievement.

Educational reform efforts have been attempted for centuries and

continue into the twenty-first century. It is important to see how the

principal effected change with teachers, students, and parents. The

principal’s processes for effecting change, when creating professional

learning communities, could impact educational leader preparatory

programs and principal expectations. In addition, as schools are

recultured and the teacher role changes within a professional learning

organization, teacher preparatory programs might be influenced.

According to Fullan (2002b), ”We now must raise our sights and focus

on principals as leaders in a culture of change and the associated

conditions that will make this possible on a large scale, sustainable

basis including the transformation of the teaching profession” (p. 14).

xiii



While the role of the teacher in a professional learning organization is

significant, teacher roles were not the primary focus of this study.

Assumptions

1. All principals were knowledgeable about professional learning

community characteristics to the extent they could determine

the degree to which their school was functioning as a

community.

2. All principals provided unbiased responses to the instrument as

they reported the degree to which their school was functioning

as a professional learning community.

3. All instruments used were reliable and valid.

Delimitations of the Study

1. This was a purposeful study. Only schools that were functioning

as professional learning communities were studied.

2. The study focused on public high schools that had implemented

professional learning communities. Private schools and magnet

schools were not included in the study. Although research

showed professional learning communities can be successfully

implemented at all levels of schooling, those in education have

held the belief that these communities were more likely to be

found in elementary schools.

xiv



3. Principals were the only individuals surveyed regarding their

belief about the degree their school functioned as a professional

learning community.

4. Teachers have a significant role in a learning organization;

however, they were not the primary focus of the study.

Limitations of the Study

1. A possible bias could exist with the principals who were

responsible for creating professional learning communities. Data

were collected via a survey and principals could have been

biased when responding.

2. It is possible that schools implemented different forms of

professional learning communities which were not identifiable in

this investigation.

Definition of Terms

For the purposes of this study, the key terms to be used are

defined as follows:

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Report The AEIS “pulls

together a wide range of information on the performance of students in

each school and district in Texas every year. This information is put

into the annual AEIS reports, which are available each year in the fall”

(Texas Education Agency, 2006).

Change in Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

scores TAKS scores were based on the percentage of students in

grades 9, 10, and 11 who had mastered the Mathematics and

xv



Reading/English Language Arts examinations. The change in score was

the difference in percent mastery among the following years: (1) 2004

and 2005, (2) 2005 and 2006, and (3) 2004 and 2006.

2004 Reference to the 2004 TAKS results were represented in the

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report for the 2004-2005

school year with the test administration in April of 2004. The 2004

TAKS results were recomputed according to the 2005 standards and

were reported on the 2004-2005 AEIS report.



school year with the test administration in April 2005.



school year with the test administration in April of 2006.

Educational Reform During educational reform or restructuring

movements, “…school practitioners have typically elected to focus on

marginal changes rather than on core issues of teaching and learning”

(DuFour & Eaker, 1998).

Effective Leaders Michael Fullan (2002a) has identified “five action-

and-mind sets that effective leaders combine: A strong sense of moral

purpose, an understanding of the dynamics of change, an emotional

intelligence as they build relationships, a commitment to developing

and sharing new knowledge, and a capacity for coherence making

(enough coherence on the edge of chaos to still be creative)” (p. 2).

xvi



Learning Organizations According to Peter Senge (1990), learning

organizations are “…organizations where people continually expand

their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and

expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective

aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see

the whole together”

(p. 3).

Professional Learning Community Three big ideas represent the core

principles of professional learning communities: (1) The professional

learning community model flows from the assumption that the core

mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are

taught but to ensure that they learn. (2) Educators who are building a

professional learning community recognize that they must work

together to achieve their collective purpose of learning for all.

Therefore, they create structures to promote a collaborative culture.

(3) Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on the

basis of results. Working together to improve student achievement

becomes the routine work of everyone in the school. Every teacher

team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level

of student achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current

level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic

evidence of progress (DuFour, 2005).

xvii



Reculturing The process of developing professional learning

communities in the school is called reculturing. Reculturing involves

going from a situation of limited attention to assessment of pedagogy

to a situation in which teachers and others routinely focus on these

matters and make associated improvements (Fullan, 2000).

Restructuring Restructuring includes a reformation of teaching and

learning practices and structures and of the policies, procedures, and

rules that sustain a learning organization (Clarke & Kohn, 2002).

Sustainable Educational Change Sustainability in educational change

consists of five key and interrelated characteristics: (1) improvement

that fosters learning, not merely change that alters schooling; (2)

improvement that endures over time; (3) improvement that can be

supported by available or obtainable resources; (4) improvement that

does not affect negatively the surrounding environment of other

schools;

(5) improvement that promotes ecological diversity and capacity

throughout the educational and community environment (Hargreaves

& Fink, 2003).

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills “As mandated by the 76th

Texas Legislature in 1999, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills (TAKS™) was administered beginning in the 2002-2003 school

year. The TAKS™ measures the statewide curriculum in reading at

Grades 3-9; in writing at Grades 4 and 7; in English Language Arts at

Grades 10 and 11; in mathematics at Grades 3-11; in science at

xviii



Grades 5,10, and 11; and social studies at Grades 8, 10, and 11. The

Spanish TAKS™ is administered at Grades 3 through 6. Satisfactory

performance on the TAKS™ at Grade 11 is prerequisite to a high school

diploma” (Texas Education Agency, 2006).

Transformation The transformation of a school “requires several

significant shifts – from unconnected thinking to systems thinking,

from an environment of isolation to one of collegiality, from perceived

reality to information-driven reality, and from individual autonomy to

collective autonomy and collective accountability” (Zmuda, Kuklis, &

Kline, 2004).

Organization of the Study

This study consists of five chapters. Chapter I contains an

introduction, background of the problem, statement of the problem,

research questions, purpose of the study, significance of this study,

assumptions, delimitations and limitations, and definition of terms.

Chapter II is a review of the literature on the historical perspective of

reform efforts, learning organizations, professional learning

communities, and the role of the teacher, principal, district and state in

professional learning communities. The method for this study,

including the research design, population and samples,

instrumentation, and the collection of data can be found in Chapter III.

Chapter IV presents the findings of this study in relation to the

research questions. A summary of this study with a conclusion and

recommendations for further study are in Chapter V.

xix



CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

For decades, educational reform has been a concern with

politicians and educational leaders; each group has produced

mandates and recommendations, respectively, with a focus on student

performance. One such recommendation is transforming schools into

professional learning communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Developing

a shared vision, participating in collective inquiry, creating

collaborative teams, experimenting and taking action, focusing on

continuous improvement, and maintaining results are all

characteristics of professional learning communities. Student success

comes when a school implements all of the characteristics.

To successfully implement a professional learning community,

the leader must be willing to share governance with the teachers and

empower them to be leaders. Essentially, a principal will become an

instructional leader of teacher leaders. The combination of all

professional learning community characteristics functioning together

along with a leader who is willing to collaboratively work with the

teachers will bring about a sense of hope for students. Senge, et al.

(2000) states, “…the idea of building a school that learns – or, more

precisely, a learning classroom, learning school, and learning

xx



community – represents an approach that galvanizes hope” (p. 10).

Schools that

implement professional learning communities provide such hope. This

study was designed to identify the degree that selected high schools

are functioning as professional learning communities and their impact

on student achievement.

A Historical Perspective of Educational Reform Efforts

Frederick Taylor

Educational reform efforts are becoming the vanguard, leading

schools to shift from bureaucratic systems to learning organizations.

Large schools have been functioning as bureaucratic systems where

the focus was on efficiency. Industrialist Frederick Taylor was well

known in the business sector for his design of the scientific method of

management for large factories. Emphasis was placed on efficient

production, efficient management, and efficient organizations. Taylor

“argued that production procedures should be standardized around

methodology proven to be efficient” (Marion, 2002, p. 23). Because the

factory model helped the United States to become an industrial giant,

business and political leaders and school administrators believed the

public schools could also be run more efficiently following the tenets of

Taylor’s factory model.

While the scientific management approach was successful in the

business sector, this approach does not meet the needs of all students

in the public schools. Under Taylor’s model, teachers were told what to

xxi



teach, how to teach, and when to teach, and were then closely

monitored for compliance to the strict guidelines. Taylor believed that

individuals could be programmed to be efficient machines, and he

thought workers needed constant direction (Hoy & Miskel, 2001). Top-

down decisions were made starting with state boards of education and

would ultimately be directed to the teachers to carry out. “Students

were simply the raw material transported along the educational

assembly line” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 22). A century ago, with less

than three percent of American students actually graduating from high

school, Taylor’s approach might have been successful (DuFour &

Eaker, 1998). Today, however, the factory model is inadequate for

meeting the national education goals where the expectation is all

students will learn.

This “one size fits all model” exists in most public schools in the

United States. Currently, there are a number of principals still

operating schools as factories, focusing on procedures rather than

results. Teachers’ thoughts and opinions are not heard and are often

considered unimportant. Senge, et al. (2000) notes,

The result of this machine-age thinking was a model of school

separate from daily life, governed in an authoritarian manner,

oriented above all else to producing a standardized product, the

labor input needed for the rapidly growing industrial-age

workplace – and as dependent on maintaining control as the

armies of Frederick the Great (p. 31).

xxii



Bill Gates, a leader in the business sector, recently addressed state

governors at a National Education Summit on High Schools. Gates

suggests America’s high schools are obsolete. He provides the analogy

that “Training our workforce of tomorrow with the high schools of

today is like trying to teach kids about today’s computers on a 50-year-

old

mainframe. It’s the wrong tool for the times” (2005). However, this

century-old tool of management theory continues to be a powerful

force in the 21st Century.

The Excellence Movement

In 1966, Dr. James Coleman presented a report to the United

States Congress titled Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO), also

known as the “Coleman Report”. The study concluded that there was a

strong correlation between student academic achievement and family

background. According to Davenport and Anderson (2002), “…schools

bring little to bear on a child’s achievement independent of his

background and general social context” (p. 25). As a result of the

Coleman Report, several researchers conducted studies to dispel the

findings in the “Coleman Report”.

Professors at Michigan State University carried out one such

study. Larry Lezotte, Ron Edmonds, and Wilber Brookover commenced

their own investigation to discover “schools where all children –

especially minority and disadvantaged children – were mastering the

intended curriculum” (Lezotte, 2005, p. 178). Specifically, the

xxiii



researchers were looking to answer why and how some schools make a

difference, and can more schools do the same? Through their studies,

common attributes of effective schools were discovered and are known

as “the seven correlates of effective schools”. The correlates are: (1)

instructional leadership, (2) clear and focused mission, (3) safe and

orderly environment, (4) climate of high expectations for success, (5)

frequent monitoring of student progress, (6) positive home-school

relations, and (7) opportunity to learn and time on task. Lezotte (2005)

maintains, “Utilizing the collaborative approach of professional learning

communities within this framework will yield a powerful and effective

continuous school improvement process leading to increased student

achievement for all students” (p. 179). The “seven correlates”

challenge the Coleman Report and provided educators with a direction

for improving schools.

A Nation At Risk

In 1981, the Secretary of Education, Terrell Bell, created the

National Commission on Excellence in Education, the purpose of which

was to research and assess the state of education in America. In 1983,

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, was released

to the American people. The report states that both our society and

educational institutions lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling

and that our educational institutions were accepting mediocre

performance from our students (National Commission on Excellence in

xxiv



Education, 1983). Findings in the report were centered on curriculum,

expectations, time, and teaching.

First, as a result of A Nation at Risk , a more standardized

curriculum was created and testing for students was increased. A

second finding in the report suggested raising expectations of students

by developing higher graduation requirements. Third, more time

should be dedicated to learning, whether it is the student completing

more homework or teachers and administrators effectively using

instructional time during the day. Finally, time should be spent on

discovering how to make teaching a more rewarding and respected

profession. Over the next two decades, the above findings led the

educational reform efforts.

Along with the findings in the report, the Commission identified

practical recommendations for school improvement. Recommendations

were based on the belief that everyone can learn, everyone is born

with a desire to learn, a solid high school education is within the reach

of virtually all, and life-long learning equips people with the necessary

skills to become productive citizens in society (National Commission on

Excellence in Education, 1983). The above four recommendations

addressed each of the areas in the findings: Curriculum, expectations,

time, and teaching. A fifth recommendation addressed the leadership

and fiscal support needed to carry out the short-term and the long-

term reform proposed in the report. A Nation at Risk has become

known as the first wave of educational reform.

xxv



Goals 2000 – Educate America Act

The reform efforts that resulted from A Nation at Risk were not

leading all students to improved student achievement. While there

were significant improvements in academic performance, the gap in

performance between White and Hispanic and African American

students remained large (Dougherty, 2005). As a result, in 1994 Goals

2000 – Educate America Act was passed by Congress and was to

provide a national framework for educational reform to improve

learning and teaching. Goals 2000 systematized the existing six

educational goals: School readiness, school completion, student

academic achievement, leadership in math and science, adult literacy,

and safe and drug-free schools. In addition, Goals 2000 sought to

encourage teacher professional development and parental

participation. Each of these goals was outlined with several objectives.

Educational leaders were expected to reform their schools to achieve

all eight national goals by 2000.

Effective goals and objectives must be realistic. According to

Knudsen and Morrissette (1998), “…it appears that these objectives

were designed without fully understanding social factors that influence

American families and schools. Without the necessary support systems

in place, such grandiose goals cannot be realized and reform will not

be forthcoming” (p. 7).

xxvi



No Child Left Behind

Both A Nation at Risk and Goals 2000 were political moves aimed

at refining and increasing the quality of education in America.

Currently, educators are functioning under the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB) of 2001, passed by an overwhelming margin in both houses of

Congress in December 2001 and signed into law on January 8, 2002.

Rajala (2003) emphasizes that as a result of NCLB, the role of the

federal government has changed by asking schools to describe their

success in terms of what each student accomplishes. NCLB is the latest

reform in a series featuring high-stakes accountability, student

achievement, standards, and parental choice.

One of the goals of NCLB is to offer financial assistance to those

schools attempting to close the achievement gap between students.

Donlevy (2002) reports, “The Act envisions equity of outcomes among

student populations and seeks to provide quality educational programs

to all disadvantaged children” (p. 257). Further, NCLB is built on the

foundation of prior federal educational mandates and has measures in

place to make certain student results are produced. Lezotte (2005)

notes, “…the core ideas of No Child Left Behind – such as the required

disaggregation of assessment – scores were directly influenced by the

effective schools research and improvement framework” (p. 189). The

idea behind NCLB is to be sure that all students are learning.

xxvii



Districts or schools can apply for grant money to fund reform

initiatives believed to improve student achievement. Donlevy (2003)

explains, “NCLB requires states to implement reform plans with rapid

timeliness and to show academic achievement data in disaggregated

formats so that sub-group results are not obscured in the average

scores of particular schools” (p. 335). One such reform initiative is


The Effects of Educational Reform Efforts

For decades, public school reform has been on the forefront of

political agendas, with each American president designing his own big-

ticket initiatives. In the United States, the education reform movement

has focused increasingly on the development of new standards for

students (Darling-Hammond, 2004). In addition, a number of schools

have been relying on the research from the effective schools

movement as their framework for school improvement initiatives

(Lezotte, 1997). Student achievement which exists in each reform

package is the common thread, yet a sense of reform consistency is

lacking. Until recently, educational reform was done in a disjointed

manner. Legter (1999) states, “More and more educators are

understanding that piecemeal reform too often produces a confusing

and inefficient proliferation of programs that generate resource battles,

reinforce inequity, and

xxviii



ultimately help only a few students” (p. 23). With student achievement

the common thread, the question comes to mind - did all of these

reform efforts work?

The history of repeated reform efforts by itself suggests that

reform is not working. According to Cohen (1993), “The current reform

movement in American education has received its primary impetus

from the realization that many schools are not managing to achieve

what they set out to achieve” (p. 791). Cohen (1993) further

recommends that if we want any reform initiatives to endure, we must

examine not only our educational methods but also our ultimate

educational aims or goals. Most would agree that improved student

achievement has been the platform of all reform initiatives.

What political figures and educational leaders do not agree on is

the method or the mode in which reform will occur. Today’s

educational system is the result of a smorgasbord of ideas that have

come and gone just as fast as they were instituted. According to Slavin

(2005), “Most often, innovations that have been enthusiastically

adopted and even found to be effective in particular schools are later

dropped, sometimes to be replaced by other innovations and

sometimes for a return to the status quo ante” (p. 61). Too often, the

difficulty or obstruction of political figures or educational leaders’

suggested reform lies not in the creative idea, but within the actual

change process. Fullan and Miles (1992) suggest, “Rather than develop

a new strategy for each new wave of reform, we must use basic

xxix



knowledge about the dos and don’ts of bringing about continuous

improvement” (p. 744).

Educators have been inconsistent while endeavoring to effect

change. What educators have been consistent about is change without

much thought given to achieving long-term results. Activity is often

confused with productivity. Additionally, Fullan and Miles (1992) bring

to mind that the problem with reform is not the lack of innovation or

creativity, but the massive overload of fragmented, uncoordinated, and

ephemeral attempts at change. These disjointed and fleeting attempts

at reform have left the educational system in a state of confusion with

teachers struggling to remain current in best practices.

While improved student achievement represents the desired

result, reform initiatives have typically left out the main ingredient –

teachers.

For any reform to successfully occur, teachers, and the part they play

in the reform efforts, need to be carefully considered. The results of

Hausman and Goldring’s (2001) study concluded, “…that forming a

community of learners for teachers is a powerful strategy for

enhancing teacher commitment” (p. 44). Too often, a band-aid

approach has been implemented in which the experts closest to the

students were not consulted. In contrast, the characteristics of a

learning organization

xxx



place the teacher at the forefront of the decision-making process.

Teachers are vital for any meaningful sustained change to occur in

schools.

The Learning Organization

Peter Senge has positively impacted both the business world and

the education community. Senge was awarded the honor of being

named a ‘Strategist of the Century’ by the Journal of Business

Strategy . Only 23 other men and women have held the prestigious

honor of having the greatest impact on the way business is conducted

(Smith, 2001). Author of The Fifth Discipline, Senge popularized his

vision of a learning organization. In 2000, Senge wrote another book,

Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents,

and Everyone Who Cares About Education, transferring the concept of

learning organizations into the world of education.

Senge created the vision of a learning organization defined by

five disciplines: Personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team

learning and systems thinking. A discipline is a series of principles and

practices that are examined, mastered, and incorporated into our lives

(Smith, 2001). For these five disciplines to successfully work, there

must be a fundamental shift of mind among the members in the

organization. Once this shift has occurred, organizations are able to

continually expand their capacity and become learners for life.

Personal mastery is the first discipline. For the organization to

learn, each individual member of an organization must continue to

xxxi



learn. Without individual growth, the organization will stand still. Of

course, this does not assure the organization will continue learning just

because each member learns; however, the converse is true. An

organization will not continue learning if the individuals are not

learning. Personal mastery goes beyond competency and skills; it is

about deepening our personal visions, of focusing our energies, of

developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively (Smith, 2001).

Observing and trying to make sense of current realities is another

aspect of personal mastery. For example, educators might want to

ponder why students are failing or dropping out of school. Teachers

might want to ponder the isolation or connectedness they feel at work.

According to Senge (1990), personal mastery “…is a process. It is a

lifelong discipline. People with a high level of personal mastery are

acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth

areas” (p. 142). Looking within oneself is not easy, but is necessary for

personal growth.

Another discipline is mental models. Senge (1990) defines

mental models as “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or

even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world

and how we take action” (p. 8). Mental models can be illustrated as

two individuals observing the exact same scenario. When asked to

account what they observed, each will provide a different explanation.

Mental models tend to hinder a person’s ability to change.

Assumptions are often made because individuals have a predefined

xxxii



notion of how things ought to be. For example, a teacher might

assume that students do not care about their education because of

their off task behavior during class. A parent might assume the teacher

does not care about his/her child because the teacher does not call

home when the child is off task during class. The practical application

of mental models dispels the often misperceived notion, in both the

world of business and education that people will not

ask questions unless they know the answers. Senge (2000) explains,

“People ask questions in the practice of this discipline because they

are trying to learn more about their own, and each other’s, most

deeply held attitudes and beliefs” (p. 68).

Creating a shared vision is another discipline that will keep

organizations learning. Many people still have the misconception that it

is the chief executive officer’s (CEO) or principal’s job to create the

vision. In other words, a person with authority creates the vision;

however, Senge (2000) reminds us that a vision created by a leader

will not be sustained. All people have some idea or vision about what

they want to accomplish each day. For example, teachers have a vision

of the best practices they wish to implement in the classroom;

students have aspirations of what they want to learn; parents might

have a vision that their child be able to read, and educational leaders

have a vision to meet state mandated standards.

According to Senge (2000), “The discipline of shared vision is the

set of tools and techniques for bringing all of these disparate

xxxiii



aspirations into alignment around the things people have in

common…” (p. 72). Individuals bring to the establishment personal

aspirations they wish to have fulfilled, but then individuals will always

have one thing in common: the school or the organization. Without a

shared vision, the

organization will be challenged to communicate its purpose. Shared

visions are uplifting and tend to encourage experimentation and

creativity, plus they can create enthusiasm that spreads throughout

the organization (Smith, 2001).

Building on personal mastery and shared visions, team learning

is a discipline that will be good for both the individual and the

organization. Senge (1990) states, “The discipline of team

learning starts with ‘dialogue’, the capacity of members of a team to

suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine ‘thinking together’” (p.

10). Teaching teams should dialogue about student assessments and

instructional best practices with the hopes of improving student

achievement and their own teaching methods. Unfortunately, some

teaching teams come together without an agenda and, at the

conclusion of the meeting, have not accomplished anything that will

improve themselves or their students. This is not to say that teachers

must think alike to be a member of a productive functioning team.

Teachers who think differently from one another can enhance the team

learning process. In an interview with Jane Schultz (1999), Senge

discusses learning organizations as “…diverse webs of and teams who

xxxiv



continually help one another, rely on one another, and learn with and

from one another, not individuals” (p. 3).

Systems thinking is the fifth discipline that fuses and integrates

the other disciplines into one comprehensible body. One aspect of

systems thinking is focusing on the whole, as opposed to focusing on

the individual parts – a practice not usually practiced. For example, a

principal’s office is a fast-paced area where problem solving occurs

every minute. A parent calls, a teacher comes to the office, a student

is in the office, a counselor needs assistance, or another administrator

is requesting help – each of these situations requires an immediate

response. The system that is in place is to prioritize the problems and

then begin “putting out the fires,” so to speak. Instead of searching for

solutions to why the problems are occurring, the focus shifts to solving

the problem and then moves on to the next problem. A cycle of

problem solving is set in motion. Senge (2000), suggests that in the

long run each quick fix will do more harm than good: “Moreover,

reacting to each event quickly, and solving problems as quickly as they

come up, helps develop a kind of ‘attention-deficit culture’ in the

school system” (p. 77). Instead of discovering methods for preventing

each crisis, people become good at reacting to a crisis. Senge has

identified a number of systems thinking

practices, each with a different degree of rigor, approaches and views.

Each systems thinking form can be used for different purposes and in

different circumstances.

xxxv



While learning organizations were created for the business

sector, they easily transfer to the world of education. Hord (1997)

affirms Senge’s book and its description of learning organizations,

which might serve to increase organizational capacity and creativity in

schools. As Senge’s concept was shared with educators, the learning

organization name was changed to learning communities. In an

interview with Schultz (1999), Senge says,

To meet today’s challenges of globalization, changing work

forces, evolving competition, and new technologies, the only

hope for building and sustaining momentum in a learning

organization requires a fundamental shift in thinking and actions

(p. 1).

Creating an organization with an emphasis on developing personal

mastery, creating mental models, building shared vision, improving

team learning, and understanding systems thinking will have the

potential of allowing organizations or schools to be more creative and

productive.

Professional Learning Communities

The school model currently in place is not sufficient enough to

meet the national education goals of today, where all children are

expected to comprehend rigorous content at a higher level. Huffman

(2003) states, “Developing the capacity of individuals and staff

members to engage in meaningful reform and restructuring to benefit

students continues to be the challenge for school leaders” (p. 21).

xxxvi



When considering reform initiatives, researchers offer educators

several paths for reform, all having a common thread. Lezotte (2005),

“…concluded that school reform could be neither successful nor

sustainable unless it was embraced by the teachers, administrators,

and support staff that define the professional learning community” (p.

182). Senge (1990) suggests, “The most successful corporation of the

future will be a learning organization” (p. 4). DuFour (2004) says, “…

focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively, and hold

yourself accountable for results” (p. 6).

Darling-Hammond (1993) recommends, “Teachers should have

opportunities to engage in peer coaching, team planning, and

teaching, and collaborative research that enables them to construct

new means for inquiring into their practice. Participation in professional

communities through school and teacher networks also deepens

teachers’ understanding” (p. 758). Sparks (2005) asserts, “Successful

professional learning communities clearly demonstrate what is possible

when teachers learn and collaborate within their schools as part of

their daily work” (p. 156). According to Watkins and Marsick (1999), “A

centerpiece of reform recommendations is that parents, teachers,

administrators, staff members, and students join together to learn their

way through change as communities of inquiry and experimentation”

(p. 78). The common thread of educators working together

collaboratively to improve both instructional practices and student

xxxvii



performance can be accomplished through professional learning

communities.

Professional learning communities consist of three big ideas:

Ensure that students learn; create a culture of collaboration; focus on

results (DuFour, 2004). Ensuring students learn is the first big idea. It

seems obvious, ensuring that students learn should be the primary role

of schools, but many schools are not succeeding. In a traditional

school, what students are taught seems to outweigh whether or not

they learned. In a professional learning community the educators shift

their focus from what is taught to what is learned. According to DuFour

(2004), the shift from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning will

have profound implications for schools. Further, DuFour (2004)

suggests once this shift begins, educators will ask themselves three

critical questions: (1) What do we want each student to learn? (2) How

will we know when each student has learned it? and (3) How will we

respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning? The third

question is the essence of a professional learning community and

captures the meaning of the first big idea.

Today, in education, saying and agreeing that all students can

learn is popular, but the real question should be do you believe all

children can learn. Hopefully, every person affiliated with a school

believes that all children can learn. In order for all children to learn,

teachers, when responding to the first question, must have a firm

grasp of the essential knowledge and skills within their areas of

xxxviii



instruction. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004) believe “…

the premise of learning for all demands that each teacher knows

exactly what every student is to accomplish as a result of each unit of

instruction” (p. 22). Once teachers respond to the first question of

what students are to learn, the next question that follows is how

teachers know whether or not students have actually learned.

DuFour, et al. (2004) argue that if a school is functioning as a

learning community, frequent formative assessments will be given.

They further state the assessments should be analyzed and compared;

and as a result, teachers should ask, “Are the students learning and

what steps must we take to address the needs of those who have not

learned?” (p. 24). Once educators have determined whether or not

students have learned, then the educators must decide what happens

in their school when a student does not learn.

Any school functioning as a learning community will not only ask

question three, “How will we respond when a student experiences

difficulty in learning,” but will aggressively respond to each student

who is not learning. Working collaboratively, educators would devise

individual intervention plans for each student so learning will take

place. For a school to successfully transform into a professional

learning community all three questions will be answered and the

school staff will begin to respond to students as individuals as opposed

to communally (DuFour, et al., 2004).

xxxix



Creating this culture of collaboration is the second big idea of a

professional learning community. The end result of student learning

can be reached through the avenue of educators collaborating. DuFour

(2004) argues, “Despite compelling evidence indicating that working

collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in many schools

continue to work in isolation” (p. 9). Not only do teachers need to work

collaboratively with administration, the principal must create time for

teachers to work together with their own peers. Individuals in a school

working collaboratively are more likely to experience school

improvement.

In a professional learning community, focusing on results is the

third big idea. A team of teachers work together to improve student

achievement and the end result becomes a guide for future

improvement. DuFour (2004) encourages, “Every teacher team

participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of

student achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level,

working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence

of progress” (p. 10). By working together, teachers will have

comparison data and can make informed decisions about instructional

practices to improve student achievement. DuFour (2004) concludes,

“It requires the school staff to focus on learning rather than teaching,

work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and hold itself

accountable for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement” (p.

11).

xl



In a professional learning community, there are six

characteristics that make the three big ideas come alive. DuFour and

Eaker (1998) identify the characteristics as (1) shared mission, vision

and values (2) collective inquiry, (3) collaborative teams, (4) action

orientation and experimentation, (5) continuous improvement, and (6)

results orientation. Senge’s five disciplines for learning organizations

work simultaneously with the characteristics of learning communities.

Shirley Hord (1997) at the Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory has been researching learning communities and has

developed a similar set of attributes which are as follows: (1)

supportive and shared leadership, (2) collective creativity, (3) shared

values and vision, (4) supportive conditions, (5) and shared personal

practice.

Shared Mission, Vision, and Values

The sharing of mission, vision, and values is an integral

characteristic of a professional learning community. Principals, who

have a vision about a particular innovation, including learning

communities, might find difficulty in initiating the reform if the staff is

not collaboratively developed thus producing long term sustainability

problems. Fullan (1992) notes, “Rather than impose their individual

visions, principals would do well to develop collaborative work cultures

to help staff deal with all these innovations” (p. 19). As stated by

DuFour and Eaker (1998), “What separates a learning community from

an ordinary school is its collective commitment to guiding principles

xli



that articulate what the people in the school believe and what they

seek to create” (p. 25). Each school staff member has a personal vision

and the leader should be able to guide collaborative discussions so a

common vision can be created for the school. Huffman (2003) suggests

the task of the educational leader is to share and combine the personal

visions of the faculty members into a single collective vision to be

embraced by all. Further, Hord (1997) recommends sharing a vision

creates a mental image of what is important to an individual and to the

organization, and in addition staff sharing fuels school improvement

that has an undeviating focus on student learning. It is important to

remember, lead researchers in this area all agree that creating a

collaborative vision for the school will more likely produce long term

results where all staff members are working towards the same goals.

Collective Inquiry

Individuals in learning communities are never satisfied with the

current education culture. Learning by seeking answers to questions,

collaboratively researching new ideas, discovering new methods, and

testing and evaluating them are what drive individuals in functioning

learning communities. Learning strategies could change individual

belief systems. Change in an organization is difficult and sometimes

changing

individual personal beliefs is necessary and can prove to be more

difficult. Changing personal beliefs is more likely to happen when the

individual is discovering and researching.

xlii



Senge (2000) describes the “deep learning cycle” where the

domain of enduring change is dependent on skills and capabilities,

awareness and sensibilities, and attitudes and beliefs. Learning takes

place when each of these reinforces one another. Senge, Kleiner,

Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994) developed the “team learning wheel”

similar to the collective inquiry process. Senge, et al. (1994) identified

four steps in the process: Public reflection – members discuss and

challenge one another; shared meaning – members arrive at a

common ground; joint planning – members create an action plan; and

coordinated action – members carry out the action plan. In order to

effect change, collective inquiry is a necessary step and it requires

openness on the part of the individuals to test their personal belief

systems.

Collaborative Teams

Teaching in isolation has become the norm for schools, especially

at the secondary level. It is important for teachers to see a sharing of

ideas as a valuable practice. Too often, teachers (and schools for that

matter) do not share their ideas. Instead, they keep anything that

works a secret. DuFour and Eaker (1998) note, “The basic structure of

the professional learning community is a group of collaborative teams

that share a common purpose” (p. 26). Much research has been done

in the area of collaborative teams indirectly linking teacher

collaboration to student achievement. Senge (2000) says, “A strong

professional community encourages collective endeavor rather than

xliii



isolated individual efforts” (p. 327). According to Haberman (2004), an

attribute of a learning community is collaboration where, star teachers

become involved in team teaching and other collaborative efforts in

program development, writing, and research. Achinstein (2002)

observes a renewed interest in fostering teacher community or

collaboration as a means to counter teacher isolation, improve teacher

practice and student learning, and build a common vision for

schooling. Teachers engaging in professional collaboration have a

greater capacity to improve student learning.

Students will benefit when teachers come together to share

ideas about instructional best practices and student assessments. In a

report of the National Association of Secondary School Principals

(2001) on the high school of the 21st century titled, Breaking Ranks:

Changing an American Institution,

The success of a high school depends on its being more than a

collection of unconnected individuals. The word “community”

implies a commonality of interests and so it should be in any

high school. The building of community very much involves the

members of the staff. And, on a practical level, the synergy of

cooperation ought to end up enabling the educators in a high

school to accomplish more for the students than they could by

acting on their own. School improvement more readily succeeds

in situations in which teachers work in a collegial manner (p. 90).

xliv



Stiggins (2005) discusses teacher team work and assessment: “To the

extent that we team to (1) analyze, understand, and deconstruct

standards, (2) transform them into high-quality classroom

assessments, and (3) share and interpret results together, we benefit

from the union of our wisdom about how to help our students continue

to grow as learners” (p. 82). Students learn when teachers learn

together and share with one another.

Action Orientation and Experimentation

Leaders and teachers who are members of learning

organizations do not sit back passively; rather they are always taking

action. Having members in the learning community who are inactive is

unacceptable. One aspect of the action orientation characteristic is the

ability to experiment and test new ideas. Failure is an option in that

members of the community learn from their mistakes and try again.

DuFour and Eaker (1998) make the following comparison: “While

traditional organizations tend to brand such experiments as failures

and then seek to assign blame, learning organizations consider failed

experiments to be an integral part of the learning process –

opportunities to learn and then begin again more intelligently” (p. 28).

Action orientation and experimentation is similar to Senge’s mental

model discipline in that humans tend to have preconceived notions

based on beliefs and experiences. Senge (2000) explains, “We live in a

world of self-generating beliefs that remain largely untested. We adopt

those beliefs because they are based on conclusions, which are

xlv



inferred from what we observe, plus our past experience” (p. 68). By

experimenting and testing hypotheses we are able to dispel

preconceived notions and be open to new and original ideas.

Continuous Improvement

Transforming a school into a professional learning community

becomes a way of life for all individuals involved. Members of the

organization realize the vision will never be completely achieved, but it

is a goal. DuFour and Eaker (1998) suggest, “members of the learning

organization always be engaged in four key questions: (1) What is our

fundamental purpose? (2) What do we hope to achieve? (3) What are

our strategies for becoming better? and (4) What criteria will we use to

assess our improvement efforts?” (p. 28). DuFour, et al. (2004) talked

to teachers who say, “…the PLC process is energizing rather than

frustrating because month by month and year by year they see new

evidence that their collective efforts do indeed have an impact on

student learning” (p. 140). Further, teachers interviewed by DuFour, et

al. (2004) communicate that a PLC is a wonderful journey, even if the

journey has no final destination.

Results of Orientation

The bottom line of any organization, either business or school, is

results. Constant assessments are critical in the process of reform

along with creating a results-oriented culture. In a PLC, all five

characteristics are hollow unless they can be linked to results. DuFour

and Eaker (1998) state, “Unless initiatives are subject to ongoing

xlvi



assessment on the basis of tangible results, they represent random

groping in the dark rather than purposeful improvement” (p. 29).

Results orientation can be linked back to the three questions within the

first big idea of ensuring that students learn. Positive results will be

obtained if teachers are answering the three questions: (1) What do we

want each student to learn? (2) How will we know when each student

has learned it? (3) How will we respond when a student experiences

difficulty in learning?

Barriers to Implementing Professional Learning Communities

While a vast amount of literature exists supporting the

implementation of learning communities, some barriers exist as well.

One such barrier is the mental model that educators have toward high

schools. Wasley and Lear (2001) say, “What we imagine high schools

to be constrains what we allow them to become” (p. 23). Life

experiences and cultural expectancies about high school are fully

entrenched in the minds of educators. In addition, “We want schools

that are better, but not different is a common refrain that narrows the

boundaries within which school reform may occur” (Wasley & Lear,

2001). Further, Senge (2000) notes, mental models limit a person’s

ability to change.

Another barrier to learning community implementation entails

results. Decision makers, for the state or district, tend to focus on

short term results as opposed to both short-term and long- term

results. Wasley and Lear (2001) warn, “school boards or state

xlvii



legislators often insist that the reform efforts provide data about

improvement quickly – data that the larger school is rarely requested

or able to provide” (p. 24). Focusing only on short-term results is

analogous with “win the battle, lose the war” (Fullan, 2005a). Short-

term results are useful in that they provide immediate feedback for

altering or revising where necessary. If educators focused solely on

short-term results, they might abandon learning organizations because

improvement in teacher pedagogy and student learning might not be

evident. Fullan (2005a) advocates “…governments and schools set

aspirational targets, take action to obtain early results, and intervene

in situations of terrible performance…” (p. 25). For learning

organizations to be successful educators must be mindful of both

short-term and long-term results.

Brain barriers are another challenge for educational leaders

when transforming their schools into professional learning

communities. Black and Gregersen (2002), describe three brain

barriers: (1) Failure to see, (2) Failure to move, and (3) Failure to finish.

A failure to see is a lack of understanding of the initiative. A failure to

move implies a preference for doing the right thing poorly. Black and

Gregerson (2002) assert that a number of individuals would prefer to

be “competent at the wrong thing than incompetent at the right

thing.” A failure to finish prevails as a result of people getting tired or

people getting lost, in the transformation process. In the absence of

xlviii



effective leadership these brain barriers can result in failed

transformation attempts.

Finally, educational leaders themselves can be barriers to

implementing learning communities. The transformation will be

hindered by not providing time during the day for teachers to

collaborate with one another. O’Shea (2005) argues, “In the United

States, the lack of sufficient collaborative planning time has been a

major obstacle to structural reform” (p. 68). Part of this involves

dissolving the mental model of the traditional teacher teaching in

isolation. Eaker, DuFour and DuFour (2002) state, “The challenge

facing leaders in this area is not in creating the teams, but rather in

providing the focus, time, support, and parameters critical to effective

teamwork” (p. 40). Teachers should be forming collegial relationships

to discuss instructional strategies and student learning but the

principal must find time and support for these relationships to develop.

A Teacher’s Role in a Professional Learning Community

A teacher’s role in a professional learning community is that of a

change agent working alongside colleagues to improve instructional

practices and student performance.As a change agent, the teacher

xlix



becomes a leader of reform. Traditionally, the role of the teacher in the

school has been passive, often working in isolation from others.

Teachers bringing about reform are being conceptualized as part

of a communal endeavor. Hausman and Goldring (2001) discuss how

the communal view of teacher professionalism is evident in many of

the latest reform efforts. Not only are teachers expected to work

collaboratively with all stake holders, they are also encouraged to

remain current in methodologies. Fullan (1993) offers a bold

description of the

professional teacher or teacher of the future:

A professional teacher, to be effective, must become a career-

long learner of more sophisticated pedagogies and technologies

and be able to form and reform productive collaborations with

colleagues, parents, community agencies, businesses, and

others. A teacher of the future, in other words, must be equally

at home in the classroom and in working with others to bring

about continuous improvements (p. 9).

A teacher working towards continuous improvement both personally

and professionally can be described as a communicator, a collaborator,

a change agent, a life-long learner, and a leader.

A Principal’s Role in a Professional Learning Community

Ensuring that all students learn is the first big idea in a

professional learning community. Before educators can make this

happen, they must first “believe that all children can learn and come to

l



school motivated to do so. This belief does not imply that all children

can learn at the same rate, nor do they enter the system with the

same levels of readiness” (Lezotte, 1997, p. 5). Because staff self-

efficacy is a key to the first big idea in a PLC, one role of leaders must

be to find out how to promote the belief in the school’s ability to make

a difference.

One method for promoting this belief is by having principals

creatively find ways for teachers to come together and collaborate

about best practices and student assessments. Removing teachers

from the world of isolated teaching and learning to one of team

learning is the second big idea of a professional learning community.

A sense of self-efficacy will be created when teachers can work

together to answer what it is they want students to learn, to determine

how they will know the students have learned it, and what they will do

when students have not learned. By going through this questioning

process, an incentive for improved teacher self-efficacy and increased

levels of student achievement will be evident, provided the staff

members work through it collaboratively (DuFour, et al., 2004).

Fostering self-efficacy can be a challenging task for a principal, but not

an impossible one. When the principal designs a school to keep

teachers from working in isolation, and the principal promotes and

provides the time for teachers to work in teams to share instructional

practices and student results, self-efficacy will naturally develop.

li



Another role of the principal is focusing on results through

continual improvement. This concept is the third big idea for a

professional learning community. Providing staff with data so each

team can make informed decisions would further promote self-efficacy.

Fullan (2001b) contends that information and data will only be valuable

when used in a social environment. Further DuFour, et al. (2004) add,

“When teachers are able to identify problem areas in the learning of

their students, to find colleagues who have been more effective in

addressing that area, and to lean into and learn from one another, a

school has created fertile ground for the self-efficacy essential to PLCs”

(p. 185). Frequent student assessments and teams of teachers sharing

both good and bad results further progresses the school’s level of self-

efficacy.

Finally, it is critical that a principal become a sustaining leader in

that professional learning communities continue in their absence or in

a change with the leadership. Collins (2001) found in his study that

“good-to-great” leaders guide ambition into the company and not into

themselves; “good-to-great” leaders set-up successors for even

greater success in the future. If done correctly, professional learning

communities become a way of life and a new way of thinking where

staff members have new belief systems. Hargreaves (2004) explains,

“Our work has demonstrated that a professional learning community is

an ethos that infuses every single aspect of a school’s operation. When

a school becomes a professional learning community, everything in the

lii



school looks different than it did before” (p. 48). Transforming a school

to a professional learning community is a process, not a program, that

systemically changes the organization and sustaining leadership is

needed to successfully make this transformation happen.

A key factor in long-term change is leadership sustainability.

“Whether principal rotation is formalized or not, changes in leadership

always pose a threat to sustainable improvement” (Hargreaves & Fink,

2003). All principals want to leave a lasting legacy, and one way is to

ensure that others share and help develop their vision (Hargreaves &

Fink, 2004). Typically, training a successor to replace the current

principal does not lead to sustained change (Fullan, 2002a). Pride,

energy, and commitment are evident when a shared vision has been

developed through collaboration among teachers, parents, students,

and community members.

This commitment and energy that the principal creates by

inviting all stakeholders to be a part of the reform process is what will

sustain change over time. Senge, et al. (2000) surmises, a shared

vision “is like a diamond with many diverse facets, and each member…

see[s] his or her own aspirations reflected” (p. 290). When the

principal becomes a teacher of leaders and creates a learning school

where others are empowered to lead and make decisions, then the

school community can persevere after the leadership has changed.

A District’s Role in a Professional Learning Community

liii



For professional learning communities to endure, the district

must be an integral part of the transformation. Fullan (2005b) has

created the “tri-level solution” representing a total system focus. The

three levels in the system are as follows: (1) the school/community

level, (2) the district or regional level, and (3) the state or province

policy level. Each level is responsible for collaboratively improving

schools and “building capacity.” Fullan (2005b) defines capacity

building as, “the development and use of policies, strategies, and

actions that increase the collective power or efficacy of whole groups,

organizations, or systems to engage in continuous improvement for

ongoing student learning” (p. 210).

The schools and communities create a recultured environment

where educators become professional learners. The district institutes

infrastructures to encourage and monitor the school’s development

into professional learners. The state is responsible for establishing

policies and strategies for methodically attending to the progression of


To support the learning community transformation process,

districts can design a system where all of their schools can learn from

each other. If one school has been successful with implementing

collaborative initiatives this would be an ideal place for another school

to begin the learning process. Districts are in a position to facilitate this

type of professional learning known as “lateral capacity building.”

liv



The district can also build capacity by learning from neighboring

school districts. As a result professional learning takes place between

districts. Through inter-district professional learning, instructional best

practices and improved student achievement will occur.

Sustaining efforts must be at the forefront when implementing a

professional learning community. Sustaining new learning communities

over time requires effective leadership and planned succession. Fullan

(2002a) states planned succession will occur as a result “…selecting

leaders in terms of their capacity to create the conditions under which

other leaders will flourish, leaving a continuing effect beyond their

term” (p. 7).

Unfortunately, it is typical that the destinies of most school

initiatives vanish once the implementing principals are gone.

Hargreaves and Fink (2003) offer an alternative to this problem as

illustrated through the words of Principal Curtis who was transforming

his school into a professional learning community:

We [the district and principal] talked about this move, and we

talked about how we could preserve the direction that the

school is moving in, and we were afraid that if a new

administrator came in as a principal that, if he or she had a

different philosophy, a different set of beliefs, then it would be

quite easy to simply move things in that particular direction,

and we didn’t want that to happen (p. 699).

lv



Principal Curtis and his district leaders are systems thinkers in that

they are ensuring learning communities will endure time by

strategically thinking ahead about the philosophy of future leaders.

Hargreaves and Fink (2003) further state, “Planned succession is one

of the most neglected aspects of leadership theory and practice in our

schools” (p. 699).

A district that supports professional learning will cultivate

collaborative relationships within the district and with other districts.

Lateral capacity building assists the collaborative process where

educators are focused on improving instruction and student learning.

In addition, the district needs to support the learning community

system by fostering effective leadership to secure the sustainability of

school improvement.

A State’s Role in a Professional Learning Community

Better instructional practices and improved assessments can

yield higher student achievement when learning communities are

established at all three levels of the system: School/community,

district, and state. The state’s role in supporting professional learning

communities is that of change agent. The state has an opportunity to

contribute to changing the system by providing new criteria for

preparatory programs such as teacher education, professional

learning, and educational leaders. By altering these programs to focus

on training teachers and leaders to enhance their professional learning

through the collaborative process the system has an opportunity for

lvi



profound improvement. Unfortunately, Fullan (2005a) tells us, the

system changes individuals more often than individuals change the

system.

All leaders within all three systems should lead with a moral

purpose. Fullan (2005a) defines moral purpose as, (1) raising the bar

and closing the gap of student learning; (2) treating people with

demanding respect, and (3) altering to the social environment (e.g.,

other schools) for the better. Fullan also notes that serving with moral

purpose is the direct link between sustainability and system thinking.

Education is our highest moral imperative. Any society which fails in

this effort, fails absolutely.

Conclusion

Schools have traditionally been designed to ensure that children

are taught. This traditional design collides with the foundation of

professional learning communities that all children will learn and will

learn at high levels. Fulton (2003) passionately states,

The current factory-model school, while seemingly efficient, is, in

fact, grossly inefficient, inappropriate and ultimately inequitable,

as it requires that all children adapt to the mean. Those who do

not learn at the speed of the assembly line lose out and/or drop

out; those who could learn more, do not. Individualizing

instruction for each learner is no longer a dream – it is an

educational birthright for all children (p. 32).

lvii



Individualizing instruction for all children can be accomplished through

collaborative teams of teachers working together to improve

instructional best practices and student assessments. These

collaborative teams of teachers are the heartbeat of professional

learning communities.

According to Huffman and Jacobson (2003), “Past decades have

seen many educational reforms, all of which are supportive of

advancing student interests and providing the best possible

educational experience” (p. 239). The reform era, the excellence in

education movement, and the business sector have led educational

leaders to explore the idea of schools as professional learning

communities. A call to action to improve schools can be accomplished

through professional learning communities with strong sustainable

leadership.

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Introduction

Professional learning communities have been an avenue for

improved student achievement when implemented as a long term and

on-going initiative. When reviewing the educational literature, a

plethora of information on leadership and the change practices, was

found. However, finding information on student achievement and the

attributes of professional learning communities was more difficult.

lviii



More recently, one can find literature on how leaders sustain change

so the reform endures time. DuFour and Eaker (1992) believe that

“One of the most difficult problems that school practitioners must

overcome in their efforts to bring about meaningful school

improvement is the mistaken notion that school improvement is a

short-term task to be completed rather than a long-term commitment

to a new approach” (p. 138). Teachers often become frustrated with

new reform initiatives because of the history of unsuccessful reform

efforts and the frequency with which reform initiatives were

encountered. Sustainable reform is more likely to occur as a result of

leaders transforming schools into learning communities. Student

learning thrives once sustainable reform is attained.

Once transformed into learning communities’ student

achievement is positively impacted. The Richard and Rebecca DuFour

and Robert Eaker model of professional learning communities is

centered on three primary questions directly related to student

performance. The questions are as follows: (1) Exactly what is it we

want all students to learn? (2) How will we know when each student

has acquired the essential knowledge and skills? (3) What happens in

our school when a student does not learn? They believe that test

scores will take care of themselves if educators commit to aligning

their practices and resources so each student masters essential skills

and concepts and if educators discontinue many traditional practices

lix



that do not serve that purpose (DuFour, et al., 2004). A vehicle for

accomplishing this is through professional learning communities.

Research Questions

The following questions guided the study:








community?








Null Hypotheses

lx











Research Method

A correlational research design was used to determine if a

relationship existed between the degree a school functioned as a

learning community and student achievement, based on change in

Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores.

Fraenkel and Wallen (2003) define correlational research as “…

research done to determine relationships among two or more

variables, and to explore their implications for cause and effect” (p.

12). A Pearson’s correlational coefficient was used to determine the

degree a relationship existed between the two variables. Correlational

research is used to help us make meaningful and intelligent

predictions. Information was collected and analyzed through an

instrument and then quantitatively analyzed using Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12.0.1.

Before the correlational coefficients were calculated, descriptive

statistics were generated. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003) defines

lxi



professional learning communities, and Southwest Educational

Development Laboratory (SEDL), the home of smaller learning

communities.

Amanda Wooten, Grants Management Associate at Solution Tree,

provided the name of the school district in Texas that hosted the

professional learning community conference. In addition to the name

of the host school district, Wooten provided the name of school

districts that attended the conference. SEDL maintains a database of

all schools who received smaller learning community grant money.

Each database included schools from all educational levels and from

each state. A list was compiled from the database containing Texas

public high schools with a student population greater than one

thousand.

Once learning community schools were identified, a U.S. postal

mailed letter was sent to the superintendent (see Appendix D) of each

school district where high schools had been identified as functioning as

professional learning communities. A U.S. postal mailed letter was sent

to each principal (see Appendix E) requesting the completion of an

instrument to determine the degree to which their school functioned as

a learning community. Included in the letter to the superintendent and

principal was an explanation of the study, the purpose, and

significance. The letter further reassured that there were no risks

associated with the study, each study was coded to ensure

lxiii



confidentiality, and benefits for participation. Finally, participants were

promised a copy of the results upon completion of the study.

In addition to the instrument, principals were asked to complete

demographic information (see Appendix B). By responding to the

demographic information, principals provided information about their

gender, age, education, and administrative experience.

Two attempts were made to obtain instrument responses from

high school principals. A letter was U.S. mailed to the principal

explaining the study and requesting their participation. Also included

with the letter were an instrument and a self-addressed stamped

envelope. By including a self-addressed stamped envelope response

rates can be increased. According to Dillman (2000), “Including a

return envelope with a real stamp(s) on it also improves response rates

over business envelopes”

(p. 18). The first correspondence was mailed on April 3, 2006 and the

second correspondence was mailed to the non-respondents on June 12,

2006.

After the instruments were collected and analyzed, results from

the state mandated TAKS test were collected. TAKS information was

collected from the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) on the

TEA website. Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts scores

were obtained for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years. TAKS

lxiv



scores for 2004 differed in the 2004-2005 AEIS report from the 2004

scores in the 2003-2004 AEIS report.

This difference reflects the different standards used in the two

years. According to TEA (2006),

For 2005 the student passing standard was panel

recommendation (PR) for students in grades 3-10 and 1 standard

error of measurement (SEM) below PR for students in grade 11.

For 2004, the student passing standard was 1 SEM below PR for

grades 3-10 and 2 SEM below PR for grade 11. The 2004

performance was recomputed according to the 2005 standards.

Because the 2005 standard is more difficult, the 2005 reports

show lower passing rates for 2004 – providing an accurate

comparison of performance across the two years.

Any reference to the 2004 score was the score from the 2004-2005

AEIS report.

The second step was to calculate a change in Mathematics and

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores for the following school

years: (1) 2004 and 2005, (2) 2005 and 2006, and (3) 2004 and 2006.

TAKS data were used to determine if there was a relationship between

student achievement in Mathematics and Reading/English Language

Arts TAKS scores and schools functioning as professional learning

communities based on principal responses.

The third step was to create a spreadsheet using Excel. Principal

demographic information, principal responses from the instrument, and

lxv



TAKS data were entered into the spreadsheet. Once all data were

entered into the Excel spreadsheet the data were transferred to SPSS.

Subjects of the Study

All accessible regular instruction public high schools that

functioned as a professional learning community in the state of Texas

comprised the population for the study. Only those high schools that

comprised grade 9 through grade 12 with a total student enrollment of

greater than one thousand were included. Generalizations from the

study were made to all public high schools as described above that had

been transformed into professional learning communities.

High schools were identified from several resources. A database

of high schools in Texas was obtained from the Texas Education

Agency (TEA). Amanda Wooten, identified 25 districts or schools that

had participated in the Texas sponsored professional learning

community conference. In addition, SEDLs website maintained a

database of districts or schools who were functioning as smaller

learning communities. The database showed 90 high schools in Texas

who had received smaller learning community grant money.

From these two sources 142 Texas high schools were identified

as the population for this study. From the population 64 high school

principals responded to the instrument. Thus, a 45% return rate was

obtained.

Purposive or purposeful sampling was used where the goal was

to select cases that tend to be “information rich” with respect to the

lxvi



objectives of the study (Gall, et al., 2003). The objective of the study

was to focus on high schools that were functioning as a professional

learning community. To narrow the population, criterion sampling was

the strategy employed to select high schools that functioned as a

professional learning community. Once the sample was selected, the

School Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument was sent

to each principal to determine the degree to which the school was

operating as a professional learning community. In addition,

demographic questions were given to each principal who agreed to

participate in the research. The demographic questions ascertained

the following: Gender, age, education level, years of experience in

education, years of experience as an administrator, and years of

experience as principal of the current school.

Instrumentation

To determine at what level a school functioned as a professional

learning community, an instrument titled School Professional Staff as

Learning Community was administered. The five-point Likert-type

instrument was designed and developed by Shirley Hord in 1996 at the

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Researchers at

Apalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc. (AEL) performed pilot and field

tests on Hord’s instrument. According to Meehan, Orletsky, and Sattes

(1997), Hord “identified a “context conducive to change” as an

lxvii



essential ingredient for successful school improvement. Further, her

research showed professional learning community to be a key factor in

the context of improving schools” (p. 4).

When completing the instrument, each principal was asked to

consider where the school was in its development as a learning

organization. Five indicators, portraying the attributes of learning

communities, were separated into five sections on the instrument.

Each indicator had two to five questions and each question had three

descriptors. The principal read each indicator and descriptor to

determine the degree of the school as a learning organization. On the

five-point scale, the principal circled the number that best represented

the degree to which the school had developed as a learning

community.

Seventeen items were on the School Professional Staff as

Learning Community instrument. Scores for descriptors, within each

indicator, ranged from 1 to 5, whereas the total professional learning

community scores ranged from 17 to 85. Indicator one had two

descriptors with a possible range from 2 to 10. Indicator two had three

descriptors with a possible range from 3 to 15. Indicator three had five

descriptors with a possible range from 5 to 25. Indicator four had two

descriptors with a possible range from 2 to 10. Indicator five had five

descriptors with a possible range from 5 to 25.

A high score for each descriptor within an indicator, and high

total scores were reflective of a mature professional learning

lxviii



community. On the other hand, a low score for each descriptor within

an indicator, and low total score was reflective of a less mature

professional learning community. The major purpose of the AEL study

was to field test Hord’s professional learning community instrument in

schools to discover its psychometric properties and assess its potential

for use in educational improvement projects at the school building

level (Meehan, et al., 1997).

Reliability and Validity

Shirley Hord created the School Professional Staff as Learning

Community instrument designed to assess the existing degree of

implementation of the components of a professional learning

community in operation with a school staff (Hord, Meehan, Orletsky, &

Sattes, 1999). AEL conducted all of the statistical processing to test the

instrument and AEL assessed its psychometric properties. AEL

conducted both a pilot

test and a field test. A copy of the study, Field Test of an Instrument

Measuring the Concept of Professional Learning Communities in

Schools, was obtained.

The pilot test had a smaller sample than the field test. Individuals

included in the sample were educators with varying experiences and

involvement in professional learning communities. Both a Cronbach

Alpha and test-retest were completed to test for internal consistency

and stability, respectively. The Cronbach Alpha score was a + 0.75 and

the test-retest score was a + 0.82. Based on these results, it was

lxix



concluded that a field test with a larger sample of schools was

necessary.

The field test included 21 schools with a total of 690 educators

responding to the instrument. Each of the schools volunteered to

participate and no assumptions were made as to whether or not they

were functioning as a professional learning community. Nine of the

schools were high schools. The following analyses were performed

using the SPSS statistical analysis software package: (1) descriptive

statistics, (2) internal consistency reliability coefficient, (3) stability

(test-retest) reliability coefficient, (4) content validity, (5) concurrent

validity, (6) construct validity, and finally (7) factor analysis. According

to Hord, et al. (1999), the instrument met the expected criteria for

usability, reliability, and validity.

The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency reliability ranges for the

21 field tested schools for the five descriptors were as follows: (1)

descriptor 1 ranged from .68 to .91, (2) descriptor 2 ranged from .52 to

.91, (3) descriptor 3 ranged from .56 to .91, (4) descriptor 4 ranged

from .52 to .94, and (5) descriptor 5 ranged from .59 to .88, and (6)

total instrument ranged from .62 to .92. Hord concluded the 17-item

instrument was useful as a screening, filtering, or measuring device to

assess the maturity of a school functioning as a professional learning

community.

Procedures

lxx



First, two means for identifying districts or schools functioning as

professional learning communities were used. Contact was made with

Amanda Wooten at Solution Tree to identify school districts who had

hosted the professional learning communities’ conference in 2004 and

2005. Communication with each host school district was made to learn

which Texas school districts attended the conference. Identification of

districts and schools who were functioning as smaller learning

communities was made through the SEDL web page.

Second, Edvantia, formerly known as Appalachia Educational

Laboratory (AEL), was contacted to gain permission (see Appendix C)

to use School Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument.

Once permission was granted, the instrument was administered to

principals

o ascertain the degree to which they believed their campus was a

professional learning community . Directions for completing the

instrument were as follows:

This questionnaire concerns your perceptions about your

school staff as a learning organization. There are no right or

wrong responses. Please consider where you believe your school

is in its development of each of the five numbered descriptors

shown in bold-faced type on the left. Each sub-item has a

five-point scale. On each scale, circle the number that best

represents the degree to which you feel your school has

developed (Richardson, 2003, p. 187).

lxxi



Third, principals were asked to answer demographic information

about their gender, educational level, and experience in education and

administration. Demographic information was included on the

instrument.

Data Collection and Recording

A letter and copy of the instrument were sent to the

superintendent of each school district requesting permission (see

Appendix F) to survey the high school principals. Each school principal

received a letter and instrument which contained an informed consent

statement. Gall, et al. (2003) stated, “Researchers must inform each

individual about what will occur during the research study, the

information to be disclosed to the researchers, and the intended use of

the research data that are to be collected” (p. 69). To simplify the

principal’s completing and returning the instrument, a self-addressed

stamped envelope was included. To ensure confidentiality, each high

school campus was coded with a number. The coded number was used

on the spreadsheet when TAKS data were entered for each campus

and demographic information was entered for each principal.

Instruments will remain under lock and key in a file cabinet and

maintained for a period of no less than seven years.

Analysis of Data

Quantitative data were collected on principal’s beliefs about the

degree their schools function as learning communities derived from

their responses to the instrument, School Professional Staff as

lxxii



Learning Community . The instrument contained five descriptors. A

score was derived for each descriptor and a total score was calculated

for the entire instrument. The total score reflects the maturity level of

a school operating as a learning organization.

Data were collected on student achievement in both

Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts for each school. A

Pearson r correlation coefficient was calculated to determine if a

relationship existed between the two variables. Sirkin (2006) describes

Pearson’s r as a “coefficient that is used when both variables are an

interval or a ratio level of measurement” (p. 446). Several different

Pearson r correlation coefficients were calculated; a coefficient for

Mathematics student achievement and a coefficient for

Reading/English Language Arts

student achievement.

Stepwise multiple regression analysis were used to determine if

there was a relationship between each of the five descriptors in the

instrument and student achievement. Sirkin (2006) defines stepwise

multiple regression as “a procedure in which each independent

variable is added to the regression in a separate step. The order of

entry was based on criteria selected by the researcher” (p. 534). The

researcher’s criterion was the strength of the relationship between the

student achievement and each descriptor. Principal scores represented

the independent variable whereas change in student achievement

represented the dependent variable. A relationship could exist

lxxiii



between raw scores on each of the five descriptors and change in

Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores.

Summary of Method

Detailed explanations of the research design and methods to be

implemented were outlined in this chapter. A description of the

subjects of the study including the population and sample were

included. Information was provided about the instrument, School

Professional Staff as Learning Community, including reliability and

validity. Finally, a thorough explanation about procedures, data

collection, and data analysis concluded the chapter on methods.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of the study was twofold. First, identify the degree

to which each high school is functioning as a professional learning

community, as perceived by the principal. Second, identify whether

student achievement in Mathematics and Reading/English Language

Arts Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores

increased as a result of professional learning communities.

Today’s educational leaders face complex challenges.

Transformation of public schools is inevitable if educators are going to

meet the academic needs of all learners. Reculturing a school is an

intricate process that causes fears and challenges as well as

opportunities in the field of education. Professional learning

lxxiv



communities have been at the forefront of reform efforts as a viable

means of transforming schools to improve student achievement.

Within this chapter, the data analyses of the relationship

between high school professional learning communities and student

achievement in Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

scores are reported. The data for this study included descriptive

statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients, and stepwise regression

analysis. Each

research question and hypotheses are referenced independently. Note

that the data were collected from principals who completed the School

Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument.

Findings

First, the principals had to be identified who met the criteria of

transforming their schools into professional learning communities. The

142 principals were selected from both TEA and SEDL and 64 principals

responded to the instrument. The rate of return was 45%.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study:







lxxv




community?








Null Hypotheses









The results are reported in the following order: Demographic

characteristics of the principals, followed by descriptive statistics for

lxxvi



instrument responses, then Pearson correlation coefficients, and finally

stepwise multiple regression analysis.

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic information was collected from each participant on

the School Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument.

Information requested pertained to gender, age, education level, total

experience as administrator, and experience as principal. Each

demographic table includes the mean professional learning community

total score from the instrument.

As shown in Figure 4.1, demographic information of participants

pertaining to gender is displayed. The data represent 64 participants.

Females reflect 35.9% of participant responses and males reflect

64.1% of participant responses.

Figure 4.1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants – Gender

35.9%

64.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Female Male

Gender

F r e q u e n c

lxxvii



Figures 4.2 and 4.3 reflect participants’ age ranges and

education levels, respectively. With respect to the participants’ ages,

3.1% are less than 30 years old, 15.6% are 30 to 39 years old, 28.1%

are 40 to 49 years old, 31.3% are 50 to 55 years old, and 20.3% are

greater than 55 years old. One participant did not provide an age

range. Participants’ education levels are reported in table 4.3.

Principals possessing a Master’s degree represent 84.4% and principals

possessing a doctorate degree represent 14.1%. One participant did

not respond to education level.

Figure 4.2

Demographic Characteristics of Participants – Age

3.1%

15.6%

28.1%31.3%

20.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

<30 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 55 > 55

Age

F r

e q u e n c y

Figure 4.3

Demographic Characteristics of Participants – Education Level

lxxviii



84.4%

14.1%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

MEd PhD/ EdD

Education Level

F r e

q u e n c y

In Figure 4.4, the participants’ total administrative experience is

revealed. The majority of participants had 11-15 years of

administrative experience with a frequency of 28.1%. Participants with

less than 6 years of administrative experience are 10.9% of

respondents, 20.3% have 6 to 10 years, 23.4% have 16 to 20 years,

and 15.6% have more than 20 years. One participant did not provide

total administrative experience.

Figure 4.4

Demographic Characteristics of Participants – Total Administrative

Experience

lxxix



10.90%

20.30%

28.10%

23.40%

15.60%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 > 20

Administrative Experience (years)

F r e q u e n c y

Figure 4.5 reflects the participants' number of years of

experience as a principal. With respect to the participants’ experience

as principals, 35.9% have less than five years, 23.4% have 6 to 10

years, 21.9% have 11 to 15 years, 12.5% have 16 to 20 years, and

3.1% have more than 20 years. Two participants did not respond.

Figure 4.5

Demographic Characteristics of Participants – Principal Experience

lxxx



35.9%

23.4%21.9%

12.5%

3.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

< 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 > 20

Principal Experience (years)

F r e q u e n c y

We now know that most participants are males who are over 40

years old with a Master’s degree. Most participants have more than 11

years of total administrative experience with six or more of the years

as

principals. The majority of principals reported that their schools had

been learning communities for more than 2 years.

Research Question 1

To what degree do principals rate their school as functioning as a

professional learning community as measured by School Professional

Staff as Learning Community instrument?

Table 4.6 displays a mean of 2.53 for the number of years

schools have been functioning as a professional learning community.

The number of years a campus has been functioning as a professional

learning community is reflected in Table 4.7. Participants responded

lxxxi



that 21.9% have completed one year as a PLC, 23.4% have completed

two years, 21.9% have completed three years, 6.3% have completed

four years, and 18.8% have completed five years. In addition, the

mean professional learning community score from the instrument is

reflected in table 4.7. It appears that as the number of years increases

so does the mean professional learning community score up to the

third year of experience. This could be explained by Fullan’s theory on

the implementation dip. Fullan (2001b) says, “The implementation dip

is literally a dip in performance and confidence as one encounters an

innovation that requires new skills and new understandings” (p. 6).

Table 4.6

Descriptive Statistics – Number of Years as a Professional Learning

Community (PLC)

N Min Max M SDPLC Years 64 0 5 2.53 1.56

N 64

Table 4.7

Frequency Characteristics – Number of Years as a ProfessionalLearning

Community (PLC)

lxxxii



Years as a PLC Frequency Percent Mean PLCScore

Valid 0 05 007.8 65.601 14 021.9 65.212 15 023.4 65.573 14 021.9 73.794 04 006.3 70.755 12 018.8 71.96N 64 100.0

Participants responses to the School Professional Staff AsLearning

Community instrument follow. Five indicators, portraying attributes of

a learning community, were separated into five sections on the

instrument. Each principal was asked to circle the number that best

represented the degree to which they felt their school had developedas a

learning community. A five indicated a highly developed learning

community and a one indicated a campus not functioning as a learning

community.

Scores for descriptors, within each indicator, ranged from 1 to 5,

whereas the total PLC scores ranged from 17 to 85. Indicator one had

two descriptors with a possible range from 2 to 10. Indicator two had

three descriptors with a possible range from 3 to 15. Indicator three

had five descriptors with a possible range from 5 to 25. Indicator four

had two descriptors with a possible range from 2 to 10. Indicator five

had five descriptors with a possible range from 5 to 25.

Table 4.8 represents descriptive statistics for indicator 1: “School

administrators participate democratically with teachers sharing power,

lxxxiii



authority, and decision making.” A possible range for indicator 1 is

between 2 and 10. Participant’s responded with a minimum score of 4

and a maximum score of 10. The mean score was 8.3 indicating most

learning community schools had a high degree of involvement with

shared decision making and power.

Table 4.8

Descriptive Statistics for Shared Power, Authority, and Decision Making

N Min Max M SDIndicator 1 64 4.00 10.00 8.27 1.21

N 64

In Table 4.9, descriptive statistics are displayed for indicator 2:

“Shared visions for school improvement have an undeviating focus on

student learning and are consistently referenced for the staff’s work.”

Feasibly, the campus scores could have ranged between 3 and 15.

Participants indicated a minimum score of 8 and a maximum score of

15. A mean of 13 reveals the learning community schools have a

shared vision in place for student improvement with an undeviating

focus on student and teacher learning.

Table 4.9

Descriptive Statistics for Undeviating Focus on Student Learning

N Min Max M SDIndicator 2 64 8.00 15.00 13.04 1.80N 64

Data in Table 4.10 display descriptive statistics for indicator 3:

“Staff’s collective learning and application of the learning to create

lxxxiv



high intellectual learning tasks and solutions to address student

needs.” The range of possible scores was 5 to 25. Principals actually

scored a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 25. A mean score of 20

strongly suggests the staffs or subsets of the staff are meeting to

address methods for improving instruction and student related

academic issues.

Table 4.10

Descriptive Statistics for Staff’s Collective Learning

N Min Max M SDIndicator 3 64 15.00 25.00 20.03 2.72N 64

Descriptive statistics for indicator 4 are represented in Table

4.11. Indicator 4 addresses “peers review and providing feedback

based on observing each other’s classroom behaviors in order to

increase individual and organizational capacity.” The range could have

been as low as a 2 and the high could have been a 10. Participants

responded with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 10. A mean of 6.8

indicates that members of the staff will occasionally observe in

colleagues’ classrooms and provide feedback from the observations.

Table 4.11

Descriptive Statistics for Peer Review and Feedback

N Min Max M SDIndicator 4 64 3.00 10.00 6.80 1.62

lxxxv



N 64

As shown in Table 4.12, the data reflect descriptive statistics for

indicator 5: “Conditions and capacities support the school’s

arrangement as a professional learning organization.” The potential

range of scores could have been 5 to 25. Participants responded with a

minimum of 14 and a maximum of 25. A mean score of 20.7 suggests

some support conditions are in place for learning community schools.

Possible support conditions include allowing time for staff to meet and

collaborate and fostering an open and trusting environment.

Table 4.12

Descriptive Statistics for Support for School as a PLC

N Minimum Max M SDIndicator 5 64 14.00 25.00 20.68 2.86N 64

Finally, Table 4.13 represents a total score for the School

Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument. A total score

could have been as low as a 17 with the highest score an 85. The

actual minimum recorded by any participant was a 52 and the

maximum was an 83. A mean score of 68.8 indicates many campuses

are considered highly functioning professional learning communities.

lxxxvi



Table 4.13

Descriptive Statistics – Total Score on the Instrument

N Min Max M SD Total Score 64 52.00 83.00 68.81 8.22N 64

Table 4.14 reflects the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between

the number of years a school is functioning as a professional learning

community and the total score on the School Professional Staff as

Learning Community instrument. According to the data r = .347 which

indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. The

relationship is significant in that p = .005 and p is significant at the .01

level. It seems that the longer the campus remains a learning

community then the more developed the staff becomes with regards to

the key concepts of a professional learning community.

Table 4.14

Correlation Between Score on Instrument and Years as a PLC

PLC Score Years as a PLC Pearson’s “r” 00.347(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .005N 64

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Research Question 2

Is there a relationship between student achievement, based on

change in Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

(TAKS) scores, and the degree to which the principals report that the

school is functioning as a professional learning community?

lxxxvii



In order to answer research question two, the following

hypothesis was formulated.


achievement, as measured by change in Mathematics Texas



As illustrated in Table 4.15, descriptive statistics are presented

for the change in Mathematics TAKS scores. A mean change of scores

of 4.92 occurred for the 2004 and 2005 school years for schools

functioning as professional learning communities. Over a three year

period from 2004 to 2006, a mean change in TAKS scores was 5.25.

For the 2005 and 2006 school years, a minimal mean change of 0.33

occurred.

Table 4.15

Descriptive Statistics – Change in Mathematics TAKS Scores

N Min Max M SD2004-2005 64 -2 15 4.92 4.022005-2006 64 -9 09 0.33 3.832004-2006 64 -3 18 5.25 4.34N 64

Table 4.16 reflects the percentage of professional learning

community schools that had an increase or decrease in TAKS

lxxxviii



Mathematics scores. For the 2004 and 2005 school years, 85.9% of

schools reporting to be professional learning communities had an

increase in Mathematics TAKS scores. For the 2005 and 2006 school

years, 40.6% of schools had an increase and over a three year period

from 2004 to 2006, 90.6% of schools had an increase. For the 2004

and 2005 school years 55 out of the 64 schools improved in their

Mathematics TAKS scores. Over the three year period between 2004

and 2006 58 out of the 64 schools improved in their Mathematics TAKS

scores.

Table 4.16

Percent of Schools with an Increase or Decrease in Mathematics TAKS

Scores

2004-2005 2005-2006 2004-2006

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

Valid Decreas

e

9 014.1 38 059.4 6 009.4

Increase 55 085.9 26 040.6 58 090.6Total 64 0100.

064 0100.

064 0100.

0

Pearson correlation coefficients and the significance for TAKS

Mathematics scores with respect to the total score on the School

Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument are presented in

Table 4.17. For the 2004 and 2005 school years, r = -.054, for the 2005

lxxxix



and 2006 school years, r = -.015, and over a three year period from

2004 to 2006, r = -.063. The significance of the correlation coefficients

indicate a relationship does not exist between change in TAKS

Mathematics scores and schools functioning as professional learning

communities. Also, the significance of each data set is greater than .01

(p > .01) and significance occurs at the .01 level. The null hypothesis is

therefore not rejected.

Table 4.17

Pearson Correlation – Change in Mathematics TAKS Scores with

Respect to Total Score on the Instrument

PLCScore

2004-2005

2005-2006

2004-2006

PLC Score Pearson’s

“r”

01 -.054 -.015 -.063

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.672 .907 .620

N 64 64.000 64.000 64.000** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Pearson correlation coefficients and the significance for each

indicator on the instrument as they relate to the change in score on

Mathematics TAKS are presented in Table 4.18. According to the

Pearson’s “r”, a significant relationship does not exist between student

achievement on Mathematics TAKS and each indicator for schools

xc



functioning as professional learning communities. Pearson correlations

for indicator 1 are as follows: For the 2004 and 2005 school years,

r = -.140, for the 2005 and 2006 school years, r = -.002, and over a

three year period from 2004 to 2006, r = -.131. Pearson correlations

for indicator 2 are as follows: For the 2004 and 2005 school years, r =

-.141, for the 2005 and 2006 school years, r = .037, and over a three

year period from 2004 to 2006, r = -.098. Pearson correlations for

indicator 3 are as follows: For the 2004 and 2005 school years, r = .

056, for the 2005 and 2006 school years, r = -.029, and over a three

year period from 2004 to 2006, r = .026. Pearson correlations for

indicator 4 are as follows: For the 2004 and 2005 school years, r =

-.016, for the 2005 and 2006 school years, r = .113, and over a three

year period from 2004 to 2006, r = -.085. Pearson correlations for

indicator 5 are as follows: For the 2004 and 2005 school years, r =

-.052, for the 2005 and 2006 school years, r = -.102, and over a three

year period from 2004 to 2006,

r = -.138. The correlation coefficients ranged from .113 to -.140. Also,

the significance of each indicator data set is greater than .05 (p > .05).

If more than one of these indicators were statistically significant, it

would have been necessary to test to see which combination

contributed to the change in Mathematics scores. Since none of them

was significant, this became unnecessary.

Table 4.18

xci



Pearson Correlation – Change in Mathematics TAKS Scores for Each

Indicator on the Instrument

2004-2005 2005-2006 2004-2006Indicator 1 Pearson’s “r” -.140 -.002 -.131

Sig. (2-tailed) .271 .988 .301N 64.000 64.000 64.000

Indicator 2 Pearson’s “r” -.141 .037 -.098Sig. (2-tailed) .268 0.771 .443N 64.000 64.000 64.000

Indicator 3 Pearson’s “r” .056 -.029 .026Sig. (2-tailed) .659 .819 .837N 64.000 64.000 64.00

0Indicator 4 Pearson’s

“r”

-.016 .113 .085

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.901 .374 .504

N 64.000 64.000 64.000Indicator 5 Pearson’s

“r”

-.052 -.102 -.138

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.684 .424 .277

N 64.000 64.000 64.000** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Research Question 3

Is there a relationship between student achievement, based on

change in Reading/English Language Arts Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores, and the degree to which the

principals report that the school is functioning as a professional

learning community? In order to answer research question three, the

following hypothesis was formulated.

xcii







Table 4.19 displays descriptive statistics for the change in

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores. A mean change in scores

of 1.34 occurred for the 2004 and 2005 school years for schools

functioning as learning communities. For the 2005 and 2006 school

years, Reading/English Language Arts TAKS results reflected an 8.95

mean change of scores. Over a three year period from 2004 to 2006, a

mean change in TAKS scores was 10.30.

Table 4.19

Descriptive Statistics – Change in Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

Scores

N Min Max M SD2004-2005 64 -8 15 01.34 4.412005-2006 64 -4 21 08.95 4.472004-2006 64 00 26 10.30 5.18N 64

Table 4.20 reflects the percentage of professional learning

community schools that had an increase or decrease in TAKS

xciii



Reading/English Language Arts scores. For the 2004 and 2005 school

year, 56.3% of schools had an increase in TAKS scores. For the 2005

and 2006 school years, 98.4% of schools increased their TAKS scores.

Over a three year period from 2004 to 2006, 98.4% of learning

community schools had an increase in TAKS Reading/English Language

Arts scores.

Table 4.20

Percent of Schools with an Increase or Decrease in Reading/English

Language Arts TAKS Scores

2004-2005 2005-2006 2004-2006

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

Valid Decreas

e

28 043.7 01 001.6 01 001.6

Increase 36 056.3 63 098.4 63 098.4Total 64 0100.0 64 0100.0 64 0100.0

The data in Table 4.21 exhibit Pearson correlation coefficients

and the significance between the changes in TAKS Reading/English

Language Arts scores with respect to the total score on the instrument.

Correlations for the change in score for the 2004 and 2005 school

years (r = .211) indicate a relationship exists between the two

variables; however, the relationship is not significant. As indicated, the

significance for the 2004 and 2005 school years is .094, (p > .05).

Regarding the change in scores for the 2005 and 2006 school years, r

= -.17 and over a three year period from 2004 to 2006, r = .165. A

significant relationship does not exist between student achievement in

xciv



Reading/English Language Arts and total score for schools functioning

as professional learning communities.

Table 4.21

Pearson Correlation – Change in Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

Scores with Respect to Total Score on the Instrument

PLCScore

2004-2005

2005-2006

2004-2006

PLC Score Pearson’s

“r”

01 .211 -.017 .165

Sig.(2-

tailed)

.094 .895 .193

N 64 64.0000 64.0000 64.000* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4.22 displays Pearson correlation coefficients and the

significance for each of the five indicators on the instrument with

respect to the change in TAKS Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

scores. The table indicates that Indicators 1, 3, and 4 do not have a

relationship with increase in student achievement on TAKS

Reading/English Language Arts. Indicator 1 is shared power, authority

and decision-making where

r = .08 for the 2004 and 2005 school years, r = -.04 for 2005 and 2006

school years, and r = .033 for a three year period from 2004 to 2006.

Indicator 3 is staff’s collective learning where r = .134 for 2004 the

2005 school years, r = -.057 for the 2005 and 2006 school years, and r

xcv



= .065 for a three year period from 2004 to 2006. Indicator 4 is peer

reviews and feedback where r = .019 for the 2004 and 2005 school

years, r = .112 for the 2005 and 2006 school years, and r = .113 for a

three year period from 2004 to 2006. The significance for indicators 1,

3, and 4 are greater then .05 (p>.05) indicating the data were not

significant.

The data in Table 4.22, for indicators 2 and 5, indicate a

relationship existed between student achievement in the change in

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores and schools functioning as

professional learning communities for the 2004 and 2005 school years.

Indicator 2 is undeviating focus on student learning where

r = .289 and p = .021. Significance occurs when p < .05. Indicator 5 is

support for schools as a learning community where r = .252 and p = .

045 where significance occurs when p < .05.

Table 4.22

Pearson Correlation – Change in TAKS Reading/English Language Arts

TAKS Scores with Respect to Each Indicator on the Instrument

2004-2005 2005-2006 2004-2006Indicator 1 Pearson’s “r” .0800 -.0400 .033

Sig. (2-tailed) .5310 .7510 .796N 64.00000 64.0000 64.000

Indicator 2 Pearson’s “r” .289(*) -.0790 .177Sig. (2-tailed) .0210 .5330 .162N 64.00000 64.0000 64.000

Indicator 3 Pearson’s “r” .1340 -.057 .065

Sig. (2-tailed) .2900 .652 .611N 64.0000 64.0000 64.000

xcvi



Indicator 4 Pearson’s “r” .0190 .1120 .113Sig. (2-tailed) .8830 .3760 .374N 64.0000 64.0000 64.000

Indicator 5 Pearson’s “r” .252(*) .0090 .222Sig. (2-tailed) .0450 .9420 .078N 64.0000 64.0000 64.000

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

A significant relationship existed between indicators 2 and 5 and

the change in Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores for the 2004

and 2005 school years. Because more than one significant correlation

existed stepwise multiple regression analysis was computed. Stepwise

regression results are reflected in Tables 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, and 4.26.

Stepwise regression analysis was conducted to test the predictive

relationship between each of the five indicators and the change in

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores. Four of the independent

variables did not enter the regression model, indicating that their

contribution was negligible. Only indicator 2, undeviating focus on

student learning, emerged as a predictor of change in scores on TAKS

for the 2004 and 2005 school years. As shown in Table 4.26 those

excluded variables were indicators 1, 3, 4, and 5.

Table 4.23

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis – Model Summary

Model R R Square Adj. R Square SEM1 .289(a) .083 .069 4.25a Predictors: (Constant), Indicator 2

Table 4.24

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis - ANOVA

xcvii



Model Sum of Squares

df MeanSquare

F Sig.

1 Regressio

n

101.977 1 101.977 5.643 .021(a)

Residual 1120.46

0

62 18.072

Total 1222.437

63

a Predictors: (Constant), Indicator 2

b Dependent Variable: R/ELA 2004-2005

Table 4.25

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis - Coefficients

Model Unstand Coef t Sig.

B Std. Err

1 Constant -7.849 3.906 -2.009 .049Indicator 2 .705 .297 2.375 .021

a Dependent Variable: R/ELA 2004-2005

Table 4.26

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis – Excluded Variables

Model Sig. Partial Correlation

1 Total .789 -.034Indicator 1 .629 -.062Indicator 3 .601 -.067Indicator 4 .301 -.132Indicator 5 .434 .100

a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Indicator 2

b Dependent Variable: R/ELA 2004-2005

xcviii



Stepwise multiple regression analysis was calculated because

both indicators 2 and 5 indicated a correlation coefficient that was

significant for the change in Reading/English Language Arts TAKS for

the 2004 and 2005 school years. However, indicator 5 did not emerge

as a predictor variable upon reviewing stepwise regression data. Table

4.27 shows the Pearson’s coefficient between indicators 2 and 5. The

correlation, r = .608 was significant with p = .000, p is significant at

the .01 level. Even though indicator 5 was included in the model the

analysis excluded it probably because it is highly correlated with

indicator 2 and could be measuring the same construct.

Table 4.27

Pearson ‘s Correlation Coefficient Between Indicators 2 and 5

Indicator 5Indicator 2 Pearson’s “r” 00.608(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 64.00000

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Discussion

Research Question 1: To what degree do principals rate his/her

school as functioning as a professional learning community as

measured by School Professional Staff as Learning Community

instrument?

Participants reported the number of years their campuses were

functioning as a learning community. Twenty-nine of the schools or

45.3% had been a learning community for two to three years. The

mean number of years all schools had been a learning community was

xcix



2.53. This would indicate that professional learning communities are a

new approach for these participants and this might contribute to the

reason a significant relationship was not found between learning

community schools and student achievement.

Indicator 1: “School administrators participate democratically

with the teachers sharing power, authority, and decision making.” The

mean score for indicator 1 was 8.27 with a possible range from 2 to 10.

This would indicate that administrators invite advice and counsel from

the

staff and then principals make the final decision. In addition,

administrators tend to involve committees, councils, or teams of

teachers with decision making and authority.

Indicator 2: “Shared visions for school improvement have an

undeviating focus on student learning and are consistently referenced

for the staff’s work.” Scores for indicator 2 reflected a mean of 13 with

a possible range of 3 to 15. Indicator 2 is one of the most important

characteristic for learning community success and the data from this

study indicate a high mean. A high mean score indicate (1) visions for

improvement are discussed by the entire staff such that consensus and

a shared vision result, (2) visions for improvement are always focused

on students and teaching and learning, and (3) visions for

improvement target high quality learning experiences for all students.

c



Indicator 3: “Staff’s collective learning and application of the

learning (taking action) create high intellectual learning tasks and

solutions to address student needs.” The data yielded a mean score of

20 with possible ranges of 5 to 25. Results indicated that a large

portion of the staff meet to discuss issues, share information, and learn

with and from each other. Also, the data indicated that the staff, based

on their learnings, makes and implements plans that address students’

needs, more effective teaching, and more successful student learning.

Indicator 4: “Peers review and give feedback based on observing

each other’s classroom behaviors in order to increase individual and

organizational capacity.” Schools reporting to be functioning as

learning communities do not report a high incidence of peer review

and feedback. The mean score was a 6.8 with a possible range of 2 to

10. A large percentage of schools, 42%, reported a total score of 6 or

less. It appears that principals, from this study, have not fully

implemented the peer observation component of a learning community

into their campuses.

Indicator 5: “Conditions and capacities support the school’s

arrangement as a professional learning organization.” The mean score

for indicator 5 was a 20.7 with a possible range of 5 to 25. Participants

scores ranged from a 14 to a 25 indicating systems are in place to

support the schools functioning as professional learning communities.

Support systems might include arranged time for entire staff to meet

and collaborate, processes and procedures are in place to encourage

ci



The change in TAKS Mathematics scores were calculated for the

years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Data obtained for the 2004 and 2005

school years indicated a mean change in scores of 4.92 with 85.9% of

campuses increasing in scores. Over a three year period from 2004 to

2006, the data yielded a mean change in scores of 5.25 with 90.6% of

campuses increasing in scores. The data indicated that almost all

schools functioning as professional learning communities improved in

their Mathematics TAKS scores. These data were not surprising

because the average length of time schools were functioning as

learning communities was 2.5 years and participants reported a high

mean for the maturity of their campuses as learning organizations.

The data indicated that a relationship does not exist between

schools functioning as learning communities and Mathematics TAKS

scores and the hypothesis was not rejected. Pearson correlation

coefficients were not significant which suggests the instrument was not

a good predictor of change in Mathematics TAKS scores. It is

interesting that a relationship does not exist because the mean total

scores on the instrument were high and the majority of schools

improved their TAKS scores. However, the data indicated that the

instrument cannot be used to predict increases or decreases in

Mathematics TAKS scores.

With regards to TAKS Mathematics scores and maturity of

schools as professional learning communities, a relationship did not

exist. Because the Pearson correlation coefficients, for the total

ciii



instrument scores and each indicator, did not reflect a relationship it

was not necessary to calculate multiple step wise regression for

Mathematics TAKS scores.

Research Question 3: Is there a relationship between student

achievement, based on Reading/English Language Arts Texas


which the school is functioning as a professional learning community?

In order to answer research question 3 the following null hypothesis

was formulated:



Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores, and the degree a

school is functioning as a professional learning community.

Data were obtained for the change in Reading/English Language

Arts TAKS scores for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Among all 3

years an increase in TAKS score was evident. In fact, large increases

were seen for the 2004 and 2005 school years at 8.95 points and over

a three year period from 2004 to 2006 at 10.30 points. Data also

indicated that for the 2004 and 2005 school years, 56.3% of the

participating schools improved their Reading/English Language Arts

TAKS scores. Also, for the 2005 and 2006 school years and over a

three year period from 2004 to 2006, 98.4% of the participants

improved their TAKS scores. Only 1 school decreased in scores for the

civ



2005 and 2006 school years and over a three year period from 2004 to

2006. Again, the improvements in TAKS

scores were not surprising because of the average length of time

campuses had been functioning as learning communities and the

maturity levels of each campus.

A relationship did not exist between Reading/English Language

Arts TAKS scores and learning community schools and the hypothesis

was not rejected. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for

each indicator on the instrument as well as the total score. Pearson

coefficients for the total score and indicators 1, 3, and 4 were not

significant for any of the years. Pearson coefficients for indicators 2

and 5 for the 2004 and 2005 school years indicated a significant

relationship between the variables. Indicator 2 focuses on student

learning and the staff’s commitment to student success. The Pearson’s

coefficient, r = .289 was significant with p = .021, p is significant at the

.05 level. Indicator 5 described the level of systems that were in place

to support learning communities. The Pearson’s coefficient, r = .252

was significant with

p = .045, p is significant at the .05 level. The relationship did not hold

true for indicators 2 and 5 for the 2005 and 2006 school years and

over a three year period from 2004 to 2006.

Because a relationship was evident, with indicators 2 and 5,

multiple step wise regression was calculated for all indicators on the

instrument including the total score and the change in Reading/English

cv



Language Arts TAKS scores for the 2004 and 2005 school years. The

data yielded similar results in that indicator 2: “Shared visions for

school improvement have an undeviating focus on student learning

and are consistently referenced for the staff’s work,” demonstrated

significance. This relationship does not purport the instrument is a

good predictor of Reading/English Language Arts TAKS success in other

situations. No other significant relationships resulted.

Summary

Data in chapter IV were obtained from 64 principals who

completed the School Professional Staff as Learning Community

instrument. The data were then analyzed by using the statistical

package, SPSS. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and

stepwise multiple regression were the statistical methodologies used

to examine the data. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the

mean and standard deviations for the demographic information. Means

were also used to display the change in Mathematics and

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores.

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if a

relationship existed and the strength of that relationship, between

schools functioning as professional learning communities and the

change in Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

scores. According to Sirkin (2006), if the relationship is sufficiently

strong researchers can describe the nature of the relationship between

cvi



the two variables in such a way that it will be possible to predict a

participant’s

score on one variable if we know that person’s score on the other

variable. The larger the coefficient then the more accurate the

predictions.

Identifying the Pearson correlations did not find a significant

relationship. A more detailed investigation with each indicator through

stepwise multiple regression analysis may show relationships. A

relationship emerged with indicators 2 and 5 and student achievement,

as measured by TAKS, for the 2004 and 2005 school years in

Reading/English Language Arts. The data confirmed that only indicator

2 could be used to predict future changes in TAKS scores. However,

since this change was not significant over the three years, what can we

say about it? Stepwise regression was not run on the change in

Mathematics TAKS scores because none of the indicators indicated a

correlation.

It seems that for these 64 schools, change in Mathematics and

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores were not affected at a

significant level by a more comprehensive approach to implementing

professional learning communities based on principals report.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

cvii



Chapter V presents a summary of the study including questions

addressed, the purpose and study of methods, and the major findings.

Conclusions are drawn from each of the three research questions and

two hypotheses posed. Recommendations for practice and

recommendations for further research are included.

Summary

Problem

Legislative mandates from NCLB direct school officials to focus

on achievement for all students, regardless of their background,

thereby placing student achievement on the forefront of reform efforts.

Countless programs aimed at improving student learning have been

developed over the last century, but most tend not to endure the test

of time. Typically, new programs disappear once the leader who

introduced them leaves. Teachers get bogged down in reform

initiatives as a result of new-leader, new-program cycles. According to

DuFour and DuFour (2006), “Researchers and professional

organizations alike have come to endorse the professional learning

community concept as our best hope for sustained, substantive school

improvement” (p. 2).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, identify the degree

to which each school was functioning as a professional learning

cviii



community. Second, identify whether improved student achievement

in Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores

increased as a result of creating professional learning communities.

Student achievement was based on changes in Mathematics and

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores for the years 2004, 2005,

and 2006.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study:




11. Is there a relationship between student achievement,

based on change in Mathematics Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores, and the degree to which the

principals report that the school is functioning as a professional

learning community?








Null Hypotheses

cix











Method

Descriptive statistics were used to compile demographic

information on each principal participant responding to the instrument.

Pearson correlation coefficients were then calculated to establish

whether or not a relationship existed between schools functioning as

learning communities and student achievement. Stepwise multiple

regression analysis was conducted to determine predictability for each

of the five indicator items on the instrument as it related to student

achievement.

Sixty-four high school principals replied to the School

Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument. Indicators on the

instrument consisted of the following: (1) “School administrators

participate democratically with teachers sharing power, authority, and

decision making.” (2) “Shared vision for school improvement have an

undeviating focus on student learning and are consistently referenced

for the staff’s work.” (3) Staff’s collective learning and application of

cx



the learning (taking action) create high intellectual learning tasks and

solutions to address student needs.” (4) Peers review and give

feedback based on observing each other’s classroom behaviors in

order to increase individual and organizational capacity.” and (5)

Conditions and capacities support the school’s arrangement as a

professional learning organization.” Each participant responded based

on the degree he/she believed their school was performing as a

learning community for each of the five indicators. Data were collected

for each participating school with respect to Mathematics and

Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores from the 2004, 2005, and

2006 school years.

Summary of Findings

Each research question is listed below with the major findings.

Research Question 1 asked: To what degree do principals rate

their school as functioning as a professional learning community as

measured by School Professional Staff as Learning Community

instrument?

The majority of participants responded with a high total score on

the instrument indicating their schools were relatively mature

professional learning communities. The mean maturity level was 68.8

with an 85 being the highest possible score. Participants also provided

the length of time their schools had been functioning as a community.

The mean length of time was 2.5 years. A Pearson’s correlation

coefficient was run to determine if a relationship existed between the

cxi



maturity level of the participating schools and the length of time as a

professional learning community. A significant positive correlation

existed r = .347, and was significant at the .01 level, between the

length of time the campus had been a learning community and the

developmental level of the campus as a learning community. This

correlation is significant in that the length of time a campus is a

learning community directly impacts the development level of the

campus as perceived by the principal.

Research Question 2 asked: Is there a relationship between

student achievement, based on change in Mathematics Texas


which the school is functioning as a professional learning community?

In order to answer research question 2, the following null hypothesis

was formulated.





Professional learning community schools had large increases in

Mathematics TAKS scores. For the 2004 and 2005 school years, 85.9%

of schools improved their Mathematics TAKS scores with 42.3%

increasing more than 5 points, and some increasing up to 15 points.

Over a three year period, from 2004 to 2006, 90.6% of schools

cxii



improved their Mathematics TAKS scores with 42.3% increasing more

than 5 points, and some schools increasing up to 18 points.

Despite the high percentage of increases in Mathematics TAKS

scores, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Pearson correlations were

not significant for the change in Mathematics TAKS scores in learning

community schools. While there were significant increases in TAKS

scores, a relationship between student achievement in Mathematics,

as measured by TAKS, and schools functioning as professional learning

communities, based on the School Professional Staff as Learning

Community instrument, was not significant. In other words,

participant’s responses on the instrument were not a good predictor of

Mathematics student achievement.

Research Question 3 asked: Is there a relationship between

student achievement, based on change in Reading/English Language

Arts Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores, and the

degree to which the school is functioning as a professional learning

community? In order to answer research question 3 the following null

hypothesis was formulated:





Significant increases in Reading/English Language Arts TAKS

scores were reflected in schools reporting to be functioning as

cxiii



change in Reading/English Language Arts TAKS scores for the 2004

and 2005 school years. The other independent variables had no

correlations that would signify a relationship existed between student

achievement and maturity of schools as learning communities.

Conclusions

Participants completed the School Professional Staff as Learning

Community Instrument to determine the professional learning

community developmental level as perceived by the high school

principal. According to Hord et al., (1999) the instrument can be used

as a screening, filtering, or assessment tool to ascertain the maturity

of staff’s as a learning community. The instrument was an excellent

tool in assessing the degree of implementation of the main concepts of

a learning community. Results from the data showed principals rated

their campuses as relatively mature professional learning communities

with regards to the following indicators: (1) shared power, authority,

and decision-making, (2) staff’s undeviating focus on student learning,

(3) staff’s collective learning, and (4) conditions and capacities support

the learning community environment.

Results from the instrument indicated principals participated

democratically with teachers by sharing power, authority, and decision

making. Achieving successful transformation will require the support

and commitment of all staff and administrators in a school. Involving

the staff is a key learning community concept aligned with the

research. Lezotte (1997) states, “The best way to build this broad-

cxv



based commitment to the goals and strategies is through involvement

of the staff and administrators” (p. 61). Eaker, et al. (2002) comments,

“In a professional learning community, collaboration is embedded into

every aspect of the school culture. Every major decision related to the

learning mission is made through collaborative processes” (p. 11).

Gale’s (1997) research study supports the data from this study: “For

change to be sustained, it is essential that those in authority support

the change and those at the site of change must be involved in

decisions regarding the change” (p. 25).

To successfully reculture a school community, the vision must be

shared by the entire staff. According to Zmuda, et al. (2004) “To move

from individual autonomy to collective autonomy, stakeholders must

engage in collegial conversations about the school, its purpose, its

beliefs, and its problems” (p. 62). Through collective autonomy, the

school becomes a unified organization in its determination to achieve

the desired result of becoming a learning community. More recently,

Twadell (2006) shared his experience with developing a shared vision

by stating, “The seeds of change in our departmental culture were

planted when teachers worked together to develop a shared vision of

the department they hoped to become and the students they hoped to

shape” (p. 37).

Maintaining a focus on student learning is a key concept for a

professional learning community. Responses from participants in this

study indicated their campuses had a high level of maturity for

cxvi



focusing on student learning. The data are concurrent with the

literature where the purpose of a learning community school is to

ensure students learn. DuFour and Eaker (1998) contend “Teachers in

professional learning communities recognize that teaching has not

occurred until learning has occurred, and they act accordingly” (p.

216). A developing learning community will continually focus its

collective attention on the primary questions that drive a professional

learning community:

1. What do we want students to learn?

2. How do we know if the students have learned?

3. What do we do when students have not learned?

DuFour and Eaker (1998) further state the teacher’s emphasis is on

engaging students in the essential concepts in ways that will help them

develop a deep understanding of those concepts as opposed to simply

covering the material.

The data from this study indicated a high development level for

staff’s collective learning and application of the learning to create high

intellectual learning tasks and solutions to address student needs. The

literature showed clearly that this is an important concept of a

professional learning community. Hinman (2006) states, “Collaboration

and collective inquiry are essential to the PLC concept, but only if

teachers remain focused on the right issues” (p. 31). At Southfield High

School, Principal Muhammad (2006) made the following comment

about his staff: “They recognize students cannot continually learn at

cxvii



higher levels unless educators are continually developing their

capacity to meet the needs of students” (p. 17). According to Eaker, et

al. (2002), “Members of a PLC are not ‘invited’ to work with colleagues:

they are called upon to be contributing members of a collective effort

to improve the school’s capacity to help all students learn at high

levels” (p. 5). Much research has been reported to support the

importance of collective inquiry to improve the ongoing efforts to

discover best practices, expand professional expertise, and help all

students learn at high levels.

Participants in this study responded that the conditions and

capacities of their campuses supported the school’s arrangement as a

professional learning community. Providing teachers the time to

collaborate is essential if a leader is going to successfully transform

their school into a learning community. Telling teachers to “work

together” to implement the learning community reform effort without

providing them the time to do so is not supporting the transformation

process. Such a lack of support sends the message that this reform

idea is not important. DuFour and Eaker (1998) state, “Teachers and

principals will know a district is serious about transforming schools into

professional learning communities only when they are given the time

they need to handle the complexity of that task” (p. 111). The principal

must not only communicate the importance of collaboration but model

it by providing the teachers time to work together during their contract

day.

cxviii



This study showed a relationship did not exist between student

achievement as measured by the Mathematics and Reading/English

Language Arts TAKS and school developmental levels as measured by

the School Professional Staff as Learning Community instrument. A

reason for this might be that schools are implementing other initiatives

while simultaneously transforming their campus into professional

learning communities. Professional learning community schools from

this study could be overloaded with new instructional initiatives aimed

at improving student learning. Hatch (2000) refers to this excess of

initiatives as “multiple innovations colliding.” Because of NCLB

legislation; districts are pressured to focus their attention on the

assessment requirements of the mandates in order to maintain

adequate campus and district ratings. Campuses might be

implementing multiple initiatives to address NCLB requirements while

at the same time implementing learning community concepts.

This study showed the mean number of years was 2.5 for schools

functioning as professional learning communities. This would indicate

that the professional learning communities were a new approach and

might explain why a relationship between instrument results and

student achievement was not significant. This finding is congruent with

the literature where Fullan (2000) notes, “It takes about three years to

achieve successful change in student performance in an elementary

school. Depending on size, it takes about six years to do so in a

secondary school” (p. 1). The high schools in this study were

cxix



points and has increased annually for the past five years. The

number of students taking Advanced Placement/International

Baccalaureate exams has increased from 400 in 2000 to 1,250 in

2005, yet the pass rate remained above the national average.

The number of students taking the SAT has increased 103%, yet

math scores increased from 460 to 545 and verbal scores from

425 to 545. The number of students taking the PSAT increased

300% and the score level increased 3 to 5 points in math, verbal,

and writing (p. 33).

The results from the Thompson, Gregg, and Niska (2004) study support

the data from this study: “In the area of student learning, every

principal said that they felt students were learning in their school and

they know this by looking at various assessments, i.e. test scores,

student work, and portfolios” (p. 11).

The findings of this study indicate that schools functioning as

professional learning communities as rated by the principal showed

significant increases in the change in Mathematics and Reading/English

Language Arts TAKS scores. These findings are aligned with the

literature that professional learning community schools can positively

impact student learning. The findings of this study also found that a

significant relationship does not exist between participant responses

on the instrument and student achievement. It can be concluded that

while there are significant increases in all TAKS scores, the results from

the instrument can not be used to predict change in TAKS scores.

cxxi



Therefore, it cannot be concluded that professional learning

communities impact student achievement and it cannot be concluded

that they do not impact student achievement.

Recommendations

The following practical suggestions for implementation of

professional learning communities based on the findings are:

1. Principals should follow professional learning communities

over the next few years to document further progress.

2. Principals should continue participating democratically with

teachers sharing power, authority, and decision making.

3. Principals should continue working to share visions for school

improvement that have an undeviating focus on student learning and

are consistently referenced for the staff’s work.

4. Principals should continue to support the staff’s collective

learning and application of the learning to address student needs.

5. Principals should implement peer reviews and peers providing

feedback based on observing each other’s classrooms in order to

increase individual and organizational capacity.

6. Principals should continue to support the school’s

arrangement as a professional learning community.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study focused on the relationship between professional

learning communities and student achievement. The following

recommendations for further research are as follows:

cxxii



1. A study could be conducted to compare schools functioning

as professional learning communities with schools not functioning as

professional learning communities to determine if student

achievement is impacted.

2. A study could be conducted to determine if a relationship

exists between the number of years schools are professional learning

communities and student achievement.

3. A study could be conducted to compare professional learning

community schools with similar demographics to determine if student

achievement is impacted. Schools could be identified by the campus

group with which they are assigned.

4. A study could be conducted that includes both elementary

and middle schools. This study only included high schools.

5. A study could be conducted where both principals and

teachers are surveyed and interviewed to determine the perceptions of

their schools as professional learning communities.

6. A study could be conducted with a different instrument that

addresses the differences in the respondent’s mind between what

should be present for a professional learning community to exist and

what actually is occurring on the respondent’s campus.

7. A study could be conducted with a different instrument that

has a wider range of choices within a Likert-type scale. This would

provide a greater potential variance for each variable so that true

differences would emerge during inferential statistical analysis.

cxxiii



REFERENCES

Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of

teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.

Black, J. & Gregersen, H. (2002). Leading strategic change. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall.

Carvin, A. EdWeb: Exploring Technology and School Reform. (n.d.). The

development years: First wave reform. Retrieved September 8,

2005, from http://www.edwebproject.org/edref.1stwave.html

Clarke, L. & Kohn, L. (2002). One size doesn’t fit all. Principal

Leadership (High School Ed.), 2(6), 42-47.

Cohen, A. (1993). A new educational paradigm. Phi Delta Kappan,

74(10),

791-795.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great . New York, NY: HarperCollins

Publishers

Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi

Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752-761.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school

reform. Teachers College Record , 106(6), 1047-1085.

Davenport, P. & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No

excuses. Houston, TX: American Productivity & Quality Center.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design

cxxiv



method. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Donlevy, J. (2002). No child left behind: In search of equity for all

children. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(3), 257-

259.

Donlevy, J. (2003). No child left behind: Failing schools and future

directions. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4),

335-338.

Dougherty, E. M. (2005). The relationship between professional

learning

communities and student achievement in elementary schools.

(UMI

No. 3160273).

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”?

Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

DuFour, R. (2005). What is a professional learning community. In R.

DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The

power of professional learning communities (pp. 31-43).

Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

DuFour, R. & DuFour, R. (2006). Foreword: The power of professional

learning communities. National Forum of Educational

Administration & Supervision, 24(1), 2-5.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it

cxxv



takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids

don't learn. 1st ed. Bloomington, IN: National Educational

Service.

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1992). Creating the new American school: A

principal's guide to school improvement . 1st ed. Bloomington, IN:

National Educational Service.

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at

work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement . 1st ed.

Alexandria, VA: National Educational Service.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R. & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing

schools to become professional learning communities. 1st ed.

Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Educational Reform. (1997). Historical Background . Retrieved

September

8, 2005, from

http://course1.winona.edu/lgray/el625/histbkgd3.html

Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2003). How to design and evaluate research

in

education. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Fullan, M.G. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership, 49, 19-

20.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents.

cxxvi






Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Retrieved

September 24, 2005, from Change Forces: Education in Motion,

http://www.michaelfullan.ca/

Fullan, M. (2001a). Implementing change at the building level. In W.

Owings & L. Kaplan (Eds.), Critical and emerging issues in

educational leadership, August.

Fullan, M. (2001b). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2002a). Leadership and sustainability. Principal Leadership,

3(4).

Fullan, M. (2002b). Principals as leaders in a culture of change [Special

issue]. Educational Leadership, May.

Fullan, M. (2005a). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in

action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2005b). More effective schools: Professional learning

communities in action. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour

(Eds.), On Common Ground: The power of professional learning

communities (pp. 209-223). Bloomington, IN: National Education

Service.

Fullan, M. G. & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and

what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752.

cxxvii





Fulton, K. P. (2003). Redesigning schools to meet 21st century learning

needs. T.H.E. Journal, 30(9), 30-32, 34, 36.

Gale, B. J. (1997). Initiating and implementing an innovation through

the

process of cooperative and collaborative planning. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia,

Canada.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research an

introduction. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gates, B. (2005). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Prepared speech for

the National Education Summit on High Schools.

Haberman, M. (2004). Can star teachers create learning communities?


Hargreaves, A. (2004). Broader purposes call for higher understanding:

An interview with Dennis Sparks. Journal of Staff Development,

25(2), 46-50.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta

Kappan, 84(9), 693-700.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable

leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 8-13.

Hatch, T. (2000). What’s happening when multiple improvement

cxxviii



innovations collide. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching.

Hausman, C. S. & Goldring, E. B. (2001). Sustaining teacher

commitment: The role of professional communities. Peabody

Journal of Education, 76(2), 30-51.

Hinman, C. (2006). Developing a substantive professional learning

community. National Forum of Educational Administration and

Supervision Journal, 24(1), 29-35.

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they

and why are they important?. Issues About Change, 6(1).

Retrieved

September 18, 2005, from

http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html

Hord, S., Meehan, M., Orletsky, S. & Sattes, B. (1999). Assessing a

school staff as a community of professional learners [Electronic

version]. Issues About Change, 7(1), 1-13.

Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2001). Educational administration: Theory,

Research, and practice. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Huffman, J. (2003). The role of shared values and vision in creating

professional learning communities. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637) 21-

34.

Huffman, J. B. & Jacobson, A. L. (2003). Perceptions of professional

learning communities. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 6(3), 239-250.

cxxix





Knudsen, L. & Morrissette, P. (1998). Goals 2000: An analysis and

critique [Electronic version]. International Electronic Journal For

Leadership in Learning, 2(4), 1-9.

Legter, N. E. (1999). Small learning communities meet school-to-work:

Whole-school restructuring for urban comprehensive high

schools. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.

Department of Education, (Report No. 31).

Lezotte, L. W. (1997). Learning for all. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools

Products, Ltd.

Lezotte, L. W. (2005). More effective schools: Professional learning

communities in action. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.),

On Common Ground: The power of professional learning


Service.

Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: organizational theory for

the

practioner . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Meehan, M. L., Orletsky, S. R., & Sattes, B. D. (1997). Field test of an

instrument measuring the concept of professional learning

communities in schools. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational

Laboratory (AEL).

cxxx



Muhammad, A. (2006). Do we believe that they can learn? National

Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision, 24(1), 14-20.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2001). Breaking

ranks: Changing an American institution. (5th ed.). Reston, VA:

NASSP.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation

at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A Report to the

Nation and the Secretary of Education United States Department

of Education.

O’Shea, M. R. (2005). From standards to success. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Rajala, J. (2003). Education Reform. T.H.E. Journal, 30(6), 31.

Richardson, V. L. (2003). The relationship between principal leadership

styles and the maturity of schools as professional learning

communities. (UMI No. 3083809).

Schultz, J. R. (1999). Peter Senge: Master of change. Executive Update

Online. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from

http://www.gwsae.org/ExecutiveUpdate/1999June_July/CoverStor

y2.htm

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art of practice of the learning

organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. &

cxxxi



confident learners. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On

Common Ground: The power of professional learning


Service.

Texas Education Agency (TEA). Frequently asked questions about the

academic excellence indicator system, Retrieved June 28, 2006,

from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/faq.html

Thompson, S.C., Gregg, L. & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning

communities, leadership, and student learning. Research in

Middle Level Education Online, 28(1). Retrieved March 15, 2005,

from

http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/Articles/Vol28No1

Article2/tabid/439/Default.aspx

Twadell, E. (2006). On becoming a professional learning community:

One department at a time. National Forum of Educational

Administration & Supervision, 24(1), 36-43.

U.S. Department of Education. Office of the Secretary (2005). No Child

Left Behind: Expanding the Promise. Guide to President Bush’s

FY 2006 Education Agenda, Washington, D.C.

Wasley, P. A. & Lear, R. J. (2001). Small schools, real gains. Educational

Leadership, 58(6), 22-27.

Watkins, K. E. & Marsick, V. J. (1999). Sculpting the learning

cxxxiii

http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/Articles/Vol28No1Article2/tabid/439/Default.aspx






community: New forms of working and organizing. NASSP

Bulletin, 83(604), 78-87.

Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R. & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating

a culture of continuous improvement . Alexandria, VA: Association

For Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dr. Teresa A. Hughes, Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair

Documents

Transcript of Dr. Teresa A. Hughes, Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair