“Your team doesn’t care
if you are a superstar. They care if you
are a super teammate.” – Jon Gordon
One of the biggest mistakes leaders make, no matter the
profession, it not investing the time it takes up front to build a great
team. The military has “basic training”
and most sports team participate in pre-season rituals, each of which is
designed to bring teammates together and force the group to work together. As a result, there are countless stories and
examples from these groups in which individuals put their own needs behind what
is good for the group and as a result, their feats far outweigh what may have
been achieved otherwise. Unfortunately,
the reality is, many organizations do not follow this example. They collect the most talented people they
can find, and then expect them to be able to work together and collaborate. It
doesn’t always work out that way.
Our Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are built on the
concept that all members are active participants willing to speak up and share
their talents, but as Daniel Venables shares in Chapter 2 without intentional
planning on the part of the leaders on the campus, PLCs focus and effectiveness
can be compromised. Several key points Venables makes early in the chapter are
the way schools establish their teams and their leaders. What do the PLCs look like at your school and what are
the expected outcomes? Most secondary PLCs are
compartmentalized by subject area which make sense because they are writing
common assessments and looking at data, but if schools value the “whole child”
and also “cross curricular” discussions Venables encourages intentional time
with subject-diverse PLCs whose primary
focus is looking at student work.
Teachers can learn a lot from reviewing the types of assignments other
subject areas are giving as well as the way students respond. So is there a need for both? How often? At the elementary level, most teachers teach
more than one subject and PLCs are often by grade level with some vertical
discussion by subject. It would be
interesting to hear from teachers which type they find more beneficial to
improving their craft.
I was also impressed with the way Venables addressed the
elephant in the room that is our “elective” or “specials” teachers. These teachers are some of the most important
in the building. They know students from
a perspective that often gets overlooked and can add valuable insight into
campus PLCs if they are intentionally used in this way. I encourage all the readers (especially those
charged with setting up the PLCs on a campus) to review pgs 20-21 for examples
about how “related arts” teachers might be used in PLCs.
The next section in Chapter 2 discussed the importance of
selecting the right leader/facilitator for the PLC and also the importance of
training them. This is imperative and
could easily be modeled on a weekly basis.
Do
your instructional leader meetings follow a similar agenda to what the grade
level/dept. PLCs are expected to use? Remember the objectives Venables set
forth in Chapter 1 for PLCs: 1. Looking a student and teacher work; 2.
Designing quality common assessments; and 3. Reviewing and responding to data. If the leaders of the building do not spend
the majority of their time balanced
between these 3 objectives, how can they expect the rest of the PLCs to do
so? In addition, the constant modeling
will help all the PLC facilitators improve their skills and understand the
expectations.
The author spends a great deal of time to discussing the
importance and process of setting NORMS and Team Building for your PLC. As he
shares, often times we set norms with good intentions, but do not follow through
or revisit them nearly enough. I believe
sometimes the teams that have been together the longest may be the ones that
need norms the most. The familiarity
allows for complacency if we are not careful.
While Venables shares several examples of activities to bring teams
together, we will offer more examples at our District’s Leadership Academy in
July. A huge takeaway from this section
for me was the intentional design of team building activities. It is not just about “fun”…was there a
purpose or a task the group had to accomplish while “bonding”. Again, getting along and having everyone be
happy is not the same thing as an authentic PLC. It helps, but it doesn’t guarantee the end
goal.
As the chapter closes, the section on pg. 31 entitled “Constructing
Community Knowledge” was a
perfect reminder for PLC facilitators (and all of us really). Everyone comes to the table with different
background, talents, and experiences.
The most effective PLCs find ways to bring the best out in everyone. Thus the need for norms, protocols, etc. A skilled facilitators will capitalize on the
talents and wisdom of the group to make everyone more effective. Building common knowledge of the group is
important, but utilizing each member’s strengths is imperative.
Reflective Questions:
·
What are the many different PLCs on your campus? How were
they organized? Is there a place for
everyone?
·
What have you done in the past to intentionally set norms
or team building strategies? Did they have a specific purpose and were they
effective?
·
When you think about the PLC in which you will spend the
most time next year, what are the strengths of each member? What can you do to
find out?
·
How might some of the ideas in Chapter 2 help your PLC
moving forward?
Leave your comments here or on twitter #impactNISD
“If we all simply nod our heads in agreement and never ask
questions or disagree, then we are wasting the wonderful ability to think.” –
Justin Tarte
