A principal’s advice on PLC practices

Oscar Wilde once wrote, “Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.” If this is the case, I gained a lot of “experience” as the principal of a PLC school because I made a lot of mistakes.  Based upon these experiences, I share the following advice.

When you begin to implement PLC practices, there is a tendency to focus on “restructuring” your school, while disregarding “reculturing.” While it’s important to address site programs and procedures, two fundamental assumptions are at the foundation of all PLC practices: You must believe that all students can learn at high levels, and you must assume responsibility to make this outcome a reality for every child. Unfortunately, many schools embrace an entirely opposite cultural outlook, believing instead that the socioeconomic factors of poverty, race, and language are the strongest determining factors of student success. If most of your school staff does believes that neither they nor their students have the ability to overcome these outside factors, no structural change will overcome this defeatist school culture. If you implement structural changes before building consensus on a mission of learning for all, it would be like building a house, but starting with the roof.

The most common obstacle I hear from administrators starting down the road to becoming a PLC is a lack of staff “buy-in.” Honestly, I dislike the term “buy-in” — it sounds like a Texas-Hold’em Tournament and has a connotation that you must offer your faculty incentives to help students learn. It is not a question of “buy-in”, but empowerment and ownership. People vest themselves into what they help create, so if you want “buy-in,” engage your staff as equal partners in creating the collective vision and practices of your school. Don’t wait for universal support because it is a standard that provides each person on the staff with veto power over taking action. In our school, we took action when two criteria had been meet. First, we ensured that all points of view were heard. We used a process to ensure dissenting opinions were voiced and considered. Second, we asked if the will of the group was evident — even to those who most opposed it. If we met these criteria, we went forward.