SYSTEMSWITHINPROFESSIONALLEARNINGCOMMUNITIESASSOCIATEDWITHHIGHERSTUDENTACHIEVEMENTINNEWY.doc

systems within professional learning communities associated with higher student achievement in new york stategaurav passi, ed.d.robert j. manley, ph.d.in the past, the reform movements in american schools were associated the industrialization of the 19th century, the increase of immigration in the early 20th century, and the rise of a global economy in the late 20th and early 21st century. during each historic time period, the american educational system was called upon to produce better results (friedman, 2005).following world war ii, the cold war was a defining moment for american education. the united states found itself competing both militarily and technologically with the soviet union. in 1957, the united states lost the race into space when the soviet union successfully put the worlds first space satellite, sputnik, into orbit. this dramatic event called the effectiveness of the american school system into question (kay, 2009). critics of american schools began to question their effectiveness to prepare students to compete with their counterparts around the world. in 1983, the united states department of education published a nation at risk. this document blamed public schools for americas inability to compete in a global economy. this report assumed that schools and school leaders controlled the variables that influenced student achievement (hersh, 2009). twenty years later, the no child left behind act (nclb 2001) was signed into law and sanctions were imposed on american schools if they did not improve. this act held states and individual schools accountable for the success of individual students. schools where students 2 failed to meet criteria for average yearly improvements in state grade level assessments in math and english language arts were subject to sanctions by the federal and state departments of education. these sanctions could include state government takeover of the school system or even a loss of funding for the school (u.s. department of education, 2008). barth (1990) argued that pressures to improve schools would come from those who worked outside of the structure of schools until educators within schools made changes to the system on their own. newmann and wehlage (1995) proposed that professional learning communities represented an internal methodology to improve school outcomes. they stated: “if schools want to enhance their organizational capacity to boost student learning, they should work on building a professional learning community that is characterized by a shared purpose, collaborative activity, and collective responsibility among staff” (p. 37). barth (2001) observed that that public schools were in desperate need of school-based reformers. barth (2001) stated, “arguably, the most importantand most difficultjob of the school based reformer is to change the prevailing culture of a school the schools culture dictates, in no uncertain terms, the way we do things around here” (p.7). barth (2001) maintained that the inclusion of strong voices and good ideas from the people who worked within the schoolhouse was needed for true reform. senge (1990)defined learning organizations as, “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). 3senge contends that while all people within an organization have the capacity to learn, traditional schools have very few systems in place that promote collaboration or organizational learning (senge, 2003). dufour (2008) described a school based professional learning community as one where teachers and school leaders confront their various mental models that inhibit improved student performance, build the personal mastery of each teacher, and support teachers who engage in team learning.douglas reeves (2005) endorsed a professional learning community as effective. he wrote: “the framework of a professional learning community is inextricably linked to the effective integration of standards, assessment, and accountabilitythe leaders of a professional learning community balance the desire for professional autonomy with the fundamental principles and values that drive collaboration and mutual accountability” (pp. 47-48).the national association of secondary school principals (nassp) promoted the concept of a professional learning community. in their publication, breaking ranks ii (2004), the nassp called upon high school leaders to take their schools through a systematic improvement process by developing a professional learning community within each curricular department. dufour (2008) summed up the critical issue when he stated: “for too long we have attempted to solve the problems of education by pouring more good people into a bad system. it is time to create better systems to make schools more hospitable places for students and adults so that ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things” (p. 28). dufour, dufour, eaker, & many (2006) observed: “in many schools, teachers are willing to collaborate on a variety of topics as long as the focus of the conversation stops at their classroom door” (p. 3). 4research studies show what makes a differencein a professional learning community, collaboration and collective inquiry should help teachers build shared knowledge, which in turn should enable teachers to transform instructional practices and improve student achievement. one of the critical issues that teachers face is how to address their own weaknesses and their lack of success with some students.several common themes emerge from the research literature regarding professional learning communities that identify systems that make a difference to students: a commitment to continuous improvement, a continuous effort to gather evidence of current levels of student learning, strategies to build upon strengths and address weaknesses in student learning. specifically, teachers in a professional learning community work together to perfect their craft and generate better results for their students. additionally, teachers in a professional learning community are focused on results, on learning, on collaborative teams, collective inquiry, action and continuous improvement. success is measured on the basis of student achievement rather than the intentions and efforts of educators alone (dufour et al., 2006). teachers in the learning community work with each other to help ensure a high quality curriculum is being delivered to each student. school administrators provide certain structural conditions including time for teachers to meet during the school day to help the school function as a professional learning community (dufour et al., 2006). supovitz (2002) conducted a four year evaluation of professional learning communities in 79 schools. in total 2000 surveys were examined. supovitz reported: “effective communitties prepare for instruction collaboratively, taking advantage of preparation as a learning opportunity. 5they examine and discuss student work and how it is differentially produced through a variety of instructional approaches” (p. 27). student improvement occured when learning community members taught shared lessons, observed each other, and felt safe in doing so.bolam, mcmahon, stoll, and wallace (2005) conducted research funded by the department for education and skills and the general teaching council for england. they examined professional learning communities throughout england and surveyed teachers in 393 primary, secondary and special schools. they found that schools that operated as professional learning communities had a focus on student learning. moreover, the schools that functioned as professional learning communities had a more positive association with pupil achievement and professional learning (bolam et al., 2005). they reported that professional learning communities were sustained through three key operational processes: optimizing resources and structures; promoting individual and collective learning; and leadership and management determined to create a professional learning community (bolam, et al., 2005).hughes and kritsonis (2007) conducted a study of 64 high schools in texas that implemented the professional learning community principles. the mean length of time the schools were functioning as professional learning communities was 2.5 years. specifically, between the three year period of 2004 to 2006, 63 out of the 64 schools improved in reading/english language arts taks scores. over that same period 58 out of the 64 schools improved in their mathematics taks scores.6coburn and russell (2008) conducted a case study in which they examined two school districts and their implementation of the professional learning community principles. they found that “in order for professional learning community initiatives to support instructional improvement, they should enable teachers to engage in conversation about how students learn content and what teachers can do to ensure all students learn” (p. 2). time for faculty to collaborate did not in and of itself lead to quality analysis, discussions of how to improve instruction and a spirit of continuous improvement unless school leaders created a climate of professional expectations that teachers will discuss what they are doing to accommodate learning needs of students who do not demonstrate mastery of a subject in class. purpose of the studythe purpose of this study was to investigate high school teachers in low, moderate, and high performing schools and their descriptions of four learning community dimensions (a focus on learning, shared vision, collaborative culture, and supportive structures), moderated by training in professional learning community principles, and their actual practices of professional learning community principle. school academic performanceacademic performance of the three high schools in this study where school leaders volunteered to participate was based on the new york state english language arts regents exam. in order to identify high, moderate, and low achieving schools, new york state low needs similar schools were selected and then the three-year average of mastery scores on the ela regents exam was determined. student achievement data from similar school group 53 was 7collected prior to the selection of subjects. student achievement was measured by determining the three-year average percentage of students who achieve mastery on the ela regents exam. school data has been gathered from the school years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. schools were then categorized as high, moderate, and low performing. teachers from one high, one moderate, and one low achieving school were surveyed. schools from similar school group 53 were ranked in order from highest achieving to lowest achieving based on the average three-year mastery rate on the ela regents for their school. the three-year mean mastery rate for similar school group 53 was 57.37 percent, with a standard deviation of 10.82 percent. schools were separated based on their standard deviation. schools that were one standard deviation above the mean were classified as high performing, and schools that were one standard deviation below the mean were classified as low performing. based on these numbers, five schools were selected for the high performing group. one school was excluded from the study because its mastery rate was an outlier of 91.00 percent. the remaining schools categorized as high achieving had a mean mastery rate of 72.67 percent to 68.00 percent for the three-year period. four schools were categorized as having a moderate achievement rate of 56.67 percent to 54.00 percent. four schools were categorized as having a low achievement rate of 47.00 percent to 42.00 percent. table1 represents the three school (d, f, j) in which the superintendent and high school principal gave permission for the study. additionally, the number of students in each of the schools and the percentage of students who achieve mastery on the new york state ela regents examination are represented in table 1. 8table 1three year average mastery rate on the ela regents examschoolsthree year average percentage of students who achieved masteryhigh/moderate/low performing a 72.67highb 70.67highc 68.33highd 68.00highe 56.67moderatef 55.33moderateg 55.33moderateh 54.00moderatei 47.00lowj 45.67lowk43.33lowl 42.00lowthe schools were ranked from highest to lowest mastery rates and separated by plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean. guiding research questions research question onewhen teachers are divided into high, moderate, and low ela achieving schools, how do they differ in their descriptions of professional learning community dimensions within a focus on learning, shared vision, collaborative culture, supportive structural conditions, and their training and practice of professional learning community principles?9research question twoin high, moderate, and low ela achieving schools, what relationships exist among student performance and teacher descriptions of a focus on learning, shared vision, collaborative culture, supportive structural conditions, and training and practice of professional learning community principles?subjectsschool superintendents and high school principals from twelve high schools in nassau and suffolk counties were approached for permission to conduct the study. of the twelve schools, three responded that they would give permission for the survey to be administered at a faculty meeting. the data from the 365 surveys administered were used to answer research questions in this study. the respondents represented 258 (70.3 percent) female, 101 (27.5 percent) male with eight respondents failing to note gender. table 2 reports the distribution of respondents by gender. table 2 distribution of the respondents by genderfrequencypercentvalid percentcumulative percentmale10127.528.128.1female25870.371.9100.0total35997.8100.0missing82.2 valid n367100.010respondents represented high, moderate, and low ela performing schools. eighty-seven (87) teachers responded from the low performing school, 171 from the moderate performing school and 109 from the high performing school. table 3 displays the distribution of respondents by high school achievement level. table 3distribution of teachers by achievement level frequencypercentvalid percentcumulative percentlow8723.723.723.7moderate17146.646.670.3high10929.729.7100.0valid n367100.0100.0the respondents were asked to respond to a series of likert scale questions where 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= somewhat agree, 4= agree, and 5=strongly agree. table 4 contrasts high school teachers in high, moderate, and low achieving schools and their descriptions of four dimensions of a professional learning community in the dimension of a focus on learning, shared vision, collaborative culture, supportive structural conditions, and their training and practice of professional learning community principles. 11table 4 descriptive statistics for teachers descriptions of four learning community dimensions achievementnrangemsdlowsupportive structures847.0020.0012.663.14focus learning8511.0029.0019.364.25shared vision8412.0030.0021.023.69collaboration8517.0030.0023.703.13training plc8110.0079.0028.7613.65practice plc8111.0050.0030.449.53valid n 77moderatesupportive structures1645.0024.0015.793.85focus learning1648.0029.0018.854.36shared vision1709.0030.0022.104.25collaboration1679.0030.0022.564.07training plc15210.0050.0030.9310.51practice plc15010.0054.0029.689.01valid n 137highsupportive structures10311.0025.0019.713.19focus learning10311.0038.0021.604.09shared vision10611.0030.0023.363.59collaboration10715.0030.0024.813.22training plc9611.0050.0033.389.70practice plc9817.0050.0033.837.46valid n 88the mean score for supportive structures in the low achieving school was 12.66. the range of possible composite scores was 5 to 25, which indicated that the respondents fell between disagreed and somewhat agreed that supportive structures existed in their school. the mean for supportive structures in the moderate performing school was 15.79 which indicated that the respondents somewhat agreed that supportive structures existed in their school. in the high performing school the mean for supportive structures were 19.71, which indicated that respondents agreed that supportive structures existed in their school. 12the dimension of a focus on learning had six items with a composite score of 6 to 30. the respondents in the low achieving school (m=19.36) responded that they somewhat agreed their school had a focus on learning. the mean respondents from the moderate achieving school (m=18.85) responded that they somewhat agreed their school had a focus on learning. the respondents in the high achieving school (m= 21.60) tended to agree that their school had a focus on learning. the dimension of a shared vision had six items with a composite score of 6 to 30.