Running Head: PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

Measuring teacher effectiveness in the context of a professional learning community

Jacqueline M. Buchanan Heller
George Mason University

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

Introduction
Educations current era of high stakes testing and accountability, brought on with NCLB
reforms, leads school systems to seek new ways to ensure all students learn at high levels. One
way Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) has attempted to impact learning is by implementing
the professional learning community (PLC) concept, focusing on the three big ideas of teacher
collaboration, learning for all, and data driven results (FCPS, 2012; DuFour, Eaker & DuFour,
2005). In another effort to boost achievement FCPS also linked 40% of teacher evaluation to
student progress in 2012 (FCPS, 2014). However, if all 15,000 FCPS teachers create their own
definitions of student progress in crafting their SMARTR goals, we must look at the language in
those goals to see if the way teachers define and measure achievement may impact other policies.
FCPS invested vast time and resources embedding tenets of PLC into school culture in order for
teams of professionals take collective responsibility and collaborate to help students achieve at
higher levels. Since both SMARTR goals and PLCs aim to improve student progress, they may
appear to work in congruence, but depending how teachers write SMARTR goals and which
students they tie their evaluation to, the process may actually damage the culture of
collaboration, sending teachers back into the isolation of not my kid, not my problem and
leaving students at the mercy of the educational lottery of whichever individual teacher they get
assigned to each year. Will implementation of the new performance based evaluation initiative
undermine PLCs focus on collaboration? With the permission of FCPS Id like to investigate
this issue using data from elementary schools in Region 2 to see what policy implications arise.
Research Rationale
In the past decade, the PLCs focus on data has aligned with changing standards, new
accountability programs, and performance based teacher evaluation systems (Marsh & Huguet,

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

2015). The underlying assumption of PLCs is that peer collaboration around student data has the
potential to transform teaching practices in ways that will lead to higher student achievement
(Riveros, Newton & Burgess, 2012). With that goal in mind, FCPS has intensely promoted the
PLC concept since 2009 (FCPS, 2012). Strong professional communities within schools was
associated with an increased sense of collective responsibility for student learning, a school
attribute related to gains in student achievement on standardized tests (Louis & Marks, 1996). In
2012, 87% of FCPS staff responded that their school was beyond initial implementation of PLC
or that it was deeply embedded, which was up 8 percentage points in the two years since the
survey was first given in 2010. That data would lead one to believe that the ideas of collaboration
and common assessments are deeply embedded and should be reflected in the SMARTR goals.
Have FCPS teachers reached a tipping point in perceived collective efficacy so that it is making a
difference in student achievement, and if so, will the new evaluations affect that? It is important
to determine, because teachers beliefs about group goal attainment were found to have a
stronger effect than the direct link between socioeconomic status and student achievement
(Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2004). Many of the schools in Region 2 of FCPS are Title I, so it is
crucial to specifically examine those teachers beliefs about collective efficacy and investigate if
their beliefs are consistent with how they write their SMARTR goals for their evaluation.
Researchers are seeking better ways to evaluate both teachers and teaching (Kennedy,
2010) as the dialogue about teacher quality moves from a function of their preparation, training
or inherent characteristics to what teachers do in context, but often that context involves other
teachers working with the same students. FCPS rejected the value added model of determining
teacher effectiveness through complicated formulas that assign partial credit to multiple teachers
who work with a student, but there is very little policy around SMARTR goals. The loose policy

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

gives schools and teachers huge leeway in how they write goals (independently or
collaboratively aligned with school goals), which students progress they will measure (just
general education or also special education or other student groups shared among teachers) and
how they will measure it (teacher made assessment or common assessment).
While there is a depth of research on teacher evaluations, and an emerging body of
research about professional learning communities, only one study was found that connects the
two. Rather than investigating the potential tension between the two policies, Woodland and
Mazur (2015) suggest they could be integrated into a system that would address subpar teaching,
improve acceptable teaching and sustain and replicate outstanding teaching. The current
implementation in FCPS does not intertwine the two initiatives. Do educators in FCPS believe
PLCs and performance based evaluations can coexist or are the two initiatives at odds?
Proposed Research Design
The FCPS Teacher Performance Evaluation Program handbook specifically states that
goals can be a collaborative learning team developed goal (FCPS, 2014) but no one has
examined the SMARTR goals written by teachers across the county to determine if teachers are
collaborating in order to improve student achievement or if they are forgoing collaboration and
common assessments when their evaluation depends on it. In a PLC, teachers often use data to
strategically group students across the grade level to improve their ability to deliver targeted
instruction, but will that practice be eliminated if they are only held accountable for the students
on their own roster according to their SMARTR goal? Special education and ESOL teachers
often co-teach with classroom teachers, their expertise benefiting all students in the class, but if
they are tied by their evaluation only to their English language learners or students on their case
load with learning disabilities will this strategy to improve student achievement also decline?

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

The purpose of this comparative study is to explore the language teachers use when
crafting SMARTR goals for teacher evaluations at elementary schools in Region 2 of FCPS,
specifically to see if the process is preserving or undermining the efforts to improve student
achievement through PLCs. I will analyze SMARTR goals by team and school to determine:
1. Do classroom and resource teachers collaborate to write the same SMARTR goal?
2. Do SMARTR goals show collective responsibility by measuring learning of all students?
3. Are the student progress results measured by common assessments?
To select participants I have analyzed data from three specific questions on the 2014
FCPS Working Conditions Survey (WCS) to determine high-, medium- and low-function PLC
schools based on the degree to which teachers at the school agree with the following statements:
Q2.1b Teachers have time available to collaborate with their colleagues (collaboration)
Q9.1d Teachers work in teams to develop and align instructional practices (learning)
Q9.1c Teachers use assessment data to inform their instruction (results)
Responses of schools in Region 2 are presented in Appendices A and B then this data was used
for purposive sampling of four high-, medium-, and low-functioning PLC schools as noted in the
tables. After sorting the SMARTR goals by grade level team at each of the selected schools I will
code the language used in the SMARTR goals then aggregate the team data to the school level. I
would then like to interview teachers and administrators at the selected schools to get qualitative
data about what influenced the formation of their SMARTR goal, and how they chose to measure
student progress in their SMARTR goals. Finally, if it is found that there are teams of teachers
who develop their SMARTR goals collaboratively, I would like to observe that team meeting as
they write their 2016 goals and transcribe the process.

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

Policy Implications
The capacity of schools to be successful in raising student achievement is increased when
teachers are encouraged to collaborate and develop networks (Baker-Doyle, 2014). This study
will show if FCPSs years of investment in PLC training has led to a sustainable initiative that
can coexist with performance based evaluations in the effort to raise student achievement. This
information will help FCPS clarify expectations around SMARTR goals in order to prevent any
erosion in the collaboration that drives achievement in PLCs.
If this research shows the way teams of teachers are currently writing SMARTR goals
undermines their teams collective responsibility to collaborate around common assessments,
then administrators at those schools can address the problem before teachers write new
SMARTR goals for the coming school year. If the research shows a widespread issue then county
officials can use the information to address the matter on a larger scale, potentially benefitting
schools not even selected in this study.
The ultimate reason to measure schools level of PLC and their adherence to those tenets
in the writing of their SMARTR goals is because research shows that both PLCs and tying
student progress to teacher evaluations can improve student achievement. Follow up research
could be done to see if schools that have high levels of PLC and write goals that adhere to those
tenets actually have students who make more progress than other schools.
School policies can either facilitate or hinder a teachers effectiveness. New ideas are both
cumbersome and time consuming, leading to reform fatigue and teachers shutting their door to
run their classroom as they deem fit regardless of the policy (Kennedy, 2010). This study will
help FCPS officials understand the intertwining impact of these two policies on teacher
effectiveness and student achievement and determine if there is a need to clarify expectations.

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

Appendix A
Percent of Teachers Responding Agree on the Working Conditions Survey
Overall
Average
Glen Forest
53.7
93.7
91.9
79.8
Timber Lane
60.0
90.0
92.9
81.0
Braddock
63.6
92.1
94.7
83.5
Annandale Terrace
69.6
96.2
88.7
84.8
Lemon Road
64.9
94.6
97.3
85.6
Parklawn
63.8
98.5
96.9
86.4
Graham Road
66.0
95.7
100.0
87.2
Freedom Hill
73.5
95.8
93.3
87.5
Shrevewood
74.5
92.0
97.9
88.1
North Springfield
83.3
92.9
89.7
88.6
Bren Mar Park
80.4
94.2
92.0
88.9
Westlawn
76.9
94.2
96.0
89.0
FCPS AVERAGE
77.6
95.3
94.3
89.1
Beech Tree
69.8
97.6
100.0
89.1
Sleepy Hollow
71.7
100.0
97.6
89.8
Kent Gardens
87.3
92.7
90.9
90.3
Fairhill
73.1
98.1
100.0
90.4
Woodburn
72.2
100.0
100.0
90.7
Belvedere
81.0
94.9
96.6
90.8
Westbriar
76.5
100
97.0
91.2
Baileys
82.3
97.3
98.1
92.6
Pine Spring
81.0
100.0
96.7
92.6
Weyanoke
86.4
94.8
98.3
93.2
Camelot
82.7
98.1
100.0
93.6
Franklin Sherman
85.7
96.3
100.0
94.0
Haycock
83.3
100.0
100.0
94.4
Chesterbrook
89.7
96.6
98.2
94.8
Mason Crest
85.2
100.0
100.0
95.1
Stenwood
97.6
94.1
100.0
97.2
Westgate
93.5
100.0
100.0
97.8
Columbia
95.5
100.0
100.0
98.5
Note. High PLC schools are in green, medium in gold, and low in red
School

Collaboration

Learning

Results

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

Appendix B
Percentage Point Differences Between Each School and FCPS Average
School
Glen Forest
Timber Lane
Braddock
Annandale Terrace

Lemon Road
Parklawn
Graham Road
Freedom Hill
Shrevewood
North Springfield
Bren Mar Park
Westlawn
FCPS AVERAGE

Collaboratio
n
-23.9
-17.6
-14.0
-8.0
-12.7
-13.8
-11.6
-4.1
-3.1
5.7
2.8
-0.7
0.0
-7.8
-5.9
9.7
-4.5
-5.4
3.4
-1.1
3.4
4.7
8.8
5.1
8.1
5.7
12.1
7.6
20.0
15.9
17.9

Learning
-1.6
-5.3
-3.2
0.9
-0.7
3.2
0.4
0.5
-3.3
-2.4
-1.1
-1.1
0.0
2.3
4.7
-2.6
2.8
4.7
-0.4
4.7
4.7
2.0
-0.5
2.8
1.0
4.7
1.3
4.7
-1.2
4.7
4.7

Results
-2.4
-1.4
0.4
-5.6
3.0
2.6
5.7
-1.0
3.6
-4.6
-2.3
1.7
0.0
5.7
3.3
-3.4
5.7
5.7
2.3
2.7
2.4
3.8
4.0
5.7
5.7
5.7
3.9
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7

Overall
Average
-9.3
-8.1
-5.6
-4.3
-3.5
-2.7
-1.9
-1.6
-1.0
-0.5
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.7
2.1
3.5
3.5
4.1
4.5
4.9
5.3
5.7
6.0
8.1
8.7
9.4

Beech Tree
Sleepy Hollow
Kent Gardens
Fairhill
Woodburn
Belvedere
Westbriar
Pine Spring
Baileys
Weyanoke
Camelot
Franklin Sherman
Haycock
Chesterbrook
Mason Crest
Stenwood
Westgate
Columbia
Note. High PLC schools are in green, medium in gold, and low in red

PLC TENETS AND TEACHER EVALUATION

References
Balch, R. & Koedel, C. (2014) Anticipating and incorporating stakeholder feedback when
developing value-added models, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(97).
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., DuFour, R. (2005) On Common Ground: The power of professional
learning communities, Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2006) Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional communities at work, Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press
Fairfax County Public Schools. (2012) Professional learning community survey results: A three
year view of tenets of a professional learning community. Retrieved June 28, 2015, from
http://www.fcps.edu/pla/ope/docs/Misc/plc_divisionwide_2012_results.pdf
Fairfax County Public Schools. (2014). Teacher performance evaluation program handbook.
Fairfax, VA.
Fairfax County Public Schools. (2014). Working conditions survey index 2014. Retrieved June
28, 2015, from http://www.fcpswcs.org/
Garrett, K. (2011). Value added: Do new teacher evaluation methods make the grade? Education
Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(2), p40-45.
Giles, C. and Hargreaves, A. (2006).The sustainability of innovative schools as learning
organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform.
Educational administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-15.
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments,
empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.
Hazi, H.M. & Ruscinski, D.A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student
learning: A fifty-state review of stature and regulatory action since NCLB. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5), 1-22.
Isenberg, E. & Walsh, E. (2013). Accounting for co-teaching: A guide for policy makers and
developers of value-added models, Chicago, IL: Mathematica Policy Research.
Kennedy, M. (2010) Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher,
39(8), 591-598.
Louis, K., Marks, H. (1996). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work
and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4),
532-575.
Marsh, J., Bertrand, M., Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alter instructional practice: The
mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College
Record, 117(4), 1-40.
Newton, X.A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Thomas, E. (2010) Value-added modeling of
teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23).
Riveros, G., Newton, P., and Burgess, D. (2012) A situated account of teacher agency and
learning: Critical reflections on professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of
Education, 35(1), 202-216.
Vescio, V. (2007). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on
teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.
Woodland, R. & Mazur, R. (2015). Beyond hammers versus hugs: Leveraging educator
evaluation and professional learning communities into job-embedded professional
development. NASSP Bulletin.