Linda Darling-Hammond (2010) summarizes the research on effective professional development as follows:
Effective professional development is sustained, ongoing, content-focused, and embedded in professional learning communities where teachers work overtime on problems of practice with other teachers in their subject area or school. Furthermore, it focuses on concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection, looking at how students learn specific content in particular contexts…. It is often useful for teachers to be put in the position of studying the very material that they intend to teach to their own students. (pp. 226–227)
In other words, effective professional development is often the opposite of what most teachers receive—it is sustained and embedded within the work of professional learning communities and is focused on the actual tasks of teaching using the material teachers use with students. Professional development practices have moved beyond stand-alone workshops to ones that are tied to a school’s chosen area of focus. Through the work of researchers like Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers (1983) and others, educators began to understand that professional development could be linked to the change process. In particular, the value of an agreed-on focus, the need for continued support after the session, and a plan for measuring success have become expected elements of any school’s professional development plan. To succeed as a high-performance school, professional development should be part of a teacher’s overall involvement in a learning community.
The link between professional development and school change has been further strengthened through PLCs (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002). PLCs recognize that teacher collaboration lies at the heart of learning and change. Collaborative planning teams within PLCs are able to bridge theory to practice as they convene regularly to examine student performance data, discuss student progress, develop and implement curricula, and coach one another through meaningful collaborative work between meetings.
The evidence of PLC effectiveness is mounting. A study of elementary teachers in PLCs identifies a strong statistical correlation between their participation in professional learning communities, their classroom cultures, and their use of formative assessments to advance learning (Birenbaum, Kimron, & Shilton, 2011). Robert Bullough and Steven Baugh (2008) find that the conditions created to foster a schoolwide PLC in turn deepened a school-university partnership. In an analysis of nearly four hundred schools as PLCs, Louise Stoll, Ray Bolam, Agnes McMahon, Mike Wallace, and Sally Thomas (2006) note a positive relationship between student achievement, adoption of innovative practices, and healthy learning communities. In fact, Robert Marzano noted that school and district-level PLCs are “probably the most influential movement with regards to actually changing practices in schools” (DuFour & Marzano, 2011, p. x).
Purpose of This Book
We hope we have made the case, however briefly, that a PLC at the school or district level is vital to school change. Furthermore, collaborative planning teams functioning within the school’s PLC provide embedded professional development that sustains change.
In fact, chances are good that you are interested in this book because it promises to link an important change—implementing the Common Core State Standards for English language arts—with a process you already know to be powerful: professional learning communities. The remainder of this book provides collaborative teacher teams with information about the what and the how of teaching students to master these standards, including how to develop effective formative assessments and respond when students fail to make progress. We expand the Common Core standards so that you and your team can examine them in detail. You will find that each chapter begins with questions for your team to consider, and we invite you to return to these after you examine the standards to discuss implications for instruction, curriculum, assessment, and intervention.
Organization of This Book
This book has been crafted with your collaborative team in mind. Use it as a workbook—mark it up, dog-ear the pages, highlight passages that resonate, underline the ones that raise a question. In the same way that the Common Core ELA standards focus our collective attention on the practices of close reading and argumentation, we hope to contribute to a similar process for your team. The conversation begins in chapter 1 with an overview of the CCSS and the major shifts in our practices as these relate to informational texts, the role of speaking and listening in learning, the development of academic language and vocabulary, and the importance of argumentation in writing. Later in chapter 1, we explain how the standards are organized, so that the thirty-three-page original CCSS document and its three appendices become a bit less bewildering. We also discuss what the standards don’t say: about English learners (ELs), students with disabilities, and those who struggle with literacy. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), developers of the CCSS, provide some general guidelines for students learning English and those who struggle in school, but these are brief summaries and will likely generate a great deal of additional ideas for implementation over the next several years (for more information, visit www.corestandards.org/the-standards for the documents “Application of the Standards for English Language Learners” and “Application to Students With Disabilities”). Importantly, these gaps highlight why PLCs are so important. In the words of the NGA and CCSSO (2010a):
While the Standards focus on what is most essential, they do not describe all that can or should be taught. A great deal is left to the discretion of teachers and curriculum developers. The aim of the Standards is to articulate the fundamentals, not to set out an exhaustive list or a set of restrictions that limits what can be taught beyond what is specified herein. (p. 6)
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 form the heart of this book because they each focus on a specific strand addressed in the CCSS. Reading is the subject of chapter 2: each and every standard is examined as it applies to literary and informational texts. Chapter 3 turns the spotlight to the Writing standards, and similarly reviews each standard as it applies to the major text types students produce: narrative, informational, and persuasive. In chapter 4, we discuss the two sets of Common Core standards that are integral to what we teach and how students learn—through speaking and listening and by understanding and producing academic language and vocabulary.
Chapter 5 returns to the subject of student consideration in the CCSS, including discussion on using formative assessment processes and summative assessment instruments informatively, and designing and implementing interventions for students who are not performing at expected levels.
Know that this book has been designed with you in mind. All of the research cited is specific to the high school grade levels. In addition, we’ve designed scenarios written from the perspective of teachers and students in grades 9–12 to illuminate the standards.
These scenarios are fictionalized accounts of our personal teaching activities and our collective experience working with teachers across grade levels in schools with diverse populations. We have developed these scenarios as a way to make the ELA standards come alive for you. We want you to personalize this experience as you and your collaborative team plan for implementation of the Common Core for English language arts. To begin this process, we encourage you to reflect on and discuss with
