Another concern when teachers do not adequately tend to proficient students is boredom. In Judy Willis’s 2014 article in Phi Delta Kappan, she summarizes boredom as “a mismatch between an individual’s intellectual arousal and the availably of external stimulation.” This mismatch can lead to almost any kind of unwanted student behavior, ranging from acting out to disengagement. To avoid these potential issues with proficient students, teachers should turn to the four critical questions of a PLC to guide them to a solution to best support the many different skill sets students bring to class.
Since the publication of DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) Professional Learning Communities at Work, the four critical questions have permeated education. At the time of this writing, there are 226 model PLC schools spread around the world across three continents (AllThingsPLC, 2019). An educator may have become acquainted with these vital questions by reading about PLCs, attending an institute, or engaging in professional learning. Even some teacher prep programs, including undergraduate programs for education majors and teaching certificate programs for postbaccalaureate students working toward becoming teachers, have begun working with preservice teachers to familiarize them with these basic educational building blocks (DuFour et al., 2016).
Answering these straightforward questions seems an easy task. But that is where the genius of DuFour et al. (2016) lies. Reaching agreement among staff on how best to answer these questions is, in reality, a complex task. Focusing on exactly what a team wants the students to learn, creating clear learning targets and success criteria by which students may judge their own success, formatively assessing those targets well, and intervening on behalf of the students who did not learn it ensures schools are doing the right work to keep many—but not all—students engaged in school and build their confidence to succeed. Research and literature on the first three critical questions is plentiful. However, question 4 students are often excluded from this work, in part because question 4 remains underrepresented in administrative and teacher resources as well as in the discussions of collaborative teams doing the work of a PLC (Weichel, McCann, & Williams, 2018). If teams do not work to respond to all four critical questions, they risk allowing students to disengage from the learning process. Over time, this can lead to decreased student achievement and an increase in negative student behaviors that inhibit learning not just for that student but, in many cases, for others in the classroom as well (Feldman, Smith, & Waxman, 2017).
To ensure teams properly address this forgotten question, this chapter explores important foundational concepts, including understanding who the proficient students are, why they are often overlooked, how extension aligns with the three big ideas of a PLC, and what educators must do to ensure collaborative work that creates meaningful extensions.
Who Are the Proficient Students?
It is important when considering which students may be proficient not to confuse question 4 students with identified gifted students. Gifted students may or may not be proficient on a given standard and may have areas of academic weakness that require interventions in order to achieve proficiency. At the same time, students who do not carry the “gifted” label can be proficient in a standard and in need of extension. So, it is important to remember question 4 students can be any students, regardless of label, who demonstrate proficiency on a given standard. Question 4 students may be students who have a lot of knowledge because of being in a literature-rich environment, or perhaps their life experiences created deep background knowledge regardless of their performance on the Cognitive Abilities Test or other giftedness or IQ assessments. Indeed, a student may be far from proficient in every standard except the one currently being discussed. If that is the case, then when a team meets to collaboratively determine which students need interventions and which need extensions on the standard in question, the student would be placed in the “already proficient; in need of extensions” group. Likewise, if identified gifted students have a gap in their learning, an automatic grouping with already proficient students may be detrimental. That is why teams must view each essential standard, for each collaborative cycle, through a very narrow lens.
Why Are Proficient Students Often Overlooked?
Teams often do not discuss question 4 students because the prevailing attitude is that these students are smart, they get it, they can play the school game, and in some cases they have been identified as gifted or labeled as gifted and talented education (GATE) or talented and gifted (TAG) students. Often, teachers see these students as able to succeed no matter what. They will achieve, no matter the classroom they are placed in and no matter how much (or little) individual attention they receive. In short, educators don’t see them as being at risk. For clarity’s sake, let’s define what I mean by the term at risk. Students at risk face factors inside or outside school that can inhibit them from learning to their potential, cause them to become unsuccessful in school, and possibly prevent them from graduating. When question 4 students are assessed as highly proficient or proficient on state tests and achieve such a label, teachers often consider these students “givens” in whole-school or classroom data discussions, and they are easily forgotten, which places them at risk.
Not just collaborative teams and schools can fall into the trap of forgetting to answer question 4. In 2018, I attended a professional development seminar that focused on helping all schools meet the needs of every student. During a fantastic weekend of professional learning, this group of highly engaged administrators was asked to create a learning continuum using placards that represented everything from formative assessments to district benchmarks to collaborative team conversations, from state standards through state assessment. Once we finished, we received more cards to place where we could provide additional support to students. The cards simply said “interventions” (corresponding to PLC critical question 3); there was no mention of extensions. When another participant in the group asked about question 4, the trainer said we must not forget that question. Her response was genuine, but the question was just not in the forefront of her mind when she made the cards.
It was a great exercise and one I have repeated during several trainings. But before we start, I tell the participants something is missing and, if they can find it, I have a coffeehouse gift card for them. As of this writing, no one has ever brought up that extensions are missing from the exercise (though surely this will change once this book is published). I tell this story simply to underline how easy it is for administrators and teachers alike to forget to answer question 4. (For guidance on how to ensure teams plan to address question 4 students, see chapter 2 [page 17].)
How Does Extension Align With the Three Big Ideas of a PLC?
To truly understand why these already proficient students cannot simply be sorted and forgotten, teachers must examine the three big ideas of a PLC.
1. A focus on learning: DuFour et al. (2016) explain, “The fundamental purpose of the school is to ensure that all students learn at high levels (grade level or higher)” (p. 11).
2. A collaborative culture and collective responsibility: DuFour et al. (2016) assert, “Educators must work collaboratively and take collective responsibility for the success of each student” (p. 11).
3. A results orientation: Successful PLCs require a results orientation. DuFour et al. (2016) maintain, “To assess their effectiveness in helping all students learn, educators in a PLC focus on results—evidence of student learning” (p. 12).
The first big idea, a focus on high levels of learning for all students, includes embracing students who may have shown up to school proficient
