At the core of the PLC model is a school culture and system that clearly identifies what students need to know, measures and tracks individual student mastery, and applies instructional interventions based on the results of common formative assessments. In the 10 years since our district adopted the model, our school has made substantial growth. Curricula are appropriately aligned. Standards are unpacked to identify essential course outcomes at rigorous depths of knowledge. Teachers collaboratively score assessments, disaggregate data, and identify student proficiency levels. Like most PLC schools, such practices have produced significant gains in student achievement.

In spite of this, surveys and anecdotal data showed that our PLCs struggled to address questions three and four (What do we do if they don’t/do know it?). Due to reporting obligations and time constraints, our practice largely stagnated after the administration and analysis of common formative assessments. Data was shared with team members and reported to principals before the cycle repeated at the quarter’s end. As a result, some grew to resent the collection and analysis of data because it had a limited impact on daily instruction.

Sound familiar? Think about a PLC reboot!

This year, our PLC steering committee resolved to make our practice more impactful. We have begun to ask ourselves: Which is more important—the data or what we do with it? After surveying our leaders and teams to identify strengths and obstacles, we overhauled what had become an outdated PLC tracking form in favor of a new “Professional Learning Communities Plan.” Whereas the old document focused on assessment timelines and responsibility assignments, the new form refocuses our work on the four critical PLC questions and recognizes that assessments are only part of the process. In our updated practice, PLC teams plan interventions and extension activities from day one. While they continue to create timelines for key assessments and attach accountability to team members, the new plan also coaches teams to plan lessons and systematic interventions that will guide individual students toward mastery of the standards that we most commonly assess. The administration has committed to disaggregating and providing data to PLCs by standard, subgroup, and individual student. Lastly, under the new system, in order to soften the decade-old reporting obligations that fostered resentment, teams will only submit forms and artifacts twice per year.

Extending this level of professional trust, refocusing our work on the critical questions, and dedicating more time to questions three and four has led to an increased percentage of our staff feeling that our school has a clear direction for improving student learning. Ten years into our PLC journey, it was time to refocus our efforts and get back to the true intent of the process.

As you reflect on PLC practices in your school, ask yourself and your teams: What is more important—the data or what you do with it?