Professional Learning Communities at Work TM. Robert Eaker

child lead a successful and satisfying life and make a contribution to community and country. This idea of success for every student so eloquently articulated in mission statements across the country is closely linked to another affirmation that “we believe all kids can learn.” In fact, that phrase has become something of a cliché, a mantra chanted unthinkingly by educators across the country. Few contemporary teachers or principals would challenge this assertion that all children are capable of learning. In fact, answers to the question, “Do you believe all kids can learn?” reveal very little about the beliefs, expectations, or practices of the educators in a given school. The more relevant and useful questions to ask when trying to build a shared sense of purpose are:

      1. If we believe all kids can learn, exactly what is it that we will expect them to learn?

      2. If we believe all kids can learn, how do we respond when they do not learn?

      Below are descriptions of four schools that operate under very different assumptions. Even though the educators within these schools would contend that they believe “all kids can learn,” they would respond to students who are not learning in significantly different ways.

       We believe all kids can learn …

      … based on their ability. The extent of students’ learning is determined by their innate ability or aptitude. This ability is relatively fixed, and as teachers, we have little influence over the extent of student learning. It is our job to create multiple programs or tracks that address these differences in ability in our students and then to guide students to the appropriate program. This ensures that students have access to the proper curriculum and an optimum opportunity to master material appropriate to their abilities.

      … if they take advantage of the opportunity to learn. Students can learn if they choose to put forth the effort to do so. It is our job to provide students with this opportunity to learn, and we fulfill our responsibility when we attempt to present lessons that are both clear and engaging. In the final analysis, however, while it is our job to teach, it is the student’s job to learn. We should invite them and encourage them to learn, but we should also honor their decision if they elect not to do so.

      … and we will accept responsibility for ensuring their growth. Certainly it is our responsibility to help each student demonstrate some growth as a result of his or her experience in our classrooms. But the extent of that growth will be determined by a combination of the student’s innate ability and effort. It is our job to create a warm, inviting classroom climate and to encourage all students to learn as much as possible, but the extent of their learning depends on factors over which we have little control.

      … and we will establish high standards of learning that we expect all students to achieve. It is our job to create an environment in our classrooms that engages students in academic work that results in a high level of achievement. We are confident that with our support and help, students can master challenging curricula, and we expect them to do so. We are prepared to work collaboratively with colleagues, students, and parents to achieve this shared educational purpose (DuFour, 1997a).

      While educators in all four of these schools would contend that they believe every student can learn, they will respond to students who are not learning in fundamentally different ways. The first school views failure to learn as an indication that the student lacks the ability or motivation to master the content. Based on this assessment, the school offers a less rigorous program as the solution. The second school considers failure an important part of the learning process. Students who do not put forth the necessary effort to succeed here must be taught that they are responsible for their own decisions. To ensure that this important lesson is learned, teachers must allow students to fail. The third school is prepared to accept responsibility for helping each student demonstrate some growth but is unwilling to establish high standards for all students. Here, too, the faculty members contend that they have little influence over the extent of an individual’s learning.

      These responses are entirely acceptable in a system that believes its primary purpose is to sort and select students according to their abilities and/or willingness to master particular curriculum challenges. That approach might have been effective in the Industrial Age when students had ample opportunities to pursue occupations that did not require intellectual ability. In today’s Information Age society, however, educators must operate from the premise that it is the purpose of schools to bring all students to their full potential and to a level of education that was once reserved for the very few. Clearly then, it is only the fourth school in the above scenario that offers a viable, modern-day response to students who are not learning.

      If such an all-encompassing mission is to be accomplished, clarity of purpose and a willingness to accept responsibility for achieving that purpose are critical. From 1990 to 1995, the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools conducted a comprehensive, longitudinal study of school improvement initiatives. The center analyzed data from more than 1,500 elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the United States and conducted field research in 44 schools in 16 states. One of the significant findings of that study was that the most successful schools function as professional communities “in which teachers pursue a clear shared purpose for all students’ learning, engage in collaborative activity to achieve that purpose, and take collective responsibility for student learning” (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995, p. 30).

      The lesson of that study is an important one for principals and teachers who hope to develop their capacity to function as facilitators in professional learning communities. They must go beyond the clichés in examining their current beliefs or assumptions about the mission of education. They cannot be content with a half-hearted affirmation of their belief that all students can learn. Instead, they must challenge themselves to answer the tougher questions that address the very heart of the purpose of schooling: What is it we expect our students to learn, and how will we fulfill our collective responsibility to ensure that this learning takes place for all of our students? Mission statements that do not answer these questions will contribute very little to the creation of a learning community.

       The Second Building Block: Vision

      What do we hope to become? Whereas mission establishes an organization’s purpose, vision instills an organization with a sense of direction. It asks, “If we are true to our purpose now, what might we become at some point in the future?” Vision presents a realistic, credible, attractive future for the organization—a future that is better and more desirable in significant ways than existing conditions. It offers a target that beckons (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). An effective vision statement articulates a vivid picture of the organization’s future that is so compelling that a school’s members will be motivated to work together to make it a reality.

      It is difficult to overstate the importance of collective vision in the establishment of a learning organization. Vision has been described as “essential” to a successful change process (Kotter, 1996, p. 68), and Peter Senge (1990) contends that “you cannot have a learning organization without shared vision” (p. 209).

      But the development of shared vision has been particularly troublesome for educators. Reformers and critics of education have bombarded teachers and principals with countless (and often conflicting) images and ideas about how schools should function and the purposes they should serve. For example, consider some of the following debates raging in public education.

      • Schools must demand more of students—more courses for graduation, more days in the school year, more homework, and greater mastery of more content.

      No, “less is more”: schools should remove content from the curriculum and focus instead on teaching children how to learn.

      • Strong principals are the essential prerequisite of effective schools.

      No, the principalship should be abolished in favor of faculty committees.

      • Schools exist to instill and develop essential core values in students.

      No, schools must focus on teaching basic competencies and leave the task of teaching values to the