Costs of Professional Learning Communities (Part 5/5) by Katie Reynolds

Professional development for teachers in the United States has significant funding, but this funding is poorly designated. Over $3 billion of federal aid for professional development is available under Title II-A, a U.S. Department of Education program. One estimate of public district spending per teacher on professional development is $6,000 – $8,000 per teacher a year (Sawchuck, 2010, p.2). Districts and individual schools do not provide the necessary oversight concerning how this money is spent. They do not evaluate whether the professional development practices utilized are effective by impacting teacher practices and student achievement.  A more regimented distribution of funds needs to take place with accountability for classroom practices and student achievement.

Funding for professional development in Christian schools is insignificant when compared to public sector schools.  Based on the 2014-2015 ACSI Financial Health Survey, only 40% of schools designate funds for professional development for administration, 41% funding PD for faculty, and only 21% for other staff (Association of Christian Schools International, 2015).  On average, ACSI schools operate on a budget of slightly over $2 million (Association of Christian Schools International, 2015). The funds spent per teacher on PD is, in all likelihood, on the scale of 15 to 20 times less per teacher than the amount spent on public school counterparts. The lack of financial planning for professional development may indicate a lower emphasis in ACSI schools.

The cost of professional learning does not have to be elaborate, however.  The costs of a PLC can be significantly less than that invested in professional learning opportunities. As schools have increasingly less money to invest in professional development, they are abandoning the yearly conferences and outside resources with high price tags. Schools have been slow to replace costly, ineffective professional development with less expensive, more effective professional development.

The costs of a PLC are related to staff, materials, technology and time. Time is the most significant cost factor of a PLC.  Leaders and teachers have to invest in the time to plan, develop, and implement the activities of professional learning. Continuous improvement comes about through time investment in individual, team, and school-based learning. This time may reduce classroom seat time for students which often seems unacceptable to educators.  This time, however, is making the time in the classroom more impactful and efficient. Staff investments are another cost factor in a PLC. Staff investments include the leaders and other specialized staff who facilitate components of the PLC, such as the mentors who work with less experienced teachers.  Material and technology expenditures for PLC is a specific and necessary line item in the budget.  Most technology and materials utilized for the PLC is that which is already in place in the school.  Through training in a PLC, teachers might learn how to better utilize technology effectively in the classroom before it becomes outdated. New applications of technology with additional investment may take place as teachers gain new skills and begin to take risks in their classroom activities.  A school may still occasionally spend money on workshops and seminars that incur extra costs such as travel and lodging.   This type of training should include key leaders who then report back to the PLC group the new information or techniques learned so that the PLC teams can evaluate for inclusion in the development plan of their classrooms.

Call to Action

Christian school administrators need to reject the idea that a teacher’s time spent away from the front of a classroom is time wasted. There is tangible value to investing this time in professional development to increase teacher efficacy, teacher satisfaction, and student achievement.  Increased parent satisfaction is yet another benefit which leads to improved school reputation in the community and ultimately, increased enrollment, higher revenue, and greater sustainability.

Jeffrey Pfeffer, in The Knowing-Doing Gap (2000) states that there is a gap between what an organization or its leader knows and their ability to turn it into action.  Leaders tend to treat talking about something as the same as doing something about it. It is not enough to identify a problem and create a strategic plan to address it; leaders must take action.  How many times has a Christian school undergone the accreditation process, developed a five-year strategic plan to address concerns, and then shelved it until the next iteration rolls around? Christian school leaders need to take action and see solutions through to the end. They need to implement and continue practices that enhance learning. After all, schools are in the business of learning and should make professional development that equips teachers to teach effectively, increases their satisfaction, and increases student achievement a top priority.

(Figure 1. The department level PLC structure in a high school. Departments meet as individual learning teams utilizing the foundations of the PLC model as described in the literature. Additionally, these groups are also having vertical dialog as a school so that development is not just at the team level but also at the school level. Adapted from DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, pp. 2–4.)