For decades, educators have utilized professional development (PD) to enhance practice (Elmore, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 1981). More recently, continuous PD has gained momentum as an especially effective form of professional school-based learning (Armour et al., 2017; Goodyear, 2017). Continuous PD is embedded in professional practice wherein teachers engage in the sharing of ideas and reflection on content delivery designed to facilitate student learning (Goodyear, 2017). A growing method for systematizing continuous PD is through professional learning communities (PLCs; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 2004).
PLCs vary in scope, purpose, function, and structure (Wenger et al., 2002). Some PLC formations may be self-organized and self-sustaining (Wenger, 1998), while others are highly regulated by unique organizational systems and cultures (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). In the context of physical education (PE,) PLCs may enhance teacher capacity and empowerment (Patton et al., 2012) and be especially suitable for bridging the gap between researchers and school practitioners (Beddoes et al., 2014; Goodyear et al., 2014). Similarly, online PLCs hold promise for improving teacher practice through resource sharing opportunities that extend beyond in-person interactions (Goodyear et al., 2019).
School-Based PLCs
Each year, more schools in the United States identify as PLCs (i.e., by this definition, a school-based PLC is comprised of the entire school, consisting of several grade-level or content-specific teams; Mattos et al., 2016). Partially as a response to the federal No Child Left Behind legislation, many schools originally began instituting PLCs for the purposes of enhancing and demonstrating student learning (DuFour & DuFour, 2008). Given the external funding pressures associated with high-stakes assessments under No Child Left Behind, district and school administrators prioritized student learning in the academic subject areas. As such, some scholars have expressed concern that district, and school-mandated PLCs reinforce top-down imposition rather than providing teachers the autonomy to support students’ unique learning needs (Hargreaves, 2019). Alternatively, some research suggests that school-based PLCs may improve teacher autonomy and collective efficacy toward student learning while enhancing overall school success (Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017).
An increasingly recognized organizational framework for implementing school-based PLCs was developed by DuFour and Eaker (1998). This approach to school-based PLCs derives from organizational theory and provides embedded, collaborative structures for teachers and administrators to collectively improve practice. Specifically, the work of PLCs is organized around a triad of Big Ideas including: (a) focus on learning, (b) collaborative culture, and (c) results-orientation (Mattos et al., 2016). The impetus for these Big Ideas is straightforward—collaborative teams (i.e., content-specific, grade-band) are allocated regular contractual time (e.g., continuous PD) for creating essential learning outcomes and assessing student learning relative to those identified outcomes. Collaboration within content-specific teams is the engine which makes the school-based PLC function (Hargreaves, 2019).
A PLC content- or grade-level team meeting is guided by four essential questions, often referred to as The Four PLC Questions: (a) “What do we want students to learn?” (b) “How will we know if they have learned?” (c) “What will we do when students do not learn?” and (d) “How will we assist students who have learned?” (Mattos et al., 2016). These questions are the foundation for all collaboration meetings. For example, a PE team would begin by identifying essential common learning outcomes associated with national and state standards and grade-level outcomes for a given unit of study. This discussion is ongoing and likely to take several collaboration meetings for teachers to reach consensus. The team would proceed with selecting or designing a common assessment instrument to measure student learning of the essential outcomes. Subsequent meetings would include data analysis discussions relative to student performance on the common learning assessments and mapping a strategy of intervention on behalf of students who need additional assistance.
Importantly, individual teams must be provided the structural support (e.g., coplanning times during the contracted school day) to accomplish the aims and purposes of a PLC. Reciprocally, teams must be committed to the processes associated with PLC work including data collection and analysis. A central element of PLC involvement is for individual teams to work iteratively through a results cycle, that is., an ongoing cycle of closing the learning loop, consisting of identifying common learning objectives, designing common assessments, monitoring student learning, and making curricular decisions based on student assessment results (Beddoes et al., in press; DuFour et al., 2016). To engage in this collaborative process on behalf of student learning, teachers must have a reasonable degree of assessment literacy, that is, know how and when to implement student assessments, be able to interpret assessment data, and make decisions based on the results (Hay & Penney, 2012). This difficult but important work of PLCs cannot adequately function without the support, dedication, and embedded systems of accountability provided by the school principal.
The Principal’s Role in PLCs
One of the strongest indicators of overall school success is the leadership of a school administrator (Prothero, 2015). As key socializing agents, principals can shape school culture by fostering trust among faculty and producing a positive cultural transformation when needed (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Muhammad & Cruz, 2019).
Principals are in a key strategic position to promote or inhibit the development of a teacher learning community in their school ... . School administrators set the stage and conditions for starting and sustaining the community development process. (p. 56)
Within the context of a PLC, a principal’s role is to nurture an ongoing culture of collaboration by dispersing leadership (e.g., team leaders) and providing autonomy (e.g., in terms of content taught and the processes for increasing student learning without condoning a willful disregard for the PLC collaborative process) among various content-specific or grade-level teams (DuFour & DuFour, 2008).
The School Principal, Organizational Socialization, and PE
Though administrators set the stage for effective PLCs, team leadership is dispersed throughout the school given that principals have wide-ranging professional responsibilities (e.g., balancing budget and staffing concerns, managing student truancy issues, negotiations with dissatisfied parents, ongoing accountability to the school board and community, and athletic and extramural activities duties). Due to competing and demanding priorities or lack of sufficient understanding of the nature of PE or current best practices, principals may not prioritize PE outcomes as central to the school mission (Lounsbery et al., 2011).
Because principals view PE through the lens of an administrator, they can perceive quality PE differently than the physical educators they supervise (Lounsbery et al., 2011). Perhaps because of low academic regard, a perceived lack of administrative support has been observed to be a barrier to PE and physical activity promotion in schools (Hills et al., 2015).
Principals can exert a positive or negative influence on the nature of PE through the school culture they promote. As novice PE teachers begin undergoing a process of socialization into the workplace, the school culture can be impactful on the way they interpret their role in the organization (Richards et al., 2014). If the organizational culture is supportive, a PE teacher may respond by delivering innovative instruction as a response to feelings of support as well as an enhanced personal commitment to the school (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Conversely, a lack of administrative or collegial support can lead a beginning physical educator to conform to the status quo and prevailing opinions and practices of more experienced colleagues (Richards et al., 2014).
Therefore, as part of the school community, PE teachers will likely be influenced in some manner by the organizational and sociopolitical dynamics associated with PLCs (Beddoes et al., 2021). How principals conceptualize PLCs generally and fit the role of the physical educator within this framework, may influence the socialization experiences of PE teachers, including how principals conceptualize and utilize them as a function of these structures. For example, if a principal embeds collaborative time within the school day, with associated accountability for results for some teacher teams and not others, there is a risk of subject marginalization and equity disparity. PE does not exist as an isolated entity but within a complex educational system, with each school site manifesting unique and local norms (Yurkofsky et al., 2020).
Although the school-based PLC framework is being implemented more widely, it is unclear how principals are conceptualizing and utilizing PLCs, particularly with respect to the way they view physical educator roles within these structures. This is problematic because the way principals utilize PLCs may be unwittingly contributing to PE teacher’s working conditions in negative (e.g., absence of common collaboration time) or positive (e.g., improved channels for advocacy toward student and programmatic outcomes) ways. Without an understanding of how PLCs are being implemented in schools, it is difficult to explore the potential consistencies, discrepancies, and expectations of PE teachers relative to faculty members of other disciplines. Moreover, it is challenging to prepare physical educators to be active participants in PLC formations when teacher education programs are unclear of the way physical educators are being socialized and conditioned for PLCs. Though theoretical analyses on school-based PLCs are copious, there remains a gap between the theoretical discussions around PLCs and the actual nature in which they are being conceptualized and implemented by school administrators.
The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate principal perceptions and applications of PLCs generally and how they interpret the roles of physical educators within these structures. Specifically, this exploration is driven by three research questions: (a) How do principals operationalize and implement the purposes and functions of PLCs within their schools? (b) What do principals perceive are the primary facilitators and inhibitors of a PLC culture? and (c) How do principals conceptualize the role of PE and physical educators within the larger school PLC culture?
Methodology
Context
The context is particularly important to the nature of the present investigation, including its overall purpose, research questions, and methodology. The summer prior to data collection (and 5 years before that), national PLC consultants provided regional principals a 2-day training relative to conducting successful school-based PLCs. In addition, each of the four representative districts wherein the principals were recruited had self-identified as a “PLC district” for the previous decade.
Given that PE represents a subcomponent of a broader sociopolitical school culture, the daily operations and norms associated with that culture can influence physical educator roles and perceptions (Beddoes et al., 2022). Therefore, it was salient to this study to first understand how principals were conceptualizing PLCs relative to their unique school context. This not only allowed for investigation of principal PLC perception consistencies or inconsistencies (as they had all received the same PLC training), but also shed light on the school context of the physical educator’s host organizations. Because a PLC is operationalized in this paper and within these participating schools as the entire school community (consisting of supportive content-specific, and grade-level expert teams; DuFour et al., 2016), principal perceptions of PE-PLCs (denoting PE teams within a school-based PLC) cannot be contextually divorced from the broader school culture, including principal expectations for the work of collaborative PLC teams across all content areas.
This study was conceptualized as an exploratory interview study designed to elicit principal perceptions around PLCs in elementary and secondary schools generally and physical education specifically. The nature of qualitative interviewing is inherently subjective (Creswell & Miller, 2000) given that, based on the data analysis, the researcher must make inferences as the primary instrument. Yet, qualitative interviewing is an acceptable method of data collection when the purpose of the research is to obtain deeper understanding or produce a theory of practice through inductive analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2016).
Participants and Setting
After securing institutional review board approval, purposeful sampling was used (Patton, 2002) to recruit 10 principals (n = 4 females) from eight elementary and two secondary schools (all names, districts, and schools within the study are displayed as pseudonyms) across four districts. Participants were recruited from known districts that utilized and trained principals within the same PLC framework (DuFour & DuFour, 2008). Districts and schools were selected for the purposeful recruitment of principals from across a variety of school demographics including grade levels, district and school size, race composition, and socioeconomic factors within the region where PLCs were utilized. District and school demographics for each participating principal are displayed in Table 1.
District and School Demographics of Principals
| Bantom | Holder | Louse | Olympus | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District and school demographics | ||||
| District enrollment (total students) | 597 | 3,855 | 6,269 | 3,056 |
| Classroom teachers (FTE) | 53.26 | 303.42 | 563.08 | 219.28 |
| Principle’s school | Grade span | Total students | Classroom teachers (FTE) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual school demographics | |||
| Bantor Elementary, Lydia | PK–5 | 257 | 23.12 |
| Erickson Elementary, Austin | PK–5 | 306 | 29.29 |
| Everest Elementary, Ronda | K–5 | 353 | 33.24 |
| Hamlin Elementary, Byron | PK–5 | 176 | 19.88 |
| Northern Lake Elementary, Rachel | PK–5 | 480 | 40.22 |
| Northern Elementary, Heather | PK–5 | 312 | 36.10 |
| State Street Elementary, Ryan | PK–5 | 305 | 24.84 |
| Holmgren Middle School, Rhett | 6–8 | 912 | 72.85 |
| Ofello High School, Shane | 9–12 | 949 | 64.04 |
| Low Ridge High School, Tim | 9–12 | 770 | 71.73 |
Abbreviations: FTE = full time employee; PK-5 = prekindergarten through 5th grade.
Data Sources
Researchers chose semistructured interviews as the primary methodology (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006) based on two factors. First, the allotted time for principal participation in this study was relatively limited. Second, interviews allowed for follow-up questions to provide clarity and expound upon the participant responses. Interviews were typically between 30 and 60 min in duration and utilized a combination of focused questions relative to the research purpose with opportunities for more in-depth exploration (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree).
Sample interview questions included:
- a.Describe how learning is prioritized at your school?
- b.How well do you feel your faculty work together and collaborate to increase learning?
- c.What do they discuss? What drives the PLC meetings?
- d.How are learning outcomes and teaching activities decided for PE?
- e.What is the role of assessment in learning? What type of evidence do teachers use for learning? Specifically in PE?
- f.Tell us about PE in your school? What are the purposes of PE and what do you hope students learn in PE?
Procedures
The researchers recruited principal participants via email. Upon acceptance, arrangements were made to meet with each principal during or after the school day. Each interview took place in the principal’s office during a scheduled time of the principal’s choosing. Data collection occurred over a 2-month timespan.
Researcher Positionality
One way to reduce research bias is through transparency relative to the positionality of the researchers (Creswell & Poth, 2016). As former coaches and teachers in the K–12 setting, each researcher has extensive empirical and theoretical experiences studying and participating in K–12 school-based PLCs. It is possible that the PLC experiences and conceptualizations of the researchers influenced the data analysis, interpretations, and suggested implications of the findings.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed via collaborative constant comparative data analysis (Richards & Hemphill, 2018). This approach to data analysis is particularly suitable for qualitative methodologies involving more than one researcher. In accordance with the recommendation of Richards and Hemphill (2018), the researchers utilized a multistep data analysis process. First, an initial planning and organization meeting was organized to discuss the research questions and intent of the study. Following data collection, both researchers independently utilized open and axial coding through multiple iterations, follow-up meetings, and discussions. Upon identification of initial themes, researchers developed and pilot-tested a codebook that was utilized for split coding the data set. Upon completion of the codebook, themes were finalized following the completion of coding and thematic analysis.
Trustworthiness
Given that interviews were the primary source of data collection, efforts to improve credibility included rigorous and iterative data analysis with constant data comparison via multiple researchers (investigator triangulation), peer debriefing with field notes (method triangulation) following each interview and consultation with a nationally recognized school-based PLC expert. The researchers also contacted principals via follow-up phone conversations for additional clarifications and questions relative to participant interview responses.
Results
Data analysis revealed three overarching themes: (a) PLCs are Centered on and Structured for Student Learning, (b) The Roles of Physical Educators Differ in Perception and Function, and (c) Successful PLCs are Facilitated by Team Trust and Disrupted by Drift.
The forgoing themes, in conjunction with their subthemes are described below.
PLCs Are Centered on and Structured for Student Learning
Whatever else may be accomplished during collaboration time, addressing the Four PLC Questions was paramount for the principals. Each principal highlighted the importance of identifying, solidifying, and continuously revisiting essential learning outcomes (PLC Question 1) and each reportedly invested considerable time reinforcing this process with their faculty. For example, Lydia, from Bantor Elementary School (PK–5), Bantom District, indicated:I think I would probably define a PLC as a group of educators collaborating and discussing about student learning, student objectives, and the ability for students to meet those objectives. Then decide where are they meeting those objectives, where aren’t they meeting those objectives; and then how are you going to respond whether they have met them or they haven’t me them collaboratively as a team.
The first key [PLC] question we spent a ton of time on, like three years probably developing our—making sure the curriculum is honed: “what do we want students to know?” and [developing] essential learning outcomes by every grade, every subject.
Once essential learning outcomes were firmly identified, the principals emphasized the importance of monitoring student learning via frequent, common, formative, and summative assessments with subsequent collaborative data analysis to iteratively inform instruction. As Rachel, from Northern Lake Elementary (K–5), Louse District, explained: “[Our teacher teams] really look at the [assessment] data and figure out where we need to go with kids (PLC Question 2). That’s kind of been a focus that we’ve had.” Heather, from Northern Elementary (PK–5), Olympus District expressed a similar focus on the student learning process: “What I like to see my teams do is set a goal, find an assessment tool, an informal assessment tool that addresses that goal, [then] monitor, adjust, monitor, adjust, until they [reach their goals].” Principals viewed instruction and assessment as equally necessary and cyclical to facilitating and monitoring student learning.
Accordingly, Rachel suggested the PE teachers in her school simply address learning needs in real time rather than having structured collaboration and intervention sessions afforded to other teachers. She stated, “[The PE teachers] kind of do that within their classroom and they kind of just differentiate on the fly, you know with the different kids in need. They don’t have an intervention time.”[Our PE teacher] doesn’t have a lot of chances for intentional PLC work but thankfully she’s a very good communicator and checks in with the other teammates in specials and with music and art, but then also communicates with teachers to get information about the kids.
Notwithstanding the principals’ reported efforts to create thriving PLC cultures focused on student learning, PE teacher roles within the PLCs were not necessarily congruent with their faculty peers.
The Roles of Physical Educators Differ in Perception and Function
The second theme centers specifically on principal conceptualizations of the roles of physical educators within the larger school PLC culture. Findings suggest that the principals viewed physical educators, their associated teams, and their roles in the school PLC community differently than the rest of the faculty in two significant ways: (a) Reinforcement of Learning for Other Content Areas and (b) General Wellness Promotion and Social Enhancement. Each are described as subthemes below.
Reinforcement of Learning for Other Content Areas
In a similar response, Lydia from Bantor Elementary (PK–5), Bantom District, said:We’re trying to [involve the PE teacher] a step further so that the [general education] teachers can actually talk about like, okay what are you working on in your classroom ... . What can the [physical education] teachers pull into their classroom to support where the kids are struggling [in other classes].
In terms of student learning of PE concepts within the school PLC culture, the principals were silent, even though each clearly indicated the overarching purpose of school-based PLCs was to improve student learning. This omission suggests a disconnect between a principal’s perceptions of the role of physical educators in a PLC compared with teachers from other disciplines.The PE teacher can work on things like counting and can have words written on the board and can have the colors—you’re the red group for the little ones, you’re the green group, and reinforce the things we’re teaching in the classroom.
Student Wellness and Social Development
When asked specifically about student “learning” in PE Lydia indicated:There are enough kids in this school that would benefit on a mental health level from movement and would benefit from the social skills. I just don’t know how to get us there yet, so that’s why I’m hoping our PE teacher can help us with that.
I think the physical release, I think that’s important. I think those very important cooperation and negotiation skills that you need to have. I think being able to lose and win gracefully [is important].
Lydia’s response suggests that meeting with the PE team is of lower priority than other content-specific teams. Together, the foregoing quotes from Heather, Lydia, and Rachel are representative of a broader theme from the principal interviews, which suggests that PE teacher roles in a PLC are inconsistent with the stated purposes of a school-based PLC and roles and expectations of other collaborative school teams.I guess I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever really sat in [a PE PLC meeting] for any length of time. I mean, I’m sure I have but it’s been, “hey, how’s it going” where the other ones I sit down [with the team].
Successful PLCs Are Facilitated by Team Trust and Disrupted by Drift
Providing the supportive organizational structures for PLCs to thrive (e.g., organized teams empowered to work as content experts with a common purpose, common collaboration time, PD and training about PLCs, principal serving as a facilitator and supporter) was viewed as essential to the principals. Yet, the provision of supportive structures addressed only half of the equation. For various reasons, each team reportedly carried unique, internal dynamics that facilitated or disrupted the PLC work. While some teams were “very successful,” as PLCs teams, others “struggled.” Thus, the challenge of navigating complex team dynamics was salient in the data analysis.
You have to have an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality for someone to feel like, um, like they could put something out there and be vulnerable ... that trust piece is foundational ... . It is just about accepting your role of being a PLC leader and fostering relationships with the pursuit of building trust [because] ... if trust [is] lost, it is hard to repair.
While principals referred to the need for trust and vulnerability in producing positive and productive PLC cultures, the central reported inhibitor was drift—denoting a gradual separation from core PLC concepts and responsibilities. Only one principal mentioned the word “drift,” but the sentiment represented a common theme across all interview data. Further data analysis revealed drift was influenced by three persistent disrupters: (a) teacher turnover, (b) fear of expressing vulnerability, and (c) personality conflict. Each of these disrupters are organized below as subthemes of drift.
Teacher Turnover
The sometimes-transient nature of education was troublesome to the participating principals. Investment of time, training, and resources in creating a collaborative culture, including the time demand in building trust among team members were all perceived as indispensable to fostering high functioning PLCs. The added labor of retraining, reinvesting in, and reorganizing teams was therefore identified as a source of drift. For example, lamenting the disruptive ripple effects of a high turnover rate at his school, Andy reported, “[We had] 30% turn over with the staff who had no idea [what to do in a PLC]. They weren’t a part of the original work; they weren’t a part of the original messaging.” Teacher turnover made it difficult for principals to simply reload when they felt they had to retrain. As a result, rather than progressing through The Four PLC Questions, often, teams were forced to revisit the First PLC Question repeatedly or risk drifting from the original purposes and goals the team had set as foundational to student learning.
Fear of Expressing Vulnerability
By nature, PLCs are vulnerable social arrangements. Often, members of a PLC must publicly critique their own work and student assessment results in the presence of faculty peers. According to the principals interviewed, the fear of vulnerability can be a difficult barrier for team members to overcome and thus cause a team to lose focus and prioritize routine tasks. Some teachers were reportedly reluctant to invest in data collection and analysis for fear of being judged by their peers if their students are not demonstrating high degrees of learning. For example, Byron admitted: “We have teachers that will purposely not give an assessment or change questions on a common assessment just so the data are not the same, because they are fearful of [what their colleagues may think].” Ronda, from Everest Elementary, Holder District, likewise suggested that one constant challenge is “getting teams to the point where they are comfortable sharing [their students’ work] with each other and being transparent about what’s working and what’s not working.”
I think the hardest thing with the PLC is moving from, “we love each other, here’s a cute idea, let’s try this cute idea” to “let’s have some critical conversations about what’s happening.” We’ve got a couple of teams who I think are at that critical conversation stage, but not all teams.
Navigating Conflict and Compromise
Heather provided additional insight into the interaction of personalities on PLC teams:I think the biggest issue for teams to overcome before they can become fully functional is personality conflict. Some of these teams came together where maybe two of the members had a [negative] history with each other.
You’re really relying on those interpersonal skills and being willing to compromise and give up a little bit of maybe what your philosophy is once you see the consensus among the team and being willing to yield to that consensus.
The principals were each committed to the collaborative learning process, and each endorsed PLC teams as primarily organized to enhance student learning. Yet, the humanness involved in facilitating this process (e.g., frequent collaboration, negotiation, and compromise) was an obvious source of frustration for the principals. It was apparent from the data analysis that the slow drift away from core PLC concepts and responsibilities was a primary barrier or setback to PLC success. Teacher turnover, the fear of being vulnerable, and the inevitable navigation of conflict and compromise all appeared to contribute to some teams drifting away from a central focus on student learning.
Discussion
Principals facilitate and sustain the socializing conditions and expectations wherein PLCs operate in schools (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). This paper explored how principals conceptualized and utilized PLCs school-wide and how they interpreted the roles of physical educators within the PLC framework. Qualitative data analysis revealed three themes in conjunction with supportive subthemes: (a) PLCs are Centered on and Structured for Student Learning, (b) The Roles of Physical Educators Differ in Perception and Function, and (c) Successful PLCs are Facilitated by Team Trust and Disrupted by Drift. The following sections explore implications from these findings for principals, school PE programs, and PE teacher education.
What Principals and Physical Educators Must Accomplish Together
All participating principals identified PLCs as structured formations, organized to facilitate student learning via teacher collaboration and improvement. This is not surprising considering the prioritization of student learning (not simply teaching) is the bedrock principle upon which the Dufour and Eaker (1998) PLC model rests. However, physical educators did not appear to be held to the same standard of accountability in facilitating learning within their own field of expertise. Rather, the PE teachers were valued for their abilities to reinforce learning in other subject areas (Klatt et al., 2022) and create a school climate of wellness and movement.
Certainly, the important roles of PE teachers extend beyond the gym, for example, physical activity promotion across the school day. Yet, in an era of escalating accountability and neoliberal policy in education (Lawson et al., 2021), PE is at risk of being progressively pushed aside unless it produces hard data—evidence of student learning and development. Broadly speaking, the findings from this study carry implications for principals and PE professionals. These can be introduced by suggesting two related calls to action. First, principals must understand the purposes and measurable outcomes of PE and then provide equitable support and accountability for PE teachers to demonstrate student learning. Second, physical educators must become skilled at teaching administrators and colleagues what PE is, does, and provides young people—and then demand/earn the same level of professional respect, support, and accountability as other teachers. These actions must be accomplished jointly by principals and physical educators through affective advocacy efforts, driven by the documentation of student learning. Each of these calls to action are further described below.
Principal Responsibilities
The principal is primarily responsible for setting and maintaining the culture of the school (DuFour & DuFour, 2008). PLC authorities are explicit that the site principal is the catalyst for high functioning school-based PLCs (DuFour et al., 2016). This includes establishing systems of accountability for all teacher teams. Because a principal’s range of responsibilities precludes complete involvement in all content or grade-level teams, they may elect to spend more time and resources with the academic subjects (and thereby know more about these disciplines). This is particularly true when state funding formulas are tied to student performance on high stakes standardized testing in subjects like mathematics and language arts (Beddoes et al., 2022).
Notwithstanding the temptation of spending most of the allotted time engaging with classroom teachers, principals should reserve equitable time and resources for all school disciplines (Mattos et al., 2016). These efforts include voluntarily attending various collaboration meetings, meeting individually with the PE team leader, understanding the learning outcomes and common assessments the team has established, providing support, and reserving equitable contracted collaboration time for all teacher teams. Furthermore, the principal should prioritize accountability and hold to a results-orientation for all teacher teams. While physical educators can provide utility for a host of school responsibilities, a principal must view them foremost as teachers who facilitate student learning of essential learning outcomes (Beddoes et al., 2022). In short, a principal must understand and value the importance of a quality PE in the development of young people and then provide the embedded supports and accountability for teachers to accomplish it.
If principals are unsure of the purposes and learning outcomes of PE, there can be little formal accountability for those outcomes. This potentially reduces the central PLC component of results-orientation to a physical educator’s ability to keep students managed and moving or fulfill other school needs ancillary to PE. Alas, the principal has no pressing incentive to engage with the PE teachers on behalf of student learning, nor provide the structural support (e.g., contracted collaboration time, PD, financial resources, time for intervention) necessary for effective PLC engagement.
PE Professional’s Responsibilities
Although principals should provide equitable support and accountability for all teachers under their respective stewardships, it cannot be assumed that this will occur naturally or without consistent, intentional effort on behalf of all PE professionals. These efforts can be described within two related categories: (a) prioritizing assessment literacy and the documentation of student learning for teacher and program accountability, and (b) educating and advocating with evidence of student learning.
Prioritizing Assessment Literacy and the Documentation of Student Learning
In PLCs, teacher teams iteratively work through a results cycle (DuFour et al., 2016) comprised of identifying common learning objectives, designing common assessments, monitoring student learning, and making curricular decisions based on student assessment results (Beddoes et al., in press). Unfortunately, there is extensive evidence that physical educators often lack the relevant socializing experiences necessary for engaging in this results cycle because of a lack of assessment literacy (Starck et al., 2018; DinanThompson & Penney, 2015).
Assessment literacy in PE includes understanding how and when to implement student assessments, how to interpret assessment data, and subsequent informed decision making to accelerate student learning (Hay & Penney, 2012). Several scholars have bemoaned the lack of assessment literacy as it relates to student learning outcomes in PE (Hay & Penney, 2009, Lund & Veal, 2008, Starck et al., 2018).
Assessment literacy deficits also carry programmatic accountability implications. This is one reason the twin research interests of assessment literacy and accountability in PE continues to grow (AISEP, 2020). Accelerated by the ‘neoliberal invasion’ (private sector business models based on competition and outsourcing of programs infiltrate higher education and K–12 schools; Ward et al., 2021; Sperka & Enright, 2018), there are increasing expectations for outcomes-oriented accountability (e.g., evidence of student leaprivate sector business models based on competition and outsourcing of programs infiltrate higher education and K-12 schoolsrning and program effectiveness; Lawson, 2020). If physical educators and their teams are unable or unwilling to provide evidence-based justifications for their programs (e.g., student learning and development), neoliberalism’s cost/benefit demands may deem PE as a “frill”—distantly connected to the mission of schools (Ward et al., 2021).
Providing evidence-based justifications is likely to require, at least in the initial stages, a posture of self-accountability (van der Mars et al., 2021). PEs’ marginalized history is akin to a double-edged sword. Even though the external lack of accountability for student learning can be comfortable for both physical educators and principals, it can also lead to program casualty if not confronted because PEs’ perceived importance can be pushed progressively further from the central mission of schools.
The documentation of student learning in PE may not correspond precisely with other disciplines. The unique blend of three learning domains (psychomotor, cognitive, affective) can yield inimitable approaches to assessment practices and gathering evidence of student learning (e.g., enhanced social and emotional learning through physical activity, physical activity and health indicators, applications of health-related fitness, etc.). Because a PLC is data-driven and results-oriented (DuFour et al., 2016), physical educators must be able to play this game or risk being reduced to vague and unspecified school roles in promoting harmony and wellness, as suggested by the results from this study. Principals must be taught what constitutes student learning in PE. It cannot be assumed that they are familiar with, or even value learning within the PE space. When documented and disseminated effectively, multiple forms of evidence can be powerful tools for local advocacy with principals and faculty peers (Beddoes et al., 2021; Pennington et al., 2023).
Educating and Advocating With Evidence of Student Learning
Each participating principal in the present study conceptualized a physical educators’ role in a PLC as a supporter of learning in subjects other than PE. Though the principals acknowledged the important role of social development promotion and wellness facilitation, student acquisition of PE outcomes was omitted in the interview responses. This highlights the importance for physical educators to advocate for PE based upon its unique developmental opportunities for young people; in short, focused advocacy for PE for the sake of PE and not simply as a tool for reinforcing concepts from other disciplines.
Beddoes et al. (2021) and Pennington et al. (2023) provided a model through which a PE-PLC can utilize student and programmatic assessment data for driving local advocacy efforts targeting social promotion and policy development. Collectively, physical educators may need to educate administrators, colleagues, and parents on the importance of PE outcomes in service to the broader school mission. School personnel may carry misunderstandings or negative attitudes toward PE based on their socialization experiences as students in PE (Richards et al., 2014). Therefore, it is vital for physical educators to educate and advocate for the importance of student learning and acquisition of essential PE outcomes.
Beddoes et al. (2022) described how a middle school PE team engaged in successful local advocacy efforts through full participation in the school-based PLC. This team invited the school principal and other teachers to their content-specific meetings and established positive relationships with their school faculty. They also lead the school-wide effort to implement standards-based grading, which included training other teachers in the school and district to more effectively align instruction and assessment practices with standards-based grading.
The development of the complimentary competencies associated with assessment literacy and advocacy cannot be dismissed as ancillary proficiencies for PE teachers (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015; Lund, 1992). Data speaks to decision makers, specifically school administration. The efficient and effective collection and dissemination of evidence of student learning may be an invaluable skill for local advocacy efforts (Pennington et al., 2023) because those data can support the value-added importance of PE.
Preparation for PLC Drift in PE Teacher Education
This section explores implications for PE relative to the second theme.
Participants in this study expressed concern over the frequent lack of team cohesion based on turnover rates, fear of vulnerability, and personality conflicts, which caused some teams to drift from the primary purposes and functions of PLCs. In addition to teacher turnover challenges, adult drama (DuFour et al., 2016) can quickly erode the goodwill of any PLC team. Though not exclusive to PE-PLCs, the concept of drift is applicable for physical educators.
A PLC is an emotional collective action formation (Lawson et al., 2021). Through various lived experiences, each member of the team carries unique and subjective attitudes (what team members believe and feel), behaviors (what team members do), and cognitions (how team members think), which may create tensions that must be navigated (Salas et al., 2018). The adult drama caused by the intersection of attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions PE may curtail student learning and restrain crucial collective advocacy efforts.
Scholars in psychology observe that most adults have never received a formal education in understanding and managing their own emotions and thereby lack healthy emotional intelligence (Brackett et al., 2011). The lack of emotional intelligence or social and emotional learning among adults presents barriers for collective action within PLCs. Recently, Beddoes and Jones (2022) suggested that PE teacher education programs intentionally embed opportunities for meaningful collective action, decision making, and conflict resolution across both coursework and field experiences. Effective collaboration is a skill, forged through time and practice (Lawson, 2004). Prospective teachers could benefit from more intentional training relative to collaboration, including how to effectively navigate conflict and compromise in a PLC team setting. As collaboration in schools continues to replace isolationism, Dillard (2016) argued that collaborative skills must be modeled, taught, and prioritized in all teacher preparation programs.
Conclusion
It is important to consider that PE is influenced by multiple socializing factors, trends, restraints, and opportunities that impact the broader education system. An important socializing agent in schools is the principal. Principals are positioned to facilitate or restrict collaborative school-based PLC cultures based on their conceptualization and implementation of these structures. As members of the school community, physical educators are likely influenced by the type of PLC culture principals foster. To this point, there is a lack of principal perspectives and practices relative to PE programs and teachers. Research involving principals, PLCs, and physical educators is particularly scarce. Yet, the working conditions and culture of teachers is strongly reflective of principal beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (DuFour et al., 2016). If physical educators are to thrive in collaborative PLCs, it is important to understand principal perceptions of PLCs and then be able to advocate collectively and articulately on behalf of students relative to specific, essential, PE learning outcomes.
Limitations
There are limitations associated with this study. Though exploratory in nature, only 10 principals volunteered to participate. A larger number of principal participants may have influenced or clarified the findings. Likewise, this investigation was delimited as an interview study. Data analysis was restricted to interview transcriptions. However, data analysis revealed informative themes that contribute to the body of research on PLCs and PE while potentially informing future research.
References
AISEP. (2020). AISEP position statement on physical education assessment. https://aiesep.org/scientific-meetings/position-statements/
Armour, K., Quennerstedt, M., Chambers, F., & Makopoulou, K. (2017). What is “effective” CPD for contemporary physical education teachers? A Deweyan framework. Sport, Education and Society, 22(7), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1083000
Beddoes, Z., & Jones, E. (2022). Enhancing collective action in physical education teacher education: A three-pathways approach. Quest, 74(2), Article 590. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2022.2085590
Beddoes, Z., Prusak, K., Beighle, A., & Pennington, T. (2021). Utilizing school-based, professional learning communities to enhance physical education programs and facilitate systems change (Part 2). Quest, 73(3), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2021.1927632
Beddoes, Z., Prusak, K.A., & Hall, A. (2014). Overcoming marginalization of physical education in America’s schools with professional learning communities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85(4), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.884432
Beddoes, Z., Prusak, P., Barney, D., & Pennington, T. (in press). Attending to the emotional side of professional learning communities (PLCs) by cultivating positive team dynamics. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Beddoes, Z., Sazama, D., & Starck, J. (2022). “I wish I had had you as a PE teacher”: Physical educators’ experiences in a professional learning community. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 41(1), Article 177. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0177
Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00334.x
Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B.F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
Dillard, H.K. (2016). Pre-service training in professional learning communities benefits novice teacher. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 9(2), 1–13.
DinanThompson, M., & Penney, D. (2015). Assessment literacy in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 21(4), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x15584087
DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at Work®: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T.W., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for Professional Learning Communities at WorkTM : An actionable guide to implementing the PLC process and effective teaching methods (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities. National Educational Service.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(1), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Goodyear, V.A. (2017). Sustained professional development on cooperative learning: Impact on six teachers’ practices and students’ learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 88(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1263381
Goodyear, V.A., Casey, A., & Kirk, D. (2014). Tweet me, message me, like me: Using social media to facilitate pedagogical change within an emerging community of practice. Sport, Education and Society, 19(7), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2013.858624
Goodyear, V.A., Parker, M., & Casey, A. (2019). Social media and teacher professional learning communities. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(5), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1617263
Hargreaves, A. (2019). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations, and effects. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2009). Proposing conditions for assessment efficacy in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x09364294
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2012). Assessment in physical education: A sociocultural perspective. Routledge.
Hills, A.P., Dengel, D.R., & Lubans, D.R. (2015). Supporting public health priorities: Recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 57(4), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2014.09.010
Hord, S.M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. Teachers College Press.
Joyce, B.R., & Showers, B. (1981). Transfer of training: The contribution of “coaching.” Journal of Education, 163(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748116300208
Klatt, M., Beddoes, Z., & Starck, J. (2022). For once I felt useful: A self-study of a physical education teacher navigating school culture through professional learning communities during induction. Studying Teacher Education. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2022.2119553
Lawson, H.A. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820410001731278
Lawson, H.A. (2020). The physical education system as a consequential social determinant. Quest, 72(1), 72–84.
Lawson, H.A., Jones, E., Beddoes, Z., Estes, S., Morris, S.A., Mitchell, M.F., ... Ward, P. (2021). Collective action for learning, improvement, and redesign. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(3), 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0246
Lounsbery, M.A., McKenzie, T.L., Trost, S., & Smith, N.J. (2011). Facilitators and barriers to adopting evidence-based physical education in elementary schools. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8(Suppl. 1), S17–S25. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.8.s1.s17
Lund, J. (1992). Assessment and accountability in secondary physical education. Quest, 44(3), 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1992.10484061
Lund, J.L., & Veal, M.L. (2008). Measuring pupil learning-How do student teachers assess within instructional models? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(4), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.27.4.487
Mattos, M.W., DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T.W. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree Australia Pty Limited.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. Teachers College Press.
Muhammad, A., & Cruz, L.F. (2019). Time for change: Four essential skills for transformational school and district leaders. Solution Tree Press.
Patton, K., Parker, M., & Neutzling, M.M. (2012). Tennis shoes required: The role of the facilitator in professional development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(4), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.5641/027013612804582678
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Pennington, T., Prusak, K., & Beddoes, Z. (2023). Preparing successful advocates through PETE programs: A framework for advocacy in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 94(2), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2022.2146608
Prothero, A. (2015). Continuous learning key for principals. Education Week, 34(18), 10–11.
Richards, K.A.R., & Hemphill, M.A. (2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084
Richards, K.A.R., Templin, T.J., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Blankenship, B.T. (2014). Understanding differences in role stressors, resilience, and burnout in teacher/coaches and non-coaching teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(3), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0159
Salas, E., Reyes, D.L., & McDaniel, S.H. (2018). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. American Psychologist, 73(4), Article 593. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000334
Sperka, L., & Enright, E. (2018). The outsourcing of health and physical education: A scoping review. European Physical Education Review, 24(3), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x17699430
Starck, J.R., Richards, K.A.R., & O’Neil, K. (2018). A conceptual framework for assessment literacy: Opportunities for physical education teacher education. Quest, 70(4), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2018.1465830
van der Mars, H., Lawson, H.A., Mitchell, M., & Ward, P. (2021). Reversing policy neglect in US physical education: A policy-focused primer. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0240
Voelkel, R.H., Jr., & Chrispeels, J.H. (2017). Understanding the link between professional learning communities and teacher collective efficacy. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement, 28(4), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1299015
Ward, P., Lawson, H.A., van der Mars, H., & Mitchell, M.F. (2021). 21st century physical education in the United States: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(3), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0239
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard business press.
Yurkofsky, M.M., Peterson, A.J., Mehta, J.D., Horwitz-Willis, R., & Frumin, K.M. (2020). Research on continuous improvement: Exploring the complexities of managing educational change. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 403–433. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20907363
