What goes unspoken in this conversation is teachers or teams saying they will put a whole lot of effort and time into supporting the lowest-performing students (as they rightly should), but not worry too much about the students already at the top academic end of their class. Students who “already know it” become an afterthought. Yet, going back to the first big idea of a PLC, a focus on high levels of learning for all, we must ensure all includes students who are already proficient. By not advancing and discussing these students, teams do not ensure this cohort learns at high levels. In fact, these students may learn nothing at all if the standard at the center of instruction is already part of their knowledge base. Yet, when teams meet to discuss formative data, these students are often sorted into an “already proficient” pile and then summarily ignored—or, worse, given more of the same work, usually in the form of a worksheet containing content they have already mastered. Or, instead of using a worksheet, teams may place these students at a computer for self-paced work to keep them busy and allow teachers to concentrate on students who are not yet proficient on a given standard. This occurs because the focus of the school, district, or state is often to lower the number of nonproficient students, not to push those already exceeding to deeper levels of learning (Ballou & Springer, 2011).
To meet these outside expectations, even well-meaning teachers who strive to ensure all students are learning at their highest levels often feel they have little choice but to hyperfocus on students who are below grade level. This leaves little time for extensions that would keep the high-performing students engaged and active. However, the work of a grade-level collaborative team is not complete, or really has not even begun, until the team members address question 4. After all, how can students who are already proficient remain engaged and excited to come to school every day if they are routinely ignored? It does not take very long for these bright students to realize that if they are scoring in the already proficient range, they will be ignored or assigned busywork. That, in their minds, frees them for the off-task behavior they may already have a predilection for (Galbraith & Delisle, 2015) or feeds a fixed mindset that they are already smart enough and do not need to continue learning (Dweck, 2016).
This flies in the face of the second big idea of a PLC: “Educators must work collectively and take collective responsibility for the success of each student” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 11). DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2010) explain, “One of the consistent messages student convey in surveys of their schooling experience is that their schools fail to challenge them” (p. 212). If students become unengaged with school because teachers do not push or challenge them, they will not succeed to their highest potential academically and interpersonally, so it is vital that collaborative teams accept the responsibility of the second big idea. Educators need to work as a team to find what John Hattie and Klaus Zierer (2018) refer to as the Goldilocks Principle, instruction that is “just right” in providing enough challenge to keep proficient students engaged without the work being so difficult that it leads to frustration.
Success for already proficient students ties directly into the third big idea of a PLC: a results orientation, which is largely dependent on establishing SMART goals (DuFour et al., 2016). Appropriate learning goals for question 4 students might include being able to connect concepts related to an essential standard’s learning to new information they learn while working on an extension standard, or being able to apply their learning on the extension standard to a real-life situation not addressed in class. Whatever the extension is, teams need to gather data from assessments. This will allow teachers to monitor students’ success and ensure that they are not misapplying the concepts they already understand, which happens on occasion. This intentional analysis of extension data will also allow teachers to measure the effectiveness of a given extension.
What Must We Do to Ensure Collaborative Work That Creates Meaningful Extensions?
Central to the philosophy of PLCs is working collaboratively. To ensure question 4 receives the attention it deserves and teachers create the highest-quality extensions, educators must look honestly at some current practices that subtly and not so subtly push teachers away from working as a team to build extensions for students. For example, Teacher of the Year awards and parents’ requests for their children to be assigned to specific teachers are just two ways the education business has raised a few teachers above others. Although teachers are not directly competing against each other for these honors, some teachers take tremendous pride in having the most parent requests or receiving a district award year after year. Teachers cannot collaborate if they are focused on competing with one another for these accolades. These systems are just as detrimental to question 4 students as providing more work or self-paced work, as they encourage teachers to think and operate as individuals instead of interdependent team members. Individual teachers going it alone can prevent many question 4 students from feeling challenged. Gayle Gregory, Martha Kaufeldt, and Mike Mattos (2016) remind us that “there is no way an individual teacher has all the time, all the skills, and all the knowledge necessary to meet every student’s individual needs” (p. 16). John Hattie (2009) echoes that assertion, arguing that teachers need to work collaboratively, debating and investigating best practices to help students achieve at their fullest potential.
All educators want to be appreciated for their hard work. Unfortunately, teachers in many districts have learned that for their work to be recognized, they must create flashy projects or experiences for students. Often, as witnessed in my work in schools, projects sold as extensions lack a fundamental grounding in essential standards, do not have focused learning targets, and bring a tremendous workload for the individual teacher who must complete additional tasks such as securing and organizing community volunteers, obtaining materials, securing permission paperwork, and creating props. These types of projects can consume teachers’ already limited time, further reducing their availability to address question 4 in a meaningful way. What’s more, they don’t utilize the collaborative work essential to functioning in a PLC.
Being a collaborative team that is part of a PLC means putting students’ needs first, ahead of any adult ego or need to be the teacher everyone asks for. In a truly collaborative culture, team members work together, each contributing to make these flashy lessons more substantive, establish clearer learning targets, and guarantee student learning. A team of teachers can more readily ensure that students are truly extended and supported as they deepen their learning.
Summary
Throughout this book, I return to the theme that question 4 students, if presented with poorly planned or ineffective extensions, are just as much at risk of not succeeding in school as students who are not yet proficient on a given standard. Teachers must work in effective, interdependent, collaborative teams to plan and execute effective extensions to truly answer critical question 4 of a PLC: “How will we extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency?” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 59).
Remember as you progress through the book that when I refer to question 4 students or proficient students, I am not talking about identified gifted students. While gifted students often fall into the “already proficient” grouping, they may be below proficiency in some standards. In those standards, they need the same instruction and intervention supports as every other student. Similarly, students not identified as gifted often can demonstrate proficiency at any time, and when they do, they need to be extended. Proficient students refers to students who have demonstrated proficiency on a given standard regardless of any associated label.
Collaborative Team Reflection
Teams may reflect on the following four questions to support their collaborative work around responding to critical question 4.
1. What is critical question 4 of a PLC? How might answering this question in an authentic way change your team’s collaborative meetings?
2. How often do we run out of time to answer