Just do it

Article

Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis: Antecedents of professional learning communities

Julie Gray, Sharon Kruse and C. John Tarter

Abstract This study tested the role of enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis in the development of professional learning communities (PLCs) in a low-income school district. The empirical study was based upon the perceptions of teachers and principals as provided by survey responses (N ¼ 67 schools). While enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis simultaneously contributed to the explanation of PLCs, only structure and trust had a unique effect on PLCs with structure having the larger contribution.

Keywords academic emphasis, collegial trust, enabling school structures, professional learning communities

Introduction

Historically, educational research has looked to organizational structure as a key variable for

understanding school change (Hargreaves and Goodson, 2006). Indeed, the history of the ‘restruc-

turing’ movement of the 1990s suggests that practitioners and researchers alike have long sought a

structure that might assist educators to achieve educational goals (Hipp et al., 2008; Hord, 1997,

2004; Louis and Marks, 1998; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001, 2006). Since then research has

focused on the relationship between school structure and school success, primarily attending to

posited relationships between structures and student learning, teacher effectiveness, trust and other

salient outcomes (Bottery, 2003; Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Cosner, 2009; Honig and Hatch, 2004;

Little and Curry, 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2004).

Of particular interest has been the study of professional learning communities (PLCs). Litera-

ture concerning the development of PLCs suggests that when functioning effectively, the structure

Corresponding author:

Julie Gray, School of Education, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Building 85, Pensacola,

FL 32514, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2016, Vol. 44(6) 875–891 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1741143215574505 emal.sagepub.com

can have positive effects on student achievement and academic progress (Bryk et al., 1999; Gray,

2011; Louis and Marks, 1998; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2003; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008). How-

ever, while there is much in the prescriptive professional literature extolling the virtue of the PLC,

little is understood about how effective PLCs are cultivated and developed (Louis and Marks,

1998; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2003; Spillane, 2005; Supovitz, 2002). Furthermore due to poor

implementation and/or efforts to sustain collegiality and focus (Hipp and Huffman, 2010; Hord and

Tobia, 2012) PLCs have been found to fail in producing intended results. However, other work

(Gray, 2011) has demonstrated that as a school improvement model, PLCs offer educators a struc-

ture to improve school culture and climate and increase student achievement. Finally, the literature

suggests that PLCs promote teachers’ sense of professionalism, collegial trust, participation in

shared decision making and collaboration (Gray, 2011; Hipp and Huffman, 2010; Hord, 1997,

2004, 2007, 2009; Huffman and Hipp, 2003; Kruse and Louis, 1993a, 1993b; Kruse et al.,

1994; Louis and Kruse, 1995; Lieberman and Miller, 2008; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001,

2006; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008).

We will explore the role of enabling school structures (ESS), collegial trust (CT) and academic

emphasis (AE) in the development of PLCs in a low-income school district. The formal aspects of the

school will be represented by enabling school structures while the informal aspects will be character-

ized by the variables collegial trust and academic emphasis, based upon the perceptions of teachers and

principals as provided by survey responses (N ¼ 67 schools). Previous research has established that each of these factors is essential to the development, maintenance and sustenance of PLCs (Gray,

2011; Wu et al., 2012; Hord, 2009).

Theoretical Framework

This study hypothesizes that enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis will

individually and jointly predict the development of professional learning communities. While there

is emerging research about collegial trust, enabling school structures and academic emphasis, to

our knowledge, none has been applied in context to PLCs (Hipp et al., 2008; Hord, 1997, 2004;

Hord and Summers, 2008; Huffman and Hipp, 2003; Louis and Kruse, 1995; McLaughlin and Tal-

bert, 2001, 2006). It is our hope that the current study will further expand the theoretical knowledge

base through empirical data and inform classroom practice in low-performing schools.

PLCs are promoted as a major restructuring effort for schools and contributor to increased stu-

dent achievement (Hipp et al., 2008; Hord, 1997, 2004; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001, 2006).

Employing the foundational literature described above, in this study we are making assumptions

that PLCs are an effective approach to school improvement, ESS provides the structure to enhance

PLCs, academic emphasis is an important characteristic of the school vision and mission, and

finally that collegial trust is an essential aspect of PLCs.

An enabling school structure (ESS) represents the teachers’ belief that the administration and

rules of the school help them in their work (Hoy and Sweetland, 2001). Hoy and Miskel (2008:

110) assert ‘an enabling school structure is a hierarchy that helps rather than hinders and a system

of rules and regulations that guides problem solving rather than punishes failure’. In enabling

schools teachers and leaders work cooperatively and resolve issues through shared decision mak-

ing; thus, providing structure and support that helps teachers to do their jobs more effectively (Wu

et al., 2012).

Collegial trust is the faculty belief ‘that teachers can depend on one another in a difficult situ-

ation; teachers can rely on the integrity of their colleagues’ (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998:

876 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

342). Collegial trust is based upon the teacher’s willingness to be vulnerable to his fellow teachers,

while trust in principal varies because of the power structure of the organization and supervisory

role of the principal over the teacher (Gray, 2011; Hoy, 2012). Principals need to understand that ‘a

culture of school trust is often as important as socioeconomic level in promoting learning and . . . a necessary essential condition for effective professional learning communities’ (Hoy and Tarter,

2012).

Finally, academic emphasis is the ‘extent to which the school is driven by a quest for academic

excellence’ (Hoy et al., 1991: 62). Teachers, parents and school leaders set high academic goals for

students (Hoy et al., 1991). Academic emphasis was ‘positively related to school achievement even

after controlling for SES’ (Hoy et al., 1991). In short, goals are set for students that are high but

possible to attain, a safe and orderly learning environment is established, and students value aca-

demic achievements (Hoy et al., 1991; Hoy et al., 2006; Hoy and Miskel, 2008). Hoy describes

academic emphasis as an essential property that affects student achievement despite the socioeco-

nomic status and level of the school (Hoy, 2012).

In the almost twenty years since the PLC framework was first developed, others (Hord and

Summers, 2008; Huffman and Hipp, 2003; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001, 2006; Olivier and Hipp,

2010) have suggested that the conditions included in the original work may well be more complex

and as such, while necessary for the development of PLCs, are not sufficient to ensure success.

Salient to the current study, and in keeping with the history of PLC research, enabling school struc-

tures are represented by the structural conditions, collegial trust by social support, and academic

emphasis and collective efficacy by the characteristics and benefits.

Conceptual Framework

Organizational Learning – the Origin of Professional Learning Communities

Senge (1990) introduced the concept of organizational learning as a different type of ‘organiza-

tional structure’ to address a changing society. He (1990: 3) defines a learning organization as a

place ‘where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire . . . where people are continually learning how to learn together’. Applying the construct to schools,

Hoy asserts organizational policies, practices and procedures that promote trusting relationships

among colleagues, and encourage active problem solving enable organizational learning (Hoy,

2002). Additional work by Hoy and Sweetland (2007: 361), hypothesizes ‘that enabling school

structures are important to the development of effective learning organizations’. Furthermore, Ser-

rat (2009) asserts that organizational learning improves the overall health of the school in the

development of shared goals and values, opportunities for teacher leadership, more open commu-

nication between colleagues, and constructive problem solving. In schools, the constructs of orga-

nizational learning are posited to operate with a professional learning community (Hord, 1997;

Louis and Kruse, 1995; Kruse et al., 1994; Olivier, Hipp, and Huffman, 2010).

Professional Learning Communities

For this study we selected the Hord (1997) definition as the best fit as its research led to the devel-

opment of the Professional Learning Communities Assessment – Revised (PLCA-R) instrument,

which was implemented to gather empirical data (Olivier et al., 2010; Appendix A). SEDL (South-

west Educational Development Laboratory) credits Hord with the development of the term profes-

sional learning communities in the 1990s, which is accepted by many researchers in the field of

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 877

education (Hord, 1997). Hord defines a professional learning community as a collegial group of

faculty and staff who are united in their commitment to student learning (Hord, 1997).

According to Hord, PLCs encompass these common characteristics: supportive and shared lead-

ership, collective creativity, shared values and vision, supportive conditions and shared personal

practice (Hord, 1997). For teachers to be willing to take risks and try new instructional strategies,

they must feel supported to do such (Kruse et al., 1994). As teachers are more involved in shared

decision making and collegial relationships, expectations are more formalized, and professional

activity among teachers is encouraged, they tend to perceive the school to be more effective (Mis-

kel et al., 1979). ‘In order for students and teachers to benefit from empowerment, a professional

community must develop among teachers, one committed to fundamental change in teaching prac-

tices’ (Kruse et al., 1994).

The conceptual framework for this study is based upon early work in PLCs that established that

certain structural conditions are important in the development of an effective PLC: time to talk and

meet, physical proximity, interdependent teaching roles, communication structures, teacher

empowerment and school autonomy (Kruse et al., 1994; Louis and Kruse, 1995). Further, certain

social and human resources are critical to PLC development to include openness to improvement,

trust and respect, cognitive and skill base, supportive leadership and socialization, which will be

considered in the form of collegial trust (Louis and Kruse, 1995). For this study enabling school

structures will represent the formal structure, that which supports teachers performing their instruc-

tional tasks more effectively. While the informal aspects of the school will include teacher percep-

tions of collegial trust and academic emphasis, these relate to the social and human resources

needed to support the development of the PLC (Louis and Kruse, 1995).

Enabling School Structures

Enabling school structures represent the teachers’ belief that the rules and administration of the

school help them in doing their work (Hoy, 2002, 2012; Hoy and Sweetland, 2000, 2001). While

we acknowledge the complexities of the construct of enabling school structures, the variability of

ways to measure such, and given the parameters of this study, we found the Hoy and Sweetland

(2000) definition to be the most appropriate for our purposes. By definition, all formal organiza-

tions are centralized to some degree, that is, they all have administrative decision making. Simi-

larly, all formal organizations are formalized to some degree; that is, they all have written rules

and regulations. The conceptual importance of enabling structure is the recognitions that some

bureaucratic arrangements contribute to the effectiveness of the organization – enabling – and

some do not – hindering.

Hoy (2002: 91) asserts that enabling school structure is built upon a ‘hierarchy of authority and a

system of rules and regulations that help rather than hinder the teaching learning mission of the

school’. Enabling structures allow teachers to solve problems with the support of the principal who

encourages openness and professionalism (Hoy and Sweetland, 2007). In contrast, hindering

school structures are more tightly controlled or managed by the principal (Hoy, 2002). In all orga-

nizations the formalization of the organization ranges along a continuum from hindering to

enabling (Hoy, 2002).

Miskel et al. (1979: 114) summarize that teachers who viewed their school as effective were

‘characterized by (a) more participative organizational processes, (b) less centralized decision

making structures, (c) more formalized general rules, and (d) more complexity or high professional

activity’. Hoy and Sweetland (2007: 362–363) assert that for schools to improve there must be a

878 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

‘structure that enables participants to do their jobs more creatively, cooperatively, and

professionally’.

In respect to the development of the professional learning community, we assert that the

enabling school structures are operationalized by opportunities for teachers to meet and collabora-

tively plan lessons together, the development of interdependent teaching roles and regularly sched-

uled time for professional development (Louis and Kruse, 1995). The principal facilitates these

structures within the organization by fostering shared decision making and encouraging collabora-

tion among teachers. In turn, these enabling structures provide teachers with a sense of support and

a positive culture that ‘emphasizes trust, efficacy, and academics’ (Wu et al., 2012) and increases

teacher empowerment and dignity (Louis and Kruse, 1995).

Collegial Trust

Supporting social and human resource conditions of the professional learning community are col-

legial trust and academic emphasis. Trust has long been posited as essential in the development of

collegial relationships (Cohen, 1988; Firestone and Rosenblum, 1988; Louis and Kruse, 1995).

Certainly, research in the last 25 years has established trust as an important organizational factor

in schools (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Forsyth et al., 2011; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999,

2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998). Collegial trust is the faculty

belief ‘that teachers can depend on one another in a difficult situation; teachers can rely on the

integrity of their colleagues’ (Hoy and Kupersmith, 1985: 2). Again, we acknowledge the com-

plexities of the construct of trust, in particular teacher trust in colleagues. Trust can be measured

by a variety of constructs, however we selected the Hoy and Tschannen-Moran definition for the

sake of this study as the most appropriate construct.

Hoy (2012: 78) asserts ‘faculty trust was conceived as the collective belief that the word and

promise of another individual or group could be relied upon, and further, that the trusted party would

act in the best interest of the faculty’. Hoy and Tschannen-Moran characterized the five facets of

trust: benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 2003). In other

words those who view their colleagues as honest, open, competent, reliable and professional will tend

to have more trust in their colleagues. In the midst of change, trust plays an important role as teachers

view their fellow educators as invested in the process of improving the school (Louis and Kruse,

1995). In the same manner in which professionals trust each other, they need to share a common

belief in the ability of their students in the form of academic emphasis.

Academic Emphasis

Academic emphasis is defined as the ‘extent to which the school is driven by a quest for academic

excellence’ (Hoy et al., 1991). High and achievable academic goals are set for students by both

teachers and parents (Hoy et al., 1991). Students are expected to work hard, seek additional work,

be cooperative and to respect others who achieve good grades and academic success (Hoy et al.,

1991). There is a focus on learning with the belief that all students have the ability to be successful

academically (Hoy, 2012). Parents and teachers alike press all students for academic achievement

(Hoy et al., 2006). ‘A school climate with a strong academic emphasis influences not only individ-

ual teacher and student behavior but also reinforces a pattern of collective beliefs that are good for

the school’ (Goddard et al., 2000: 698). In other words, academic emphasis affects the collective

beliefs of teachers in a positive way.

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 879

In Figure 1 we demonstrate a conceptual diagram of the hypothesized relationships of the vari-

ables in this study. Enabling school structures will represent the formal aspects of the school while

collegial trust and academic emphasis will characterize the informal facets of the organization. We

assert that an explicit focus on enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis is

a necessary antecedent of the development of strong mature professional learning communities.

Clearly, the intensification of each is also an outcome of the work of teachers within nascent or

developing professional learning communities. In this way, the establishment of these factors is

iterative and mutually informing. We also consider the collective and reciprocal relationships of

the variables of this study.

Methodology

An existing database from a large southeastern school district provided the data for this study. The

sample consists of 67 public elementary, middle or high schools in the large metropolitan district.

The majority of the students in the 67 schools qualified for free and reduced lunch services, a

widely accepted indicator and proxy of low socioeconomic status (NCES, 2012). Teachers com-

pleted surveys online via the Qualtrics Research Suite™ software, which was exported to Excel and then SPSS for statistical analysis.

Hypotheses

The preceding literature makes a case for a zero-order correlation of all the variables. Structure by

itself as well as each dimension of trust should correlate with each other and with professional

learning communities. The independent variables represent the formal and informal elements of

organization and should be connected to any organizational element of the school.

Therefore, we hypothesized:

H1: Enabling structure, collegial trust, academic emphasis and professional learning commu-

nities will correlate with each other.

R= .___ Adjusted R²= .___

Collegial Trust

Professional

Learning

Communities

F or

m al

In fo

rm al

Academic Emphasis

Enabling School Structures

β = .___

β= .___

β =.___ + ___

+ ___ + ___

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of hypothesized relationships. Note: **p < 0.01

880 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

While each of the independent variables would logically contribute to the development of the

learning communities, there was no guiding literature as to which elements would be greater con-

tributors. Consequently, we used the phrasing of simultaneous regression and hypothesized the

following:

H2: Enabling structure, collegial trust, and academic emphasis will individually and jointly

contribute to an explanation of professional learning communities.

Instrumentation

Professional Learning Communities

PLC development was measured by a shortened version of the Professional Learning Community

Assessment (PLCA) instrument, which was developed by Olivier et al., but revised to form the

PLCA-R (Olivier et al., 2003; 2010). The Cronbach alphas for the subscales ranged from 0.82

to 0.94 (Olivier and Hipp, 2010), meaning that the items were reliable and consistent in what they

are meant to measure. The subscales of the PLCA-R include: shared and supportive leadership,

shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal practice, supportive

conditions – relationships and supportive conditions – structures (Olivier, 2003: 69; Olivier et al.,

2003, 2010). Sample items include: ‘Leadership is promoted and nurtured among staff members’,

‘Professional development focuses on teaching and learning’, and ‘Opportunities exist for coach-

ing and mentoring’ (Olivier et al., 2003, 2010).

The shortened version of the PLCA-R is a 12-item, Likert-type scale with answers ranging from

‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ (Olivier et al., 2003, 2010). The shortened form of this

instrument was developed after two items were selected from each of the six subscales. A pilot

study was conducted in eight schools (elementary, middle and high) in a small southeastern school

district. Further, factor analysis was performed to determine that the shortened version of the

PLCA-R had high internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 (Gray, 2011), meaning the

items were reliable.

Enabling School Structures

Enabling school structures was measured using a 12-item, five point Likert-type scale that ranges

from ‘never’ to ‘always’ and was reliable in the high 0.8 s and 0.9s (Hoy and Sweetland, 2001).

Sample items include, ‘Administrative rules help rather than hinder’, ‘The administrative hier-

archy of this school enables teachers to do their job’, and ‘Administrative rules in this school

enable authentic communication between teachers and administrators’ (Hoy and Sweetland,

2001: 307). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91 for this study, demonstrating high internal reliability

(Gray, 2011).

Collegial Trust

Collegial trust was measured by a subscale of the Omnibus Trust instrument, Omnibus T Scale

(Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003). This scale is comprised of a 26-item, six-point

Likert-type scale including three subscales: teacher trust in principal (eight items), teacher trust

in students and parents (ten items), and teacher collegial trust (eight items). The choices for

response ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Sample items include, ‘Teachers

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 881

in this school are open with each other’, ‘The teachers in this school do their jobs well’, and

‘Teachers in this school trust each other’, (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 2003: 189). The alpha coef-

ficient of reliability for collegial trust is 0.94 (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999) and 0.91 for this

study (Gray, 2011), both demonstrating high internal reliability.

Academic Emphasis

Academic emphasis was measured by a subscale of the Organizational Health Index (OHI), an

eight-item Likert-type scale with an alpha coefficient of 0.93 (Hoy et al., 1991) and 0.89 for this

study (Gray, 2011), which represent high internal reliability. Responses range from ‘rarely occurs’

to ‘very frequently occurs’ and sample items include ‘Academic achievement is recognized and

acknowledged by the school’ and ‘The school sets high standards for academic performance’ (Hoy

et al., 1991).

Control Variables

The control variables for this study include school level, elementary, middle and high school, and

socioeconomic status (SES) of students enrolled in each school. It is our belief that elementary

schools will be more likely to have developed PLCs than middle or high schools. Finally, the per-

centage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch services, an indicator of household income

and therefore socioeconomic status, will be used to determine the SES of each school of the study

(Wu et al., 2012). For the sake of this study we categorized a school with more than 50% of its students eligible for free and reduced lunch services as having low socioeconomic status (NCES,

2012). The majority of the schools in the study had low socioeconomic status and thus more impo-

verished populations (NCES, 2012).

Data Collection

Approximately 3700 teachers and 190 principals and other administrators were invited to partic-

ipate using the Qualtrics Research Suite™ online survey. The local teacher union, as well as the district, supported the data collection and reminders were sent out. As a result there was a 74% return rate for the surveys with 67 out of 89 schools choosing to participate. The final sample con-

sisted of 45 elementary schools, 13 middle schools and 9 high schools.

We gathered data from a large school district with enrollment of over 62,000 students, ranging

from 90 to 2123 students, with a mean of 685 students per school. Each school employed from 12–

126 teachers, with a mean of 41 teachers per school. Of the 3700 invited participants, 42% had a bachelor’s degree, while 51% had a master’s degree and 4% had advanced degrees beyond a mas- ter’s degree.

The overall completion rate for teacher participants was 75% (67 participated out of 89 schools invited) with the school as the unit of analysis. Because we are investigating collective, school

level variables, enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis, we needed to

assess the development of PLCs in the same way, as a collective, school level variable for this

study (Hoy, 2012). Further, ‘the PLC model represents a set of ideas that its advocates use to har-

ness the collective learning of school organizations in the interest of student learning’ (Johnson,

2009: 26).

882 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

The respondents represented 42% of all teachers invited to participate (1713 surveys completed out of 4082 teachers invited), however the teacher was not the unit of analysis for this study. The 22

principals who chose not to have their schools participate mentioned time constraints, busy sche-

dules and voluntary nature of the survey as reasons for nonparticipation (Gray, 2011).

Data Analysis

The independent variables for this study were enabling school structures, collegial trust and aca-

demic emphasis, while the dependent variable was the development of PLCs. The unit of analysis

was the school; therefore individual respondent scores were aggregated to the school level for the

independent and dependent variables of this study. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to

consider the relationship between each of the independent variables (ESS, collegial trust and aca-

demic emphasis) with the dependent variable, the development of professional learning commu-

nities, and with the other independent variables. Multiple regression analysis was used to

determine the individual and collective relationships between the independent variables to the

dependent variable. The control variables were SES (measured by 1 – free/reduced lunch) and

school level (elementary, middle or high).

Findings

Hypothesis 1 was supported; all the variables were significant correlated with one another (see

Table 2). Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis had significant corre-

lations with PLCs.

In Figure 2 ESS, collegial trust and academic emphasis explained approximately 68% of the variance in PLCs development over and above school level and SES. Enabling school structures

made a substantial contribution to PLCs development (b¼ 0.54, r < 0.01), while academic empha- sis had a smaller effect on PLCs (b ¼ 0.32, r < 0.01) (Figure 2, Tables 3 and 4). Collegial trust did not demonstrate a significant effect of PLCs development (Figure 2, Table 3).

Descriptive Analysis

Our first level of analysis involved obtaining descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of the

variables in our study. The descriptive statistics for our sample of schools revealed that PLC devel-

opment ranged from 2.39 to 3.81 with a mean of 3.02 and a standard deviation of 0.33. Enabling

school structures ranged from 2.43 to 4.77 with a mean of 3.99 and a standard deviation of 0.44.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of all variables.

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Professional Community (PLC) 67 2.39 3.81 3.0218 0.33181 Enabling Structures (ESS) 67 2.43 4.77 3.9948 0.43759 Collegial Trust (CT) 67 3.29 5.80 4.6205 0.52674 Academic Emphasis (AE) 67 1.83 3.80 3.0205 0.47024 School Level (Level) 67 1.00 3.00 1.4242 0.65775 % Free/Reduced Lunch (SES) 67 .34 .99 .7425 0.18956 Valid N (list wise) 67

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 883

Collegial trust varied from 3.29 to 5.80 with a mean of 4.62 and a standard deviation of 0.53. Aca-

demic Emphasis ranged from 1.83 to 3.80 with a mean of 3.02 and a standard deviation of 0.47.

The percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch services ranged from 34% to 99% with a mean of 74% and a standard deviation of 19%.

R= .84 Adjusted R²= .69

F or

m al

Professional

Learning

Communities Collegial Trust

Enabling School Structures

β = .54**

β= .16

In fo

rm al

+.35 +.38

β =.32** +.65

Academic Emphasis

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of hypothesized relationships with results. Note: **p < 0.01

Table 3. Regression of PLCs on ESS, collegial trust, AE, school level and SES.

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.B SE Beta

1 (Constant) 0.286 0.295 0.970 0.336 Enabling Structures (ESS) 0.401 0.059 0.535 6.811 0.000 Collegial Trust (CT) 0.105 0.063 0.159 1.676 0.099 Academic Emphasis (AE) 0.236 0.078 0.318 3.012 0.004 School Level (Level) –0.029 0.045 –0.055 –0.652 0.517 Socioeconomic Status (SES) –0.061 0.137 –0.033 –0.444 0.659

Note: Dependent Variable: PLCs

Table 2. Pearson correlations of all variables (N ¼ 67).

Enabling Structures

Collegial Trust

Academic Emphasis

School Level

SES (1 – FRL)

Professional Community (PLCs) 0.73 **

0.57 **

0.65 **

–0.36 **

–0.07 Enabling Structures (ESS) 1 0.35** 0.38** –0.17 –0.14 Collegial Trust (CT) 1 0.65

** –0.30

* 0.16

Academic Emphasis (AE) 1 –0.51 0.08 School Level 1 0.15 Socioeconomic Status (SES) 1

Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

884 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

Bivariate Correlational Analysis

Hypothesis 1, which stated ‘enabling structure, collegial trust, academic emphasis and professional

learning communities will correlate with each other’, was confirmed as demonstrated in Table 2.

PLC development was positively correlated with enabling school structures (r ¼ 0.73, r < 0.01), Col- legial Trust (r ¼ 0.57, r < 0.01), and Academic Emphasis (r ¼ 0.65, r < 0.01). In other words, the correlations represent the greater the degree of PLC development and the higher the teachers’ percep-

tions of enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis, accordingly. PLC develop-

ment was negatively correlated with School Level (r ¼ �0.36, r < 0.01) indicating that PLC development was higher at the elementary school level and tended to progressively decline at the mid-

dle school and high school levels. There was no significant correlation between PLC and SES, as mea-

sured by the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch services (r ¼�0.07, r < 0.01). The 0.73 (r < 0.01) correlation for PLCs and ESS represents the strongest correlation between

variables in this study, which is also significant. In other words, as teachers’ perceptions of the

development of PLCs are greater, so are their perceptions about enabling school structures. The

same can be said for the relationship between PLCs and collegial trust. The correlation for both

Academic Emphasis and PLCs and for Academic Emphasis and Collegial Trust is 0.65 (r < 0.01), which signifies strong and significant relationships between these independent variables.

The correlation of PLCs with Collegial Trust (r ¼ 0.57, p < 0.01), which is moderate to strong in a positive direction as well as significant.

As one of the control variables, School Level had moderate, inverse correlations with several of

the independent variables: School Level and PLCs (r ¼ �0.36 r < 0.01) and School Level and Academic Emphasis (r ¼�0.51, r < 0.01) as demonstrated in Table 2. The other control variable, SES, was not significantly correlated with any of the variables in our study.

Regression Analysis

Enabling school structures had a significant positive effect on PLC development (b¼ 0.54, r < 0.01). Academic Emphasis also shared a positive significant effect of PLCs (b ¼ 0.32, r < 0.01). Collegial Trust and the control variables did not demonstrate a significant effect on the development of PLCs

(see Table 3). In Table 4 the dependent variable, PLCs, is regressed on ESS, CT, AE, Level and SES.

Together ESS, collegial trust and academic emphasis explained approximately 69% of the variance in PLC development over and above school level and SES (Table 4, Figure 2).

Scholarly and Practical Significance of the Study

This study demonstrates the importance and necessity of enabling school structure, collegial trust

and academic emphasis, yet the regression reveals that the structural dimension has more effect

Table 4. Regression model (PLCs regressed on all variables).

Model Summary

Model R R square Adjusted R square SE of the Estimate

1 0.840a 0.706 0.682 0.19652

Note: a Predictors: (Constant), Collegial Trust, Academic Emphasis, Enabling Structures, School Level, SES

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 885

than the relational dimension as represented by the trust variable. The empirical findings demon-

strate the importance of establishing enabling school structures as an antecedent to the develop-

ment of professional learning communities. The reciprocal relationship of ESS and PLCs

confirms the hypotheses and shows that one depends upon the other for sustenance. Practically,

this study suggests that the development of PLCs that foster increased collaboration and in turn,

attention to student learning outcomes rests on a school leader’s ability to foster these conditions

and factors. Therefore, this study further adds to our knowledge of professional learning commu-

nities and to the field of literature.

Theoretical Implications

This study asserts that any structural implementation, in this case, professional learning com-

munities, must be built upon a foundation from both the informal and formal organization.

The formal structure of the PLC allows change, as it relates to classroom instruction and

assessment practice, to be institutionalized within the school organization. In turn, change that

may have been resisted becomes a more routine function of the school (Hord, 2004). Acting

as a change agent within the school the principal may share, distribute or intensify the power

of the formal organization through increased opportunities to be part of school decision mak-

ing and leadership (Hord, 2004; Kruse and Louis, 2009). Informally, it may be that PLCs pro-

vide the structure in which trust is developed and in turn, creates the conditions that foster

change and innovation.

Following a long history in the PLC research (Hord, 2007; Hoy and Sweetland, 2000; Huffman

and Hipp, 2003; Kruse and Louis, 1993a, 1993b; Louis and Kruse, 1995; Louis and Marks, 1998;

McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001, 2006;) this study confirms that both structural and social and

human resource conditions must be in place for a professional learning community to be estab-

lished in a school. In particular, data here suggest that both formal and informal aspects of the orga-

nization contribute to the development of PLCs.

Our data suggest that enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis are

antecedents to the development of a professional learning community. This finding is not sur-

prising; it makes sense that the operational aspects of organizational leadership provide a foun-

dation for the development of social and professional relationships among faculty, staff and

community. What is interesting, we believe, is the finding that formal organizational structures

appear to be a necessary condition for community building. In this way, our study suggests that

school leaders must attend to the development of the formal organization as the means to attain

their end goals of student learning. In this way, efforts that rely on the simultaneous development

of the formal and informal organization may be less fruitful than those who attend first to

enabling structures.

Our implication is supported by Hoy (2002: 91) who contends ‘when school structure was

enabling, teachers trust each other, demonstrate professional autonomy, are not bound by rigid

rules, and do not feel powerless’. Enabling school structures allow the principal to ‘foster trust and

value differences’ in order to support organizational learning (Hoy, 2002: 89). Because PLCs are

sub-organizational elements, they maintain features of organizations generally; in varying degrees

they have centralization, specialization and formalization (Hoy and DiPaola, 2008; Mintzberg,

1983). We contend that enabling structures are essential for the formalization and centralization

within professional learning communities. Our findings further support those of DiPaola and Hoy

(2008) who contend that principals may empower teachers by encouraging initiative and fostering

886 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

trust via formalization, while promoting collaboration, cooperation and innovation via the centra-

lization of the organization.

This study demonstrates the necessity and importance of enabling school structures and colle-

gial trust, yet the regression indicates that the structural dimension has more effect than the trust

variable. The empirical findings emphasize the importance of established enabling school struc-

tures as an antecedent of professional learning communities (Gray, 2011). One cannot exist or

be sustained without the others. This reciprocal relationship confirms the hypotheses, further

extending what is known about professional learning communities (see Table 2). Prior to this

study, the importance of establishing enabling school structures in professional learning commu-

nities, as described by Hord, had not been addressed (Gray, 2011). Therefore, this research adds to

our knowledge about PLCs as well as to the field of literature.

Limitations

While our findings are thought provoking and provide evidence of the importance of enabling

school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis in the development of PLCs, this study

took place in one large metropolitan school district in the southeast and may not be generalizable

to other contexts. We are cautious in interpreting our findings because of the possibility of multi-

collinearity between the independent variables (Cohen and Cohen, 1983), as some items in the

PLCA-R are similar to items in the ESS and AE instruments. However, we were able to eliminate

the possibility of multicollinearity with further statistical analysis. The Variance Inflation Factor

(VIF) for each variable was ‘less than ten’, which allows us to rule out multicollinearity as an issue

(Lomax, 2001: 63). Finally, the tolerance effect for each factor was less than .90, which is not con-

sidered to be an issue of multicollinearity (Lomax, 2001).

We also acknowledge there can be limitations in the use of instruments with different

Likert-type responses (Norman, 2010). That is to say that comparing a scale with four options

for response (PLCA-R and AE) with another with five options (ESS) or six options (Omnibus

Trust) may not yield the same results. Therefore, we should be cautious in interpreting these

items and making ‘inferences about differences in the underlying, latent, characteristic

reflected in the Likert numbers, but this does not invalidate conclusions about the numbers’

(Norman, 2010: 629).

Conclusion

We acknowledge that it can take years for a school to develop an effective professional learn-

ing community with much effort on the part of the teachers and school leaders. Bolam et al.

(2005: 3) purport that ‘the idea of a PLC is one well worth pursuing as a means of promoting

school and system-wide capacity building for sustainable improvement and pupil learning’.

This study demonstrates the relationships between enabling school structures, collegial trust,

academic emphasis and collective efficacy in developing professional learning communities

and addresses a gap in the literature. If PLCs offer schools a model for reform and school

improvement, and we believe the literature supports their potential, then educators and school

leaders should work together to develop the structures and trust necessary to build these com-

munities of learning.

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 887

References

Bolam R, McMahon A, Stoll L, Thomas S and Wallace M (2005) Creating and sustaining effective profes-

sional learning communities (final report). Available at: http://www.gtce.org.uk/133031/133036/133039/

133358/eplc_final_report (accessed 10 March 2011).

Bottery M (2003) The management and mismanagement of trust. Educational Management & Administration

31(2): 241–261.

Bryk AS, Camburn E and Louise KS (1999) Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: facil-

itator factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly 35: 731–781.

Bryk A and Schneider B (2002) Trust in schools: a core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Sage Foundation.

Cohen DK (1988) Knowledge of teaching: plus que ça change. In: Jackson PW (ed) Contributing to Educa-

tional Change. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon, 27–84.

Cohen J and Cohen P (1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences,

2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cosner S (2009) Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly 45(2):

248–291.

DiPaola MF and Hoy WK (2008) Principals Improving Instruction: Supervision, Evaluation, and Profes-

sional Development. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Firestone W and Rosenblum S (1988) Building commitment in urban schools. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis 93: 285–299.

Forsyth PB, Adams CM and Hoy WK (2011) Collective Trust: Why Schools Can’t Improve Without It. New

York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Goddard RD, Sweetland SR and Hoy WK (2000) Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and stu-

dent achievement in reading and mathematics: a multilevel analysis. Educational Administration

Quarterly 36(5): 683–702.

Gray JA (2011) Professional learning communities and the role of enabling school structures and trust. Pub-

lished doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama.

Hargreaves A and Goodson I (2006) Educational change over time? Educational Administration Quarterly

42(1): 3–41.

Hipp K and Huffman J (2010) Demystifying Professional Learning Communities: School Leadership at its

Best. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hipp K, Huffman J, Pankake A and Olivier D (2008) Sustaining professional learning communities: Case

studies. Journal of Educational Change 9: 173–195.

Honig M and Hatch T (2004) Crafting coherence: how schools strategically manage multiple, conflicting

demands. Educational Researcher 33(8): 16–30.

Hord S (1997) Professional Learning Communities: What Are They And Why Are They Important? Austin,

TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL).

Hord S (2004) Learning Together Leading Together: Changing Schools Through Professional Learning

Communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hord S (2007) Developing a staff of learners. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) Letter,

19 (1). Available at: http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v19n01/what-is-a-plc.html (accessed 15 October

2010).

Hord S (2009) Educators work together toward a shared purpose – improved student learning. Journal of Staff

Development 30(1): 40–43.

Hord S and Sommers W (2008) Leading Professional Learning Communities: Voices from Research and

Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

888 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

Hord SM and Tobia EF (2012) Reclaiming Our Teaching Profession: The Power of Educators Learning in

Community. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hoy WK (2002) An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: some theoretical, research, and prac-

tical considerations. Journal of Educational Administration 41(1): 87–108.

Hoy WK (2012) School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: a 40-year

odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration 50(1): 79–97.

Hoy WK and DiPaola M (2008) Improving Schools: Studies in Leadership and Culture. Greenwich, CT:

Information Age.

Hoy WK and Kupersmith WJ (1985) The meaning and measure of faculty trust. Educational and Psycholo-

gical Research 5(1): 1–10.

Hoy WK and Miskel CG (2008) Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8th edn. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hoy WK and Sweetland SR (2000) School bureaucracies that work: enabling, not coercive. Journal of School

Leadership 10(6): 525–541.

Hoy WK and Sweetland SR (2001) Designing better schools: the meaning and measure of enabling school

structures. Educational Administrative Quarterly 37: 296–321.

Hoy WK and Sweetland SR (2007) Designing better schools: the meaning and measure of enabling school

structures. In: Hoy WK and DiPaola M (eds) Essential Ideas for the Reform of American Schools. Char-

lotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 339–365.

Hoy WK and Tarter CJ (2012) Positive psychology and educational administration: an optimistic research

agenda. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(3): 427–445.

Hoy WK and Tschannen-Moran M (1999) The five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in urban elemen-

tary schools. Journal of School Leadership 9: 184–208

Hoy WK, Tarter CJ and Kottkamp RB (1991) Open Schools/Healthy Schools: Measuring Organizational

Climate. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Hoy WK, Tarter CJ and Woolfolk Hoy A (2006) Academic optimism of schools: a force for student achieve-

ment. American Educational Research Journal 43(3): 425–446.

Hoy WK and Tschannen-Moran M (2003) The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools:

the omnibus T-scale. In: Hoy WK and Miskel CG (eds) Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools.

Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 181–208.

Huffman JB and Hipp KA (2003) Reculturing Schools as Professional Learning Communities. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Education.

Johnson BL (2009) Understanding schools as organizations: implications for realizing professional learning

communities. In: Mullen CA (ed) The Handbook of Leadership and Professional Learning Communities.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 17–28.

Kruse SD and Louis KS (2009) Building Strong School Cultures: A Guide to Leading Change. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kruse SD and Louis KS (1993a) An emerging framework for analysing school-based professional commu-

nity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta,

GA, ED 358537. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED358537.)

Kruse SD and Louis KS (1993b) Developing professional community in new and restructuring urban schools.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA),

Houston, TX, ED 366676. (ERIC Document No. ED366676.)

Kruse SD, Louis KS and Bryk A (1994) Building professional communities in schools. Issues in Restructur-

ing Schools 6: 3–6.

Lieberman A and Miller L (2008) Teachers in Professional Communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 889

Little J and Curry M (2009) Structuring talk about teaching and learning. In: Earl L and Timperley H (eds)

Professional Learning Conversations. New York, NY: Springer Publishing, 29–42.

Lomax RG (2001) Statistical Concepts: A Second Course for Education and the Behavioral Sciences.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Louis KS and Kruse S (1995) Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Louis KS and Marks HM (1998) Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and stu-

dent experience in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education 106: 532–575.

McLaughlin M and Talbert J (2001) Professional Communities And The Work Of High School Teaching.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin M and Talbert J (2003) Reforming Districts: How Districts Support School Reform (Research

Report R-03–6). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Available at: http://depts.

washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ReformingDistricts-09–2003.pdf (accessed 9 August 2006).

McLaughlin M and Talbert J (2006) Building School-Based Teacher Learning Communities. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Mintzberg H (1983) Power in and Around Organizations: Theory of Management Policy Series. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miskel C, Fevurly R and Stewart J (1979) Organizational structures and processes, perceived school effec-

tiveness, loyalty, and job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly 15: 97–118.

(NCES) National Center for Education Statistics (2012) ‘Improving the measurement of socioeconomic status

for the national assessment of educational progress: a theoretical foundation’. A report for the National

Assessment Governing Board, 1–37, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED542101).

Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Advances in Health

Science Education 15: 625–632.

Olivier DF, Hipp KK and Huffman JB (2003) Professional learning community assessment. In: Huffman JB

and Hipp KK (eds) Professional Learning Communities: Initiation to Implementation. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press, 133–141, 171–173.

Olivier DF and Hipp KK (2010) Assessing and analysing schools as professional learning communities. In:

Hipp KK and Huffman JB (eds) Demystifying Professional Learning Communities: School Leadership At

Its Best. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 29–41.

Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY:

Doubleday.

Serrat O (2009) A primer on organizational learning. Knowledge Solutions Asian Development Bank,

Available at: http://www.adb.org/documents/information/knowledge-solutions/primer-on-organizational-

culture.pdf (accessed 12 November 2010).

Spillane JP (2005) Primary school leadership practice: how the subject matters. School Leadership and

Management 25(4): 383–397.

Supowitz JA (2002) Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record 104(8): 1591–1626.

Tschannen-Moran M (2004) Trust Matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tschannen-Moran M and Hoy W (1998) A conceptual and empirical analysis of trust in schools. Journal of

Educational Administration 36: 334–352.

Wahlstrom K and Louis K (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional com-

munity, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458–495.

Wu JH, Hoy WK, Hoy AW and Tarter CJ (2012) Enabling school structure, collective responsibility, and a

culture of academic optimism: toward a robust model of school performance in Taiwan. Journal of Edu-

cational Administration 51(2): 176–193.

890 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6)

Author biographies

Julie Gray, PhD, is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at the University of West

Florida. Her research interests include professional learning communities, trust, enabling school

structures, collective efficacy and academic optimism.

Sharon Kruse is a professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Akron. Her recent

books include Building Strong School Cultures: A Guide to Leading Change (with Karen Seashore

Louis).

C. John Tarter is a professor of Educational Administration at The University of Alabama. His

research interests are in organizational theory and decision making. His work has appeared in the

Educational Administration Quarterly, the Journal of School Leadership, and the Journal of

Educational Administration.

Gray et al.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis 891