Transforming ordinary school settings into engines of continuous improvement is a key idea in the learning teams framework theory of action.

The theory of action assumes that the final common pathway to higher student achievement is instruction that teachers deliver every day in classrooms. Improved teaching is assumed to be not the only quality of an improved school, but definitely the first among equals. Whatever else is proposed as necessary–new curricula, higher standards, accountability systems, stronger leadership–we hypothesized that these inputs must produce changes in instructional practices if student achievement is to be improved.

Teacher attitudes and beliefs are presumed to be potential mediators of instructional improvement. If teachers do not feel their efforts can make a difference in student learning and achievement, there is less incentive to attend to the details of lesson planning and delivery. However, we hypothesized that desirable attitudes and beliefs tend to emerge from successful efforts to improve instruction achievement. For example, doing something to improve instruction and seeing some effect on student learning is presumed to affect teachers’ attribution processes. We predicted that teachers who set specific common goals, work collaboratively to change instructional practices, and see student learning improve as a consequence, will begin to attribute these gains to their own efforts, which in turn affects attitudes and beliefs and serves to reinforce continuing efforts that will be reflected in achievement test gains.

Grade-level and subject matter teams were predicted to be a critical setting in which the work of instructional improvement gets done in elementary and secondary schools. In elementary schools, a grade-level team includes teachers who teach the same subjects, topics, skills, etc.—what we described as “job-alike.” In secondary schools, the parallel setting is the course; e.g., 9th-grade algebra, 10th-grade biology.

What happens in these team meetings can be described by the familiar “plan-teach-analyze cycle.” All teachers to some extent plan before they teach, and reflect after a lesson is concluded. But this cycle often remains under-utilized. The plan-teach-analyze cycle is identified as the setting in which teachers learn and develop better lessons. We hypothesized that it is in the transformation of the teaching cycle into a coherent, continuous instructional improvement process that goals, indicators, assistance, and leadership turn from a static list into galvanizing forces for change.

To set in motion an improvement process, we hypothesized that goals and indicators must be set and shared in a dynamic community process that promotes joint commitment, group ethos, and a community of discourse (see e.g., Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Fullan, 1991, 1993; Hord, 1997; Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1982; Little & McLaughlin, 1993; McLaughlin, 1995; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Rosenholtz, 1989; 1991; Senge, 1990; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

We hypothesized that it matters less whether a district or school “officially” adopted goals and indicators, and matters a great deal more how they are used in the settings of teachers’ daily work. For example, when teachers collaboratively examine student work to identify recurring errors and misunderstandings, they are simultaneously setting and sharing goals and indicators directly related to their teaching responsibilities and targeting specific areas to teach better.

Assistance from more capable others is needed in all team settings that are struggling to meet challenges and solve problems. No one is good at everything, and in every setting there must be provision for assistance at critical junctures and for essential tasks. This assistance might take the form of external providers helping districts train facilitators of learning teams or supporting principals who are learning to set up instructional leadership teams in their schools. It might be a district administrator struggling to align all initiatives and reforms into a coherent program that actually helps and not hinders school-based teams to learn and implement better teaching.

Although leadership is a well-established quality of effective schools, we predicted that eadership must pressure as well as support in a hard-to-sustain balance of mutual accountability for improving instruction. Adding the qualifier “mutual accountability” specifies that administrators and specialists are included as well as teachers. For example, unless administrators respect time set aside for work on instructional improvement, the continuity and coherence of teachers’ efforts will be negatively affected. Mutual accountability also implies that leadership is distributed across multiple individuals and roles, which we hypothesized as critical to the improvement process. These ideas reflect much of the thinking that led to what is often described as professional learning communities (see, e.g., Annenberg Institute for School Reform, 2005; Hord, 1997; Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994; Lieberman, 1995; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Peterson, McCarthey, & Elmore, 1996; Rosenholtz, 1989; 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

In sum, the theory of action that grounds the Learning Teams Framework proposes that teachers and administrators who jointly set and share goals and indicators they consider valid and worthy can steadily improve instruction and student achievement if provided stable, coherent settings in which to work, learn and receive needed assistance, including explicit protocols and procedures. This dynamical process is initiated and sustained by distributed leadership that holds everyone accountable through a delicate balance of collegial support and pressure.

The objectives and outcomes expected for schools fully implementing learning teams are summarized here. They are what should be observed in a uniquely effective school that has used learning teams to initiate and sustain improvements in classroom instruction and student achievement. In a nutshell: A school in which educators set and share goals; measure their progress with agreed upon indicators; receive assistance when needed; and engage in coherent, continuous instructional improvement in stable settings—all supported by supportive and distributed leadership that holds everyone accountable.

Evidence that this theory of action, once implemented, increases student achievement is provided in a summative
and formative evaluation.