Teacher perspectives on professional learning communities (PLCs) at a Native American school Open Access

Participatory action research (PAR) emerged from the work of Freire (1974) and Habermas (1979). The basic premise is founded on creating knowledge that is a product of collective, self-reflective inquiry that is used to improve a situation (Street, 1995). According to Stringer (1996), participatory action research can be democratic, equitable and life-enhancing. According to Reason (1994), the production of such knowledge will not only be useful to groups of people but might also lead to empowerment through the reflective process of constructing this knowledge base. In our study, our participants included teachers, and according to Street (1995), participants are considered co-researchers in the process of knowledge construction, and they use this new knowledge to make improvements to their practice. We used the above principles of participatory action research as a theoretical framework to guide our research questions.

Moreover, our study extends participatory action research in the field by not only co-constructing knowledge with teachers and researchers but also building meaningful community-based research (CBR) partnerships between universities and schools as a model of social change (Barber, 1992; Bryant et al., 2000; Kahne & Westheimer, 1996). According to Strand et al. (2003), CBR traces back to Horton (1989), Hall (1992), Park (1992) and Lewin (1948), but a more recent understanding is that it is a collaboration between academic researchers and community members in which multiple methods of inquiry and knowledge acquisition are used, with the purpose of social justice. The role of the community member goes beyond identifying a research question but also includes data collection and analysis, interpreting results and implementing changes in practice (Strand et al., 2003). This leads to an important tool in learning, teaching and empowerment and often takes several years to establish.

DuFour and Eaker (1998) presented the idea of PLCs being the most promising strategy for substantive school improvement. Their conceptual framework for PLCs is described as adhering to three components: (a) collaboratively developed and widely shared mission, values and goals; (b) collaborative teams that work independently to achieve a common goal; and (c) the focus on results as evidenced by continuous improvement (DuFour & Eaker, 2009). The most basic definition of PLCs is groups of teachers and school administrators who aim to improve their collective knowledge and practice to improve student outcomes (Hord, 1997). Stoll et al. (2006) elaborate on this definition by detailing three essential aspects of PLCs. First, the learning undertaken by PLCs seeks to improve teaching practice, not perpetuate current practice. Second, the work of PLCs does not end with teacher learning; teachers are expected to utilize the new practices in their classrooms. Finally, the main purpose of engaging in PLCs is to promote greater student learning. Teachers largely agree that PLCs are an effective mechanism for improving educational practice given their student-centered focus on collaborative goal setting and problem solving (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014; Hudson et al., 2013; Vescio et al., 2008).

Research has documented important benefits of PLCs for teachers and students. Teachers often experience improved attitudes toward their work, including greater morale and job satisfaction and correspondingly lower rates of absenteeism (Harris & Jones, 2010). They are further motivated by a shared purpose among their colleagues and administrators (Kaplan, 2008) as well as more positive societal views on teaching associated with collaboration, continuous learning and impact on student achievement (Vescio et al., 2008). Teachers have reported that participation in PLCs allows them to reflect on their professional identity (Nielsen & Triggs, 2007) and encourages a commitment to impactful changes at the classroom level with the potential to influence systemic change (Harris & Jones, 2010). Not only are teachers more committed to instructional change, but also PLCs support sustainable and effective implementation of new teaching practices as a result of purposeful alignment between student needs and instructional practice, intentional inquiry into the practice and collaborative feedback to refine use of the practice in classrooms (Andrews & Lewis, 2007; Cordingly et al., 2003; Little, 2002; Louis & Marks, 1998; Owen, 2016). Cordingly et al. (2003) assert that these myriad benefits to teachers consequently have a positive impact on student outcomes. This is supported by Vescio et al. (2008), who note consistent evidence of increases in student achievement when teachers engage in PLCs. More recently, Brennan and Gorman (2023) found positive changes in participants’ beliefs, efficacy and practice as a result of collaborative inquiry. Moreover, Sandwell (2024) explored the efficacy of PLCs on math professional development for teachers and found it to be a strategy that made significant differences in how teachers engaged with the material.

Although the literature indicates many positive outcomes related to teacher engagement in PLCs, not all collaborative teams experience the same benefits. A variety of factors influence the effectiveness of PLCs in practice (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014; Prenger et al., 2017). PLCs are more productive when the school has already established a culture of being a professional community and the PLC itself forms around a shared goal or vision. Participant motivation is another key factor in the effectiveness of PLCs. Farley-Ripple and Buttram (2014) note that compliance-based participation reduces the effectiveness of PLCs, while Prenger et al. (2017) report that motivated engagement—whether intrinsic or extrinsic—facilitates positive outcomes. Structure in PLCs needs to be carefully balanced. It is valuable for leaders (teachers or administrators) to establish norms and expectations for the group; however, the format and schedule of meetings must allow for collaborative processing of information and ideas, which could include reflection, discussion and consideration of alternatives. Finally, PLCs benefit from facilitation by administrators. This does not necessarily mean that administrators lead or actively participate in PLC meetings, although they could. More importantly, however, administrators should facilitate logistics, including allocating time and space during the school day for meetings and providing resources to support the work and innovation of the collaborative team.

Another factor that impacts the effectiveness of PLCs is the approach they take to their collaboration. One set of approaches relates to the primary focus of PLCs: student learning or instructional practices. Vescio et al. (2008) found that an intentional focus on student learning and performance (with a secondary focus on teaching practice) by PLC teams led to more notable improvements in achievement. Similarly, Popp and Goldman (2016) noted that PLCs primarily focused on teaching strategies were more likely to discuss practices that the teachers already use, rather than innovative practices, and there was little consideration of the relationship between practices used and student outcomes. The other approach to note is the use of analysis and inquiry before action (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014; Popp & Goldman, 2016). Through analysis, PLC teams develop a comprehensive understanding of student learning and achievement. Based on that knowledge, PLCs engage in inquiry to determine instructional practices likely to enhance student outcomes and develop a solid understanding of how to feasibly and effectively implement those practices. Then, teachers put those practices into action in their classrooms. Although implementation is an essential part of the PLC process, analysis and inquiry are the components that build teacher knowledge and promote sustainable and effective changes to teaching practice.

One area of innovation well-suited for PLCs is MTSS framework development (Mundshcenk & Fuchs, 2016). Both PLCs and MTSS are school-level frameworks with a common goal of enhancing student outcomes. PLCs afford teachers the opportunity to build the knowledge and skills required to effectively plan and sustain an MTSS framework, including evidence-based instruction and assessment practices. Through PLCs, teachers and administrators can situate their work in their unique educational context to determine which programs and practices would be most appropriate for their learners. This shared decision-making empowers teachers and promotes engagement in the MTSS framework that they collaboratively develop. Furthermore, the PLC process establishes an important model for shared data-based decision-making, which is implemented by many schools as part of their MTSS frameworks.

Literature on PLCs also notes that although teachers have the primary responsibility for establishing the group’s goals and determining the utility of new practices for their teaching context, outside experts may be involved in PLCs to build teachers’ capacity for this work (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014; Stoll et al., 2006). These professionals may support teachers in developing a better understanding of academic concepts and content standards (Popp & Goldman, 2016). Teachers could also benefit from the involvement of individuals who can facilitate the analysis of student learning and performance data and promote alignment of that analysis to considerations of innovative practices (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014).

Only one study was identified that specifically addressed PLCs with teachers working with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) school communities. Hicks et al. (2008) utilize the foundational idea of Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED) as a framework for their PLC to address the needs of teachers supporting CLD students. The premise of SEED is that for teachers to respond to CLD students’ needs, they must engage in dialogue that seeks to understand multiple perspectives and their own effect on students’ educational experiences. The researchers sought to use this model to reframe teachers’ perspectives to promote higher expectations and positive learning environments for these students. They found that the dialogue generated in SEED-based PLCs, allowed educators to better understand their students and intentionally consider CLD perspectives. The availability of only one study focusing on PLCs and diverse populations indicates a notable research gap. Although it is feasible that other research on PLCs was conducted in CLD contexts, this was not an explicit component of their work. This study aims to bridge that research gap.

This study was conducted as part of a university-school partnership with a Native American charter school located in the southwestern part of the United States. After one year of weekly PLCs during the 2022–2023 academic year, we conducted a focus group to determine teachers’ perspectives on the efficacy of the PLCs at their school. The PLCs focused on the following: (1) professional development in Tier 1 reading instruction, (2) providing teachers with resources such as pacing guides, fidelity checklists and evidence-based reading strategies from the Florida Center for Reading (FCRR); and (3) selecting intervention grouping and areas of need based on monthly reading progress-monitoring data generated by the Istation progress-monitoring tool. We were interested in exploring whether the PLCs were helpful to this group of teachers and if they had suggestions for what to focus on the following year. Our research question was as follows:

Our participants for the focus group included five out of six elementary grade teachers, representing Grades 1–5 (one teacher per grade level) and the elementary special educator, for a total of six educators. The kindergarten teacher attended the PLC meetings but was absent on the last day when we conducted the focus group meeting. The demographics include all teachers who attended the PLCs throughout the school year. The age range of teachers was 24–58 years, and years teaching ranged from 0 to 20 years. The grade-level teachers were all licensed in elementary education, and the elementary special educator was licensed in special education. A majority of the teachers (71.42%) identified as Native American, one identified as Black and one as Hispanic.

The school was a charter school that predominantly served Native American students (98.2%), located in a Southwestern state of the United States. The students represented 60 tribes from across the state. Teachers worked with 124 students across grades K-5, with approximately 20 students per grade level. This school is in an urban city center in the Southwest part of the United States committed to localizing, decolonizing and indigenizing educational practices. According to NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data at the end of Spring 2023, only 37.2% of the elementary (K-5) student population were at the 40th percentile or better in Language Arts. Our goal through this project was to try and understand the structure and framework for teaching reading in the school and offer professional insight into reading assessment and instructional practices that would be most appropriate for the needs of the students and teachers of the school.

We started working with the school as part of a university–school partnership through the educational diagnostician at the school, who invited us to meet with school leadership. Our research team was recruited to offer insights into developing system-wide reading and math models to improve outcomes for elementary grade students at the school. Our team for the PLC meetings consisted of one associate professor and one assistant professor, specializing in reading and math, respectively. We conducted weekly PLCs for teachers. Our goal was to focus on reading during the first two years at the school site and then move on to math. We have been intentional in our purpose of community-based action research to help teachers at this school, rather than going in with a research agenda.

Our research foci have evolved in response to teachers’ needs in their classrooms. The weekly PLC meetings were teacher-centric, and we offered insights into our areas of expertise to support teachers. For the first two years, the first author of the paper is taking the lead on addressing teacher needs related to reading, and the fourth author is playing a supporting role; we plan to switch roles during years three and four. From our interactions with teachers, we developed (1) pacing guides, which broke down Common Core standards to focus areas and minutes spent on the standard per week, and (2) fidelity checklists that helped teachers log reading activities, mastery levels of their students and reflection of their practice. In addition, we offered professional development in Tier 1 reading instruction and evidence-based reading resources from FCRR. This professional development followed a university-level class syllabus and covered topics such as decoding, fluency and comprehension. We offered teachers an opportunity to share what was working in their classrooms with other peers in the group as well as added to their knowledge base by providing strategies and resources that they might consider incorporating in their classrooms. Based on this, we created a roadmap for each teacher and followed up on a weekly basis to understand what was working and changed course if things were not working. We also trained them on using curriculum-based measures such as the easyCBM and DIBELS as assessment tools to track the progress of students in their classrooms. Towards the end of the year, we worked on data-based decision-making and intervention grouping based on triangulating progress-monitoring data by dividing teachers into two groups, K-2 and 3–5, to work on individual teacher and class needs.

The school had adopted a Native Literature curriculum that was developed by teachers and administrators at the school network. When the school was established, 17 years ago, the leaders developed a comprehensive literacy plan that both adhered to the science of literacy (in both word recognition and language comprehension) and met the necessity of an ELA plan that promoted student identity development, holistic wellness and academic relevance for Indigenous students in grades K-12. In addition to centering their curriculum on books by and about Indigenous people, the curriculum included a yearlong curriculum and a minimum of four units per grade level. They have been intentional in considering the following while developing the curriculum: (1) alignment to Scarborough’s Reading Rope for Language Comprehension with the school network’s Language Comprehension framework; (2) alignment of Common Core State Standards across all grade bands, K-12, (3) grade-level text complexity (qualitative, quantitative and subjective considerations using tools from Achieve the Core); (4) strategies for English Language Learners (designed for our curriculum by Dual Language Education of New Mexico); (5) performance assessments for all units aligned to outcomes and plans for learning; (6) student and teacher-facing materials to implement the curriculum; and (7) a toolbox for schools and teachers to localize the curriculum. Since language and cultural needs were already addressed through this curriculum, our research team was invited to focus on other areas of MTSS implementation.

In addition to using the PLCs to co-construct knowledge with teachers, we were also interested in building meaningful CBR partnerships between universities and schools as a model of social change (Barber, 1992; Bryant et al., 2000; Kahne & Westheimer, 1996). We approached our collaboration in this manner to prioritize the Native American cultural and linguistic assets present in the school and its teachers while attempting to mitigate the influence of the non-Indigenous backgrounds of the university-based partners.

Our focus group was conducted in May 2023 by the first author after conducting weekly PLCs at the school for the entire school year. It was conducted in person and took approximately 45 minutes to complete. Teacher responses were recorded using the Zoom online platform. The recording was transcribed verbatim first by an online transcription company with 80% accuracy and then manually by a doctoral student (author 2) to ensure 100% accuracy. The focus group questions are attached in Appendix A.

We report on qualitative data analysis that was gathered from a focus group at the end of the academic year. We followed a systematic thematic analysis process to analyze the data. Thematic analysis involves a process of identifying repeated patterns or themes that could aid in the description as well as interpretation of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Kiger & Varpio, 2020). First, the second and third authors read the focus group transcript separately and identified preliminary codes. Conceptual content analysis, a form of analysis that helps determine the frequency of occurrence of a particular term or concept from within a body of text or a collection of text (Christie & Fleischer, 2010), was applied to the data collected to generate content categories that served to guide the coding process. We identified 10 preliminary codes. Next, the first, second and third authors met to review the codes, modify codes as needed, and reach a consensus on the meaning of each emerging code. Third, we uploaded the transcript to Dedoose, an online qualitative data analysis software program. Fourth, in an inductive recursive process, we worked through the transcript, refining and collapsing codes, and discussing our thought processes. Throughout our discussions, we used two criteria for establishing codes: the concept must have been evident across multiple participants and it related meaningfully to the study’s overall purpose (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We identified 7 final codes. Author 1 checked all the coded data and calculated the inter-rater reliability, which depicted consensus by the two coders at 91.08%. We report on seven themes evident in the participants’ comments: (1) support, (2) resources, (3) school administration, (4) data collection and interpretation, (5) collaboration, (6) usefulness and (7) professional development.

Our research team is comprised of five non-Indigenous people located in the Rocky Mountain region of the US. The first author is an Associate Professor of Special Education and the fourth author is an Assistant Professor of Special Education, respectively. The second, third and fifth authors are doctoral students pursuing their degrees in special education. The first author identifies as a South Asian female; the second author identifies as a White female; the third author identifies as a White male; the fourth author identifies as a White female, and the fifth author identifies as a White and Hispanic female. All authors identified as cisgender and non-disabled; however, authors 3, 4 and 5 have immediate family members who have disabilities. Author 1 is multilingual, authors 4 and 5 are bilingual, and authors 2 and 3 are monolingual. In alignment with qualitative inquiry, our positionalities are shared to increase trustworthiness and credibility of our research.

The results section of this research paper presents the outcomes of a comprehensive investigation into the multifaceted dimensions of support, resources, school administration, data collection and interpretation, collaboration, usefulness and professional development. The focus group delves into the intricate interplay of these elements, emphasizing their collective impact on educational efficacy and student learning outcomes.

Most of the participating teachers’ responses highlighted the support they received during the weeks of PLCs. They appreciated the support that came from the PLCs and the resources shared during their time together, which focused on what they needed most to be effective in the classroom. They mentioned that collaboration fostered support and emphasized the meaningful implementation of Common Core standards. They also benefitted from professional development, including refresher sessions for returning teachers, which was facilitated through regular meetings. Despite potential challenges without solid administrative support, one teacher appreciated the emphasis that was placed on supporting first-year teachers. Several teachers mentioned the comprehensive approach ensured a supportive environment where educators could collectively enhance their skills, align with standards, and navigate the challenges of teaching with sustained collaboration and professional growth—feeling supported by trying new ways of teaching the standards or available free resources. For example, Deandra stated, “I like going over the Common Core standards and other resources to help us teach those standards because I didn’t know about the FCRR website that you (researcher) introduced us to. So, that’s been helpful for my classroom”. Marissa concurred, adding, “I’ve been incorporating many of the FCRR games. I’m gradually teaching my class how to play some games, but I want to eventually use them as centers where they can play independently as groups.”

Moreover, the support teachers received through the PLCs was very impactful; as Michelle stated,

This support had them wanting to continue PLCs during the next school year. Amy, a veteran teacher, shared that novice teachers are exposed to new concepts and expectations that they are not familiar with, such as data-based decision-making, scope and sequence of lesson-planning, statistical analysis for understanding their classroom-based data, and it was helpful to have consistent support in understanding these important areas that go beyond teaching. The teachers felt they needed more continuing support to be a better team and support the students more effectively.

Accessing a wealth of free resources, educators especially benefitted from the Florida Center for Reading Research (including cloze passages) and easyCBM assessments. These materials aligned with pacing guides, offering structured guidelines for instructional timelines. The collaborative use of these tools enhanced teaching effectiveness and student learning, exemplifying a comprehensive approach to resource utilization in this setting.

The FCRR website was a resource that was appreciated by many of the teachers. Stella shared that she used the website to create an activity supporting the data she collected on her students’ reading skills. For example, if they received a low score on the vocabulary section of Istation, she then used cloze reading activities for them to learn those words in context. Another resource that teachers utilized was easyCBM assessments. Dawn stated, “I feel like the easyCBM assessments were rapid, and easyCBM helped to get our baseline and figure out where we were for our grade levels and where our kids were in those different skills.”

Creating a pacing guide was a good resource for teachers. “So, it’s been nice with organizing and planning,” explained Marissa about how having them made her feel less overwhelmed because she knew how to get all the standards effectively covered in a school year. Having resources already created and accessible that could support the data they were collecting gave the teachers confidence. The teachers then shared how they wanted more support and resources from their school administration.

Engaging in educational efficacy, the teachers began with data collection to establish a baseline for connecting data. At the PLC meetings, the researchers helped the teachers with the interpretation of Istation reading and math results. Through data-driven analysis and decision-making, individual student needs and learning gaps were identified, guiding the teachers to individualize interventions and form targeted intervention groups. Lesson planning and scaffolding, informed by progress monitoring, ensured a tailored approach to developing target skills. This comprehensive process aligned educational strategies with evolving insights, optimizing student learning and growth.

The teachers reported on the benefit of collecting data on their students and using it to create interventions or as an encouragement to show the students how much progress they have made. Stella shared specifically about her experience with collecting data,

The teachers have used Istation to assist in collecting data on students. Michelle explained,

Dawn shared that she had gained an understanding about Istation and its assessment criteria. However, there is a desire to enhance students’ skills and establish a more direct connection between the teaching process and Istation tests. The focus of the PLC was on improving the effectiveness of teaching methods to align with the testing format and to inform instructional strategies for better student performance.

Deandra shared, “I feel like this PD and PLC time has empowered all of us in our own way, like pulled out the strengths that we had and to be able to help us, you know, help each other to make cohesive learning experience.” All the teachers present agreed that continuing the PLC next school year would benefit them all. Marissa added, “I think that it’s better than some of the professional development that I’ve had to sit through because I feel like it was really tailored to our needs and to our students.”

Amy believes that there is a need for more targeted support among colleagues to address student struggles. She acknowledged the challenges revealed by current data and emphasized the importance of collaborative discussions to develop effective plans for the upcoming year, aiming to enhance support for both the school and its students. PLCs brought the teachers closer together and helped them better serve their students. Having the opportunity to come together to discuss concerns/needs and ask questions is something all the teachers wanted for future school years, and they wanted it to be a priority for the school administration to provide.

The participants noted that collaboration made a meaningful difference in their work. PLCs and PLC meetings are specifically designed for a collaborative purpose: to create a timely, systematic process in which teachers can support each other and work together to improve their professional practices. When asked to share the benefits of PLC meetings, the opportunity to collaborate was an immediate response for several teachers. It was valuable for them to meet with colleagues of similar grade level. Dawn explained, “I think it was helpful for me because we did a lot more collaborating. As a K-5 group… always K-8 and Middle School seem to… override us. So, it was nice to come together and collaborate.” One of the most important aspects of collaboration mentioned was the benefit for students. Participants expressed that it was helpful to work together to create a cohesive learning environment, to give each other suggestions, and to support younger, novice teachers.

Participants in this study were actively working to build a framework founded on evidence-based practices in an environment that had previously lacked that scientific focus. They noted that collaboration was an essential element in that process. Describing this focus, Stella explained,

In the process of building an effective framework, Deandra also stressed that collaborating with mentors was essential:

Through collaborative efforts, these teachers developed a sense of community that empowered them to actively identify specific needs and advocate for the time, resources, interventions and supports necessary to accomplish their goals and vision.

Teachers found the PLC professional development (PD) to be meaningful. This theme emerged as participants were asked to discuss and describe how their PD training and subsequent PLC development as part of this study differed from previous PD experiences. They expressed noticeable differences. Working in PLCs empowered the participants to collaboratively identify and prioritize the most essential needs of their students. Responses were characterized as meaningful when they referred to training that was helpful, relevant and/or applicable.

Participants observed that their PD was “helpful” because it directly related to the specific needs in their classrooms. As noted previously, Michelle mentioned that it was more targeted than other professional development they have received. PLC meetings encouraged teachers as a team to focus on their immediate needs: “It’s like, ‘We don’t really need that right now; we really need this, and this is where we need help.’ So I think just that custom-made has, you know, been helpful.” Participants reported that this opportunity to have a direct say in what topics and training would be provided in their PD was a critical factor in helping them to match actual needs to relevant interventions.

Teachers also recognized that the training they acquired from PLC meetings could be applied immediately to help and support students. Stella noted, “I’m actually tasked on having to create a fifth-grade graduate profile. So some of the skills that we’ve talked about will be in that.” Many discussed the important relevance of the online resources (FCRR) recommended by the researchers. Marissa described how the online reading modules helped her students with disabilities, affirming, “Yeah, so if it’s the target skill, that especially something that’s in an IEP, I need to put them to work on, then I can pull it. So, so it’s been helpful to me, within my settings.” She added she could use the FCRR resources to support differentiated instruction for her students from grades K-5 despite their wide range of skill levels.

While teachers at this school site appreciate the support and guidance provided through the PLC, there is a perceived lack of supportive school administration. Amy expressed the need for prioritizing professional development and suggested involving the instructional coach and administrator in the process. This would help them understand the teachers’ challenges and learning experiences, allowing for more targeted support. Currently, the entire school has only one instructional coach covering elementary, middle and high school levels. Michelle pointed out the coach’s focus on middle and high school, emphasizing the need for broader knowledge of elementary education.

Despite the perceived lack of support, teachers acknowledge that the PLC has empowered them to ask challenging questions and advocate for themselves. Teachers now feel empowered to approach the school administration with specific concerns or needs for their classrooms or cohorts of elementary teachers. One suggestion that teachers had was that the school administration or the instructional coach attend the PLC meetings to demonstrate support for teachers and enable more meaningful PD sessions tailored to the actual needs of teachers and students, promoting overall success.

This paper was a result of documenting the efficacy of weekly PLCs that were conducted at a Native American charter school in a Southwestern state. Our research question was, “How did teachers perceive weekly PLC meetings conducted by university faculty at their school?” A PLC is a collaborative and ongoing learning framework within an educational setting where educators collectively engage in shared goals and reflective practices in an effort to improve student outcomes (Hord, 1997). In a PLC, teachers collaboratively analyze student data, exchange best practices and develop strategies to enhance teaching and learning (Stoll et al., 2006). This dynamic community fosters collaboration, open communication and collective responsibility, ultimately promoting a more effective and supportive learning environment for educators and students (Hudson et al., 2013). Our PLC meetings at the school were guided by the teachers’ needs, and the researchers offered free resources or worked on developing resources to support teachers. We conducted a focus group at the end of the school year to learn more about teachers’ perceptions about the PLC. We then coded our data and identified seven themes from the participants’ comments about the efficacy of the PLCs in their context: (1) support, (2) resources, (3) school administration, (4) data collection and interpretation, (5) collaboration, (6) usefulness and (7) professional development. Teachers felt supported in implementing the Common Core standards and felt the resources shared were directly focused on increasing their efficiency in the classroom. They reported that interpretation of their assessments using data-driven analysis and decision-making helped them with more precise instructional planning that targeted the individual needs of their students. The teachers shared that the professional development offered during the PLC was tailored to their specific needs in the classroom and could be implemented right away. It gave them an opportunity to collaborate as elementary grade teachers separate from the rest of the school, and the knowledge they gained was meaningful and appropriate to their particular grade levels. Furthermore, they requested continued support from researchers to continue PLCs at their schools and more support from school administration to make this a priority.

While we approached our collaboration with respect for the cultural assets of the school and an interest in the utility of PLCs with diverse teachers, our main goal was focused on improving best practices in reading for teachers and improving reading outcomes for students in their classrooms. Ultimately, the unique language or cultural needs of Native American teachers and students were neither an explicit component of our year-one collaboration nor a topic that surfaced in the teacher-centric focus group about their experiences with the PLC. Potentially, this was already being addressed through the Native Literature curriculum that the school had adopted and was therefore not needed through our professional development work. The teachers’ references to limited administrative support and overshadowing by upper-grade teachers may indicate that the PLCs met more foundational needs for collaboration and mentoring, implying that cultural and linguistic relevance was a less immediate need. It is also possible that diversity played an implicit role in our partnership. The intentional consideration of cultural sensitivity and humility by the university team could have facilitated a more engaged and open tone to the PLC meetings for the teachers to speak candidly about their needs and ideas. Additionally, respect for diversity may have been implicit in the teachers’ assertion that the work conducted through the PLC was meaningful and tailored to them.

It is worth noting that this manuscript represents findings from the first year of a multi-year collaboration. We have subsequently extended our partnership to address aspects of Native American language and culture at the school, potentially giving credence to the previous suggestion that diversity was not one of the teachers’ more pressing needs at the beginning of our collaboration. Our work has progressed in the following ways: (1) during the 2023–2024 academic year, we invested in a multi-tier language curriculum called “Story Champs” that teachers were trained in that tapped into the cultural aspect of story-telling in the Native American community; (2) during the 2024–2025 academic year, we developed a community-based oral language screener for Native American students in an urban setting to reduce the bias in testing; and (3) we are currently developing an idea to implement translanguaging and Tier 2 literacy centers at this school during the 2025–2027 academic years.

Though the efficacy of PLCs has been established in the literature (Andrews & Lewis, 2007; Cordingly et al., 2003; Little, 2002; Louis & Marks, 1998; Owen, 2016), no studies could be identified that report on the efficacy of PLCs in schools that primarily serve Native American populations. The predominant contribution of this study is that it adds to the extant literature on this population of teachers and students. As researchers, we learned that this model of community-based action research takes time and is slower to yield results, but in the long run is more sustainable for our schools compared to research studies that fit a limited timeline. An invitation to continue work at the school for another academic year makes us believe that change is slow but certainly possible at any school site, as long as there is support at every level, from administration to teachers to students. We want to stress the point about school administration support, as they are not only responsible for coordination, supervision and curriculum implementation, but also for integrating those components within the school’s vision, mission and ensuring compliance with educational policies. A university-school partnership can only be successful with the backing of and trust in school administration from both the researchers and teachers, respectively. At a more macro level of change, our research project is a move towards collaborating with rural communities and charter schools serving culturally and linguistically diverse students, who do not have many opportunities to collaborate with external partners to facilitate PLCs and other areas of implementation regarding tiered models of instruction. Through this project, we established a connection with teachers and special educators at the school site, learnt about a Native Literature curriculum that is being adopted at the school network level, and developed multiple research ideas and invitations to collaborate on various projects with the school site as mentioned in the previous section. Based on our experiences, our recommendations for setting up PLCs and other components of MTSS at rural and other underserved school sites are as follows: (1) It is vital that leadership and administration advocate for systems-level changes, supports and resources to enhance both teacher and student outcomes; (2) The changes that are being introduced need to be incremental and professional development should be tailor-made to teachers’ needs in their classrooms, rather than a research agenda; (3) While school-university partnerships are an ideal mechanism to establish trust and multi-year goals, both teachers and administrators need to be aware that change takes time, effort and consistency to show improvement in student outcomes.

The goal of our PLC meeting times was to address Tier 1 reading assessment and intervention. At the end of the study period, we helped teachers analyze data they were collecting from the district-mandated progress-monitoring tool, Istation, that was used to collect three data points at the beginning of the year, middle of the year and end of the year. Though this data was helpful, it only gave us insights into how students were doing on grade-level standards. But since a majority of students were performing below grade level, it did not give us insights into gains in reading if they were reading below grade level. Moreover, three data points were good summative measures, but we recommended that teachers collect more frequent data, on a weekly basis if possible, to improve educational outcomes and instructional planning. We trained teachers on using curriculum-based measures such as easyCBM, which are quick 1-min measures of reading skills. Though we did not see consistency in use by the end of the semester, it was on their agenda for the next academic year.

Reading instruction occurred at each grade level for 5 hours per week. Each week, pacing guides indicated which Common Core State Standards should be addressed at each grade level and for approximately how much time. Teachers determined which of the curricula and resources (i.e. Heggerty, Wonders, Florida Center for Reading Research) to use for each lesson based on the collective needs of their students, including current reading performance, cultural and linguistic relevance, and engagement. While resources from the Florida Center for Reading Research could be used for whole-class activities, teachers also used them to differentiate instruction as needed.

For the university research team, this partnership was beneficial in multiple ways. Firstly, we learnt that this framework was more conducive and sustainable for improving teacher and student outcomes. Secondly, we established a multi-year partnership with this school site. Though there is a lot more work to be done to establish a comprehensive MTSS framework, this was a first step in that direction. Thirdly, while our collaboration is having a positive effect on one school, research on MTSS indicates a widespread need for support to schools and districts (Cartledge et al., 2016; Cavendish et al., 2016; Gersten et al., 2017; Gomez-Najarro, 2023; Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Although the specific needs of schools will vary, the framework we have used, with a focus on PLCs, seems to be a valuable structure that allows professionals knowledgeable about MTSS to engage in several partnerships simultaneously. Then, as an increasing number of schools receive support and begin implementing high-quality MTSS programs with fidelity, the effectiveness of the MTSS framework broadly can be reevaluated in practice.

One limitation of this study is that we do not have data to show the changes in the learning process for individual teachers as well as maintenance of this knowledge. Future studies should explore these aspects. A second limitation is the small sample size of elementary-grade teachers and their perspectives, which cannot be generalized to other school sites. Future studies are needed to add to our understanding of teacher practices and perceptions of PLCs in other similar school sites. Finally, our goal for the next academic year is to capture student outcomes and student growth in reading and math and correlate that with what teachers are learning during PLC meeting times. This study adds to our understanding about teacher perspectives related to PLCs in an understudied population. Future studies on this topic are needed to extend our knowledge in the field.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.