Every school’s pursuit of equitable outcomes is both a moral imperative and a shared responsibility. Impact Teams-PLCs are pivotal in driving student success through collective efficacy—the belief that as a team, educators can positively influence learning outcomes (Bloomberg & Pitchford, 2023). Achieving this, however, hinges on one foundational principle: goal consensus. Let’s delve into why goal consensus is critical, how it connects to John Hattie’s research on growth and achievement, and why SMARTIE (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound, Inclusive, and Equitable) goals are non-negotiable for sustaining improvement across grades.
Goal Consensus: A Non-Negotiable for Collective Efficacy
When a team aligns around a shared goal, it harnesses the collective power of its expertise, experience, and commitment. Goal consensus ensures that each member of the PLC is rowing in the same direction, focusing its efforts on measurable, student-centered outcomes. Individual efforts may lack coherence without a shared vision, diluting the potential impact on student learning.
In the context of Impact Teams-PLCs, goal consensus means that:
- Every student’s growth is prioritized: The team is committed to ensuring that each student grows at least one year’s worth of learning in one year (Hattie, 2012).
- Progress is systematically tracked: Educators know how many students need to move from level 1 to level 2 and from level 2 to levels 3 and 4.
- Sustained achievement is celebrated: Teams focus on maintaining and extending growth for students already proficient or advanced.
Why One Year’s Growth in One Year’s Time Matters
John Hattie’s groundbreaking research emphasizes that one year’s growth in one year should be the baseline expectation for all students (Hattie, 2009). This standard is critical for equity. Without it, opportunity gaps widen, leaving underserved students further behind.
Hattie’s work highlights the role of teacher collective efficacy in achieving this goal. When teams believe they can impact learning for all students, they are more likely to engage in high-impact practices, such as visible learning, goal setting, and data-driven instruction. The key is not just to identify gaps but to act on them with precision and urgency (Hattie, 2012).
CFAs and Mastery Goals in Supporting Goal Consensus
Common Formative Assessments (CFAs) and Mastery Goals are essential tools for ensuring goal consensus and driving collective efficacy. CFAs provide timely, actionable data that allow PLCs to monitor student progress and adjust instruction in real-time (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016). By aligning CFAs with mastery goals, teams can:
- Identify specific learning needs: CFAs help pinpoint which skills or concepts students struggle with, enabling targeted interventions.
- Track progress toward mastery: Mastery goals set clear expectations for student learning, ensuring that every student has a pathway to success (Bloom, 1968).
- Promote equity through differentiated instruction: By using CFA data to inform instructional strategies, teachers can provide equitable support that meets their students’ diverse needs.
Mastery goals also help foster a growth mindset among students and teachers. These goals focus on achieving deep understanding and applying key concepts, rather than merely completing tasks or assignments. When PLCs commit to mastery goals, they create a culture of high expectations and continuous improvement, reinforcing the belief that all students can succeed (Dweck, 2006; Guskey, 2007; Bloomberg & Pitchford, 2023).
The Power of Knowing the Numbers
Every teacher needs to know their numbers:
- How many students need to move from level 1 to level 2?
- How many students need to move from level 2 to levels 3 and 4?
- How do we sustain growth for students already scoring levels 3 and 4?
This granular focus drives actionable planning. For example, identifying students at level 1 allows the team to design targeted interventions. Similarly, knowing the number of students at each level ensures that the team’s strategies are inclusive, addressing the diverse needs of all learners (Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016).
Why SMARTIE Goal Setting is Essential
SMARTIE goals elevate traditional SMART goals by incorporating inclusivity and equity. Here’s why this approach is vital for each PLC:
- Specific and Measurable: Goals like “Move 15 students from level 2 to level 3 in reading” are clear and trackable, ensuring focus and accountability.
- Achievable and Relevant: Goals grounded in data ensure that targets are both realistic and aligned with broader school priorities.
- Time-Bound: Deadlines create urgency, keeping the team motivated and on track.
- Inclusive and Equitable: Embedding equity ensures that every student, regardless of background, is included in the growth plan (Hattie, 2012).
Continuous Improvement: A Collective Endeavor
Grade-level and schoolwide SMARTIE goals create a unified vision of success. For instance:
- At the grade level: Each team ensures students achieve targeted growth milestones, adjusting instruction to meet the needs of struggling and excelling learners alike.
- Schoolwide: Aggregated progress informs professional development priorities, resource allocation, and strategic planning.
Continuous improvement is not a one-time effort but an ongoing cycle of goal setting, action, reflection, and refinement. This cyclical process, grounded in data and equity, ensures that no student is left behind and that success is sustained over time (DuFour et al., 2016).
Our Call to Action
Goal consensus is a cornerstone of collective efficacy and continuous improvement. By committing to SMARTIE goals, leveraging CFAs, and focusing on mastery goals, educators not only honor their responsibility to provide equitable learning opportunities but also build a culture of shared accountability and success.
The time to act is now! Collaboratively set SMARTIE goals that prioritize equity and inclusivity. Use CFAs to regularly monitor progress and ensure alignment with mastery goals. Reflect on your data, refine your strategies, and celebrate successes as a team. Together, you have the power to ensure that one year’s growth for every student is not just an aspiration, but a reality.
Let’s commit to transforming learning outcomes—one student, one team, and one goal at a time.
References
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. UCLA-CSEIP.
Bloomberg, P. J., & Pitchford, B. (2023). Leading Impact Teams: Building a culture of efficacy and agency. Mimi & Todd Press.
Bloomberg, P. J., & Pitchford, B. (2017). Leading Impact Teams: Building a culture of efficacy. Corwin Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Solution Tree Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Professional learning and change: Best practices for results-driven professional development. Phi Delta Kappa International.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.