Reimagining PLCs: Growing Teacher Practice to Strengthen Student Thinking

Every December, classrooms start to feel different.

The pace slows just enough for teachers and leaders to lift their heads and ask the question we avoid when we’re pushing through the day-to-day:

Are students really thinking in our math classrooms—or are they just complying?

That question isn’t about blame.

 It’s about possibility.

Because when students disengage from mathematics—whether quietly or loudly—it isn’t a reflection of their ability. It’s feedback. It tells us something about the learning environments we’ve built, the expectations we communicate, and the structures that support (or unintentionally limit) deep thinking.

And that’s where the work of the adults in the system becomes critical.

Teachers Don’t Need More Pressure—They Need a System That Helps Them Succeed

Most teachers want to give students meaningful mathematical experiences—rich tasks, productive struggle, reasoning, collaboration, and the Standards for Mathematical Practice. But wanting and being able to consistently deliver those experiences are not the same thing.

The gap isn’t competence.

The gap is structure.

Research from Lieberman & Miller (2008) reminds us that:

“Professional learning communities bring teachers together in ongoing, collaborative, reflective, and context-specific learning that strengthens practice and improves student achievement.”

But too often, PLC time becomes:

• calendar talk

• pacing concerns

• coverage checklists

• data reports without instructional follow-through

  
  

If PLCs are going to shift student experiences in math—not just log meeting minutes—they must be designed to strengthen teacher practice and align to what we hope students experience in the classroom.

When PLCs Mirror the Learning We Want for Students, Everything Changes

If we want students to make sense of problems, reason together, and persist in challenge, then teachers need professional learning that models those same conditions.

That’s the heart of the ICUCARE^® Framework —instruction that is intentional, connected to students’ lived experiences, built on cognitive demand, and grounded in expectations that every learner is capable of rigorous mathematical thinking.

And leaders play a key role.

The E3 Model for Leaders — Establish, Empower, and Evaluate — supports leaders in designing the systems, routines, and support structures that make this kind of teaching sustainable instead of dependent on heroic effort.

When the ways leaders support teachers reflect the same learning values we want teachers to offer students, a powerful alignment begins.

A PLC Structure That Moves Learning Forward

An effective math PLC cycle doesn’t chase coverage or pacing.

It builds shared instructional clarity and collective efficacy—step by step.

A powerful structure includes:

1. Collaborative Problem Solving

   Teams work through a rigorous mathematical task tied to a priority topic as learners. This step builds insight into the mathematical thinking students will need—and surfaces where reasoning, precision, or structure may stretch learners.

   
   

2. Clarifying the Big Mathematical Ideas

   Before teaching begins, teachers build shared clarity around the big ideas that anchor the priority topic. This shifts the conversation from How do we teach this? to What do we want students to deeply understand?

   
   

3. Defining Proficient Work

   Instead of relying on answer keys, teams collaboratively determine what proficient work looks like for that priority topic. The conversation becomes: What evidence shows students truly understand the concepts?

   
   

4. Planning Instruction with Access and Challenge in Mind

   With clarity established, teachers design lessons and scaffolds that honor both entry points and complexity—ensuring students experience the Standards for Mathematical Practice as part of learning, not an optional add-on.

   
   

5. Making Responsive Adjustments Based on Evidence of Student Thinking

   As instruction unfolds, PLC teams analyze student work together to identify patterns in reasoning, common misconceptions, and areas of emerging strength. These shared insights guide thoughtful adjustments to upcoming lessons so instruction aligns to what students actually understand—not what we assume they do.

This cycle, used consistently, doesn’t just improve teaching. It strengthens professional confidence, deepens content clarity, and ultimately increases student engagement and mathematical identity.

Why This Matters

When students are given opportunities to think, reason, debate, revise, and persist—they don’t just learn math.

They begin to believe they belong in it.

And when teachers experience support structures that respect their professionalism and grow their practice—not evaluate or blame—it reignites the sense of purpose that drew them to this work in the first place.

That’s how systems change: not through pressure, but through alignment, clarity, and shared commitment.

A Small Next Step With Big Impact

Before winter break, choose one action:

👉 Ask your PLC team—or leadership team—this question:

“Are the learning experiences in our PLCs preparing teachers to create the kind of math classrooms where every student is expected and supported to think deeply?”

There’s no judgment in the answer—only direction.

If this message resonates, please share it with your team or another leader who’s pursuing the same kind of change.

Because when adults learn together, students rise.

Resources

• Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in Professional Communities: Improving Teaching and Learning. Teachers College Press.

• Portions of this content were drafted with the help of ChatGPT (OpenAI).