Orange County School Board reviews professional learning communities; no action taken

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — The Orange County School Board held a work session Jan. 28 to clarify the district's approach to professional learning communities (PLCs) and to outline steps for expanding the model across schools. No formal action was taken and the session did not include public comment.

The district’s deputy superintendent, Dr. Mike Armbruster, led a presentation explaining PLCs as a schoolwide operating model built on three big ideas (a focus on learning, a collaborative culture and a results orientation) and four critical questions about what students should learn, how staff know they are learning it, how to respond when they do not learn, and how to extend learning for students who already have mastery. “The PLC process is not a program. It cannot be purchased nor can it be implemented by anyone other than the staff themselves,” Armbruster said.

Board members and district leaders said the objective is to reduce confusion caused by varied uses of the PLC label, align practice across schools, and preserve teacher autonomy while encouraging peer collaboration. Superintendent Johanna Vasquez told the board the effort is intended to “get the messaging down to the classroom level” and to “respect [teachers] as professionals.”

Armbruster framed PLCs as the school as an institution, with collaborative teams as the building blocks that carry out the work. He reviewed common planning, shared assessments and data-driven cycles of instruction and intervention as central PLC functions. The presentation included fictionalized school archetypes (Charles Darwin Academy, Ferris Bueller Academy, Warm-and-Fuzzy Academy and All-In Academy) to illustrate different instructional philosophies and the district’s goal of moving toward the “All-In” model in which staff “work as a team to ensure high levels of learning for all.”

District leaders outlined several concrete next steps: an Instructional Leadership Institute on June 4 with Solution Tree, additional Solution Tree professional development in July for school teams, invitations for board members to visit high-performing schools showing effective collaborative teams, and ongoing principal- and cadre-level coaching. Armbruster and other leaders said the district’s reorganization (now in its second year) and a cadre model are intended to reduce the number of schools each leader supports so coaches can work more directly with principals and teacher teams.

Several board members raised implementation concerns. Member Felder, who identified herself as a teacher, said she had disliked PLCs when they were delivered as a requirement rather than a teacher-owned process: “As a teacher, I hated PLCs because it was a demand,” she said, adding that the presentation made her more optimistic about a non-mandatory, teacher-led approach. Member Gallo and others pressed on how to prevent PLCs from becoming extra, time-consuming meetings that pull teachers away from instruction; Member Douglas emphasized the loss of instructional minutes to testing and scheduling constraints.

District leaders responded that the aim is to remove barriers to collaborative time rather than add tasks. Vasquez and Armbruster said SBUAs (standards-based unit assessments) and CRMs (curriculum resource materials) are available tools but are not mandatory district directives for every teacher; the district has asked teachers who opt out of SBUAs to provide examples of the assessments they use. Vasquez summarized the guidance: “SBUAs were not required.” Board members asked for the memo to be shared again.

Board discussion also touched on evaluations. Members described CFEs (common final exams) and state FASTER assessments as instruments that feed into teacher evaluations. Vasquez acknowledged CFEs are used for evaluation in certain subjects and grades and said district staff would revisit how standards and evaluation tools are shared with teachers. Members asked whether removing the legislative portion of test-based evaluation would allow the district to use internal measures instead; Vasquez said such changes would depend on state policy.

Panelists noted potential ancillary benefits: research and district experience cited in the presentation link effective PLCs to higher teacher morale and improved retention. Armbruster and Karen Furno, senior executive director of access and opportunity, also flagged the possibility of using collaborative structures to introduce and govern new tools — including artificial intelligence — so adoption would be coordinated and peer-supported rather than ad hoc.

The board asked for clearer timelines and more visible pathways for teachers and principals. District staff said the June/July training events and school visits are intended to build common language and to scale practices already present in “pockets” of the district. The presentation and the board’s questions repeatedly emphasized that PLCs should be teacher-owned, shaped by collaborative teams, and supported (not mandated) by district leaders.

No motions, votes or other formal actions were taken during the work session.