Before the meeting
Name one learning question and bring a small, relevant sample of student work. Include evidence that complicates the initial view. Check whether tasks and assessment criteria are comparable, and remove identifying details where appropriate. Agree facilitation and who records the decision.
A suggested 40-minute agenda
| Stage and suggested time | Discussion | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Focus · 5 minutes | What do we need to understand about learning? What did the last decision produce? | One question; status of prior action |
| Examine · 12 minutes | What does the work show? Which difference might reflect the task, support or learner context? | Observations separate from explanations |
| Consider · 10 minutes | What response is feasible? What evidence supports it and what remains uncertain? | Options and chosen rationale |
| Agree · 8 minutes | What will change, who owns it and what evidence will we bring next time? | Response, owner, evidence date |
| Review burden · 5 minutes | What preparation helped? What could we simplify? | One improvement to the next meeting |
Record the decision
| Learning question | Response and rationale | Owner / support / time | Next evidence and date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team decision |
Also record: what we expect, what would make us change our mind, which learners need closer attention, and any alternative explanation for a later change. Avoid adding a reporting requirement that consumes the time intended for inquiry.
What the evidence does and does not support
The reviewed Texas evaluation concerns designated Model PLC at Work schools and is funded by the model provider. It does not isolate the effect of this agenda or establish an optimal meeting duration. EEF implementation guidance supports attention to people, systems and follow-up; it does not validate the Cited Leadership timing. Mansell & Kirksey (2025) EEF (2024)
References and reviewed material
- Mansell, K. E., & Kirksey, J. J. (2025). Exploring the Effectiveness of Solution Tree’s PLC at Work® Process in Texas Schools. Center for Innovative Research in Change, Leadership, and Education, Texas Tech University. December 2025. ERIC ED679058.
Reviewed: Original report: title/funding, executive summary, sample and empirical approach, student findings, conclusions and Appendix A (PDF pp. 1–4, 9–11, 26–38, 50–53, 56–60). Setting/design: Texas public schools designated Model PLC at Work; student analyses concern elementary/middle-school mathematics and reading. Descriptive analyses and staggered difference-in-differences with comparison schools; not randomised. Limit: Designation requires evidence of sustained implementation and prior student growth. Selection and unmeasured differences remain concerns; a designated model is not any meeting called a PLC. Funding: Commissioned and supported by Solution Tree, the provider of the PLC at Work model. Report states conclusions are the authors’ own.
- Education Endowment Foundation. (2024). A School’s Guide to Implementation (third edition). Published 24 April 2024. Web overview and recommendations on behaviours, contextual factors and process.
Reviewed: Original HTML overview and all three recommendation pages: behaviours, contextual factors and process; full PDF and underlying review not reviewed for this refresh. Setting/design: Guidance developed for schools and other education settings in England. Evidence-informed implementation guidance, not a trial of a Cited Leadership resource. Limit: A framework for implementation decisions does not establish an effect for a particular programme or validate these worksheets.