One focus of my work with PLCs is increasing the degree to which PLCs function as teams rather than as meetings of franchise holders. In many schools, teachers can unintentionally operate as owners of separate classrooms, courses, or content areas. As true teams, however, teachers share accountability for the success of all students represented by the PLC. That belief in the value of teams drew me to a recent article titled, “How to Build a Superteam That Keeps Getting Better” based on Ron Friedman’s book, Superteams.
Friedman proposes that “In periods of rapid change, the teams that outperform everyone else are not those with the best plans or the most talent but those that learn the fastest. Research reveals a consistent pattern: High-performing teams—“superteams”—build cultures of continuous improvement. When work is tied to shared meaning and progress matters more than perfection, teams become more resilient, adaptable, and capable of sustained success.”
In education, this description closely aligns with the concept of collective teacher efficacy—teachers’ shared belief that together they can positively influence student success. Here are four ideas from Friedman’s writing that I believe have strong application for instructional leaders supporting PLCs as well as teachers collaborating within them.
Run more experiments. Superteams evolve by trying new approaches, even when things are going well. By contrast, average teams often stall as soon as they find something that works. They stop asking questions. They stop trying new things. And eventually they fall behind.
Learning-focused PLCs treat classrooms as places for disciplined experimentation. Teachers bring instructional questions to the team, test new approaches, gather evidence from student behaviors and learning, and then reflect together on impact. In these PLCs, experimentation is paired with reflection. Teams examine evidence not simply to prove success, but to learn. When a strategy does not produce the desired student behaviors or outcomes, the response becomes curiosity rather than blame:
“What did we learn?”
“What might we adjust?”
“What should we try next?”
Effective PLCs maintain fidelity to the purpose of improving student learning while remaining flexible about the methods used to reach that goal. Experimentation keeps teams responsive to learners rather than locked into routines simply because they are familiar.
Ask the one question most leaders avoid. One simple way to start is by asking your team, “What are you stuck on?” It’s a question that does far more than uncover problems. It normalizes challenge, invites honesty, and signals that asking for help is a mark of engagement, not weakness.
Friedman’s question “What are you stuck on?” communicates something important. Struggle is expected. Questions are valued. Asking for help signals professionalism, not weakness. High-functioning PLCs create conditions where teachers can safely surface challenges connected to student learning:
- “My students still struggle transferring this strategy independently.”
- “I’m not sure my questioning is producing enough student thinking.”
- “The feedback process is not leading to stronger revisions.”
- “I can’t figure out how to increase engagement during collaborative tasks.”
These moments are not signs of weak teaching. They are indicators of professional learning in progress. PLCs accelerate improvement when teachers no longer feel pressure to appear finished.
Make feedback feel like support. The faster a team learns what is working and what is not, the faster it improves. Research shows that leaders of super teams deliver significantly more—and better—feedback than leaders of average teams.
Many PLCs discuss student data regularly but spend far less time providing meaningful feedback to one another about teaching practices and student learning behaviors. Friedman’s research suggests that super teams improve faster precisely because feedback is frequent, useful, and experienced as support rather than judgment. When feedback feels evaluative, teachers naturally protect themselves. Conversations become cautious. Risk-taking decreases. Reflection narrows. But when feedback is experienced as collaborative problem-solving, learning accelerates.
Effective feedback causes thinking. It is designed to increase professional learning and is connected to action. PLC members do not simply exchange observations. They use feedback to plan next steps, test adjustments, and revisit outcomes. A cycle of: Feedback → Reflection → Adjustment → New Evidence allows continuous improvement to become part of the team’s culture.
Lead with meaning, not just metrics. When people understand why their work matters, they exhibit more energy, collaborate more effectively, and take greater pride in the results. They also share a sense of purpose that drives ongoing improvement.
PLCs can easily become dominated by metrics—test scores, pacing guides, benchmark data, and completion charts. While these measures can provide important information, Friedman’s research reminds us that sustained improvement occurs when teams remain connected to the meaning behind the work. That meaning, for PLCs, is found in learners and in the difference teachers collectively make in students’ lives. I continually emphasize the importance of placing student work—sample writing, math assessments, projects, or discussion evidence—in front of PLCs with the question, ‘What do students need us to learn?’ That process provides meaning to the numbers that are often the feedback given to PLCs.
Friedman’s research highlights that superteams are not created through mandates, protocols, or organizational charts. They emerge when teams develop habits of shared learning.
PLCs become stronger when teachers:
- experiment together,
- surface challenges honestly,
- provide feedback that fuels reflection,
- stay connected to the deeper purpose of improving students’ lives as learners.
The work of instructional leaders is not simply ensuring that PLCs meet. It is supporting PLC teams in becoming better at learning together in ways that increase student success. Because of the complexity of teaching and learning, schools need PLCs that are not merely collaborative, but continually adaptive, reflective, and learner-centered.
Super PLCs emerge when educators become continuous learners together.
