Across my blogs and podcasts, I consistently emphasize that educator growth is driven less by receiving advice and more by engaging in intentional reflection. Coaching conversations, peer observations, and PLC collaboration only become powerful when they help teachers analyze the impact of their decisions on student learning. I work to create conditions where teachers study their own practice: What do I want students to be doing and thinking? What actions on my part are most likely to produce those learning behaviors?

Then, how did that compare to what happened? What adjustments did I make in the moment? What should I do next? What might I change next time? At some point, what evidence of learning appeared? Reflection shifts professional learning from compliance to ownership. When teachers interpret classroom evidence, consider alternative instructional moves, and predict how a change might influence learners, they build both efficacy and independence.

As school leaders, our goal should be to create opportunities for educators to continuously improve because they habitually inquire into their own and each other’s practice and use reflection as an engine for professional growth. In many schools, teachers meet regularly in PLCs but report that those meetings rarely change classroom practice. Teams meet and share ideas. Lessons are observed and feedback is offered. But the deeper reflection that turns experiences into insight is often limited. Educators may be busy together but not necessarily learning together.

In an Education Week article, Heather Bailie Schock, an education professor described how she uses a strategy from hospitals, “the medical huddle,” to generate increased reflection among her students. Schock identified that while she modeled instructional strategies with them, they missed the “why” behind her decisions.

“They needed a system that explicitly surfaced the thinking behind my pedagogical decisions. And I needed a structure that made this reflection predictable, safe, and quick.”

She found that huddles provided that system. In healthcare, teams pause briefly at regular intervals to share what they are noticing, what concerns them, and what may require attention. Teams of nurses, physicians, and support staff gather for 10-15 minutes at a predictable time each day. Each person shares observations: something they noticed, a concern, a potential risk, or a question requiring attention. The conversation is short, structured, and notably not evaluative. Its purpose is to build shared understanding.

Hospitals introduced huddles because research in patient safety revealed a troubling pattern. Harm rarely resulted from professionals lacking knowledge or skill. Instead, many problems occurred when individuals held pieces of important information that never became collectively understood.

The issue was not competence. It was shared understanding. Teams needed a routine that made what people noticed visible to everyone.

Studies consistently show that hospital huddles:

• improve teamwork and collaboration
• increase communication and accountability
• increase situational awareness
• create a collaborative culture
• allow earlier intervention before problems escalate

What caught my attention was not simply the structure of huddles, but the reason they exist. Hospitals discovered that experienced professionals could work side-by-side, observe the same events, and still fail to learn from them—unless they intentionally process those observations together. Schools face the same challenge.

What might this look like inside a PLC?

A middle school grade-level PLC identifies eight multilingual learners whose limited language growth is affecting their academic progress across content areas. Rather than beginning with instructional strategies, the team first commits to building shared understanding. During the coming week, members spend brief time in each other’s classrooms specifically observing the eight students.

The focus is not on the teacher’s lesson but on student learning behaviors:

• What are these students doing during instruction?
• When are they participating?
• When do they disengage?
• What seems to support or limit their responses?

At the next PLC meeting, the team begins with a twelve-minute huddle.

During the huddle:

• Each teacher reports only observations.
• No advice is offered.
• No strategies are suggested.
• Members may ask clarifying questions but not propose solutions.

The purpose is to make “noticing” public and develop a shared picture of the learners’ experiences across classrooms. Teachers are not yet trying to fix the problem. They are trying to understand the learners.

After the huddle concludes, the PLC moves into its regular meeting where teachers discuss what learning behaviors appear necessary for greater success and what instructional approaches might support those behaviors.  Each member commits to implementing one of the strategies during the next two weeks.

At the following PLC meeting, the team again starts with a brief huddle. Teachers share what they observed after implementing a selected strategy—again focusing on student responses rather than judging teacher effectiveness. Only after the huddle does the team discuss adjustments or additional approaches.

This cycle repeats: observe → huddle → interpret → try → huddle → interpret

Over several weeks, teachers begin noticing patterns. They identify classroom conditions that consistently increase participation and language production. The team then assesses student progress and uses the results to plan next steps.

The huddle did not replace the PLC’s work; it improved the quality of the team’s thinking.

Why PLCs Often Fall Short

Professional Learning Communities were designed for educators to study the relationship between teaching and learning. Yet many teams unintentionally move too quickly to solutions. A student struggles, and the conversation shifts to strategies, resources, or interventions.

The problem is not commitment. The problem is the sequence of thinking.

When teams solve before they interpret, they depend on opinions and experiences rather than shared evidence. Each teacher leaves with ideas, but collective expertise isn’t built.

A huddle changes the sequence. It intentionally pauses the team between observation and action. Educators first describe what learners are doing, compare patterns across classrooms, and surface questions about why learning occurred—or didn’t. Only afterward does the team consider instructional responses.

The huddle slows the meeting but accelerates professional learning. Over time, teachers begin to predict student responses more accurately because they repeatedly connect teaching moves to learning behaviors. The PLC shifts from exchanging strategies to developing shared understanding. While many of these elements appear on PLC agendas, frequent shifts in focus often interrupt the teacher learning cycle.

A huddle provides a system that surfaces the thinking behind pedagogical decisions and their impact on learners. It makes reflection predictable, safe, and quick.

PLCs created time for collaboration. The huddle creates a routine for collective learning.

Student learning doesn’t improve because teachers meet together. It improves because teachers learn together.

DownloadPrint