The League of Professional Schools is a practitioner-driven, school-initiated reform effort. It is based on the premise that the answer to the problems in public education can be solved by those closest to the student. To the League, teachers and administrators are the solution, not the problem.
The League had its genesis in the work of Carl Glickman and his colleagues at the Program for School Improvement. After working with four schools near the University of Georgia on a long-term basis, we made a drastic change in our approach to school renewal. Rather than working intensively with a few schools and serving as outside experts, League staff assumed the role of facilitators and encouraged practitioners to become actively involved in the improvement process.
Based on the concept that practitioners are the experts about school improvement, the League of Professional Schools was born in 1990. Starting with 24 charter schools, the League has now grown to 62 schools, with a waiting list. In 1993, a second charter of the League, the Atlanta Project League, began with 18 member schools and now includes 28 urban schools.
The Guiding Premises
- Shared governance. Although all League schools make a commitment to shared governance around instructional issues, the way they go about the process varies greatly. Again, each school's unique needs and strengths guide the process. Some schools have formal governance processes, with elected officials and written charters; others adopt informal procedures that involve the entire faculty in making decisions. For example, a school with 189 students and 14 teachers has a very different governance process than a school with 2,300 students and more than 150 teachers in two buildings.
- Action research. Although an integral part of all League schools, shared governance is not an end in itself. The goal is to make better decisions, and to do that we must make informed decisions. The use of action research (collecting, analyzing, and using data to make decisions) changes the culture of the school. In this new atmosphere, collective inquiry, rather than personal agendas, drives decision making.
- Instructional focus. Another distinction of League schools is the time and energy that faculties devote to both decision making and action research on instructional issues. We do not encourage faculties to assume a decision-making role in every area necessary to running a school. Rather, schools must critically examine decisions made at the local level and decide where the faculty wants to spend its time and energy.
The League does not endorse any particular curriculum or instructional strategy. Upon request, we provide schools with information about current initiatives. Again, we believe that schools must make their own decisions through action research and goal setting.
How League Schools Operate
- Governance. The League is governed by a congress composed of representatives from each member school. Decisions about League activities are either made by the congress or recommended for a vote by all member schools. Ad hoc committees and task forces are established as needed to study issues or changes in League services. The congress has a charter and is led by a chair and a co-chair selected by the representatives.
- Membership. Schools that are interested in joining the League send a team of six people to a two-day orientation and planning workshop. These workshops usually take place every two years when memberships open. There, they learn about the philosophical foundation of the League and its operations. Members of current League schools also attend and share their experiences. Time is provided for school teams to reflect on what they are hearing, apply this information to their particular situation, and make action plans for their own school's renewal.If, after the workshop, members of the team would like their school to join the League, they share the information with their colleagues and hold a vote by secret ballot. League membership must be supported by 80 percent of a faculty.
- A team approach. At any League event, you will find a team of practitioners from each school. The idea is that faculty members think collectively—not as individuals—about what is good for the school, and that they are responsible for sharing anything they learn with the rest of the faculty. As one teacher explained to her colleagues: I realize that not only will the principal have to share power, but that I might need to change the way I do things because it is better for the entire school. The idea of shared governance is sharing not taking!
In the early years of the League, many schools sent the same team members to meetings. While these few people developed a thorough understanding of the League, faculty members who had not attended a meeting were not as aware of how their school's work was connected to the larger League body. As a result, many schools now rotate membership. Two or three standing members, however, attend all League meetings during a given year in order to provide continuity to their work.
Collegiality and Commitment
Basically, the League is about committed schools doing hard work together. By connecting with other schools, they learn from and support one another, and share successes and failures.
The opportunity to meet with other practitioners is a key element of the League. A series of meetings scheduled throughout the year provide such networking opportunities. At these quarterly activities, team members plan together and learn about the work going on in other schools.
In addition to regular meetings, the League provides an Information Retrieval System for schools to request current information on any schoolwide topic they are studying. One day a year, a League practitioner visits each school to collect information about the school's efforts to implement the three premises.
Participation in the League motivates schools to look at issues on a schoolwide basis, rather than by grade level or department. Although the results of decisions made to improve curriculum and instruction are being assessed, the process for making decisions and studying the effects of those decisions is now a norm in many League schools. This is a major change in the way schools go about dealing with issues.
In addition, the level of involvement in governance issues in each school has become increasingly inclusive. According to data gathered from schools during their first year in the League, the majority of governance processes involved the faculty but did not include support personnel, parents, or students. Over time, however, schools have found ways to involve more stakeholders. The perceptions of students are a key indicator of their progress. Indeed, it is uncanny how insightful they can be. Five years ago, for instance, most students said that schoolwide decisions were made by the board of education or the principal. Now, students indicate that teachers are involved, and in some cases, students themselves have a direct voice in decision making.
Action research, the most difficult of the three premises to achieve, has also shown steady growth. Initially, schools find the processes of collecting and using data in decision making to be time consuming and difficult. The longer they belong to the League, however, the more they see the need to use action research and the more willing they are to get started. To assist one another in this oftentimes frustrating work, a group of practitioners formed the Action Research Consortium. Supported by the BellSouth Foundation, this group is available to assist colleagues in other schools.
How Effective Is the League?
The success of the League is based on the individual accomplishments of member schools as they work on their yearly action plans. Each school's plan outlines instructional goals, scheduled activities, timelines for completion, and assessment methods.
- increased student learning (measured by both standardized tests and authentic assessment);
- increased parent involvement;
- decreased drop-out rates;
- increased attendance of both students and teachers;
- development of new schedules, class compositions, and delivery models; and
- increased use of technology by students and teachers.
The effectiveness of the League is also evident in the number of schools that choose to remain members. Even though participation places many demands on their limited resources, state and local budget cuts have had no direct impact on schools' affiliation with the League. In fact, since 1990, 84 percent of all schools that have joined the League remain active.
League members include both small and large—and rich and poor—schools. They come from rural, suburban, and urban settings. The common thread is a commitment to providing a quality education for all students. The work is hard, and results come slowly. At a time when criticism is rampant, it is encouraging to know that they are doing this difficult work.
