Notes from NSBA: Professional Learning Communities

I was glad that my schedule allowed me to attend the pre-conference “schools symposium”, sponsored by McGraw-Hill. A mix of architects and educators heard a series of presentations on the impact that new educational and environmental initiatives are having on school building design.

Small (or Professional) Learning Communities was a relatively new concept when I first heard it about seven years ago. The idea is now well enough established that we have many good examples of new and renovated schools in which the building design supports the SLC concept. (Our facilities planner, Bill DeJong, is an advocate – he refers to them as “pods”.)  Several board members visited Mason, Ohio last year to see one example for themselves.

The central idea is to make a school feel smaller to its students - and faculty - through organizational and building design, without sacrificing all the advantages of a comprehensive school. The intent is to create educational environments in which “the students all know one another” (they are missed when they are absent) and "all the faculty are able to sit around one table." This concept has been particularly helpful in large urban school districts that struggle with discipline, high dropout rates, and a lack of family support.

In response to these issues, research by the Gates Foundation concluded that the components of a successful high school experience are: rigor, relevance, and especially, relationships - the development of personal connections between and among students and faculty.

What resulted was the “small schools” concept: breaking large schools into pieces of 400-600 students each, in order to create more personalized environments. But as the Gates Foundation now acknowledges, reducing the overall size of a school is a strategy, not the final goal. We now see a spectrum of solutions tailored to individual communities, particularly at some traditionally successful suburban schools.

At one end of the spectrum are autonomous career academies housed in separate buildings, with student course selection limited to the offerings within their school. At the other end, students choose to identify with faculty and students of similar interest, but they are free to take classes from any of the “schools”. Under this design, it is emphasized to parents that their children are not choosing a career; rather, the choice of an “interest area” is intended to increase the student’s engagement to his/her education.

Beyond that, there is a great deal of variation. In many schools, the science labs are scattered throughout the "schools" so that science teachers have the opportunity to work with faculty from different subject areas. (One way to provide for collaboration within the science department is to locate labs near the "core".) Typically, but not always, there remains one football team and one drama club.

The architects were clear that there is no one "best" solution; each community must decide for itself. Also: flexibility is essential, so that the organization can continue to evolve as the school community learns what does, or doesn’t, work. (As part of their design plans, one school identified "one-year", "five-year" and "twenty-year” walls.)

The speakers noted that there is almost always some resistance to organizational change, driven by both personal and professional experience (especially when “the way we've always done it" has been mostly successful). The best way to create faculty enthusiasm for a different approach is to have them visit schools where these changes have been effectively implemented.