For five years we have facilitated professional development leading to restructuring and reform at Ravine Junior High (RJH) (a pseudonym, and now Ravine Middle School). Our work at RJH has been funded by a U.S. Department of Education GEAR-UP grant and supported by the universities where we serve as faculty members in education. As we present our work with colleagues from Ravine Junior High people ask, How did you get teacher buy-in? Our answer is simple: don't get teachers to buy-in, we get teachers to drive the Scholars have critiqued the deskilling of teachers over the past century, and only recently have teachers been recognized as necessary leaders in school reform (Spring, 2002). Kahne and Westheimer (2000) coined the phrase pedagogy of collective to describe teachers, informed by theory, working together to change practices. Webb, Neumann, and Jones (2004) discussed leadership, the process through which stakeholders deliberate both the ends and the means of reform, and Mohr and associates (2004) detailed how teacher research can lead to better schools. Christensen (2005-2006) urged district curriculum leaders to put classroom teachers with exemplary practice and curricular expertise at the center of professional development. At RJH, we facilitate collective action for critical leadership by creating spaces in which teachers can lead by sharing ideas, garnering peer involvement, and moving reforms forward. The reform model Such an approach ain't brain surgery, as Kretovics, Farber, and Armaline (2004) noted in their article describing the multi-site reform effort of which we are a part. In our particular school, we facilitate a three-pronged approach: 1. School restructuring, first organizing smaller learning groups, or clusters, then moving to a middle school model. 2. Student enrichment, including a teacher-developed, research-based benchmarks program to guide student performance in areas known to correlate with success. 3. Teacher professional development, through which all restructuring and enrichment is conceptualized and enacted. Throughout the process of developing this approach to reform, professional development has shifted from university-led to teacher-driven activities, as depicted in the timeline in Figure 1. Years 1 & 2: University-led change Graduate courses designed and taught by university faculty during the first two years of the professional development program are central to our restructuring process. The first-year course, School Restructuring and Urban Reform, engaged 63 teachers and administrators, organized into teams, in researching topics of their choosing and drafting recommendations for their school. They revised their draft recommendations based on feedback from colleagues, and these became the school's plan for restructuring. The second-year course, Action Research and School Reform, involved 25 teachers and the principal developing ideas for change based on their own research, presenting the ideas to peers, and revising the restructuring plan based on their new insights. Years 3 & 4: The transition The third-year course offerings were developed by university personnel but informed by teachers' reflective assessments of their accomplishments and a building-wide survey. Data led to dividing coursework into one-credit modules, all but one of which were led by university faculty to facilitate more teacher involvement. A teacher led the technology module, which had not only the highest enrollment but also the most positive evaluations. We got the point. Instead of a problem serving as a roadblock, we worked to use the problem as a tipping point in how our work evolved and changed. At the end of that year, we worked with the building's teacher leader to form a Professional Development Committee (PDC) with representation from clusters (the building's name for teacher teams), academic disciplines, the union building committee, and administration. …