Skip to main content

On Personalizing Learning and Reculturing Teaching in Large High School Conversions to Small Schools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Second International Handbook of Educational Change

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 23))

Abstract

Despite repeated evidence of successful change efforts in K-8 schools over the nearly three decades since the dawn of the standards era, the literature on school reform and change is fairly clear – high schools remain a kind of “holy grail” for education reformers. Graduation statistics suggest that American high schools fail to grant diplomas to a high percentage of students entering school as ninth or tenth graders. In many locales, 30–40% or more do not graduate on time; too often, these students drop out early in the experience. Other schools, particularly those located in urban centers, realize even lower student success rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 789.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Web site for the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) puts the US average for high school graduation in 2005  at 68.8% (see http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23).

  2. 2.

    See http://gatesfoundation.org/Education/RelatedInfo/EducationFactSheet-021201.htm

References

  • American Institutes for Research/SRI International. (2005). Getting to results: Early student outcomes in new and redesigned high schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. with Almeida, C., & Steinberg, A. (2001, August). Wall to wall: Small learning communities in five Boston high schools (LAB Working Paper No. 3). Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. Available at http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/LABWorkPaper/Wall2Wall.pdf.

  • Boyer, E. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breulin, D., Mann, B., Kelly, D., Cimmarusti, R., Dunne, L., & Lieber, C. (2005). Personalizing a large comprehensive high school. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. (1994). More good news that school organization matters. Issues in restructuring schools (Issues Report No. 7). Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, K., Curran, B., & Gandal, M. (2005). An action agenda for improving America’s high schools. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. (2001). Transforming the American high school: New directions for state and local policy. Aspen, CO: The Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, K. (1996). Affective and social benefits of small-scale schooling. Charleston, WV: ERIC Digest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, H., Bizar, M., & Zemelman, S. (2001). Rethinking high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckman, J., & Howley, C. (1997). Sustainable small schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthy, S. J. (1996). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. (2000). A small price to pay for justice. A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 168–180). New York and London: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What's worth fighting for in your school. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, T. (2000). School reform and the no-man’s land of high school size. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howley, C., & Bickel, R. (2000). When it comes to schooling … small works: School size, poverty, and student achievement. Randolph, VT: Rural School and Community Trust, Policy Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., Duffett, A., Farkas, S., & Collins, K. (2002). Sizing things up: What parents, teachers, and students think about large and small high schools. Washington, DC: Public Agenda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, W., McPartland, J., Legters, N., & Balfanz, R. (2000). Creating a comprehensive school reform model: The talent development high school with career academies. Journal for Education of Students Placed at Risk, 5(1/2), 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemple, J., Connell, J., Klem, A., Legters, N., & Eccles, J. (2005). Making the move: How freshman academies and thematic small learning communities can support successful transitions to and through high school. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education and U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klonsky, M. (1998). Small schools: The numbers tell a story. Chicago: University of Illinois, Small Schools Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V., & Ready, D. (2006). Schools within schools: Possibilities and pitfalls of high school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legters, N. (1999). Small learning communities meet school-to-work: Whole-school restructuring for urban comprehensive high schools (Report No. 31). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, D. (1995). Small schools, big results. The American School Board Journal, 82(7), 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, D. (1998). Can the odds be changed? In M. Fine & J. I. Somerville (Eds.), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. (1998). Redefining teachers, reculturing schools. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 529–543). Dordrecht, The Nethelands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and the Carnegie Foundation on the Advancement of Teaching. (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American Institution. Reston, VA: NASSP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved January 2, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kque0011.htm

  • Quint, J., Bloom, H., Black, A., & Stephens, L. (2005). Scaling up ‘First Things First’: The challenge of scaling up educational reform. New York: MDRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raywid, M. A. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, school-within-school, and separate small schools. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raywid, M. A. (2006). Themes that serve high schools well. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 654–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergiovanni, T. (1996). The case for smaller schools, leadership for the schoolhouse (pp. 98–118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskin, L. S., & Little, J. W. (Eds.). (1995). The subjects in question: Departmental organization and the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporte, S., Correa, M., Kahne, J., & Easton, J. (2003). Chicago high school redesign initiative: A snapshot of the first year of implementation. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, C., & Lear, R. (2005). A foot in two worlds: The second report on comprehensive high school conversions. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., King, S. P., Powell, L. C., Holland, N. E., Gladden, R. M., et al. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • WestEd. (2001). Are small schools better? Policy brief. San Francisco: WestEd.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Copland .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1: Nature of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grants to Study Schools

District Grants. One of the schools included in the study was part of a Gates model district grant. These were awarded to increase the capacity of 11 Washington school districts and all their schools to improve academic achievement, infuse technology into the learning environment, increase professional development opportunities, and strengthen home and community partnerships. A major focus of these 5-year grants, which were awarded beginning in spring 2000, was to change district operations in ways that more clearly supported school-level work. District grant guidelines were not explicit about the foundation’s expectations for small schools or conversions.

School Grants. One of the schools in this study received a model school grant, designed to support schools in developing a common focus, high expectations, data-driven decisions, and time for teachers to collaborate – in service of helping all students achieve at higher levels. Over 50 elementary, middle, and high schools received 3-year grants beginning in 2001 to create and implement new designs.

Achiever Grants. The remaining four study schools received Achievers 5-year grants beginning in 2001 designed to support school redesign within 16 Washington State high schools serving large populations of low-income students. The program’s $100 million in resources were focused on improving college access for low-income students and combined academic readiness with scholarship opportunities over a 10-year period. High-achieving students from low-income families were eligible to compete for one of five hundred Achievers scholarships given annually to graduates of Achiever high schools. Students receiving the Achievers scholarship were supported with a 4-year full ride to a state college or university.

Appendix 2: The Schools

Elm is one of six small schools in a rural high school complex that was part of a district-wide grant from the Gates Foundation. At the time of the redesign effort, the large comprehensive high school that gave birth to Elm housed 1,650 students, almost all Caucasian, and was the only high school in the district. About 46% of the student body passed three sections (reading, writing, and math) of the state standardized test in 2005 and 12.9% qualified for free or reduced-price meals.

Elm serves approximately 315 students and has a staff of 14 teachers, including two teacher-leaders. The student population is over 75% male, possibly due to a strong focus on hands-on projects involving technology, math, and science. The school and district administrative leadership has remained constant since the grant was awarded.

Alder is one of five small schools in a comprehensive high school complex that received a school grant from the Gates Foundation. At the time of the redesign effort, the large comprehensive high school in this suburban district out of which Alder was created housed 94 teachers and 1,700 students. The majority of students are Caucasian. Approximately 40% of the students passed three sections of the state test in 2005 and 20% qualified for free or reduced-price meals.

Alder has approximately 320 students and 15 teachers, including all three industrial technology teachers in the building. Because of this focus and the school’s vocational image, the student population was primarily male in the first year of implementation. Recruitment efforts by the female teachers evened out the student body in year two.

Chestnut is one of six small schools in an Achievers grant high school complex. The overall building housed 1,560 students at the start of the redesign effort, more than half of whom represented minority populations. Approximately 16% of the student body passed three sections of the state test in 2005 and about two-thirds qualified for free or reduced-price meals. A small group of teachers worked on the initial grant proposal. Teachers formed a leadership team to research small schools and developed an RFP process. Students helped craft and critique the small school proposals.

Chestnut serves approximately 250 students with 11 teachers. Student representatives help plan advisory and other activities, such as student recognition and field trips, through a student council. Counselors were slow to adapt to the small schools structure, though in the second year of implementation they divided students by small school rather than alphabetically.

Cedar is one of six small schools at an Achievers high school complex in a smaller suburban district. At the beginning of the redesign effort, the comprehensive high school complex was one of two high schools in the district, serving a working-class neighborhood consisting of 2,100 students, two-thirds of whom were Caucasian. Approximately 33% of the student body passed three sections of the state test in 2005 and 50% qualified for free or reduced-price meals.

Cedar has international, global studies, communications, and technology themes and serves 394 students with 17 full- or part-time teachers. Teachers have spent a year planning a major curricular program that will direct instruction for the ninth and tenth grades. It continues a program from one of the district’s middle schools, whose students Cedar would like to recruit.

Hemlock is one of three small schools at an Achievers high school complex— the only high school in an urban fringe district with a highly transient immigrant population. The comprehensive high school complex housed 750 ethnically diverse students overall. Approximately 27% of the student body passed three sections of the state test in 2005 and over half of the students qualified for free or reduced-price meals. The school has been a member of the Coalition of Essential Schools since 2000.

Hemlock has 320 students and 16 staff, including all of the building’s visual and performing arts teachers. The staffing is a reflection of the school’s intended arts focus. The longtime and supportive superintendent left the district early in the grant’s third year and was replaced with an interim. A new superintendent, serving in his first superintendency, was hired at the end of the third year. At the beginning of the grant’s fifth year, a new building principal and assistant principal were hired.

Birch is one of five small schools at an Achievers high school complex located in a large urban fringe district. The building housed a diverse student population and was one of four comprehensive high schools in the district, serving almost 1,900 students in grades 9–12 at the start of the redesign effort. This number represented a significant growth in recent years due to an influx of 1,200 new students and 36 new teachers in the fall of 2004 when the ninth grade joined the high school. Approximately 31% of the student body passed three sections of the state test in 2005 and over half of the students qualified for free or reduced-price meals. One of four new small schools redesigned out of the larger comprehensive structure, Birch serves 340 students.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Copland, M.A., Lambert, M.B., Wallach, C., Ramsey, B.S. (2010). On Personalizing Learning and Reculturing Teaching in Large High School Conversions to Small Schools. In: Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., Hopkins, D. (eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_38

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics