SMALL LEARNING COMMUNITIES CHART



REVIEW OF SMALL LEARNING COMMUNITIES – GENERAL MODELS

ARTICLE |SOURCE |DATE |FOCUS OF ARTICLE |DISTRICTS

SCHOOLS

IDENTI-

FIED |SLC STRUCTURE |SLC FEATURES / BENEFITES |IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES / BARRIERS |IDENTIFIED STRATEGIES TO DEAL WITH CHALLENGES / BARRIERS |IMPLEMENTATION IMPLICA- TIONS & CONSIDER-ATIONS |NOTES

| |Getting Groups to Change |Harvard Business Review |November 2001 |Although competing commitments and big assumptions tend to be deeply personal, groups are just as susceptible. |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A | | | | |Implications for State-Level Decision Makers |Education Policy Publication |2002 |Some states have laws which inhibit the formation of smaller learning communities and foster larger schools |None |N/A |Collaboration in many forms is an important way that small schools can offer students experiences in a wide range of curriculum areas. State requirements need to be sufficiently flexible to allow students to learn required content in a variety of ways or settings. |State funding incentives may be leading districts to design and build large schools despite research about school size |Look at how schools are funded…Charter schools are usually smaller learning communities | | | |Small by Design: Resizing America’s High Schools |North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

policywww@contact. | |Viewpoints is a multimedia package made up of 2 audio CD’s & text providing interviews & Recommendations of educational leaders on the small schools movement |Lists names of education researchers, school leaders, teachers, & program directors interviewed

| | | |CD’s contain advantages & challenges associated w/ designing a small school, as well as key factors to consider | | | |Big Plans for Small Schools |North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

policywww@contact. | |This is an essay that accompanies the 2 CD’s & suggests rethinking the use of school facilities monies to redesign or construct smaller schools. Recommended strategies for local and state level decision-makers are included | | |Higher achievement, better discipline, better attendance, higher graduation rates, higher student & family satisfaction, low income students especially benefit, closer adult-student relationship. Sharing facilities with social service agencies, higher education institutions, or even with businesses can provide better service to students & families, can allow educators to focus on teaching, & can save taxpayers money. | | |State & school districts must consider recent compelling research about the value of small schools & shared facilities. Policymakers now have an opportunity that only occurs once every 2 to 3 generations, i.e. spending $84 billion over the next few years, which will effect education for the next 50 years. We need strong leadership & community collaboration for this marvelous opportunity to happen. |New York City study found that cost per graduate in smaller schools is less expensive (Stiefel, Latarola, & Fruchter, 1998) | |Implications for Local Decision-makers |North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

policywww@contact. | |Local decision-makers need to consider: 1) the SLC research

2) leader-ship among school boards & administrators 3) Parent & community involvement in the design & operation

4) Boards & adminis-trators implement a system of choice for students & faculty between schools & educational approaches & 5) Administrators develop a process for evaluating a variety of facilities options on a routine basis, and

6) All options available, including charter schools, contract public schools, and other alternative forms of public schools. | | | | | | | | |Between Hope and Despair |Ed Week |June 21, 2000 |Failure of large high schools - SLC examples from NYC may be the answer |NYC Alternative Schools: Urban Academy, Baruch College Campus, School of the Future |Fewer than 400

Every student is connected to at least one adult |Relationships between students and work, faculty; strong relationships among the adults

• College prep |Lack of time

• Lack of resources

• Skilled technical assistance

• Public understanding | | | | |School Size Maters in Interesting Ways |Middle School Journal |March, 2001 |Research indicates “Smaller is Better” in Middle Schools

Analyzes effect of size on MS |Michigan Middle Schools |Optimum MS no more than 600 (Jackson, Davis Turning Points 2000) |Support academic excellence

• Promote effective leadership

• Responsive to the needs and characteristics of young adolescents |National trend to create larger schools; achievement data is not relevant as the SES factor overrides any correlation - i.e. smaller schools, which do tend to score higher, are also higher in SES (in Michigan)

| | | | |Teachers: Students in Large High Schools More Likely to ‘Fall Through the Cracks’ |Pres release - “Public Agenda” - a report of a study “Sizing Things Up: What Parents, Teachers and Students Think about Large and Small High Schools, by Johnson and Duffett, Farkas and Collins

|February 19, 2002 |High school teachers have low morale - whether or not the school is large or small - but reformists point out that parents, teachers and students would back smaller schools if the benefits were advertised. |Nationwide study of 920 teachers |N/A |Creating small schools in which teachers know all of their students helps identify areas of difficulty faster than at large schools |Large High Schools have three times the rate of small schools: Overcrowding

Low Academic Standards

High dropout rate | | | | |Outcomes of Professional Learning Communities for Students and Staffs |SEDL |11/27/02 |A collection of research studies, most from the mid-90’s   that identify the power of the organized  learning communities  that make possible the advancement of student achievement. |  |Comprehensive  redesign, decentralization, shared decision-making, schools within schools, teacher teaming, professional communities of staff, |For Teachers:

Reduction of isolation, increased commitment to the mission and goals of the school and increased vigor in working to strengthen the mission, shared responsibility for the total development of students and collective responsibility for student’ success, powerful learning that defines good teaching and classroom practice, that creates new knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learners, increased meaning and understanding of the content that teachers teach  and the roles   they play    in helping all  students  achieve expectations, higher likelihood  that teachers will be well informed, professionally renewed, and inspired to inspire students, more satisfaction and higher morale, lower absenteeism

Commitments to making  significant and lasting changes, higher likelihood of undertaking fundamental  systemic change.

For Students:

Decreased dropout rate,

Fewer cut classes,

Lower absenteeism,

Increased   learning that is  distributed more equitably,

Larger academic gains in   math, science, history and reading,

Smaller achievement gaps between students from different backgrounds. |The perception of another “new idea”. Teachers comfort with their comfort level. Challenge of learning new practices. Implementers who do not have  “extensive knowledge of the literatures or research that underlie the innovations, resulting in reinvention or recycling of old movements under new labels”. |Possibility that opportunities provided by regular meetings of learning communities, their inquiry into innovative solutions to student learning, and the thoughtful examination of new programs and practices could result in the kind of understanding and learning that is in a lot of the research.

 

Research stresses  four interconnected  factors leading to improved student outcomes Identified:

Student Learning,

Authentic Pedagogy, Organizational Capacity, External Support. Additional   key features  of successful  school-based reform: Challenging  learning experiences for all students, a school culture that nurtures staff collaboration and participation in decision making, and meaningful opportunities for professional growth.

  |  |Outcomes of Professional Learning Communities for Students and Staffs | |Small Learning Communities |National Conference of State Legislatures |June 2002 |Summaries of a variety of SLCs. Most well described on the Defining “Small Schools” chart which is part of the District A binder. Material taken from a book, “Schools that Work: America’s Most Innovative Public Education Programs”.

A discussion on “What the Research Shows” includes, Smaller schools Support Academic Achievement; Promote academic Equity; Student Attitudes  and Behavior are more Positive; Extracurricular Participation rates are higher; Attendance  is higher; Dropout rates lower. State Initiative descriptions, including California’s Class Size Reduction Program. |  |various |See Focus of Article |Sustainability,

Teacher Recruitment, Need for Massive Professional Development on SLC, lack of flexibility at District and state level, insufficient  faithfulness to the small school concept, insufficient autonomy and separateness  of the sub-units, failure of cultural change to accompany structural change. |  |  |  | |Small Communities of Learning for Secondary Schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District: A Concept Paper |LAUSD Instruct-ional Support Services |1/8/03 |Small Learning Communities |None specifically, but paper contains a complete bibliography, web resources, and glossary of terms |Cultural Definition: SLC based on a committed group of students, staff, parents, and community working together in teams to make decisions to engage in practices that provide a safe and supportive environment for youth to succeed. With a focused academic identity, stakeholders share an educational philosophy and vision and build a relationship of trust and respect to exercise the beliefs, knowledge, understand-ing and practices that develop habits of mind and nurture emotional, physical, social, and moral growth. |Dimensions (7 C’s):

1) Caring relationships,

2) Cognitive challenges

3) Culture of support for effort

4) Community membership

5) Connections to hi-quality post-secondary learning

6) Consciousness of self as resourceful, capable human being

7) Clarity of academic focus

Characteristics of Effective SLC’s That Focus on Student Learning:

1) Use of space

2) Identity

3) Accountability

4) Teaching quality

5) Equity and access

6) Personalization

7) Vision and

leadership |Changing the pattern of high schools from “sorting and stratifying” students to ensuring that everyone learns at high levels. |1) Establish advisory team of national experts

2) Develop and communicate a clear vision and mission

3) Build practitioner support and mobilize accomplished practice

4) Build parent and community support and resources

5) Mobilize youth and youth resources

6) Engage political leadership

7) Assess and build capacity for transformation

8) create incentives and external pressure

9) Provide design assistance

10) Provide support for systemic transformation

11) Monitor and evaluate progress |Excellent Reflection Tool that looks at the 7 characteristics listed in SLC Features and Benefits column

Conversation Questions for converting large schools to SLC’s:

1) How will we assign existing faculty to the SLC community?

2) How will we assign students to the SLC.

3) What becomes part of the small school, and what remains with the large school?

4) What should be the identity of the small learning community?

5) How will the SLC address the needs of EL’s, Sp. Ed , and students at high achievement levels?

6) How will we build increased parent and community awareness and support of small schools? | | |The Real Reason People Won't Change |Harvard Business Review |November 2001 |Employees fear a shift in power, the need to learn new skills and the stress of joining a new team. Looks at competing commitments and examines the "big assumptions" |N/A |N/A |N/A |Resistance to change does not reflect opposition, nor is it merely a result of inertia. Instead, even as they hold a sincere commitment o change, many people are unwittingly applying productive energy toward a hidden competing commitment. The resulting dynamic equilibrium stalls the effort in what looks like resistance but is in fact a kind of personal immunity to change. |Development of a three-stage process to help organizations figure out what's getting in the way of change. First, managers guide employees through a set of questions designed to uncover competing commitments. Next, employees examine these commitments to determine the underlying assumptions at their core. Then employees start the process of changing their behavior. |Lots of psychological stuff dealing with fears and insecurities of people! | | |School Size: Considerations for Safety & Learning |WestEd |Oct. 2001 |Improved safety and learning in small schools |Chicago schools

New York City schools |No specific structure - total school pop is assumed to be < 500 |BENEFITS:

-students learn better

-violence + behavior

prob decrease

-attendance is higher

-extracurr prtcption

higher

-poor/minority

students benefit

++ CHANGES:

-strng personal bonds

-parent/community

involvement incrsd

-communctn incrsd

-instruc qual incrsd

-tchr satisifctn incrsd

-built-in accntblty |Public perception that bigger is better

Lack of time for planning

Lack of technical assistance

System impediments e.g. state laws favoring building larger schools, push for one-size-fits-al curriculum

Perceived increased in costs |Provide incentives for creating small schools at state and district level

Target resources to schools with concentrations of poor/minority students

Remove disincentives that exist in law or policy

Design (new) schools that support small school structure | | | |Schools Within Schools |ERIC Digest 154

(College of Educ.,

Univ. of

Oregon)

|Jan. 2002 |Advantages, drawbacks, varieties and sources of funding for SWAS | |SWAS

Defined in article as: “large public schools that have been divided into smaller autonomous subunits.” |SWAS benefits identified in article equated with benefits of “small schools”

Test scores are higher

Student accountability is increased

Enhance student self-perceptions both socially and academically

Attendance rate is higher and dropout rate is lower

Discipline problems are less frequent

Less money is spent per student |Small size alone does not guarantee improved academic quality (“hugging is not the same as algebra.”)

Staffing issues: teachers teaching out of specialty areas, teacher transfers

Parent perception that bigger is better

Segregation along racial, ethnic, socioeconomic lines |Careful planning | |Funding sources identified as Annenberg Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, U.S. Dept of Educ | |Curriculum Adequacy and Quality in High Schools Enrolling Fewer Than 400 Pupils (9-12) |Issues & Insights (American Assoc of School Admin)

|10-21-02 |Maintaining curricular quality in small schools |Central Park East Secondary School in East Harlem | |Small is a 9-12 school with fewer than 400 students

Core curricular offerings in small high schools are well aligned with national goals

Proportion of vocational offerings more favorable per student

Student participation in extracurricular is greater even though fewer number are offered |Lowered incidence of advanced course offerings

Diminished specialized services

Fewer extracurricular opportunities

|Integrated or fused curriculum which reduces # of separate subjects through interdisciplinary courses

Interdistrict pooling of resources

Use of technology to compensate for barriers |Small schools are ideal sites for curriculum reform efforts | | |Current Literature on Small Schools |Mary Anne Raywid

ERIC |Jan., 1999 |A brief overview of research literature on the effectiveness of small schools; describes current topics researchers have begun to explore. |None | |Early research: (late 18980s & early 1990s) firmly established small schools on more productive and effective. Students learn more; fewer drop out; better behavior. This was found to be especially true for disadvantaged students.

Recent Research: (a) Size: some debate as to optimal size. Some say 300 for elem., 500 for hs; others say 600-900 hs.

(b) Cost effectiveness: are cost effective if you look not at enrollment but at graduation rates. (c) In addition to size, another key is the “focus” of the school. (d) Common traits of successful small schools are self-selection of faculty, some degree of autonomy, a cohesive pedagogical approach and an inclusive admissions policy.

| | | | | |Small Schools “Best Practices for Sharing Facilities |Jessica Webster Business & Professional People for the Public Interest | ? |Tips on creating small schools in a shared facility. 1. Autonomy: small schools should be as separate as possible. Physically separate buildings; each school should have its own entrance & gathering areas. 2. Staggered bell schedule; don’t co-mingle use of the gym, cafeteria, etc.

2. Develop strong relation-ships between SLC leaders: principals should have equal standing, even if one is larger. Ongoing communication between principals is critical—weekly meetings.

3. Relation between SLC & District Office: The District owns the buildings, not the principals.

4. Conflict Resolution: define a process; establish a neutral facilities coordinator; create a shared facilities MOU. |None | | | | | | | |What are Small Schools |Business and Professional People for the Public Interest |Undated, but after April 2002 |Challenges to the implementation of small schools |Chicago |Smaller Learning Communities, Small Autonomous Schools |The teacher knows the student well

• The teacher works closely with the entire faculty to plan cross-curricular projects that produce a relevant and purposeful learning environment

• The student is affirmed and challenges in every classroom

• Improved student performance

• Increased graduation rates

• Improved attendance

• Student feels connected

• Reduced discipline problems

• Increased professional satisfaction by teacher

• Parents feel more involved. |Leadership and Governance.

• Small schools do not feel supported by district.

• Administration threatened by autonomy

• District does not provide a structure that supports SLC

Staffing

• The right to select teachers

• Teacher input in selection

• Issues of course offerings with a reduced staff

Curriculum and Instruction

• Mandated assessments interferes with cross-curricular instructional strategies

Facilities and Space Sharing

• Difficulties when SLC share facilities, either with a host school or other SLC

Staff Cohesion and Planning

• A need for common planning time.

• This need is often hampered by mandated department or grade level meetings

Budgets and Resources

• Resources not adequately distributed

• SLC not given adequate authority over budget and resources

• Lack of involvement by all stakeholders

|Develop a district-wide administrative structure for SLC (cluster, region or instructional area)

• Greater autonomy over budget, staffing, and facilities

• A comprehensive support center to develop the capacity of SLC

• Support for the Lead Teacher

• Site-Based Agreements for SLC

• Opportunities for communication and outreach between SLCs. |A major change in the mindset of teachers and administration

|This source is an excellent summary of some of the difficulties in implementing SLC. | |Research About School Size & School Performance in Impoverished Communities |Craig Howley, Mary Strange, & Robert Bickel |Dec., 2000

ERIC |A review of recent research on school size. | | |Most recent research says, 350 max. for elementary and 900 for h.s.

The “Mathew Project” (1988, Friedhin, & Necochea, using Calif. data) says optimal size depends on the socio economic status of students. Smaller school size benefits poor schools, and the poor the school, the smaller the school should be. Larger school size benefits more affluent communities. The study has been replicated in four states and holds consistent. The “Mathew Project” results clearly imply small schools can help thwart the threats that poverty imposes on school performance. Even in affluent schools research says schools should not be larger than 1000 and in poor communities they should be much smaller. | | | | | |School Size |Karen Irmsher

ERIC |1997 |The article summarizes findings related to school size. | | |Findings: 1. Small schools seem to benefit minority & low-income students. 2. Large size hurts attendance and dampens enthusiasm for involvement in school activities. 3. Large schools have lower GPS & standardized test scores & higher drop out rates & more problems with violence, drugs & security. 4. Large schools are not cheaper to run—they incur penalties of scale. 5. In large schools there is more social stratification. 6. Large schools function more like bureaucracies with more inefficiency and personal loneliness; small ones more like communities. 7. Seven reasons why small schools work best are Respect Governance, Simplicity, Safety, Parent Involvement, Accountability, and Belonging. 8. Prescriptives for deal size vary from 300-900. 9. We can utilize existing large schools by putting several small schools into existing buildings. 10. It’s important to resist regrouping students by achievement. 11. It works better if all schools on a campus are small, rather than one big and one or more small. 12. Most successful schools are based on cohesion, autonomy, focus or theme, and a constituency assembled on the basis of shared interest. |13. Three reasons for failures: (a) insufficient faithfulness to small school concept (b) insufficient autonomy and separateness (c) failure to couple changes in school culture with structural changes. | | | | |Literature Review: Converting Large High Schools into Smaller Learning Communities |Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |March 2002 |In 2000, according to the US Dept. of Ed., more than 70% of today’s h.s. students attend schools with over 1000 students. The rationale for creating these large schools from the 1940s to the 1990s was to offer more resources and a wider curriculum to students, while taking advantage of economies of scale. But research has sown that this creates impersonal environments that make students feel alienated, teachers disempowered and parents disenfranchised. Research has shown that small schools are more productive and effective than large schools and they benefit the school community: students, teachers and parents. One way to create small schools is to convert big ones into smaller more personal entities.

The breaking up of large schools is the strategy least documented by research.

| | |High schools have implemented a variety of different models to downsize into smaller learning communities. Several models are: 1. House Plans: students and teachers remain together for some or all coursework. It can be a 1-year or multi-year plan. Is dependent on its larger host school.

2. Mini-schools: also serve students over a several year period and are dependent on the larger host school, but usually have their own instructional program which gives it more distinctiveness.

3. Schools-within-schools: Separate & autonomous units with their own personnel ,budget and program. Share resources with the larger school and report to the school principal on matters of safety, etc. |Without a separate space, autonomous administration & budget, designated faculty & distinctive philosophy, small schools likely offer diminished benefits or none at all.

Five Boston schools that restructured into SLCs faced five key tensions: (1) hard to focus efforts simultaneously on restructuring & everything else (2) how to fully cluster students and teachers into SLCs. (3) a strong curricular leader is essential (4) hard to balance equity issues for students with teacher staffing issues (5) bilingual programs struggle to maintain basic services in SLCs.

| | | | |Conference Call |LAUSD?

|Middle School Restructuring |LAUSD |Teaming/ Coring of Middle School Teachers

Creating more Planning Time for Middle School Teachers

Reducing number of students each middle school teachers sees each day

Increasing time middle school students spend in Math/ English each day

|Creating small communities within existing school structures;

Personalizing middle school for students and teachers by reducing number of teachers students see and the number of students teachers see |More Math and English teachers needed at schools;

may increase class sizes for PE, electives;

where will more Math and English teachers be found?;

credentialing issues in converting present staff members to English and Math teachers

|More teacher training opportunities so that middle school teachers will be credentialed to teach more than one subject;

article makes the suggestion that this model will result in the use of less classroom space |This seems like a series of pages from a power point presentation for an unknown audience. The script for the power point was not included.

| | | |Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools

|Knowledge Works Foundation |2002 |Small schools v. large schools-the financial aspects both long and short term |Florida, Maryland and Vermont with reference to Ohio, California, and other states |Small schools, some reference to school within a school |Low drop out rates

• Low discipline & other risky behaviors

• Improved communication

• Increased parental involvement

• Effects on discipline/GPA

• Council of Educational Facilities Planners-recommendations for schools |Public perception of cost

• Cost of renovation (20% higher for smaller schools

• Segregation and tracking issues

• Schools not built to last more than 30 years |Research on small schools very positive

• Resources for further study (may prompt further investigation) |Useful tool for large school v. small school information and comparison

• Article may be too general for our purpose |Interesting to read about other states | |Breaking Up Large High Schools |Tom Gregory,ERIC Digest |Dec. 2001 |Five common errors of execution |Article lists researchers (Cotton, Wasley & Lear, etc., and New York and Chicago school districts | | |Autonomy, size, continuity, time, control |Two regional sources of assistance: Small Schools Workshop @ the University of Illinois at Chicago () and Small Schools Project @ University of Washington () | | | |School Reform and the No-Mans-Land of High School Size |Tom Gregory, Indiana University |Dec. 2000 |Breaking up large high schools and creating new small high schools |General information on schools in New York and Chicago | | |Resistance to change |Ongoing dialogue and faculty retreats | | | |The School-Within-a-School Model |Sarah Dewees, ERIC Digest |Dec. 1999 |SWAS |General information on schools in New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago | |SWAS is a separate and autonomous unit, it must negotiate for use of common space, and school reports to district rather than site principal |Difficulty getting sufficient separateness and autonomy |Commitment to implement the program fully | | | |Conference Call |LAUSD? |? |Middle School Restructuring | |-Teaming/ Coring of Middle School Teachers

-Creating more Planning Time for Middle School Teachers

-Reducing number of students each middle school teachers sees each day

-Increasing time middle school students spend in Math/ English each day |-Creating small communities within existing school structures;

Personalizing middle school for students and teachers by reducing number of teachers students see and the number of students teachers see

|More Math and English teachers needed at schools;

may increase class sizes for PE, electives;

credentialing issues in converting present staff members to English and Math teachers |Various scenarios for scheduling middle school students in a humanities block |More teacher training opportunities so that middle school teachers will be credentialed to teach more than one subject;

article makes the suggestion that this model will result in the use of less classroom space |This seems like a series of pages from a power point presentation for an unknown audience. The script for the power point was not included.

NO

| |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download