# An Overview of Smaller Learning Communities in High Schools

# 

![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.625in" height="2.5in"}

**U.S. Department of Education**

# Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

# Office of Vocational and Adult Education

# 2001

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
ED99C00093 with Fran Rothstein of Rothstein Consulting in Chevy Chase,
Md. Todd May served as the contracting officer's technical
representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent
the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product,
commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is
intended or should be referred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education**

Susan B. Neuman

*Assistant Secretary*

**Office of Vocational and Adult Education**

Carol D'Amico

*Assistant Secretary*

November 2001

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and Office of
Vocational and Adult Education, *An Overview of Smaller Learning
Communities in High Schools*, Washington, D.C., 2001.

To order copies of this report, write to:

ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education,
P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

Or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

Or email your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>;

Or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If
877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

Or order online at:
[www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html](http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html).

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/programs/slcp/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

# I. Introduction

A persistent call for more effective schools echoes across the
nation---from students and their families, from education reformers and
researchers, from governors, state legislators, and the U.S. Congress.
While many reform strategies have surfaced in our nation's schools,
research to date has validated relatively few of them. One reform that
continues to accumulate supporting research is the creation of smaller,
more personalized high schools. Research and experience show that
smaller learning communities can improve academic achievement for most
students by contributing to a safer, more humane environment and a more
positive overall educational experience.[^1]

Research findings support the notion that high school students are more
successful when they attend small schools. Small school environments
positively affect student achievement with noted improvements in grades,
test scores, attendance rates, graduation rates, drug and alcohol use,
and school safety (Klonsky, 1998). There is also evidence that large
high schools that have been restructured into smaller learning
communities yield similar benefits, especially when the sub-school units
are separate and distinct (Cotton, 2000).

Making high schools smaller is not a panacea for secondary education,
but smaller, more personalized learning structures provide fertile soil
for other high school improvement strategies to take root and succeed.
Because change is easier to implement in a smaller setting, smaller
learning environments create a context hospitable to reform. As Wood
(1992) documented in *Schools That Work,* making schools smaller is the
first step toward enhancing school conditions and improving student
outcomes.

To help large districts and schools personalize the high school
experience, the U.S. Congress has again appropriated funding for the
Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program. This program supports
strategies that result in smaller, safer learning environments at the
high school level. In FY 2001, the U.S. Department of Education will
award up to \$125 million in competitive grants to help local education
agencies (LEAs) create smaller, more supportive learning communities as
a foundation for their broader school improvement strategies.

This background paper is designed to help policymakers and school
leaders use the new Smaller Learning Communities program to implement
small school strategies in

large high schools and within school districts. The paper describes the
federal initiative, highlights small school structures and strategies
that may be implemented with grant funds, reviews the context of the
growing consensus around smaller schools, and summarizes the research
that undergirds the new grant program.

**II. Personalizing the High School Experience:**

**A Federal Initiative**

*What's wrong with high school? ... Too many high schools are overly
large and impersonal; their schedules are too regimented, adults are too
busy to get to know students; athletics are more valued than academics.
All too often, critics say, high school is a place that stifles
creativity while fostering competition, conformity, intolerance, and
mean-spiritedness.*

> Lawrence Hardy, *The American School Board Journal.*

To help large high schools and school districts make schools smaller,
Congress earmarked \$45 million in the FY 2000 Appropriations Act for
the Department of Education to fund Section 10105 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. This section of the act, entitled the Smaller
Learning Communities program, was designed to help LEAs plan, develop,
implement, or expand smaller, more personalized learning communities in
large high schools. Of the \$45 million appropriated for the SLC
program, the Department awarded \$42.3 million in support of 149 grants
to LEAs. The secretary awarded 84 one-year planning grants and 65
three-year implementation grants. A total of 349 schools, serving more
than 450,000 students, benefited during the first year of the program.
The secretary reserved the remaining \$2,250,000 to fund national
leadership activities.

Using additional funds appropriated in FY 2001 for school year
2001-2002, the Department will award up to \$125 million to LEAs under
this program. These funds will assist up to 200 school districts across
the country to implement their restructuring and personalization plans.

The Smaller Learning Communities program is an opportunity for high
schools to receive assistance in their efforts to raise academic
achievement. By supporting smaller communities within large schools, the
program sets the stage for students achieving to higher standards as it
helps students stay in school and participate more fully in the school
community. Additionally, in the wake of highly publicized school
violence, the program can help LEAs personalize the high school
experience by strengthening interpersonal relationships between students
and staff. Finally, as states and LEAs implement comprehensive school
reform, smaller learning communities are one way to keep student
achievement at the center of those reform initiatives.

**Use of Funds**

The Smaller Learning Communities program can help LEAs and schools
shoulder the initial costs associated with personalizing schools and
scaling them down. Funds may be used only for activities related to the
implementation of a plan to establish smaller learning communities in
high schools. These may include activities designed to commence
implementation activities, reorganize schools, train teachers, build
partnerships, acquire technical assistance, build data collection and
evaluation systems, and provide extended learning time and support
services for students.

Research demonstrates that smaller settings make it easier to implement
other reforms and increase their effect. Smaller Learning Communities
grants can be combined effectively with other high school reform
initiatives. For example, the Department's Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration Program provides funds through states and LEAs for
schoolwide improvements that support achievement of high academic
standards, an outcome that some research correlates with smaller
schools. Smaller Learning Communities grants can support extended
learning time---an obvious link to the 21st-Century Community Learning
Center grant program for school-community partnerships that keep schools
open after school and during school breaks. Teacher Quality Enhancement
grants, designed to increase student achievement by improving teacher
quality, can help prepare teachers to build personal relationships with
students through mentoring and advisory groups or prepare them to teach
in alternatively configured schedules.\
\
Funds may not be used for new construction of schools, and equipment
purchases should be limited. Grant-funded efforts to create smaller
learning environments must be connected to a comprehensive plan to
improve student achievement for all students enrolled in the school.

**Grant Applications**

Districts may apply on behalf of one or more of their large high schools
or for a district-wide initiative to plan, implement, or expand a common
approach across all of their large high schools. For the purposes of
this competition, a "large high school" is defined as a school that
enrolls 1,000 or more students in grades nine through twelve; schools
must already be in existence and must contain grades 11 and 12. Grants
will be awarded for school-specific restructuring activities such as
academies, house plans, schools-within-schools, and magnet programs or
to implement personalization strategies such as alternative scheduling,
teacher advisory systems, or adult mentoring programs in large high
schools.

For a one-year planning grant, LEAs may request \$25,000 to \$50,000 on
behalf of a single school. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of
eligible schools may request up to \$250,000 per planning grant. For a
three-year implementation grant, LEAs may request \$250,000 to \$500,000
on behalf of a single school. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of
eligible schools may request up to \$2,500,000 per implementation grant.
The maximum combined award amount for any district is \$5,000,000.

The Department anticipates publishing an application package in November
2001. It will be available online at:
www.ed.gov/programs/slcp/index.html. Applications for funding must be
received within 60 days of the date of publication of a notice inviting
applications in the *Federal Register.* The Department anticipates
awarding grants by April 2002. For further information about the grant
or to learn more about the Smaller Learning Communities program, visit
the Department's SLC Web site at:
htt;//www.ed.gov/programs/slcp/index.html or e-mail the Smaller Learning
Communities staff at: <smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov>.

**III. Implementation Structures and Strategies**

> *...\[R\]esearch has consistently shown that when a school is too big,
> serious problems often arise. Smaller schools tend to have lower
> dropout rates, better attendance, fewer incidents of violence, and
> more student participation in extracurricular activities. Discipline
> problems can be more serious when students see themselves as being
> relatively anonymous.... As for academic achievement, the research
> suggests that at-risk students are at a particular disadvantage in
> overly large schools.*
>
> American Federation of Teachers, *Improving Low-Performing High
> Schools: Ideas and Promising Programs for High Schools.*

In a small school, every student has the opportunity to develop personal
relationships with small groups of peers and teachers. When appropriate
structures and strategies are in place, even students in large buildings
and large school districts can gain the advantages of a small school.

This section identifies structures and strategies that local education
agencies and school administrators should consider, whether or not they
are applying for Smaller Learning Communities grant funds. Local
education agencies and individual schools can use these strategies,
often in combination, to create a small school feeling within a larger
one.

**Smaller Learning Community Structures**

> *...\[T\]here is much more to the whole matter of scale. It is not
> only that each teacher must have a sensible load of students. It is
> that the school itself has to be of human scale*---*a place where
> everyone can know everyone else.*
>
> Ted Sizer, *Horace's Hope.*

Small schools can be defined numerically, though experts disagree on the
exact upper limit for a small high school. Smaller school *structures*
have a number of categories. Effective restructuring initiatives
generally use multiple strategies to gain the full benefits of a small
learning environment. Models have been identified, based on the degree
of autonomy from the larger school in which they are located. Examples
of smaller school structures include academies, house plans,
schools-within-schools, and magnet schools.

Combining several smaller school reforms with each other, as well as
with other comprehensive reforms, is more beneficial than implementing
one smaller school strategy in isolation. Small school structures,
implemented along with other complementary strategies that enhance
student learning, are most likely to succeed.

**Structure I: Academies** are subgroups within schools, organized
around particular themes. For example, career academies combine key
principles of the school-to-career movement---integrating academic and
vocational instruction, providing work-based learning opportunities for
students, and preparing students for postsecondary education and
employment---with the personalized learning environment of a small,
focused learning community. Teachers and students integrate academic and
occupation-related classes as a way to enhance real-world relevance and
maintain high academic standards. Local employer partnerships provide
program planning guidance, mentors, and work internships. Career
academies share with other restructuring initiatives an emphasis on
building relationships between students and adults (teachers as well as
work-site supervisors and other employer representatives).

**Structure II: House plans** divide students in a large school into
groups of several hundred, either across grade levels or by grade
levels. Students take some or all courses with their house members and
from their house teachers. House arrangements may be yearlong or
multiyear arrangements. House plans personalize the high school
experience but usually have limited effect on curriculum or instruction.
Each house usually has its own discipline plan, student government,
social activities, and other extracurricular activities, although
students may also participate in activities of the larger school.
Grouping ninth-graders into a separate house is one way to ease freshman
transition to high school.

**Structure III:** A **school-within-a-school** is a small, autonomous
program housed within a larger school building. Schools-within-schools
are generally responsible to the district rather than to the host
school's principal, and are formally authorized by the superintendent or
board of education. Schools-within-schools have their own culture,
program, personnel, students, budget, and school space (negotiating the
use of common space with the host school in the same way office building
tenants arrange for use of shared conference facilities). Like an
academy, the school-within-a-school structure supports constructive
relationships between and among students and teachers by grouping
students together each year to take core courses with the same group of
teachers, thus increasing the supports students receive from peers,
teachers, and other adults.

**Structure IV: Magnet programs** use a specialty core focus (such as
math, science, creative arts, or a career theme or cluster) to attract
students from the entire school district. Some magnet programs have
competitive admission requirements; others are open to any interested
student. Students in a magnet program stay together for their core
classes and may take other courses with non-magnet students.

**Smaller Learning Community Strategies**

> *Human scale is only the beginning. The culture of the place is also
> critical, \[reflecting\] the dignity deserved by teachers as well as
> students.*
>
> Ted Sizer, *Horace's Hope.*

Specific strategies that take advantage of a restructured school can be
implemented at the sub-school unit level, within an entire building, or
districtwide. Most of these strategies have the advantage of making
students feel more connected to each other, to adults, and to their
school group. Strategies that are particularly effective in making
schools feel smaller are best implemented in conjunction with one of the
structural approaches.

**Strategy I: Freshman transition activities** help ease the
difficulties students often encounter as they move from middle to high
school. Some schools place all first-year students in their own academy
or house setting, sometimes in a separate wing or even a separate
building, with extra support from adults. In other cases, freshman
transition includes mentoring from older students or special career
exploration classes designed to set the context for high school as a
pathway to college and careers.

**Strategy II: Multiyear groups,** in which several teachers stay with a
group of students over a period of two or more years, foster trust and
intimacy between students and teachers. This strategy is similar to
"looping," a strategy used in elementary or middle schools when groups
of students stay together with a teacher for more than one year. A
multiyear group is a strategy for keeping several teachers with a group
of students for a set period of time.

**Strategy III: Alternative scheduling** allows teachers to develop
lessons that are more compatible with learning objectives. Alternative
scheduling is also conducive to arranging for work-based learning
opportunities and integrating business and community volunteers into the
curriculum. The length of the class period, the school day, and the
school year can be changed to support academic achievement. This is most
easily done in smaller schools. One of the more common alternatives,
"block scheduling," provides extended class periods that provide
teachers with the time necessary for in-depth lessons and experiential
learning. These arrangements permit more time for tutoring and intensive
projects, allow enrichment activities, and afford time to lagging
students to catch up and advanced students to delve into topics more
deeply. They give schools the ability to set a schedule that best suits
their needs.

**Strategy IV: Adult advocate systems** ensure that at least one adult
knows each student well. One quarter of students report being concerned
that they and their friends lack an adult who talks with them about
problems and decisions (*Shell Poll*, Summer 1999). Teachers,
counselors, community volunteers, and other school staff can fulfill
this "caring adult" role, helping personalize students' experiences in
even the largest schools. By meeting with 15 to 20 students,
individually or in small groups, on a regular basis over several years,
adult advocates can provide rapport, academic and personal guidance, and
links to additional resources when needed. Training for adult advocates
and administrative support for the advocate system are critical elements
for success.

**Strategy V: Teacher advisory systems** are similar to adult advocate
systems; they organize adults to personalize the high school experience
and support academic achievement, working with small groups of students.
Some schools and districts establish advisory classes that meet weekly;
others schedule students for less formal one-on-one or group time with
teachers. Advisory activities may include helping students develop
personal learning plans, introducing students to career clusters,
helping students select courses, and working with students on
postsecondary plans and preemployment skills.

**Strategy VI: Academic teaming** organizes groups of teachers across
departments, so that teachers share the same students rather than the
same subject. This strategy has much the same effect as a house
structure. Teaming links teachers, who teach different subjects, in a
team that shares responsibility for the curriculum, instruction,
evaluation, and sometimes scheduling and discipline of a group of 100 to
150 students. Teams share the same planning time and sometimes share a
specific area of the school building. Though more commonly used in
middle schools, academic teaming is showing up in restructuring high
schools as a way to personalize the learning environment by providing an
integrated view of students' progress and creating a group of teachers
who can focus together on the whole student. Teams can build a sense of
community into the school, enabling students to learn more so they can
meet higher standards (George and McEwin, April 1999; Legters, January
1999).

## 

# IV. The Roots of Today's Smaller Learning 

#  Communities

> Given the one-size-fits-all aspect of the American school system,
> large, impersonal schools made administrative sense, even if the
> educational benefits were hard to find.... But a system of schools
> dedicated to meeting as many diverse needs as possible almost demands
> that school boards encourage the establishment of much smaller and
> more humane environments.

David T. Kearns and James Harvey, *A Legacy of Learning.*

The 1983 publication of *A Nation at Risk* catapulted American education
into an era of reform that continues today. *A Nation at Risk's* alarm
gave rise to the push to improve student achievement through
standards-based education, rigorous and challenging curriculum, business
partnerships for school-to-work initiatives, and more. In response, some
schools and districts began experimenting with ways to make the high
school experience seem smaller and more personalized as a way to boost
student achievement.

Studies since then have demonstrated the positive impacts of smaller
schools on student achievement. A growing body of research suggests
similar benefits may also be derived from school structures and
strategies that create the same conditions as small schools. Those
research findings have motivated the growth of smaller schools and the
creation of smaller learning communities within large, existing high
schools.

During the past several decades, small school reform initiatives that
have proven effective include New York City's Small Schools Network, the
Small Schools Workshop based at the University of Illinois in Chicago,
and the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES). Small size is a
definitional concept for the first two networks, and is at the heart of
the Coalition of Essential Schools, as demonstrated in one of that
network's eight operational principles: "Since they have direct bearing
on intellectual, interpersonal and organizational processes, CES work at
all levels should be of a size and scale to allow for personalization,"
([www.essentialschools.org](http://www.essentialschools.org/)). Many
more reform efforts have embraced this concept of creating small
learning environments within larger schools, including California's
career academies, the multistate charter schools movement, and urban
reform efforts in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and other cities
(U.S. Department of Education, March 1999).

In their 1996 report, *Breaking Ranks**,*** the National Association of
Secondary School Principals encouraged high schools to create
self-operating units of no more than 600 students to reduce student
feelings of anonymity. Although class size does not necessarily
correspond to school size, *Breaking Ranks* warned that the average
teacher sees far too many students each term to get to know each of them
well. Some high school teachers see more than 150 students in their
classrooms each day and teach four or five large classes with little
time for individual attention. To enable teachers to get to know their
students, *Breaking Ranks* recommended flexible approaches that would
restrict teacher workload to a maximum of 90 students per term for most
high school teachers.[^2]

*Breaking Ranks* also proposed that every high school student should
have an adult advocate to help personalize the high school experience:

> Each student needs to know that at least one adult in the school is
> closely concerned with his or her fate.... The relationship between
> the student and the advocate should ensure that no youngster
> experiences the sense of isolation that frequently engulfs teenagers
> during this critical period of their lives. Having someone on his or
> her side can help a young person feel a part of the school community.

Analyses of high school reform efforts have underscored scaling down as
a common condition conducive to academic success. Smaller schools can
more readily provide students with mentors, tutors, and advisors; make
learning more meaningful by linking it to work and community; and
provide adequate time and support for mastery of knowledge and skills.

# V. Research Supports Smaller School Units

> Smaller is better in virtually every way you can imagine.
>
> Kathleen Cotton, American Youth Policy Forum, April 14, 2000.

Smaller learning communities benefit students, teachers, and parents by
making effective communication easier, offering opportunities for
collaboration, and encouraging meaningful relationships between students
and adults. Research confirms that smaller schools are more productive
and safer because they can address students' needs more personally,
reducing feelings of alienation, and connecting students with caring
adults. All of these conditions create an environment that contributes
to positive student outcomes: higher student achievement, improved
attendance and graduation rates, and reduced violence and disruptive
behavior.

The smaller learning community strategies identified in this paper are
good for most students, but they are particularly effective for
economically disadvantaged students in several respects. From an
academic perspective, smaller schools and smaller sub-school units have
a disproportionately positive effect on economically disadvantaged
students, because those students tend to live in urban communities
served by large school districts and large high schools. Smaller
learning communities additionally create more safe environments.

The research findings summarized in this section provide evidence that
small size is at least a condition of improved outcomes in schools. The
potential challenges associated with restructuring large schools are
noted as well. Findings on the effects of restructuring large schools
into smaller learning communities, using strategies discussed in this
paper, are fewer and more recent than the small school findings, but
there is evidence that significant benefits can occur when the creation
of smaller learning communities is accompanied by sufficient
separateness, autonomy, and distinctiveness among the sub-school units
(Raywid, 1996).

## 

## Research on Small Schools

> *We have confirmed \[the positive effects of small schools\] with a
> clarity and at a level of confidence rare in the annals of education
> research.*

Mary Anne Raywid, *Current Literature on Small Schools.*

Leading analysts who have reviewed the large body of quantitative
research on small schools agree that there is an impressive degree of
support for smallness (e.g., Cotton, 1996 and 2000; Raywid, 1996; 1999;
Klonsky, 1998). Indeed, empirical support or justification for the large
high school is rare, and those few studies that cite positive benefits
of large schools for some students find those benefits outweighed by the
disadvantages of large schools for many others (Raywid, 1999).

In her comprehensive review of literature relating school size to other
factors, Cotton (1996) found that, for students of all achievement
levels and in all kinds of settings, small schools have proven superior
to large schools on most measures of student performance and school
climate. That same year, Raywid's analysis (1996) yielded similar
findings:

> *...Reducing the size of schools can increase student participation,
> reduce dropout rates, improve academic achievement, and enhance
> teacher efficacy.... Downsizing stimulates the move toward
> personalized "communal" schools, which result in independent benefits
> with respect to enhancing student engagement and achievement....
> School downsizing efforts may be necessary to restore the conditions
> human beings need in order to thrive: to function as engaged and
> committed agents in their own and others' education. Finally ...
> downsizing may be necessary to schools' ability to effectively
> initiate the changes essential to improvement. While downsizing
> provides no guarantee that these other changes will follow, it may be
> a crucial step toward launching them.*

Major impacts associated with small schools are divided into academic
and affective Outcomes and are summarized below.

**Academic Outcomes:**

**Smaller schools support academic achievement.** Students' academic
achievement in small schools is equal to or higher than their
achievement in larger schools. The findings on academic achievement are
equally divided; approximately half the studies show that students do
equally as well in small schools as in larger ones; while the other half
finds students in small schools do better on measures such as school
grades, test scores, honor roll membership, subject-area achievement,
and higher-order thinking skills assessments (Cotton, 1996).

Research on the school-within-a-school model is growing, with increasing
evidence that they can indeed produce comparable outcomes to those of
freestanding small schools. For example, an analysis of the National
Educational Longitudinal Study found that improved student learning was
clearly linked to schools that were restructured into smaller "communal"
schools (Lee and Smith, 1994).

**Smaller schools promote academic equity.** Small schools help close
the achievement gap between students from higher income, mostly white
and Asian families and students from lower-income, mostly African
American and Hispanic families (Klonsky, 1998). For ethnic minority
students and students of low socioeconomic status, the effects of small
schools are especially positive, helping reduce the damaging effects of
poverty on student achievement; conversely, large schools have an
especially negative impact on those students relative to all students
(Cotton, 1996; Howley and Bickel, 2000).

According to a continuing Rural School and Community Trust study called
the Matthew Project, smaller schools and smaller districts help narrow
the achievement gap between students from poorer communities and their
peers from wealthier communities. (The project takes its name from a
passage in the Book of Matthew which reflects a concern that large
schools may benefit children from higher income communities at the
expense of children from lower income communities.)

This four-state study of 13,600 public schools in Georgia, Montana,
Ohio, and Texas, demonstrated that reducing school size produced
proportionately greater results for schools with more students from
low-income families and that smaller schools reduced the negative effect
of poverty on school performance by at least 20 percent and by as much
as 70 percent in both urban and rural schools.

Initial results support these conclusions (Howley and Bickel, 2000):

-   The larger the school, the greater the negative effect of poverty on
    student achievement. The less affluent the community, the smaller a
    school should be to maximize performance as measured by standardized
    tests.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The correlation between poverty and low achievement is as much as 10
    times stronger in larger schools than in smaller ones.

-   Although the relationship between school size, poverty, and
    achievement holds true for all races, minority children are more
    likely to be enrolled in large schools.

In 1995, Patterson High School in Baltimore, Md., restructured its 2,170
students and 110 faculty into five schools-within-a-school with the help
of the Johns Hopkins Center for Research on the Education of Students
Placed At-Risk (CRESPAR). Other changes included: a self-contained
ninth-grade academy with interdisciplinary teacher teams; four-by-four
block scheduling, an after-hours "twilight school" for students with
serious behavior problems or criminal records; intensive professional
development and planning time; and state-of-the art technology and
communications systems.

Two years after the restructured Patterson High opened, overall school
climate had improved dramatically, as had teachers' and students'
perceptions of the school. Attendance and promotion rates had also
risen. The school's rating on the state of Maryland's school performance
index, based on attendance, retention, and functional test scores also
jumped. Patterson went from having the second worst school performance
index among Baltimore's nine comprehensive high schools from 1994 to
1995, to the second highest rating two years later (Legters, 1999).

**Smaller schools prepare students for the future.** Students from small
high schools do as well or better on college-related variables---such as
entrance examination scores, acceptance rates, attendance, grade point
average, and completion---as students from large schools (Cotton 2000).
Additionally, many smaller school structures focus on career-focused
curricula.

The block scheduling that is increasingly used in schools-within-schools
supports small learning communities, interdisciplinary teaming, and
career-centered curricula because it enables teams to adjust schedules.
Recent studies have found that students in block-scheduled schools score
higher on standardized subject tests than comparable students in
non-block-scheduled schools, and that block scheduling helps increase
on-time graduation rates, college attendance, and improved test scores.
Because block scheduling causes students to spend less time in the
halls, it also contributes to reductions in discipline referrals and
class tardiness (Legters, 1999).

Career academies are especially beneficial for students at high risk of
failure, according to a study that examined the extent to which career
academies affected students' engagement, performance, achievement during
high school, and the extent to which they prepared students for the
transition to college and work.

The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation's career academies
evaluation (Kemple and Snipes, 2000) confirms that career academies
reduce dropout rates, increase credits earned toward graduation, and
increase preparation for college among students with a high likelihood
of dropping out of high school. The students considered at lower risk
also benefit (although not as dramatically as high-risk students), with
an increased likelihood of earning enough credits to graduate and
completing more career-related courses and work-based learning
activities without reducing their academic courses. Students at medium
risk of school failure benefited from career academies when the
school-within-a-school was most separate from the larger school and when
they had access to large increases in interpersonal supports, suggesting
that career academies' small-school features may be as potent a factor
as their career focus.

**Attendance is higher and dropout rates lower in smaller schools.**
Smaller schools have higher attendance rates than larger schools, and
attendance improves for individual students who transfer from large to
smaller schools. Small schools have a relatively greater effect on the
attendance of minority and low socioeconomic status students and have
lower dropout rates and higher graduation rates than large schools;
states with the largest schools and school districts have the highest
dropout rates (Cotton, 1996).

**Smaller schools provide challenging curricula.** The increased variety
of courses that larger schools can support tends to include a broader
range of introductory courses in non-core areas rather than higher-level
courses in, for example, math or foreign languages. Also, only a small
percentage of students take advantage of the extra courses in large
schools (Cotton, 1996). A high school of 400 can offer a curriculum
comparable in breadth and depth to that of a much larger school (Monk,
1987), especially when supplemented with distance learning and other
technologies.

**Affective Outcomes Contributing to Academic Achievement:**

**Student attitudes and behaviors are more positive in smaller
schools,** with minority and low socioeconomic status students most
profoundly affected. Multiple studies have associated small schools with
students' positive attitudes toward school, as well as with lower
incidences of negative social behaviors such as truancy, classroom
disruption, vandalism, aggressive behavior, theft, substance abuse, and
gang participation (Cotton, 1996).

One study of high school violence concluded that the first step in
reducing school violence is personalizing large schools by creating
smaller communities to combat anonymity (Toby, 1993, as cited in
Klonsky, 1998). Along the same lines, Cornell University Family Life
Development Center's director, James Garbarino, listed smaller high
schools as his first recommendation for reducing violence among
adolescents (Klonsky, 1998).

**Extracurricular participation rates are higher in smaller schools.**
Students in small schools participate in extracurricular activities to a
greater extent and in a wider variety, than in large schools (Cotton,
1996). This is doubly significant because extracurricular participation
is associated with other desirable outcomes, such as positive attitudes
and positive social behavior. Students in small schools generally enjoy
participating in extracurricular activities more than students in large
schools because their participation is valued more when there is a
smaller pool of potential participants.

### **Smaller schools reduce alienation.** Small schools foster a sense of belonging and minimize student alienation. This is especially important because students who feel alienated from their school environment tend to lack confidence, self-esteem, and responsibility for self-direction. Alienated students also participate less in extracurricular activities (Cotton, 1996).

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Blum and Rinehart,
1997) found that students who felt connected to their school reported
lower levels of emotional distress. Feelings of connectedness to school
were also associated with lower levels of violent behavior, less
frequent substance abuse, and a delay in early sexual activity. What
seems to matter most for adolescent health is "that schools foster an
atmosphere in which students feel fairly treated, close to others, and a
part of the school."

**Students feel better about themselves and others in smaller schools.**
Students' perceptions of themselves academically and generally are
higher in small schools, and they feel more connected to teachers and to
each other. Interpersonal relations are better, both among students and
between students and teachers (Cotton, 2000).

# 

# VI. Implementing Smaller Learning Communities 

**Small Size Plus Other Reforms**

Making schools smaller seems to work in large part because school staff
and students can more easily implement and adjust effective practices in
smaller environments than in larger ones. Even the most vocal advocates
for small schools admit that size alone is not the answer; rather,
smaller size makes other reforms possible. Researchers concur with this
view that school size has an indirect effect on student learning by
making other desirable practices easier (U.S. Department of Education,
October 1999). Conditions that promote student achievement---such as
teacher collegiality, personalized teacher-student relationships, and
less differentiation of instruction by ability---are more often found
and sustained in small schools than in larger ones.

Smaller learning communities can be more flexible and student-centered
than larger units, students take more responsibility for their own
learning, and students and staff feel more effective when they have more
control. Teaching teams, cooperative learning, content integration
across subjects, experiential education, and other instructional
approaches are more often found in small schools, probably because
alternative teaching strategies are easier to implement in small
settings.

Smaller learning communities make innovation possible by laying the
groundwork for school as a communal organization rather than a formal,
rigid, bureaucratic entity. Change becomes not only possible but
expected. The midcourse corrections and "just-in-time" adjustments so
lauded in the business world become routine in small school settings.
According to Deborah Meier, former principal of New York City's Central
Park East Secondary School, "The school must be small enough so that
everyone can know everyone else, and respond easily to needed
changes.... Simple changes that would be impossible to make in a
mega-school can be decided around the table one afternoon and
implemented the very next day in a small school."

Finally, smaller schools contribute to educational equity, especially
for minority and lower socioeconomic status students. Although small
schools have proven beneficial for all types of students, minority and
poorer students benefit disproportionately. Ironically, minority and
lower socioeconomic status students are more likely to be in large
schools and large districts, raising serious equity questions.

## The Challenges of Creating Smaller Learning Communities

> *...Benefits are contingent upon the extent to which the downsized
> unit becomes a point of identification and affiliation for students
> and teachers.... \[Schools-within-schools can be\] divisive and likely
> to introduce contention.*

Mary Anne Raywid, *Taking Stock.*

The research on small high schools and smaller learning communities is
extensive, and their benefits are well documented, compelling, and
persuasive. However, few changes occur without difficulties, and the
process of creating smaller learning communities within larger high
schools is no exception. Restructuring carries challenges beyond those
associated with start-up of a small school, according to Raywid, because
it requires teachers and administrators to do two jobs at once:
operating the old system while initiating the new one.

Schools and school districts that embark on restructuring and
personalizing their schools need to be aware of problems that may occur.
A common danger is the notion that school size alone will improve
student outcomes. Reducing school size is worth the effort only when it
is one element of comprehensive school reform, accompanied by strategies
specifically designed to personalize the learning experience and take
advantage of the flexibility small schools offer. New school structures
can provide the opportunities for success, but Raywid cautioned that
structural change must be accompanied by changes in school culture to
take full advantage of those opportunities

Raywid found that one or more of three shortcomings tend to be present
when smaller learning communities in large high schools fail to yield
positive outcomes: insufficient faithfulness to the small school
concept, either in design or implementation; insufficient autonomy and
separateness of the subunit or sub-school; and failure of cultural
change to accompany structural change.

Schools-within-schools can lead to competition among the smaller
schools, undermining the cultural climate of the larger school.
Sub-school units have also been criticized for their potential as a
mechanism and a rationale for tracking. Given the relationship between
differentiation and effectiveness for restructured schools, the
challenge is how to differentiate without tracking students by ability
and excluding or isolating special needs students. Awareness of this
challenge, and explicitly confronting it in the planning and
implementation stages, can prevent it.

Students may have fewer class choices in smaller schools (although
smaller schools may offer more depth through integrated curricula) and
large schools are sometimes able to offer more, or at least a greater
variety of, work-based learning experiences and other school-to-work
activities.

Raywid identified four main issues at the root of concerns about
restructuring into smaller learning communities: cost, staff conflict,
student grouping, and conflicts with effective schools principles.
Raywid cites research documenting other problems such as: allegations of
favored treatment for students in sub-school units, isolation of small
groups of faculty from the larger school faculty, unhealthy competition
among faculty members, lack of consensus about direction and mission,
and scheduling problems and space constraints.

Staff tensions may also arise as school culture changes, altering
previous relationships and communication patterns. There may be rivalry
among the subunits, as they compete for resources and seek
distinctiveness and autonomy at the expense of the larger school. Groups
of restructured schools offer ample strategies that help resolve staff
conflict. Professional development, both preparatory and ongoing, is
essential.

# VII. Conclusion 

Researchers emphasize that conditions designed to simulate small schools
must be authentic; that is, the more independent they are, the more
likely it is that smaller learning communities will match small schools'
benefits. "Schools-within-schools, pods, house plans are administrative
arrangements to simulate school size," Ohio University researcher Craig
Howley cautioned. "The problem with \[some\] simulations is that they
don't respect reality" (Robelen, 2000). Without a separate space,
autonomous administration and budget, designated faculty, and
distinctive philosophy, small school simulations likely offer diminished
benefits, or none at all.

Three characteristics are necessary if smaller learning communities are
to maximize the potential benefits of smallness (Raywid, 1996):
*separateness* (establishing a collective identity); *autonomy*
(projecting clear, identifiable boundaries); and *distinctiveness*
(displaying differences that are perceptible to students). Only when
these characteristics are fully implemented, allowing for complete
administrative separation of the subschool and the creation of a
separate identity are benefits of smaller schools most likely to be
realized. Other essential elements are staff and student support, as
well as support from the superintendent, school board, and school
principal (Dewees, 1999).

The conditions created by smaller learning communities offer large high
schools an opportunity to improve student achievement. However, smaller
learning communities deliver on their promise only to the extent that
they have independent control over school budget and staffing, space,
schedule, curriculum, and culture. When those conditions are met,
students in smaller learning communities may derive the same kinds of
benefits as students in smaller schools in terms of academic
achievement, attendance, college-going rates, social behavior,
attitudes, and student-teacher relations.

## 

# References

American Federation of Teachers. 1999. *Improving Low-Performing High
Schools: Ideas and Promising Programs for High Schools,* Washington,
D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.

Barker, R.G. and P.V. Gump. 1964. *Big School, Small School: High School
Size and Student Behavior.* Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University
Press.

Beck, Susan Kessler and Frances R. Rothstein. 1999. *In Their Own Words:
Students and Educators Talk about What Matters*. Washington, D.C.: The
Kamber Group.

Blum, R.W. and P.M. Rinehart. 1997. *Reducing the Risk: Connections That
Make a*

*Difference in the Lives of Youth.* Rochester, Minn.: Division of
General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health, University of Minnesota
Adolescent Health Program.

Capps, William R. and Mary Ellen Maxwell. "Where Everybody Knows Your
Name: The Beauty of Small Schools," *American School Board Journal*, v.
186, n. 9, September 1999, p. 35-36.

Cotton, Kathleen. 2000. "School Size, School Climate, and Student
Performance." *Close-Up*, No. 20, Series X, 1996. School Improvement
Research Series, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Available
at:
[http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html](http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html)).

Cotton, Kathleen. 2000. "Summary of Findings from the Research on School
Size." A Fact Sheet Prepared for the American Youth Policy Forum.
Washington, D.C.

Dewees, Sarah. 1999. *The School-Within-a-School Model*. Charleston,
W.Va.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools

George, Paul S. and C. Kenneth McEwin. "High Schools for a New Century:
Why is the High School Changing?" *National Association of Secondary
School Principals Bulletin*, v. 83, n. 606, April 1999, p. 10-24*.*

Howley, Craig and Robert Bickel. 2000. *When it Comes to Schooling ...
Small Works: School Size, Poverty, and Student Achievement*. Randolph,
Vt.: Rural School and Community Trust, Policy Program.

Katz, Jon. 2000. *Geeks: How Two Lost Boys Rode the Internet out of
Idaho.* New York, N.Y.: Random House.

Kearns, David T. and James Harvey. 2000. *A Legacy of Learning: Your
Stake in Standards and New Kinds of Public Schools.* Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.

Kemple, James J. 1997. *Career Academies: Communities of Support for
Students and Teachers: Emerging Findings from a 10-Site Evaluation*. New
York, N.Y.: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Kemple, James J. and Jason C. Snipes. 2000. *Career Academies: Impacts
on Students' Engagement and Performance in High School.* New York, N.Y.:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Klonsky, Michael. 1998. *Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story.*
Chicago, Ill.: University of Illinois at Chicago, Small Schools
Workshop.

Klonsky, Susan and Michael Klonsky. "Countering Anonymity through Small
Schools," *Educational Leadership*, v. 57, n. 1, September 1999, p.
38-41.

Kober, Nancy and Diane Stock Rentner. 2000. *Do You Know ... the Good
News about American Education?* Washington, D.C.: Center on Education
Policy and American Youth Policy Forum.

Lee, V.E. and J.B. Smith. 1994. *Effects of High School Restructuring
and Size on Gains in Achievement and Engagement for Early Secondary
School Students.* Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, Center on
Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Legters, Nettie E. 1999. *Small Learning Communities Meet
School-to-Work: Whole-School Restructuring for Urban Comprehensive High
Schools, Report No. 31.* Baltimore, Md.: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed At Risk.

Louis, K.S. and M.B. Miles. 1990. *Improving the Urban High School: What
Works and Why*. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Lowe, Frederick H. "Diplomas that Count," *Blueprint*, Fall 1999, p. 67,
Washington, D.C.: Democratic Leadership Council.

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. 2000. *The Impact of Career
Academies on High School Outcomes: Findings from the Career Academies
Evaluation.* New York, N.Y.: MDRC.

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.

Poland, Scott. "The Fourth R---Relationships," *American School Board
Journal*, v. 187, n. 3, March 2000, p. 45-46.

Raywid, Mary Anne. "Taking Stock: The Movement to Create Mini-Schools,
Schools-Within-Schools, and Separate Small Schools," *Urban Diversity
Series*, No. 108, New York: N.Y.: Hofstra University.

Raywid, Mary Anne. 1999. *Current Literature on Small Schools.*
Charleston, W.Va.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small
Schools.

Robelen, Erik W. "Administration Has Big Plans for Small Schools
Initiative," *Education Week*, Feb. 9, 2000.

Robertson, P.A. April 1995. *Financing and Staffing New, Small Schools.*
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, Calif.

Shell Oil Company. "Teens under Pressure, Coping Well*,"* *The Shell
Poll*, v. 1, issue 4, Summer 1999, p. 1-8.

Sizer, Theodore R. 1996. *Horace's Hope: What Works for the American
High School.* New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin.

Toby, J. "Everyday School Violence: How Disorder Fuels It," A*merican
Educator*, v. 17, n. 4, Winter 1993, p. 4-9; 44-48.

U.S. Department of Education. *Key High School Reform Strategies: An
Overview of Research Findings*, Washington, D.C., 1999.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
*Aiming High: Strategies to Promote High Standards in High Schools*,
Washington, D.C., 1999.

U.S. Department of Education. 2000. "Promising Initiatives to Improve
Education in Your Community: A Guide to Selected U.S. Department of
Education Grant Programs and Funding Opportunities." Available at:
http://[www.ed.gov/inits/FY
2000/index.html](http://www.ed.gov/inits/FY2000/index.html).

Wood, George H. 1992. S*chools That Work: America's Most Innovative
Public Education Programs.* New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books.

[^1]: Although there is no consensus on the dividing line between small
    and large schools, most researchers suggest that a size of 400 to
    800 students is the appropriate range for a high school, and many
    prefer schools no larger than 400 or 500 (Cotton, 1996). Those
    researchers who use the lower enrollment range to define small
    schools tend to value small size because of its impact on the school
    as a community, while those whose work emphasizes small schools'
    impact on academic effectiveness as measured by test scores tend to
    accept a relatively higher upper limit for small schools (Raywid,
    1999). In *Breaking Ranks*, the National Association of Secondary
    School Principals called for self-operating units of no more than
    600 students (NASSP, 1996).

[^2]: The National Council of Teachers of English supports an even lower
    student-teacher ratio: a maximum workload of 80 students per
    teacher.