Archived Information

**Solutions for Failing High Schools:**

### Converging Visions and Promising Models

Nettie Legters

Robert Balfanz

James McPartland

Center for Social Organization of Schools

Johns Hopkins University

March 1, 2002

This paper was prepared for the Office of Vocational and Adult
Education, U.S. Department of Education pursuant to contract no.
ED-99-CO-0160. The findings and opinions expressed in this paper do not
necessarily reflect the position or policies of the U.S. Department of
Education.

Solutions for Failing High Schools:

Converging Visions and Promising Models

Nettie Legters, Robert Balfanz, and James McPartland

Introduction

There is widespread agreement that traditionally organized comprehensive
high schools have become anachronisms, no longer preparing students for
the world that has changed around them. Number range CHAPTERA series of
studies and national reports released in the 1980s identified many
shortcomings to the organizational, curricular, and instructional
practices of traditional comprehensive public high schools (Boyer, 1983;
Carnegie Forum, 1986; Goodlad, 1984; Oakes, 1985; Powell, Farrar, &
Cohen, 1985; Sizer, 1984). Large size, rigid bureaucratic structures,
uninspired teaching, fragmented and irrelevant curriculum, and highly
differentiated and unequal learning opportunities have been cited as
primary sources of student apathy, alienation, and lack of preparation
for college or career. These problems are magnified in high poverty
urban high schools that suffer from chronic poor attendance, low
achievement, and high dropout rates.

This paper examines promising solutions that have emerged over the past
decade to the failings of traditional comprehensive high schools. We
begin by referring to a number of research studies, policy documents,
and descriptions of how high schools have been experimenting with
different reforms to improve student engagement and learning. Based on
this research, we argue that the discourse on high school reform is
converging around a set of basic principles and specific reform
strategies designed to move schools away from the standardized, factory
model of education and toward a more personalized, focused approach that
provides multiple high quality learning pathways to prepare all students
for college and career.

We then describe five nationally recognized high school reform models
that have become prominent technical assistance providers to high
schools as part of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD),
School-to-Work, Small Schools, and other federal, state, and local
initiatives. The models are America's Choice, Coalition of Essential
Schools, First Things First, High Schools that Work, and Talent
Development High Schools. Descriptions of each model include: a brief
background; main organizational, curricular, and professional
development components; and level of scale-up, cost, and evidence of
effectiveness. In addition to the models, we also describe two
widespread high school reform strategies---small learning communities
and career academies---around which there is growing availability of
technical assistance for schools independent of the aforementioned
reform models.

These descriptions provide the basis for a discussion of the true costs
of comprehensive reform in high schools, especially in failing urban
high schools where deep change is needed most to close achievement gaps,
motivate students, and tend to the day-to-day challenges of attendance
and promotion. We also address policies and institutional arrangements
that make high school reform more difficult and suggest ways in which
the federal government might better support improvement in these
schools. Finally, we discuss the federal role in promoting and
supporting much needed research on high school reform.

The Converging Discourse on High School Reform

In 1996, the National Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP), with support from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching, released *Breaking Ranks*, the final report of its
Commission on the Restructuring of the American High School (NASSP,
1996). This report was unusual in that its more than 80 recommendations
focused exclusively on improving high schools. Though a major report on
high schools had been published a decade earlier (Boyer, 1983), its
impact was muted by the widely publicized *A Nation At Risk* and its
call for an overhaul of our entire public education system. Following
the logic that systemic reform should begin with children just entering
the system because high school is simply too late to help struggling
students, subsequent reform efforts, as well as research and policy
around those efforts, focused primarily on early childhood and the
elementary grades. The reform movement for the middle grades emerged in
the late 1980s.

*Breaking Ranks* heralded what has now become a national movement to
completely rethink and restructure public education for youth of high
school age. The movement has been spurred on in urban areas by high
dropout rates, abysmal achievement scores, and chronic achievement gaps;
in suburban areas by incidents of school violence and the mediocre
performance of students in non-college bound tracks; and in general by
international comparisons that show dramatic declines in the relative
performance of U.S. students in the high school years, and a changing
economy that demands higher order skills and education beyond high
school to ensure success in the workplace.

The movement also has been forwarded by positive examples of effective
restructuring of high schools identified and disseminated through the
Office of Vocational and Adult Education's (OVAE) New American High
Schools and New Urban High Schools initiatives, and by research on high
school restructuring, which focused on specific reform strategies such
as small learning communities, block scheduling, and career academies
(Ayers, Klonsky, & Lyon, 2000; Canady & Rettig, 1995; Kemple, 2000;
Kemple, 2001; Lee & Smith, 2001). A national School-to-Work joint
initiative of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department
of Labor also supported innovation at the high-school level throughout
the 1990s. Likewise, a federal \$312 million grant program over the past
several years has supported planning and implementation of small
learning communities for high-school age students. Finally, a spate of
reports and conferences by groups such as the Commission on the Senior
Year in High School, the American Youth Policy Forum, New York
University's Seminar on the Future of the Comprehensive High School, the
National Alliance on the New American High School, Jobs for the Future,
and the Aspen Institute all have raised the profile of high school
reform in recent months.

What is striking about all of this practical and intellectual activity
around high school reform is its level of convergence around a set of
basic principles and specific reform strategies designed to address the
problems of failing high schools. These core principles---high
standards, personalization, relevance, and flexible time and
resources---and the reform strategies associated with them, are outlined
below in more detail and summarized in Figure 1 in relation to the
central challenges of high schools they are meant to address.

-   [High Standards]{.underline}: There is widespread agreement that
    high schools must hold all students to high academic standards. This
    implies that high schools eliminate the practice of sorting students
    into college-bound, general, and vocational tracks. Two specific
    reform strategies are designed to support the vision of high
    standards for all---a common core curriculum, and high school
    assessments to measure success in that curriculum. A common core
    curriculum has been identified as consisting of four years of
    English, three or more years each of mathematics, social studies,
    and science, and a half-year of computer science (U.S. Department of
    Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000).

-   [Personalization]{.underline}: Research shows that one of the most
    important factors behind student success in high school, especially
    that of disadvantaged students, is a close connection with at least
    one adult who demonstrates caring and concern for the student's
    advancement. Accommodating the cultural and intellectual diversity
    students bring to high school also requires that teachers and
    administrators know students well so they can address the unique
    learning needs of each student. There is general agreement that the
    vast majority of high schools are too large and impersonal, making
    such connections rare and highly dependent on the initiative and
    luck of individual students and teachers. Several organizational
    reform strategies are designed to help create more personalized
    learning environments. These include: breaking down large schools
    into several schools within a school (e.g. theme "houses" or career
    academies), which implies a decentralized governance structure
    within the school and a shift away from organization around subject
    area departments in favor of multidisciplinary and often
    career-focused small learning communities; interdisciplinary teacher
    teaming where a group of teachers from different subject-areas share
    the same students and work together to meet their academic and
    social needs; advisories and mentoring programs that provide
    students with consistent and multifaceted adult support throughout
    their high school years; and school, family, and community
    partnerships to create a communicating and cooperating adult support
    system for every student.

-   [Relevance]{.underline}: One of the most persistent criticisms of
    comprehensive high schools is that students find their classes
    boring and unrelated to their everyday lives or the futures they
    envision for themselves. This experience fosters apathy and
    disengagement from school. To address this, reformers have honed in
    on the complex web of curriculum and instruction to emphasize the
    integration of real-world applications and career themes into
    academic work, interdisciplinary and project-based activities that
    integrate computer and telecommunications technology, and stronger
    linkages between course content and students' everyday lives.
    Strategies also include community service, work-based learning,
    field study, and other activities that engage students in life
    beyond the school walls in ways that are positive and linked with
    their course of study.

-   [Flexibility with Instructional Strategies, Time and Resources to
    Provide Multiple Opportunities for Success]{.underline}:
    Comprehensive high schools have been faulted for expecting students
    with extremely diverse backgrounds and abilities to succeed in a
    rigid, bureaucratic environment that does little to build on their
    individual strengths or address their unique learning needs.
    Reformers find common ground in their recommendations to: increase
    teachers' repertoire of instructional approaches to reach a greater
    number of students (e.g. cooperative learning, hands-on kinesthetic
    activities, projects); extend the amount of time of each class
    period, the school day, and the school year to allow for more and
    more diverse learning opportunities (CITE Time and Learning
    Commission report); provide extra help to students who need it
    through catch-up courses especially designed for students who enter
    high school with poor reading and math skills, and chances to make
    up coursework in summer- or after-hours school programs; and offer
    opportunities for students to learn study skills and social skills
    to help them negotiate the rigor of high school work and the
    challenges of adolescence.

To note the convergence of the discourse on high-school reform around
these core themes, and around some specific reform practices, is not to
say that there is agreement on exactly what the new American high school
should look like. For example, though two recent historical accounts
offer nearly identical critiques of comprehensive public high schools in
the U.S. and offer solutions based on the principles described above,
the visions for change they set forth differ radically. In *The* *Once
and Future School*, Herbst (1996) recommends a choice-based approach
involving a complete dismantling of the comprehensive high school in
favor of educational and/or career pathways of each student's choosing
that would be pursued in the community. In *The Failed Promise of the
American High School 1890-1995*, Angus and Mirel (1999) offer a much
more government-driven, standards-based approach to high-school reform
emphasizing national content standards, equalized funding for schools
across geographical regions, more rigorous graduation requirements, and
a national examination system.

Conflicting political ideologies is not the only force limiting the
emergence of a unified vision for the new American high school. Research
to date on high school reform is far more suggestive than conclusive.
While there is a substantial knowledge base that documents some of the
characteristics of high schools that work well for the majority of their
students, e.g. a common core curriculum, communal as opposed to
bureaucratic organization (Lee, Bryk, and Smith, 1993), we still know
very little about what it takes to develop such characteristics in high
schools that are currently failing the majority of their students. This
gap is largely due to the nascent and experimental nature of the high
school reform enterprise itself and to the current emphasis on
whole-school reform. Determining the effectiveness of any one approach
or reform strategy is extremely challenging because reforms are rarely
used in isolation from others and contextual influences such as funding,
politics, and teacher and leader quality are myriad.

Fortunately, opportunities for studying different approaches to high
school reform are expanding rapidly as the converging discourse around
high school reform has stimulated the emergence of whole-school reform
models and technical assistance organizations designed to help high
schools restructure. We discuss these approaches in the following
section and later turn to questions of cost, policy barriers, and gaps
in research.

Promising High School Reform Models

In this section, we describe five high-school reform models focusing on
main organizational, curricular, and professional development
components, level of scale-up, cost, and evidence of effectiveness for
each. Four of the models---America's Choice, First Things First, High
Schools that Work, and Talent Development---are recipients of five-year
Model Design and Evaluation Contracts awarded in 1999 by the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. The fifth model, the Coalition of Essential Schools, was
one of the first national high-school reform efforts to emerge in the
current (1980s-1990s) wave of school reform and lay much of the
conceptual groundwork for the other models. We also describe two general
strategies---small learning communities and career academies---that are
supported by research and technical assistance structures independent of
the models. Information was gathered from websites, the Northwest
Regional Laboratory's Catalog of Comprehensive School Reform Models, and
personal communications with program developers and evaluators.

America's Choice

America's Choice was founded in 1989 by the National Center on Education
and the Economy and was built on the New Standards assessment program
designed in 1992. Its central goal is to get all students up to
internationally benchmarked standards of achievement in English language
arts and mathematics by the time that they graduate from high school.
Upon reaching the appropriate level of achievement in these subjects, a
student will receive a Certificate of Initial Mastery. To meet this
goal, America's Choice schools work on five general design tasks:
standards and assessments, learning environments, community and service
supports, public engagement, and high performance management.

At the high-school level, America's Choice divides the high school into
two divisions. The Lower Division, consisting of ninth and tenth
graders, is further organized into houses of 200-400 students, and then
divided once again into classes. Students take all required academic
programs within these houses. Class teachers follow students through the
Lower Division and also serve as their faculty advisor. The Upper
Division consists of eleventh and twelfth graders, and provides
opportunities for students to choose from several different programs to
match to their career and academic goals. Programs are selected on a
per-school basis according to the interests and needs of the student
body. If the Upper Division is divided on the basis of career plans, an
America's Choice team member is responsible for assisting in the
creation of programs that include receiving a high school diploma, but
earning college credit or occupational skills certificates as well. All
students that graduate from these schools, regardless of the specific
program that they are enrolled in, are expected to have the skills
required for them to attend college after graduation. High schools are
further supported by a designated School-to-Career Coach and Community
Coordinator, which can work either half- or full-time depending on the
size of the school.

All curricular changes that take place in America's Choice schools are
focused on having all students meet national standards. Curriculum is
chosen that matches the national standards and changes in the schedule
are made when students require extra time to meet standards. A student
entering high school with English language arts deficits, for example,
is assigned to a double period of English during freshman year, while
students with deficits in mathematics skills are assigned to a
Fundamentals of Mathematics course. If more specialized assistance is
needed, a tutoring program provides opportunities for students to
receive individualized instruction before, during, or after the school
day, or on weekends. In addition, a dropout recovery program serves
students from low-income communities who drop out of high school,
helping them to recover academically and enabling them to attend
college.

The America's Choice program requires that each school hire a full-time
Design Coach responsible for working to implement the design with school
administration and leadership. Intensive, multi-week training institutes
are provided to prepare the coaches for certification as leaders in
development programs sponsored by America's Choice. The certified
coaches, in turn, lead the entire school faculty in a series of
workshops introducing the school to the performance standards,
examinations based on the standards, choosing curriculum appropriately,
interpreting data from the exams, and planning from the data. After this
initial training, the Design Coach continues to provide support to the
school's faculty and staff. An annual national conference enables
schools to work together towards meeting the standards.

Many schools in the America's Choice Design program show significant
improvements on their scores in standardized tests. In Kentucky, 74
percent of these schools met or exceeded their tough state performance
goals. In Chicago, 80 percent of schools showed significant increases in
their citywide test scores. Effectiveness is also measured on the New
Standards Reference Examinations in language arts and mathematics,
sponsored by NCEE and required of all tenth-grade students. Chicago
schools showed a "notable" increase in student performance in these
examinations, with between one-quarter and one-half of students moving
from the lowest category of achievement into a higher one.

The basic annual cost of the America's Choice program is \$65,000, but
additional money is spent on development and assistance. A school can
plan to spend \$9,000 on professional development and \$21,000 on
technical assistance. In addition, high schools are charged \$30 per
tenth-grade student to participate in the New Standards reference
examination and portfolio assessment system.

There are approximately 300 America's Choice schools in 14 states,
mainly Title I rural and urban schools. The participating schools serve
disadvantaged and minority students, along with students learning
English as a second language.

Coalition of Essential Schools

From 1979 until 1984, Ted Sizer of Brown University served as the
chairman of the five-year Study of High Schools. At the conclusion of
the project, Sizer founded the Coalition of Essential Schools in an
attempt to address the shortcomings of schools discovered in his study,
most especially the lack of opportunity students had to think
critically. Unlike other high-school reform models, The Coalition of
Essential Schools does not outline a specific program of reform for a
school. Rather, it focuses on the belief that the amount and the quality
of learning produced in a school is increased by adhering to ten Common
Principles:

1)  The school should be focused on helping students learn to use their
    minds well.

2)  Less is more: Knowing few subjects thoroughly is more productive
    than learning little about many.

3)  The goals of a school should apply to all students.

4)  Teaching and learning should be personalized.

5)  Students should be viewed as workers and teachers as coaches.

6)  Students should demonstrate mastery of subjects through public
    exhibitions instead of test scores.

7)  The school's climate should be one of "unanxious expectation",
    trust, and decency.

8)  Teachers and administrators are primarily generalists and should
    assume responsibility for all students.

9)  The school should attempt to meet certain administrative and
    budgetary guidelines: eighty students per teacher, adequate planning
    time for teachers, competitive salaries, and per pupil costs that
    are no more than ten percent greater than those of traditional
    schools.

10) Honor diversity, challenge inequity, and model democratic practices.

From these principles, schools are given the task of redesigning
themselves. This process is divided into three stages: an exploring
stage where the ideas behind the Common Principles are explored and
discussed by the entire school community; a planning stage where a
vision statement in line with the Coalition's goals is drafted and
specific reform actions are planned; and full membership, when these
actions are implemented to achieve the school's vision. The resulting
changes vary depending on how the individual school interprets the
Principles. Changes that do occur in structure or personnel should value
the eight organizational principles, which all involve creating a
commitment to change, flexibility, collaboration, and personalization.
Schools may make an effort to decrease the pupil/teacher ratio, convert
to block scheduling or team teaching practices, or change evaluation
procedures to value in-depth projects and exhibitions of a student's
work over exams and test grades.

The Coalition provides a number of opportunities for schools to share
the ways in which these Principles have been implemented successfully,
and encourages the sharing of approaches that have satisfactorily put
them into effect. Summer institutes, yearlong "treks" for peer
critiquing, national conferences, and regional Coalition centers all are
designed to offer opportunities for professional development. In
addition, the Coalition sponsors several publications, including HORACE,
which explores various aspects of the Coalition's work, and the
PERFORMANCE series, honoring schools that have most successfully
implemented the Principles in their curriculum.

Case studies of successful essential schools such as those chronicled in
the PERFORMANCE series provide the best evidence of the Coalition's
effectiveness. In these outstanding schools, changes have resulted in
very high graduation rates, as well as high rates of students going to
college. Central Park East Secondary School in East Harlem, for example,
had a graduation rate of over percent. More than 90 percent of these
graduates went on to postsecondary education. Studies, however, have
found little improvement in the standardized test scores of essential
schools. In addition, a lack of a unified vision in the school caused
some to fail. Effective, strong leadership that is open and inclusive to
community and staff was essential in the successful sites.

In accordance with the ninth Principle, costs for essential schools
should not require a per-pupil spending increase of more than ten
percent. Spending increases mostly go towards changes in staffing or
organization that a school believes are necessary to implement the
Principles. Participating in the seminars and evaluations offered by the
coalition, however, cost approximately \$50,000 per year.

As of January 1, 2001, there were 1,084 schools involved in various
stages of implementing the Principles of the Coalition of Essential
Schools. Of those schools, 251 were full members, 275 were at the
planning stage, and 558 were at the exploring stage. Essential schools
come from a variety of geographical and socioeconomic backgrounds, such
as wealthy suburban schools and city schools serving large numbers of
at-risk students.

First Things First

First Things First (FTF) is an emerging national school reform model
developed by the Philadelphia-based Institute for Reform and Research in
Education (IRRE). Originally piloted at Wyandotte High School in Kansas
City, Kansas, FTF is currently being scaled up district-wide in Kansas
City with support from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. A grant
from the U.S. Department of Education is supporting scale-up in five
additional pilot sites across the country.

A primary goal of First Things First is to build close, respectful, and
productive relationships between students attending schools in
economically disadvantaged communities and adults working in those
schools. The program is based on the following seven features:

1.  Lower student/adult ratios during core instructional periods

2.  Continuity of care achieved through the establishment of small
    learning communities where no more than 8-10 professional adults
    stay with the same group of no more than 150-200 students for
    extended periods of time during the school day and for at least
    two-year periods in high school.

3.  High, clear, and fair academic and conduct standards that define
    what all students will know and be able to do by the time they leave
    high school and at points along the way in their school career.

4.  Enriched and diverse learning opportunities that make learning more
    active and connected for students and incorporate multiple and
    performance-based assessments.

5.  Intensive staff involvement in improving instruction based on a
    shared vision of high quality teaching and learning; implementing
    research-based instructional strategies; and study of student work
    and research to improve curriculum and instruction.

6.  Flexible allocation of resources (people, facilities, time, and
    funds) by teams and schools based on students' academic and
    interpersonal needs.

7.  Collective responsibility encouraged through incentives and
    consequences for small learning communities, schools, and central
    office staff linked to changes in student performance.

Wyandotte High School began implementing First Things First in 1998/99.
School staff ultimately developed eight small learning communities with
focus topics like business entrepreneurship, technology, and the
humanities. Instructional time was reorganized around fewer, longer
class periods, and a practical focus was incorporated, with students
participating in job shadowing, tutoring elementary students, and
building computer labs for example. Early results at Wyandotte showed a
25 percent increase in the number of seniors qualifying for graduation;
a 57 percent decrease in the number of suspensions; and improved daily
attendance and parental involvement. In another Kansas City High School
implementing First Things First, one quarter of students were reported
to have increased their reading levels by three or more grades in just
one year. FTF is currently pursuing a cluster approach in Kansas City,
linking high schools with their feeder middle and elementary schools to
expand the "community of care" principle to the lower grades and
implement a more systemic approach to school improvement.

Technical assistance supporting FTF implementation focuses on helping
schools form small learning communities, improve teaching and learning,
and establish a family advocate system. FTF uses one- to two-day
Leadership Roundtables and visits to FTF schools to build awareness
among school and district leaders about FTF, its research base,
implementation, and terms of partnership. Once a partnership with a
school is established, a full-time school improvement facilitator (SIF)
guides school- and district-based staff through a year long planning
process. This involves initial training of school-based staff, student
and parent representatives, and district leaders to prepare them for
leading FTF reforms in the school. During the planning year, the SIF and
building staff co-facilitate Full Staff Roundtables to gain
participation of staff in study and work groups around different
components of the reform approach. These work groups function throughout
the year to plan, staff, and recruit students into the small learning
communities, develop schedules for the SLCs, and begin planning around
course development, professional development, the Family Advocate
System, and other implementation details. FTF national personnel provide
technical support to the SIF and building leaders to help manage,
troubleshoot, and monitor the planning process. Planning for
instructional improvement involves initial training in cooperative
learning and identification of selected staff to participate in
additional training so they may serve as instructional improvement
coaches during the first implementation year. The SIF and building
leadership, supported by FTF national staff and consultants, are active
during the first implementation year as well to ensure strong
implementation of SLCs and deepen instructional improvements.

First Things First has just begun more widespread scale-up of its
approach. Though actual pricing of the model is still under development,
schools can expect to pay for the full-time SIF, FTF consultant fees,
and release time for staff during the planning year. The Manpower
Development Research Corporation is currently conducting an evaluation
of the program's scale-up activities and overall effectiveness.

High Schools That Work

High Schools that Work (also known as Making Schools Work) started in
1987 under the Southern Regional Education Board-State Vocational
Consortium. The reform effort is based on the belief that most students,
given the right challenging environment, can learn to master complex
academic and technical concepts. Three major goals of the program are:
to raise the mathematics, science, communication, problem-solving, and
technical achievement of more students to the national average and
above; to combine college-preparatory studies with quality vocational
and technical studies; and to advance state and local policies and
leadership necessary to continuously sustain a school-improvement
effort. SREB also outlines ten key practices for student achievement:
high expectations, vocational studies, academic studies, program of
study (completing a major), work-based learning, teachers working
together, students actively engaged, guidance, extra help, and keeping
score through student assessment. Interested sites must agree to support
the HSTW framework, conduct at least a five-year improvement plan, and
take part in the HSTW assessment.

In order to realize these goals, High Schools that Work encourages
school collaboration on many levels: sites align with middle schools,
postsecondary institutions, and businesses to decide what types of
classes students should be taking; and teachers are given more time to
work together during common planning periods, which allows for both
academic and vocational teachers to plan integrated studies that result
in greater improvements in student learning.

Students in HSTW schools are responsible for taking college-preparatory
and vocational courses. Low-level or general educational courses are
removed from the curriculum, allowing all students to be put in the
challenging environment in which they will be able to master advanced
academic concepts. The recommended preparatory curriculum for HSTW
schools includes four credits in English, three credits in mathematics,
three credits in science, and three in social studies classes. In
addition, each student is required to "major" in either a technical
field or in academic studies. Four credits are earned in the major, and
two additional credits are required from related fields. Included here
is at least one-half credit in a computing course. An extensive guidance
and counseling system, involving both school counselors and trained
teacher-advisors, works with assigned groups of students to help
students meet the demands of these programs.

High Schools That Work also provides extensive professional development
and training opportunities. This training includes a two-day site
development workshop, a four-day annual national HSTW conference, a
national leadership forum for state policy-makers, a three-day retreat
for system or school leaders, a three-day technical assistance
leadership training for district and state leaders, and two weekend
workshops on various topics. Schools that are members of HSTW also have
opportunities to work with state departments of education for additional
services. Follow-up visits are also offered in the first year of
implementation to address the site plan, and technical assistance is
offered in the two subsequent years of implementation. Newsletters and
other networking opportunities are offered to link developing schools in
the system with successful sites.

An assessment program provides evidence of the effectiveness of High
Schools That Work. The assessment, based on the curriculum frameworks
for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, involves
achievement testing of reading, mathematics, and science. Seniors about
to complete a vocational or technical concentration are required to take
this test. Between 1994 and 1996, the percentage of these students
meeting the performance goals in reading increased from 33 percent to 43
percent, while the percentage in math increased from 34 percent to 44
percent. The ability of individual sites to meet performance goals
increased as the sites remained in the network. Case studies of five
sites implementing the key practices also showed improvements in
achievement and attendance, graduation, retention, and post-secondary
attendance rates. The highest-performing schools showed significant
improvements in curriculum, instructional practices, and performance
indicators.

The three years of implementation cost between \$25,000 and \$35,000 per
year, including services such as site development conferences, planning,
technical assistance visits, staff and curriculum development, training
and resource materials, team conference registration, an assessment
package, and an evaluative study. Other expenses may be incurred,
including funds for stipends and substitute teachers, new curriculum,
and travel expenses.

In May of 2001, over 1,300 schools were members of High Schools that
Work, and 21 states were identified as member states.

Talent Development High Schools

The Talent Development High School with Career Academies was founded by
the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
(CRESPAR), jointly sponsored by Johns Hopkins University and Howard
University. Its central goal is to improve achievement of at-risk
students in large high schools, but also addresses concerns about
attendance, discipline, and high dropout rates. The model was first
implemented at Baltimore's Patterson High School during the 1995-96
school year, designed jointly by Patterson and Johns Hopkins to reform
and "turn around" the high school.

The Talent Development High School divides the existing high school into
a series of academies. A Ninth Grade Success Academy serves to help
students transition smoothly into high school. In the upper grades,
Career Academies enroll approximately 250-350 students each, providing
every student with college-preparatory academics as well as work-based
learning experiences. Within these academies, students study one of
several career pathways, with a team of teachers working in each
pathway. Each academy has its own faculty, management team, section of
the building, and entrance to the high school. For those students with
severe discipline or attendance problems, or who have come from another
school, the Twilight School offers an alternative after-hours program
with extensive guidance services.

School days are organized into four flexible periods a day of 80 or 90
minutes each. In the Ninth Grade Success Academy, these periods include
classes with curriculum developed by CRESPAR, including two semesters'
worth of classes in English and Mathematics. In addition, a Freshman
seminar course is required during the first semester of ninth grade in
order to give students an opportunity to develop the necessary study and
social skills needed to succeed in high school. CRESPAR currently is
piloting Talent Development Writing and Literacy Lab for 9^th^ graders,
10^th^ grade Math and English curriculum, and supplemental materials
designed to blend themes of individual Career Academies into core
courses.

In order to become a Talent Development High School, school faculty must
go through an application process in which they commit to the program
and initiate planning. The summer prior to the planning year, a team of
school administration and faculty attends a two-day TDHS Planning Year
conference in order to understand the organizational and curricular
components of the model. A program facilitator is assigned to the school
during this time to guide faculty and staff through the planning year,
aiding them in planning academies, changing the layout of the school as
needed, and adjusting the curriculum to match the TDHS model. Training
is also provided in leadership, scheduling, teaming, use of the extended
period, and ninth grade curriculum. The year ends with a second two-day
retreat for faculty and administrators. Technical support is provided
during the first 2-3 years by a team of program and instructional
facilitators, and on-site curriculum assistance is supported by monthly
workshops involving a network of schools implementing the TDHS design.

After two years of implementation at Patterson High School, there was a
20 percent increase in the number of students passing the mathematics
section of the State Functional Exams, giving the high school the
highest pass rate in Baltimore City's neighborhood high schools. Writing
scores increased from 45 percent to 57 percent, giving the school the
third highest pass rate. Reading scores dropped by two percentage
points. Surveys continue to illustrate improvements in various
measurements of student conduct (including absenteeism, drug use,
violence, and apathy), and rates of attendance and promotion increased.
The increase in the number of ninth-graders earning promotion to the
tenth grade was particularly impressive. These improvements in school
climate were also experienced by two Philadelphia high schools that
implemented the program. Evaluations of the Ninth Grade Instructional
Programs from four other high schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore show
increases in standardized test scores generated by the Strategic Reading
and Transition Math Courses. The number of students who passed freshman
classes in English, Algebra, and science doubled from 1998-99 to
1999-2000 and were promoted at a greater rate.

The average annual cost of implementing the Talent Development High
School model varies based on whether a school is in a planning or
implementation year, and whether the program is being implemented in
only one or in multiple schools within a district. TDHS requires an
annual research and evaluation fee of \$10,000, which covers surveys,
data collection and analysis, and regular contact with a design team
member. Other costs of the program include between \$30,000 and \$70,000
worth of technical assistance from TDHS, and salaries ranging from
\$60,000 to \$80,000 for an on-site program facilitator and curriculum
coaches in English, Math, Freshman Seminar, and teacher teaming. Ninth
grade curriculum materials developed by CRESPAR cost between \$14,000
and \$20,000 per course in the first year, with second year costs
decreasing to cover replacement of consumable materials. Total direct
costs of the model amount from \$100,000 to \$175,000 for a planning
year and from \$295,000 to \$395,000 for implementation years. On
average, TDHS costs between \$73-\$116 per student for planning and
\$197-\$263 per student for implementation. Additional costs vary
depending on the amount of redesigning needed to provide each academy of
the school with its own signs, entrances, and space, and professional
development release time required by the participatory TDHS planning
process.

As of May 2001, 35 schools have implemented the TDHS program. High
schools in the program are generally large, urban, and contain a large
proportion of at-risk students. The Manpower Development Research
Corporation currently is conducting a third-party evaluation of the
program.

General Strategies for Improving High Schools: Small Learning
Communities and Career Academies

Number range CHAPTER The large size of most public high schools was once
viewed as an advantage since a large, comprehensive high school had more
resources, could offer more varied courses, and served as a focal point
of pride and social activity in a community (Conant, 1959). More
recently, however, a growing body of evidence points out the deleterious
effects of large schools on a host of student outcomes, including
achievement, attendance, involvement in school activities, and dropout
rates (Lee & Smith, 2001). Research on school size has spawned a
widespread movement toward smaller schools and the creation of
self-contained "houses," "charters," or small learning communities
(SLCs) within large high schools. In general, SLCs have been found to
have positive effects on students' relationships with peers, teachers
and staff, extracurricular participation, and a sense of community and
teamwork among staff. Students participating in SLCs also have been
found to have better attendance, course passage rates, and fewer
suspensions compared to demographically similar students in more
traditional high school settings. These same studies show, however, that
the major change in organizational structure combined with local
politics, lack of leadership, and scarce resources make it difficult to
achieve strong implementation of SLCs on a district-wide scale. These
studies further show that weak implementation limits positive outcomes
for students and staff (see Wraga, 1999 for review; Lee, Ready, &
Johnson, 2001).

The weight of evidence demonstrating advantages of smaller, more
personalized, organizational structures in schools has fostered a large
federal grants program to support more widespread development of such
structures in high schools across the U.S., as mentioned above.
Moreover, as the descriptions of the reform models indicate, breaking
down large high schools into smaller units has become a central feature
of most high school reform approaches. Technical assistance is now being
provided by a variety of education consulting agencies apart from the
national whole-school high-school reform models to aid the development
of smaller schools and/or breaking down large high schools into smaller
schools-within-a-school. The Chicago-based Smalls Schools Workshop is a
prominent example (Ayers, Klonsky, & Lyon, 2000).

Career Academies are a special type of high school reform approach that
combine the personalized environment of a small learning community with
the relevance of a career focus. Developed in the late 1960s in
Philadelphia, career academies are small learning communities that offer
a high level curriculum of academic and technical courses and work-based
learning opportunities that prepare students for both college and/or the
world of work. In the 1980s, career academies were developed for
different fields (business, automotive, health, environmental
technology, law, horticulture, tourism, aviation) with support from
Philadelphia Academies, Inc., the California Partnership Academies, and
the National Academy Foundation. The 1990s saw a dramatic expansion of
the number of career academies associated with these three groups,
growing from just over 100 in 1990 to over 700 nationwide by 2000.
Recent state-level initiatives, in Illinois for example, and the
incorporation of career academies into district- and school-based high
school reform efforts have contributed to the growth of the career
academy movement as well. Researchers now estimate the number of career
academies at over 1,000 and rising (Stern, Dayton, and Raby, 2000).

A recent, comprehensive summary of studies that examine the effects of
career academies on student engagement, achievement, and attainment
found positive but not conclusive effects of career academies on student
attendance, credits earned, grades, graduation rates, dropout rates, and
college attendance (Stern, Raby, & Dayton, 2000). One study of career
academies conducted by the Manpower Development Research Corporation
(MDRC) widely regarded for its random assignment and longitudinal design
has followed treatment and control groups of students across all 10
sites since 1993. The MDRC study confirmed many of the positive results
of career academies on student outcomes and found that the strongest
effects of the academies studied were among students at highest risk of
school failure (Kemple & Snipes, 2000). The most recent follow-up to the
MDRC, however, echoes other inconsistent findings in studies of the
longer-term impact of career academies on student outcomes (Kemple,
2001).

Most high schools experimenting with career academies have only one
academy that serves a small group of students. A growing number of
schools, however, are using the career academy approach as a strategy
for whole-school reform. These schools provide an academy experience for
every student by replacing the traditional departmentalized structure
with multiple, "wall-to-wall" career academies. In addition to the
Talent Development model described earlier, the Career Academy Support
Network (CASN) based at the University of California at Berkeley serves
as a clearinghouse for information about career academies and now
provides technical assistance to schools and districts interested in
implementing single and wall-to-wall career academies.

Fixing Failing High Schools: Costs, Policy Barriers, and Research Needs

The reform models and strategies described above all represent
real-world efforts to redesign high schools around the principles
outlined at the beginning of this paper. Growing interest in these
models and accelerated activity around high school reform in general
indicate an unprecedented momentum for moving away from the large,
bureaucratic, departmentalized, tracked structures that characterize the
traditional public comprehensive high school. Several issues must be
addressed at this historical moment, however, to ensure that efforts to
transform high schooling are guided by clear vision and intelligence,
and supported by the resources and research needed to do the job well.

Costs of Comprehensive High School Reform

Descriptions of the reform models in the previous section offer insights
into the extent of support needed to restructure large, comprehensive
high schools. All five models call for substantial amounts of planning
time and professional development for teachers and administrators to
reorganize their schools; develop and/or learn and practice new
curriculum and instructional techniques; build a student-centered
culture characterized by ongoing communication and teamwork; and
participate in cross-school networks with schools implementing the same
models to share best practices and engage in continuous reflection and
improvement. To varying degrees, each of the models requires technical
assistance providers to work on-site to ensure quality planning and
implementation. Schools adopting the Talent Development model, or any
approach that involves breaking down a large school into several
smaller, self-contained, schools-within-a-school, will incur costs
related to changing their facility to accommodate the new structure.
Small learning communities also typically require increased staffing in
core subject areas, as does a schedule built around extended 90-minute
periods. Schools serving a large number of low performing, special
education, and ESL students face additional staffing needs, especially
in English and math, if they are going to implement the extra help and
catch-up components.

The cost estimates of the four models range from \$35,000 to over
\$200,000 per year. One of the main features that differentiate the
higher from the lower-cost models is the amount of sustained, on-site
technical assistance partner schools receive, and whether specific
curriculum materials are part of the package. An important question that
we have faced in our own experience and recommend be posed at the
federal level in discussions about programs supporting whole-school,
high school reform (e.g. CSRD, Smaller Learning Communities Grants) is
whether all high schools need the intensive (and expensive) technical
assistance and curricular support built into some reform models, or
whether some schools might be able to achieve similar reform goals
without such intensive support.

We would argue that there is a substantial federal role in identifying
and targeting resources to mainly high poverty high schools in which
weak institutional capacity and chronic failure demand a high level of
intensive support for the kind of organizationally, technically, and
culturally complex change called for by the current reform movement. For
example, recent research covering two four-year student cohorts
(1988/89-1991/92 and 1991/92-1994/95) estimates that there are about 250
high schools in the nation's largest 35 cities where the senior class
has 50% or fewer students than the entering freshmen class four years
earlier. These schools are predominately attended by minority students
and are responsible for many of the nation's dropouts (Balfanz & Legters
2001). While this is not an insignificant number of schools, it does not
seem out of the bounds of human agency to make substantial improvements
in those schools given a strong reform design, quality technical
assistance, and adequate resources. Title I is the most obvious
potential source for such funds. According to a recent report, Title I
funding is disproportionately low in middle and high schools relative to
the number of low-income students they serve (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2001). Fully funding this program and targeting adequate
funds directly to the most troubled high schools could go a long way to
improving secondary education for a substantial proportion of
disadvantaged youth across the nation. Reviving funding for the recently
sunsetted national School-to-Work program specifically to advance
integration of academic and career education at the high school level
and targeting it toward large urban areas could also be a source of
support for such an effort. As we describe below, a vision for such
integration should be communicated with coherence across all levels of
the education system\--federal, state, district, and school, and be
supported on all fronts---organization, curriculum, and instruction.

Institutional and Policy Barriers to Effective Reform

Four of the five models described above promote an integration of high
standards academic work with a career focus to make high school
challenging, meaningful, and engaging to students. Realizing this
integration in practice is no mean feat, however, and changes could be
initiated at the federal level to make it easier. One of the most
frustrating experiences of reforming high schools to date is found in
the multiple and mixed messages they receive from state and federal
programs about the relative importance of high academic standards versus
relevant, applied, and career-focused educational experiences. Over the
past decade, much of the sustained focus and funding for high school
reform has come out of the national School-to-Work movement, with the
result of greatly expanding such reforms as career-focused small
learning communities and career academies across the country. At the
same time, the national standards movement has instigated the
development of new high stakes tests in an increasing number of states
with the remainder now facing a federal mandate to follow suit.

In theory, high performance on tests of advanced learning and higher
order skills at the high school level is by no means precluded by
reforms that integrate academic and career foci. In practice, however,
there appears to be little communication between state/district-level
curriculum and instruction departments on the one hand, and
state/district-level school-to-work or career and technology education
departments on the other. Moreover, in a standards-based reform
environment, curriculum and instruction trumps career technology which,
at the school level, means that time that might be used to teach (or
learn to teach) in more contextual and applied ways is more likely to be
used for test preparation. Our experience also has been that anxiety
around performance on state tests has a depressive effect on curricular
and instructional innovation, at the school and especially at the
district levels.

This discussion suggests two ways that the federal government can help
high schools receive clearer messages about the direction in which they
should invest their reform energies. First, the U.S. Department of
Education could model institutional coherence by creating a national
office dedicated to high school improvement that would house under one
administrative roof all federal activities affecting high schools. This
office would promote alignment of all reform efforts including not only
those focused on standards or career themes, but those relating to
special education, ESL, health and safety, service learning, and other
programs presently operating in high schools. This office also would
promote organizational changes designed to help high schools build and
sustain the partnerships with employers and community organizations
necessary for work-based learning, apprenticeships, and other
experiential education opportunities.

Second, the Department could spearhead a major curriculum development
effort akin to the National Science Foundation's standards-based math
curriculum project. One of the greatest weaknesses of the current high
school reform movement is the lack of curriculum that is aligned with
high national and state standards, designed for innovative and multiple
instructional methods, *and* integrates career/occupational content. We
have learned from many years of reform that teachers generally have
neither the time nor often the skills to develop curricula. When they do
develop quality material, the products are typically not readily
transferable to others because they were created for a unique situation.
We are not recommending the development of a single national high school
curriculum, nor would we expect that any packaged curriculum would be
able to specify all the applied, experiential activities that would work
in a local context. Teachers must still be given time, support, and
incentives to make any curriculum come alive for their students, and
staff are needed at the school site to create and sustain work-based
learning activities with employer partners. However, we envision support
given to a small number of development groups to create models of
standards-based curriculum that creatively integrates occupational
content into academic coursework for each subject-area. Such curriculum
might be developed in traditional textbook form, and/or in the form of a
large, relational database similar to one being developed by James
Connell and the First Things First program where courses, units, lessons
and learning activities will be organized and accessed according to the
varying state standards and core academic courses. Added to such a
living and continuously updated database could be a field designating
specific career areas (e.g. health, business, law, journalism, teaching,
etc.) and lessons that creatively integrate career themes into academic
coursework. High quality curricula designed with the core principles of
high-school reform described at the beginning of this paper would go a
long way toward providing teachers with the tools they need to bridge
the gap between standards and relevance.

Research and Development Agenda

There is a significant federal role in supporting research that tracks
and evaluates the reform experiments currently underway in a rapidly
growing number of high schools across the country, and in carrying
reform to the next level. We recommend a research and development agenda
constructed around three core areas:

1.  [Process, Impact, and Comparative Analyses of Existing Comprehensive
    High School Reform Models]{.underline}. The models described above
    are being developed by organizations that make an effort to collect
    and disseminate data on the effectiveness of their respective
    interventions. Support for developer-driven research efforts should
    continue in order to capture the rich experiences and information
    that emerge from intimate relationships between developers and the
    high schools they work with. Developer research efforts also are
    vital to the continuous improvement and refinement of the various
    models and the processes developers use to interface with schools.
    Third party evaluations, such as those being supported by the
    current Design Contracts, are also a critical source of information
    about effective implementation and overall impact of the various
    reform models. Given that the current wave of high school reform is
    still in its infancy, the difficulty and complexity of the
    enterprise itself, and the fact that several of the reform models
    discussed here are relatively new, we would argue that currently
    funded third-party evaluations be extended beyond the initial
    five-year period. On the other hand, we also argue that the various
    models are now developed enough to support the beginnings of some
    comparative investigations of the effectiveness of different models
    across variables including school type, size, location, and student
    population served, and propose sponsorship of such studies at the
    national level.

2.  [Studies of High School Reform Components]{.underline}. The
    convergence of high school reform efforts around several core
    principles and identifiable strategies points to the need for more
    research on each of the components. Most prominent is the need for
    more research on *small learning communities* (SLCs). What
    conditions and processes are necessary for successful implementation
    of either single or school wide SLCs? What value orientations among
    teachers and administrators are necessary and how are those values
    most efficiently inculcated? How do teachers develop and maintain
    subject-area quality and community in an interdisciplinary
    organizational unit? These, along with the basic question of impact
    on student outcomes, are only a few of the questions that should be
    addressed with respect to this increasingly widespread high school
    reform strategy.

> Research on *career academies* as an important type of small learning
> community approach also must be pursued. While the MDRC study cited
> above has made great inroads, its sample was randomized only across
> students who had already applied to be in a career academy. The most
> recent report found that both treatment (Academy) and control
> (non-Academy) students had high rates of high school graduation,
> college enrollment, and employment relative to similar students
> nationally. MDRC's finding that the career academy experience was most
> effective for the most disadvantaged students suggests that there is
> still a great deal to be learned about the effectiveness of career
> academies for students who may not be motivated to enroll in a career
> academy on their own. Moreover, an increasing number of schools are
> experimenting with going "wall-to-wall" with career academies, opening
> an extremely important vein of research related to the scalability of
> this reform strategy.
>
> Related to research on SLCs and career academies are two additional
> areas that require intensive investigation. The first is
> *partnerships*. Linkages between schools and family, community
> organizations, business and industry, professional development
> networks, and technical assistance providers/model developers are
> being emphasized as a central component of high school improvement
> with unprecedented forcefulness. Despite their growing importance,
> however, these relationships remain undertheorized and understudied,
> leaving open questions such as: What conditions are necessary for
> effective partnerships? What does it take to establish and sustain
> them? What is the role of intermediary staff and organizations
> designed specifically to facilitate such partnerships?
>
> *Curriculum and instruction* is a final reform area where there is a
> tremendous need for more experimentation and research. Research and
> development (R&D) around curriculum that integrates high standards
> academic curricula with occupational and career content is vital, as
> we discussed earlier. Similarly, R&D around instructional techniques
> that support applied, contextual learning, such as the projects
> supported by OVAE's current program in this area, should be continued
> and expanded. In another paper, we also make recommendations for R&D
> around transitional catch-up curriculum needed for students entering
> high school with poor prior academic preparation to succeed in high
> standards college preparatory courses (Balfanz, McPartland, & Shaw,
> 2002).

3.  [Studies of High School Reform in High Poverty, High Minority Urban
    Districts]{.underline}. Many of our Nation's failing high schools
    are located in large, urban centers and serve primarily minority
    students living near or below the poverty line. Can these schools be
    turned around? What does it take? How much does it cost? What are
    the conditions for success? How do we measure success and can we
    collect accurate data to do it? If they cannot be turned around,
    what are viable alternatives for students who attend them? Should
    the predominant system that features elite magnet high schools,
    vocational high schools, and general neighborhood comprehensive high
    schools continue in these districts? If so, how can more equity be
    achieved? If not, what will replace it? If we are serious about high
    standards for all children, and serious about the goal of "no child
    left behind," then an intensive focus on improving high schools in
    our urban centers and developing the knowledge base in this area is
    absolutely critical.

Focus on the federal level in each of these three areas should
necessarily be combined with the Department's stated commitment to high
quality, rigorous research, by promoting studies based on experimental,
match-control, and longitudinal designs utilizing both quantitative and
qualitative data.

Conclusion

From the flurry of conferences and reports on improving our nation's
high schools to conversations that we have held with teachers,
administrators, and also students in the schools we work with, there is
a compelling sense that change is inevitable and that there is no going
back. While we remain a good distance away from being able to define
exactly what the new American high school (or schools, or schooling)
will look like, we have argued in this paper that theory and practice
are converging around a core set of principles and reform strategies. We
also have argued that there are substantial federal roles in targeting
resources for reform to schools with the greatest needs, removing
institutional and policy barriers to effective reform, and promoting
research and development in key areas. In these ways, national leaders
in education can help ensure that the changes in high schooling over the
next decades will occur with adequate support, thoughtful guidance, and
a conscious emphasis on balancing the concerns of standards, relevance,
and equity.

References

American Youth Policy Forum. (2000, August). *High schools of the
millennium: Report of the workgroup*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

*America's Choice School Design*. Technical Support Consortium. Visited
9 January 2002. www.coe.wayne.edu/TSC/amrchc.html.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2001, September). *Investing in
excellence: Making Title I work for all children*. Washington, D.C.:
Author.

Angus, D.L. & Mirel, J.E. (1999). *The failed promise of the American
high school, 1890-1995.* New York: Teachers College Press.

Ayers, W., Klonsky, M., & Lyon, G. (Eds.). (2000). *A simple justice:
The challenge of small schools*. New York: Teachers College Press.

Balfanz, R. & Legters, N.E. (2001). *How many failing high schools are
there? Where are they located? Who attends them? Why are they so bad?*
Prepared for the Harvard Civil Rights Project and Achieve, Inc. forum on
Dropouts in America.

Boyer, E.L. (1983). *High school: A report on secondary education in
America.* The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New
York: Harper & Row.

Canady, R.L. & Rettig, M.D. (1995). *Block scheduling: A catalyst for
change in high schools*. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. Task Force on Teaching as a
Profession (1986). *A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century*.
New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

*Catalog of School Reform Models*. Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory. March 2001. Visited 9 January 2002.
www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog.

*Coalition of Essential Schools*. Visited 10 January 2002.
http://www.essentialschools.org.

*Coalition of Essential Schools Profile*. Jefferson County Instructional
Services. Visited 10 January 2002. http://204.98.1.2/isu/home/coal.html.

Cohen, M. (2001). *Transforming the American High School: New directions
for state and local policy.* Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute.

Conant, J.B. (1959). *The American high school today.* New York: McGraw
Hill.

*CRESPAR, Talent Development Schools.* Center for Social Organization of
Schools. www.csos.jhu.edu/Talent/high.html.

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

Herbst, J. (1996). *The once and future school: Three hundred and fifty
years of American secondary education.* New York: Routledge.

*High Schools That Work*. Southern Regional Educational Board. Visited
10 January 2002 www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/background/brochure.asp.

Kemple, J.J. (2001). *Career academies: Impacts on students' initial
transitions to post-secondary education and employment.* New York:
Manpower Development Research Corporation.

Kemple, J.J. & Snipes, J.C. (2000). *Career academies: Impacts on
students' engagement and performance in high school.* New York: Manpower
Development Research Corporation.

Lee, V.E., Bryk, A.S., & Smith, J.B. (1993). The organization of
effective high schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), *Review of Research
in Education, 19* (pp. 171-267). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.

Lee, V.E., Ready, D.D., & Johnson, D.J. (2001). The difficulty of
identifying rare samples to study: The case of high schools divided into
schools-within-schools. *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23*(4): 365-379.

Lee, V.E. & Smith, J.B. (2001). *Restructuring high schools for equity
and excellence: What works*. New York: Teachers College Press.

National Association of Secondary School Principals, (1996). *Breaking
ranks: Changing an American institution*. Reston, VA: Author.

National Commission on the High School Senior Year. (2001). *The lost
opportunity of the senior year: Finding a better way*. U.S. Department
of Education, the Carnegie Foundation of New York, the Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation: Washington, D.C. January 2001.
commissionsenioryear.org.

Oakes, J. (1985). *Keeping track: How schools structure inequality*. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Powell, A., Cohen, D., & Farrar, E. (1985). *The shopping mall high
school*. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

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

*Smaller Learning Communities*. National Center for Education and the
Economy. Visited 10 January 2002,
www.ncee.org/smallerLearning/hsDescription.html.

Stern, D., Dayton, C., & Raby, M. (1998, December). *Career academies
and high school reform*. Berkeley, CA: University of California at
Berkeley, Career Academy Support Network.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics
(2000).  *The condition of education 2000*.  (NCES 2000-602). 
Washington, DC:  U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Wraga, W.G. (1999). Repudiation, reinvention, and educational reform:
The comprehensive high school in historical perspective. *Educational
Administration Quarterly*, 35, 292-304.

Figure 1

Challenges Facing Comprehensive Public High Schools,

Common Reform Principles Designed to Address those Challenges,

and Specific Reform Strategies

+----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Challenge]  | **[Reform        | > **[Strategies]{.smallcaps}**  |
| {.smallcaps}** | Principl         |                                 |
|                | e]{.smallcaps}** |                                 |
+----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Anonymity]  | *                | -   Small learning communities  |
| {.underline}** | *[Personalizatio |                                 |
|                | n]{.underline}** | -   Schools-within-a-school     |
| The large size |                  |                                 |
| and            | High schools     | -   Smaller schools             |
| organizational | become caring    |                                 |
| structure of   | and supportive   | -   Interdisciplinary teaming   |
| most high      | places where     |                                 |
| schools makes  | students and     | -   Advisories and mentors      |
| it difficult   | adults know one  |                                 |
| for students   | another well.    | -   School, family, & community |
| and adults to  |                  |     partnerships                |
| know one       |                  |                                 |
| another well.  |                  |                                 |
+----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Apathy]     | **[Relevanc      | -   Career themes, clusters, or |
| {.underline}** | e]{.underline}** |     academies                   |
|                |                  |                                 |
| High school    | High school      | -   Integrating academic and    |
| curriculum is  | curricula        |     career curricula            |
| viewed as dry, | prepare all      |                                 |
| boring, and    | students for 2   | -   Cooperative, contextual,    |
| unrelated to   | or 4-year        |     and constructivist teaching |
| students lives | college and      |     methods                     |
| or futures,    | careers.         |                                 |
| only prepares  | Curriculum and   | -   Applied, field-based,       |
| a select few   | instruction are  |     hands-on projects and       |
| students for   | also designed to |     activities                  |
| advancement to | engage and       |                                 |
| college, and   | motivate diverse | -   Integrating computer and    |
| does little to | learners.        |     telecommunications          |
| prepare        |                  |     technology                  |
| students for   |                  |                                 |
| success in our |                  | -   Work-based learning (job    |
| changing       |                  |     shadowing, internships)     |
| economy and    |                  |                                 |
| society.       |                  |                                 |
+----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
|                | **[High          | -   Common core curriculum that |
|                | Standard         |     prepares and certifies all  |
|                | s]{.underline}** |     students for postsecondary  |
|                |                  |     education                   |
|                | High schools     |                                 |
|                | eliminate        | -   End-of-course and high      |
|                | tracking and     |     school graduation exams     |
|                | hold all         |                                 |
|                | students to high |                                 |
|                | academic         |                                 |
|                | standards.       |                                 |
+----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Diversity]  | **[Flexibility   | -   Increase teachers'          |
| {.underline}** | with             |     repertoire of instructional |
|                | Instructional    |     approaches                  |
| High school    | Strategies, Time |                                 |
| students are   | and              | -   Extended class periods,     |
| increasingly   | Resource         |     school days, and school     |
| culturally and | s]{.underline}** |     year                        |
| linguistically |                  |                                 |
| diverse.       | High schools     | -   Extra help to students who  |
| Students also  | provide multiple |     need it through catch-up    |
| possess        | and varied       |     courses and summer- or      |
| multiple       | learning         |     after-hours school programs |
| intelligences  | opportunities to |                                 |
| and learn in   | promote success  | -   Opportunities to learn      |
| different      | for all          |     study skills and social     |
| ways. Students | students.        |     skills to promote success   |
| also arrive in |                  |     in high school work in life |
| high school    |                  |                                 |
| with extremely |                  |                                 |
| diverse prior  |                  |                                 |
| academic       |                  |                                 |
| preparation.   |                  |                                 |
+----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+