A 

DISCUSSION 

GUIDE 

ON HIGH 

SCHOOL 

REFORM

Learning from 

Failure:
First Printing, 2005

© SERVE, 2005

Produced by

The Regional Educational Laboratory

The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Written by

Julie Edmunds, SERVE

Editorial and Design Support by

Donna Nalley, Publications Director, SERVE

Christy Casbon, Editorial Consultant

Tracy Hamilton, Art Director, SERVE

Associated with the

School of Education,

The University of North 

Carolina at Greensboro

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 

nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This document was produced with funding from the Institute of Education 

Sciences,U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-01-CO-0015.

Learning from Failure:

A DISCUSSION GUIDE ON HIGH SCHOOL REFORM
Executive Summary 4

Learning from Failure:

A DISCUSSION GUIDE ON HIGH SCHOOL REFORM 6

The Nature of the Reform 7

School-level Factors Affecting Implementation of Reforms 8

Contextual Factors Affecting Implementation of Reforms 11

Factors Specific to Schools-Within-Schools (SWS) 15

Learning from Failure: Asking Questions 16

Conclusion 18

Worksheets

 Learning from Failure: Discussion Guide 19

Learning from Failure: Asking Questions 22

Endnotes 24

References 24

About SERVE 27
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform 4

© SERVE 2005

Why include the word failure in the title of a discussion guide on high 

school reform? Simply put, we need to learn from past mistakes. Too 

often, educators or policymakers implement “new” reforms that have 

already been tried and then wonder why their programs or reforms 

don’t work.

This discussion guide is designed to provide information about what 

hasn’t worked in the past and the lessons we have learned. It can 

be used by teams of practitioners, policymakers, and members of 

the community who are in the midst of school reform efforts at the 

high school level. Reading and working through this guide will help 

those teams engage in a dialogue about how to ensure success at 

their school. This document summarizes some existing literature and 

research on the reasons behind the failure of many school reforms. 

It also provides questions for people to consider as they develop or 

implement their own reform efforts. 

The success of school reform efforts is dependent on the nature of the 

reform, as well as a variety of contextual factors, such as state and district policies and political forces, as well as school-level factors, including teachers and administrators. This discussion guide, which concentrates on the high school level, describes the factors affecting general 

efforts to implement reform, as well as some factors more specific to 

school-within-a-school restructuring efforts. It concludes with some 

questions to consider. Below is a summary of the main ideas discussed 

in this guide. Each idea is explored in more depth in the full guide. 

The Nature of the Reform

● A focus on structural and not instructional changes. Reforms that 

focus on structural changes such as organizational structure or 

scheduling may be easy to implement but will not have the desired 

impact on student outcomes without a concomitant focus on 

instruction and student learning.

● Implementation of reforms without using data. Using reforms without 

a solid or promising research base can be risky. Reforms also 

must be evaluated as they are implemented so that necessary 

changes can be made. Evaluation must therefore be ongoing, 

occurring prior to choosing or implementing the reform, during 

implementation, and after implementation. 

School-level Factors Affecting Implementation of Reforms

● Lack of support and buy-in from the school staff. Reforms fail when 

the school staff is not allowed input and active participation in 

crafting the reform. 

● Lack of skills and knowledge among school staff. If teachers and 

administrators lack the skills and knowledge necessary for 

implementation, the reform will not succeed. 

Executive

Summary
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

5

● A school culture that values acceptance and conformity. School 

culture generally supports individuals who maintain the status quo, 

creating an environment that is not conducive to reform. 

● Teacher and administrator exhaustion and burnout. The extra work 

required to implement innovative reforms can take its toll on 

teachers. 

● Teacher and administrator turnover. When staff leave, it is generally 

difficult to replace them with individuals with the same level of 

commitment to the reform. 

● Insufficient resources. Reforms will fail if schools don’t have the 

necessary resources, including money (generally) and time 

(always) for teachers and administrators to learn the ideas and 

work on implementing them. 

Contextual Factors Affecting Implementation of Reforms

● The systemic nature of education. Schools are part of an 

interlocking system, and changes made in one part of the system 

that run counter to another part of the system will fail. 

● Lack of consensus on goals of schooling and how to achieve those 

goals. Members of the educational community and the broader 

community are often unsure about what the public school 

is supposed to accomplish and also unsure about how to 

accomplish it. 

● Multiple and incompatible reforms. States, districts, and schools 

often implement multiple reforms, which can be fragmentary or 

even contradictory. 

● “Iconic notions of high school.” Despite a lack of clarity around 

goals and processes, many people have traditional notions of what 

a “real school” is. Reforms that go against this notion often run 

into substantial difficulty. 

● Lack of support and buy-in from the broader community. Many 

educational reforms fail because parents or other political forces 

are not included in the reform process from the beginning. 

Factors Specific to Schools-Within-Schools (SWS)

● Insufficient autonomy. SWS can fail if they are not autonomous 

entities within the school.

● Lack of continuity among different SWS. In many cases, multiple 

SWS can conflict and compete with each other. 

● Friction and conflict between SWS and host schools. Staff in the 

large school that is supporting a SWS often feels that SWS get 

extra benefits.
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform 6

© SERVE 2005

Consider the experience of students in an innovative high school 

reform program. Students participate in a series of interdisciplinary 

core courses that cross departmental boundaries. The eight-period 

day has been replaced by classes that vary in time span and in class 

size, according to the need of the subject. Students become actively 

involved in community service, artistic productions, and publications. 

Teachers and students together are involved in collaboratively planning the activities. Evaluation results show that students in these 

programs do just as well in college academic courses as students in 

more traditional academic programs, and they are more active in collegiate social, artistic, and political life. 

This reform program sounds like the type of experience we wish all 

our students could have and the type of experience many educational reformers are proposing today. Yet, this reform, called the EightYear Study, took place 70 years ago, from 1933–1941. The program 

obtained agreement from colleges to free participating schools from a 

mandate that students study specific kinds and numbers of courses as 

indicated by Carnegie Units.1 The idea was to create school environments that helped students learn what they needed to learn in the way 

they learned best instead of “subordinating youth to an antiquated system of academic accounting...” (Tyack and Cuban, 1995, p. 98). The 

program had substantial resources, including a million-plus dollar budget, curriculum developers, program evaluators, and much favorable 

publicity. It operated in 29 innovative, socioeconomically advantaged 

schools, including some schools-within-schools, chosen from over 200 

nominated schools. However, in 1950, when a group of the original 

participants got together to assess the results of the Eight-Year Study, 

they agreed that the reforms had mostly faded. Participating schools 

had returned to the original “grammar of schooling” although some 

aspects of the reforms remained. 

This story is important because it reminds us of something critical: 

educational reform is not new. Reformers have been attempting to 

change schools for years, but very few changes stick. Many reforms 

do have an incremental effect on the school experience, but dramatic 

changes are almost always restricted to isolated schools. Yet, drastic and comprehensive changes are exactly what education reforms 

are currently calling for. Why do so many educational reforms fail? 

And what does this mean for reforms today? This discussion guide 

summarizes some of the research and literature on education reform. 

Most of this research is descriptive in nature; nevertheless, there are 

trends that appear over and over in the studies and literature, allowing us to identify specific factors that appear to affect the implementation of reforms, contributing to their success or failure. These factors are grouped in three levels: the nature of the reform itself, contextual factors, and school-level factors. The guide also addresses 

some concerns specific to the reform movement known as schoolswithin-schools (SWS), which has gained in popularity at the high 

school level. 

Learning 

from 

Failure:

A DISCUSSION 

GUIDE ON

HIGH SCHOOL 

REFORM

“For over a century, 

ambitious reformers have 

promised to create sleek, 

efficient school machines 

‘light years’ ahead of 

the fusty schools of their 

times. But in practice 

their reforms have often 

resembled shooting stars 

that spurted across the 

pedagogical heavens, 

leaving a meteoric trail 

in the media but burning 

up and disappearing in 

the everyday atmosphere 

of the schools.”

(Tyack and Cuban,

1995, p. 111)
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

7

In addition to questions sprinkled throughout the text, the guide concludes with a series of questions to ask about your reform. Teams 

may want to use the worksheets at the end of the book to record 

their discussion. 

The Nature of the Reform

The style and substance of the reform itself is a key factor affecting its 

success. The extent to which a reform is focused on the key priority 

of student learning and the extent to which a reform is based on data 

can determine whether it will have the desired impact. We first consider these aspects of the nature of the reform. 

A focus on structural and not instructional changes

Many reforms revolve around “structural” issues, including reforms 

such as block-scheduling and small schools. These reforms are generally successful in so far as they are implemented; however, they rarely 

have the desired impact on student learning outcomes unless they 

are accompanied by instructional changes. In a study of significantly 

restructured schools, Elmore (1995) found that teachers had made 

little change in their instructional practices. Elmore (1996) has also 

argued that it is much more difficult to change what he calls “the core 

of educational practice” (i.e., what actually happens in the classroom 

between teachers and students). This core includes an understanding of how students gain knowledge, the students’ role in learning, 

and how the ideas are represented in teaching and in the classroom. 

On the other hand, innovations that operate on the periphery, without 

changing what Tyack and Cuban (1995) called the “grammar of schooling,” are much more likely to be implemented. For example, it is relatively easy to implement a dropout prevention program, an after-school 

tutoring program, or even block-scheduling. It is not easy, on the other 

hand, to change the work that happens every day in the classrooms. 

Even if structural reforms are more likely to meet with success in 

implementation, they will likely fail in having the desired impacts on 

students. Noguera (2004) discussed how structural reforms had 

little impact on classrooms and students in most of the urban high 

schools he studied. High schools that were successful placed the 

structural reforms in the context of a focus on student learning. In a 

study of a city-wide initiative to create professional communities of 

instructional practice, Supovitz (2002) found that the organizational 

structure did little to improve student achievement unless it was connected to an ongoing exploration of improving student learning. He 

concluded, “Policy changes that modify organizational structures 

certainly contribute to changes in the cultures within, but they may 

not meaningfully transform those cultures.” In their description of 

“Breakthrough High Schools” that were having success serving challenging student populations, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (2004) determined that changes made in the 

schools needed to revolve around the issue of improving student 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform 8

© SERVE 2005

learning and evaluating the impact of structural and instructional 

changes on student outcomes.

Implementation of reforms without using data

Not all reforms and practices are created equal. Some reforms have a 

better chance of success than others. Researchers and policymakers 

have highlighted the importance of making decisions based on good 

research or evidence (Fashola and Slavin, 1998; Whitehurst, 2002). 

When schools implement reforms that have a track record of success, 

they are much more likely to get the desired results (Slavin, 1996). 

When the reforms are not based on good information, they can be a 

waste of time, a distraction, or even harmful. “For want of evidence 

our schools often fail to accomplish the key tasks we expect of them. 

And for lack of research concerning their supposed problems and the 

actual effects of programs for their ‘reform,’ the policies we initiate 

in such schools are often misguided, wasteful, counterproductive or 

destructive” (Biddle, 1996, p. 12). 

Implementing an evidence-based approach is no guarantee of success, however, due to the power of the unique context in which each 

reform operates. Thus, collecting ongoing information about the reform 

effort is necessary to its success (Elias, Zins, and Graczyk, 2003). The 

need for good information must be balanced with the recognition that 

implementing reforms takes time. Feedback that is too frequent or tied 

too closely to traditional practices may simply reinforce the existing situation and set the innovation up for failure (Hatch, 2000). School staff 

must always consider how the reform is being implemented in their 

school and whether any changes need to be made.

School-level Factors Affecting Implementation of Reforms

A reform can be very well designed with a sound research base, but 

its success or failure still depends on a host of factors at the school 

level. We next consider some of the factors at the school level that 

can cause a reform to fail. 

Lack of support and buy-in from the school staff

Teachers and local administrators play a key role in implementing any 

reform and can play just as key a role in sabotaging reforms they find 

useless or harmful. “As ‘street level bureaucrats,’ teachers typically have 

TO DISCUSS:

Is the reform you are considering structural, instructional, or both? How is your reform going to 

improve student learning? 

TO DISCUSS:

What does research say about your reform? If your reform is new, what does research say about the 

principles in the reform? What data will you collect on your reform? How will you know whether things 

need to be changed? 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

9

sufficient discretion, once the classroom doors close, to make decisions 

about pupils that add up over time to de facto policies about instruction, whatever the official regulations” (Tyack and Cuban, 1995, p. 135). 

Reforms that do not include teachers in the planning process or that do 

not address the very real challenges teachers face in their classrooms 

will be ignored or modified into something non-recognizable. In a study 

of a school-within-a school program, Greenfield and Klemm (2001) 

described how the principal expanded the program rapidly, mandating 

the participation of teachers. This resulted in resentment on behalf of 

teachers, which contributed to the failure of the reform. 

Yet, teachers should not be seen as obstacles to reform. Instead, they 

are the key to improving education (Noguera, 2004). “Better schooling will result in the future—as it has in the past and does now—chiefly 

from the steady, reflective efforts of the practitioners who work in 

schools and from the contributions of the parents and citizens who support (while they criticize) public education” (Tyack and Cuban, p. 135).

Lack of skills and knowledge among school staff

As highlighted above, reforms are implemented by teachers, and 

thus are substantially dependent on their skills and knowledge base. 

Reforms are much more likely to be implemented when there is a congruity between the reform and teachers’ instructional practices and 

content knowledge (Manoucheheri, 2003). If there is a discrepancy 

between the reform and teachers’ knowledge base, there must be 

technical assistance and professional development to address that discrepancy. For example, urban districts that were successful in reducing 

the achievement gap supported professional development centered 

around the reform strategies they were implementing (MDRC, 2002). 

Supovitz (2002) examined the implementation of team-based schooling in Cincinnati Public Schools. He found that simply changing the 

organizational structure—in this case, creating teams of teachers—

did not result in the desired goals of instructional change and improved 

student achievement. One of the reasons was that the teachers did not 

use the new structure to consider instructional practice. To fully implement the reform, teachers needed professional development in using 

the time to support the examination of effective instructional practices. 

Similarly, Noguera (2004) highlighted how teachers in unsuccessful 

schools did not consider how the reforms being implemented affected 

student learning. They needed assistance in making that happen. 

TO DISCUSS:

What is the role of teachers in this reform? What do they think about it? 

TO DISCUSS:

What will school staff need to know and be able to do to make this reform a reality?

What skills do they currently have? What do they need to learn? 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

10

A school culture that values acceptance and conformity

Schools have distinct cultures that many researchers have argued 

reinforce existing social mores (Apple, 1996), including “respect for 

hierarchy, competitive individualization, a receptivity to being ranked 

and judged, and the division of the world into discreet units and categories susceptible to mastery” (Hodas, 1993, p. 3). Hodas argued 

that individuals who continue working in schools are ones who are 

comfortable with this set of values, ones who have no other professional options, or those who believe strongly enough in the mission 

of the organization that they are willing to work through the other, 

less positive aspects. Elmore (1996) made a related argument: that 

our school culture views good teaching as an individual attribute possessed by a limited number of exceptional individuals instead of a 

skill that can be learned. Many educational reforms support that idea 

by grouping reform-minded individuals in the same school or environment, thereby separating them from other teachers and reinforcing 

the idea that effective instructional practices can only be used by a 

precious few. This can result in isolated pockets of success that will 

be difficult to sustain.

Teacher and administrator exhaustion and burnout

Implementing school reform is a time-consuming process requiring 

energy and commitment on behalf of those doing the work. Such an 

intense process can “overload” the staff (Fullan, 2000), resulting in 

staff exhaustion and correspondingly, teacher and administrator turnover (Tyack and Cuban, 1995). Wasley et al., (2000) in their study of 

small schools in Chicago, found that implementing such substantial 

change required an equally substantial investment of time and energy 

on behalf of the staff of these schools. Many of the teachers in the 

study wondered if they would be able to keep up the pace. Closely 

tied to this problem is the issue of time. Reform requires time to implement, and when teachers are given time, they can improve their 

instruction and their school, as described in a site visit to a successful 

high school (Badiali & Rousmaniere, 1996).

Teacher and administrator turnover

When teachers and administrators leave, whether from burnout or 

from other factors, the staff changes can negatively affect the reform 

process. Mac Iver & Legters (2002) found that frequent change of 

principals and the change of superintendent at the district level generally had a detrimental effect on the ability to implement reforms. In 

TO DISCUSS:

What happens to teachers or administrators who come up with new ideas in your school (district/state)? 

How can you create a learning community? 

TO DISCUSS:

How are you going to keep teachers and administrators from wearing themselves out?
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

11

discussing school-within-a-school programs, Raywid (2002) argued 

that administrative turnover by itself can spell the end of thriving programs. Hargreaves & Fink (2000) described two innovative schools 

whose reforms were not maintained, and they identified several reasons for failure including problems with leadership succession and 

with staff recruitment and retention. Initial staff members in schools 

implementing reforms were often hand-picked because of their belief 

in the specific reforms; therefore, replacing them was difficult. This 

exact result was also found in the study of small schools in Chicago 

(Wasley et al., 2000).

Insufficient resources

Any reform requires resources in addition to those normally in the 

school, even if it is just additional time to make the reforms happen. 

Odden (2000) used commonalities among comprehensive school 

reform programs2

 to create an estimate of what the professional educational elements of a highly successful school would cost. He concluded that schools could reallocate existing resources to cover many 

of the costs of school reform efforts, although there would be approximately $250,000/year in additional costs for instructional coordinators, professional development, and technology. Additional resources 

might be needed to provide support for struggling students (up to 

$400,000 depending on the needs of the school), although much of 

this could be covered by Title I or other categorical funds. If schools 

or districts do not dedicate the resources to make the reform happen, 

the reform is very likely to fail as schools cannot continue to depend 

on the extra efforts of dedicated staff (Wasley et al., 2000). 

Resources don’t only refer to money. Time is one of the most precious 

resources needed for reforms, and it is the one often in shortest supply. Staff need time to plan, to gain needed skills, and to reflect on work 

that is being implemented. Schools engaged in reform also need time to 

see how things work (Borko, Wolf, Simone, and Uchiyama, 2003). Too 

often, reforms are given a year or two and then discarded because they 

aren’t working, when in fact, they may be just gaining momentum.

Contextual Factors Affecting Implementation of Reforms

Schools do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, they are part of a 

broader system that brings to bear external policies and procedures. 

In addition, schools are central in the community, and parents and 

community members can also play extremely powerful roles in what 

TO DISCUSS:

What are you willing to dedicate in terms of money? In terms of time?

How long are you willing to wait to see success? 

TO DISCUSS:

What systems or structures do you have in place to help new staff understand and buy into the reform? 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

12

happens in schools. Let us consider some of these contextual factors 

in turn. 

The systemic nature of education

Schools are part of an interlocking system, and changes in one area 

must be supported by other parts of the system. The Eight-Year Study, 

described in the introduction, provides a powerful example of the 

restrictions placed by external forces. One of the reasons that the 

reforms did not stick was because the colleges, who had granted waivers to participating schools from the normal admission requirements, 

returned to their original policies of admitting students who had taken 

the Carnegie Unit courses. Part of this shift was due to the end of 

World War II and the glut of veterans returning from the war and going 

to college, which meant that colleges could again be more selective. 

In another example, Bracey (1996) described a de-tracking program 

that failed because it was operating in a system that rewarded and 

depended on differentiation, including college admission.

The state and district play crucial roles in supporting or not supporting 

reforms in schools. The impact of their policies is highlighted in a recent 

study of the Coalition Campus Schools Project in New York City. The 

Project replaced two comprehensive high schools with 11 small schools, 

redesigning the campuses to include small elementary and high schools 

and other service agencies. The study found that the program initially 

succeeded because they operated through “policy by exception” where 

small schools received waivers from district policies that otherwise would 

have limited their flexibility. A policy of exception does not always last, 

as the study reported that New York was considering requiring the small 

schools to take the New York Regents exam, when previously they had 

been granted waivers so they could use portfolio-based exams. Teachers believed that this policy shift would threaten the purpose and integrity 

of the schools (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort, 2002). In another 

study, Hargreaves and Fink (2000) described an innovative school 

that had received special support and waivers for staffing. When the 

regional government tightened these rules, the school lost some of 

its special character: “Innovative schools may begin as islands in the 

stream of broader district and policy priorities, but the incoming tides 

of policy change eventually drown out their uniqueness” (p. 32).

Lack of consensus on goals of schooling and how to achieve

those goals

Although the goals of schooling may seem a particularly esoteric topic 

of interest only to educational researchers, the lack of clear and agreedupon goals underlies most of the conflict over educational reforms 

(Cuban, 1998). Labaree (1997) argued that the “central problems with 

TO DISCUSS:

Does your reform rely on waivers or “policies of exception” for its success? If so, what are the chances of 

these waivers resulting in institutionalized changes in policies? 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

13

American education are not pedagogical or organizational or social or 

cultural in nature but are fundamentally political. That is, the problem 

is not that we do not know how to make schools better but that we are 

fighting among ourselves about what goals schools should pursue” (p. 

40). Some people see the goal of schools as preparing citizens and 

promoting equality; some see it as training workers; and some see it 

as preparing individuals for personal advancement. For Labaree, the 

differing educational goals result from a tension inherent in American 

culture, the tension between public and private rights, between majority control and individual liberty, and between political equality and 

social inequality. One clear example of these conflicting goals is the 

existence of vocational programs, designed to make schools more 

relevant and economically productive. Yet, this has resulted in tracking many, often minority, students into programs that give them jobspecific skills but not the broader academic preparation needed for full 

participation in life in the United States. Another example is the debate 

that has occurred over whether the curriculum should be focused on 

thinking skills or on specific concepts and content. 

This confusion over goals is often manifested by the lack of a coherent vision for school reform. Mac Iver and Legters (2002) found that 

the failure of high school reform could at least be partially attributed to 

the lack of a cohesive reform process in the district. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (2002) described something very 

similar in its examination of urban school systems. They found that 

districts that were unsuccessful at improving student achievement 

“lacked a clear consensus among key stakeholders about district priorities or an overall strategy for reform” (p. 6). These districts were 

also unable to develop a role for themselves as supporting improvement in teaching and learning.

Multiple and incompatible reforms

Partly arising out of this conflict of goals and the lack of a cohesive 

reform agenda, states and districts frequently mandate multiple 

reforms. These reforms are often contradictory and, at the very 

least, can distract individuals in their efforts to implement them. 

Allen, Almeida, and Steinberg (2001) described how high schools in 

Boston that were implementing small learning communities struggled 

with statewide testing mandates at the same time they were attempting to implement a more inquiry-focused curriculum. The teachers 

and administrators saw these reforms, accurately or not, as being in 

direct conflict with each other, requiring them to make choices about 

what they would do. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (2002), in its study of urban districts that were both successful 

TO DISCUSS:

What are your goals for high school? Why do students go to high school? What goals does your 

community have for high school? Are the goals different for different types of students? 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

14

and unsuccessful at decreasing the achievement gap, found that 

unsuccessful districts often presented schools with contradictory 

reforms or curricula to implement. Another example is an urban district implementing a Career Initiative program that built on existing 

school-within-a-school academy structures. This initiative resulted in 

limited change partly because of a “double-minded State Department of Education” whose accountability standards often meant 

schools needed to focus on short-term test gains instead of the longterm changes needed to ensure success (Mac Iver & Legters, 2002). 

In addition to potentially contradictory messages, multiple reforms 

can also keep participants from focusing and accomplishing the 

reforms. Fullan (2000) suggested one of the main enemies of reform 

is extreme fragmentation. Mac Iver and Legters (2002) also found that 

schools in their study were “tempted” by a variety of funding streams 

to pursue multiple initiatives, resulting in a counter-productive effort to 

accomplish too many things at once.

“Iconic notions of high school” (McRobbie, 2001)

Interestingly enough, although there may be no clear consensus on 

the goals of high school, many people have a clear idea of what a 

high school should look like. Reforms that disturb this vision of a “real 

school” often have very little chance of succeeding in the long-term. 

Tyack and Cuban (1995) described these features of school as “the 

grammar of schooling” and argue that they help teachers “discharge 

their duties in a predictable fashion and to cope with the everyday 

tasks that school boards, principals, and parents expect them to perform: controlling student behavior, instructing heterogeneous pupils, 

and sorting people for future roles in school and later life” (p. 86). 

The features of schooling at the high school level include: students 

shifting among teachers, teachers organized by departments and 

teaching specialized subjects, the awarding of credit (Carnegie Units) 

when courses are completed, and some student choice in what to 

study. These features have become so institutionalized that they are 

extremely difficult to change in any widespread way, and most reforms 

that attempt to restructure them fail. 

In addition to these organizational features, the community may also 

consider components such as sports and other extracurricular activities as part of a “real school.” Metz, quoted in Hargreaves & Fink 

(2000) wrote that professional images of a “‘good school’ are often 

at odds with the community’s notion of a ‘real school’.”

TO DISCUSS:

What other reforms are happening in your state? In your district? In your school? Are any 

incompatible? If so, how are you going to resolve that? 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

15

Lack of support and buy-in from the broader community

Many reforms fail because they become “too intramural” and don’t try 

to convince broader society of the benefits (Tyack and Cuban, 1995). 

In a discussion of the spectacular failure of a Connecticut reform effort 

to implement new academic learning goals in the early 1990s, Frahm 

(1994) indicated that one primary reason was the lack of involvement 

of parents and educators during the planning process, which led to 

mistrust. As a result, a particularly vocal group of parents was able to 

derail a process that had been developed by a group of esteemed educators, businessman, and government officials.

Lack of support from the community can be particularly problematic 

when reforms result in a perceived loss of privilege for a particular 

group. Oakes and Wells (1998) described a study on de-tracking 

reforms that encountered serious resistance from parents of highperforming students. In another study of a school-within-a-school 

program, the program declined after protests by the parents when a 

de-tracking program was expanded to include gifted students (Greenfield and Klemm, 2001). Frahm (1994) also indicated how the loss 

of privilege played a significant role in parents rising up against the 

Connecticut program. As Ouchi (2003) wrote, “School reform isn’t 

partly politics—it’s all politics!”

Factors Specific to Schools-Within-Schools (SWS)

The factors described above apply to most educational reforms. 

Schools-within-schools are specific reform efforts focused on developing smaller learning communities within larger, more comprehensive high schools (often called “host schools”). The idea is to create 

a setting that permits students to receive many of the benefits that 

accompany smaller schools—including increased personalization and 

increased student involvement—while also benefiting from the economies of scale with larger schools. Because of their somewhat unique 

structure, schools implementing SWS reforms face particular challenges in addition to the ones already considered. 

Insufficient autonomy

Small learning communities are most successful when they are 

autonomous entities with all the powers inherent in a school. Many 

SWS don’t achieve that level of autonomy for a variety of reasons 

(Gregory, 2001). The SWS often cannot develop their own identities 

TO DISCUSS:

What does a “real” high school look like? Which aspects of a “real” high school would

you be willing to give up? Which would you absolutely have to keep in place? 

TO DISCUSS:

Who is involved in the reform discussions? Who needs to be involved? 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

16

because the traditions of the big school (including sports, etc.) remain, 

and many of the services, such as the library and the cafeteria, also 

remain centralized. Raywid (2002) highlighted that principals’ responsibility for keeping the school as a cohesive unit may run counter to 

creating SWS. In addition, she also pointed out that the host schools 

and SWS may keep traditional power structures, such as departmental chairs, which can interfere with the freedom needed to run SWS. 

Being located within a large school may also require that SWS adopt 

the same class schedules and restrictions on student movement as 

the host schools, inhibiting the amount of instructional change that 

SWS can implement (Gregory, 2001). 

Lack of continuity among different SWS

SWS often serve specific populations, which can result in fragmenting the school and creating more—not fewer—transitions for students 

(Gregory, 2001). For example, SWS often include specialized programs for new students, those about to graduate, or those in between. 

This results in separation among students. A case study of a schoolto-work initiative in a district also found that schools often implemented different SWS that conflicted with each other. For example, 

one host school had a ninth-grade academy for all ninth-graders. 

However, there were other academies in the same school, such as 

Junior ROTC, which depended on starting with ninth-graders (Mac 

Iver & Legters, 2002).

Friction and conflict between SWS and host schools

If a SWS is the only one of its kind in the host school, that can cause 

faculty divisiveness and conflicts (McQuillan & Muncey, 1998; Wasley et al., 2000). At a number of SWS sites implementing Coalition of 

Essential Schools reform, SWS generated such tension that faculty 

left the program or even left teaching altogether (McQuillan & Muncey, 

1998). This problem can be mitigated when there are several schoolswithin-schools and everyone is involved in the reform in some way 

(Raywid, 1999).

Learning from Failure: Asking Questions 

Writing about why educational reform fails virtually necessitates a 

negative perspective, a list of seemingly insurmountable barriers 

designed to discourage even the most die-hard reformer. 

Why even try?

Yet, thinking about the barriers that face many educational reforms 

can actually help, as reformers learn from the mistakes of the past. 

Thus, it is worthwhile to think about the implications of these factors, 

TO DISCUSS:

If you are going to implement a school-within-a-school or a small learning community,

what will you do to mitigate the concerns listed above?
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

17

(or perhaps we can consider them “lessons learned”) for future reform 

efforts. We have framed these implications in the form of questions to 

ask about the reform you are considering implementing. 

To what extent does your reform focus on improving student learning?

Reforms that are structural in nature must be accompanied by a 

“laserlike focus on teaching and learning” (Noguera, 2004, p. 29) to 

have the desired impact. If the focus remains on structural aspects of 

education, without taking into account what happens in the classroom, 

the reform will be tinkering around the edges. 

To what extent does your reform take into account the systemic nature 

of education?

In order for reforms to last, one of two things must happen: either the 

system must be changed to support the reforms, or the reform must 

be designed to work within the system. Although the former may hold 

the best possibility for long-term, dramatic change, the research summarized above shows it is extremely difficult to do. Therefore, reformers operating within individual schools may want to seriously consider 

the latter option. 

But wait! How can we make the dramatic changes needed by just 

tinkering around the edges?

One possibility is to identify the key educational structures that appear 

so problematic (Tyack and Cuban’s stubborn “grammar of schooling”) 

and design reforms that recognize those realities. At the very least, 

education reformers should have an awareness of the systemic issues 

that might prove problematic to long-term implementation of their projects. If a reform’s success depends too much on “policy by exception,” 

that may prove to be unsustainable. 

To what extent is your reform targeted and coherent, building as much 

as possible on a consensus of the goals of schooling?

Whether reforms occur at the school level, at the district level, or at the 

state or federal level, it is vital that different efforts are consistent and 

come out of an agreed-upon vision. This vision would include agreement on the role the high school plays in the community, an identification of the needs driving the reform, and an identification of how different aspects of the reform will work together to support student learning. 

A mish-mash of “good ideas” is not a cohesive reform plan. 

To what extent does your reform involve all stakeholders, including 

government officials, administrators, teachers, parents, and 

community members?

Research shows how critical it is to include all educational stakeholders in a reform process, particularly if the reform can be seen as threatening to certain groups. Schools or districts can create advisory committees or implementation teams composed of representatives of different interested parties, even those most likely to oppose the efforts. 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

18

The initial planning process may be long and drawn out, but once the 

reforms begin, they will have a better chance of being implemented. 

To what extent is your reform open to and able to benefit from 

adaptation by schools and educators?

Whether reformers like it or not, schools and educators will modify 

reforms, “hybridize” them by combining the parts they find valuable 

with their own knowledge and experiences (Tyack and Cuban, 1995). 

“Unless reformers work with educators to adopt changes, and unless 

those who work in the school feel an ownership of and responsibility 

for their work, even the best ideas are sabotaged or become unworkable” (Noguera, 2002, p. 61). 

To what extent is your reform accompanied by technical assistance 

and support for its implementation?

To what extent is there ongoing support to mitigate burnout and compensate for turnover? Any reform programs will require accompanying technical assistance and staff development as well as adequate 

time and resources to facilitate its success. In addition, reformers 

should acknowledge the extra work required to implement reform and 

incorporate structural supports (planning time, compensation, etc.) 

to minimize the possibility that teachers and administrators will get 

burned out. Ongoing support can also minimize burnout as well as 

provide new teachers and administrators with an understanding of 

the reform. 

Conclusion

Educational reform is a complicated process. As the reform literature 

shows, the barriers are many and not inconsequential. Yet, there is 

also hope inherent in the list described above. The barriers to reform 

suggest that successful reforms must be coherent, inclusive, and 

accompanied by adequate and appropriate resources—characteristics 

that should be welcomed by any individual seeking to improve a public 

institution.
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

19

Learning from Failure: Discussion Guide Worksheet

FACTORS QUESTIONS YOUR TEAM’S ANSWERS AND THOUGHTS

A focus on structural and not instructional changes

Is the reform you are considering structural, instructional, or both? How is your reform going to improve student learning?

Implementation 

of reforms without 

using data

What does research say about your reform? If your reform is new, what does research say about the principles in the reform? What data will you collect on your 

reform? How will you know whether things need to be changed?

Lack of support and buy-in from the 

school staff

What will school staff need to know and be able to do to make this reform a reality? What skills do they currently have? What do they need to learn?

A school culture that values acceptance 

and conformity

What happens to teachers or administrators who come up with new ideas in your 

school (district/state)? How can you create a learning community? 

(continued netxt page)
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

20

FACTORS QUESTIONS YOUR TEAM’S ANSWERS AND THOUGHTS

Teacher and administrator exhaustion 

and burnout

How are you going to keep teachers and administrators from wearing themselves out?

Teacher and administrator turnover

What systems or structures do you have in place to help new staff understand and buy into the reform?

Insufficient resources

What are you willing to dedicate in terms of money? In terms of time? How long are you willing to wait to see success? 

The systemic nature 

of education

Does your reform rely on waivers or “policies of exception” for its success? If so, what are the chances of these waivers resulting in institutionalized changes in policies? 

Lack of consensus 

on goals of schooling 

and how to achieve those goals

What are your goals for high school? Why do students go to high school? What goals does your community have for high school? Are the goals different for different types of students?

(continued netxt page)
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

21

FACTORS QUESTIONS YOUR TEAM’S ANSWERS AND THOUGHTS

Multiple and incompatible reforms

What other reforms are happening in your state? In your district? In your school? Are any incompatible? If so, how are you going to resolve that?

“Iconic notions of high school”

What does a “real” high school look like? Which aspects of a “real” high school would you be willing to give up? Which would you absolutely have to keep in place? 

Lack of support and buy-in from the broader community

Who is involved in the reform discussions? Who needs to be involved?

Issues specific to schools-withinschools

If you are going to implement a schoolwithin-a-school or a small learning community, what will you do to mitigate concerns connected to autonomy, lack of continuity, and conflict?
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

22

Learning from Failure: Asking Questions Worksheet

1. To what extent does your reform focus on improving student learning? 

2. To what extent does your reform take into account the systemic nature of education? 

3. To what extent is your reform targeted and coherent, building as much as possible on a 

consensus of the goals of schooling?

(continued netxt page)
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

23

Learning from Failure: Asking Questions Worksheet (continued)

4. To what extent does your reform involve all stakeholders, including government 

officials, administrators, teachers, parents, and community members? 

5. To what extent is your reform open to and able to benefit from adaptation by schools 

and educators? 

6. To what extent is your reform accompanied by technical assistance and support for 

its implementation? To what extent is there ongoing support to mitigate burnout and 

compensate for turnover?
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

24

Endnotes

1

 Developed in 1906, Carnegie Units serve as a measure of the time a student has spent studying specific subjects. 

2

 Odden’s analysis included comprehensive school reform designs in elementary school only because the number of comprehensive school reform 

programs targeted at high school are very small. Because his numbers 

assume a school of 500 students with 20 teachers and one principal, the 

costs would likely be similar to those associated with a small high school. 

References

Allen, L., Almeida, C., & Steinberg, A. (2001) Wall to wall: Implementing 

small learning communities in five Boston high schools. Providence, 

RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. 

Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Badiali, B. J., & Rousmaniere, K. (1996). Taking the time to change: Observing reform at Federal Hocking High School. American Secondary Education, 22(2), 2–6. 

Biddle, B. J. (1996). Better ideas: Expanded funding for educational 

research. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 12–14. 

Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G., & Uchiyama, K. P. (2003). Schools in 

transition: Reform efforts and school capacity in Washington State. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 171–201.

Bracey, G. W. (1996). But what’s in it for my kid? Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 331.

Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success 

and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453–477. 

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (2002). Reinventing high 

school: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American 

Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639–673. 

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., & Graczyk, P. A. (2003). Implementation, 

sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic 

innovations in public schools. The School Psychology Review, 32(3), 

303–19.

Elmore, R. F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational 

Researcher, 24(9), 23–26. 

Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26. 

Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Schoolwide reform models: What 

works? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 370–379.

Frahm, R. A. (1994). The failure of Connecticut’s reform plan: Lessons for 

the nation. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 100–101. 

Greenfield, T. A., & Klemm, E. B. (2001). When “good” school restructuring 

efforts still fail. American Secondary Education, 30(1), 2–25.
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

25

Gregory, T. (2001). ERIC Digest: Breaking up large high schools: Five common (and understandable) errors of execution. Charleston, WV: ERIC 

Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. ED 459049.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2000). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 30–34. 

Hatch, T. (2000). What does it take to break the mold? Rhetoric and reality in 

New American Schools. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 561–589. 

Hodas, S. (1993). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of 

schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(10). Retrieved May 28, 

2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html 

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle 

over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 

39–81. 

Mac Iver, M. A., & Legters, N. (2002). Partnerships for career-centered high 

school reform in an urban school system. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 26(3), 412–446. 

Manoucheheri, A. (2003). Factors facilitating mathematics reform efforts: 

Listening to the teachers’ perspectives. Action in Teacher Education, 

25(3), 78–90. 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (2002). Foundations for 

Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student 

Achievement. Author. 

McQuillan, P. J., & Muncey, D. E. (1998). Considerations in implementing 

school-within-a-school restructuring. High School Magazine, 6(2), 20–25. 

McRobbie, J. (2001). Are small schools better? School size considerations 

for safety and learning. WestEd. 

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breakthrough 

high schools: You can do it too! Reston, VA: Author. 

Noguera, P. A. (2002). Beyond size: The challenge of high school reform. 

Educational Leadership, 59(5), 60–3. 

Noguera, P. A. (2004). Transforming high schools. Educational Leadership, 

61(8), 26–31. 

Oakes, J., & Wells, A. S. (1998). Detracking for student achievement. Educational Leadership, 55, 38–41. 

Odden, A. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through comprehensive school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433–438. 

Ouchi, W. G. (2003). What you can do to improve your school. WestEd. 

Raywid, M. A. (1999). Schools-within-schools: A more positive look. High 

School Magazine, 6(5), 4–7. 

Raywid, M. A. (2002). The policy environments of small schools and 

schools-within-schools. Educational Leadership, 59(5), 47–51. 

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Reforming state and federal policies to support adoption 

of proven practices. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 4–5. 

Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. 

Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591–1626. 
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

26

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public 

school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., & 

Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools: Great strides, a Study of New Small 

Schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, October). Evidence-based education. Presented 

at the Student Achievement and School Accountability Conference. 

Retrieved May 23, 2005, from www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/eb/

edlite-index.html
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005

27

The SERVE Center at UNCG, under the leadership of Dr. Ludwig David van Broekhuizen, is an education organization with the 

mission to promote and support the continuous improvement of 

educational opportunities for all learners in the Southeast. The 

organization’s commitment to continuous improvement is manifest 

in an applied research-to-practice model that drives all of its work. 

Building on research, professional wisdom, and craft knowledge, 

SERVE staff members develop tools, processes, and interventions 

designed to assist practitioners and policymakers with their work. 

SERVE’s ultimate goal is to raise the level of student achievement 

in the region. Evaluation of the impact of these activities combined 

with input from stakeholders expands SERVE’s knowledge base 

and informs future research.

This rigorous and practical approach to research and development is supported by an experienced staff strategically located 

throughout the region. This staff is highly skilled in providing needs 

assessment services, conducting applied research in schools, and 

developing processes, products, and programs that support educational improvement and increase student achievement. In the last 

three years, in addition to its basic research and development work 

with over 170 southeastern schools, SERVE staff provided technical 

assistance and training to more than 18,000 teachers and administrators across the region.

The SERVE Center is governed by a board of directors that 

includes the governors, chief state school officers, educators, legislators, and private sector leaders from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

SERVE’s operational core is the Regional Educational Laboratory. 

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, the Regional Educational Laboratory for the Southeast is one of ten Laboratories providing research-based information and services to all 50 states and territories. These Laboratories 

form a nationwide education knowledge network, building a bank 

of information and resources shared and disseminated nationally 

and regionally to improve student achievement. SERVE’s National 

Leadership Area, Expanded Learning Opportunities, focuses on 

improving student outcomes through the use of exemplary pre-K 

and extended-day programs.

About 

SERVE

SERVE Main Office

P.O. Box 5367

 Greensboro, NC 27435

800-755-3277

336-315-7400

Fax 336-315-7457

Ludwig David van 

Broekhuizen, Ph.D.

Executive Director

www.serve.org
Learning from Failure: A Discussion Guide on High School Reform

© SERVE 2005