----

##  Small Schools and Teacher Professional Development. ERIC Digest.             

Small schools, at their best, can and often do provide new avenues              for the professional development of their teachers, ones that                   contribute to the schools' well-documented success. They can also               enhance the benefits of more common in-service professional                     development activities. This Digest reviews some of the recent                  research on professional development issues in small schools and                smaller learning communities. WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK IN             PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTProfessional development literature of              the past three decades provides clear distinctions about what works             and what doesn't. This research substantiates, for example, the                 ineffectiveness of the all-too-common one-shot workshop (Fullan &               Stiegelbauer, 1991). In contrast, effective professional development            programs focus on a clear set of priorities; provide ongoing,                   school-based support to classroom teachers; deal with academic                  content as well as teaching methods; and create ample opportunities             for teachers to see and attempt new teaching methods, according to              many experts (National Staff Development Council, 2001). There is               also evidence to show the effectiveness of professional development             models that are peer-led, open-ended, classroom-based, and                      active (Peery, 2002). The more "extended" or ongoing and continuous             the professional development, the more it encourages effective                  classroom practices (Wenglinsky, 2000, p. 30). LEARNING FROM EACH             OTHERA compact faculty size (for example, a staff of 15-20 for a            school of 300) can support close interpersonal relationships. In                such settings professional development is often enhanced by teaming             and by small, task-oriented group formations (Mohr, 2000). For                  instance, teacher teams may work on interdisciplinary units, or on              personalized learning plans for all students. Under these                       circumstances, the entire team, including guidance personnel and                even career-service staff, share students and may teach multiple                subjects or mixed-grade levels, or collaborate on interdisciplinary             teams. Thus, the necessity and opportunity for shared professional              learning are heightened. 
Fine and Somerville (1998) found that the            flexible scheduling and faculty teamwork in smaller schools allowed             for a level of depth and an interdisciplinary approach that provided            students with a much richer educational experience (p. 106). In                 successful small schools, they point out, "time is given for common             planning and exchanging valuable information about students--and                there is well-funded time for professional development" (p.                     108). 
While small schools' faculties often have a strong sense of             collegiality among teachers rather than one strong leader (Meier,               2002; Ancess, 1997), highly active principals and lead teachers can             play important roles as instructional leaders and teacher coaches,              providing job-related learning experiences and time for teachers to             work together (Vander Ark, 2002). Leaders in small schools often                teach students themselves and may have intimate knowledge of the                students as well as the things that teachers need to be                         effective (Cotton, 2001). 
In small schools, teachers often use                models of "Teacher Talk," "Critical Friends," or other peer-coaching            models in which teachers serve as coaches for other teachers and                facilitate reflective professional development activities that                  enable them to know students and themselves better (Klonsky &                   Klonsky, 1999; Guiney, 2001). Knowing students well also entails                professional development that supports the teaching of students with            special needs and those from diverse racial and cultural                        backgrounds. 
Practices such as interdisciplinary teaming and                  examining student work in small groups foster a sense of                        professional community. These practices both improve the capacity of            teachers and contribute to a friendlier and safer learning                      environment (Klonsky, 2002). These professional communities, says               Kathleen Cotton (2001), have as their key features the related                  elements of professional development and teacher collaboration.                 Cotton also reports that small size "allows school personnel to make            shifts in their schedules as needed to support practices the school             deems important" (p.21). FACULTY-DIRECTED PROFESSIONAL                        DEVELOPMENTSmall faculty size makes possible stronger consensus             over professional development priorities and agendas as well as the             sharing of successful teaching strategies. Because relationships                between teachers and administrators in small schools tend to be more            personal and informal, there is a greater tendency for cooperation              among the staff (Barker, 1986). 
The Bank Street study (Wasley et              al., 2000), which compared Chicago's new small schools to its large             traditional schools, reported that small-school teachers were more              likely to engage in professional development that they themselves               found valuable, instead of participating primarily in professional              development that was mandated or imposed by central office or school            administrators. The result was a more coherent and integrated                   educational program in those schools. The study also reported                   greater teacher satisfaction and sense of responsibility for student            learning. 
Finally, small schools set in motion many different                 types of "inside-out" innovations (Larson, 1991). These are                     innovations that come directly out of the teaching experience rather            than from top-down decision making or big changes in organizational             structures. Small schools provide a better chance of seeing the                 results of these innovations and their connection to professional               development because of the high visibility of students and their                work. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO MEET PARTICULAR COMMUNITY                   NEEDSProfessional development activities in small schools, such             as those discussed above, tend to be highly intensive and                       long-running. Such practices have been effective in helping teachers            to collaborate within their professional communities, to personalize            and integrate instruction, to build a culture of trust and collegial            support, and to improve the quality of teaching and learning in                 their schools (Daniels, Bizar, & Zemelman, 2001). Wasley and                    Lear (2001) found that, in high-performing small learning                       communities, professional development was "ongoing, embedded, and               site-specific" (p. 23). 
There is also evidence that supports a                professional development connection with teacher leadership and                 activism (Ayers, Klonsky, & Lyon, 2000; Barth, 2001; Wood, 1992).               For example, many small schools are focused around some area of                 social justice as their purpose or reason for being. Teachers in                these schools learn about local community issues such as gang                   violence or joblessness as a way of engaging with their students'               concerns and daily realities. 
Many other small schools encourage              experiential or active learning. Teachers in such schools need                  support in engaging their students more actively in their own                   learning process (Cawelti, 1997). Teachers at the Met School in                 Providence (RI), for example, work as coaches with students, helping            them to plan their high school curriculum and work many days out of             the classroom in their chosen fields. The Met has created courses to            help staff develop the coaching skills they need, skills that aren't            provided through traditional teacher education courses or                       professional development programs (Levine, 2002). 
Small-school                activism and teacher leadership also come into play where new small             schools and smaller learning communities have emerged as part of                large-school conversions and comprehensive school restructuring                 initiatives. In many such initiatives, teachers move into project               director or principal positions, calling for new skill sets to                  fulfill their duties (Cushman, 1999). PREVENTION OF BURNOUT,                  CONFLICT, AND OBSTACLES TO COLLABORATIONThe amplified demands on            faculty and staff time for increased professional development can               also lead to burnout and teacher resistance to small schools.                   Gladden (1998) found cases of teachers resisting the "heavy workload            of small schools" (p. 125). These demands are especially acute in               the beginning stages of new start-up schools (Ancess, 1997). 
There            may also be staff relationship problems that arise around                       professional development work, between those teachers in a                      school-within-a-school and those remaining with the larger school.              Small-school teachers, for example, can be pulled between                       professional development requirements of their small school and                 those of the large school (Raywid, 1996). 
Small-schools approaches            to professional development can be stifled in cases where the                   program or the facilities don't support the necessary interaction               among faculty members, i.e., where teachers in a team work at                   extreme ends of a building or have no common planning time built                into their schedules. 
But these problems have been overcome when              good professional development strategies have been put into play.               Nancy Mohr (2000) for example, found benefits when professional                 development was done in interdisciplinary teams: "Teachers who work             on teams not only improve their craft but also begin to see the                 patterns in their work and relationships. They learn together,                  critiquing one another's practice by looking at student                         work" (p.148). Other small schools have created time for                        professional development when their students were out doing field               studies in their focus areas. CONCLUSIONSTeachers in small                schools have found ways to take more ownership over their                       professional development. Small schools can provide an environment              well suited to new and improved forms and models of teacher                     professional development, which, in turn, can lead to improvements              in teaching and learning to help transform                                      schools. REFERENCESAncess, J. (1997). Urban dreamcatchers:                Launching and leading new small schools. New York: National Center              for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST).                    Teachers College Press, Columbia University. 
Ayers, W., Klonsky,              M., & Lyon, G. (Eds.). (2000). A simple justice: The challenge of               small schools. The teaching for social justice series. New York:                Teachers College Press. 
Barker, B. O. (1986). The advantages of               small schools. ERIC Digest. Las Cruces, NM: ERIC Clearinghouse on               Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction                  Service No. ED 265 988) 
Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi              Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443-449. 
Cawelti, G. (1997). Effects of high             school restructuring: Ten schools at work. ERS Concerns in Education            Series. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. 
Cotton,                  K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent                 literature. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational                        Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 459                      539) 
Cushman, K. (1999). How small schools increase student                   learning (and what large schools can do about it). Principal, 79(2),            20-22. Retrieved December 2, 2002, from                                         http://www.naesp.org/comm/p1199b.htm 
Daniels, H., Bizar, M., &                Zemelman, S. (2001). Rethinking high school: Best practice in                   teaching, learning, and leadership. Portsmouth, NH:                             Heinemann. 
Fine, M., & Somerville, J. I. (1998). Essential                    elements of small schools. In M. Fine and J. I. Somerville (Eds.),              Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public                schools (pp. 104-112). Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban               School Reform. 
Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new              meaning of educational change. (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College            Press. 
Gladden, R. (1998). The small school movement: A review of             the literature. In M. Fine and J. I. Somerville (Eds.), Small                   schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public                      schools (pp. 113-133). Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban               School Reform. 
Guiney, E. (2001). Coaching isn't just for                     athletes: The role of teacher leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(10),                740-743. Retrieved December 2, 2002, from                                       http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0106gui.htm 
Klonsky, M. (2002). How            smaller schools prevent school violence. Educational Leadership,                59(5), 65-69. 
Klonsky, S., & Klonsky, M. (1999). Countering                   anonymity through small schools. Educational Leadership, 57(1),                 38-41. 
Larson, R. L. (1991). Small is beautiful: Innovation from              the inside out. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 550-554. 
Levine,                     E. (2002). One kid at a time: Big lessons from a small school.                  Series on school reform. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Meier,             D. (2002). Just let us be: The genesis of a small public school.                Educational Leadership, 59(5), 76-79. 
Mohr, N. (2000). Small                  schools are not miniature large schools. Potential pitfalls and                 implications for leadership. In W. Ayers, M. Klonsky, and G.                    Lyon (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp.              139-158). New York: Teachers College Press. 
National Staff                    Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff development.              Retrieved December 2, 2002, from                                                http://www.nsdc.org/library/standards2001.html 
Peery, A. (2002).              Beyond inservice. Principal Leadership, 3(3). Retrieved December 2,             2002, from                                                                      http://www.principals.org/news/pl_beyondsvc_1102.html 
Raywid, M.              A. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools,                   schools-within-schools, and separate small schools. Urban Diversity             Series No. 108. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban                           Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396                       045) 
Vander Ark, T. (2002). The case for small high schools.                  Educational Leadership, 59(5), 55-59. 
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How              teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of               teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center,                      Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.            ED 447 128) 
Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., King, S. P., Powell, L. C.,              Holland, N. E., Gladden, R. M., et al. (2000). Small schools: Great             strides. A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: The Bank            Street College of Education. 
Wasley, P. A., & Lear, R. J. (March,             2001). Small schools, real gains. Educational Leadership, 58(6),                22-27. 
Wood, G. H. (1992). Schools that work: America's most                  innovative public education programs. New York:                                 Dutton. 
----- 
Michael Klonsky, Ph.D., is a researcher and                   faculty member at the University of Illinois at Chicago and directs             the Small Schools Workshop. His research interests are teacher                  education and democratic education. 
This publication was prepared             with funding from the Office of Educational Research and                        Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no.                   ED-99-CO-0027. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily                 reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department, or AEL.           **Title:** Small Schools and Teacher Professional Development. ERIC Digest.             **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** AEL, P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325-1348. Tel:                             800-624-9120 (Toll Free). For full text:                                        http://www.ael.org/ERIC/digests/edorc02-6.pdf.                               **Descriptors:**  Collegiality, Educational Environment, Elementary Secondary                    Education, Interdisciplinary Approach,  Professional Development,               School Size,  Small Schools, Teacher Administrator Relationship,                 Teacher Collaboration, Teacher Student Relationship                         **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests, Learning Communities                                           
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]