National Evaluation of Smaller Learning Communities ... Evaluation of Smaller Learning Communities Literature Review February 2002 Prepared for David Goodwin U.S. Department of Education

National Evaluation of Smaller Learning Communities Literature Review

February 2002 Prepared for David Goodwin U.S. Department of Education Planning and Evaluation Service 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Prepared by Lindsay Page Carolyn Layzer Jennifer Schimmenti Lawrence Bernstein Leslie Horst

Cambridge, MA Lexington, MA Hadley, MA Bethesda, MD Washington, DC Chicago, IL Cairo, Egypt Johannesburg, South Africa

Abt Associates Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138

Abt Associates Inc. Contents i

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Background ........................................................................................................................1 Review Process, Challenges to the Review Process, and Organization of the Review...............1 School Size: How Does Size Matter, and For Whom?...........................................................2 Restructuring and Reorganization of Schools into Smaller Learning Communities ..................3

Smaller Learning Communities ..................................................................................3 Challenges in Implementing SLC Reforms..................................................................4

Conclusions and Implications...............................................................................................5

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 7 Background ........................................................................................................................7

School Size Debate....................................................................................................8 Policy Responses.......................................................................................................8 Breaking Ranks .........................................................................................................9 Smaller Learning Communities ..................................................................................9

Review Process and Methodology ......................................................................................10 Description of Review Process .................................................................................10 Results of Review Process .......................................................................................10 Limitations of Our Review.......................................................................................11

Organization of the Review ...............................................................................................13

1. School Size .......................................................................................................................... 15 Academic Achievement and Educational Equity .................................................................16 Extracurricular Activities and Participation .........................................................................17 Attendance and Dropout Rates...........................................................................................17 Student Attitudes, Behavior and Sense of Belonging ...........................................................18 Cost Effectiveness.............................................................................................................19 Teacher Attitudes..............................................................................................................19 Summary of School Size Research.....................................................................................19

2. Restructuring and Reorganization...................................................................................... 21 Moving from Small High Schools to Achieving Smallness in Large High Schools ................21

Defining Restructuring ............................................................................................21 Studies of Restructuring...........................................................................................22

Restructuring and Reorganizing into Smaller Learning Communities ...................................24

3. Smaller Learning Community Strategies ............................................................................ 25 Academies........................................................................................................................25

Academic Outcomes................................................................................................26 Behavioral Outcomes ..............................................................................................27 Attitudinal Outcomes...............................................................................................28 Process Outcomes ...................................................................................................28 Discussion ..............................................................................................................28

Houses .............................................................................................................................29 Schools-Within-a-School...................................................................................................29

ii Contents Abt Associates Inc.

Academic Outcomes................................................................................................31 Behavioral Outcomes ..............................................................................................31 Attitudinal Outcomes...............................................................................................31 Process Outcomes ...................................................................................................31

Magnet Schools ................................................................................................................32 Academic Outcomes................................................................................................33 Cost Effectiveness...................................................................................................33 Summary ................................................................................................................33

Alternative Scheduling ......................................................................................................33 Academic Outcomes................................................................................................34 Summary ................................................................................................................35

4. Challenges in Implementing SLC Reforms .......................................................................... 37 District Level Challenges...................................................................................................37 School-level Challenges ....................................................................................................37 Additional Support Needed................................................................................................38

Conclusions and Implications .................................................................................................. 39 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................39 Implications for Further Research.......................................................................................41

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 43 Appendix A Definitions from the Smaller Learning Communities Program Appendix B Empirical Research Reviewed: Research on School Size Appendix C Empirical Research Reviewed: Research on School Restructuring and Smaller

Learning Communities Structures Appendix D Effect Sizes

Abt Associates Inc. Literature Review 1

Executive Summary

The purpose of the literature review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the research on the effectiveness of various practices used in creating smaller learning communities (SLCs). This review will provide a conceptual basis for the National Evaluation of the Smaller Learning Communities program, which Abt Associates Inc. is conducting for the U.S. Department of Education.

Background

The movement to develop SLCs has emerged from a body of advocacy research and practice that seems to indicate, by a number of measures, the superiority of smaller schools. At least since the 1950s, there has been a debate about school size with both larger and smaller school proponents (Conant, 1959, Barker and Gump, 1964, respectively) advancing social and economic arguments to support their views. For example, larger schools have been hypothesized to provide more opportuni-ties for advanced courses and to be more cost-efficient, whereas smaller schools have been expected to offer greater individualized learning for each student. During the past 40 years, the average size of high schools has increased dramatically, whereas the arguments in favor of smaller school settings have grown more numerous. Practitioners have not waited for solid empirical research evidence to address the perceived problems of large schools (Dynarski et al., 1998; McMullan and Wolf, 1991). In 1996, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) clearly endorsed the SLC approach by publishing Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution, a manifesto calling for a greater level of personalization in educa-tion. In the absence of the resources necessary to build new, smaller schools, a variety of approaches have been developed to make large schools seem smaller.

Review Process, Challenges to the Review Process, and Organization of the Review

Web searches of databases such as ERIC, library searches, reviews of current periodicals, as well as research and evaluation web sites, were all utilized in this search. Publications with a focus on secondary schools were included and, when appropriate, so too were a few select publications addressing elementary and middle schools. We used scholarly publications to the extent possible, but when those proved to be scarce, other sources such as evaluation reports were also included. Of 110 documents identified, 55 were reviewed in depth for this report. They comprised three cost analyses, 25 qualitative case studies, and 27 outcome-based studies (two with experimental designs and three with quasi-experimental designs). Because the smaller schools literature provides the conceptual basis for the SLC movement, studies focusing on smaller schools are reviewed first, followed by studies focusing on SLCs. In summary, of the 55 documents reviewed in depth for this report, a little less than half (27) reported data on student outcomes. Of these sources, 19 reported on outcomes in SLCs, restructured high schools, or schools with “restructuring practices.” We report effect sizes for nine studies (see Appendix D); the remainder, unfortunately, did not contain sufficient data to calculate effect sizes.

2 Literature Review Abt Associates Inc.

As an evaluative tool, effect sizes provide a framework to compare quantitative results and, when common measures are used, to examine the magnitude of treatment effects within and across studies. Effect sizes can help to make sense of the many results that are independently reported as both statis-tically significant and statistically non-significant to understand the educational significance of outcomes. For example, a study’s small sample size may not yield enough statistical power to show statistically significant outcomes despite a relatively strong effect for the treatment group. A report of statistical significance does not necessarily denote how educationally significant an effect may be, but by calculating effect sizes, it is possible to make comparisons among commensurable effects. In social science research, an effect size of .2 is described as “small,” .5 is considered “moderate,” and .8 denotes a “large” effect (Cohen, 1988). This review, however, faces several challenges. For one, many of the articles in this review are based on relatively weak research designs. For example, school size studies are generally correlational, based on large national databases such as High School and Beyond (HS&B). Secondly, SLC is not a single identifiable program; instead, it represents a variety of possible approaches, singly or in combinations. This complexity makes it difficult for researchers to know which changes to attribute to which interventions. In addition, studies using large national databases, although often methodologically sophisticated, cannot assess the possible impact of bias as students and teachers self-select into a chosen program. Four key research questions provide the structure for the review:

1. School size: How does size matter, and for whom?

2. Restructuring and reorganization: What practices constitute SLC restructuring reform?

3. SLC strategies: What are the key features of each? What, if any, outcomes have been attributed to each one?

4. Challenges in Implementing SLC Reforms: What factors have been identified as hindering implementation of SLC reforms?

School Size: How Does Size Matter, and For Whom?

Although Lee, Ready and Johnson (in press) note that reforms have moved ahead of research, there is a fair body of research on school size per se, the preponderance of which supports the hypothesis that smaller schools are more effective than larger schools. The findings are summarized as follows:

• Academic achievement and educational equity. Although academic achievement is correlated overall with socioeconomic status (SES), smaller schools benefit low SES students, and larger schools have a negative impact on these students. The only benefits of larger schools were for high-SES schools, and the effect was minimal.

• Extracurricular activities and participation. The difference was reflected in outcomes such as higher proportions of students participating and more meaningful participation (in small schools).

• Attendance and dropout rates. Generally, smaller schools had lower dropout and higher attendance and graduation rates. There is some suggestion that the differences are mediated by the less-favorable school climate in large schools.


• Student attitudes, behavior, and sense of belonging. Although Lee, Ready and Johnson (in press) found that a school can be “too small,” most of the evidence suggests that students are more satisfied and that there are fewer negative behaviors such as vandalism in smaller schools.

• Cost-effectiveness. When small and large schools are compared on a cost per graduate basis (rather than cost per student), and controlling for poverty, small schools are just as cost-effective as large schools.

• Teacher attitudes. Teachers report more satisfaction, feel more responsibility for student learning, and report a variety of other more positive outcomes.

It should be noted that the small schools research findings are merely suggestive of possible outcomes of SLC restructuring because small schools may possess student- or school-level characteristics other than school size alone that result in their effectiveness.

Restructuring and Reorganization of Schools into Smaller Learning Communities

Although definitions of large and small high schools vary from study to study, existing research suggests that small schools are more effective than large schools on a variety of outcomes. As a result, education reformers strongly support creating smaller schools. Still, as Raywid (1996) points out, although research does support the benefits of smaller schools, there are also a considerable number of large schools that are already functioning. Consequently, schools turn toward the creation of within-school subunits. By breaking large schools into smaller subunits, practitioners hope to reduce the experienced size of school, despite the actual building size. The body of research on restructuring schools has yielded the following group of general findings:

• Small schools and larger schools that have restructured may produce similar student outcomes;

• Positive outcomes include increased academic achievement, increased academic equity, increased student engagement, more positive teacher-student relations and a decreased dropout rate; but

• The majority of studies are based on retrospective correlational data, and thus causal inferences cannot be drawn.

Smaller Learning Communities

The SLC movement has only emerged in the last 15 years, and research on it is far more limited than the literature on small schools. Much of the literature consists of case studies and evaluations of individual schools. Very few studies focus on large numbers of schools, and very few focus on a whole-school model in which all students are included in some form of SLC, rather than the more limited model in which only a subset of students participate in a SLC. The SLC-related studies are grouped according to the type of SLC strategy employed. Certain strategies, such as freshman transition programs and academic teaming, are typically used in combination with other strategies, which means that no published research is available addressing these strategies in isolation. Findings by type of SLC strategy are as follows:


• Academies: Academies organize curricula around one or more careers or occupations. The most rigorous research has been conducted on this strategy. Studies found moderate positive outcomes, with strongest effects among high-risk students. Effect sizes for attendance and graduation rates ranged from 0 to .5. High-risk career academy students were more likely to complete a basic core curriculum (effect size (ES) ranged from .37 to .41) and were more likely to exhibit college preparatory behavior (ES = .23). In addition, career academy graduates exhibit better work attendance (ES ranged from .03 to .16) and work performance (ES ranged from .14 to .17) than comparable graduates.

• Houses: House plans assign students within the high school to groups of a few hundred each across grades; each house has its own discipline policies, student activity program, student government, and social activities. Individual houses, however, are less autono-mous than SWS programs. We found only one study that examined house plans alone.

• Schools-within-a-school (SWAS/SWS): These are multi-grade, separate, autonomous individual subunits organized around a theme, each with its own personnel, budget and program. Studies have found modest improvement in academic (ES = .46), behavioral (ES = .33), attitudinal, and process (ES = .26) outcomes for SWS students.

• Magnet schools : These have a core focus (e.g., math and science, or arts), are typically selective, and usually draw students from the entire district. Consequently, study findings of improvement in outcomes are potentially confounded by selection bias. Much of the research on magnet schools has focused on their effectiveness as a desegre-gation tool, but some of it has focused on outcomes of interest for SLCs. Some studies did find indications of greater student achievement and greater educational equity in magnet schools.

• Alternative scheduling : This is a strategy for changing the way time is used in school by lengthening class periods and altering daily and/or annual schedules. Studies reviewed yielded insufficient evidence to support generalizations about effects on students. For example, a study of North Carolina’s implementation of block scheduling yielded very modest effect sizes on student test scores, ranging from .03 to .16.

Challenges in Implementing SLC Reforms

The SLC model calls for substantial changes in how schools do their work. Challenges to accomp-lishing these changes arise from both districts and schools. District reluctance to change can under-mine schools’ efforts. In schools, problems can arise from conflicting needs with respect to bell schedules or cafeteria space. Wasley et al. (2000) cite several other issues: enrollment, principal support and turnover, and staff conflict and turnover. If principals are reluctant to share power, there is likely to be conflict with teachers and sub-unit heads (Pribesh, Lee and Osuna-Currea, 2001). Another challenging issue is the possibility of inadvertently creating hierarchies and effectively resegregating students as, over time, students choose some units over others, based on academic demand or existing membership (Ready, Lee and LoGerfo, 2001). It has also been noted that implementation of SLCs may require increases in budget, planning time, or staff in order to be successful (Legters, 1999).


Conclusions and Implications

The research literature generally supports the efficacy of small schools, but such findings cannot be safely generalized to SLCs within larger schools. At the same time, schools that have restructured in ways typical of SLC organization have also shown positive results in several different areas. The research evidence in support of specific SLC strategies is in general sparse; the findings so far point to modest positive gains associated with implementing SLCs. From the group of studies for which we were able to compute effect sizes, we see that the bulk of effect sizes fall between 0 and roughly .50, indicating a small to moderate effect of SLC implementation on a variety of student outcomes. Another major conclusion that may be drawn is that any study of SLC implementation must pay attention to the substantial possible sources of resistance that derive from both districts and schools. The need for additional resources to carry out SLC implementation has also been noted. The shortage of robust, empirical work highlights the need for further research in this area. More rigorous studies that include sufficiently large numbers of schools and sufficient variation in the use of SLC strategies are especially needed. Longitudinal studies have also been rare. The issue of selection bias is a weakness of much of the current research, because it is still rare for students to be assigned randomly to one or another SLC strategy. An additional research need is a more intentional focus on such proximal outcomes as teacher and student attitudes, coupled with an effort to tie those outcomes to the longer-term student outcomes of interest. The key issue? and one that is difficult to address? is how the outcomes for students who participate in an SLC differ from those that would have occurred if those students had not participated in the SLC. The National Evaluation of Smaller Learning Communities will attempt to address these issues through a systematic, large-scale study comprised of both implementation and impact measures. In particular, the impact study will use a variety of statistical comparative techniques to measure the difference in outcomes between SLC and non-SLC students.



Introduction

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the research on the effectiveness of various types of smaller learning communities; it will serve as the basis for an evaluation of the Federal Smaller Learning Communities program, which Abt Associates Inc. is conducting for the U.S. Department of Education. The review focuses on the implementation of smaller learning communities in secondary schools. It also, however, examines research on school size more generally, because size in and of itself is at the root of many restructuring reforms designed to promote smallness or personalization for educators and students within a large physical structure. Our review of the existing research on the benefits of small high schools is thus tempered by the notion that a multitude of factors beyond the size of the school contribute to school success. This review will serve to place the existing body of research in context and will stimulate further rigorous research on this type of school reform strategy. We examine the documented merits and difficulties of Smaller Learning Community (SLC) strategies and structures, in order to move the discussion on smaller learning communities from advocacy to evidence, based upon careful examination of empirical research.

Background

The enrollment of many American public high schools is too small to allow a diversified curriculum except at exorbitant expense. The prevalence of such high schools—those with graduating classes of less than one hundred students—constitutes one of the serious obstacles to good secondary education throughout most of the United States. (Conant, 1959, p. 77) What size should a school be? The data of this research and our own educational values tell us that a school should be sufficiently small that all of its students are needed for its enterprises. A school should be small enough that students are not redundant. (Barker & Gump, 1964, p. 202) These statements characterize the two divergent viewpoints in the debate over school size that was sparked in Conant’s day by the USSR launch of Sputnik and the accompanying wave of anxiety about U.S. educational inadequacy. One side argued for the construction of large comprehensive high schools, whereas the other responded to the negative effects of large high schools by advocating smaller schools. At the time Conant wrote, a larger high school would have been one with a graduating class of over 100 students; he suggested that schools enrolling approximately 300 students per grade could be considered ideal (1959, p. 81). Since Conant wrote The American High School Today (1959), the U.S. has experienced a population boom resulting in an increase of numbers of students attending secondary school, the proliferation of large secondary schools, and a change in the definition of “larger” schools, which now greatly exceeds what Conant envisioned. From 1940 to 1990, the U.S. population grew by 70 percent, whereas the number of elementary and secondary schools decreased from 200,000 to 62,000. Between 1952 and 1998, the percentage of U.S. high schools enrolling 1,000 or more students rose from 7 to 25 percent (Mitchell, 2000). As a result, by 1998, 59 percent of the country’s high school students attended schools of 1,000 or more students (Mitchell, 2000). Both the number of large high schools and the proportion of students attending large high schools have increased dramatically. Accompanying this change has been a rise in violence in schools and a decrease in the number of


students completing a traditional high school diploma, as opposed to a General Educational Development (GED) credential (Rumberger and Thomas, 2000). School Size Debate

With these changes as a backdrop, the discussion about school size is comprised of two main strands: the social and the economic. The social argument hinges on whether larger schools permit a greater diversity of students and a larger number of opportunities than smaller schools (Conant, 1959). Small school advocates, practitioners, and researchers point out that most high schools have become too large to provide the critical personal connection between teacher and student that is often the mechanism for preventing dropout, reducing school violence, and improving academic performance (Cotton, 1996; Fowler and Walberg, 1991; Howley, Strange and Bickel, 2000; Jewell, 1989; Lee and Smith, 1997; Lee and Smith, 2000; Walberg, 1992; Wasley et al., 2000). They also note that participation in extra-curricular activities is greater and more meaningful to students in smaller schools (Barker and Gump, 1964; Lindsay, 1982; Pittman and Haughwout, 1987). School finance researchers and others, however, argue that larger schools are able to educate a greater number of students, with a greater variety of resources, at lesser expense (Conant, 1959; Mitchell, 2000). On the other side of this argument, researchers have shown that if cost analysis is done on a per-graduate basis, smaller schools are no less cost-effective than large ones (McKenzie, 1983; Stiefel et al., 2000), and that for some populations, maintaining small schools is more cost-effective than consolidating into larger ones (Bickel and Howley, 2000; Howley, 1995; Howley, Strange and Bickel, 2000). Policy Responses

On the ground, many practitioners have not waited for empirical research to dictate an effective approach; instead, advocates and reformers within schools have launched myriad efforts to address the perceived problems of large schools (Dynarski et al., 1998; McMullan and Wolf, 1991). From Ted Sizer’s work with the Coalition of Essential Schools to Deborah Meier’s now famous Central Park East in New York and citywide initiatives in large cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia, there have been myriad attempts to improve schools by making them seem smaller. U.S. government agencies have also gotten involved, with programs sponsored by the Department of Defense and the Department of Education. Typically, capital costs place the option of building new (smaller) schools out of reach for most educational authorities. Instead, a strategy of making large schools seem small, by breaking large schools into smaller subunits or “smaller learning communities,” has come to the forefront. Some states have recently passed school consolidation legislation, whereas others have legislated smaller maximum sizes for K to 12 schools. Florida, for example, passed legislation requiring a capacity limit on all schools built after July 1, 2003, requiring that elementary schools be limited to 500 students, middle schools to 700 students, and high schools to 900 students. In addition, existing schools are required to move towards reducing school size by creating schools-within-schools. Florida’s Academic Excellence Council recommended this legislation, stating that small schools provide benefits of “reduced discipline problems and crime, reduced truancy and gang participation, reduced dropout rates, improved teacher and student attitudes, improved student self-perception, student academic achievement equal to or


superior to that of students at larger schools, and increased parental involvement” (Rural Policy Matters Online, 2000). Breaking Ranks

In 1996, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) released its groundbreaking recommendations for the future of U.S. secondary schools, Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. Here, NASSP clearly joined the “smaller is better” side of the debate. Among the recommendations in this document are the following specific points regarding school size and organization:

• Personalization: High schools must break into units of no more than 600 students so that teachers and students can get to know each other better.

• Coherency: High schools should be clear about the essentials that students must learn to graduate…align what they teach with what they test…learning must make sense to students in terms of the real world and the application of what they know.

• Time: Teaching and learning need room for flexibility.

• Technology: High schools must develop a long term plan of using computers…and other technologies in all aspects of teaching and learning.

• Professional Development: Each educator in the school, including the principal, should have a Personal Learning Plan.

• Leadership: Leadership in each high school must begin with the principal, but must include teachers, students, parents, school board members, the superintendent, and community residents who contribute to making schools better (1996, p. 5).

These recommendations are virtually all addressed by elements of the SLC program. Smaller Learning Communities

Several large-scale incidents of school violence during and since the Breaking Ranks report have provided educational practitioners and researchers the additional persuasion needed to take these suggestions seriously. In FY2001, as part of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Congress appropriated $45 million of funding to the SLC program, a competitive federal grant program aimed at helping high schools plan and implement or expand smaller learning communities in order to create “a more personalized high school experience for students and improved student achievement and performance” (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).1 In the first round of funding, the Department of Education disbursed $42.3 million in the form of 149 grants: 84 one-year planning grants and 65 three-year implementation grants, serving a total of 349 schools and over 450,000 students. Although the second round of funding has not yet been awarded, the Department of Education anticipates disbursing up to $125 million in planning and implementation grants this year. These funds will support as many as 200 schools communities in their efforts to create SLCs.

1 For more details, please see the program website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP/.


Finally, it is important to note that the SLC program encompasses a number of different structural reforms and strategies, including Schools-Within-a-School, Houses, Career Clusters/Pathways, Personalization Through Advisory Systems, Magnet Schools and Block Scheduling (please see complete definitions from the federal SLC program in Appendix A).

Review Process and Methodology

The following section describes our approach to conducting this literature review. It begins with an explanation of our search process and an overview of the documents we found as a result. We then discuss the limitations faced in reviewing the literature, and finally, we present the organization of our review of literature. Description of Review Process

Our search process included a web search, use of electronic databases such as ERIC and ProQuest, major policy research and evaluation companies’ web resources, and library resource searches on keywords and authors.2 We also conducted a search of current periodicals such as Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis and Educational Researcher, in addition to searches for more recent work by authors uncovered in reviews. We included articles based both on the focus and the quality of the research. First, we selected articles that focused primarily on secondary schools, particularly high schools. Longitudinal studies of students from eighth grade through twelfth were included, although studies of other age groups were included if they also addressed high school students. When appropriate, we considered studies on middle schools or elementary schools, while recognizing their limited capacity to support inferences about SLCs in high school settings. Second, although we looked first for studies reported in scholarly journals, we quickly exhausted the available published empirical research on SLC strategies. Practitioners, rather than researchers, have led the way in SLC reforms, which means that there is little systematically conducted empirical published research on SLCs or SLC-like reforms. We then reviewed unpublished reports, evaluation reports, and unpublished papers, which often covered small studies of SLC-like reform efforts. We located these in the form of ERIC documents and digests, book chapters, and publicly available reports (available electronically or by request from evaluation firms). Such documents, however, do not typically get the rigorous review common in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Some reports were summative evaluations of local initiatives or single -school reform projects, which are helpful to the extent that they enable us to generate questions for further systematic and larger-scale research efforts. We regard the findings from these documents as suggestive, and therefore we do not discuss them in depth in this review. Results of Review Process

As a result of our search process, we found 110 documents, including reviews/syntheses, reports, journal articles, and numerous articles and books for more general audiences (such as position papers,

2 Other policy research and evaluation companies included Mathematica Policy Research, Manpower Demonstration Research

Corporation, RAND, the Urban Institute, American Institutes for Research, and others involved in Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program evaluations.


articles in Education Week , or popular books). The review presented here is based on 55 reports and journal articles, which we categorized by purpose, method, and rigor of investigation used. These documents represent a variety of study designs and formats: three cost analyses, 25 reports of qualitative case studies (i.e., studies reporting only descriptive statistics), and 27 outcome-based studies, of which two had experimental designs (i.e., studies involving randomly assigned treatment and control groups) and three were quasi-experimental (i.e., studies involving comparison groups). Of these, we summarize the 49 documents with empirical data. They fall into two basic categories: 15 that address school size (presented in tabular form in Appendix B) and 34 that specifically target SLCs and school restructuring and reorganization more generally (see Appendix C). Limitations of Our Review

There are a number of inherent challenges and limitations in conducing this review. First, it should be noted that many of the studies cited here are based on less robust research designs. For example, of the 34 studies on school restructuring and specific SLC strategies considered in this review, many (11) were not able to deal with the issue of selection bias at either the school or student level. Several studies compared schools that had undertaken a restructuring or SLC-based reform to schools that may not have wanted to do so. The same holds true for students who may have opted into a sub-school structure as compared to the general academic track at the same school. Therefore, estimates of differences between treatment and comparison groups, whether at the school or student level, may overstate the effect of school restructuring and SLC-based reforms. In addition, some of the outcome studies examine very small samples, e.g., only one or two high schools, and thus are unable to describe the wide variation across high schools. As a result, these studies are quite limited in terms of their generalizability. Furthermore, SLCs are a difficult phenomenon to study. SLC or SLC-like reforms are often complex, involving many changes simultaneously. Schools may implement different strategies aimed at infusing smallness into a school; for example, one school could implement career academies (grades 10-12) and a ninth grade academy, whereas another might select career academies (grades 10-12) and a school-wide adult mentoring system. In drawing conclusions about the outcomes, it would be difficult to determine which component was responsible for changes, or whether some other factor (e.g., professional development, improved relationships between teachers resulting from the planning process) played a role. Without random assignment of the treatment to carefully selected schools, and without a systematic application of a discrete reform, there are many possibly confounding factors that could be responsible for reported results. Third, many of the correlational studies involve the use of large national databases such as the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) or HS&B, and although such datasets identify features associated with schools and their students, questions of cause and effect remain unanswered. For example, neither students nor teachers are randomly assigned to the large or small schools in the NELS or HS&B datasets. Thus, it is not possible to claim definitively that something other than school size (e.g., experience of teachers) is not responsible for student outcomes associated with those schools. In conclusion, one difficulty we encountered in our review is that there are very few rigorous empirical studies on this topic, and their foci are not all congruent. Several researchers examined just cost, others reviewed different achievement outcomes, others focused on change in student behaviors, and a few examined changes in school climate for teachers and students. We have attempted to


generalize across studies whenever possible, and note that where findings are only available from one source, we have included them—with cautions—as a means of calling for further study or attempts at replication. In order to compare results across studies, we reported (where available) or calculated (where suffi-cient data was provided) effect sizes for various outcomes measured. As an evaluative tool, effect sizes provide a framework to compare quantitative results and, when common measures are used, to examine the magnitude of treatment effects within and across studies. Effect sizes can help to make sense of the many results that are independently reported as both statistically significant and statisti-cally non-significant results to understand the educational significance of outcomes. For example, a study’s small sample size may not yield enough statistical power to show statistically significant outcomes despite a relatively strong effect for the treatment group. A report of statistical signifi-cance does not necessarily denote how educationally significant an effect may be, but by calculating effect sizes, it is possible to make comparisons among commensurable effects. Research may also consider a variety of outcomes in evaluating the effectiveness of a particular treatment. This is the case for much of the research on school restructuring and SLCs. Several different outcomes (e.g., graduation rates, achievement gains) and constructs (e.g., improvement in school climate) have been considered in many studies discussed in this review. As discussed above, the body of SLC literature is varied in focus and method, making effect sizes a useful measure by which to judge the actual magnitude of study findings by comparing results across a wide range of studies. Because an effect size statistic is used as a gauge for comparison, there must also be a comparable scale by which to judge the magnitude of effect sizes. One must use caution, however, in applying conventional definitions to effect sizes because the range of “treatments” in social science research varies so widely. One way to describe effect sizes is the average percentile rank of the average treated participant, relative to the average untreated (or control) participant. For example, an effect size of 0.0 SD units (denoting effect size is measured as a function of the standard deviation) indi-cates that the mean of the treatment group is at the 50th percentile of the control group. On the other hand, an effect size of 0.8 SD units indicates that the mean of the treated group is at the 79th percen-tile of the control group (Cohen, 1988). In social science research, an effect size of .2 is described as “small”, .5 is considered “medium”, and .8 denotes a “large” effect (Cohen, 1988). In the final analysis, interpretation of effect size magnitude is often based on substantive criteria imposed by a careful consideration of the relative benefits and costs associated with achieving a given result. We calculated effect sizes for all of the empirical studies with sufficient data; we included only studies that focused on SLC reforms or school restructuring. To calculate effect sizes on the research reviewed in this study, we utilized software that capitalizes on the various design and data analysis elements typically reported in the published empirical studies, e.g., sample size for treatment and control sub-groups, mean value and standard deviations of each group on different outcome measures, F statistics, and exact or approximate p-values (Shadish, 1995). We were able to report or calculate effect sizes for nine of the 19 quantitative research studies reviewed; effect sizes could not be calculated for the remainder of these studies because of insufficient data. For more information on the process used to calculate effect sizes, please see Appendix D.


Organization of the Review

Four key research questions frame this review:

1. School size: How does size matter and for whom?


3. SLC strategies: What are the key features of each? What, if any, outcomes have been attributed to each one?

4. Challenges in implementing SLC reforms: What factors have been identified as hindering implementation of SLC reforms?

Throughout the review, we also consider the quality of existing research, attempting to characterize the existing body of research and the challenges associated with conducting systematic research in this area.



1. School Size

• How does size matter, and for whom does it matter? Since the early 1980s, Ted Sizer has been one of the most vocal advocates of school reform to address the anonymity students experience in high schools , students’ lack of engagement in learning, and lack of meaningful learning (see Sizer, 1984; 1986; 1999). Many practitioners have been influenced by Sizer’s work with the Coalition of Essential Schools (organized in 1984), a group of schools working together to increase personalization in schools, committed to “paying attention to the character, needs, and potential of each student” aimed at fostering “thoughtfulness—clear, informed thinking and decent behavior” in the school community (Sizer, 1986, p. 40). Practitioners, such as Deborah Meier, renowned for her work with Central Park East (and Central Park East Secondary School), have been advocating the creation of small schools for a number of years.3 Meier (1996) suggests that in large schools, perhaps only 20 to 30 percent of students (the athletic and academic stars) have exposure to or develop a strong relationship with adults in schools. The others belong to “enclaves that include no grown-ups” (p. 2). At the same time, a number of researchers have criticized the small schools/SLC movement as having scant research support (Howley, Strange and Bickel, 2000; Lee, Ready and Johnson, in press). Howley, Strange and Bickel note that a very small quantity of school size literature makes up the research base of the small school movement. Lee and her colleagues point out that there is no agreement on the ideal size of a school, on which outcomes to use to measure effects, or on the mechanisms through which size might translate into effects on students and teachers. Lee and her colleagues conclude that, generally, reform efforts are ahead of the research. Small school advocates like Meier assert that postponing a decision until there is general consensus is a mistake. There is some evidence of the efficacy of small schools over large schools, and as Meier points out, “One starts wherever one can” (1996, p. 5). The positive outcomes described in small schools research are precisely those outcomes that SLC strategies aim to achieve in large schools. It is therefore important to have an understanding of the small school research in order to frame the discussion of the limited body of SLC research that will follow. The preponderance of evidence is in support of small schools over large (Cotton, 1996), but there is some evidence of benefits of large schools for high SES students (see Howley, Strange and Bickel, 2000). The research on small schools will be discussed according to outcomes measured, with small schools yielding favorable results on nearly all outcomes considered—academic, behavioral, attitudinal, and process (i.e., changes that occur within the school, as part of the reform process, involving various stakeholders).

3 See, for example, Deborah Meier’s book, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Beacon,

1995).


Academic Achievement and Educational Equity

Does school size make a difference in student academic achievement, and does it affect the gap between the academic achievement of wealthier and poorer students?

• Smaller schools are associated with greater student learning.

• Smaller schools are associated with greater educational equity.

• Overall, academic achievement is contingent on the family’s socio-economic status.

• The negative effects of large school size on the achievement of low-income students exceeds the positive effects of large school size on the achievement of students from wealthier families.

As early as 1968, researchers presented evidence of a negative relationship between student academic achievement and school size (Kiesling, 1968). Since then, several studies have examined the effects of school size on student achievement. Fowler and Walberg (1991) found evidence to suggest that both smaller schools and smaller districts, regardless of SES and grade level, may be more efficient at enhancing educational outcomes. Friedkin and Necochea (1988), however, found that the relation-ship between size and achievement was contingent on SES, and that although the positive effect of size on achievement in high SES schools was very small, in low-SES schools the negative effect was substantial. The finding that large schools have stronger negative effects for lower SES students has been widely corroborated (e.g., see Howley, 1995; Howley, Strange and Bickel, 2000; Lee and Smith, 1995, 1997, 2001). Since 1996, there have been several robust studies of school size and academic achievement. In a study focusing on secondary school size, Lee and Smith came to four general conclusions. They found that although it is possible for high schools to be too small, in general, they should be smaller. Results showed that learning gains were greatest in moderate-sized to small schools, and that the greatest gains were made in schools ranging from 600 to 900 students. They further concluded that although ideal size does not vary by the types of students who attend, size is more important in some types of schools. Size was found to be especially important for the most disadvantaged students, as the equity effect of small schools was greater than the learning effect (Lee and Smith, 1995). Finally, in response to assertions that small schools would not be able to offer an educational experience as rigorous as large schools, Haller, Monk and Tien (1993) found that neither school size nor rurality had an effect on higher-order thinking skills in math or science. Contrary to Friedkin and Necochea’s findings, Haller, Monk and Tien (1993) found no significant interaction involving school size and SES. One possible explanation for the different finding regarding school size and SES is that Haller et al. focused only on a subset of educational outcomes—two subscales on the NAEP, versus NELS achievement data in several subjects, for example—that did not reflect an accurate big picture. Haller and colleagues’ findings do, nevertheless, counter school consolidation proponents’ claims that the advanced courses la rger schools can offer provide a better educational experience. In summary, just as Cotton found in her 1996 synthesis of research on school size, on measures such as grades, test scores, honor roll membership, subject area achievement and assessment of higher order thinking skills, research has shown that small schools perform at least as well or better than


larger schools when other variables, such as SES, are held constant. In addition, the positive effects of small schools are especially significant for the most disadvantaged students, those who are minority and/or of low SES.

Extracurricular Activities and Participation

Does school size make a difference in availability of and student participation in extracurricular activities?

• Smaller schools offer proportionally the same number—or more—and a greater variety of extracurricular opportunities.

• In smaller schools, a comparatively large proportion of students participate in such activities than do students in larger schools.

• Student participation tends to be more meaningful or active.

• The “extra richness” of larger schools does not to keep pace with the increase in school size.

In a study of Kansas high schools, Barker and Gump (1964) found that although larger schools may offer more activities, the activities offered were not of greater variety, and neither the number nor the variety increased in proportion with the increase in size. Pittman and Haughwout (1987) later corroborated this finding and showed that a 100 percent increase in enrollment yie lded only a 17 percent increase in offerings. Lindsay (1982) replicated Barker and Gump’s work, showing both that increased variety did not keep pace with increased size and that participation in extracurricular activities was higher in small schools. Similarly, Schoggen and Schoggen (1988) found that the larger the school, the larger the percentage of students who did not participate in any school extracurricular activities. Finally, Barker and Gump found that satisfaction was greater among students in small schools who participated in extracurricular activities than among their large school counterparts. They found that students’ increased satisfaction was linked to their increased confidence, which (Barker and Gump concluded) resulted from the increased challenge students experienced through participation in school activities. Thus, students in smaller schools participated in a wider variety of activities, played more meaningful roles in those activities, and derived greater satisfaction from their participation, than did their large school counterparts.

Attendance and Dropout Rates

Does school size influence attendance and dropout rates?

• Smaller schools have better attendance rates, lower dropout rates, and higher graduation rates than larger schools.


Previous research had suggested an unspecified link between school size and dropout rate,4 leading Pittman and Haughwout (1987) to study the influence of school size on the diversity of academic offerings and school climate and to look at the indirect relationship between school size and dropout rates. They found that social climate had a stronger effect on the dropout rate than did program diversity. Although increasing school size did have a positive effect on the number of courses offered, it had a stronger negative effect on school climate; the researchers connected this negative effect on school climate to early school leaving. Their findings, therefore, indicate that school size influences the dropout rate. Pittman and Haughwout estimated that every 400-student increase would be associated with a 1-percent rise in the dropout rate at a particular school. Other empirical studies have confirmed that smaller schools have lower dropout rates, higher graduation rates, and better attendance rates than larger schools (Lindsay, 1982; Wasley et al., 2000).

Student Attitudes, Behavior and Sense of Belonging

Does school size influence student attitudes? Does it influence their behavior? What is the relationship between school size and students’ sense of belonging?

• Small schools have been found to have more positive effects on students’ attitudes and behavior.

• Very small schools, however, have been found to have negative effects on students’ attitudes and behavior.

• The positive effects are particularly prominent for students of low SES.

• Creating large schools by small school consolidation would increase student misbehavior.

Lindsay (1982) found that students in small schools experienced greater satisfaction than students in medium or large schools, and Wasley et al. (2000) had similar findings—namely that “students’ attachment, persistence, and performance are all stronger in the small schools as compared to the system at large” (p. 20). In a recent study of school size, however, Lee, Ready and Johnson (in press) observed that although faculty and administrators in large schools worry about student anonymity, sometimes the increased personalization of social relations in small schools is detrimental to students: schools can be too small. Haller (1992) found that student misbehavior was associated with larger schools and used this finding to suggest that consolidating small schools to create larger ones would increase student misbehavior. Indeed, Cotton’s 1996 review presented research findings that truancy, classroom disruption, vandalism, theft, substance abuse and gang participation were all reduced in small schools; her review noted that on any of these measures, small schools have lower incidences of negative social behavior than large schools. She further noted that this effect was even greater for minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

4 Pittman and Haughwout (1987) cite links suggested by Tinto (1975), Jordan-Davis (1984), and Ekstrom et al. (1986). In a study of

dropout in higher education, Tinto found that students who participated in school activities were less likely to leave school. Using a retrospective analysis, Jordan-Davis identified attendance as a predictor of dropout. Ekstrom et al. retrodicted dissatisfaction with school as a predictor for dropping out.


Cost Effectiveness

Are small schools less cost-effective than large ones?

• Research on cost-effectiveness shows that, after controlling for the effects of poverty, small schools are just as cost-effective, if not more so, than large ones, especially when the cost per graduate (rather than per pupil) is considered.

Supporters of large, comprehensive high schools argue that economies of scale are realized with larger schools. This is supported, to a degree, by a study that found that per-pupil cost decreases as enrollment increases, plateaus, and then rises with further enrollment increases (McKenzie, 1983). In a recent cost analysis study, Stiefel et al. (2000) showed that when school budgets are compared on a per-graduate basis, both large and small schools are cost-effective, but that small schools, because of lower dropout rates, “evidence better outputs than larger schools” (p. 36). Jewell (1989) observed that states with smaller school districts and smaller schools appeared to achieve better results for students at equal cost, even though they spent a slightly higher proportion of income on public education in doing so.

Teacher Attitudes

Does school size make a difference in teacher attitudes?

• Small schools have been found to have a positive effect on teachers.

• In smaller schools, school administrators are perceived more positively, and teacher morale is higher.

• Positive outcomes for teachers in small schools include stronger feelings of commitment and a stronger sense of professional community.

Teachers in smaller schools feel more satisfied, are more likely to collaborate with colleagues, and are more likely to engage in professional development that they consider valuable (Wasley et al., 2000). Researchers have also reported that teachers in small schools show a greater responsibility to and relationship with their students. They hold a greater sense of responsibility for ongoing student learning, providing a more focused learning environment for students and building a more varied repertoire for working with students (Wasley et al. 2000). Teachers also reported that they know students better, have high expectations for students, and work to foster critical judgment in students. As a result, students in smaller schools feel safer, and accountability is strengthened among students, parents and teachers (Wasley et al., 2000).

Summary of School Size Research

Taken together, the research discussed above suggests that small schools have been associated with greater student learning, greater social equity of educational achievement, and greater engagement in school than large schools . Smaller schools have higher attendance rates and


graduation rates, lower dropout rates, and have been found to be more cost-effective, especially when measured on a per-graduate basis rather than a per-pupil basis. Finally, one study reported that the professional climate for teachers is better in small schools than in large ones. This has implications both in terms of teacher retention and professional development and in terms of effects on teaching, student motivation, and learning. Further study would be needed to provide strong evidence of such effects, because the majority of these studies are correlational. In addition, there are generally a number of problems with drawing conclusions about SLCs from the small school research. It is difficult to disentangle the effects of school size from other equally important factors such as student demographics, school resources and climate, and curricular strategies and reform. In order to demonstrate causality, a study would need to look at the effects of large schools restructuring themselves into smaller subunits (say, of 600 to 900 students) through restructuring practices such as team teaching or flexible scheduling. Given the challenges of conducting controlled, systematic research of restructuring schools, this approach constitutes a reasonable first step. Therefore, we regard the findings of all of the small schools research as merely suggestive of possible outcomes of SLC restructuring. Still, the small school research serves as a useful a backdrop to a discussion of school restructuring and SLCs. Below, we consider some of the processes and challenges of restructuring and reorganization of schools and then turn to a discussion of the research on specific SLC-type restructuring efforts.


2. Restructuring and Reorganization

Moving from Small High Schools to Achieving Smallness in Large High Schools

Although definitions of large and small high schools vary from study to study, existing research suggests that small schools are more effective than large schools on a variety of outcomes. As a result, education reformers strongly support creating smaller schools. Still, as Raywid (1996) points out, although research does support the benefits of smaller schools, there is also a considerable number of currently operating large schools. Consequently, schools turn toward the creation of subunits within school. As Raywid suggests, “such a move makes it possible to reduce the experienced size of a school, despite building size” (Raywid, 1996). Klonsky and Ford (1994) do not consider restructuring into SLCs to be the end in itself, but rather a beginning: making systemic changes more manageable through the creation of smaller units. Given this approach to school restructuring, we have to ask what changes large schools can make to achieve the same effects as smaller schools. Lee and Smith (1995) noted that although “restructuring schools” has become a popular phrase in school reform, school restructuring “rests on thin and inconsistent theory”(p. 241). They also stated that recommendations for school restructuring have been taken from a variety of sources, including those not extensively researched. Raywid (1996) also noted that because the restructuring movement, and specifically the movement towards SLCs, is so young, a large body of substantial research has yet to be developed. Although this review does not address the cumulative body of research on restructuring schools, the school restructuring articles discussed provide a context within which to assess relevant research on small schools and on the various SLC strategies used to achieve “smallness.” First, we will examine one study (Lee and Smith, 1995) of schools that exhibit “restructuring practices” as compared to “traditional schools.” We then turn our attention to a study of school restructuring that reports more intermediate process outcomes of a restructuring effort, and a third study of restructuring efforts that includes more SLC-like structures. Defining Restructuring

According to the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools (CORS), as of 1992, school restructuring had not been examined on a national level (CORS, 1992).5 CORS reported, however, that schools’ restructuring efforts could be classified in four general categories:

1. Student experiences; 2. Professional life of teachers; 3. School governance; and 4. Collaboration between schools and community.

5 Please see the CORS website for further information: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archives/completed/cors/.


CORS contended that successful restructuring should focus on all four areas, yet in a CORS analysis, restructuring efforts focused much more heavily on the first two categories. Lee and Smith examined restructuring in a study assessing the impact on 10th grade students of attending schools whose prac-tices are consistent with the school-restructuring movement (1995). Studies of Restructuring

Based on the CORS definition of restructuring (as noted above), Lee and Smith noted that few schools can be defined as restructuring or actively in the process of restructuring, and fundamentally restructured schools are rare. Because of this, their 1995 study dealt not with data on schools actively in the process of restructuring, but with NELS data on schools whose reported practices were consistent with characteristics common to school restructuring. Their positive and significant findings must therefore be viewed with caution. Given that the “restructuring schools” in this study have not actually undergone any treatment or restructuring process, Lee and Smith’s results may be overly positive. Nevertheless, their results highlight the potential benefits of school restructuring. Schools were selected based on the following criteria:

1. They represent a movement from the bureaucratic form of American schooling toward the communal form;6 and

2. They are consistent with the CORS definition of restructuring. The structural practices that the authors considered to be similar to “restructured practices” included the following: a cooperative learning focus; flexible time for classes; a school-within-a-school structure; and interdisciplinary teaching teams, many of which are strategies of the SLC movement. In contrast, “traditional” practices include departmentalization with chairs; common classes for different curricular tracks; and parent-teacher conferences each semester (see Lee and Smith, 1995, p. 249). Lee and Smith observed clear and consistent effects on achievement, including improved outcomes for smaller schools and schools with several restructuring practices over larger schools and schools with no reforms. Student outcomes included increased academic achievement, increased engagement, and greater equity.

• Academic outcomes. Students show lower academic achievement in larger schools than in smaller ones. Schools with restructuring practices also had students with higher academic achievement than schools without reform practices (ES ranged from .35 in history to .59 in science).

• Attitudinal outcomes. Lower student engagement has been associated with large

schools. (ES = !.19).

6 The authors define the “bureaucratic form” as “including specialized and differentiated work roles, a top-down hierarchy of decision

making, and a formalization of goals and expectations into affectively neutral rules and codes of behavior”(1995, 243). In “communal organizations,” in contrast, “tasks are less certain and conditions are more changeable and unpredictable…These organizations typically emphasize shared responsibility for work, shared commitment to a common set of goals, lateral communication and power in decision making, and expectations and behavior framed by greater personalization and individual discretion” (p. 243).


• Equity. Smaller schools and schools with several restructuring practices seem to be more equitable than larger ones and those with no reforms. Achievement gains were more equitably distributed in schools with restructuring practices (ES = !.3 to !.38), and academic engagement was more equitably distributed in such schools (ES = !.54).7

These results echoed Kyle’s (1993, cited in Lee and Smith, 1995, p. 261) study of Kentucky schools, which found that systemic, long-term approaches—emphasis on a few reform strategies sustained over time—were more effective than either no reform or less-intensive, short-term efforts in a wide range of reform strategies. In a recent study of the Boston Pilot Schools Network, 11 small pilot schools within the Boston public school system, the Center for Collaborative Education (2001) studied the impact of increased school autonomy over budget, scheduling and staffing. Although no changes in student outcomes were observed, several process outcomes were identified:

• Autonomy over budget decisions allowed schools to negotiate consistent and equitable per pupil expenditure. Class sizes and daily teacher loads were reduced (compared with other Boston public schools). Staff received summer professional development time and in-service professional development days for which they were compensated.

• Autonomy over scheduling allowed schools to create longer blocks of instructional time

and time for advisory groups. Teachers were also afforded long periods of collaborative planning time during the school day.

• Autonomy over staffing decisions allowed school to address their own students’ needs

rather than follow a district staffing formula. Teachers were able to play multiple roles; they taught multiple subjects, conducted advisory groups, and assumed leadership roles.

Finally, in a study of restructuring efforts in five districts across the county (Dallas, Grand Rapids, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Santa Ana) Dynarski et al.’s (1998) findings were not as positive as those of Lee and Smith (1995) or the Center for Collaborative Education (2001). In looking across a variety of restructuring efforts, some which included SLC-like reforms, authors found no statistically significant effect of restructuring on dropout rates, absentee rates, or academic achievement, as measured by math and reading test scores. Teachers in one high school reported improved school climate, but this was not a statistically significant result. Dynarski and colleagues also discussed a variety of challenges schools experienced during the process of restructuring. These challenges will be discussed in a subsequent section. Readers of the restructuring literature might infer that small and restructuring schools should experience similar student outcomes, including increased academic achievement, increased academic equity, increased student engagement, more positive teacher-student relations and a decreased dropout rate. Based on the studies here reviewed, however, it is difficult to draw decisive conclusions. Causality cannot be established through a study based on retrospective correlational data, in the case of Lee and Smith (1995). At the time of the study conducted by the Center for

7 In effect sizes, with regard to equity, a negative sign indicates that the social distribution of academic achievement or engagement is

more equitable in such schools.


Collaborative Education (2001), measuring student outcomes was considered premature, and Dynarski et al. (1998) noted that possible positive outcomes were tempered by challenges at the school and district levels. Consequently, we view these findings as merely suggestive of possible outcomes of restructuring.

Restructuring and Reorganizing into Smaller Learning Communities

We now turn to one type of restructuring: reorganization of large schools into smaller components in order to incorporate aspects of smallness into large schools. Results from the limited body of research on SLCs conducted thus far have been somewhat encouraging. What is needed, however, is more systematic research designed to uncover the effects of specific SLC strategies and restructuring efforts on intermediate and longer-term student outcomes. There are a number of different strategies in SLC formation, including academies, house plans, schools-within-a-school, magnet schools, and alternative scheduling. 8 Each SLC strategy is considered separately below.

8 We were not able to find any research specifically targeting the effects of freshman transition activities, multi-year groups, adult

advocate systems, teacher advisory systems, or academic teaming. These strategies are typically employed as part of restructuring reforms rather than as isolated reforms in themselves; many structural changes may include these strategies. For example, a structural change of dividing a large school into houses could involve multi-year groups, academic teaming, and a teacher advisory system.


3. Smaller Learning Community Strategies

• What are the key features of each SLC strategy? • What, if any, outcomes have been attributed to each one?

In the sections that follow, each specific SLC strategy is discussed in depth. As noted above, the assumption underlying the creation of SLCs is that by introducing aspects of smallness into large high schools, it will be possible to obtain positive outcomes similar to those achieved by small schools. Indeed, across all of the studies reviewed, a number of positive outcomes have been linked to SLCs. In contrast with the literature on small schools, research on SLCs is quite limited. The SLC move-ment has emerged in only the last 15 years or so, with little research having been conducted on a meaningful scale. For example, there has been scant examination of full-model SLCs (i.e., schools in which all students participate in SLC subunits, rather than the more typical model where one or two subunits serve a minority of the whole school population); this form is most similar to the SLC program’s vision of full implementation (see Lee, Ready and Johnson, in press). In the past five years, there has been more robust research in the area of career academies, but overall, much more systematic, rigorous research is needed. For example, five of the seven studies on schools-within-a-school (SWS) reviewed below examined a single high school (Fouts, 1994; Gordon, 1992; Oxley, 1991; Robinson-Lewis, 1991; Welch and McKenna, 1988); one of these five studied only the ten students in the SWS program (Welch and McKenna). Because these studies are on such a small scale, one cannot generalize their findings. The other two studies (Wasley et al., 2000; Way, 1985) had 143 and five schools and subunits, respectively. The Wasley study stands out methodologically because it had a larger and more comprehensive sample (all small schools and SLCs in the Chicago public school system). It also used more powerful analytic techniques, including hierarchical linear modeling. This study is also strengthened by its mixed-method approach, whereby the qualitative data collection and analysis enriched the researchers’ understanding of quantitative data from city-wide databases. The empirical research reviewed for this section is presented in tabular form in Appendix C, and effect sizes (where available) are presented in Appendix D.

Academies

Under this model, high schools organize their curricula around one or more themes, the most common of which is careers or occupations (career academies). According to the SLC program (see program website9), career academies are intended to help students make direct connections between school and workplace. The career academy strategy has been studied far more systematically than any other SLC strategy. Much of this research has been completed in the past several years, and has been supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 2000; Kemple, 1997, 2001; Kemple and Snipes, 2000) and the U.S. Department of Defense (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998).

9 http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP, 2001.


The four studies we reviewed reported generally positive, although modest, outcomes associated with participation in career academies; the strongest effects were for high-risk10 students (Kemple and Snipes, 2000). Findings include:

• Career academy students may have higher attendance and graduation rates than non-academy students (ES ranged from 0 to .50) (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998; Kemple and Snipes, 2000; Stern et al., 1989).

• High-risk career academy students were more likely to complete a basic core curriculum (ES = .37 to .41) and were more likely to exhibit college and employment preparatory behavior (ES = .21) (Kemple and Snipes, 2000).

• Although Kemple (1997) found no difference between career academy students and their non-academy counterparts in engagement and motivation, Linnehan (1996) reported that academy students who had received good grades and had good school attendance had better work attendance (ES ranged from .03 to .16) and work performance (ES ranged from .14 to .17) than comparable graduates.11

Kemple and Snipes are conducting a ten-year longitudinal evaluation of the career academy approach; using an experimental design, student applicants were randomly assigned to either the program group (the school’s career academy) or to the control group (another program in the school) in nine schools. Reports on this study include Kemple (1997, 2001) and Kemple and Snipes (2000). This study’s results are highly credible because of its robust design features, notably random assignment of students, variation in the school sample, and longitudinal design (including extended follow-up of students four years post-graduation). Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy employed a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps Career Academy (JROTCCA) program, one type of career academy in eight schools in California. Stern et al. also examined career acade-mies in California (11 in all), using a quasi-experimental design. 12 Finally, although Linnehan’s quasi-experimental design was weaker, he reported significance levels and effect sizes were calculated based on his results. Academic Outcomes

Several studies found a relationship between career academy participation and academic improvement, including:

• Higher rate of completion of basic core curriculum and taking the SAT or ACT (Kemple and Snipes, 2000),

• higher GPAs (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998; Stern et al., 1989), and

10 High-risk sub-group members comprised one-quarter of the sample; more than half had failed courses during the 9th grade, and about

one-third could be classified as chronic absentees, or having an attendance rat e below 85 percent. Most of these high-risk students had a grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 or lower, and over 40 percent had been retained in a previous grade. In contrast, another quarter of the sample, students who were classified as low-risk, had a dropout rate of 3 percent by the end of 12th grade. The remaining half of the sample, the medium-risk group, showed neither school success nor disengagement.

11 The author conceded, however, that his comparison group may not have been appropriately drawn. 12 Stern et al. reported attrition rates for both treatment and control groups. After these were taken into account, the remaining sample

sizes were too small to reliably calculate effect size. Furthermore, we were hesitant to aggregate an effect size across cohorts and over time, because our estimates seemed to be so unreliable.


• higher graduation rates (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998; Stern et al., 1989). For the purpose of analysis, Kemple and Snipes (2000) divided their sample into three sub-groups: high-, low-, and medium-risk. The researchers found that attending a career academy doubled the percentage of high-risk students completing a basic core curriculum (ES from .37 to .41). Specifi-cally, in terms of completion of sufficient course credits to fulfill graduation requirements, high-risk academy students outperformed their non-academy counterparts at a rate similar to that of low-risk academy students. All students attending an academy were more likely to complete three or more career-related courses (for high-risk students, ES = .47; for medium-risk students, ES = .39; for low-risk students, ES = .83), and were more likely to report having taken the SAT or ACT—considered as a proxy for college preparatory behavior (ES for planning and preparation for college and work = .21). Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy (1998) examined the 1992 U.S. Departments of Defense and Education joint project to create a high school program aimed at decreasing dropout rates of at-risk youth. This program was formed by combining the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) and the career academies initiative (to form “JROTCCA”). The overall conclusion of the JROTCCA study was that the career academies have a strong effect on GPA at graduation (see Appendix D) and a weaker, perhaps indirect, effect on grades (ES = .14) when compared with general academic program students (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998). GPAs for JROTCCA students were significantly higher 60 percent of the time, and were better than would be expected in a regular JROTC program (ES = .06). Stern et al. corroborated these findings, particularly in the first year of participation, and found that career academy students continued to outperform non-career academy students throughout the second and third years of participation. Kemple and Snipes (2000), in contrast, found no substantively or statistically significant achievement gains for career academy participants, but noted other positive academic outcomes, such as improvement in graduation rates. Two studies found increased graduation rates and reduced dropout rates in career academy partici-pants (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998; Stern et al., 1989). Graduation rates, where available, showed that JROTCCA schools graduated twice as many students as would be expected from a general academic program (based on data from two cohort groups; Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998). Although Kemple and Snipes noted that fewer low-risk career academy students completed college applications, the difference was not statistically significant (ES could not be determined from the available data). The researchers suggested that this could be a by-product of the school’s focus on developing vocational direction among students, rather than a strictly academic curriculum. It is also important to note that Kemple subsequently found no significant difference between graduation rates of academy and non-academy students (ES = .02) (2001). Behavioral Outcomes

Three studies found a significant positive impact of career academy participation on student attend-ance rates (Elliott, Hanser and Gilroy, 1998; Kemple and Snipes, 2000; Stern et al., 1989) but no other significant behavioral outcomes. Kemple and Snipes reported higher attendance rates for high-risk students (82 percent compared to 76 percent for the control group students, ES for enrollment and attendance construct = .24). Elliott et al. found that 70 percent of JROTC career academy students had lower rates of absenteeism (i.e., higher class attendance) than comparison students, and had rates better than would be expected in a normal JROTC program (ES = .50 and .37, respectively). Finally, although Kemple and Snipes found that attendance rates were increased for high-risk students in


career academies, they found no systematic change in this population’s involvement in (positive) youth development activities or in (negative) risk-taking behaviors. Linnehan (1996) conducted a study of the relationship between career academy participation and post-graduation work performance, in which he found that the school outcomes of grades and attendance had a direct positive effect on work attendance (ES ranged from .03 to .16) and work performance (ES ranged from .14 to .17) after high school. He suggests that, given these results, career academies may be a good investment from a business perspective, and that high school grades and attendance may be good indicators of work behavior in entry-level positions. Given these modest effect sizes, coupled with Linnehan’s own caveats about selection of comparison groups, further research would be required to support this claim. Attitudinal Outcomes

Overall, differences in perceived support and participation in career-related activities were higher among students attending a high-contrast academy than among their low-contrast academy counter-parts. Effect sizes for perceived support from teachers, peers, and parents ranged from .21 to .47 in high-contrast academies, compared with a range of .06 to .43 in low-contrast academies. The difference in self-reported participation in career-related activities was smaller, with effect sizes ranging from .14 to .50 for high-contrast academies versus .10 to .41 for low-contrast academies. According to Kemple (1997), career academy students reported being highly engaged and somewhat more motivated to attend school, but they were not significantly different from their non-academy counterparts in terms of level of engagement and motivation. They did, however, report their schoolwork to be more relevant to their future education and career goals (Kemple, 1997).13 Process Outcomes

Only one study examined school level process changes occurring as a result of the reform. Kemple (1997) found that although academy and non-academy teachers were equally likely to rate themselves as highly effective with students, career academy teachers reported higher levels of satisfaction, and they were more likely to see themselves as belonging to a strong professional community. Discussion

The fact that the findings reported above seem to contradict one another may be due in part to the variation in the studies’ respective analytic approaches. For example, Kemple and Snipes (2000) found a difference in effects when they ranked sites by the differences in perceived amount of interpersonal support received from teachers and peers during the ninth and tenth grade. They defined “high contrast” academies as those that “represent a particularly dramatic contrast with their non-Academy school environments…[and] produced particularly large increases in the level of interpersonal support students received early in high school, relative to the level experienced by students in the non-Academy environments” (p. 17). We want to note, however, that even rigorously conducted studies of career academies indicate only modest effects for students. Improved attendance (ES ranged from 0 to .50, depending on risk

13 No effect size was reported for this finding. Only descriptive data were presented in the report.


group), and graduation rates (ES = .02), and better preparation for post-graduation careers for high-risk students (ES = .21) were noted as benefits of this structure. Kemple, in his most recent report on this study, found no significant effects on high school graduation rates, initial post-secondary education, and post-graduation employment outcomes (2001). He did report, however, that GED attainment was significantly different in the percentage of career academy non-graduates earning a GED as compared with the control group (ES = .24). One possible explanation for the modest outcomes reported is that implementation did not stipulate changes in curriculum and instruction in academy programs, and selection bias was effectively eliminated by the random assignment of students to career academy programs within schools (thus reducing the risk of overstating effects).

Houses

In house plans, students are assigned to groups of a few hundred each across grades. Each “house” has its own discipline policies, student activity program, student government, and social activities. Compared with SWS programs (as discussed below), individual school houses are less autonomous, as they are still essentially associated with the larger school. Typically, students are randomly assigned to houses, and curricular offerings are the same across houses. The house strategy aims to increase personalization by reducing the number of students for whom each teacher is responsible, and by providing a conceptual community boundary for students. Little research has been conducted on house plans alone, and only one study will be discussed in the present review. Project Achieve, a New York City initiative, was designed to improve attendance and academic performance of at-risk students by reorganizing schools into houses of 300 to 500 students, each with its own core team of teachers and expanded, house-based student support services. In conjunction with the school reorganization, a study of house plan implementation was conducted and a report of first-year qualitative findings for the three-year implementation program was published (Eichenstein, 1994). The findings reported successful restructuring activities and very preliminary attitudinal outcomes. Core instructional teams were established that incorporated innovative instructional techniques and alternative instructional options. In addition, teachers were allotted common preparation time, and house-based student support services were expanded. Students expressed satisfaction with their respective houses and with the concept in general. They appreciated house staff and found that being in the house helped them focus their efforts, was fun, and that “they were more valued for being themselves” (1994, p. ii). House coordinators also expressed enthusiasm, noting that they knew students better. No further empirical outcome data were discussed within this report, nor has a second report been published.

Schools-Within-a-School

According to the U.S. Department of Education SLC program, schools-within-a-school (often referred to as SWAS or SWS) allow large schools to divide into smaller subunits in order to personalize the educational experience of each student. The individual subunits are multi-age, may be organized around a theme, and are separate and autonomous units, each with its own personnel, budget and program. The subunits or SWSs, however, operate within a larger host school, sharing resources and facilities. Teachers and students choose to enroll in one SWS, and students take most


of their classes together.14 Typically, there may be one or two SWSs within the host school, and most studies reviewed examined this configuration. The studies we reviewed found improvement in academic, behavioral, and attitudinal outcomes for students in SWS programs. Effect sizes were available for only one study (Oxley, 1997). SWS students improved in:

• Achievement test scores (Robinson-Lewis, 1991; Way, 1985), • Grades (Robinson-Lewis, 1991; Wasley et al., 2000), and • Course completion (ES = .46) (Oxley, 1997; Wasley et al., 2000).

Improvements in student behavior were also found in SWS participants:

• Increased attendance rates (Fouts, 1994; Gordon, 1992; Robinson-Lewis, 1991; Wasley et al., 2000),

• Decrease in referrals for counseling or disciplinary reasons (Fouts, 1994),

• Higher graduation rates (Wasley et al., 2000), and

• Lower dropout rates (Gordon, 1992; Wasley et al., 2000). Satisfaction of the participants in SWS was found to be greater than that of non-SWS participants. Researchers found:

• Greater parent satisfaction (Fouts, 1994; Wasley et al., 2000),

• Greater student satisfaction (Fouts, 1994; Gordon, 1992; Robinson-Lewis, 1991; Wasley et al., 2000; Way, 1985),

• Increased peer affiliation and involvement among students (social cohesion ES = .33) (Oxley, 1997), and

• More cooperative learning experiences (classroom instruction ES = .26) (Oxley, 1997). In a review of SWS literature on middle schools, Burke (1987) also found that SWS and mini-school programs produced improved student outcomes in achievement, attendance, behavior and satisfaction, and greater teacher and parent satisfaction. Existing research is far from conclusive. Since Burke’s review, few studies have examined outcomes specifically for SWS programs. Of the seven studies identified above, all except one (Wasley et al., 2000) were small studies. Three studies were of high school SWS (Fouts,1994; Oxley, 1997; Way, 1985); the others investigated both high school and middle school programs (Gordon, 1992), solely middle/junior high school programs (Robinson-Lewis, 1991; Welch and McKenna, 1988), or a variety of levels from K to 12 (Wasley et al., 2000). We describe the relevant findings below.

14 The form “school-within -a-school” should include career academies, magnet schools, and houses, but the SLC program differentiates

strategies according to subunit autonomy and focus.


Academic Outcomes

Wasley et al. (2000) found a number of positive academic outcomes associated with SWS programs in a comprehensive study of both freestanding small schools and SWS programs.15 In addition to a number of small schools, Wasley and colleagues studied 143 elementary and secondary SWS programs in Chicago; they found that SWS students, like students of small schools, showed increased course completion, higher grades, and higher graduation rates. Further, SWS students had average GPAs higher than both students of the host school and the district high school average.16 In an evaluation of one Seattle high school’s SWS restructuring effort, Fouts (1994) observed positive first-year outcomes. Although grades did not improve, students showed improved writing ability (Fouts, 1994). Others, however, did find improved grades as an outcome. In a case study of one high school, Oxley (1997) reported a significant increase in course passing in history, English, science, and math (average approximate ES for the course passing construct =.46). An evaluation of the Kansas City SWS program for grades 7 to 9 (Robinson-Lewis, 1991) found that academic outcomes included improved ITBS scores and improved grades. An earlier Kansas City study of a 9th and 10th grade program (Way, 1985) reported statistically significant improvement in math achievement test scores. Behavioral Outcomes

Wasley et al. (2000) also reported lower dropout rates in SWS programs, although they were not as low as the rates in freestanding small schools. This finding is consistent with an earlier study of an SWS program in Des Moines Public schools (Gordon, 1992). Both these studies and two others also found that SWS students had better attendance rates (Fouts, 1994; Robinson-Lewis, 1991). Wasley et al. reported that SWS students missed even fewer days per semester than students in small, free-standing schools. Fouts (1994) also reported fewer discipline and counseling referrals, and fewer suspensions and Saturday detentions for SWS students. Attitudinal Outcomes

Some studies reported positive attitudinal outcomes for teachers, students, and parents. Oxley found a moderate positive effect of SWS participation on students’ perceptions of peer affiliation, teacher support, and involvement (ES for the social cohesion construct = .33). She also reported a small effect in variables measuring students’ global self-esteem, multicultural orientation, and positive ethnic identity (ES for the social competence construct = .17, with strongest contributions from the global self-esteem and positive ethnic identity variables). This finding concurs with others on student satisfaction (Fouts, 1994; Gordon, 1992; Robinson-Lewis, 1991; Wasley et al. 2000; Way, 1985). Process Outcomes

The process of restructuring is hypothesized to produce changes in classroom instruction and in teachers’ attitudes towards their work. Oxley reported moderate positive effects on “classroom

15 Wasley et al. defined “small [high] schools” as those with approximately 500 students; “freestanding small schools” as “buildings

with their own space, budget, and principal”; and SWS as “schools that are housed in other buildings in either a host-small school relationship or in a multischool arrangement,” where “multischool” is “a form of the school-within -a-school where the entire building is reconfigured into SWSs” (Wasley et al., 2000, p. 78).

16 Although Wasley et al. (2000) reported significant findings, we were unable to calculate and report effect sizes because the size of the control group was not reported.


instruction” (ES = .26). Teachers reported greater satisfaction because of increased flexibility and opportunities to collaborate, teach innovatively, and to know students better (Fouts, 1994; Wasley et al., 2000). Finally, parental satisfaction was discussed in two studies (Fouts, 1994; Wasley et al., 2000). Fouts (1994) noted that parental participation increased, and that parents reported that, given the choice again, they would put their children in the SWS program and would also recommend the program to others. The SWS strategy, as examined in these few studies, produces moderate positive academic outcomes such as increases in course passing (Oxley, 1997). Satisfaction of participants is another positive outcome—especially student satisfaction, which was found to have increased in SWS participants in five of the studies reviewed, including Wasley et al. (2000).

Magnet Schools

Magnet schools usually have a core focus (e.g., math and science, arts) and they often draw students from an entire district. Because admission to a magnet school can depend upon test scores, teacher recommendations, interviews, and grades, potential outcomes for magnets schools are confounded by potential selection bias (Blair, 1985; Goldhaber, 1999). Thus, when magnet school students score better than non-magnet students, many researchers conclude that they would have scored better regardless of school (Blair, 1985; Moore and Davenport, 1990; Price, 1985). The magnet school research that we reviewed focused not on effectiveness as a desegregation strategy (which formed the bulk of magnet school research), but rather on achieving the outcomes targeted by the SLC program? namely, personalizing education through restructuring in order to produce improvement in students’ academic achievement, behavior, and attitudes. Of the studies reviewed, outcomes found included:

• Improvements in student achievement (Blank, 1984; Gamoran, 1996; McMullan, Sipe and Wolf, 1994),

• Greater educational equity in non-selective magnet schools (Duax, 1992), but

• Greater start-up and operation costs in magnet schools compared with non-magnet schools (Chabotar, 1989).

Gamoran (1996) used the NELS:88 database to estimate the effect of school type (e.g., magnet school, Catholic school, or secular private school) on the achievement of urban students in math, science, and social studies, and to compare these results to those of students who attended compre-hensive public high schools. This study represents the strongest research on magnet schools, given its sample size and methodological approach.17 Duax (1992) conducted a five-year case study of student attrition in one urban elementary magnet school; thus, its relevance to this discussion is limited. Chabotar (1989) researched the level of racial integration and quality of education in magnet schools as they relate to school expenditure. Although he reports a positive correlation between expenditure 17 Gamoran’s sample of 4,000 urban students is nationally representative of urban schools, but not of all schools. Given the data

reported in this study, we were limited in our ability to calculate accurate effect sizes as compared to the methods used elsewhere in this review.


and both integration and quality of education, he does not compare these outcomes with non-magnet schools. He was able, however, to compare school cost of magnet and non-magnet schools. Academic Outcomes

Both Gamoran (1996) and Blank (1984) found better academic achievement in magnet school students. Gamoran found that, compared with students in comprehensive high schools, students in magnet schools had equal math and science scores and higher reading and social studies scores. Blank (1984) found that 80 percent of the magnet schools in his study had reading and math achievement test scores above their district averages; 40 percent were more than ten points above, and 20 percent produced average test scores that were more than 30 points higher than district averages. He also noted that although “quality of education” (measured by instructional activities, student-teacher interactions, opportunities for students to learn, and use of school resources) was not related to the degree of selectivity, the magnet schools with the highest average achievement scores were also the most selective. Blank was not able, however, to tease out the separate effects of self-selection and unique program characteristics on student outcomes. Cost Effectiveness

Chabotar (1989) conducted a cost analysis of magnet schools in 15 school districts, each with three randomly selected magnet schools, using cost per pupil as the basis of analysis. He found that although magnet elementary schools were less expensive than non-magnets, magnet secondary schools were more expensive than non-magnets. Enrollment was the greatest influence in cost differences; lower magnet enrollment at the secondary level led to higher per pupil costs. Finally, Chabotar found that magnets that spent more money realized benefits in better integration and better education. In districts where investments were minimal, there was no improvement in quality of education. Summary

For this group of studies, the evidence of effectiveness depends upon the purpose of establishing a magnet school. They are more expensive to establish and run, at least initially, but there is some evidence to suggest that the quality of education can be improved by the implementation of a magnet program (Blank, 1984; Gamoran, 1996; McMullan, Sipe and Wolf, 1994).

Alternative Scheduling

Alternative scheduling provides teachers greater flexibility in setting instructional time for different lessons and experiences. The most common form of this strategy, block scheduling, changes how time is used in school. By lengthening class periods—typically doubling the regular length—and shifting the enrollment patterns, administrators can reorganize the process of instruction. This idea can be applied partially—for example, by placing courses on a rotating day schedule, shifting when classes meet each day, and offering the longer block only periodically—or more radically, as in the 4/4 semester plan (also called the 4×4 plan). In the latter approach, the school year is divided into semesters. Students enroll in only three or four courses per semester (instead of seven) that meet daily in 90-minute blocks, and teachers are responsible for only 60 to 75 students per semester (rather than 120 to 150). The time extension allows for more individual attention, interdisciplinary lessons,


and a greater variety of learning activities.18 This type of block scheduling provides less disruption from changing classes and more preparation time for teachers. Proponents of block scheduling, such as Canady (1995), argue that studying test scores alone ignores attitudinal and affective outcomes such as reduction of student anxiety. We found four studies that specifically examined this strategy, the strongest of which was a study of North Carolina schools implementing block scheduling and its effect on academic outcomes (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1999). Another tested whether the longer time period itself (without any other changes) produced an effect on learning; none was found (Spencer and Lowe, 1994). A third study focused on the experience of three teachers in implementing block scheduling, and found that the most salient outcome was that they were able to cover material in greater depth but less breadth (Benton-Kupper, 1999). Finally, Snyder, (1997) focused on a single school implementing block scheduling. Snyder’s study, which was conducted two years after the implementation of block scheduling, found improved student achievement on a number of measures, including GPAs, semester exam grades, and number of students on the honor roll. Snyder noted, however, that staff development was found to be the most important factor (rather than scheduling itself) in achieving these gains; teachers learned new strategies and adopted a peer-coaching model of staff development, but the scheduling allowed them to use the new strategies that they learned. This finding supports other research as well (Cawelti, 1995; Stanley and Gifford, 1998). Because this strategy is typically used in conjunction with other reforms, it is not surprising that we were not able to find more research on the effectiveness of the strategy itself. Academic Outcomes

In a recent review of block scheduling literature, Kramer (1996) reported that adequate professional development and planning time and use of effective instructional practices are necessary but insuffi-cient in improving student achievement.19 Although it did not report on changes in instructional practices, the 1999 study of North Carolina’s implementation of block scheduling did report very modest effects on academic achievement, as measured by End-of-Course test scores (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1999). Effect sizes ranged from .03 to .16 (average approximate ES = .06). According to Kramer (1996), teachers reported decreased breadth and increased depth of coverage in courses under block scheduling. Benton-Kupper’s (1999) findings support this. In studying three high school English teachers, she found that although the scope of the curriculum was reduced (e.g., fewer literary works could be read in one semester), the depth of content covered was increased. In addition, it was possible for students to take more classes in a subject in four years (because courses were semester-long rather than year-long), further facilitating depth of understanding in a certain area.

18 Of course, different instructional techniques are required in order to take advantage of the longer instructional periods. 19 The author cites the following: Averett, C.P., “Block scheduling in North Carolina high schools”, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 1994; and Reid, W.M., “Restructuring secondary schools with extended time blocks and intensive courses: The experiences of school administrators in British Columbia”, Gonzaga University, 1995, Ph.D. dissertation.


Summary

Overall, we found insufficient evidence to support generalizations about the effects of block scheduling on student outcomes, but we note that there are indications that this strategy may produce positive process outcomes, such as reduced teacher load. Because this strategy is often used to facilitate implementation of another reform (such as academies), it is difficult to disentangle any effects of block scheduling alone.



4. Challenges in Implementing SLC Reforms

• What factors have been identified as hindering implementation of SLC reforms? Although there is some research that points to the effectiveness of various SLC efforts, other studies have identified challenges in implementing SLCs. A number of studies, particularly those that have conducted qualitative analysis, highlight issues and difficulties in whole -school and, in some cases, whole-district restructuring associated with specific SLC approaches.

District Level Challenges

Administrative resistance to restructuring was discussed in studies by Dynarski et al. (1998) and McMullan and Wolf (1991). In an early report from an evaluation of Philadelphia’s efforts in the late 1980s and early 1990s to restructure its high schools into SWSs (referred to as “charters”), McMullan and Wolf asserted that the best early indicators of success would be signs of the development of an infrastructure capable of sustaining and intensify change, and the presence of structures to deal with conflicts that arise as a result of restructuring. They found, however, that the pace of movement towards fundamental change was slow and that one substantial impediment to change was district resistance to modification of central administrative and procedural policies; that is, the district took only limited steps towards reorganization. McMullan and Wolf concluded, in fact, that the central administration’s resistance to restructuring policies and procedures had stymied efforts to create an environment conducive to change. In a study of school restructuring efforts in five urban districts, including Philadelphia, Dynarksi et al. (1998) reported similar findings. They noted that school restructuring is most effective when it is consistent with and supports a district’s desire to change. In this instance, however, the authors noted that because a school’s desire to restructure was not necessarily consistent with district policies, a school might be hindered from achieving the autonomy and increased decision-making power necessary to bringing about a fundamental change within a school.

School-level Challenges

Dynarski et al. note that schools must also be ready for and supportive of the movement towards restructuring. Wasley et al. (2000) also discussed a number of challenges to school restructuring, particularly vis-à-vis SWSs. Given that a SWS program shares facilities with a host school or with other SWS programs, policy clashes may develop between or among the schools. Intra-building conflicts about bell schedules, hall-passing times, and cafeteria schedules have hindered implementation of SWS programs, as have issues of enrollment, and both staff and administrative support and stability (Wasley et al., 2000). Staff conflict was prevalent in a case study of four schools that implemented single SWS in their larger high schools (McQuillan and Muncey, 1991).20 Faculty tensions and divisiveness led the schools to recognize that partial SWS may not be the most effective route to school-wide restructuring (McQuillan and Muncey, 1991). Other case studies have highlighted similar issues for SWS models (Pribesh, Lee and Osuna-Currea, 2001).

20 This is a st udy of schools that are part of the Coalition of Essential Schools.


McMullan and Wolf (1991) also identified school-level challenges, including staff placement, instructtional support, and development of policies and procedures to help govern a SWS. Moreover, Legters (1999) discusses the potential difficulty in integrating special education students into reform efforts. Evidence has also suggested that, where students may select into a certain house or academy, there is risk of students self-segregating either by academic ability or by social affiliation patterns. In a companion study to that of Pribesh, Lee and Osuna-Currea (2001), Ready, Lee and LoGerfo (2001) conducted research on social relationships among students and staff in five full-model SWS high schools. They found that although units were organized by theme, over time students chose units based on reputation, academic demand, and existing membership rather than theme. As the authors point out, although there are benefits to attending an SWS, the choice option “allowed hierarchies to flourish between the smaller units rather than the typical curricular differentiation in comprehensive high schools” (Ready, Lee and LoGerfo, 2001, p. 1).

Additional Support Needed

Additional support and professional development are also necessary as part of the restructuring process. Legters (1999) suggests that restructuring means teachers may be asked to take on new responsibilities or learn new skills. For example, without adjusting teaching practices, block scheduling can have a negative effect on student achievement (Legters, 1999; Spencer and Lowe, 1994). Because school restructuring is a long and arduous process, and positive outcomes are not necessarily quick to appear (Dynarski et al., 1998; Legters, 1999; McMullan and Wolf, 1991), a school must be ready to change, and all constituents must be supportive of and supported in the process of change. This may call for increased financial resources, increased planning time, or increased staff (Legters, 1999), none of which may be easy to acquire.


Conclusions and Implications

This literature review highlights the shortage of robust, empirical research on the implementation and impact of SLC structures and strategies. Although the current body of research suggests modest positive gains associated with the adoption of SLC structures and strategies, the studies reviewed suffer from serious methodological limitations, chiefly because they have been conducted on small samples without adequate comparison groups. Moreover, despite these claims, most of the studies cited here were unable to document fully the magnitude of their findings. Some studies measured change in student academic or behavioral outcomes, yet too few studies have given sufficient attention to change in more proximal classroom-level processes—such as improved professional climate and teacher collaboration—that are the natural precursors of changes in students’ behaviors and skills. Despite the lack of strong empirical support, the SLC reform movement has become firmly predicated upon the belief that smallness in and of itself can produce meaningful outcomes for students. The correlational research on small schools found student outcomes associated with particular school configurations (including size and presence of reform-like structures and relationships). These findings have led proponents of SLC reforms to claim, by analogy, that subunits of restructured schools (in which the configurations of the subunits resemble those of small schools) should be able to achieve outcomes similar to those obtained by small schools. This is quite a broad assumption, and it has yet to be tested adequately through empirical research. Because of the enthusiasm surrounding SLC reforms and the fact that most published articles on this topic are authored by advocates, little has been reported on the negative outcomes associated with SLC reforms. For example, anecdotal evidence points to a restratification by subunit within schools where students self-select into subunits, such as career academies, SWSs organized around specific themes, or magnet programs.21 Restratification includes greater redifferentiation by gender, SES, and special needs status. Careful research into the “resegregation index” of newly created subunits in schools implementing SLCs is needed to illuminate this important trend.

Summary of Findings

To summarize the findings from this review, we return to the four key research questions framing the review, and highlight the most significant findings associated with each one. 1. School size: How does size matter and for whom?

• Small schools have been associated with greater student learning, greater social equity of educational achievement, and greater engagement in school than large schools.

• Smaller schools have higher attendance rates and graduation rates, lower dropout rates, and have been found to be more cost-effective.

21 In addition to anecdotal evidence, Ready, Lee and LoGerfo (2001) examine this issue in five high schools implementing SLC

restructuring.


• BUT findings of small schools research are merely suggestive of possible outcomes of SLC restructuring because small schools may possess characteristics other than school size alone that results in their effectiveness.


• Small schools and larger schools that have restructured may lead to similar student outcomes.

• Positive outcomes include increased academic achievement, increased academic equity, increased student engagement, more positive teacher-student relations, and a decreased dropout rate.

• The majority of studies, however, are based on retrospective correlational data, and thus causal inferences cannot be drawn.

3. SLC strategies: What are the key features of each? What, if any, outcomes have been

attributed to each one?

• Career academies: In these, curricula are organized around one or more careers or occupations. It is on this strategy that the most rigorous research has been conducted. Studies found moderate positive outcomes, with strongest effects among high-risk students. Effect sizes for attendance and graduation rates ranged from 0 to .50. High-risk career academy students were more likely to complete a basic core curri-culum (ES ranged from .37 to .41) and were more likely to exhibit college and employment preparatory behavior (ES = .21). In addition, one study found that career academy graduates exhibit better work attendance (ES ranged from .03 to .16) and work performance (ES ranged from .14 to .17) than comparable graduates.

• Houses: In house plans, students within the high school are assigned to groups of a few hundred each across grades, with own discipline policies, student activity program, student government, and social activities; individual school houses are less autonomous than SWS programs. Very little research has been conducted on house plans alone (only one study was discussed in this review).

• Schools-within-a-school (SWAS/SWS): These are multi-grade, separate, autono-mous individual subunits organized around a theme, each with its own personnel, budget and program. Studies have found modest improvement in academic (course passing ES = .46), behavioral (social competence and cohesion effect sizes = .01 and .33, respectively), attitudinal, and process (classroom instruction ES = .26) outcomes for SWS students.

• Magnet schools: These have a core focus (e.g., math and science, arts), are typically selective, and usually draw students from the entire district. Study findings of improvement in outcomes are confounded by selection bias.

• Block scheduling: This is a strategy for changing the way time is used in school by lengthening class periods and altering daily and/or annual schedules. Studies reviewed yielded insufficient evidence to support generalizations about effects on students, but there were some indications that this strategy may produce positive process outcomes when appropriately implemented. A study of North Carolina’s


implementation of block schedule yielded very modest effect sizes on academic outcomes, ranging from .03 to .16 (average approximate ES = .06).

4. Challenges in Implementing SLC Reforms: What factors have been identified as

hindering implementation of SLC reforms? Factors include:

• Congruence between district and school policies and procedures;

• School-level conflicts about staff assignment, inadequate staffing and resources; and

• Additional support and professional development needed as part of restructuring process; need for increased financial resources, increased planning time, or increased staffing.

Implications for Further Research

The research on the implementation of SLCs tentatively points to some modest positive findings in terms of academic, behavioral, and attitudinal outcomes. Because of the potentially confounding effects of factors such as student self-selection and maturation, more rigorous studies employing carefully chosen comparison groups and using longitudinal data are needed. Moreover, there is a need for more systematic studies of the processes underlying school change; these will shed more light on the changes in proximal outcomes responsible for subsequent changes in student performance and behavior. The National Evaluation of Smaller Learning Communities will attempt to address these issues through a systematic, large-scale study comprising two key components:

• An implementation study, designed to identify the variation in strategies used to design and operate SLCs, with data collected through a school-level survey, site-based case studies, as well as a survey of teachers in the SLC program; and

• An impact study, using a variety of analytic techniques to help unpack the effects of the SLC intervention, both as measured over time and in comparison to schools without SLC programs.

The ultimate challenge for researchers in this area is to demonstrate that students achieve positive gains through participation in an SLC compared to what would have happened if they had not been in the program. This challenge demands careful statistical and design controls to rule out alternative explanations to changes in student outcomes. Carefully designed impact studies of this type, coupled with intensive examination of the factors underlying potential changes, are sorely needed to help districts and schools make difficult decisions about school restructuring efforts, especially in the context of dwindling economic resources.



Bibliography

Aschbacher, P.R. Humanitas: A Thematic Curriculum. Educational Leadership, October: 16-19, 1991. Barker, R.G., and Gump, P.V., eds. Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964. Benton-Kupper, J. Can less be more? The quantity versus quality issue of curriculum in a block schedule. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(3): 168-177, 1999. Blair, J.P. Lost in the Labyrinth: New York City High School Admissions. New York, NY: Interface Educational Priorities Panel, 1985. Blank, R.K. The effects of magnet schools on the quality of education in urban school districts. Phi Delta Kappan, December: 270-272, 1984. Blank, R.K. Educational effects of magnet high schools. In W. Clune and J. Witte, eds. Choice and Control in American Education, vol. 2. New York, NY: Falmer Press, 1990, pp. 77-109. Bickel, R., and Howley, C. The influence of scale on school performance: A multi-level extension of the Matthew Principle. Education and Policy Analysis Archives, 8(22), 2000. [http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n22.html] Boloz, S.A., and Blessing, C. Walking on Sacred Ground: A Navajo School-Within-a-School Model. Unpublished paper, 1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 367 515) Burke, A. Making a Big School Smaller: The School-Within-a-School Arrangement for Middle Level Schools. Unpublished paper, 1987. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 303 890) Canady, R.L., and Rettig, M.D. Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education, 1995a. Canady, R.L., and Rettig, M.D. The power of innovative scheduling. Educational Leadership , November: 4-10, 1995b. Cawelti, G. High school restructuring: What are the critical elements? NASSP Bulletin, 79(569): 1-15, 1995. Center for Collaborative Education, Research and Evaluation Program. How Boston Pilot Schools Use Freedom over Budget, Staffing, and Scheduling to Meet Student Needs. Boston, MA: Center for Collaborative Education, Research and Evaluation Program, 2001. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools (CORS). Brief no. 4 (Fall). Madison, WI: Newmann, F., 1992.


Chabotar, K.J. Measuring the costs of magnet schools. Economics of Education Review, 8(2): 169-183, 1989. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2d ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988. Conant, J.B. The American High School Today. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Cotton, K. School size, school climate, and student performance. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS), Close-Up #20. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1996. Cotton, K. New Small Learning Communities: Findings from Recent Literature. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Unpublished draft, not for distribution. Report received with author’s permission. Cushman, K. How small schools increase student learning, and what large schools can do about it. Principal, 79(2): 20-22, 1999. Downey, R.G. Higher Education and Rural Youth . Paper presented at the annual Kansas State University Rural and Small Schools Conference, Auburn, AL, August 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 201 459) Duax, T. Attrition at a nonselective magnet elementary school: A case study of a Milwaukee public school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25(3): 173-81, 1992. Duke, D.L., and Perry, C. Can alternative schools succeed where Benjamin Spock, Spiro Agnew, and B.F. Skinner have failed? Adolescence, 13(51): 375-392, 1978. Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., and Wood, R. Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives. Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998. Edwards, C.M., Jr. The 4×4 plan. Educational Leadership , November: 16-19, 1995. Elliot, M.N., Hanser, L.M., and Gilroy, C.L. Evidence of Positive Student Outcomes in JROTC Career Academies. Washington, DC: RAND, 1998. Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Eichenstein, R. Project Achieve, Part I: Qualitative Findings 1993-94. Brooklyn, NY: Office of Educational Research, New York City Board of Education, 1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 379 388) Fouts, J. A School Within a School: Evaluation Results of the First Year of a Restructuring Effort. Seattle, WA: Seattle Pacific University, School of Education, 1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 370 195) Fowler, W.J., and Walberg, H.J. School size, characteristics and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2): 189-202, 1991.


Friedkin, N.E., and Necochea, J. School system size and performance: A contingency perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(3): 237-249, 1988. Gamoran, A. Student achievement in public magnet, public comprehensive and private city high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(1): 1-18, 1996. Garbarino, J. Some thoughts on school size and its effects on adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9(1): 19-31, 1979. George, P.S., and Lounsbury, J.H. Making Big Schools Feel Small. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association, 2000. Goldhaber, D.D. School choice: An examination of the empirical evidence on achievement, parental decision making, and equity. Educational Researcher, 28(9): 16-25, 1999. Goodlad, J.I. A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1984. Gordon, R. School Within a School, Grades 7, 8, 9, 10. Focus on Program Evaluation. Des Moines, IA: Des Moines Public Schools, 1992. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 371 045) Grabe, M. School size and the importance of school activities. Adolescence, 16(61): 21-31, 1981. Gregory, T. Small Is Too Big: Achieving a Critical Anti-Mass in the High School. Position paper presented for the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs and the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, September 1992. [http://www.smallschoolsproject.org/articles/download/smallistobig.pdf] Grubb, W.N. Reconstructing urban schools with work-centered education. Education and Urban Society , 27(3): 244-259, 1995. Hackmann, D.G. Ten guidelines for implementing block scheduling. Educational Leadership , November: 24-27, 1995. Haller, E.J. High school size and student indiscipline: Another aspect of the school consolidation issue? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2): 145-156, 1992. Haller, E.J., Monk, D.H., and Tien, L.T. Small schools and higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9(2): 66-73, 1993. Hill, D. Breaking up is hard to do. Teacher Magazine, October: 31-37, 2001. Howley, C.B. The Matthew principle: A West Virginia replication? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(18): 1-25, 1995. [http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n18.html] Howley, C., Strange, M., and Bickel, R. Research about school size and school performance in impoverished communities. ERIC Digest, EDO RC-00-10, 2000.


Irmsher, K. School size. ERIC Digest, EDO-97-5, 1997. Jacobson, L. Survey finds mixed views on smaller schools. Education Week , 21(5): PAGES???, 2001. Jewell, R.W. School and school district size relationships: Costs, results, minorities, and private school enrollments. Education and Urban Society , 21(2): 140-153, 1989. Kemple, J.J. Career Academies: Communities of Support for Students and Teachers: Further Evidence from a 10-Site Evaluation: Executive Summary. New York, NY: Manpower Research Development Corporation, 1997. Kemple, J.J. Career Academies: Impacts on Students’ Initial Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and Employment: Executive Summary. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2001. Kemple, J.J., and Snipes, J.C. Career Academies: Impacts on Students' Engagement and Performance in High School. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000. Kershaw, C. A., and Blank, M. A. Student and educator perceptions of the impact of an alternative school structure. Unpublished paper, 1993. Kiesling, H.J. High School Size and Cost Factors: Final Report. Unpublished report, 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 023 290) Klonsky, M., and Ford, P. One urban solution: Small schools. Educational Leadership , 51(8): 64-7, 1994. Kramer, S.L. Block scheduling and high school mathematics instruction. The Mathematics Teacher, 89(9): 758-768, 1996. Kyle, R.M.J. Transforming Out Schools: Lessons from the Jefferson County Public Schools/Gheen Professional Development Academy, 1983-1991. Louisville, KY: Jefferson County Public Schools, 1993. Lee, V.E., and Burkam, D.T. Dropping Out of High School: The Role of School Organization and Structure. Paper presented at “Dropouts of America: How Severe is the Problem?” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2001. Lee, V.E., Ready, D.D., and Johnson, D.J. The difficulty of identifying rare samples to study: The case of high schools divided into schools-within-schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, in press, 2002. Lee, V.E., Smerdon, B.A., Alfeld-Liro, C., and Brown, S.L. (2000). Inside large and small high schools: Curriculum and social relations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2): 147-171, 2000.


Lee, V.E., and Smith, J.B. Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4): 241-270, 1995. Lee, V.E., and Smith, J.B. High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3): 205-227, 1997. Lee, V.E., and Smith, J.B. Restructuring High Schools for Equity and Excellence: What Works. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2001. Legters, N.E. Small Learning Communities Meet School-to-Work: Whole School Restructuring for Urban Comprehensive High Schools. Report #31. Baltimore, MD: CRESPAR, 1999. Lindsay, P. The effect of high school size on student participation, satisfaction, and attendance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(1): 57-65, 1982. Linnehan, F. Measuring the effectiveness of a career academy program from an employer’s perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(1): 73-79, 1996. McKenzie, P. The Distribution of School Size: Some Cost Implications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 11-15, 1983. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 232 256) McMullan, B.J., and Wolf, W.C. The Philadelphia Schools Collaborative: An Assessment of Its First Three Years. Bala Cynwyd, PA: Center for Assessment and Policy Development, 1991. McQuillan, P.J., and Muncey, D.E. School-Within-a-School Restructuring and Faculty Divisiveness: Examples from a Study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Working Paper #6. Providence, RI: Brown University, School Ethnography Project, 1991. Meier, D.W. The big benefits of smallness. Educational Leadership, 54(1): 12-15, 1996. Mitchell, S. Jack and the giant school. New Rules, 2(1), 2000. [www.newrules.org/journal/nrsum00schools.htm] Mohr, N. Small schools are not miniature large schools: Potential pitfalls and implications for leadership. In M. Klonsky, W. Ayers, and G. Lyons, eds. A Simple Justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2000, pp. 139-158. Moore, D.R., and Davenport, S. School choice: The new improved sorting machine. In W.L. Boyd and H.J. Walberg, eds. Choice in Education: Potential and Problems. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1990, pp. 187-223. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. Reston, VA: NASSP, 1996. Newmann, F. Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools: Activities and Accomplishments, 1990-1996. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, School of Education, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1996.


Nickle, M.N., Flynt, F.C., Poynter, S.D., and Rees, J.A., Jr. Does it make a difference if you change the structure? School-within-a-school. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(2): 148-152, 1990. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services, Evaluation Services Section. Block Scheduled High School Achievement: Part III: Comparison of End-of- Course Test Scores for Blocked and Non-Blocked High Schools (1994 through 1998). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1999. Orfield, G.A. Do we know anything worth knowing about educational effects of magnet schools? In W. Clune and J. Witte, eds. Choice and Control in American Education, vol. 2. New York, NY: Falmer Press, 1990, pp. 119-123. Ornstein, A.C. School size and effectiveness: Policy implications. The Urban Review, 22(3): 239-245, 1990. Oxley, D. Organizing schools into small units: An alternative to homogeneous grouping. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(7): 521-527, 1994. Oxley, D. Theory and practice of school communities. Educational Administration Quarterly , 33 (suppl): 624-643, 1997. Perry, C.L., and Duke, D.L. Lessons to be learned about discipline from alternative high schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 11(4): 78-91, 1978. Pittman, R.B., and Haughwout, P. Influence of high school size on dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4): 337-343, 1987. Pribesh, S., Lee, V.E., and Osuna-Currea, F. Governance in Schools-Within-Schools. July 20, 2001. Paper received with authors’ permission. Price, J. Public Schools: Private Admissions. A Report of New York City Practices. New York, NY: Advocates for Children of New York, Inc., 1985. Quint. J.C., Miller, C., Pastor, J.J., and Cyrton, R.E. Project Transition: Testing an Intervention to Help High School Freshman Succeed: Executive Summary. New York, NY: Manpower Development Research Corporation, 1999. Raywid, M.A. A school that really works: Urban academy. Journal of Negro Education, 63(1): 93-110, 1994. Raywid, M.A. Taking Stock: The Movement to Create Mini-Schools, Schools-Within-Schools, and Separate Small Schools. Commissioned by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, and by the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1996. Raywid, M.A. Small schools: A reform that works. Educational Leadership , 55(4): 34-38, 1997.


Raywid, M.A., and Oshiyama, L. Musings in the wake of Columbine: What can schools do? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6): 444-449, 2000. Ready, D.D., Lee, V.E., and LoGerfo, L.F. Social and Academic Stratification in High Schools Divided into Schools-Within-Schools. Paper received with authors’ permission, 2001. Robinson-Lewis, G. Summative Evaluation of the School-Within-a-school (SWAS) Program: 1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City School District, 1991. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 346 203) Rumberger, R.W., and Thomas, S.L. The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73(1): 39-67, 2000. Rural Policy Matters. Small does work: A Florida story you’ll want to hear. Rural Policy Matters Online, 2(12): #3, 2000. Schoggen, P., and Schoggen, M. Student voluntary participation and high school size. Journal of Educational Research, 81(5): 288-293, 1988. Schwartz, R. Restructuring Philadelphia’s neighborhood high schools: A conversation with Constance Clayton and Michelle Fine. Journal of Negro Education, 63(1): 111-125, 1994. Shadish, W.R., Robinson, L., and Lu, C. A Computer Program and Manual for Effect Size Calculation. Memphis, TE: University of Memphis, 1997. Sizer, T.R. Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin, 1984. Sizer, T.R. Rebuilding: First steps by the Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1): 38-42, 1986. Sizer, T.R. No two are quite alike. Educational Leadership, 57(1): 6-11, 1999. Snyder, D. 4-Block Scheduling: A Case Study of Data Analysis of One High School After Two Years. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, October 15-18, 1997. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 414 626) Spady, W.G. Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1: 64-85, 1970. Spencer, W.A., and Lowe, C. The use of Block Periods for Instruction: A Report and Evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN, November 1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 387 941) Stanley, A., and Gifford, L.J. The Feasibility of 4x4 Block Scheduling in Secondary Schools: A Review of the Literature. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, November 1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 429 333)


Stevens, N.G., and Peltier, G.L. A review of research on small-school student participation in extracurricular activities. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 10(2): 116-120, 1994. Stern, D., Dayton, C., Paik, I., and Weisberg, A. Benefits and costs of dropout prevention in a high school program combining academic and vocational education: Third year results from replications of the California Peninsula Academies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4): 405-416, 1989. Stiefel, L., Berne, R., Iatarola, P., and Fruchter, N. High school size: Effects on budgets and performance in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1): 27-39, 2000. Ullrich, W.J., and Yeamen, J.T. Using a modified block schedule to create a positive learning environment. Middle School Journal, 31(1): 14-20, 1999. Viadero, D. Changing times: Despite its popularity, block scheduling’s effect on learning remains unproven. Education Week , 21(5): 38-40, 2001. Walberg, H.J. On local control: Is bigger better? In Source Book on School and District Size, Cost, and Quality. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 1992. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 361 164) Walberg, H., and Walberg, H. Losing local control. Educational Researcher, 23(5): 19-26, 1994. Wasley, P., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N.E., King, S.P., Mosak, E., and Powell, L.C. Small Schools: Great Strides: A Study of New Small Schools in Chicago. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, 2000. Way, J.W. Evaluation of the School Within a School, 1984-85. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City School District, 1985. Welch, J., and McKenna, E. SWAS: School Within a School. A Middle Level Dropout Intervention Program. North Kingstown, RI: North Kingstown Public Schools, 1988.

Documents

National Evaluation of Smaller Learning Communities ... Evaluation of Smaller Learning Communities Literature Review February 2002 Prepared for David Goodwin U.S. Department of Education