Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Small Learning Communities:Implementing and Deepening Practice
June 2007
Diana Oxley, Ph.D
Portland, Oregon
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
503-275-9500
www.nwrel.org
Center for School and District Improvement
Recreating Secondary Schools Program
503-275-9629
© Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007
All Rights Reserved
iii
ContentsThe Aim of This Publication .............................................................................................................. v
Section I— Small Learning Communities: The State of the Art
What’s in a Name ..............................................................................................................................1
Five Domains of SLC Best Practices ...................................................................................................2
Ecological Facts of SLC Implementation and Practice ........................................................................6
Informing Versus Prescribing SLC Practice ........................................................................................7
Section II—Cultivating Effective Small Learning Communities
The Cycle of Continuous Program Improvement: Seven Steps ..........................................................9
How To Pursue Continuous Program Improvement: Working the Steps .......................................... 18
Section III—Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Teams
Best Practices Checklist .................................................................................................................... 21
Why These Practices Are Essential: In a Nutshell ............................................................................. 21
Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail .................................................................................... 22
Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................ 27
Section IV—Rigorous, Relevant Curriculum and Instruction
Best Practices Checklist .................................................................................................................... 39
Why These Practices Are Essential: In a Nutshell ............................................................................. 39
Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail .................................................................................... 40
Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................ 43
Section V—Inclusive Program and Practices
Best Practices Checklist .................................................................................................................... 53
Why These Practices Are Essential: In a Nutshell ............................................................................. 53
Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail .................................................................................... 54
Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................ 59
Section VI—SLC-Based Continuous Program Improvement
Best Practices Checklist .................................................................................................................... 71
Why These Practices Are Essential: In a Nutshell ............................................................................. 71
Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail… ................................................................................72
Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................75
Section VII—Building- and District-Level Support for SLCs
Best Practices Checklist for Building-Level Support .........................................................................83
Why These Practices Are Essential: In a Nutshell .............................................................................83
Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail ....................................................................................84
iv
Emerging Practices for District-Level Support .................................................................................88
Why These Practices Are Important: In a Nutshell ...........................................................................88
Why These Practices Are Important: In Detail .................................................................................89
Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................91
References .................................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix: Self-Assessment in Five Domains ................................................................................ 121
v
The Aim of This PublicationSmall Learning Communities: Implementing and Deepening Practice brings together a knowledge base, tools, and
resources for implementing and deepening small learning community practice. Its aim is to provide
guidance to school staff and stakeholders in the demanding work of transforming 20th-century
comprehensive high schools into 21st-century learning organizations.
All high school staff members have an interest in improving their practice. They want what is best
for their students. They may envision adding small learning communities to their current offer-
ings but not see the need to transform their school. However, the research base and professional
consensus on which this publication rests provide encouragement for improvement through trans-
formation. Research points out the failure of efforts to graft small learning communities onto tra-
ditional high school structures. In response, many small schools networks, as their names suggest,
have sprung up to support school staff members who circumvent existing school structures and
develop autonomous small schools.
Small Learning Communities: Implementing and Deepening Practice is designed to support well-planned,
schoolwide reorganization into small learning communities. This guide offers fi ve domains of
research-based SLC practice and a cyclical process of improvement as a framework for organizing
staff members’ efforts to:
• Rethink their current practice
• Develop new structures and routines
• Sustain long-term efforts to implement fully functioning and effective learning communities
1
1. Small Learning Communities: The State of the Art
What’s in a Name?
The term applied to the practice of organizing high schools into smaller units has undergone many
changes over the last four decades. Houses and schools-within-schools came on the scene begin-
ning in the 1960s; magnet programs, career academies, and mini-schools in the 1970s; charters in
the late 1980s and 1990s; and fi nally, small learning communities today. The evolution in terms is
signifi cant. It parallels development in our thinking about the crucial ingredients of effective educa-
tion. The earlier terms emphasized small structure and curricular specialization and choice: both
crucial to improved teaching, yet not the complete story. Small learning community, in contrast,
encompasses these elements and more: a focus on the learner and learning, and in particular, the
active and collaborative nature of teachers’ and students’ work.
Concurrent with the reorganization of comprehensive high schools into small learning communi-
ties are initiatives to create new small schools. The small schools networks emphasize the impor-
tance of autonomy and fl exibility in functioning within large, rigid educational bureaucracies
(Cotton, 2001). The small schools movement, however, also speaks to student-centered curriculum
and instruction and collaboration among all members of the community (Fine & Somerville, 1998;
Wasley et al., 2000). Research and experience have led advocates of small learning communities
and small schools to a shared, basic notion of small unit schooling:
An interdisciplinary team of teachers shares a few hundred or fewer students in com-
mon for instruction, assumes responsibility for their educational progress across years
of school, and exercises maximum fl exibility to act on knowledge of students’ needs.
The term small learning communities is used here in its generic sense. It refers to all school rede-
sign efforts intended to create smaller, more learning-centered units of organization including small
schools and career academies.
Professional consensus. Just as small learning community research and practice have evolved, so has
professional consensus on secondary school redesign. Policy guidelines for middle level schools began
to incorporate recommendations for creating small learning communities in the 1980s and 1990s and
have sustained these guidelines to the present. This We Believe, the National Middle School Association’s
statement of their position on effective middle level school practice (1982; 1995; 2003), has long
advocated teacher teams and organization of large middle schools into small learning communities:
Their most recent position paper states: “The interdisciplinary team … working with a common
group of students is the signature component of high-performing schools, literally the heart of the
school from which other desirable programs and experiences evolve” (2003, p. 29).
Breaking Ranks, a publication of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, called
for the creation of “small units in which anonymity is banished” in 1996 (p. 45). Breaking Ranks
2
II identifi es seven cornerstone strategies for improving student performance, one of which is
to: “Increase the quantity and improve the quality of interactions between students, teachers,
and other school personnel by reducing the number of students for which any adult or group
of adults is responsible” (NASSP, 2004, p. 6). The other cornerstone strategies complement this
reduction in the scale of schooling by establishing “the essential learnings a student is required
to master” and by implementing “schedules fl exible enough to accommodate teaching strate-
gies consistent with the ways student learn most effectively” (p. 6). Taken together, the strategies
describe a form of school organization that diverges sharply from the traditional, comprehensive
high school.
Five Domains of SLC Best Practices
In New Small Learning Communities (2001), Cotton identifi ed several conditions and practices that dis-
tinguish successful small learning communities:
• Self-determination—Autonomy in decision making, physical separateness, self-selection of
teachers and students, and flexible scheduling must all be present to allow small learning
community members to create and realize their own vision.
• Identity—Small learning communities profit from developing a distinctive program of
study that originates in the vision, interests, and unique characteristics of their members.
• Personalization—Small learning community members know each other well. Teachers are
able to identify and respond to students’ particular strengths and needs.
• Support for Teaching—SLC teachers assume authority as well as responsibility in educating
their students. School leadership does not reside only in the administrative staff; admini-
strators teach, and teachers lead.
• Functional Accountability—SLC teams use performance assessment systems that require
students to demonstrate their learning and the SLC to demonstrate its success.
This publication also identifi es best practices but places them in a different kind of framework.
The best practices which confi rm and extend those identifi ed by Cotton are organized into fi ve
domains. The framework is designed to convey how small learning communities are organized
and operate within a multilevel educational system. The framework helps to answer questions
both about what constitutes SLC practice and what is needed to support SLC practice at multiple
levels of organization.
The best practices are drawn from a review of research (Oxley, 2006) on a variety of approaches to
small unit organization: small schools and career academies; small learning communities; houses; and
schools-within-schools. SLC strategies that qualifi ed as best practices were features of SLCs found to
have positive effects on student achievement in at least two research studies. The research base does
3
not demonstrate that the best practices have independent, causal effects on student achievement, only
that they are associated with effective SLCs.
The tree image shown in Figure 1 illustrates the nature of the relationships among the fi ve domains.
The structural supports for a tree’s foliage are its branches. In SLCs, teaching and learning teams—
the interdisciplinary teams of teachers and the students they instruct—are the basic structural sup-
ports for SLC work that results in student learning. Each branch supports three clusters of leaves, the
oxygen-generating element of the tree. One leaf cluster includes rigorous, relevant curriculum and
instruction practices; a second leaf cluster encompasses inclusive program practices; and a third,
continuous program improvement strategies. The branches stem from the tree trunk, the structural
support for the entire tree. In like fashion, SLCs depend on school/building and district-level poli-
cies and practices to support their growth and sustain their operation.
Each domain—and set of SLC practices belonging to it—are described briefl y below and in greater
detail in separate sections of this publication. The effectiveness and implementation of particular
practices depend on the implementation of others, and it is their combined action that mostly likely
produces a meaningful impact. Consequently, as the tree image suggests, it is important to consider
the fi ve areas and the individual practices as pieces of a larger whole.
1. Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Teams
The branches
SLC practice begins with interdisciplinary teaching and learning teams: the fundamental build-
ing blocks of 21st-century schooling. Successful teams occupy the center of not only teaching and
learning, but also program improvement efforts and school- and district-level policy making. Teach-
ers organize themselves into interdisciplinary teams. They also organize around the students the
team shares in common. Team members share time to collaborate on program design, lead learning
activities, and troubleshoot students’ progress over multiple years of study.
The student group is kept small by design, never exceeding more than a few hundred members.
Students come to know each other and their teachers well. That is because SLC teams organize
instruction to gain more instructional time with fewer students and SLC teams stay with students
for more than a year.
2. Rigorous, Relevant Curriculum and Instruction
First leaf cluster
Teaching and learning teams position teachers to form meaningful relationships with students as
well as facilitate a more authentic, active form of student learning. Without the considerable auton-
omy and fl exibility that teaching and learning teams bestow, it is extremely diffi cult for teachers to
design student work that is both challenging and personally meaningful to students.
4
Figure 1: Five Domains of SLC Practice
5
With a large block of time, the interdisciplinary team can organize fi eldwork, involve community
partners, and allow students to go where their questions lead them. Teams can integrate discipline-
based content in learning activities to create program coherence, opportunities for learning content
in different contexts, and connection to real-world issues.
3. Inclusive Program and Practices
Second leaf cluster
Small learning community practice offers a student-centered approach to reducing the achievement
gap that exists among students of different educational, cultural, and social class backgrounds. In
successful SLCs, students choose to enter a particular SLC on the basis of their curricular interests
and irrespective of their history of achievement. SLC teams include educational specialists, col-
laborate with students’ parents, use time and resources fl exibly, and tailor instruction to meet all
students’ needs for mastering challenging curricula.
Ineffective SLCs replicate or even exacerbate existing inequities in educational opportunities.
Regional educational laboratory staff members who monitor implementation of federally funded
SLC projects found that schools often form SLCs around existing honors and Advanced Placement
courses for high-achieving students and programs for at-risk students. They seldom include special
education students in SLC classes. For this reason, implementation of inclusive SLC programs and
practices demands special attention.
4. Continuous Program Improvement
Third leaf cluster
Integral to SLC teaching and learning is the interdisciplinary team members’ inquiry into the
effectiveness of their practices. Descriptions of research-based practices are abstractions of the
activities and routines that teams and students actually follow in schools. The actual activities refl ect
the unique conditions and needs of the particular teams and students involved. Consequently, an
integral part of the work of teacher teams is disciplined refl ection on their practice to ensure that
all students are learning. Teams’ refl ection on practice is never-ending: implementation of curricula
and learning activities requires long-term refi nement and adjustment as conditions and needs are
continually changing. To ensure that students continue to make progress, SLC teams engage in a
continuous cycle of program improvement efforts. Teams assess their practice by analyzing student
work and soliciting feedback from students, parents, and SLC partners.
6
5. Building/District-Level Support for SLCs
The tree trunk
All of the above practices must be supported by building- and district-level structures and policies,
which form the “tree trunk.” Building and district practices constrain what teachers and students
are able to do. For SLCs to fl ourish, the larger school and district must operate in a manner that sup-
ports them. A fundamental requirement for making the kind of adjustments necessary to support
SLCs is to give teachers and their students a major role in decision making.
Ecological Facts of SLC Implementation and Practice
FACT 1. SLC organization and curriculum and instruction are mutually supportive practices,
dependent on one another to realize positive effects on student learning.
Small is not enough is a refrain of small learning community initiatives around the country (Fine &
Somerville, 1998; Wasley et al., 2000). Small size creates the conditions to carry out student work
that is active and collaborative. Small size is not an end in itself. Teachers who lack knowledge of
and training in innovative teaching practices may not be able to envision what comes after creation
of a small community.
The converse is also true. Innovation in curriculum and instruction alone is not suffi cient to
increase student learning. As detailed in the next section, the size of the school community, estab-
lishing an interdisciplinary team, and providing common planning time also matter. Educators,
who are otherwise enlightened about curriculum and instruction, may still underestimate the
importance of the structure within which they work (Cuban, 1986, 1993, 1996). As a result, they
overestimate the extent to which structural reforms have actually been made (Jackson, 1990).
Researchers repeatedly fi nd that implementation of the structural elements of small learning com-
munities is incomplete (Felner et al., 1997; Oxley, 2001). An interdisciplinary team lacks common
planning time or teaches only a few of its classes in the small learning community; a small learning
community has hundreds of students, offers only a few courses, or fails to admit a mix of students.
Such missing structural elements prevent teachers from realizing the fruits of their planned curricu-
lum and instruction improvements.
Signifi cant investments of time, effort, and funds in professional development and curriculum and
instruction planning are needed to transform small communities into small learning communities.
Without implementation of key SLC organizational structures, these investments are quickly dissipa-
ted. Teachers become cynical, reluctant to try again. This is the history of school reform that faculty
members at most any high school can recite.
7
FACT 2. Small learning community practices cannot be fully implemented unless the larger
organization also changes to accommodate the new practices.
An inconvenient fact of small learning communities is that they cannot be simply added on to the
existing school organization (Cook, 2000; Muncey & McQuillan, 1993; Oxley, 2001; Wehlage,
Smith, & Lipman, 1992). The larger school structures and operations limit small learning commu-
nities in three ways:
1. Traditional practices in place at the building level often compete with those in small learning
communities. When administrative, counseling, and special education staff continue to oper-
ate at the school level, they carry out their roles without the intimate knowledge of students
that small learning community staff have. In turn, small learning community staff members are
unable to engage in decision making and student support that maximize their responsiveness to
student needs.
2. The simultaneous operation of old and new forms of school organization is less cost-effi cient
in a time of already inadequate resources. Under these circumstances, fl edgling small learning
communities seldom receive the levels of staff, materials, and space they require to function
optimally. Grants used to establish small learning communities may obscure this fact, but only
until the funds expire.
3. Practices that are inconsistent or contradictory with small learning community practices com-
municate that small learning community practices are exceptions to more general, higher, or
better “laws” governing education. The continued existence of older practices seems to say that
small learning communities constitute a remedy only for certain students (e.g., students who
are low achieving, in transition to high school, or in the last years of high school) or one that is
possible only under special budgetary conditions.
Informing Versus Prescribing SLC Practice
The fi ve domains of research-based practices provide more precise information about the shape of
reforms needed to establish effective small learning communities. They provide guidance, but they
may also seem to threaten practitioners’ spirit of local innovation.
It is important to recognize that the research-based practices identifi ed here are abstractions of the
highly varied practices actually in place in the schools studied. It seems likely that the particularities of
local practice are part of what makes an SLC successful—building on the school’s unique history and
character. In other words, the personalization and local identity of SLC reforms may be as important to
their implementation success as personalization and identity are to students’ academic success.
This publication intends to inform school staffs, not to prescribe their practice. It is a resource for
staff members’ own informed discussions about how to improve their practice.
9
2. Cultivating Effective Small Learning Communities
The Cycle of Continuous Program Improvement: Seven Steps
Implementing effective small learning community practice involves a cyclical process of program
improvement. All quality educational programs require continual reassessment to remain vital.
Moreover, by regularly examining their practice, teachers model openness to learning that is impor-
tant for students to observe and absorb.
Program improvement cycles may be short or long. They can occur on a daily, weekly, quarterly, or
annual basis depending on the desired depth and breadth of review. Regardless, a complete cycle
involves the seven basic steps depicted in Figure 2 and described below.
The tools for following the steps to improvement are included in this section and in the Appendix.
The particular tools to be used at each step are indicated in italics below. A set of tools tailored to
each domain of practice is also included in this publication; go to the Tools tab at the end of each
section to fi nd the set for that domain.
Step 1. Take stock of existing practice
The fi rst step in the continuous improvement cycle is refl ection on practice. Meaningful refl ection
entails critical examination of current activities through a team-based process of describing prac-
tices, reviewing data on their impact, and comparing them to research-based practices.
Self-Assessment in Five Domains. The Self-Assessment in Five Domains tool (Appendix) presents
research-based SLC practices along with three possible ways to implement each practice. The dif-
ferent versions of each practice are arrayed on a fi ve-point scale to indicate their likely impact on
students: low, intermediate, and high.
The tool asks staff to describe existing practice using evidence gathered from those involved,
and then rate its likely impact on the fi ve-point scale. Development of a thorough descrip-
tion—containing information such as number and types of students and staff involved; duration
and sequence of activities; and materials used—is itself a substantive act of review and refl ection.
Adequate description of some practices requires evidence of colleagues’ and students’ perceptions
of the practice. For example, only students can say whether the curriculum is relevant to them, and
only teachers can say whether they have been able to use planning time as they originally intended.
Staff members often gain a different sense of what is taking place when they collectively examine
concrete evidence and consider other colleagues’ or students’ perceptions.
10
Figure 2: Continuous Improvement Cycle
11
Even if staff members have not yet implemented SLCs per se, they most likely use practices related
to those in each of the fi ve SLC domains and can compare them to the latter.
Example: Staff members may currently have in place language arts/social studies blocks. They can
compare these instructional blocks to the SLC practice of organizing a team of teachers of language
arts, social studies, math, and science around a shared group of students.
Example: Staff members may have planning time but only for individual teacher preparation and
academic area collaboration. They can compare these to the SLC practice of providing common
planning time for interdisciplinary team members.
Step 2. Identify gaps between existing and desired practice
Describing and rating existing practice relative to a research-based standard helps to clarify the gap
between existing and desired practice. It also helps staff members identify what needs to be done to
close the gap. The Identify Gaps tool (page 12) asks staff members to identify what is needed beyond
what is already in place to realize best practices in each domain.
Descriptions of each best practice may point out to staff additional needs for improvement. The
task is to describe the needs as fully as possible before beginning to identify particular programs
or techniques that might be adopted to meet these needs. In this way, staff can avoid latching onto
“solutions” that incompletely address the true extent of needs. For example, in order for teachers
to teach more than half their classes in their SLC, a Teaching and Learning Team best practice, they
may need to teach three instead of two classes in their SLC. But a related need may be to increase
teachers’ commitment to or appreciation for the SLC approach and/or ability to teach some of the
content they enjoyed teaching outside the SLC inside it.
Step 3. Generate and study strategies to adopt
Analyze Strategies To Adopt. Identifying the gaps between existing and desired practice leads to
the next step of generating and studying one or more approaches to closing the gap. The Analyze
Strategies to Adopt tool (page 13) asks staff members to generate specifi c strategies that staff could
adopt to meet identifi ed needs for improvement. For each strategy, staff then needs to describe:
1. Strengths, including the needs it addresses
2. Existing school strengths or uniqueness on which the strategy builds
3. Resource requirements
4. Needs for change or adjustment in other areas of school operation to accommodate the strategy
Care should be taken again to describe as fully as possible the form strategies will take on the ground.
Including details of students and staff involved, materials needed, and location of activities allows staff
12
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eD
omai
n of
Pra
ctic
e
Best
Prac
tice #
1
Best
Prac
tice #
2
Best
Prac
tice #
3
Best
Prac
tice #
4
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
13
Anal
yze
stra
tegi
es t
o ad
opt
Dom
ain
of P
ract
ice
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Desc
riptio
n
of str
ategie
s
Need
s tha
t it ad
dres
ses
and o
ther s
treng
ths
Scho
ol str
ength
s, un
iquen
ess
it buil
ds on
Profe
ssion
al de
velop
ment
and r
esou
rce re
quire
ments
Need
for c
hang
e, ad
justm
ent
in oth
er ar
eas o
f the s
choo
l
14
members to make a more informed decision about what strategy to adopt. The Self-Assessment in Five Domains
tool (see Appendix) and other research documents provide a general idea of what the practice should
involve, but these examples are only abstractions of the specifi c approaches that each school takes.
After staff members generate strategies under each approach, they need to identify the strengths of
each approach. Of primary importance is whether the approach meets needs listed on the Identify
Gaps form. Other strengths could include benefi ts to stakeholders, in addition to students, or how
consistent the approach is with other reforms being made in the school.
Another category of strengths to consider is how the particular approach builds on the existing
strengths and unique qualities of the school, district, students, and community. Staff members’
ability to link new strategies with the existing identity and achievements of the school ensures that
existing strengths are recognized and maintained, as well as increasing the likelihood that staff and
stakeholders will support adopted practices.
In order to consider each approach fully, staff members also must identify what resources and
what changes or adjustments in other areas of the school will be needed to adopt the particular
approach. Each set of strategies will have its own set of resource requirements including person-
nel, professional development, materials, and facilities. Some strategies may also necessitate making
changes in other areas of the school’s program or operations to support the new practice or ensure
consistency. Changes in other areas of operation may point to the need for additional resources to
accomplish this.
Step 4. Develop consensus for adopting strategies
After studying the strengths and implementation requirements of each identifi ed set of strategies,
staff members are in a good position to make decisions about adopting a particular set. Discussion
of what is to be gained from each approach—as well as what will be required—should begin to
clarify support for and opposition to each approach. Further clarifi cation, study, and discussion may
be needed before staff members can reach agreement. Time devoted to reaching agreement may be
gained back through more successful implementation efforts. On the other hand, postponing adop-
tion of reforms must be weighed against the costs of student underachievement.
Staff leaders should master consensus-building techniques as a skill integral to continuous program
improvement.
Step 5. Devise implementation plan
Implement the Plan. To guide and help sustain implementation of chosen strategies, staff members
need to develop a plan that specifi es the key activities that will take place in order to achieve
successful implementation. The previous analysis of the resource needs and barriers to implemen-
15
tation often points to actions needed to support implementation of a given strategy. These actions
should be included in the implementation plan. Details to be included on the Implement the Plan tool
(page 16) in an implementation plan are: Who will be involved in activities? Who will take
responsibility for seeing they occur? When will they take place? The plan provides a ready refer-
ence for staff members, as well as a tool for later refl ection on the planning process.
Step 6. Develop plan to monitor implementation
Staff members need to assess on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of their efforts to improve prac-
tice. As part of their self-assessment, staff members may need to maintain records of their own and
students’ work; construct simple tools for gathering input from students and other stakeholders;
administer annual student and/or parent surveys; and arrange for school records of student charac-
teristics, attendance, and achievement to be disaggregated by the learning community.
To sustain these data collection activities, staff members must make them a part of their regular
school routine as opposed to a special task that occurs at a special time outside the fl ow of other
school activities. District personnel and external evaluators may assist staff members in collecting
and analyzing data and in establishing routines that minimize the time and effort needed to do so.
However, it is important that staff members own these routines and can easily accommodate them
in the context of common planning periods and days.
Gauge Success. As a guide to data collection, the Gauge Success tool (page 17) asks staff members to
identify:
1. Specifi c, measurable objectives of reforms
2. How objectives will be measured
3. When objectives will be measured
Written statements of objectives also provide stakeholders with a clear rationale for reforms.
Reform objectives should relate to both student learning and staff practice. Staff members may also
fi nd it helpful to specify more immediate as well as longer-range objectives of reforms. Articulat-
ing early indicators of the success of reforms—such as whether students fi nd learning activities
meaningful and challenging—gives staff members more information about what aspects of reform
are working and what may be infl uencing student achievement outcomes.
Student learning remains the bottom-line indication of whether reforms are successful or not.
Student attendance and engagement in schoolwork are instrumental to learning. The summary of
research on practices identifi ed in each SLC domain describes relationships between practices and
outcomes. In general, rigorous, relevant curriculum and instruction appear to enhance student
engagement and learning. Inclusive programs and practices appear to do the same, as well as narrow
the learning gap among students of different income and ethnic groups.
16
Impl
emen
t th
e Pl
anD
omai
n of
Pra
ctic
e
WHO
will
tak
e..
wha
t AC
TION
S to
impl
emen
t ad
opte
d st
rate
gies
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r M
ay
June
Ju
ly
Aug
17
Gaug
e Su
cces
sH
ow w
e w
ill kn
ow if
we
impl
emen
ted
Dom
ain
of P
ract
ice
succ
essf
ully
?
Stud
ent
lear
ning
and
pro
gram
impl
emen
tatio
n ob
ject
ives
Ho
w o
bjec
tives
will
be
mea
sure
d Ho
w o
ften
/whe
n to
col
lect
dat
a
18
For each expected outcome specifi ed, staff members should identify the measures they will use to
gauge outcomes and when data collection will occur. This exercise helps staff members anticipate
the kinds of data they may need to collect during the course of their work rather than at the end.
In addition, the task of identifying measures of outcomes forces staff members to reach agreement
about what constitutes an appropriate measure. Discussion of what legitimate measures are also
helps clarify staff members’ notions about expected outcomes and may lead to rethinking them.
Data collection activities should be included in the implementation plan.
Step 7. Implement plan
Staff members implement the plan of activities and note adjustments in what was carried out by
whom and when. Staff members consult the plan routinely to ensure that activities are completed,
especially tasks such as data collection that may get lost in the day-to-day press of teaching.
How To Pursue Continuous Program Improvement: Working the Steps
Developing highly functioning and effective learning communities is diffi cult work that is never fi n-
ished. For that reason, it is extremely important for staff to establish productive continuous program
improvement routines and structures. A key question then is how to accommodate continuous impro-
vement within the press of ongoing school activities. Here are some specifi c strategies to consider:
Take inventory of all existing school improvement projects. Before school leaders begin any
continuous improvement process, they should identify all existing school improvement projects,
partners, and funds. The aim of taking inventory of all school improvement activities is to develop
consistent objectives across projects and combine funds wherever possible to create and pursue a
coherent program of school improvement. Increasing overlap among projects will greatly enhance
overall progress toward school improvement.
During any given year schools may be involved in a number of different school improvement activi-
ties. Different school staff members may be assigned to different projects with the following results:
staff members do not know about what activities others are pursuing; different groups compete for
the same resources, including administrative support and adequate numbers of staff to plan and carry
out work. Worst of all, groups develop programs and reforms that are at odds with each other. For
example, academic department leaders work on implementing standards-based reforms while SLC
teams create integrated curricula for small learning communities. Because no cross-collaboration
occurs, the reforms confl ict with each other and give the appearance of inherent incompatibility.
Confl icting camps develop as some staff members support one type of reform and others another.
School reform efforts often proceed along different channels when, in fact, they share the same
general objectives. Staff must make a concerted effort to ensure that reform initiatives mutu-
19
ally enhance one another and that each contributes to an overarching, shared vision of effective
schooling.
Create time to collaborate. Adopt a school schedule that provides for early release or late start days
on a regular basis. Planning grants compensate school staff members for the extra time they spend
planning, but if the school schedule does not also accommodate routine staff collaboration, plan-
ning grants create an artifi cial set of conditions that evaporate at the end of the grant.
Reallocate some of the existing time meted out to department and full faculty meetings to small
work groups with the charge of studying and making recommendations about school reform.
Allow them to report out to one another regularly via e-mail and in person.
Create small groups to work on different areas of reform. Whole-school reform is too large and
complex an undertaking to assign to a single group of staff members. Consider creating a small
work group of four to six people to study developing and implementing strategies within each of
the fi ve domains of SLC practice. Each group could direct its work to answering an essential ques-
tion related to its domain of SLC practice:
• Interdisciplinary teaching and learning teams: How can we maximize interdisciplinary teams’ time, support, and flexibility to work together and with their students?
• Rigorous, relevant curriculum and instruction: How can we make curriculum and instruction more authentic, coherent, and challenging to students?
• Inclusive program and practices: How can we create inclusive instructional groups based on student interest and provide adequate support for all students in these groups to meet high standards for learning?
• Continuous program improvement: What procedures, tools, and partners do interdisciplinary teams need to pursue continuous improvement of their SLC?
• Building and district support: What building and district-level policies and practices need to be alig-ned and reformulated to maximize support for the operation of SLCs?
Include diverse stakeholders as members of each group. Study groups should be interdisciplinary
and include students, parents, community members, administrators, counselors, and other school staff
members. Considerations for diversity must not overwhelm the need to keep groups to four to six
members. Devote attention to supporting participation of students, parents, and community members
who may fi nd it less convenient to attend than do school staff members. Advance agendas, telephone/
e-mail reminders of meeting dates, and refreshments at meetings may strengthen attendance.
Employ group collaboration strategies designed to optimize discussion and build consensus.
Numerous strategies have been developed to facilitate productive groupwork. Many schools use
them routinely. They prove their worth. They make it possible to balance leadership with broad
20
participation in decision making, and speed and effi ciency with careful, systematic study of the
issues. Some useful strategies included in Tools in this section can help the group:
• Keep on track. Group leaders can and should assemble an agenda for each meeting before-
hand but then solicit items at the meeting from other group members. Group members can
also weigh in on how much time they want to spend on each item or whether to reserve
discussion of particular items for another meeting. The group may wish to have a member
with good group facilitation skills facilitate meetings. The group facilitator functions only
to keep the meeting on track and refrains from participating in discussions.
• Build consensus. Group leaders can ask group members to indicate their level of agree-
ment on issues at several points in the discussion to determine whether the group needs to
discuss an issue further or is ready to vote. Fist-to-five voting (one finger means complete
agreement and five means complete disagreement) allows group members to indicate how
far away from agreement they are without engaging in lengthy explanations.
• Encourage openness. Group leaders can quickly surface members’ sentiments about an
item in question by asking all members to express what they’re thinking or feeling briefly
without explanation or detail.
• Encourage thinking outside the box. Group leaders can ask members to brainstorm ideas
and solutions with the goal of generating as many as possible without consideration for
feasibility or acceptance. Analysis and judgment of the items can be reserved for a later
time.
Closely inspect data. It’s diffi cult sometimes to make sense of data. They may not be arranged in
an optimal form. They may not speak directly to the point, and they do not speak for themselves.
It is very important for group members to spend time closely inspecting the data before drawing
conclusions. To facilitate thorough consideration of data, group members should fi rst:
1. Ask questions about the nature of the data; for example, ask how they were collected and calcu-
lated
2. Note what they see in the data and what the data may show
Exchange work with other groups to broaden input. As pointed out in the fi rst section of this
guide, the success of practices in one domain is connected with practices in other domains. Study
groups cannot work in isolation from one another for very long. At regular intervals, groups should
summarize their discussion points and conclusions and share summaries in writing and in person
with the other groups. Each group should invite the other groups’ questions and suggestions, note
their input, and directly address it in the next round of work.
21
3. Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning TeamsBest Practices Checklist:
� SLC interdisciplinary team (or teams)
organized around no more than a few
hundred students
� Interdisciplinary team remains with students
for multiple years of study
� Teachers have more than half-time
assignment to SLC
� Interdisciplinary team has common
planning time
� Interdisciplinary team actively collaborates
on curriculum, instruction, and student
progress
� Building space is suffi cient to create a home
base for collaboration
In a nutshell
Why These Practices Are Essential Research and exemplary SLCs demonstrate…
…that the size of the learning community affects the quality of students’ relationships with peers
and teachers and ultimately students’ educational outcomes. In smaller schools students are more
likely to form relationships that bind them to school, and teachers are better able to identify and
respond to students’ needs. Small learning communities are maximally effective when interdisci-
plinary team members share students in common and are thereby able to pool their knowledge of
students, communicate consistent messages, and create coherent instructional programs. Common
planning time is essential for team collaboration. Team collaboration heightens teachers’ shared
sense of responsibility for students’ learning. Teams that instruct most of their classes in the SLC
avoid confl icts with teaching responsibilities outside the team that might make team collaboration
and the scheduling of common planning time diffi cult. Dedicated building space also facilitates
team collaboration and in addition reinforces students’ identifi cation with the SLC.
22
In detail
Why These Practices Are Essential
SLC interdisciplinary team (or teams) is organized around no more than a few hundred students
SLC interdisciplinary team. The central feature of a high-functioning SLC is an interdisciplin-
ary team (or teams) of teachers who work closely together with a group of students they share in
common for instruction. Traditional schools organize teachers around subject areas. SLCs organize
teachers across subject areas to create a more student-centered form of schooling. Researchers fi nd
that SLC teachers enjoy greater interdisciplinary collaboration and consensus (Oxley, 1997b) and
instructional leadership, including program coordination (Wasley et al., 2000) than teachers in
traditional schools.
No more than a few hundred students. Decades of research on school size provide substantial
evidence that smaller high schools are associated with more favorable student outcomes than larger
high schools (Cotton, 2001; Gladden, 1998). Smaller high schools have unmistakably greater hold-
ing power: students are less likely to drop out, more likely to attend, and more likely to participate
in school activities (Lindsay, 1982; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). Smaller high schools experience
less student disorder and violence (Garbarino, 1978; Gottfredson, 1985; Haller, 1992).
And smaller high schools—despite having a more restricted set of curricular offerings—are associated
with greater academic achievement (Fowler & Walberg, 1991) although the fi ndings are more mixed.
Recent more precise analysis has been able to tease out the effect of size from that of other factors that
vary with school size. This research points out that smaller high schools are not only associated with
higher achievement but greater equity in achievement (Lee & Smith, 1995). That is, the achievement
gap usually found among students of different ethnicities is reduced in smaller high schools.
Exactly how small should a small learning community be? This is obviously one of the central
questions in establishing small learning communities. One study of high schools—not small learn-
ing communities—suggests that a size of 600 is an appropriate target (Lee & Smith, 1997). But
this fi nding pertains to schools with traditional curriculum and instruction organization. It is also
inconsistent with a basic premise of small learning communities—that all members of the com-
munity know each other— since it is impossible for teachers to know even the names of more than
500 students (Panel on Youth, 1973).
Small learning community practice counsels smaller schools of 200–400 (Cook, 2000; Fine, 1994).
Nationally, some of the most successful small learning communities have as few as 100 students
(Ancess, 1995). This size is comparable to Coalition of Essential Schools (Sizer, 1992) and National
Association of Secondary School Principals (1996) recommendations that teachers instruct approxi-
mately 90 students at any one time.
23
These recommended small numbers of students derive from seemingly minimum standards for
teaching effectively: teachers are able to get to know students’needs and interests and to provide
frequent, individualized responses to student work.
Students remain with their team for multiple years
Small learning communities that have attained national prominence on the basis of their students’
success encompass the entire four years of high school study (Cook, 2000; Meier, 1995). Com-
mon to prominent high school reform models that have also proven successful are small learning
communities that extend across at least two years of study (http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us; Legters,
Balfanz, & McPartland, 2002).
A mechanism of this success may be the cross-grade coherence and consistency of the academic
program (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001a, b; Wasley et al., 2000). Students are
more likely to learn when new material builds on their prior knowledge (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 1999). Moreover, students are more motivated to learn when teachers peg academic
challenge just ahead of students’ level of competence (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993).
Teachers in multiyear SLCs can use the knowledge they gain about students in one year to shape
their subsequent learning experiences (Fine & Somerville, 1998). A second mechanism of these
successful multiyear SLCs may be that they promote connections between older, more compe-
tent peer role models and younger students, another factor shown to enhance learning (Benard,
1990; Fazio & Ural, 1995).
Research indicates that small unit organization confi ned to just the ninth-grade level, as in interven-
tions designed to ease students’ transition to high school, has “positive though modest effects on
students’ academic outcomes” (Quint, Miller, Pastor, & Cytron, 1999). These researchers concluded
that broader intervention was required. The “Talent Development High School” model, which com-
bines a ninth-grade Success Academy with 10th- through 12th-grade career academies, employs a
separate transition year unit subdivided into smaller groupings and a specially designed curriculum.
Ninth-graders in this model passed state exams in some areas and were promoted at higher rates
than before the academy was implemented (McPartland, Balfanz, Jordan, & Legters, 1998).
However, other research suggests that the Talent Development model may not be as effective as con-
tinuous 9th- through 12th-grade small learning communities (Oxley, Croninger, & DeGroot, 2000).
Researchers who compared ninth-graders in a Success Academy with those in a comparable school
organized into 9th- through 12th-grade SLCs reported that Success Academy students disliked being
separated from the advanced students while ninth-graders in the 9th- through 12th-grade SLCs val-
ued upper level students for “setting examples for the younger ones” and “show(ing) us around.”
In addition, high teacher turnover emerged as an enduring problem in the ninth-grade Success
Academy unlike in the 9th- through 12th-grade SLCs where teachers also taught students at other
grade levels and found satisfaction in seeing students mature into graduating seniors.
24
Schools that offer themed initial 9th- through 10th-grade and advanced 11th- through 12th-grade
SLCs or career pathways (Allen, 2001; Legters et al., 2002) postpone transition to advanced SLCs
until students reach 11th grade. In these two-year SLCs, teachers can still capitalize on knowledge
of students from one year to the next (instead of having to start afresh with each new entering class
of students) and can employ upper grade students as role models. In addition, this model increases
student choice and opportunities for exploration.
It is key that students advance to upper level SLCs of some kind and not to a traditionally structured
school. Failure to reorganize the upper grades communicates that staff is not persuaded that SLCs
represent a more effective form of schooling, appropriate for advanced students as well as those with
special needs such as transition or remediation (Allen, 2001; Ready, Lee, & LoGerfo, 2000). Most often
under these circumstances, lower grade SLCs also suffer from lack of full implementation.
SLC team members instruct more than half their class load in the SLC
In the most successful learning communities, teachers instruct all (Cook, 2000; Meier, 1995) or at
least most of their classes within their SLC (http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us).
Teachers who divide their time between their SLC and classes outside their SLC run the risk of short-
changing their SLC’s requirements for collaboration. Successful small learning communities devote
regular time to student advisement, curriculum planning, and collaboration on problems of practice
in addition to individual teacher preparation. At Urban Academy, a U.S. Department of Education Blue
Ribbon School of Excellence and small learning community of just 100 students, teachers devote one
hour/week to student advisement, two-and-a-half hours every two weeks to curriculum planning, and
three hours/week to a staff meeting—a total of more than fi ve hours/week on average (Ancess, 1995).
Practically speaking, it is diffi cult for teachers to dedicate this much time to a small learning
community when it is not their primary commitment. In addition, the more classes SLC teachers
instruct outside their SLC, the more diffi cult it is to schedule common planning time for SLC teams.
SLC team shares planning time in common
Common planning time facilitates collaboration among interdisciplinary team members. Research
frequently identifi es common planning time as a feature of successful teaming and academic pro-
grams linked to positive student outcomes (Felner et al., 1997; McPartland et al., 1998; Newmann
et al., 2001a, b; Oxley, 1997b). It is a nearly constant item on short lists of SLC practices necessary
for maintaining a focus on instructional improvements (for example, www.nwrel.org/scpd/sslc/
elements.shtml).
Among successful small learning communities, common planning time comes during shared
preparation periods during the school day (http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us), a single late start or
25
early release day each week, or a block of time during which students leave school to do com-
munity-based service/study (Meier, 1995). Common planning time does not guarantee improved
teaching and learning, however. Teams must devote this time to curriculum and instruction plan-
ning and problemsolving that increase program coherence and academic challenge (Newmann et
al., 2001a, b).
Teacher team actively collaborates on curriculum, instruction, and student progress
SLC teacher teams that spend common preparation time actively discussing and planning cur-
riculum and instruction improvements, as well as troubleshooting student progress, contribute to
small learning communities’ effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Ort, 2002; Oxley, 1997b;
Wasley et al., 2000).
Successful small learning communities do not appear to depend on extraordinary individuals as
much as on regular collaboration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Wasley et al., 2000). Collegial
exchange among team members serves to broaden input and deepen consideration of the educa-
tional problems they face. Ancess’ (1995) description of a problem-solving session held by the staff
of a successful SLC provides a compelling illustration of a school that learns (Senge et al., 2000).
Sharing ideas and observing each other’s work provides an effective form of professional develop-
ment by expanding individual members’ teaching repertoires and socializing new team members
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2002).
Team members’ collaboration also engenders a sense of shared responsibility for their students’ suc-
cess (Wasley et al., 2000). Teams able to pull together in the same direction across disciplines and
grades felt more effi cacious and committed to students’ ongoing learning than teachers working in
traditional schools.
Building space is suffi cient to create a home base for SLC collaboration
Physical proximity of the SLC interdisciplinary team’s classrooms is a requirement for effective
small learning community functioning.
Research repeatedly fi nds that physical proximity is instrumental to key small learning community
functions. Physical proximity of teachers’ classrooms facilitates teacher collaboration (Christman,
Cohen, & Macpherson, 1997; Wasley et al., 2000), promotes interaction among teachers and stu-
dents (Ancess, 1995; Oxley, 1990), and helps to establish a separate identity and sense of commu-
nity among members (Raywid, 1996).
Small learning communities may make do with a single, large classroom or pair of adjacent class-
rooms. However, teacher collaboration and students’ identifi cation with their SLC will likely suffer.
The inability to designate more adequate space may also refl ect a lack of schoolwide commitment
26
to SLCs and the need to make painful adjustments to optimize their functioning. Other SLC require-
ments are likely to be compromised as well.
In contrast, SLCs that provide a space where teachers and students can interact before and after class
generate a feeling of belonging and a clear sense that teachers care about students: “… students
learn that a school can be both educational and personal” (Ancess, 1995, p. 8).
27
1. Interdisciplin
ary Te
aching
and
Learning Te
ams
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am(s
) sha
res
no m
ore
than
a fe
w h
undr
ed s
tude
nts
in c
omm
on fo
r ins
truc
tion
SLC
is c
ompo
sed
of a
facu
lty th
at w
orks
wit
h 40
0 or
few
er s
tude
nts;
cla
sses
con
tain
som
e st
uden
ts
who
do
not b
elon
g to
the
SLC.
SLC
is c
ompo
sed
of a
n in
terd
isci
plin
ary
team
(s)
that
wor
ks w
ith
trad
itio
nal c
lass
load
of
150–
180
stud
ents
; SLC
cla
sses
con
tain
onl
y st
uden
ts w
ho
belo
ng to
the
SLC.
SLC
is c
ompo
sed
of a
n in
terd
isci
plin
ary
team
(s)
that
wor
ks e
xclu
sive
ly w
ith
90–1
20 s
tude
nts.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
28
Stud
ents
rem
ain
wit
h th
eir
teac
her
team
for
onl
y on
e ye
ar.
Stud
ents
rem
ain
wit
h th
eir
teac
her
team
for
two
year
s an
d in
SLC
s fo
r fo
ur y
ears
; tea
ms
loop
wit
h st
uden
ts o
r pr
ovid
e m
ulti
grad
e cl
asse
s.
Stud
ents
rem
ain
wit
h th
eir
teac
her
team
for
two
or m
ore
year
s an
d in
one
SLC
for
fou
r ye
ars;
9–1
0 an
d 11
–12
or 9
–12
team
s lo
op w
ith
stud
ents
or
prov
ide
mul
tigr
ade
clas
ses.
Team
s an
d th
eir s
tude
nts
rem
ain
toge
ther
for m
ultip
le y
ears
of s
tudy
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
29
Team
mem
bers
hav
e m
ore
than
hal
f-tim
e as
sign
men
t to
SLC
SLC
teac
hers
inst
ruct
hal
f or
few
er o
f th
eir
clas
ses
in
the
SLC
and
hav
e m
ulti
ple
com
mit
men
ts.
SLC
teac
hers
inst
ruct
mor
e th
an h
alf
of th
eir
clas
ses
in th
e SL
C, w
hich
is th
eir
prim
ary
com
mit
men
t.SL
C te
ache
rs in
stru
ct a
ll th
eir
clas
ses
in th
e SL
C, w
hich
is
thei
r pr
imar
y af
fi lia
tion
and
prof
essi
onal
iden
tity.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
30
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am m
embe
rs h
ave
com
mon
pla
nnin
g tim
e
Mos
t tea
m m
embe
rs s
hare
in c
omm
on s
ever
al
prep
arat
ion
peri
ods/
wee
k.A
ll te
am m
embe
rs s
hare
in c
omm
on s
ever
al p
repa
ra-
tion
peri
ods/
wee
k w
ith p
rovi
sion
s fo
r so
me
exte
nded
bl
ocks
of t
ime
(e.g
., pr
ep b
ack-
to-b
ack
with
lunc
h).
All
team
mem
bers
sha
re c
omm
on p
rep
peri
ods/
wee
k w
ith
prov
isio
n fo
r ex
tend
ed b
lock
s of
tim
e (e
.g.,
doub
le p
erio
d an
d ea
rly
rele
ase/
late
sta
rt d
ays.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
31
Team
s us
e pl
anni
ng ti
me
mos
tly to
talk
abo
ut in
di-
vidu
al s
tude
nts.
Team
s us
e ti
me
to ta
lk a
bout
indi
vidu
al s
tude
nts
and
plan
SLC
eve
nts.
Team
s us
e ti
me
to p
lan
curr
icul
um a
nd le
arni
ng
acti
viti
es a
nd d
iscu
ss s
tude
nts.
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am m
embe
rs c
olla
bora
te o
n cu
rric
ulum
, ins
truc
tion,
stu
dent
pro
gres
s
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
32
Bui
ldin
g sp
ace
suffi
cien
t to
crea
te h
ome
base
for c
olla
bora
tion
One
SLC
teac
her
has
a la
rge
clas
sroo
m o
r tw
o SL
C
teac
hers
hav
e ad
jace
nt c
lass
room
s to
use
as
a ho
me
base
.
Seve
ral o
f th
e SL
C te
ache
rs u
se p
roxi
mal
or
adja
cent
cl
assr
oom
s as
a h
ome
base
.A
ll SL
C te
am m
embe
rs h
ave
cont
iguo
us c
lass
room
s an
d of
fi ce/
mee
ting
spa
ce th
at e
xpre
ss th
e SL
C’s
iden
tity
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
33
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eIn
terd
isci
plin
ary
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
team
bes
t pra
ctic
es
Inter
discip
linar
y tea
m sh
ares
no m
ore t
han a
few
hund
red s
tuden
ts in
comm
on
Stud
ents
rema
in wi
th the
ir tea
m for
mult
iple
year
s of s
tudy
Inter
discip
linar
y tea
ms
of tea
cher
s ins
truct
more
than
half t
heir
class
es in
SLC
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
34
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eIn
terd
isci
plin
ary
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
team
bes
t pra
ctic
es
Inter
discip
linar
y tea
ms
of tea
cher
s hav
e co
mmon
plan
ning t
ime
Inter
discip
linar
y tea
m co
llabo
rates
on cu
rric-
ulum,
instr
uctio
n, an
d stu
dent
prog
ress
Build
ing sp
ace i
s su
ffi cien
t to cr
eate
a h
omeb
ase f
or S
LC
colla
bora
tion
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
35
Anal
yze
stra
tegi
es t
o ad
opt
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
achi
ng a
nd le
arni
ng te
am b
est p
ract
ices
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Desc
riptio
n
of str
ategie
s
Need
s tha
t it ad
dres
ses
and o
ther s
treng
ths
Scho
ol str
ength
s, un
iquen
ess
it buil
ds on
Profe
ssion
al de
velop
ment
and
resou
rce re
quire
ments
Need
for c
hang
e, ad
justm
ent
in oth
er ar
eas o
f the s
choo
l
36
Impl
emen
t th
e Pl
anIn
terd
isci
plin
ary
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
team
bes
t pra
ctic
es
WHO
will
tak
e..
wha
t AC
TION
S to
impl
emen
t ad
opte
d st
rate
gies
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r M
ay
June
Ju
ly
Aug
37
Gaug
e Su
cces
sH
ow w
e w
ill kn
ow if
we
impl
emen
ted
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y Te
achi
ng a
nd L
earn
ing
Team
s su
cces
sful
ly?
Stud
ent
lear
ning
and
pro
gram
impl
emen
tatio
n ob
ject
ives
Ho
w o
bjec
tives
will
be
mea
sure
d Ho
w o
ften
/whe
n to
col
lect
dat
a
39
4. Rigorous, Relevant Curriculum and Instruction
Best Practices Checklist:
� Interdisciplinary curriculum organized
around topics of interest to students and
essential skills/knowledge
� Rigorous, standards-based curriculum
� Minimum half-day block of instruction
� Collaboration with community partners
� Active, authentic student inquiry
In a nutshell
Why These Practices Are Essential
Research and exemplary SLCs demonstrate…
...authentic pedagogy involving active student inquiry into real-world problems with requirements
for in-depth study and critical evaluation of information is associated with higher student achieve-
ment than traditional curriculum and instruction. SLCs with documented success are those that
have created engaging interdisciplinary curricula through collaboration with community-based
partners and at the same time established high standards for student profi ciency in key discipline-
based content areas. The most powerful programs encompass at least half the student’s instructional
day and more than one year of study. Interdisciplinary teacher collaboration on curriculum and
instruction increases the program’s coherence and opportunities to reinforce essential skills and
knowledge across multiple contexts.
40
In detail
Why These Practices Are Essential
Interdisciplinary curriculum organized around topics of interest to students and essential skills and knowledge
A distinguishing attribute of successful small learning communities is a curriculum that has
relevance to the world outside school and personal meaning for students. Recent research indicates
that relevant student learning experiences are not incompatible with a rigorous curriculum. AIR
& SRI International (2005) found that teacher assignments in new, small schools were both more
rigorous and relevant in small schools than in comprehensive high schools used for comparison.
Most rigorous assignments were also relevant.
At a minimum, effective small learning community programs include interdisciplinary content
to give students opportunities to explore topics within authentic contexts not limited by the
boundaries of academic disciplines. Curricular themes, career interests (Legters et al., 2002;
McPartland et al., 1998), and cross-disciplinary inquiry (Ancess, 1995; Meier, 1995) create
meaningful connections among courses. Courses integrate college and career preparation (Little,
Erbstein, & Walker, 1996) and blend classical studies with multicultural content and students’ own
lives and interests (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002).
A critical ingredient of an interdisciplinary program is coherence. Cross-subject as well as cross-
grade teacher collaboration are essential vehicles of program coherence (Newmann et al., 2001a,b;
Wasley et al., 2000). Research on learning and cognitive development (Bransford et al., 1999;
Caine & Caine, 1991) indicates that coherence and consistency in academic programs allow
students to incorporate new understandings into prior knowledge and to alter prior knowledge
when necessary. Coherent programs give students recurrent opportunities to practice and to apply
knowledge and skills in new contexts.
Rigorous, standards-based curriculum
Holding all students to high standards to ensure educational equity and access to postsecondary
education and jobs is a centerpiece of all current major school reform initiatives (Legters et al., 2002),
including the creation of small schools and small learning communities (Fine & Somerville, 1998).
Successful small learning communities establish standards for student profi ciency that agree with the
community’s goals and values and at the same time equal or exceed state standards (Ancess, 1995).
In practical terms, holding high standards for academic achievement means offering a strong core
curriculum to all students (Sizer, 1992). To accomplish this, staff must fi rst eliminate academic tracks
and courses that water down content (www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/background/brochure.asp) and
provide support suffi cient to enable all students to access the core curriculum (Weinstein, 1996).
41
SLC encompasses at least a half-day block of students’ instructional day
Small schools advocates argue that students’ entire school day must be organized within their small
learning community in order to give teachers the degree of autonomy and fl exibility they need to
be responsive to students (Fine & Somerville, 1998).
Research shows that small units that encompass half the instructional day have favorable effects on
students’ sense of community and academic achievement (Felner & Adan, 1988; Felner et al., 1997;
McMullan, Sipe, & Wolf, 1994; Oxley, 1990, 1997b). In all cases, the half-day arrangement included
courses in four core academic disciplines. Students in half-day units were assessed relative to those
in no unit or units organized around only one or two classes; they were not compared to students
in all-day units. Consequently, it is not possible to say how much stronger the effect of an all-day
arrangement may be.
What is clear from both research and practice is that students register much less sense of commu-
nity from a two-course block such as the language arts/social studies blocks frequently found in
high schools (Oxley, 1990; Oxley et al., 2000). Moreover, teachers report that splitting up the SLC
block of classes among classes outside the community also diminishes the small learning communi-
ty’s impact.
SLC teachers collaborate with community partners
Teachers in successful small learning communities create collaborative relationships with commu-
nity partners. Teachers work with community partners to design curricula grounded in real-world
work and service (Ancess, 1995). Community partners enable teachers to extend classwork into
community contexts related to the topics and problems under study (Allen, 2001).
Collaboration with community partners also presents opportunities to conduct more authentic
assessment of student work by including outside experts in the review process (Ancess, 1995).
Community partner participation is also vital to teachers’ refl ection on their own work and con-
tinuous program improvement efforts (Christman et al., 1997). Community partners can be an
important source of outside, yet informed, opinion about the SLC program.
Students engage in active, authentic inquiry
Students in successful small learning communities actively explore topics, problems, and questions
and produce authentic demonstrations of their knowledge (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Meier,
1995; Oxley, 1997b).
SLC students play an active role in designing and carrying out academic work. They help teach-
ers identify problems to study, questions to research, books to read, and methods of demonstrat-
42
ing their knowledge and understanding (Ancess, 1995; Meier, 1995). They work individually and
collaboratively using class conversations to express and revise their thinking. They work inside class-
rooms and in the community alongside individuals with authentic expertise in the problem area
under study. SLC students frequently engage in project-based learning that requires them to collect
and critically analyze information, defend their conclusions, and make in-depth oral and written
presentations of their fi ndings (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Meier, 1995; Wasley et al., 2000).
Research fi nds that student work that involves this active mode of acquiring knowledge—authentic
pedagogy—is linked to heightened student achievement (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1995a, b).
43
2. Rigorou
s, R
elevan
t Curric
ulum
and
Instru
ction
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y cu
rric
ulum
org
aniz
ed a
roun
d to
pics
of i
nter
est t
o st
uden
ts a
nd e
ssen
tial s
kills
/kno
wle
dge
Stud
ents
par
tici
pate
in S
LC th
eme-
base
d fi e
ld tr
ips
and
clas
s ac
tivi
ties
in th
eir
regu
lar
curr
icul
um.
Stud
ents
do
seve
ral t
hem
e-ba
sed
inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y pr
ojec
ts/y
ear
in th
e re
gula
r cu
rric
ulum
and
lear
n es
sent
ial c
onte
nt a
nd s
kills
acr
oss
diff
eren
t cla
sses
.
Stud
ents
lear
n es
sent
ial s
kills
/kno
wle
dge
thro
ugh
a la
rgel
y in
tegr
ated
cou
rse
of s
tudy
org
aniz
ed b
y to
p-ic
s/th
emes
of
inte
rest
to a
dole
scen
ts a
nd r
elev
ant t
o th
eir
cultu
ral b
ackg
roun
d.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
44
SLC
pro
gram
mee
ts h
igh
stan
dard
s th
roug
h cl
asse
s or
gani
zed
arou
nd a
cade
mic
dis
cipl
ines
and
thei
r as
soci
ated
sta
ndar
ds.
SLC
pro
gram
mee
ts h
igh
stan
dard
s th
roug
h in
terd
isci
plin
ary
clas
ses
that
map
ont
o as
soci
ated
st
anda
rds.
SLC
est
ablis
hes
stud
ent p
rofi c
ienc
ies
and
form
s of
as
sess
men
t con
sist
ent w
ith
them
e an
d st
ate/
dist
rict
st
anda
rds.
Rig
orou
s st
anda
rds-
base
d cu
rric
ulum
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
45
Min
imum
hal
f-day
blo
ck o
f ins
truc
tion
Stud
ents
’ SLC
cla
sses
occ
upy
less
than
a h
alf-
day
bloc
k of
thei
r sc
hool
day
.St
uden
ts’ S
LC c
lass
es o
ccup
y a
half
-day
unb
roke
n bl
ock
of th
eir
scho
ol d
ay.
Stud
ents
’ SLC
cla
sses
occ
upy
mor
e th
an a
hal
f-da
y un
brok
en b
lock
of
thei
r sc
hool
day
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
46
Team
s co
llabo
rate
with
com
mun
ity p
artn
ers
Team
s co
llabo
rate
wit
h co
mm
unit
y m
embe
rs to
of
fer
spec
ial t
rips
and
act
ivit
ies.
Team
s es
tabl
ish
com
mun
ity p
artn
ersh
ips
to p
rovi
de
exte
nsiv
e fi e
ld-b
ased
stu
dy.
Com
mun
ity p
artn
ers
are
inte
gral
to te
ams;
they
hel
p pl
an, l
ead,
and
ass
ess
stud
ents
’ wor
k.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
47
Stud
ents
reg
ular
ly d
o in
depe
nden
t lib
rary
and
In
tern
et r
esea
rch
to b
road
en c
lass
room
mat
eria
ls
and
stud
y.
Stud
ents
res
earc
h to
pics
/iss
ues,
col
lect
and
eva
lu-
ate
info
rmat
ion
from
var
ied
sour
ces,
and
pre
sent
co
nclu
sion
s as
fea
ture
s of
spe
cial
pro
ject
s.
Stud
ents
reg
ular
ly g
ener
ate
rese
arch
que
stio
ns, c
ol-
lect
and
eva
luat
e in
form
atio
n fr
om v
arie
d so
urce
s,
and
docu
men
t wor
k in
in-d
epth
, aut
hent
ic f
orm
s.
Stud
ents
eng
age
in a
ctiv
e, a
uthe
ntic
inqu
iry
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
48
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eR
igor
ous,
rele
vant
cur
ricul
um a
nd in
stru
ctio
n
Inter
discip
linar
y cur
ric-
ulum
orga
nized
arou
nd
topics
of in
teres
t to
stude
nts an
d ess
entia
l sk
ills/kn
owled
ge
Rigo
rous
, stan
dard
s-ba
sed c
urric
ulum
Minim
um ha
lf-day
blo
ck of
instr
uctio
n
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
49
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eR
igor
ous,
rele
vant
cur
ricul
um a
nd in
stru
ctio
n
Colla
bora
tion w
ith
comm
unity
partn
ers
Activ
e, au
thenti
c stu
dent
inquir
y
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
50
Anal
yze
stra
tegi
es t
o ad
opt
Rig
orou
s, re
leva
nt c
urric
ulum
and
inst
ruct
ion
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Desc
riptio
n
of str
ategie
s
Need
s tha
t it ad
dres
ses
and o
ther s
treng
ths
Scho
ol str
ength
s, un
iquen
ess
it buil
ds on
Profe
ssion
al de
velop
ment
and
resou
rce re
quire
ments
Need
for c
hang
e, ad
justm
ent
in oth
er ar
eas o
f the s
choo
l
51
Impl
emen
t th
e Pl
anR
igor
ous,
rele
vant
cur
ricul
um a
nd in
stru
ctio
n
WHO
will
tak
e..
wha
t AC
TION
S to
impl
emen
t ad
opte
d st
rate
gies
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r M
ay
June
Ju
ly
Aug
52
Gaug
e Su
cces
sH
ow w
e w
ill kn
ow if
we
impl
emen
ted
Rig
orou
s, R
elev
ant C
urric
ulum
and
Inst
ruct
ion
succ
essf
ully
?
Stud
ent
lear
ning
and
pro
gram
impl
emen
tatio
n ob
ject
ives
Ho
w o
bjec
tives
will
be
mea
sure
d Ho
w o
ften
/whe
n to
col
lect
dat
a
53
5. Inclusive Program and Practices
Best Practices Checklist:
� SLC membership is based on teachers’ and
students’ interest and choice to ensure
equitable access
� Teachers use time and space fl exibly to meet
needs of all students
� Teams tailor instruction to diverse students’
needs
� Special education and ELL instructors are
integral members of SLC teams
� Counselors are integral members of SLC
teams
� Teams advise/mentor students
� Teams collaborate with parents
In a nutshell
Why These Practices Are Essential
Research and exemplary SLCs demonstrate…
…students’ and teachers’ choice of their SLC on the basis of its curricular program is more likely
to create memberships in which teachers and students share the same interests and goals while the
students themselves vary in social class, ethnicity, and history of academic achievement. SLCs that
use pedagogical style as the basis of choice or random assignment to determine membership gen-
erate less diverse student groups and less buy-in, respectively. Practices associated with success in
serving diverse students in SLCs include SLC teams comprising special and ELL educators, subject-
area teachers, and counseling staff; student advisement; and parent collaboration. Teachers combine
these collaborative arrangements with instruction tailored to students’ diverse needs in high-func-
tioning SLCs. Adapting instruction to students’ needs includes using the fl exibility afforded by SLC
organization to make multiple, varied arrangements for learning.
54
In detail
Why These Practices Are Essential
SLC membership is based on student and teacher interests and choice
Small learning community research and practice indicate that success depends in large part on a
self-chosen membership that shares a commitment to the SLC’s unique focus or mission (Allen,
2001; Ancess, 1995; Cook, 2000; Meier, 1995).
Students’ ability to choose their small learning community is consistent with a student-centered
approach to education. Use of random assignment or admissions criteria to determine SLC mem-
bership eliminates the freedom students have, even in traditional schools, to match their interests
with the courses they take. However, traditional schools offer choice in courses at the expense of
program coherence and sense of community. SLCs can offer choice at the program level, if not the
course level, and—with suffi cient fl exibility—can also provide many choices within the program.
Students’ exercise of choice of SLC places a premium on informing middle school students and
their parents about high school SLC programs. Student choice also challenges schools to develop a
set of SLC programs that responds to a range of students’ interests and offers equal challenge and
opportunity for success.
If school staff meets these challenges, the payoff appears to be more informed and empowered
students and potent learning communities where members have the opportunity to develop their
interests with teachers and with peers who share them. In a study of high schools organized into
small learning communities, researchers compared students who chose an SLC on the basis of cur-
riculum theme with those who were randomly assigned to a subunit (Oxley et al., 2000). In the
two study schools whose SLCs are organized around curriculum themes and career interests, enter-
ing students generally chose SLCs different from those their best friends selected and got to know
students they otherwise would not have met. In these schools, students developed positive identifi -
cations with SLC teachers and peers based on shared learning interests and styles. In the third study
school with transition-year subunits to which students are randomly assigned, students struggled
to overcome their teachers’ negative perceptions of fi rst-year students and to distinguish themselves
from less serious students.
SLCs whose curricular programs intentionally or unintentionally attract lower or higher achieving
students create tensions among SLCs and long-term instability of small unit organization (Oxley,
2001; Ready et al., 2000). In the study described above (Oxley et al., 2000), researchers also
compared students in schools with SLCs organized around curricular emphases with students in a
fourth school whose SLCs were organized around differing pedagogical philosophies (e.g., coop-
erative learning). Students in SLCs organized around pedagogy style tended to choose an SLC on
55
the basis of friends’ choices and parents’ beliefs about the SLC’s effectiveness and level of diffi culty.
These SLCs became identifi ed with relatively homogeneous groups of students in terms of ethnicity,
social class, gender, and academic aspirations.
SLCs organized around curricular themes are not immune to attracting socially or academically
homogeneous groups of students. For example, Wasley et al. (2000) found that schools-within-
schools, especially those with math and science themes, tended to attract higher achieving students
than the host school’s traditional classes.
SLC staff members’ ability to hold equally high standards and provide students an equal opportu-
nity to succeed is vital. Randomly assigning students to SLCs neither ensures equal standards and
opportunities nor engenders the kind of student motivation and interest that curricular themes do.
Counselor works as integral member of SLC team
School counselors are assigned to particular SLCs in order to work closely with SLC teams in
responding to students’ needs. In this way, counselors and teachers are more likely to intervene
with students in an informed and consistent manner.
Staff members of successful small learning communities interact with students across multiple roles
and contexts: as teacher, advisor, student admissions coordinator, and so on (Ancess, 1995; Oxley,
1990, 1997b). In such communities, counselors use their individual and group process skills to
help teachers organize student advisories, parent conferences, and classroom groups as well as to
counsel students (Oxley, 1993). Counselors with teacher certifi cation may also teach in the SLC.
Special educators/remediation specialists work as integral members of SLC team
Teaching specialists, including special education staff, are assigned to SLCs and work closely with the
teacher teams to organize and carry out instruction and student support (Oxley, 1993, 1997a, b).
Specialists’ integration with teacher teams replaces the traditional school practice of addressing stu-
dents’ learning needs in separate, specialized contexts apart from mainstream classrooms. Integrated
teams—with their augmented range of expertise—work with inclusive classes to provide consistent
instructional interventions, to avoid negative student labels, and to give special education students the
same choices as other students. These practices are consistent with communal school organization as
well as special education inclusion (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996) and the goal of the Individuals with Dis-
abilities Education Act to meet students’ needs in the least restrictive environment possible.
Unfortunately, the record of small learning communities’ inclusion of special education students
has been weak (McMullan et al., 1994; Wasley et al., 2000). Exclusion of special education students
from SLCs may seem to lighten the instructional burden, but at the same time excludes special
56
educators with pedagogical expertise needed to help content-area specialists diversify their instruc-
tional strategies. Yet, there is broad consensus that use of diverse instructional strategies holds a key
to educational effectiveness (Legters et al., 2002).
Teams make innovative fl exible use of time/space to meet needs of all students
Teachers respond fl exibly to student learning needs in part by taking full advantage of blocks of
instructional time and physical space to organize instruction in accordance with those needs (Dar-
ling-Hammond et al., 2002; Kemple & Herlihy, 2004; McPartland et al., 1998; Oxley, 1997b; Ratzki
& Fisher, 1990).
Traditional schools typically require students who fail to master the curriculum in the allotted
time to repeat failed classes and grades or participate in separate remedial courses or programs.
SLC structure gives teachers greater fl exibility to tailor instruction to the interests and needs of a
heterogeneous group of students. Successful SLCs adjust instructional time on an ongoing basis.
SLC teams create double as well as single periods of instruction during the week; teach extra
periods of instruction in core courses to fewer classes of students by fully integrating an elec-
tive into the core program; and gather up minutes that are allocated but not needed for passing
between adjacent classrooms and use them to lengthen advisory or other classes (Oxley, 1997a,
b). They create advisory periods of varying lengths of time during the week and arrange for
students to carry out community service to create teacher planning time (Meier, 1995). Inter-
disciplinary teams double instruction time in English and math, permitting students to complete
Algebra 1 by the end of ninth grade even if they spent the fi rst half of the year in Pre-Algebra
(Kemple & Herlihy, 2004).
Instruction is tailored to diverse students’ needs
Teachers group students for specialized instruction within the team and diversify learning activities
to increase routes to mastery (Legters et al., 2002; McPartland et al., 1998; Oxley, 1997a, b). SLC
teams design and provide the support needed. A special education teacher assigned to an SLC team
collaborates with four content teachers to differentiate instruction for groups that include students
who are not passing tests and those who require more challenging assignments. The special educa-
tor teams with a content teacher within his/her classroom or divides the entire group of students
into fi ve smaller classes for instruction (Oxley, 1997b). Teams develop multiple means for students
to demonstrate equal standards of profi ciency (Ancess, 1995). In sum, SLC teams take responsibil-
ity for meeting all their students’ needs rather than refer students to teachers without knowledge of
these students or ability to provide coherence and continuity of instruction (Wasley et al., 2000).
57
Teachers advise/mentor students
Staff members of successful SLCs meet regularly with small groups of advisees to monitor and
troubleshoot their academic progress (Ancess, 1995; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Oxley, 1997b;
McPartland et al., 1998).
Each SLC teacher advises and mentors a small group of students on a regular, ongoing basis as a
means to further personalize teaching and learning (Legters et al., 2002). Advisories with teacher/
student ratios that range from 1:25 to 1:10 meet once a day to once a week. Teachers discuss
personal as well as academic issues of concern to students (e.g., rules, graduation requirements, dif-
fi culties students are having) and contact parents as needed.
Teachers collaborate with parents
The small learning community conception of teaching and learning rests on the view that optimal
teaching occurs in a context in which teachers, students, and parents know each other and share a
commitment to the school’s particular mission (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Oxley, 1994b). The broad
base of collaboration serves to expand teachers’ knowledge of students’ learning needs and the
means to increase the consistency of students’ educational experiences. Parent collaboration allows
for more consistent communication of expectations and strategies for learning, which is key to pro-
gram coherence and increased student achievement (Newmann et al., 2001a, b).
59
3. Inclusive
Program
and
Instru
ctional P
racti
cies
SLC
mem
bers
hip
is b
ased
on
stud
ents
’ and
teac
hers
’ int
eres
t and
cho
ice
to e
nsur
e eq
uita
ble
acce
ssSt
uden
ts a
nd te
ache
rs c
hoos
e th
eir
SLC.
Stud
ents
and
teac
hers
cho
ose
thei
r SL
C; s
taff
off
ers
info
rmat
ion
abou
t SLC
s in
a v
arie
ty o
f fo
rmat
s (c
ouns
elor
s, e
ight
h-gr
ade
pres
enta
tion
s, b
roch
ures
)
Stud
ents
and
teac
hers
cho
ose
thei
r SL
C; s
taff
off
ers
info
rmat
ion
abou
t SLC
s in
a v
arie
ty o
f for
mat
s, m
oni-
tors
ent
erin
g st
uden
ts’ c
hara
cter
istic
s, a
nd a
djus
ts p
ro-
gram
to a
ttrac
t and
ret
ain
dive
rse
grou
p of
stu
dent
s.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
60
SLC
cla
ss s
ched
ules
are
the
sam
e as
the
scho
olw
ide
sche
dule
/allo
t unv
aryi
ng p
erio
ds o
f ti
me
for
sub-
ject
s.
Team
s sc
hedu
le b
lock
of
tim
e ac
cord
ing
to le
arni
ng
acti
viti
es a
nd s
tude
nts’
lear
ning
nee
ds.
Team
s ad
d in
stru
ctio
nal t
ime
for
rem
edia
l/ho
nors
w
ork,
use
onl
ine
tech
nolo
gy, a
nd p
ursu
e/cr
eate
le
arni
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
out
side
sch
ool o
r sc
hool
day
.
Team
s us
e tim
e an
d lo
catio
n fl e
xibl
y to
mee
t stu
dent
s’ le
arni
ng n
eeds
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
61
Team
s ta
ilor i
nstr
uctio
n to
div
erse
stu
dent
s’ n
eeds
Teac
hers
var
y w
hole
-cla
ss in
stru
ctio
n w
ith
smal
l gr
oup
and
indi
vidu
aliz
ed w
ork.
Teac
hers
use
a v
arie
ty o
f in
stru
ctio
nal s
trat
egie
s an
d of
fer
alte
rnat
ive
assi
gnm
ents
and
met
hods
of
dem
-on
stra
ting
kno
wle
dge
to g
ive
stud
ents
a c
hoic
e.
Stud
ent c
hoic
e in
ass
ignm
ents
and
met
hods
of
dem
onst
rati
ng k
now
ledg
e is
a r
egul
ar f
eatu
re o
f w
ork;
cho
ices
refl
ect
stu
dent
s’ v
arie
d st
reng
ths,
le
arni
ng s
tyle
s, c
ultu
ral e
xper
ienc
e, a
nd n
eeds
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
62
Teac
her s
peci
alis
ts a
re in
tegr
al m
embe
rs o
f tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng te
ams
Spec
ial/
ELL
teac
hers
are
ass
igne
d to
team
s bu
t te
ach
stud
ents
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds o
utsi
de S
LC
clas
ses.
Spec
ial/
ELL
teac
hers
are
ass
igne
d to
team
s, h
elp
diff
eren
tiat
e in
stru
ctio
n, w
ork
wit
h in
divi
dual
stu
-de
nts
in in
clus
ive
clas
ses.
Team
s of
reg
ular
and
spe
cial
edu
cati
on te
ache
rs
plan
cur
ricu
lum
and
inst
ruct
ion,
div
ide
up s
tude
nts
to c
reat
e sm
all,
incl
usiv
e cl
asse
s.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
63
Cou
nsel
ors
wor
k ex
clus
ivel
y w
ith
stud
ents
in S
LC
to w
hich
they
are
ass
igne
d.C
ouns
elor
s w
ork
excl
usiv
ely
wit
h st
uden
ts in
SLC
s to
whi
ch th
ey a
re a
ssig
ned
and
assi
st w
ith
spec
ial
proj
ects
and
lear
ning
act
ivit
ies.
Cou
nsel
ors
wor
k ex
clus
ivel
y w
ith
stud
ents
in S
LCs
to w
hich
they
are
ass
igne
d an
d ar
e in
tegr
al m
em-
bers
of
the
inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am.
Cou
nsel
ors
are
inte
gral
mem
bers
of t
each
ing
and
lear
ning
team
s
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
64
Teac
hers
adv
ise/
men
tor s
tude
nts
All
team
mem
bers
hol
d w
eekl
y ad
viso
ry lo
ng
enou
gh f
or in
divi
dual
mee
ting
s w
ith
stud
ents
.A
ll te
am m
embe
rs h
old
wee
kly
advi
sory
long
en
ough
for
who
le-g
roup
act
ivit
y or
indi
vidu
al
mee
ting
s.
Stud
ents
lead
reg
ular
ly s
ched
uled
adv
isor
ies
wit
h ti
me
to p
lan
SLC
act
ivit
ies
and
even
ts f
or p
aren
ts
duri
ng th
e ye
ar.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
65
Team
s co
llabo
rate
with
par
ents
Team
s co
ntac
t par
ents
via
e-m
ail/
tele
phon
e an
d in
pe
rson
as
indi
vidu
al s
tude
nts’
nee
ds d
icta
te.
Team
s co
mm
unic
ate
wit
h pa
rent
s vi
a e-
mai
l/te
le-
phon
e, in
per
son
as n
eede
d; m
eet w
ith
all p
aren
ts
abou
t stu
dent
s’ p
rogr
ess
at le
ast o
nce
per
year
.
Team
s co
mm
unic
ate
wit
h pa
rent
s vi
a e-
mai
l/te
le-
phon
e, a
nd i
n pe
rson
as
need
ed; a
nd o
rgan
ize
a va
riet
y of
eve
nts
to a
llow
par
ents
to
look
at,
disc
uss
stud
ents
’ wor
k an
d pr
ogre
ss.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
66
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eIn
clus
ive
prog
ram
and
pra
ctic
es
SLC
memb
ersh
ip ba
sed o
n tea
cher
s’ an
d stud
ents’
inter
est
and c
hoice
to en
sure
eq
uitab
le ac
cess
Team
s use
time/s
pace
fl e
xibly
to me
et ne
eds
of all
stud
ents
Team
s tail
or in
struc
tion
to div
erse
stud
ents’
ne
eds
Spec
ial ed
ucati
on
and E
LL in
struc
tors
are i
ntegr
al me
mber
s of
SLC
teams
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
67
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eIn
clus
ive
prog
ram
and
pra
ctic
es
Coun
selor
s are
integ
ral
memb
ers o
f SLC
team
Team
s adv
ise/m
entor
stu
dents
Team
s coll
abor
ate w
ith
pare
nts
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
68
Anal
yze
stra
tegi
es t
o ad
opt
Incl
usiv
e pr
ogra
m a
nd p
ract
ices
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Desc
riptio
n
of str
ategie
s
Need
s tha
t it ad
dres
ses
and o
ther s
treng
ths
Scho
ol str
ength
s, un
iquen
ess
it buil
ds on
Profe
ssion
al de
velop
ment
and
resou
rce re
quire
ments
Need
for c
hang
e, ad
justm
ent
in oth
er ar
eas o
f the s
choo
l
69
Impl
emen
t th
e Pl
anIn
clus
ive
prog
ram
and
pra
ctic
es
WHO
will
tak
e..
wha
t AC
TION
S to
impl
emen
t ad
opte
d st
rate
gies
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r M
ay
June
Ju
ly
Aug
70
Gaug
e Su
cces
sH
ow w
e w
ill kn
ow if
we
impl
emen
ted
Incl
usiv
e Pr
ogra
m a
nd P
ract
ices
suc
cess
fully
?
Stud
ent
lear
ning
and
pro
gram
impl
emen
tatio
n ob
ject
ives
Ho
w o
bjec
tives
will
be
mea
sure
d Ho
w o
ften
/whe
n to
col
lect
dat
a
71
6. SLC-Based Continuous Program Improvement
Best Practices Checklist:
� Teams refl ect on practice and engage in
continuous program improvement
� Teams use a variety of student data to refl ect
on practice
� Teams use input from stakeholders and
other critical friends to refl ect on practice
� Teams set and pursue professional
development goals that match with SLC
improvement needs
In a nutshell
Why These Practices Are Essential
Research and exemplary SLCs demonstrate…
…SLCs operate most effectively when teachers work as learning teams: they ask questions about
the adequacy of their practice; gather and analyze information designed to answer their questions;
and make decisions about how to modify their practice with input from students, stakeholders, and
knowledgeable colleagues. Learning teams also develop their own professional development plans
and as a result are better able to apply their training to program needs.
72
In detail
Why These Practices Are Essential
Teams refl ect on practice and engage in continuous improvement with stakehold-ers and other critical friends
Research indicates that small learning communities will realize their promise only if SLC teams
engage in a continuous process of improvement (Christman & Macpherson, 1996; Oxley, 2001).
Full implementation of small learning communities—as well as ongoing efforts to deepen prac-
tice—requires regular team refl ection on practice, including analysis of students’ work and percep-
tions of the program. Building-level examination of student outcomes may complement SLC teams’
refl ection on their practice but cannot replace it.
SLC teachers, who embody a spirit of inquiry and demonstrate an interest in learning, help to estab-
lish a modus operandi for the entire community (Senge et al., 2000).
Teams use a variety of student data to refl ect on practice
School staff members’ experience suggests that a variety of data is helpful to refl ecting on practice.
Students’ work, grades, and standardized test scores are key pieces of data to examine. Teams may
also need to fi nd out what students do after they graduate, what educational opportunities they
are able to pursue, and what course levels they are able to take. This becomes practicable when SLC
teachers and their partners assemble a simple telephone survey and call graduates to see what they
are doing. The information they gather will tell them if students’ level of mastery of the SLC cur-
riculum was adequate to gain them admission to higher education or job training opportunities
and to avoid remedial coursework.
Teams may also fi nd it important to gather information on incoming students’ backgrounds to
determine if the SLC program succeeds in attracting a diverse group of students. Students’ ethnicity
and socioeconomic status are often apparent to teachers, but systematic examination of such data
may reveal patterns that teachers did not detect informally. Persistent trends in admitting students
from lower or higher income levels may indicate the need to review how information about the
SLC is conveyed to students and parents, as well as how students and parents experience the pro-
gram once in it.
73
Teams use input from stakeholders and other critical friends to refl ect on practice
When considering ways to improve practice, teachers can benefi t from students’ routine involve-
ment in identifying problems and weaknesses and possible solutions (Ancess, 1995). Improving
practice also requires consideration of the perceptions of parents, administrators, and other teach-
ers whose outside perspective can broaden that of SLC teachers (Oxley, 1997b). In order to involve
stakeholders in a meaningful way, SLC teachers must provide them with adequate information,
especially access to classrooms and student work. Research organizations such as regional educa-
tional laboratories and universities can also help teams develop practical student data collection and
analysis routines they can use on an ongoing basis (Christman & Macpherson, 1996).
Teams set and pursue professional development goals that match SLC improve-ment needs
SLC teams identify and develop professional development opportunities that help them pursue their
mission and specifi c improvement goals (Christman & Macpherson, 1996; Darling-Hammond et
al., 2002; Wasley et al., 2000).
SLC teams avail themselves of both external and internal professional development, but to a large
extent arrange for exchanges among colleagues to enhance professional skills (Darling-Hammond
et al., 2002). What is distinctive in either case is SLC teachers’ own identifi cation of the particular
kind of professional development they need. As a result, SLC teachers have a better grasp than tradi-
tional teachers do of how the professional development fi ts with their goals and plans and how they
will put new knowledge and skill to use (Wasley et al., 2000).
75
4. Contin
uous P
rogram
Imp
roveme
nt
Team
s en
gage
in c
ontin
uous
pro
gram
impr
ovem
ent
Team
s ex
amin
e st
uden
t out
com
es a
t end
of e
ach
year
, re
ly o
n pr
ogra
m e
valu
ator
or
dist
rict
/sch
ool l
eade
rs to
co
llect
/ana
lyze
dat
a, a
gree
on
chan
ges
to m
ake.
Team
s ex
amin
e st
uden
t out
com
es a
t end
of g
radi
ng
peri
ods,
eng
age
as p
artn
er w
ith d
istr
ict/
scho
ol le
ader
s in
pro
gram
rev
iew
, agr
ee o
n ch
ange
s to
mak
e.
Stud
ents
pro
vide
feed
back
dur
ing
the
cour
se o
f all
activ
ities
; tea
ms
revi
ew s
tude
nt o
utco
mes
at e
nd o
f al
l maj
or u
nits
of w
ork,
dev
elop
ow
n im
med
iate
and
lo
ng-t
erm
pla
ns fo
r pr
ogra
m im
prov
emen
t.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
76
Team
s us
e sc
hool
wid
e st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t and
at
tend
ance
dat
a to
refl
ect
on
thei
r pr
acti
ce a
t the
en
d of
eac
h ye
ar.
Team
s us
e st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t and
att
enda
nce
data
for
the
stud
ents
in th
eir
SLC
to r
efl e
ct o
n th
eir
prac
tice
at m
id-
and
end-
of-y
ear
poin
ts.
Team
s re
gula
rly
anal
yze
thei
r st
uden
ts’ w
ork,
gra
des/
test
sco
res,
atte
ndan
ce, s
ucce
ss b
eyon
d sc
hool
, and
de
mog
raph
ic d
ata
to im
prov
e th
eir
prac
tice.
Team
s us
e a
varie
ty o
f stu
dent
dat
a to
refl e
ct o
n pr
actic
e
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
77
Team
s us
e st
akeh
olde
rs’ a
nd c
olle
ague
s’ in
put t
o re
fl ect
on
prac
tice
Team
s w
ork
wit
h sc
hool
lead
ers
and
eval
uato
r to
st
udy
data
and
idea
s fo
r im
prov
ing
prac
tice
.Te
ams
wor
k w
ith
scho
ol le
ader
s an
d ev
alua
tor
and
solic
it p
aren
ts’ a
nd c
omm
unit
y pa
rtne
rs’ o
bser
va-
tion
s of
pro
gram
and
stu
dent
wor
k to
impr
ove
prac
tice
.
Team
s in
volv
e pa
rent
s, c
omm
unit
y pa
rtne
rs, a
nd
eval
uato
r in
all
aspe
cts
of p
lann
ing
and
impr
ove-
men
t and
gat
her
colle
gial
inpu
t on
stud
ent w
ork
and
new
mat
eria
ls.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
78
Team
s se
t and
pur
sue
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t goa
ls th
at m
atch
SLC
impr
ovem
ent n
eeds
Team
s at
tend
dis
tric
t/sc
hool
-org
aniz
ed p
rofe
ssio
nal
deve
lopm
ent s
essi
ons.
Team
s so
licit
and
pur
sue
idea
s fo
r pr
ofes
sion
al
deve
lopm
ent
that
add
ress
ide
ntifi
ed
need
s.Te
ams
form
ulat
e an
nual
pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
-m
ent
plan
s th
at i
nclu
de t
eam
pla
nnin
g, c
olle
gial
ex
chan
ge, a
nd e
xper
t tr
aine
rs t
o ad
dres
s sp
ecifi
c
iden
tifi e
d ne
eds.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
79
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eC
ontin
uous
pro
gram
impr
ovem
ent
Team
s eng
age i
n
conti
nuou
s pro
gram
im
prov
emen
t
Team
s use
a va
riety
of stu
dent
data
to re
fl ect
on pr
actic
e
Team
s use
stake
holde
rs’ an
d co
lleag
ues’
input
to re
fl ect
on pr
actic
e
Team
s set
and p
ursu
e pr
ofess
ional
deve
lop-
ment
goals
that
match
SLC
impr
ovem
ent
need
s
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
80
Anal
yze
stra
tegi
es t
o ad
opt
Con
tinuo
us p
rogr
am im
prov
emen
t
Desc
riptio
n
of str
ategie
s
Need
s tha
t it ad
dres
ses
and o
ther s
treng
ths
Scho
ol str
ength
s, un
iquen
ess
it buil
ds on
Profe
ssion
al de
velop
ment
and
resou
rce re
quire
ments
Need
for c
hang
e, ad
justm
ent
in oth
er ar
eas o
f the s
choo
l
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
81
Impl
emen
t th
e Pl
anC
ontin
uous
pro
gram
impr
ovem
ent
WHO
will
tak
e..
wha
t AC
TION
S to
impl
emen
t ad
opte
d st
rate
gies
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r M
ay
June
Ju
ly
Aug
82
Gaug
e Su
cces
sH
ow w
e w
ill kn
ow if
we
impl
emen
ted
Con
tinuo
us P
rogr
am Im
prov
emen
t suc
cess
fully
?
Stud
ent
lear
ning
and
pro
gram
impl
emen
tatio
n ob
ject
ives
Ho
w o
bjec
tives
will
be
mea
sure
d Ho
w o
ften
/whe
n to
col
lect
dat
a
83
7. Building- and District-Level Support for SLCs
Best Practices Checklist for Building-Level Support:
� Buildingwide improvement goals align
with SLC needs
� Academic area goals align with SLC needs
� Building-level provisions for professional
development meet SLC needs
� Class scheduling and staffi ng are adjusted
to strengthen SLC programs
� Academic track/alternative program changes
are made to increase choice and challenge
across all programs
� Building-level policies are enacted to strengthen SLC self-governance
In a nutshell
Why These Practices Are Essential
Research and exemplary SLCs demonstrate…
…SLCs that have the most success with their students are not add-ons to the existing school organiza-
tion. They are the fundamental building blocks of school organization and the center of school activities.
Restructuring schools in this manner depends on aligning policies and practices across all organizational
units. Schools’ improvement plans—including their provisions for professional development—serve the
goals and objectives of SLC programs. Academic areas operate to advance SLC program development.
Successful SLCs also depend on the adoption of new principles of organizing and governing staff
and students at the building level. Most centralized functions and resources, including staff, are
shifted to SLCs to empower teacher cadres with extensive knowledge of students to respond effec-
tively to students’ learning needs. Administrators and content-area leaders participate directly in as
well as provide necessary forms of support for SLCs. SLC program needs drive class scheduling. Staff
restructures or eliminates at-risk and honors programs so that student achievement level is not a de
facto determinant of SLC membership, and high standards are a feature of all programs.
84
In detail
Why These Practices Are Essential
Buildingwide improvement goals align with SLC needs
The school’s improvement process and goals must be consistent with SLCs’ practices and needs for
improvement.
Numerous unrelated school goals and reforms detract from full and faithful implementation of any
one promising reform (Cohen, 1995). Frequently reforms, including SLCs, do not advance beyond
an initial stage of implementation before a new reform initiative emerges and fragments existing
reform efforts. School improvement efforts that encompass sustained coherent strategies are more
likely to promote successful student outcomes (Newmann et al., 2001a, b).
Academic department goals align with SLC needs
Academic department goals must support SLCs’ interdisciplinary teamwork. The emphasis of
instructional leadership must be to accommodate interdisciplinary needs and approaches to teach-
ing (McMullan, 1994; Ratzki & Fisher, 1990).
Cross-disciplinary teams may operate in tandem with cross-SLC academic discipline-based teams.
Both serve important ends. Academic discipline-based planning helps to ensure that interdisciplin-
ary programs incorporate important discipline-based knowledge and skills and are aligned with
content standards. Experts in curriculum integration (e.g., project-based learning) do not see aca-
demic disciplines as detractors, but rather as the wells from which interdisciplinary programs draw
(Allen, 2001; Beane, 1995).
Practically speaking, however, the operation of both SLC and academic discipline-based teams can create
competition for reform priorities and available planning time (McMullan, 1994; Oxley, 2001). SLC teams
combine teachers from academic departments whose preferred pedagogical approaches may differ, and
their efforts to develop authentic curricula often lead them to deviate from pacing and content of stan-
dardized discipline-based curricula. SLC teams’ curriculum development work also requires large blocks
of time while planning time must also be allocated to departments and schoolwide staff meetings. How
instructional leaders resolve these confl icts says a lot about the school’s commitment to small learning
community/student-centered practice and ultimately decides the success of SLC implementation.
85
Building-level provisions for staff planning/development meet SLC needs
Building-level provisions for professional development should refl ect a sustained commitment to
building capacity and consensus among teachers, parents, and administrators for implementing SLC
essential practices (Christman & Macpherson, 1996; Wasley et al., 2000).
Different school improvement initiatives tend to travel along different channels, involve different
groups of people, and have weak links to teacher practice (Cohen, 1995). Professional development is
needed as a tool to create a coherent framework for school reform activities. Professional development
should be designed to help teachers strengthen connections among their efforts to develop more
engaging and authentic curricula, raise standards for student performance, and build community—in
short, it should carry out a coherent vision of SLC practice (Christman & Macpherson, 1996).
Class scheduling and staffi ng are adjusted to strengthen SLC programs
In schools with successful small learning communities, changes in class scheduling and staffi ng were
made to allow SLC teams to implement innovative curriculum and instruction programs (Ancess,
1995, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2001; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Oxley 1990, 1997b; Ratzki &
Fisher, 1990). These programs use a variety of strategies to reduce the number of students that teams
instruct and to extend the amount of instructional time they have with students. Increased instruc-
tional time with fewer students allows teams to be more responsive to individual student’s needs and
to pursue community and project-based learning requiring large blocks of time.
Shifts in building-level staffi ng and class scheduling to reduce student/teacher ratios and increase
instructional time include allotting more non-instructional staff time to teaching (Gambon, Klem,
Moore, & Summers, 2002; Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997), folding separate remedial programs
into core subject-area instruction (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997; Oxley, 1990, 1997b), creat-
ing more planning time for teachers (Ancess, 1995; Gambone et al., 2002; Meier, 1995; Oxley,
1997b) and creating a 4x4 extended-period block schedule (Gambone et al., 2002).
Staffs of schools qualifying for schoolwide Title I funds folded separate reading classes into regular
core subject-area classes. They also assigned reading specialists to SLC teams to help organize read-
ing-across-the-curriculum, as well as teach core subjects (Oxley, 1990, 1993). The reading classes
with reduced class size were transformed into an extra period of instruction per week in each of the
four core content areas. Instead of the usual practice of teaching fi ve classes of students fi ve periods
each for a total of 25 periods per week, team members taught four classes for the same number of
periods of instruction. In this way, teams reduced the number of students with which they worked
from 150 to 120 and increased the amount of instructional time they had with each class.
In a school without federal funding, SLC team members who implemented project-based learning
were given a project period to teach in lieu of a sixth class of students (Oxley, 2002). They used the
period to extend instructional time in their core subject to pursue projects. Since each SLC teacher
taught one less core subject-area class, administrators augmented staffi ng in these areas through
reclaiming some staff members’ non-instructional time.
In another transformed school, teachers in one small school work exclusively with 100 students.
Each staff member carries out student advisement and admission as well as teaching to minimize
the student-teacher ratio (Ancess, 1995; Raywid, 1996).
Dual certifi cation, which some U.S. teachers and all German teachers have, is another means of
allowing teachers to teach the same students across courses to reduce the overall number of stu-
dents they teach. In German secondary schools, including those that have been restructured into
learning communities, each teacher instructs 90 students (Ratzki & Fisher, 1990).
Academic track/alternative program changes are made to increase student choice and academic challenge across all programs and SLCs
Schools that organize small learning communities simultaneously revamp dropout programs and
academic tracks in order to make student choice and academic challenge viable SLC educational
strategies (Fine & Somerville, 1998; Oxley, 1994a, 1997b).
To the extent that small learning communities coexist with dropout and tracked programs, they
become a de facto track. Students, parents, and teachers look to higher academic track courses for
academic challenge, to dropout programs for remediation and socialization, and to small learning
communities for something in between. Students’ history of academic achievement drives program
choice rather than substantive curricular interests. It is diffi cult for teachers and students alike to
pursue high academic standards where programs imply judgments of student ability (Weinstein,
1996).
Research shows that academic tracks are associated with assignment of disproportionate numbers
of white, middle-class students to higher tracks and ethnic minority, lower-class students to lower
tracks (Oakes, 1985, 1995). SLCs that operate as de facto tracks replicate these social class dispari-
ties (Ready et al., 2000) as well as the inadequacies of remedial programs (Grannis, 1991; Wong &
Wang, 1994). Consequently, dropout programs and tracked courses must also offer student choice
and distinctive substantive program offerings.
The necessity of school-level detracking does not rule out the practice of grouping students within
SLCs on an ad hoc and fl uid basis. Several SLC models create opportunities for remediation within
the SLC’s elective offerings (McPartland et al., 1998; Oxley 1993). For example, tutorial and inde-
pendent study periods can be linked to core courses to provide additional support.
86
87
Building-level policies are enacted to strengthen building and SLC self-governance
A distinctive feature of successful small learning communities is SLC teams’ representation and
active participation in building-level decision-making bodies (Cook, 2000; Oxley, 2001; Ratzki &
Fisher, 1990).
Governance councils in schools with small learning communities make SLC representation com-
mensurate with SLCs’ status as the major unit of building organization. These councils may contain
representatives of additional groups, including special education and academic disciplines.
Administrators assume supervisory and teaching roles in SLCs in addition to carrying out building-
level administrative tasks. In schools that have successfully implemented small learning communi-
ties on a schoolwide basis, the principal facilitates a shared decision-making process and serves as
an integral member of an SLC team (Cook, 2000; Ratzki & Fisher, 1990).
Assignment of administrators to SLCs is consistent with the idea that SLC staff members are better
positioned than centralized staff to respond to their students’ needs. They have more knowledge
of their students, easier access, and can make consistent interventions across their students’ classes.
To the extent that SLC teams look out for their students’ needs, including discipline, they free up
centralized staff to take on instructional leadership and teaching roles within SLCs. Administrators’
participation in SLCs reduces student-teacher ratios and increases the diversity of academic exper-
tise and support available to students within their SLC. In a larger sense, administrator participation
in SLCs leverages the transformation of traditional school structures that compete with small learn-
ing communities in the areas of decision making and resource allocation (Oxley, 2001).
District-Level Support for SLCs
Emerging Practices:
❑ District standardizes policies needed to
support SLC practice
❑ Policies strengthen SLC self-governance
❑ District negotiates teachers’ union contract
provisions to meet SLC staffi ng needs
❑ Provisions for professional development
increase SLC teams’ capacity for instructional
innovation
❑ District staffi ng and budgeting practices give
schools fl exibility in allocating resources to
meet SLC needs
In a nutshell
Why These Practices Are Important
Studies of restructuring districts suggest…
…districts can play a supportive role in SLC development and institutionalization when they
standardize policies that support SLC development across all schools, negotiate teachers’ union
contracts that enable SLC staff members to hire teachers needed to maintain program integrity,
and shift authority to schools while holding them accountable for meeting academic standards.
Increased school authority must be accompanied by increased fl exibility in how school staff allo-
cates resources including staff positions. Finally, districts can support SLCs’ instructional innovation
through professional development that recognizes the centrality of SLC team collaboration and
resources needed for it, e.g., planning time, student data system that disaggregates data by SLC.
88
89
In detail Why These Practices Are Important
District standardizes policies needed to support SLC operation
Reviewing and modifying district policies to increase support for SLC development appear to
offer greater advantages over granting policy waivers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Raywid,
Schmerler, Phillips, & Smith, 2003; Rizzo, 2000). Districts will sometimes grant schools waivers
from standard policies to enable staff to pursue key, innovative small learning community practices.
School schedules that permit regular late starts for team planning or curricula that integrate content
of multiple subject areas are examples of practices that have been impossible or diffi cult to pursue
without exceptions to district policies. But waivers are readily rescinded or allowed to lapse under
new leadership. They may also create tensions among schools operating under unequal policies.
Perhaps most important, policy by waiver communicates that regular policies are adequate for
most schools rather than being unresponsive to local school needs or, worse, inconsistent with new
empirically based knowledge. In such a policy environment, school staff members are less likely to
persist in developing innovative practices that become optimally effective and sustainable.
District policies strengthen building-level self-governance
The general shift of decision-making authority from district to school and from school to
teachers to increase their infl uence over school policy and practice is a key feature of successfully
restructured schools (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Rizzo, 2000). Deregulation that provides
autonomy for schools to pursue their vision of high intellectual standards including the authority
to hire staff consistent with the school’s vision contributes to the capacity of school staff to work
well as a unit. Staffs of such schools were able to form strong professional communities capable of
offering authentic pedagogy and promoting student achievement.
School autonomy in allocating resources, determining the curricular and instructional program,
and scheduling the school day and year as well as autonomy in staff hiring appear to be vital to
small learning community functioning (AIR & SRI, 2004). These autonomies of practice go against
the grain of the traditional, top-down approach to educational management which emphasizes
schools’ compliance with district directives and allocates considerable resources to oversight rather
than to the empowerment of school-level professionals.
District and teachers’ union negotiate contract provisions for meeting SLCs’ staff-ing needs
SLCs’ unique program identities and offerings create special staffi ng demands and, in turn, a need for
policies to fi ll them (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Raywid, Schmerler, Phillips, & Smith, 2003).
In many districts, teacher hiring that is based on seniority has proven a barrier to staffi ng SLCs with
90
teachers needed to carry out the SLC’s particular program. A teacher with special SLC qualifi cations
such as dual certifi cation, ability to teach two particular levels of math, or interest in program themes
can make or break an SLC’s program. Districts such as New York City point the way to more fl exible
policies. The New York City Board of Education negotiated a teachers’ union contract that allows
schools to suspend seniority with 50 percent agreement of staff. The effect was to give staff fl exibility
in teacher hiring without jettisoning considerations for seniority altogether. Ultimately, the teachers’
union supported a peer selection process in which SLC staff members interview and select staff.
District provisions for professional development increase SLC teams’ capacity for instructional innovation
District support for SLCs, particularly instructional innovation is most effective when it takes the
form of a professional development strategy that strengthens the effectiveness of collaboration
among SLC team members (Supovitz & Christman, 2005). Such a strategy legitimizes SLC leader-
ship, creates opportunities for SLC teachers to meet as a team, and helps teams secure professional
development tailored to their needs.
An effective district professional development strategy further builds SLC teams’ capacity to
improve their practice by helping teams develop data on their students’ achievement. At a mini-
mum, districts support teams’ examination of their practice in relation to student outcomes by
disaggregating school-level student data by SLCs and making these data available on a timely basis
(AIR & SRI, 2004; Supovitz & Christman, 2005).
District staffi ng and budgeting practices give schools fl exibility in allocating resources to meet SLC needs
Several districts altered their school staffi ng and funding methods to give school staffs more fl exibility
in allocating resources to support innovative SLC practices. For example, some districts adopted stu-
dent-based budgeting which allots a given amount of dollars per pupil plus extra funds for students
with special needs. This method contrasts with allocating staff positions to schools and determining
teacher salaries on the basis of average teacher salaries, which disadvantages schools with inexperi-
enced teachers. Other districts continue to assign staff positions to schools but allow salaries for posi-
tions to be converted into other positions. For example, salary dedicated to an administrator position
could be used instead to hire two lower level staff (Allen & Steinberg 2004).
Ability to allocate resources in accordance with the particular needs of small learning communities
appears crucial to realizing their full potential (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997). Just as existing
patterns of resource allocation have evolved to support comprehensive school organization—large
numbers of specialized staff, course, and tracks- so resources need to be reallocated to support small
learning community practices—lower student/staff ratios, more instructional time devoted to the
core curriculum, and greater integration of special needs instruction with regular instruction. This
appears to be as true at the district level as at the building level.
91
5a.
Building-
Level Sup
port
for SLC
s
Bui
ldin
gwid
e im
prov
emen
t goa
ls a
lign
with
SLC
nee
dsSc
hool
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
incl
udes
SLC
goa
ls a
nd
need
s.Sc
hool
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
inco
rpor
ates
det
aile
d sc
hool
wid
e SL
C pl
an a
nd e
nsur
es a
lignm
ent o
f oth
er
refo
rms
with
it.
Build
ingw
ide
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
is d
rive
n by
SLC
’s vi
sion
and
goa
ls.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
92
Aca
dem
ic a
rea
team
s co
ntin
ue to
pla
y pr
imar
y ro
le in
cu
rric
ulum
and
con
tent
sta
ndar
ds w
ork;
sha
re a
utho
r-ity
with
SLC
team
s ov
er s
taffi
ng a
nd c
lass
sch
edul
es.
SLC
team
s ex
erci
se a
utho
rity
ove
r st
affi n
g an
d sc
hedu
les;
aca
dem
ic a
rea
team
s w
ork
on c
onte
nt
stan
dard
s, h
elp
SLC
team
s en
sure
that
inte
rdis
ci-
plin
ary
prog
ram
s ad
dres
s co
nten
t sta
ndar
ds.
SLC
team
s ha
ve a
utho
rity
ove
r cu
rric
ulum
, sta
ffi n
g,
sche
dule
s; a
cade
mic
are
a te
ams
func
tion
to a
ug-
men
t tea
cher
s’ s
ubje
ct a
rea
know
ledg
e an
d ex
per-
tise
in o
rder
to m
axim
ize
SLC
team
s’ e
ffec
tive
ness
.
Aca
dem
ic a
rea
(dep
artm
ent)
goal
s al
ign
with
SLC
nee
ds
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
93
Bui
ldin
g-le
vel p
rovi
sion
s fo
r sta
ff pl
anni
ng/d
evel
opm
ent m
eet S
LC n
eeds
Scho
ol s
taff
pla
nnin
g an
d de
velo
pmen
t day
s an
d re
sour
ces
addr
ess
scho
olw
ide
impr
ovem
ent n
eeds
.Sc
hool
sta
ff p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent d
ays,
re
sour
ces
are
dire
cted
to S
LC d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
impr
ovem
ent n
eeds
.
Scho
ol s
taff
pla
nnin
g an
d de
velo
pmen
t res
ourc
es
are
allo
cate
d to
SLC
s.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
94
Cla
ss s
ched
ulin
g an
d st
affi n
g ar
e ad
just
ed to
str
engt
hen
SLC
pro
gram
s
Build
ing-
leve
l sch
edul
e an
d st
affi n
g ac
com
mod
ate
min
imum
SLC
req
uire
men
ts f
or in
terd
isci
plin
ary
team
s an
d co
mm
on p
lann
ing
tim
e.
Build
ing-
leve
l sch
edul
e an
d st
affi n
g tr
ade
off
spe-
cial
ty c
urri
culu
m o
ffer
ings
to g
ive
SLC
team
s m
ore
core
inst
ruct
iona
l tim
e w
ith
thei
r st
uden
ts.
Build
ing-
leve
l sch
edul
e an
d st
affi n
g al
lot m
ore
non-
in
stru
ctio
nal s
taff
tim
e to
teac
hing
, use
dua
l-ce
rtifi
ed
teac
hers
, fol
d se
para
te r
emed
ial p
rogr
ams
into
cor
e su
bjec
t are
a in
stru
ctio
n, a
nd c
reat
e m
ore
plan
ning
tim
e.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
95
Hon
ors/
AP
clas
ses
are
offe
red
wit
hin
a pa
rtic
u-la
r SL
C th
at u
ses
prac
tice
s de
sign
ed to
att
ract
and
su
ppor
t a d
iver
se g
roup
of
stud
ents
; pro
gram
s fo
r at
-ris
k st
uden
ts li
mit
adm
issi
on to
ove
rage
stu
dent
s.
Hon
ors/
AP
stud
ents
and
at-
risk
stu
dent
s pa
rtic
ipat
e in
an
SLC
pro
gram
of t
heir
cho
ice
in a
dditi
on to
ho
nors
/AP
cour
ses
and
at-r
isk
prog
ram
s w
hich
are
sc
hedu
led
to a
ccom
mod
ate
SLC
blo
cks
of in
stru
ctio
n.
All
SLC
s of
fer
hono
rs o
ptio
ns fo
r co
urse
s an
d su
ppor
t fo
r at
-ris
k st
uden
ts a
nd m
eet s
peci
al s
tude
nt n
eeds
th
roug
h co
llabo
ratio
n w
ith o
ther
edu
catio
nal i
nstit
u-tio
ns a
nd a
genc
ies.
Aca
dem
ic tr
ack/
alte
rnat
ive
prog
ram
cha
nges
are
mad
e to
incr
ease
stu
dent
cho
ice
and
chal
leng
e ac
ross
all
prog
ram
s
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
96
Bui
ldin
g-le
vel p
olic
ies
are
enac
ted
to s
tren
gthe
n SL
C s
elf-g
over
nanc
e
Build
ing
adm
inis
trat
ors
empl
oy s
hare
d de
cisi
on
mak
ing;
SLC
team
s pa
rtic
ipat
e in
bui
ldin
g-le
vel
gove
rnan
ce w
ith
othe
r gr
oups
.
Build
ing
adm
inis
trat
ors
empl
oy s
hare
d de
cisi
on
mak
ing,
are
mem
bers
of
SLC
team
s; S
LC te
ams
par-
tici
pate
in g
over
nanc
e w
ith
othe
r gr
oups
.
Adm
inis
trat
or o
pera
tes
as b
uild
ing
man
ager
and
in
tegr
al m
embe
r of
SLC
; SLC
team
s ha
ve m
ajor
rol
e in
bui
ldin
g-le
vel g
over
nanc
e, a
ssum
e re
spon
sibi
lity
for
stud
ents
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
97
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eB
uild
ing-
leve
l sup
port
for S
LCs
Build
ingwi
de
impr
ovem
ent g
oals
align
with
SLC
need
s
Acad
emic-
area
goals
ali
gn w
ith S
LC ne
eds
Build
ing pr
ovisi
ons f
or
staff p
lannin
g/dev
elop-
ment
acco
mmod
ate
SLC
need
s
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eB
uild
ing-
leve
l sup
port
for S
LCs
Clas
s sch
eduli
ng an
d sta
ffi ng a
re ad
justed
to
stren
gthen
SLC
pr
ogra
ms
Acad
emic
track
/alt
erna
tive p
rogr
am ar
e ad
justed
to in
creas
e ch
oice a
nd ch
allen
ge
acro
ss al
l pro
gram
s
Build
ing-le
vel
polic
ies ar
e ena
cted
to str
ength
en S
LC
self-g
over
nanc
e
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
98
99
Anal
yze
stra
tegi
es t
o ad
opt
Bui
ldin
g-le
vel s
uppo
rt fo
r SLC
s
Desc
riptio
n
of str
ategie
s
Need
s tha
t it ad
dres
ses
and o
ther s
treng
ths
Scho
ol str
ength
s, un
iquen
ess
it buil
ds on
Profe
ssion
al de
velop
ment
and
resou
rce re
quire
ments
Need
for c
hang
e, ad
justm
ent
in oth
er ar
eas o
f the s
choo
l
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Impl
emen
t th
e Pl
anB
uild
ing-
leve
l sup
port
for S
LCs
WHO
will
tak
e..
wha
t AC
TION
S to
impl
emen
t ad
opte
d st
rate
gies
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r M
ay
June
Ju
ly
Aug
100
101
Gaug
e Su
cces
sH
ow w
e w
ill kn
ow if
we
impl
emen
ted
build
ing-
leve
l sup
port
for S
LCs
succ
essf
ully
?
Stud
ent
lear
ning
and
pro
gram
impl
emen
tatio
n ob
ject
ives
Ho
w o
bjec
tives
will
be
mea
sure
d Ho
w o
ften
/whe
n to
col
lect
dat
a
102
5b.
Distric
t-Le
vel Sup
port
for SLC
s
Dis
tric
t sta
ndar
dize
s po
licie
s ne
eded
to s
uppo
rt S
LC p
ract
ice
Dis
tric
t wai
ves
polic
ies
that
pos
e ba
rrie
rs to
impl
e-m
entin
g an
d su
stai
ning
SLC
s fo
r re
stru
ctur
ing
scho
ols
Dis
tric
t pro
activ
ely
enac
ts p
olic
ies
need
ed to
sup
port
im
plem
entin
g an
d su
stai
ning
SLC
s fo
r re
stru
ctur
ing
scho
ols.
Dis
tric
t ext
ends
pol
icie
s th
at s
uppo
rt im
plem
entin
g an
d su
stai
ning
SLC
s to
all
scho
ols
to a
lign
polic
y w
ith
rese
arch
-bas
ed p
ract
ice.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
103
Dis
tric
t pol
icy
supp
orts
bui
ldin
g-le
vel s
elf-
gove
rnan
ce
and
hold
s sc
hool
s ac
coun
tabl
e fo
r st
uden
t out
com
es.
Dis
tric
t pol
icy
supp
orts
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n of
dec
isio
n m
akin
g au
thor
ity to
SLC
s an
d ho
lds
scho
ols
and
SLC
s ac
coun
tabl
e fo
r st
uden
t out
com
es.
Dis
tric
t pol
icy
supp
orts
inno
vativ
e bu
ildin
g m
anag
e-m
ent (
e.g.
, par
t-tim
e ad
min
istr
ator
s w
ho te
ach,
SLC
te
ache
r le
ader
s) a
nd h
olds
SLC
s ac
coun
tabl
e.
Polic
ies
stre
ngth
en S
LC s
elf-g
over
nanc
e
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Dis
tric
t neg
otia
tes
teac
hers
’ uni
on c
ontr
act p
rovi
sion
s to
mee
t SLC
sta
ffi ng
nee
ds
Dis
tric
t and
teac
hers
uni
on n
egot
iate
sus
pens
ion
of
teac
her
seni
orit
y hi
ring
rul
e if
75
perc
ent o
f fa
culty
ag
rees
.
Dis
tric
t and
teac
hers
uni
on n
egot
iate
sus
pens
ion
of
teac
her
seni
orit
y hi
ring
rul
e if
50
perc
ent o
f fa
culty
ag
rees
.
Teac
hers
uni
on c
ontr
act a
llow
s pe
er h
irin
g to
em
pow
er S
LC te
ams
to m
aint
ain
inte
grit
y of
thei
r pr
ogra
ms.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
104
105
Dis
tric
t sta
ff p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent d
ays
and
reso
urce
s ad
dres
s sc
hool
wid
e im
prov
emen
t nee
ds.
Dis
tric
t sta
ff p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent d
ays
and
reso
urce
s ar
e fo
cuse
d on
SLC
dev
elop
men
t and
im
prov
emen
t.
Dis
tric
t em
ploy
s a
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t str
ateg
y th
at a
ligns
the
acco
unta
bilit
y sy
stem
with
sup
port
s fo
r ap
plyi
ng p
rofe
ssio
nal t
rain
ing
(e.g
., ad
equa
te ti
me
for
colla
bora
tive
plan
ning
, dat
a fo
r re
fl ect
ion
on S
LC
prac
tice.
)
Prov
isio
ns fo
r pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t inc
reas
e SL
C te
ams’
cap
acity
for i
nstr
uctio
nal i
nnov
atio
n
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Staf
fi ng
and
budg
etin
g pr
actic
es g
ive
scho
ols
fl exi
bilit
y in
allo
catin
g re
sour
ces
to m
eet S
LC n
eeds
Dis
tric
t allo
ws
scho
ols
to c
onve
rt a
llotm
ents
of
staf
f po
siti
ons
to m
eet S
LC n
eeds
.D
istr
ict u
ses
stud
ent-
base
d bu
dget
ing
or o
ther
st
rate
gy to
max
imiz
e eq
uity
in s
choo
l bud
gets
and
sc
hool
s’ fl
exib
ility
in a
lloca
ting
res
ourc
es.
Dis
tric
t pro
vide
s eq
uity
and
fl ex
ibili
ty in
sch
ool
budg
etin
g an
d ac
tive
ly s
uppo
rts
scho
ols’
eff
orts
to
dire
ct r
esou
rces
to te
achi
ng.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
106
107
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eD
istri
ct-le
vel s
uppo
rt fo
r SLC
s
Distr
ict st
anda
rdize
s po
licies
need
ed to
su
ppor
t SLC
prac
tices
Polic
ies st
reng
then
SLC
self-g
over
nanc
e
Distr
ict ne
gotia
tes
teach
ers’
union
con-
tract
prov
ision
s to m
eet
SLC
staffi n
g nee
ds
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
108
Iden
tify
gaps
bet
wee
n ex
istin
g an
d de
sired
pra
ctic
eD
istri
ct-le
vel s
uppo
rt fo
r SLC
s
Prov
ision
s for
profe
s-sio
nal d
evelo
pmen
t inc
reas
e SLC
team
s’ ca
pacit
y for
instr
uc-
tiona
l inno
vatio
n
Distr
ict st
affi ng
and
budg
eting
prac
tices
giv
e sch
ools
fl exib
ility
in all
ocati
ng re
sour
ces
to me
et SL
C ne
eds
Wha
t is
need
ed t
o m
ove
exist
ing
prac
tice
tow
ard
desir
ed p
ract
ice?
109
Anal
yze
stra
tegi
es t
o ad
opt
Dis
tric
t-le
vel s
uppo
rt fo
r S
LCs
Des
crip
tion
of s
trate
gies
Nee
ds th
at it
add
ress
es
and
othe
r stre
ngth
s
Scho
ol s
treng
ths,
uni
quen
ess
it bu
ilds
on
Prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t and
reso
urce
requ
irem
ents
Nee
d fo
r cha
nge,
adj
ustm
ent
in o
ther
are
as o
f the
sch
ool
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
Stra
tegy
St
rate
gy
110
Impl
emen
t th
e Pl
anD
istri
ct-le
vel s
uppo
rt fo
r SLC
s
WHO
will
tak
e..
wha
t AC
TION
S to
impl
emen
t ad
opte
d st
rate
gies
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r M
ay
June
Ju
ly
Aug
111
Gaug
e Su
cces
sH
ow w
e w
ill kn
ow if
we
impl
emen
ted
dist
rict-l
evel
sup
port
for S
LCs
succ
essf
ully
?
Stud
ent
lear
ning
and
pro
gram
impl
emen
tatio
n ob
ject
ives
Ho
w o
bjec
tives
will
be
mea
sure
d Ho
w o
ften
/whe
n to
col
lect
dat
a
113
ReferencesAllen, L. (with Almeida, C., & Steinberg, A.) (2001). Wall to wall: Implementing small learning communities
in fi ve Boston high schools (LAB Working Paper No. 3). Providence, RI: Brown University, Education
Alliance, Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown. Retrieved October
15, 2004, from www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/LABWorkPaper/Wall2Wall.pdf
Allen, L.C., Steinberg, A. (2004). Big buildings, small schools: Using a small schools strategy for high school reform.
Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2004). The national school district and network grants
program: Year 2 evaluation report. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2005). Rigor, relevance, and results: The quality of
teacher assignments and student work in new and conventional high schools. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation.
Ancess, J. (1995). An inquiry high school: Learner-centered accountability at the Urban Academy. New York, NY:
Columbia University, Teachers College, National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools,
and Teaching.
Ancess, J. (2003). Beating the odds: High schools as communities of commitment. New York, NY: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8),
616–622.
Benard, B. (1990). A case for peers. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Western
Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from
www.nwrac.org/pub/library/c/c_case.pdf
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bryk, A.S., & Driscoll, M.E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual infl uences and consequences for stu-
dents and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. (ERIC Document
Retrieval Service No. ED302539)
Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Associa-
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Christman, J.B., Cohen, J., & Macpherson, P. (1997). Growing smaller: Three tasks in restructuring
urban high schools. Urban Education, 32(1), 146–165.
114
Christman, J.B., & Macpherson, P. (with Cohen, J., McCreary, J., & Reimer, F.). (1996). The fi ve school study:
Restructuring Philadelphia’s comprehensive high schools. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Education Fund.
Cohen, D.K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–17, 31.
Cook, A. (2000). The transformation of one large urban high school: The Julyia Richman Education
Complex. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education (pp.
101–120). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED459539)
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1993). The measurement of fl ow in everyday life: Toward a
theory of emergent motivation. In J.E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992. Develop-
mental perspectives on motivation. Current theory and research in motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 57–97). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction: Another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan,
68(1), 7–11.
Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last? The case of the Juneior high school. American
Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 227–251.
Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 181–185.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S.W. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the
Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639–673.
Eisner, E.W. (1988). The ecology of school improvement. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 24–29.
Elmore, R.F. (1988). Early experience in restructuring schools: Voices from the fi eld. Washington, DC: National
Governors Association. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED306634)
Fazio, T.J., & Ural, K.K. (1995). The Princeton Peer Leadership Program: Training seniors to help fi rst
year students. NASSP Bulletin, 79(568), 57–60.
Felner, R.D., & Adan, A.M. (1988). The School Transitional Environment Project: An ecological inter-
vention and evaluation. In R.H. Price, E.L. Cowen, R.P. Lorion, & J. Ramos-McKay (Eds.), Fourteen
ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners (pp. 111–122). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
115
Felner, R.D., Jackson, A.W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of
school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points-
based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 528–532, 541–550.
Fine, M. (Ed.). (1994). Chartering urban school reform: Refl ections on public high schools in the midst of change. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fine, M., & Somerville, J.I. (Eds.). (1998). Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools.
Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service
No. ED427127)
Fowler, W.J., Jr., & Walberg, H.J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evalua-
tion and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189–202.
Gambone, M., Klem, A., Moore, W., & Summers, J. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions and
capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauff-
man Foundation.
Garbarino, J. (1978). The human ecology of school crime: A case for small schools. In E. Wenk &
N. Harlow (Eds.), School crime and disruption: Prevention models (pp. 123–133). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Institute of Education.
Gladden, M. (1998). The small schools movement: A review of the literature. In M. Fine & J.I.
Somerville (Eds.), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools (pp. 113–137).
Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service
No. ED427127)
Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective.
Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 1–29.
Gottfredson, D.C. (1985). School size and school disorder. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center
for Social Organization of Schools. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED261456)
Grannis, J.C. (1991). Dropout prevention in New York City: A second chance. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2),
143–149.
Haller, E.J. (1992). High school size and student indiscipline: Another aspect of the school consoli-
dation issue? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 145–156.
Jackson, A. (1990). From knowledge to practice: Implementing the recommendations of Turning
Points. Middle School Journal, 21(3), 1–3.
Kemple, J. & Herlihy, C. (2004). The Talent Development High School model. New York: MDRC.
116
Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in achievement
and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270.
Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1997). High school size: Which works best, and for whom? Educational Evalua-
tion and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205–227.
Legters, N., Balfanz, R., & McPartland, J. (2002, April). Solutions for failing high schools: Converging visions
and promising models. Paper presented at Preparing America’s Future: The High School Symposium,
Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED466942)
Lindsay, P. (1982). The effect of high school size on student participation, satisfaction, and atten-
dance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(1), 57–65.
Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American
society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762–796.
Little, J.W., Erbstein, N., & Walker, L. (1996). High school restructuring and vocational reform: The question of “fi t”
in two schools. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Docu-
ment Retrieval Service No. ED401454)
McCabe, J.G., & Oxley, D. (1989). Making big high schools smaller: A review of the implementation of the house plan
in New York City’s most troubled high schools. New York, NY: Public Education Association, & New York,
NY: Bank Street College of Education.
McMullan, B.J. (1994). Charters and restructuring. In M. Fine (Ed.), Chartering urban school reform:
Refl ections on public high schools in the midst of change (pp. 63–77). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
McMullan, B.J., Sipe, C.L., & Wolf, W.C. (1994). Charters and student achievement: Early evidence from school
restructuring in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Assessment and Policy Development.
McPartland, J., Balfanz, R., Jordan, W., & Legters, N. (1998). Improving climate and achievement in
a troubled urban high school through the Talent Development Model. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 3(4), 337–361.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Miles, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high
performing schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Muncey, D.E., & McQuillan, P.J. (1993). Preliminary fi ndings from a fi ve-year study of the Coalition
of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 486–489.
117
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institu-
tion. Reston, VA: Author.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks II: Strategies for leading high
school reform. Reston, VA: Author.
National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: NMSA.
National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe:Developmentally responsive middle level schools.
Columbus, OH: NMSA.
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Colum-
bus, OH: NMSA.
Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M., & Gamoran, A. (1995a). Authentic pedagogy and student perfor-
mance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312.
Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M., & Gamoran, A. (1995b). Authentic pedagogy: Standards that boost student
performance [Entire issue]. Issues in Restructuring Schools, 8, 1−14. Retrieved October 19, 2004,
from www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cors/Issues_in_Restructuring_Schools/ISSUES_NO_8_
SPRING_1995.pdf
Newmann, F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A.S. (2001a). Instructional program coherence:
What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analy-
sis, 23(4), 297–321.
Newmann, F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A.S. (2001b). School instructional program coherence:
Benefi ts and challenges. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. (ERIC Document
Retrieval Service No. ED451305)
Newmann, F.M., & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators.
Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. (ERIC Document Retrieval
Service No. ED387925)
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96(4),
681–690.
Oxley, D. (1990). An analysis of house systems in New York City neighborhood high schools. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University, Center for Research in Human Development and Education. (ERIC Docu-
ment Retrieval Service No. ED368845)
118
Oxley, D. (1993). Organizing schools into smaller units: A planning guide. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University,
Center for Research in Human Development and Education. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service
No. ED364948)
Oxley, D. (1994a). Organizing schools into small units: Alternatives to homogeneous grouping. Phi
Delta Kappan, 75(7), 521–526.
Oxley, D. (1994b). Organizing for responsiveness: The heterogeneous school community. In M.C.
Wang & E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp.
179–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oxley, D. (1997a). Making community in an inner city high school: Towards the merging of high
school restructuring and inclusion agendas. In D.D. Sage (Ed.), Inclusion in secondary schools: Bold
initiatives challenging change (pp. 103–132). Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources.
Oxley, D. (1997b). Theory and practice of school communities. Educational Administration Quarterly,
33(5), 624–643.
Oxley, D. (2001). Organizing schools into small learning communities. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 5–16.
Oxley, D. (2002). Churchill High Schools Small Learning Communities Project Evaluation. Eugene, OR: Churchill
High Schools.
Oxley, D. (2006). What makes small learning communities work. In K. Wong & S. Rutledge (Eds.),
System-wide efforts to improve student achievement. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Oxley, D., Croninger, R.G., & DeGroot, E. (2000, April). Considerations for entry level students in schools-
within-schools: The interplay of social capital and student identity formation. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document
Retrieval Service No. ED443143)
Panel on Youth. (1973). Youth: Transition to adulthood. Washington, DC: U.S. Offi ce of Science and
Technology, President’s Science Advisory Committee. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No.
ED085303)
Pittman, R.B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Infl uence of high school size on dropout rate. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337–343.
Quint, J.C., Miller, C., Pastor, J.J., & Cytron, R.E. (1999). Project Transition: Testing an intervention to help high
school freshmen succeed. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. (ERIC
Document Retrieval Service No. ED434867)
Ratzki, A., & Fisher, A. (1990). Life in a restructured school. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 46–51.
119
Raywid, M.A. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, schools-within-schools, and separate small
schools. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban
Education. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED396045)
Raywid, M.A., Schmerler, G., Phillips, S.E., & Smith, G.A. (2003). Not so easy going: The policy environments
of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa-
tion and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED474653)
Ready, D., Lee, V.E., & LoGerfo, L.F. (2000, April). Social and academic stratifi cation in high schools divided into
schools-within-schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Rizzo, J.A. (2000). School reform: A system’s approach. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Creating new schools: How
small schools are changing American education (pp. 133–149). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A
fi fth discipline fi eldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sizer, T.R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in.
Sondheim, D. (Webmaster). (2004). The Drake website [Web site]. San Anselmo, CA: Sir Francis Drake
High School. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/
Southern Regional Education Board. (1999). High schools that work: New partnerships and a national network to
improve high school education. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from www.sreb.
org/programs/hstw/background/brochure.asp
Supovitz, J. & Christman, J. (2005). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons from Cincinnati and
Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Wasley, P.A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N.E., King, S.P., Mosak, E. et al. (2000). Small schools, great
strides: A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.
Wehlage, G., Smith, G., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urban schools: The New Futures experi-
ence. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 51–93.
Weinstein, R.S. (1996). High standards in a tracked system of schooling: For which students and
with what educational supports? Educational Researcher, 25(8), 16–19.
Wong, K.K., & Wang, M.C. (Eds.). (1994). Rethinking policy for at-risk students. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
121
APPENDIX
Self-Assessment in Five Domains
123
Smal
l Lea
rnin
g C
omm
uniti
es
Self-Asse
ssment
in F
ive
Dom
ains
of
Res
earc
h-B
ased
SLC
Pra
ctic
e
124
Intro
ducti
on to the Self-Asse
ssment To
ol
This
sel
f-as
sess
men
t too
l allo
ws
you
to ta
ke s
tock
of
smal
l lea
rnin
g
com
mun
ity
orga
niza
tion
and
fun
ctio
ning
in fi
ve d
omai
ns o
f pr
acti
ce.
The
dom
ains
are
:
1. I
nter
disc
iplin
ary
Teac
hing
and
Lea
rnin
g Te
ams
2. R
igor
ous,
Rel
evan
t Cur
ricu
lum
and
Ins
truc
tion
3. I
nclu
sive
Pro
gram
and
Pra
ctic
es
4. C
onti
nuou
s Pr
ogra
m I
mpr
ovem
ent
5. B
uild
ing/
Dis
tric
t Sup
port
Each
dom
ain
cont
ains
a s
et o
f re
sear
ch-b
ased
pra
ctic
es. T
hese
pra
ctic
es
are
feat
ures
of
smal
l lea
rnin
g co
mm
unit
ies
and
smal
l sch
ools
that
hav
e
been
link
ed to
pos
itiv
e st
uden
t out
com
es. T
aken
toge
ther
, the
y op
era-
tion
aliz
e th
e de
fi nin
g ch
arac
teri
stic
s of
sm
all l
earn
ing
com
mun
itie
s:
auto
nom
y, id
enti
ty, p
erso
naliz
atio
n, a
foc
us o
n te
achi
ng a
nd le
arni
ng,
and
acco
unta
bilit
y.
The
tool
is d
esig
ned
to h
elp
take
sto
ck o
f pr
acti
ce b
y pr
ovid
ing
a
rang
e of
des
crip
tion
s of
eac
h pr
acti
ce th
at s
ugge
sts
the
dire
ctio
n st
aff
coul
d m
ove
in to
incr
ease
impa
ct o
n de
sira
ble
stud
ent o
utco
mes
.
Thro
ugh
refl e
ctio
n on
pra
ctic
e th
at in
clud
es c
olle
ctio
n an
d an
alys
is o
f
data
on
refo
rms
that
hav
e be
en m
ade
and
stud
ent o
utco
mes
that
hav
e
been
obt
aine
d, s
taff
can
det
erm
ine
whe
re in
the
rang
e th
eir
curr
ent
prac
tice
falls
and
wha
t cha
nges
in p
ract
ice
they
cou
ld e
xpec
t to
lead
to
high
er s
tude
nt a
chie
vem
ent.
You
can
fi nd
mor
e in
form
atio
n ab
out t
he p
ract
ices
and
the
rese
arch
base
use
d to
iden
tify
them
in S
mal
l Lea
rnin
g Co
mm
uniti
es: Im
plem
entin
g an
d
Deep
enin
g Pr
actic
e, a
book
let a
vaila
ble
from
the
Nor
thw
est R
egio
nal E
du-
cati
onal
Lab
orat
ory.
Smal
l Lea
rnin
g C
omm
unit
ies
web
sit
e:
ww
w.n
wre
l.org
/scp
d/ss
lc/
125
Guidelin
es for U
se
• A g
roup
rep
rese
ntin
g th
e m
ajor
sta
keh
olde
rs in
sch
ool
impr
ovem
ent (
teac
hers
, adm
inis
trat
ors,
com
mun
ity
part
ners
,
stud
ents
, par
ents
) sh
ould
col
labo
rate
on
self
-ass
essm
ent a
nd
use
cons
ensu
s to
arr
ive
at a
rat
ing
for
each
item
.
• Su
bgro
ups
may
con
duct
the
self
-ass
essm
ent i
n ea
ch d
omai
n
and
repo
rt b
ack
to th
e la
rger
gro
up
for
thei
r in
put.
• Fo
r ea
ch it
em to
be
rate
d, th
e gr
oup
shou
ld f
irst
iden
tify
key
type
s of
dat
a th
at w
ill h
elp
them
thor
ough
ly r
efle
ct o
n th
eir
prac
tice.
It m
ay b
e ne
cess
ary
to g
ener
ate
data
, for
exa
mpl
e, b
y:
✔ H
oldi
ng f
ocus
gro
ups
wit
h st
uden
ts, p
aren
ts, o
r co
mm
unit
y
part
ners
✔ H
avin
g st
uden
ts o
r te
ache
rs fi
ll ou
t a b
rief
que
stio
nnai
re
✔ A
ssem
blin
g st
uden
t wor
k
✔ D
isag
greg
atin
g sc
hool
-lev
el s
tude
nt a
chie
vem
ent a
nd d
emo-
grap
hic
data
by
SLC
• Fa
cilit
ate
open
and
thor
ough
exa
min
atio
n of
the
data
. Allo
w
grou
p m
embe
rs to
:
✔ A
sk q
uest
ions
abo
ut th
e na
ture
of
the
data
(ho
w d
ata
wer
e
colle
cted
and
cal
cula
ted,
etc
.)
✔ N
ote
wha
t the
y se
e in
the
data
and
wha
t the
dat
a m
ay s
how
befo
re th
ey b
egin
to c
onsi
der
wha
t rat
ing
the
data
indi
cate
• D
ocum
ent y
our
rati
ng w
ith
key
piec
es o
f da
ta to
info
rm
othe
rs o
f th
e ba
sis
for
your
rat
ing.
126
Scho
ol _
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
_
SLC
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
__
Dat
e _
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
Inst
ruct
ions
On
the
follo
win
g pa
ges,
CIR
CL
E a
num
ber
from
1 to
5 to
indi
cate
wha
t des
crip
tor
and
leve
l of
impa
ct o
n st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t you
r cu
rren
t pra
ctic
e ap
prox
imat
es. T
he n
umbe
r “1
” in
dica
tes
low
impa
ct; t
he n
umbe
r “5
” in
dica
tes
high
impa
ct. D
escr
ibe
the
actu
al p
rac-
tice
in th
e sp
ace
prov
ided
for
com
men
ts, a
nd a
ttach
ava
ilabl
e do
cum
ents
to s
uppo
rt y
our
ratin
g.
127
Team
mem
bers
hav
e m
ore
than
hal
f-tim
e as
sign
men
t to
SLC
SLC
teac
hers
inst
ruct
hal
f or
few
er o
f th
eir
clas
ses
in
the
SLC
and
hav
e m
ulti
ple
com
mit
men
ts.
SLC
teac
hers
inst
ruct
mor
e th
an h
alf
of th
eir
clas
ses
in th
e SL
C, w
hich
is th
eir
prim
ary
com
mit
men
t.SL
C te
ache
rs in
stru
ct a
ll th
eir
clas
ses
in th
e SL
C, w
hich
is
thei
r pr
imar
y af
fi lia
tion
and
prof
essi
onal
iden
tity.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Stud
ents
rem
ain
wit
h th
eir
teac
her
team
for
onl
y on
e ye
ar.
Stud
ents
rem
ain
wit
h th
eir
teac
her
team
for
two
year
s an
d in
SLC
s fo
r fo
ur y
ears
; tea
ms
loop
wit
h st
uden
ts o
r pr
ovid
e m
ulti
grad
e cl
asse
s.
Stud
ents
rem
ain
wit
h th
eir
teac
her
team
for
two
or m
ore
year
s an
d in
one
SLC
for
fou
r ye
ars;
9–1
0 an
d 11
–12
or 9
–12
team
s lo
op w
ith
stud
ents
or
prov
ide
mul
tigr
ade
clas
ses.
Team
s an
d th
eir s
tude
nts
rem
ain
toge
ther
for m
ultip
le y
ears
of s
tudy
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
1. Interdisciplin
ary Te
aching
and
Learning Te
ams
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am(s
) sha
res
no m
ore
than
a fe
w h
undr
ed s
tude
nts
in c
omm
on fo
r ins
truc
tion
SLC
is c
ompo
sed
of a
facu
lty th
at w
orks
wit
h 40
0 or
few
er s
tude
nts;
cla
sses
con
tain
som
e st
uden
ts
who
do
not b
elon
g to
the
SLC.
SLC
is c
ompo
sed
of a
n in
terd
isci
plin
ary
team
(s)
that
wor
ks w
ith
trad
itio
nal c
lass
load
of
150–
180
stud
ents
; SLC
cla
sses
con
tain
onl
y st
uden
ts w
ho
belo
ng to
the
SLC.
SLC
is c
ompo
sed
of a
n in
terd
isci
plin
ary
team
(s)
that
wor
ks e
xclu
sive
ly w
ith
90–1
20 s
tude
nts.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
128
Bui
ldin
g sp
ace
suffi
cien
t to
crea
te h
ome
base
for c
olla
bora
tion
One
SLC
teac
her
has
a la
rge
clas
sroo
m o
r tw
o SL
C
teac
hers
hav
e ad
jace
nt c
lass
room
s to
use
as
a ho
me
base
.
Seve
ral o
f th
e SL
C te
ache
rs u
se p
roxi
mal
or
adja
cent
cl
assr
oom
s as
a h
ome
base
.A
ll SL
C te
am m
embe
rs h
ave
cont
iguo
us c
lass
room
s an
d of
fi ce/
mee
ting
spa
ce th
at e
xpre
ss th
e SL
C’s
iden
tity
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Team
s us
e pl
anni
ng ti
me
mos
tly to
talk
abo
ut in
di-
vidu
al s
tude
nts.
Team
s us
e ti
me
to ta
lk a
bout
indi
vidu
al s
tude
nts
and
plan
SLC
eve
nts.
Team
s us
e ti
me
to p
lan
curr
icul
um a
nd le
arni
ng
acti
viti
es a
nd d
iscu
ss s
tude
nts.
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am m
embe
rs c
olla
bora
te o
n cu
rric
ulum
, ins
truc
tion,
stu
dent
pro
gres
s
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am m
embe
rs h
ave
com
mon
pla
nnin
g tim
e
Mos
t tea
m m
embe
rs s
hare
in c
omm
on s
ever
al
prep
arat
ion
peri
ods/
wee
k.A
ll te
am m
embe
rs s
hare
in c
omm
on s
ever
al p
repa
ra-
tion
peri
ods/
wee
k w
ith p
rovi
sion
s fo
r so
me
exte
nded
bl
ocks
of t
ime
(e.g
., pr
ep b
ack-
to-b
ack
with
lunc
h).
All
team
mem
bers
sha
re c
omm
on p
rep
peri
ods/
wee
k w
ith
prov
isio
n fo
r ex
tend
ed b
lock
s of
tim
e (e
.g.,
doub
le p
erio
d an
d ea
rly
rele
ase/
late
sta
rt d
ays.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
129
Min
imum
hal
f-day
blo
ck o
f ins
truc
tion
Stud
ents
’ SLC
cla
sses
occ
upy
less
than
a h
alf-
day
bloc
k of
thei
r sc
hool
day
.St
uden
ts’ S
LC c
lass
es o
ccup
y a
half
-day
unb
roke
n bl
ock
of th
eir
scho
ol d
ay.
Stud
ents
’ SLC
cla
sses
occ
upy
mor
e th
an a
hal
f-da
y un
brok
en b
lock
of
thei
r sc
hool
day
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
SLC
pro
gram
mee
ts h
igh
stan
dard
s th
roug
h cl
asse
s or
gani
zed
arou
nd a
cade
mic
dis
cipl
ines
and
thei
r as
soci
ated
sta
ndar
ds.
SLC
pro
gram
mee
ts h
igh
stan
dard
s th
roug
h in
terd
isci
plin
ary
clas
ses
that
map
ont
o as
soci
ated
st
anda
rds.
SLC
est
ablis
hes
stud
ent p
rofi c
ienc
ies
and
form
s of
as
sess
men
t con
sist
ent w
ith
them
e an
d st
ate/
dist
rict
st
anda
rds.
Rig
orou
s st
anda
rds-
base
d cu
rric
ulum
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
2. Rigorou
s, R
elevan
t Curric
ulum
and
Instru
ction
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y cu
rric
ulum
org
aniz
ed a
roun
d to
pics
of i
nter
est t
o st
uden
ts a
nd e
ssen
tial s
kills
/kno
wle
dge
Stud
ents
par
tici
pate
in S
LC th
eme-
base
d fi e
ld tr
ips
and
clas
s ac
tivi
ties
in th
eir
regu
lar
curr
icul
um.
Stud
ents
do
seve
ral t
hem
e-ba
sed
inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y pr
ojec
ts/y
ear
in th
e re
gula
r cu
rric
ulum
and
lear
n es
sent
ial c
onte
nt a
nd s
kills
acr
oss
diff
eren
t cla
sses
.
Stud
ents
lear
n es
sent
ial s
kills
/kno
wle
dge
thro
ugh
a la
rgel
y in
tegr
ated
cou
rse
of s
tudy
org
aniz
ed b
y to
p-ic
s/th
emes
of
inte
rest
to a
dole
scen
ts a
nd r
elev
ant t
o th
eir
cultu
ral b
ackg
roun
d.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
130
Stud
ents
reg
ular
ly d
o in
depe
nden
t lib
rary
and
In
tern
et r
esea
rch
to b
road
en c
lass
room
mat
eria
ls
and
stud
y.
Stud
ents
res
earc
h to
pics
/iss
ues,
col
lect
and
eva
lu-
ate
info
rmat
ion
from
var
ied
sour
ces,
and
pre
sent
co
nclu
sion
s as
fea
ture
s of
spe
cial
pro
ject
s.
Stud
ents
reg
ular
ly g
ener
ate
rese
arch
que
stio
ns, c
ol-
lect
and
eva
luat
e in
form
atio
n fr
om v
arie
d so
urce
s,
and
docu
men
t wor
k in
in-d
epth
, aut
hent
ic f
orm
s.
Stud
ents
eng
age
in a
ctiv
e, a
uthe
ntic
inqu
iry
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Team
s co
llabo
rate
with
com
mun
ity p
artn
ers
Team
s co
llabo
rate
wit
h co
mm
unit
y m
embe
rs to
of
fer
spec
ial t
rips
and
act
ivit
ies.
Team
s es
tabl
ish
com
mun
ity p
artn
ersh
ips
to p
rovi
de
exte
nsiv
e fi e
ld-b
ased
stu
dy.
Com
mun
ity p
artn
ers
are
inte
gral
to te
ams;
they
hel
p pl
an, l
ead,
and
ass
ess
stud
ents
’ wor
k.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
131
Team
s ta
ilor i
nstr
uctio
n to
div
erse
stu
dent
s’ n
eeds
Teac
hers
var
y w
hole
clas
s in
stru
ctio
n w
ith
smal
l gr
oup
and
indi
vidu
aliz
ed w
ork.
Teac
hers
use
a v
arie
ty o
f in
stru
ctio
nal s
trat
egie
s an
d of
fer
alte
rnat
ive
assi
gnm
ents
and
met
hods
of
dem
-on
stra
ting
kno
wle
dge
to g
ive
stud
ents
a c
hoic
e.
Stud
ent c
hoic
e in
ass
ignm
ents
and
met
hods
of
dem
onst
rati
ng k
now
ledg
e is
a r
egul
ar f
eatu
re o
f w
ork;
cho
ices
refl
ect
stu
dent
s’ v
arie
d st
reng
ths,
le
arni
ng s
tyle
s, c
ultu
ral e
xper
ienc
e, a
nd n
eeds
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
SLC
cla
ss s
ched
ules
are
the
sam
e as
the
scho
olw
ide
sche
dule
/allo
t unv
aryi
ng p
erio
ds o
f ti
me
for
sub-
ject
s.
Team
s sc
hedu
le b
lock
of
tim
e ac
cord
ing
to le
arni
ng
acti
viti
es a
nd s
tude
nts’
lear
ning
nee
ds.
Team
s ad
d in
stru
ctio
nal t
ime
for
rem
edia
l/ho
nors
w
ork,
use
onl
ine
tech
nolo
gy, a
nd p
ursu
e/cr
eate
le
arni
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
out
side
sch
ool o
r sc
hool
day
.
Team
s us
e tim
e an
d lo
catio
n fl e
xibl
y to
mee
t stu
dent
s’ le
arni
ng n
eeds
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
3. Inclusive
Program
and
Instru
ctional P
racti
ces
SLC
mem
bers
hip
is b
ased
on
stud
ents
’ and
teac
hers
’ int
eres
t and
cho
ice
to e
nsur
e eq
uita
ble
acce
ssSt
uden
ts a
nd te
ache
rs c
hoos
e th
eir
SLC.
Stud
ents
and
teac
hers
cho
ose
thei
r SL
C; s
taff
off
ers
info
rmat
ion
abou
t SLC
s in
a v
arie
ty o
f fo
rmat
s (c
ouns
elor
s, e
ight
h-gr
ade
pres
enta
tion
s, b
roch
ures
)
Stud
ents
and
teac
hers
cho
ose
thei
r SL
C; s
taff
off
ers
info
rmat
ion
abou
t SLC
s in
a v
arie
ty o
f for
mat
s, m
oni-
tors
ent
erin
g st
uden
ts’ c
hara
cter
istic
s, a
nd a
djus
ts p
ro-
gram
to a
ttrac
t and
ret
ain
dive
rse
grou
p of
stu
dent
s.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
132
Teac
hers
adv
ise/
men
tor s
tude
nts
All
team
mem
bers
hol
d w
eekl
y ad
viso
ry lo
ng
enou
gh f
or in
divi
dual
mee
ting
s w
ith
stud
ents
.A
ll te
am m
embe
rs h
old
wee
kly
advi
sory
long
en
ough
for
who
le-g
roup
act
ivit
y or
indi
vidu
al
mee
ting
s.
Stud
ents
lead
reg
ular
ly s
ched
uled
adv
isor
ies
wit
h ti
me
to p
lan
SLC
act
ivit
ies
and
even
ts f
or p
aren
ts
duri
ng th
e ye
ar.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Cou
nsel
ors
wor
k ex
clus
ivel
y w
ith
stud
ents
in S
LC
to w
hich
they
are
ass
igne
d.C
ouns
elor
s w
ork
excl
usiv
ely
wit
h st
uden
ts in
SLC
s to
whi
ch th
ey a
re a
ssig
ned
and
assi
st w
ith
spec
ial
proj
ects
and
lear
ning
act
ivit
ies.
Cou
nsel
ors
wor
k ex
clus
ivel
y w
ith
stud
ents
in S
LCs
to w
hich
they
are
ass
igne
d an
d ar
e in
tegr
al m
em-
bers
of
the
inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y te
am.
Cou
nsel
ors
are
inte
gral
mem
bers
of t
each
ing
and
lear
ning
team
s
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Teac
her s
peci
alis
ts a
re in
tegr
al m
embe
rs o
f tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng te
ams
Spec
ial/
ELL
teac
hers
are
ass
igne
d to
team
s bu
t te
ach
stud
ents
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds o
utsi
de S
LC
clas
ses.
Spec
ial/
ELL
teac
hers
are
ass
igne
d to
team
s, h
elp
diff
eren
tiat
e in
stru
ctio
n, w
ork
wit
h in
divi
dual
stu
-de
nts
in in
clus
ive
clas
ses.
Team
s of
reg
ular
and
spe
cial
edu
cati
on te
ache
rs
plan
cur
ricu
lum
and
inst
ruct
ion,
div
ide
up s
tude
nts
to c
reat
e sm
all,
incl
usiv
e cl
asse
s.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
133
Team
s co
llabo
rate
with
par
ents
Team
s co
ntac
t par
ents
via
e-m
ail/
tele
phon
e an
d in
pe
rson
as
indi
vidu
al s
tude
nts’
nee
ds d
icta
te.
Team
s co
mm
unic
ate
wit
h pa
rent
s vi
a e-
mai
l/te
le-
phon
e, in
per
son
as n
eede
d; m
eet w
ith
all p
aren
ts
abou
t stu
dent
s’ p
rogr
ess
at le
ast o
nce
per
year
.
Team
s co
mm
unic
ate
wit
h pa
rent
s vi
a e-
mai
l/te
le-
phon
e, a
nd i
n pe
rson
as
need
ed; a
nd o
rgan
ize
a va
riet
y of
eve
nts
to a
llow
par
ents
to
look
at,
disc
uss
stud
ents
’ wor
k an
d pr
ogre
ss.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
134
Team
s us
e st
akeh
olde
rs’ a
nd c
olle
ague
s’ in
put
Team
s w
ork
wit
h sc
hool
lead
ers
and
eval
uato
r to
st
udy
data
and
idea
s fo
r im
prov
ing
prac
tice
.Te
ams
wor
k w
ith
scho
ol le
ader
s an
d ev
alua
tor
and
solic
it p
aren
ts’ a
nd c
omm
unit
y pa
rtne
rs’ o
bser
va-
tion
s of
pro
gram
and
stu
dent
wor
k to
impr
ove
prac
tice
.
Team
s in
volv
e pa
rent
s, c
omm
unit
y pa
rtne
rs, a
nd
eval
uato
r in
all
aspe
cts
of p
lann
ing
and
impr
ove-
men
t and
gat
her
colle
gial
inpu
t on
stud
ent w
ork
and
new
mat
eria
ls.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Team
s us
e sc
hool
wid
e st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t and
at
tend
ance
dat
a to
refl
ect
on
thei
r pr
acti
ce a
t the
en
d of
eac
h ye
ar.
Team
s us
e st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t and
att
enda
nce
data
for
the
stud
ents
in th
eir
SLC
to r
efl e
ct o
n th
eir
prac
tice
at m
id-
and
end-
of-y
ear
poin
ts.
Team
s re
gula
rly
anal
yze
thei
r st
uden
ts’ w
ork,
gra
des/
test
sco
res,
atte
ndan
ce, s
ucce
ss b
eyon
d sc
hool
, and
de
mog
raph
ic d
ata
to im
prov
e th
eir
prac
tice.
Team
s us
e a
varie
ty o
f stu
dent
dat
a
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
4. Contin
uous P
rogram
Imp
roveme
nt
Team
s en
gage
in c
ontin
uous
pro
gram
impr
ovem
ent
Team
s ex
amin
e st
uden
t out
com
es a
t end
of e
ach
year
, re
ly o
n pr
ogra
m e
valu
ator
or
dist
rict
/sch
ool l
eade
rs to
co
llect
/ana
lyze
dat
a, a
gree
on
chan
ges
to m
ake.
Team
s ex
amin
e st
uden
t out
com
es a
t end
of g
radi
ng
peri
ods,
eng
age
as p
artn
er w
ith d
istr
ict/
scho
ol le
ader
s in
pro
gram
rev
iew
, agr
ee o
n ch
ange
s to
mak
e.
Stud
ents
pro
vide
feed
back
dur
ing
the
cour
se o
f all
activ
ities
; tea
ms
revi
ew s
tude
nt o
utco
mes
at e
nd o
f al
l maj
or u
nits
of w
ork,
dev
elop
ow
n im
med
iate
and
lo
ng-t
erm
pla
ns fo
r pr
ogra
m im
prov
emen
t.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
135
Team
s se
t and
pur
sue
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t goa
ls
Team
s at
tend
dis
tric
t/sc
hool
-org
aniz
ed p
rofe
ssio
nal
deve
lopm
ent s
essi
ons.
Team
s so
licit
and
pur
sue
idea
s fo
r pr
ofes
sion
al
deve
lopm
ent
that
add
ress
ide
ntifi
ed
need
s.Te
ams
form
ulat
e an
nual
pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
-m
ent
plan
s th
at i
nclu
de t
eam
pla
nnin
g, c
olle
gial
ex
chan
ge, a
nd e
xper
t tr
aine
rs t
o ad
dres
s sp
ecifi
c
iden
tifi e
d ne
eds.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
136
Bui
ldin
g-le
vel p
rovi
sion
s fo
r sta
ff pl
anni
ng/d
evel
opm
ent m
eet S
LC n
eeds
Scho
ol s
taff
pla
nnin
g an
d de
velo
pmen
t day
s an
d re
sour
ces
addr
ess
scho
olw
ide
impr
ovem
ent n
eeds
.Sc
hool
sta
ff p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent d
ays,
re
sour
ces
are
dire
cted
to S
LC d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
impr
ovem
ent n
eeds
.
Scho
ol s
taff
pla
nnin
g an
d de
velo
pmen
t res
ourc
es
are
allo
cate
d to
SLC
s.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Aca
dem
ic a
rea
team
s co
ntin
ue to
pla
y pr
imar
y ro
le in
cu
rric
ulum
and
con
tent
sta
ndar
ds w
ork;
sha
re a
utho
r-ity
with
SLC
team
s ov
er s
taffi
ng a
nd c
lass
sch
edul
es.
SLC
team
s ex
erci
se a
utho
rity
ove
r st
affi n
g an
d sc
hedu
les;
aca
dem
ic a
rea
team
s w
ork
on c
onte
nt
stan
dard
s, h
elp
SLC
team
s en
sure
that
inte
rdis
ci-
plin
ary
prog
ram
s ad
dres
s co
nten
t sta
ndar
ds.
SLC
team
s ha
ve a
utho
rity
ove
r cu
rric
ulum
, sta
ffi n
g,
sche
dule
s; a
cade
mic
are
a te
ams
func
tion
to a
ug-
men
t tea
cher
s’ s
ubje
ct a
rea
know
ledg
e an
d ex
per-
tise
in o
rder
to m
axim
ize
SLC
team
s’ e
ffec
tive
ness
.
Aca
dem
ic a
rea
(dep
artm
ent)
goal
s al
ign
with
SLC
nee
ds
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
5a.
Building-
Level Sup
port
for SLC
s
Bui
ldin
gwid
e im
prov
emen
t goa
ls a
lign
with
SLC
nee
dsSc
hool
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
incl
udes
SLC
goa
ls a
nd
need
s.Sc
hool
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
inco
rpor
ates
det
aile
d sc
hool
wid
e SL
C pl
an a
nd e
nsur
es a
lignm
ent o
f oth
er
refo
rms
with
it.
Build
ingw
ide
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
is d
rive
n by
SLC
’s vi
sion
and
goa
ls.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
137
Bui
ldin
g-le
vel p
olic
ies
are
enac
ted
to s
tren
gthe
n SL
C s
elf-g
over
nanc
e
Build
ing
adm
inis
trat
ors
empl
oy s
hare
d de
cisi
on
mak
ing;
SLC
team
s pa
rtic
ipat
e in
bui
ldin
g-le
vel
gove
rnan
ce w
ith
othe
r gr
oups
.
Build
ing
adm
inis
trat
ors
empl
oy s
hare
d de
cisi
on
mak
ing,
are
mem
bers
of
SLC
team
s; S
LC te
ams
par-
tici
pate
in g
over
nanc
e w
ith
othe
r gr
oups
.
Adm
inis
trat
or o
pera
tes
as b
uild
ing
man
ager
and
in
tegr
al m
embe
r of
SLC
; SLC
team
s ha
ve m
ajor
rol
e in
bui
ldin
g-le
vel g
over
nanc
e, a
ssum
e re
spon
sibi
lity
for
stud
ents
.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Hon
ors/
AP
clas
ses
are
offe
red
wit
hin
a pa
rtic
u-la
r SL
C th
at u
ses
prac
tice
s de
sign
ed to
att
ract
and
su
ppor
t a d
iver
se g
roup
of
stud
ents
; pro
gram
s fo
r at
-ris
k st
uden
ts li
mit
adm
issi
on to
ove
rage
stu
dent
s.
Hon
ors/
AP
stud
ents
and
at-
risk
stu
dent
s pa
rtic
ipat
e in
an
SLC
pro
gram
of t
heir
cho
ice
in a
dditi
on to
ho
nors
/AP
cour
ses
and
at-r
isk
prog
ram
s w
hich
are
sc
hedu
led
to a
ccom
mod
ate
SLC
blo
cks
of in
stru
ctio
n.
All
SLC
s of
fer
hono
rs o
ptio
ns fo
r co
urse
s an
d su
ppor
t fo
r at
-ris
k st
uden
ts a
nd m
eet s
peci
al s
tude
nt n
eeds
th
roug
h co
llabo
ratio
n w
ith o
ther
edu
catio
nal i
nstit
u-tio
ns a
nd a
genc
ies.
Aca
dem
ic tr
ack/
alte
rnat
ive
prog
ram
cha
nges
are
mad
e to
incr
ease
stu
dent
cho
ice
and
chal
leng
e ac
ross
all
prog
ram
s
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Cla
ss s
ched
ulin
g an
d st
affi n
g ar
e ad
just
ed to
str
engt
hen
SLC
pro
gram
s
Build
ing-
leve
l sch
edul
e an
d st
affi n
g ac
com
mod
ate
min
imum
SLC
req
uire
men
ts f
or in
terd
isci
plin
ary
team
s an
d co
mm
on p
lann
ing
tim
e.
Build
ing-
leve
l sch
edul
e an
d st
affi n
g tr
ade
off
spe-
cial
ty c
urri
culu
m o
ffer
ings
to g
ive
SLC
team
s m
ore
core
inst
ruct
iona
l tim
e w
ith
thei
r st
uden
ts.
Build
ing-
leve
l sch
edul
e an
d st
affi n
g al
lot m
ore
non-
in
stru
ctio
nal s
taff
tim
e to
teac
hing
, use
dua
l-ce
rtifi
ed
teac
hers
, fol
d se
para
te r
emed
ial p
rogr
ams
into
cor
e su
bjec
t are
a in
stru
ctio
n, a
nd c
reat
e m
ore
plan
ning
tim
e.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
138
Dis
tric
t neg
otia
tes
teac
hers
’ uni
on c
ontr
act p
rovi
sion
s to
mee
t SLC
sta
ffi ng
nee
ds
Dis
tric
t and
teac
hers
uni
on n
egot
iate
sus
pens
ion
of
teac
her
seni
orit
y hi
ring
rul
e if
75
perc
ent o
f fa
culty
ag
rees
.
Dis
tric
t and
teac
hers
uni
on n
egot
iate
sus
pens
ion
of
teac
her
seni
orit
y hi
ring
rul
e if
50
perc
ent o
f fa
culty
ag
rees
.
Teac
hers
uni
on c
ontr
act a
llow
s pe
er h
irin
g to
em
pow
er S
LC te
ams
to m
aint
ain
inte
grit
y of
thei
r pr
ogra
ms.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Dis
tric
t pol
icy
supp
orts
bui
ldin
g-le
vel s
elf-
gove
rnan
ce
and
hold
s sc
hool
s ac
coun
tabl
e fo
r st
uden
t out
com
es.
Dis
tric
t pol
icy
supp
orts
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n of
dec
isio
n m
akin
g au
thor
ity to
SLC
s an
d ho
lds
scho
ols
and
SLC
s ac
coun
tabl
e fo
r st
uden
t out
com
es.
Dis
tric
t pol
icy
supp
orts
inno
vativ
e bu
ildin
g m
anag
e-m
ent (
e.g.
, par
t-tim
e ad
min
istr
ator
s w
ho te
ach,
SLC
te
ache
r le
ader
s) a
nd h
olds
SLC
s ac
coun
tabl
e.
Polic
ies
stre
ngth
en S
LC s
elf-g
over
nanc
e
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
5b.
Distric
t-Le
vel Sup
port
for SLC
s
Dis
tric
t sta
ndar
dize
s po
licie
s ne
eded
to s
uppo
rt S
LC p
ract
ice
Dis
tric
t wai
ves
polic
ies
that
pos
e ba
rrie
rs to
impl
e-m
entin
g an
d su
stai
ning
SLC
s fo
r re
stru
ctur
ing
scho
ols
Dis
tric
t pro
activ
ely
enac
ts p
olic
ies
need
ed to
sup
port
im
plem
entin
g an
d su
stai
ning
SLC
s fo
r re
stru
ctur
ing
scho
ols.
Dis
tric
t ext
ends
pol
icie
s th
at s
uppo
rt im
plem
entin
g an
d su
stai
ning
SLC
s to
all
scho
ols
to a
lign
polic
y w
ith
rese
arch
-bas
ed p
ract
ice.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
139
Staf
fi ng
and
budg
etin
g pr
actic
es g
ive
scho
ols
fl exi
bilit
y in
allo
catin
g re
sour
ces
to m
eet S
LC n
eeds
Dis
tric
t allo
ws
scho
ols
to c
onve
rt a
llotm
ents
of
staf
f po
siti
ons
to m
eet S
LC n
eeds
.D
istr
ict u
ses
stud
ent-
base
d bu
dget
ing
or o
ther
st
rate
gy to
max
imiz
e eq
uity
in s
choo
l bud
gets
and
sc
hool
s’ fl
exib
ility
in a
lloca
ting
res
ourc
es.
Dis
tric
t pro
vide
s eq
uity
and
fl ex
ibili
ty in
sch
ool
budg
etin
g an
d ac
tive
ly s
uppo
rts
scho
ols’
eff
orts
to
dire
ct r
esou
rces
to te
achi
ng.
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact
Dis
tric
t sta
ff p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent d
ays
and
reso
urce
s ad
dres
s sc
hool
wid
e im
prov
emen
t nee
ds.
Dis
tric
t sta
ff p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent d
ays
and
reso
urce
s ar
e fo
cuse
d on
SLC
dev
elop
men
t and
im
prov
emen
t.
Dis
tric
t em
ploy
s a
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t str
ateg
y th
at a
ligns
the
acco
unta
bilit
y sy
stem
with
sup
port
s fo
r ap
plyi
ng p
rofe
ssio
nal t
rain
ing
(e.g
., ad
equa
te ti
me
for
colla
bora
tive
plan
ning
, dat
a fo
r re
fl ect
ion
on S
LC
prac
tice.
)
Prov
isio
ns fo
r pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t inc
reas
e SL
C te
ams’
cap
acity
for i
nstr
uctio
nal i
nnov
atio
n
Low
Im
pact
1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h Im
pact