Exemplary Practices

Dr. Tom Gregory wrote “Breaking Up Large High Schools: Five Common (and Understandable) Errors of Execution”, published by the ERIC Clearinghouse.  Dr. Gregory  identifies five errors developers can make in the creation of small schools-within-schools. Errors of Size Errors of Continuity Errors of Autonomy Errors of Time Errors of Control

While there is a virtual tidal wave of movement toward Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) in urban districts across the nation, many are currently in the midst of conversion. Some schools have completed much or all of the planning to convert into SLCs, fewer have begun the implementation process, and even fewer have fully converted.

District wide SLC reform is occurring in many areas throughout the country including Sacramento USD, San Diego USD, San Francisco USD, Oakland USD, Long Beach USD.  Most are partnering with key intermediaries or non profits to assist in this change.  For Example, Sacramento USD partners with the School-to-Career partnership LEED-Sacramento (http://www.leed.org).

There are almost an unlimited number of best or promising practices throughout the country.  However, there is a much smaller sample of large urban secondary schools with many similarities to LAUSD profiles that have successfully and fully converted from comprehensive middle or high schools of over 2,000 – 3,000 students into various forms of smaller learning communities.

 In this survey we have tried to search for those examples that have reached for total or at least substantially entire conversions for the whole school enrollment. Here is just a sampling of a few. UNITE-LA is currently surveying partner organizations locally, statewide and nationally to identify schools whose size, demographics, and experience will provide insights and lessons to LAUSD teachers, administrators, and leaders.

In December of 2000, Dr. Gregory wrote “Breaking Up Large High Schools:  Five Common (and Understandable) Errors of Execution,” which discussed the challenges high schools face as they strive to rework themselves into quality small schools.  Dr. Gregory identifies five errors small school developers can make in attempting to create small schools-within-schools.  Those five errors are:

Errors of Size

When schools are broken up into smaller units, they are usually done so as administrative units designed for administrators rather than for effective teaching and teacher autonomy. Hence, they have a tendency to become 400-600 student units with 25-40 teachers. This means that the units will retain much the same delivery system and administrative system, attempting to copy the same curriculum, teaching strategies and governance councils as the larger units.  Rarely can a small unit copying the comprehensive high school and its governance system create innovations that allow for real reform.

Errors of Continuity

When large high schools are broken up into small units they are done so with the same breakdown of student body (i.e., 6-8, 10-12) instead of into small schools with larger variation of student body (i.e., 6-12) that would allow for a vertical strata wherein students would feel a sense of continuity and closeness with each other and with staff. Instead of students starting over with a new curriculum, new staff, new friends, etc., small schools that have desegregated students would allow younger students to work with older students and allow for students to continue working with a staff who learn to know them well.

Errors of Autonomy

Rather than create new cultural roles for the small school units, the tendency has been to try to retain all the trappings of the big high school (i.e., comprehensive curriculum, sports, proms, marching bands, etc.) in the small. Some other services may also be centralized, such as physical education, cafeteria, counseling, etc.  Each of these specializations tends to keep the depersonalized aspects of the large school intact. Rather than allow each small unit to develop its own support services and student activities, allowing for generalization rather than specialization, keeping vestiges of the old can only deter the development of the autonomy of the small unit.

Errors of Time

Keeping the curriculum of the old comprehensive high school will fatally keep the time constraints of the old bell schedule, the class schedule and a common structuring of time that so often limits innovative use of educational time. This will make it difficult to personalize education, adopt more project-based methods and make it impossible to allow for community interaction and direct parent involvement. When old schedules are adhered to, spontaneous learning opportunities cannot be utilized to the fullest.

Errors of Control

Big schools have very little personalized education happening because it is assumed large groups of adolescents require control mechanisms that take primacy.  Freedom of movement is a necessity in personalized, project-based schools, and when the old methods of controls are kept in place, the student’s needs become secondary to control factors. Students need to be trusted and learn to take responsibility for themselves, but rarely does that take place when large-scale control factors are in place. Informal teaching is impossible in a big school, and formal methods are kept in place in small schools in order to have the same type of controls as in large ones.  As Dr. Gregory notes, innovative programmatic efforts will not be allowed to develop if students do not have levels of freedom allowing for control over when, where, and how their learning takes place.