Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 187
8
Comprehensive High School
Reform Designs
The previous chapters describe the key features of high schools that
are necessary to engage students from challenging backgrounds. Imple-
menting any one of these features will have modest effects at best on
student engagement. The evidence suggests that narrowly construed inter-
ventions addressing isolated aspects of school functioning and student
experience are not sufficient to move students toward high levels of en-
gagement and achievement. Implementing some of the suggestions made in
this volume without consideration of the larger picture could even under-
mine student engagement.
Comprehensive school reform models have been created to guide whole-
school, sometimes whole-district, efforts to improve student engagement
and learning. The goal is to put all the pieces together to create a set of
reforms that will support and reinforce each other and be sufficient to
improve substantially student engagement and learning. Designers of school
reform models also create organizational structures that provide ongoing
assistance for implementation on a broad scale.
As a movement, comprehensive school reform has existed for some
time. A few reform models that exist today began as long as two decades
ago. The movement gained substantial momentum, however, in 1997 when
Congress approved $150 million to support implementation of comprehen-
sive school designs in school districts nationwide. An additional $134 mil-
lion for comprehensive reform was approved in fiscal year 1999, enabling
more than 2,000 schools to receive grants of at least $50,000 to implement
187
OCR for page 188
188
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
reforms over 3 years. Most recently, reform of secondary schools has begun
to receive attention from other federal and private philanthropic sources.
The U.S. Department of Education has appropriated more than $125 mil-
lion for reform of large comprehensive high schools1 and several founda-
tions, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates and the Carnegie Foundations,
also have made major investments.
In this chapter we summarize a group of comprehensive school reform
models available to high schools. The central features of the various design
models overlap considerably, and one goal is to show the high level of
consensus that has evolved regarding the features of effective secondary
schools. A second goal is to provide examples of strategies that have been
developed to reorganize high schools in ways consistent with the specific,
research-based recommendations made in this volume.
Designs included in this review of comprehensive reform initiatives are
limited to those that:
ˇ are being implemented in high schools serving economically disad-
vantaged communities in more than one locality;
ˇ are supported by national technical assistance organizations;
ˇ include elements addressing all three broad areas covered in the
earlier chapters of this volume: pedagogy (curriculum and how it is being
taught); school organization, climate, and policies; and connections to the
outside world;
ˇ ground key features of the design in research on what increases high
school students' engagement and learning; and
ˇ articulate strategies for getting these research-based features imple-
mented.
The annex to this chapter provides a brief description of each initiative
included in this review.
First, we examined the degree to which comprehensive models that met
our criteria include some of the key features of engaging high schools
suggested by the research reviewed in this volume high standards for both
academic learning and student conduct, personalization, meaningful and
engaging pedagogy and curriculum, and professional learning communi-
ties.2 Using materials provided by developers of each design, we assessed
U.S. Department of Education grant 84-215L.
2Some of the other features suggested by the committee's review of the literature, such as
changing the way counseling is conducted in schools and connecting schools to families and
communities, are found less consistently in the current comprehensive design models. There-
fore, we did not include them in this analysis.
OCR for page 189
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
189
whether these four features were (1) not included, (2) recommended and
supported by the design, or (3) central to and required by the design. Table
8-1 summarizes this analysis. As the table demonstrates, there is consider-
able consistency in the presence of these four features in the description of
the models, although not necessarily in all schools that have attempted to
implement the models. A few models do not explicitly include high stan-
dards for student conduct, and one does not address personalization of the
family's experience. Only three models (Edison Schools, First Things First,
and Talent Development High School) include all four of the features as
central and required elements. Notwithstanding these variations, the con-
clusions regarding some of the qualities of engaging schools discussed in
this volume are remarkably well represented in national school reform
models.
Although in theory the models are consistent with empirical evidence
on engaging schools, efforts to implement the models are still works in
progress. For many reasons related to resources, the availability of credible
and qualified technical assistance providers, and support and consistency in
policies at the district and state levels, implementing these models in the real
world is difficult. We return to some of the most common obstacles later in
the chapter.
Another approach to whole-school reform that incorporates principles
of engagement is the movement to create small schools. The specific goals
and findings related to small schools are discussed in Chapter 4. Although
creating small schools is a prominent reform strategy, it does not fit the
criteria for a comprehensive reform design because of the variability in
objectives and design. Small schools are also often new schools rather than
reformed existing schools with existing staff, administrators, and students.
FROM THE WHAT TO THE HOW:
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Having found such consistency across models in the key features of
high school reform, we now turn to the means proposed by the models to
put these features in place. Table 8-2 summarizes the strategies used by the
comprehensive school models that met our criteria. Most of the strategies
that are included in the models are based on research that has been dis-
cussed in this volume.
All of these reform models are designed to raise expectations for stu-
dent academic performance and ensure equity of opportunity to meet these
higher standards. Some models explicitly state what students are expected
to know and be able to do by subject areas and by grade levels. The support
organizations associated with some of the reform models hire staff to help
OCR for page 190
190
Cal
Cal
_
o
Cal
Cal
Cal
ˇ ~
Cal
-
o
so
o
-
o
o
._
so
o
-
oo ~
._
pa
˘
U.
-
ˇ= ˘
so sat
~ ho
U.
_
Cd ˇ
o
U.
o
sat o
.= ~ o ~
herb
o
ˇ- ~
~ - o
U)
sat
.bŁ~
-
.s
U)
o
.
˘
-
o
o
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
ˇ
. ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ 1
o
1 o 0 1 1 . o. 1 o 0 ~
ˇ ~ ˇ ~ ~ ~ o ˇ
~ ~ ~ E~
~ ~ ~ ~ y c ~ ~ ~ !-
s~
o .
~ -
.
ˇ~
o ~ ~
~ o ~
,
,
. - o ~
ˇ s~ o c<,
~ ~ o
~ ~ o
ˇ - ~
~ ~ -
.o .o ~
- ~ o
ˇ
. ~ .
- -
. .
ˇ - ˇ -
ˇ o
. .
u,
ˇ
ˇ
OCR for page 191
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
191
schools align what is being taught and the evaluations of student learning
with the higher standards.
Many reform models do not incorporate specific strategies for improv-
ing student conduct, although most work to improve behavior by providing
more personalized, rigorous, and engaging experiences for students, includ-
ing greater access to higher quality student and family services. For models
that explicitly address how to improve behavior, staff work with small
teacher learning communities to help them develop more effective disciplin-
ary approaches that are consistent with existing policies.
The models propose a variety of strategies for personalizing student
and family experiences. Some models involve reorganizing larger schools
into smaller units (often called small learning communities or academies)
where the same students and teachers stay together for longer periods
during the school day ("block" scheduling) and over at least two school
years ("looping"), as described in Chapter 4. In some cases the smaller units
have themes based on career or academic interests (see Chapter 7), which
give students and their families some choice in the noncore curriculum.
One of the goals of creating smaller learning units is for teachers to
have fewer total students to know and to teach and for students to see fewer
teachers. This is also achieved sometimes by using resources to involve
more adults in teaching roles, thus reducing the student-teacher ratio (see
Chapter 41. Another strategy that is common in comprehensive reform
models is to provide an advisor, mentor, or advocate to each student, as
described in Chapter 6. In some models, this person also communicates
with students' families and helps identify students' nonacademic needs and
connect students to services in the school or in the community to meet those
needs.
All of the comprehensive reform models address how teaching is done
and what is being taught, although they vary considerably in how prescrip-
tive they are. In most cases schools are expected to create schedules and
staff assignments that increase instructional time and, in some designs, to
reduce student-to-adult ratios, especially in language arts and math. Some
of the reforms also include more specific guidelines for students who are
substantially behind their grade level.
The use of technology and project learning, cooperative learning, learn-
ing opportunities that are embedded in real-worId contexts, and other strat-
egies to involve students actively in the learning process are endorsed and
supported by all models. Furthermore, all models refer specifically to the
importance of connecting schoolwork to students' own interests, experi-
ences outside of school, and culture. A curriculum that crosses traditional
discipline boundaries is also common in the reform models.
All of the comprehensive reform models recognize the importance of
supporting teachers and helping schools build a community of adult as well
OCR for page 192
192
-
o
Cal
._
Cal
so
o
-
o
o
. -
._
Cal
so
o
Cal
Cal
=
Cal
so
o
o
oo of
pa
˘ ~
~ ~ .
U.
-
ˇ= ˘
so sat
~ ho
U.
_
Cd ˇ _
~ ._
o ~
._ ~
U. _
U. ~
o o
but
.=
bet
but . ~
lo.
but but
o ~
o
. _ set
._ ~
o
sat ~
U)
U.
sat
Cal
Cal
._ _
~ o ~ ° ~
ˇ_ U. CO ~ CO ˇ CO
a ~ ~ ~c 3 ~ ~ == 3 ~ ~ ~ C
, O y _ C
,- ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ C
~ . ~
._ ~
s~
._ ~ ._
O ~
X _G -~ C;; ~ u
O ~,,~o ~ =0 ~ m^ ~ ~
.~> ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ O
_ ~ ~ ~ =~ ~ ~
.= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
. `, ~, ~ ,, ~ ~ a
X ° 0 ° ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 3 . ~ . ~ ; s ) ~ ~ ~ ~
OCR for page 193
193
a, :~ ~ ~
ˇ _ Q. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ E t° ~ , ' ~
L) ~ ~ ~ O
U. ~ ~ so o
~0 be
U.
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U.
Us
_ ~ , , ' ~ _ ~ ~ - ~ ~ , _
U.
so
o ~ ~ ~ o
_
_ tic ~ ~ ˇ~ ,, a
a, O ~ ~ E
a ~ ~ ~ ~ C ' E
so
-
so
o
_ U.
(L) ˇ
sat
~ o
set
U.
U.
U.
set
~ - o
g ~
~ JO
g ~
~ o
no
~ Q
. ~
~ ._
sot
o ~ U.
U.
~o ~., ,<
_ ~ ~
S~ CO C~
0 ~ U.
~ ~ S~
U.
0 ~ C~
0
`, a a
O
_
0 ~ ~
S~ ~
U.
bI)
O
.=
OCR for page 194
94
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
as student learners. One of the purposes of the designs that reorganize large
high schools into smaller units is to create teams of teachers who share the
same students. All of the models include opportunities for teachers to meet
with one another to discuss their instruction, student progress, and gover-
nance and policy issues affecting the school community.
Some reform models work with schools to provide small learning
communities with individual and disaggregated student data that are used
to develop strategies to improve student achievement. All designs provide
professional development opportunities, and some provide in-class and
ongoing coaching. The relative emphasis on project-based learning,
new teaching strategies, curriculum development and implementation, team
building, and leadership training vary considerably among the reform
models.
A remarkable degree of overlap exists among the features and strategies
stressed in comprehensive reform models and those the committee found
evidence to support in its review of the research literature. Admittedly,
many of the conclusions about effective practices are based on soft and
incomplete evidence. Nevertheless, there is substantial convergence in the
conclusions drawn by different people who have examined existing re-
search and craft knowledge both about what needs to be done and prom-
. . . . . .
Sing strategies tor getting it ~ one.
We turn next to evidence on the success of comprehensive school de-
signs to improve student learning. Because most of the models are relatively
new, and because some require two or more years to be fully implemented,
the data here are both new and thin. Moreover, most of the designs de-
scribed in this chapter are still in the research and development phase.
Because they are changing in response to their emerging results, evaluations
are often studies of moving targets. Studies discussed next, however, sug-
gest that extant comprehensive school reform models show some promise
of improving student engagement and learning.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
An extensive array of research studies has been conducted on compre-
hensive school reform models in the past decade. However, the majority
has focused on elementary and middle schools (Berends et al., 2002; Kirby,
Berends, and Naftel, 2001; McCombs and Quiat, 2000; Supovitz and
Poglinco, 2001; Wenze! et al., 20011. The little evidence that does exist on
the efficacy of the high school designs included in this chapter is consistent
with evaluations of elementary and middle school reform efforts: When the
school and its external partners are successful in implementing the reform's
key features (see Table 8-1), the results are positive. For example, research
OCR for page 195
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
195
on the most long-standing high school reform designs3 as well as more
recent data emerging from internal studies of new high school designs4
indicate that when levels of personalization increase, so do levels of atten-
dance and parent involvement, and disciplinary problems decline (Ancess
and Wichterie, 1999; Berends, Kirby, Naftel, and McKelvey, 2001; Boykin,
2000; Fine, 1994; Hamilton and Gill, 2001; Institute for Research and
Reform in Education, 2000, 2002; Legters, Balfanz, Jordan, and
McPartiand, 2002; MacMullen, 1996; Nelson, 2000~.
Evaluations of models, without examining the mediators of their ef-
fects, suggest that comprehensive school design models show some promise
of increasing high school students' engagement and learning. Two models
that have examined the crime rate of their students (sometimes considered
a measure of disengagement) Coalition of Essential Schools and Talent
Development High Schools have found decreases in reported crimes after
implementation (Ancess and Wichterie, 1999; Boykin, 2000; Legters et al.,
2002; MacMullen, 1996~. Evaluation studies of high school reform models
further show students taking more advanced academic courses5 (Boykin,
2000; Legters et al., 2002) and having higher levels of enrollment in
postsecondary schools6 (Ancess and Wichterie, 1999; MacMullen, 1996),
improved test scores7 (Ancess and Wichterie, 1999; Berends et al., 2001;
Institute for Research and Reform in Education, 2002; MacMullen, 1996),
increased persistence and graduation rates8 (Ancess and Wichterie, 1999;
Bottoms and Presson, 2000; Institute for Research and Reform in Educa-
tion,2000,2002; MacMullen, 1996), and decreased dropout rates9 (Ancess
and Wichterie, 1999; Bottoms and Presson, 2000; Boykin, 2000; Institute
for Research and Reform in Education, 2000, 2002; Legters et al., 2002;
MacMullen, 1996~.
In addition to assessing effects on individual and diverse indicators of
student engagement and learning and related outcomes, evaluations of com-
3For example, Coalition of Essential Schools and High Schools That Work.
4For example, ATLAS Communities, Edison Schools, Expeditionary Learning, First Things
First, and Talent Development High School.
5For example, High Schools That Work and Talent Development High School.
6For example, Coalition of Essential Schools and High Schools That Work.
7For example, Coalition of Essential Schools, Co-NECT, Expeditionary Learning/Outward
Bound, First Things First, and High Schools That Work.
8For example, Coalition of Essential Schools, First Things First, and High Schools That
Work.
Nor example, ATLAS Communities, Coalition of Essential Schools, Community for Learn-
ing, First Things First, High Schools That Work, and Talent Development High School.
OCR for page 196
196
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
prehensive school reform designs also seek to answer the more overarching
research question: Is the implementation of the designs sufficient to move
schools from graduating half or fewer of their incoming freshmen to gradu-
ating nearly all, while preparing them well for postsecondary education or
high-quality employment? This question has yet to be answered.
In brief, extant evidence suggests that effective implementation of the
school reform models included in this chapter does improve some indica-
tors of student engagement and learning. Whether these models can achieve
the ambitious goal of improving high school education on a large scale is
yet to be seen.
HOW TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE: THE PROCESS
No two models look alike with regard to what consumers and investors
should expect in the planning and implementation process, including what
roles various stakeholders (people who are affected by the reform) play in
providing supports and pressure to meet expectations. Documentation of
these processes is not as thorough or reliable as descriptions of the designs'
key features and general implementation goals. Furthermore, conclusive
research evidence does not yet exist indicating that one approach leads to
deeper and more sustained implementation of reform in high schools than
another approach. To organize some information on how these reform
models work with high schools, we list guiding questions about the change
process itself and examples of how reform models diverge in their answers.
1. What kind of buy-in does the mode! seek before committing to work
with ~ high school, and how does the model's organization work with the
school to build commitment to the reform by all stakeholders?
Some reform models require that staff at the school level vote to adopt
the design before initiating a partnership. Other models discourage votes in
advance, instead encouraging district leaders (including the board and the
superintendent), community leaders, and leaders at the school level (includ-
ing administrators, teachers, students, and sometimes parents) to decide
whether the reform design is the best vehicle to meet their goals. The staff
employed by the design mode! program (design staff) then join with these
leaders to develop school staff and other stakeholders' commitment to the
design through the planning and implementation process.
Designs converge on strategies for building buy-in once the design is
selected. Most designs engage staff, students, and parents in study and
discussion. They use examples of how the design features have been imple-
mented in other schools and involve stakeholders in shaping local decisions.
2. What, if any, are the nonnegotiable requirements or fix Ed expecta-
tions that the design staff bring into their relationship with school and
district personnel?
OCR for page 197
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
197
At a minimum, most reform models share the goal of increasing all
students' achievement to levels needed for postsecondary education and
high-quality employment. Most of the models expect all school staff to
participate in study and discussion of the design features and implementa-
tion strategies. Beyond these shared expectations, however, models vary
greatly in what prospective high school and district administrators are
expected to sign up for in advance. Examples of nonnegotiables, taken from
various models, include
do;
cedures;
ˇ committing to a set of general principles about what good schools
ˇ implementing a specific curriculum;
ˇ adopting specific assessment practices and student certification pro-
ˇ ensuring that all students have access to high-level academic courses;
ˇ forming thematic small learning communities; and
ˇ selecting from or creating a variety of school structures to promote
. .
persona" Cation.
Differences in what is and is not negotiable weigh heavily in schools'
and school districts' decisions on whether to adopt one of these designs and
which one to adopt. Some districts value the clarity, credibility, and ac-
countability they purchase with the adoption of a design that sets out in
advance both the key features and the acceptable pathways to implement-
ing these features. Other districts and schools are concerned that if major
decisions about the key features or the implementation strategies do not
reside at the building or the small community level, there will not be suffi-
cient buy-in to sustain the reform over rough patches.
3. How does the reform design use data of various forms to initiate,
inform, monitor, refine, and sustain the reform process?
All of the reform models make legitimate claims to being research
based in the sense that their design features are consistent with research on
best practices. However, use of data available from participating districts
and schools and the requirements for new data to be collected as part of the
reform process vary considerably. For example, data on student perfor-
mance are used in some designs to give teachers and administrators a sense
of urgency about initiating and sustaining reform, to inform instructional
decisions, and to strengthen collective responsibility for student outcomes.
Extensive data are collected by some designs on current instructional prac-
tices, school climate, and student and teacher attitudes and beliefs. These
designs use these data for a variety of purposes, including guiding the
selection of implementation strategies, assessing and improving the fidelity
OCR for page 200
200
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
ˇ district organizational structures where principals and other admin-
istrative positions responsible for improving teaching and learning in schools
(e.g., curriculum specialists, special education coordinators, instructional
coaches) report to different supervisors in the central office;
ˇ evaluation polices for principals and other central office staff that
focus on compliance issues more than contributions to instructional im-
provements at the classroom level;
ˇ resistance from many quarters (teachers, parents, students, elected
board officials) to changing long-standing policies that preserve enriched
opportunities (lower class sizes, more experienced and well-trained teach-
ers) for small minorities of typically high-performing students and more
comfortable teaching assignments for more senior faculty; and
ˇ difficulties in reallocation of positions at the building level to meet
the needs of their reform effort (e.g., trading in administrative positions for
additional teaching positions to lower student-adult ratios).
What is clear from this brief summary of the implementation ap-
proaches is that similarity in goals does not translate into similarity in the
change processes employed by models. Some amount of flexibility always
will be required in comprehensive school reform models because resources,
expertise, the student body, and many other variables need to be considered
when implementing a mode! in a particular school. However, as we move
now to our summary and concluding comments on scaling up high school
reform, we will reintroduce the need for greater clarity in what high schools
need to do in order to engage their diverse student populations (see also
Connell, 20021.
Lessons Learned
Little research has been conducted on the change process underlying
comprehensive school reform implementation in high schools. Much of the
research that does exist blends high school data with middle school and
elementary school data (e.g., Berends et al., 2001; Berends, Bodilly et al.,
2002; Kirby et al., 2001), looks at a small number of high schools (five or
fewer) for a mode! (e.g., Stringfield et al., 1997), or has information only on
initial implementation of the mode! (Cornell, 2002; Gambone, Klem, and
Connell, 20021.
Despite these limitations, certain factors emerge as fostering higher
quality implementation, including:
1. High levels of support and commitment on the part of the teachers
once implementation of the reform is under way (Berends et al., 2001;
Berends, Bodilly et al., 2002; Kirby et al., 2001, Stringfield et al., 19971.
OCR for page 201
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
201
2. Clear communication between mode! developers and schools: Mod-
els need to effectively communicate the requirements of the design and not
make major revisions to the design mid-course (Berends et al., 2001;
Berends, Bodilly et al., 2002; Connell, 2002; Kirby et al., 2001~.
3. Effective training:
ˇ consistent training that meets the needs of the teachers as they
make radical changes to the way they do business (Berends et al., 2001;
Berends, Bodilly et al., 2002; Kirby et al., 2001~;
ˇ ongoing follow-up training (Stringfield et al., 19971; and
ˇ training for new, incoming teachers (due to high staff mobility;
Stringfield et al., 19971.
ment efforts;
. .
4. Strong principal leadership (Berends et al., 2001; Berends, Bodilly et
al., 2002; Connell, 2002; Kirby et al., 2001; Stringfield et al., 19971.
5. Few competing demands on time from other reform projects by
. . . . . . . .
Incorporating existing projects Into t" He c edge moc e" or removing t" rem
(Berends et al., 2001; Berends, Bodilly et al., 2002; Connell, 2002; Kirby et
al., 2001~.
6. Supportive district with effective leadership that:
ˇ backs the reform and makes the reform central to its improve-
ˇ crecr~cates resources to the implementation;
ˇ creates rules and regulations that support the initiative and re-
moves rules that hinder implementation;
ˇ 1 . 1 1 1 ˇ . 1
ˇ provides the school with autonomy to do what it takes to get the
reform in place;
ˇ implements assessment systems that are compatible with those of
the design;
ˇ develops a working relationship among school, district, and union
staff; and
ˇ has district-level accountability (Berends et al., 2001; Berends,
Bodilly et al., 2002; Connell, 2002; Gambone et al., 2002; Kirby et al.,
2001; Stringfield et al., 19971.
7. Schools that focus on making changes to classroom instruction in
order to improve teaching and learning (Cornell, 2002; Stringfield et al.,
19971.
SCALING UP HIGH SCHOOL REFORM:
PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES
In this chapter, we have attempted to examine (but not advocate for) a
number of comprehensive reform designs now being implemented in urban
OCR for page 202
202
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
high schools. Rather than pitting them against one another, we have exam-
ined them as a group and extracted important commonalities and differ-
ences among them. We found remarkable similarities in the comprehensive
school reform models that met our criteria in their commitment to some of
the key features identified in the research reviewed for this volume. The
evidence reviewed for this report suggests that getting these key features,
regardless of the design vehicle, should have positive effects on student
engagement and learning.
Documentation of the models' approaches to the change process itself
is very uneven, making systematic study of their different approaches prob-
lematic. What can be said is that despite the similarities in their basic tenets,
there is profound variation among the reform models in the ways they work
with schools to get schools moving toward these common goals.
As discussed earlier, we do not yet know whether implementation of
these designs is sufficient to achieve meaningful long-term results at the
school or district level, such as having 75 percent of a nonselective urban
high school's students graduate and perform at levels required for post-
secondary education and high-quality employment. Extant research falls
far short of identifying the necessary and sufficient conditions to do so.
Scaling up meaningful reform going from one school to many in a
system as complex as public education requires confronting and addressing
a significant set of challenges: diversity within the system of schools and
districts and the populations they serve; the multiple levels of financial and
political influence on the system; and the "forces of inertia" discrimina-
tion (by race and class), lack of accountability, and inadequate and outdated
professional training that keep in place the current resource inequities and
demonstrably ineffective policies and practices. Whereas the "what" of
high school reform is becoming clear, the "how" particularly how to go
to scale remains conjecture at this point. Some progress on the "process"
issue has been made at the school level; creating new small schools and
restructuring large high schools both show promise as starting points for
getting these key features on the ground. The more daunting challenges lurk
at the district, state, and national levels, where hundreds, if not thousands,
of high schools need major overhauls in their structures and instructional
practices.
We see high school reform at a crossroads of opportunity and peril.
Opportunity comes in two forms: investments and knowledge. Between the
U.S. Department of Education and private foundation initiatives, some
dollars are available, at least in the near term, to support work toward
improved outcomes for secondary students. Knowledge is also becoming
available. This volume and other recent publications and emerging evalua-
tion reports from the Department of Education's research and development
grants on secondary reform provide solid information about what high
OCR for page 203
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
203
school reform should look like the conditions that, if put in place, could
really make a difference and some insights into how to do it (see, for
example, Institute for Research and Reform in Education, 2002; Lee and
Smith, 2001; Legters, Balfanz, and McPartiand, 2002; Moinar, 20021.
Even with these opportunities, going to scale with knowledge-based
and meaningful high school reform will require additional resources, con-
tinuous learning about the necessary and sufficient conditions for the change
that needs to occur and how it happens, and time for the reforms to be
implemented and studied. We can create the conditions to meet these needs
only with additional public and political will and more cohesion within the
field itself. We face peril on both fronts.
Public will is waning for any but the most simplistic approaches to
"fixing" our poorly performing high schools. From reconstitution and state
takeovers to privatization and radical voucher systems, citizens and elected
officials are looking for silver bullets and unrealistically fast results. Other
fixes to the current system have been proposed as well. Some policy makers
believe (or hope) a focus on early and elementary education, specifically in
the area of literacy, will steel children and youth against the corrosive
effects of large, impersonal, and low-expectation secondary schools. Others
believe that standards, testing, and external accountability will bring high
schools around to working for all students.
Unfortunately, these expectations run counter to existing research and
the experience of reform efforts now underway. Bad secondary schools can
undo the best early education and elementary school experience, and high-
stakes, repeated testing against high standards in and of itself guarantees
only that more students will fail.
What is to be done? At the district, state, and federal levels, expecta-
tions and supports around several key issues need to be aligned and imple-
mented.
First, to scale up high school reform, agreement is needed at the federal,
state, and local levels on what change needs to occur. For example, at all
levels there must be agreement that all students should leave high school
above a well-defined and shared threshold level of academic performance,
and that high schools in these communities will implement the features
identified in this volume to get there.
Second, we need common indicators of what these reforms will look
like when achieved in diverse settings and how good is good enough on
these indicators. The indicators would need to include acceptable measures
of student performance rather than the simplistic measures most states are
now using, and there would need to be some assurance that students achiev-
ing these thresholds would have equitable access to quality employment
and postsecondary education. Measures of how well and how broadly the
four key features of engaging high schools are being implemented, and
OCR for page 204
204
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
threshold levels of how good is good enough on these measures also would
need to be developed and accepted at all levels.
Third, a clear conception of how change is to be implemented is needed.
This conception of the process of change will need to have multiple levels
and include school, district, state, and federal mechanisms for motivating
and initiating reform, for getting through planning and initial implementa-
tion, and for sustaining and deepening implementation.
Fourth, this conception of the change process needs to specify what
resources (human, economic, and political) are needed to implement changes
and how those resources will be provided.
Fifth, a timeline is needed that includes the scale-up gradient and speci-
fies which schools, how many, and when. The timeline also should spell out
when interim and long-term outcomes are expected for each school, dis-
trict, and state as well as across the nation.
Sixth, a public and visible accountability plan needs to be tied to this
resource map and timeline. It should specify who is responsible for reallo-
cating and providing those resources and for achieving these interim and
long-term outcomes, and it should explain the consequences of not doing so
for all involved.
Seventh, there need to be mechanisms for examining progress on the
indicators of change, and results should be made public to promote ac-
countability. Indicators should be used to finetune implementation strate-
gies along the way.
Finally, resources need to be made available to allow the kinds of
comprehensive changes that will result in real improvements in student
engagement and learning. Money is not the answer, but low-budget efforts
to improve schools have taught us that, to some degree, "you get what you
pay for." Support is needed for both start-up costs and for sustaining
constructive changes (see King, 19941.
This is an ambitious list of prerequisites, and it is probably not com-
plete. But if engaging high schools are to become the rule rather than the
exception in economically disadvantaged communities, the American pub-
kc and policy makers at the federal, state, and district levels must tackle this
issue comprehensively and with the kind of seriousness this list indicates.
OCR for page 205
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
ANNEX TO CHAPTER 8
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF 12 COMPREHENSIVE REFORM
INITIATIVES
AMERICA'S CHOICE
http://www.ncee.org/OurPrograms/narePage.htm!
205
The America's Choice Comprehensive Design Network (begun in 1989
as the National Alliance for Restructuring Education and in its current
incarnation as of 1992) is a program of the National Center on Education
and the Economy in Washington, D.C. America's Choice offers an aligned
system of standards, assessments, and curriculum. The America's Choice
performance standards complement and extend the content standards that
the states and many districts have developed. The design includes a strategy
for quickly identifying students who are falling behind and bringing them
back to standard, as well as a planning and management system for making
the most efficient use of available resources to raise student performance
quickly. The expectation is that all but the most severely handicapped
students will achieve standards in English language arts, math, and science
in order to graduate from high school qualified to do college-level work
without remediation. America's Choice is a New American Schools design
and is currently being implemented in 31 high schools.
ATLAS COMMUNITIES
http://www.edc.org/FSC/ATLAS
The ATLAS Communities approach (Authentic Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment for All Students) was formed in 1992 as a partnership of
four school reform organizations: the Education Development Center in
Boston, the Coalition of Essential Schools at Brown University, Project
Zero at Harvard University, and the School Development Program at Yale
University. According to the developers, ATLAS builds on a base of re-
search and examined practice drawn from each of the sponsoring organiza-
tions. Specifically, the approach draws on essential questions and student
exhibitions from the Coalition of Essential Schools; professional develop-
ment and curriculum development from the Education Development Cen-
ter; multiple intelligences, authentic assessment, and Teaching for Under-
standing from Project Zero; and family involvement, school climate, and
management and decision making from the School Development Program.
A unique feature of ATLAS is the pre-K to 12 "pathway." The "pathway"
refers to feeder patterns of elementary, middle, and high schools, which the
approach seeks to coordinate to produce a coherent educational program
for each student, from the first day of school through graduation. ATLAS is
OCR for page 206
206
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
a New American Schools design and is currently being implemented in 18
high schools.
COALITION OF ESSENTIAL SCHOOLS
http://www.essentialschools.org
The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) was developed in 1984 by
Theodore Sizer at Brown University. CES is founded on the Ten Common
Principles that guide structural, curricular, pedagogical, and assessment-
related change. CES includes a focus on personalized learning, mastery of a
few subjects and skills, graduation by exhibition, and creation of a nurtur-
ing community. CES is a grassroots reform movement that emphasizes local
control and autonomy in interpreting the Common Principles within the
cultural and institutional context of each school. Each school's plan is
unique, sharing the Ten Common Principles, but actualizing them in ways
suited to their school. The approach of the Coalition is to provide staff
development assistance to school faculties as they seek to design methods of
implementing the principles and to facilitate exchanges among Coalition
schools so that teachers may act as "critical friends" to one another as they
seek to change their schools. CES is currently being implemented in more
than 400 high schools.
COMMUNITY FOR LEARNING
http://www.temple.edu/LSS/cfI.htm
Community for Learning (CFL) was developed at the Temple Univer-
sity Center for Research in Human Development and Education (CRHDE)
by CRHDE Director Dr. Margaret C. Wang in 1990. The mode! is designed
to draw communities and schools together to bolster student achievement.
Collaboration at all levels is a key goal of CFL. Students learn in a variety
of environments, including libraries, museums, houses of worship, higher
education institutions, workplaces, and their own homes. CFL links the
school to these and other institutions, including health, social services, and
law enforcement agencies. The idea is to provide a range of learning oppor-
tunities for students, coordinate service delivery across organizations, and
foster a communitywide commitment to student success. The emphasis on
collaboration extends into the classroom itself, where regular teachers and
specialists (such as special education teachers, Title I teachers, and school
psychologists) work in teams to meet the diverse academic and social needs
of all children. CFL is currently being implemented in 6 high schools,
though it has been implemented in as many as 11 high schools at one time.
OCR for page 207
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
CO-NECT
http ://www. co-nect. cam
207
Co-NECT was founded in 1992 by members of the Educational Tech-
nologies Group at the BBN Corporation. Co-NECT is a schoolwide ap-
proach that focuses on improving achievement by integrating technology
into instruction, organizing lessons around interdisciplinary projects, and
reorganizing schools into multigrade clusters of students and teachers. At
the core of the Co-NECT design are five benchmarks: shared accountability
for results, project-based learning, teaching for understanding and accom-
plishment, comprehensive assessment for continuous improvement, team-
based school organization, and sensible use of technology. (Q: Six bench-
marks listed, not five.) The benchmarks help schools evaluate their progress
toward meeting the vision of success outlined in their action plan. Co-
NECT also offers a set of assessment tools rubrics for judging progress
within these benchmarks. Co-NECT encourages and supports extensive use
of the Internet and other modern technologies to support student learn-
ing, supplement training, and strengthen communication across schools in
the network. Co-NECT is a New American Schools design. Information on
the number of high schools currently implementing the mode! is not avail-
able.
EDISON SCHOOLS
http://www.edisonschools.com
The Edison Schools design was founded in 1992 as the Edison Project
by a for-profit company and began operating in schools in 1995. Edison
Schools remain public and are funded by taxpayer dollars after entering
into agreements with superintendents and school boards. The local commu-
nity can terminate the contract if student performance does not meet the
terms stated in the contract. According to Edison, the company invests $1.5
million of private capital in a school before it opens. These dollars are
earmarked for technology, instructional materials, and professional devel-
opment. Edison takes responsibility for the day-to-day operation of a school;
lengthens the school year by 25 days and the school day by 1 to 2 hours;
helps reorganize schools into academies, houses, and teams; provides all
Edison teachers with laptops and students in grades 3 and up with home
computers; provides a strong liberal arts curriculum guided by high stan-
dards; aligns instruction with assessment; and requires students to stay with
the same teacher for 3 years. Edison is currently being implemented in
approximately 10 high schools.
OCR for page 208
208
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
EXPEDITIONARY LEARNING/OUTWARD BOUND
http://www.elob.org
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB) was established in
1992 as part of the New American Schools network of comprehensive
school designs. It is based on two central precepts: students learn better by
doing than by listening, and developing character, high expectations, and a
sense of community is as important as developing academic skills and
knowledge. In ELOB, learning expeditions are at the center of teaching and
learning. Learning expeditions are long-term, in-depth investigations of a
theme or topic. Students investigate these subject areas through challenging
projects that integrate state and local standards. A typical learning expedi-
tion takes most of the school day and lasts 8 to 12 weeks or more. Expedi-
tions involve academic work, adventure, and fieldwork. Students complete
the expedition with a performance or presentation to an audience. Students
in ELOB schools stay with the same teacher for 2 years or more. Schools
use the Expeditionary Learning benchmarks to conduct an annual self-
review of the school's progress and a periodic peer review from colleagues
outside the school. ELOB is currently being implemented in 35 high schools.
FIRST THINGS FIRST
http://www.irre.org
First Things First (FTF) was developed by the Institute for Research
and Reform in Education and first implemented in 1996. First Things First
provides a clear but flexible framework for reform that districts and schools
can adapt to their specific needs. Using the FTF framework, schools and
districts focus on three goals: strengthening relationships among students
and adults; improving teaching and learning; and reallocating budget, staff,
and time to achieve the first two goals. Schools reorganize into small learn-
ing communities, create a family advocate system to involve families in
supporting student success, and improve instruction through staff develop-
ment focused on implementing high-quality, standards-based learning ac-
tivities in every classroom. FTF emphasizes small learning communities as
the hub of relationship building, collective responsibility for student out-
comes, resource allocation, and professional development activities. Schools
and districts are supported to align instruction and curriculum with their
standards and use multiple assessment strategies to assess those standards,
including those aligned with high-stakes tests. Collective responsibility
among students, families, and staff for student success is a fundamental
premise of FTF. Over time, schools implementing FTF are expected to
prepare all students for success in postsecondary education and high-qual-
ity employment. FTF is currently being implemented in 14 high schools.
OCR for page 209
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL REFORM DESIGNS
HIGH SCHOOLS THAT WORK
http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/hstwindex.asp
209
High Schools That Work (HSTW) began in 1988 as a pilot project of
the Southern Regional Education Board's Vocational Education Consor-
tium. HSTW is designed to raise the achievement level of career-bound high
school students by combining the content of traditional college preparatory
studies (e.g., English, mathematics, and science) with vocational studies. It
is based on the beliefs that (1) an intellectually challenging curriculum
should be taught to all high school students, and (2) students understand
and retain academic concepts more readily if they use them in completing
projects for their vocational courses. The design provides intensive techni-
cal assistance, focused staff development, and a nationally recognized yard-
stick for measuring program effectiveness. HSTW sets high expectations,
identifies a recommended curriculum to meet the expectations, and sets
student performance goals benchmarked to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress. HSTW is currently being implemented in more than
1,000 high schools.
MODERN RED SCHOOLHOUSE
http://www.mrsh.org
Modern Red Schoolhouse, a New American Schools design, was devel-
oped in 1992 by the Hudson Institute, a private nonprofit research organi-
zation. William T. Bennett, Secretary of Education during the Reagan Ad-
ministration, was chairman of the design team at Hudson. The design has
since become the Modern Red Schoolhouse Institute, a separate nonprofit
organization. Implementation of the design began in 1993. The primary
goal of the Modern Red Schoolhouse design is to take the rigorous curricu-
lum, values, and democratic principle commonly associated with "the little
red schoolhouse," and combine them with the latest advancements in teach-
ing and learning, supported by modern technology. The approach intends
to help schools set high academic standards that are consistent with district
and state assessments and cover rigorous core content. Schools are expected
to assume increasing responsibility for many items that are traditionally
controlled by the district (e.g., budgeting, personnel assignments, curricu-
lum details, scheduling, teacher/student ratios, and time allotted to various
subjects). Modern Red Schoolhouse schools use an instructional manage-
ment system that both tracks student performance and progress and offers
continuous reflection on and improvement to the curriculum. Modern Red
Schoolhouse is currently being implemented in 20 high schools.
OCR for page 210
210
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
PAIDEIA
http://www.paideia.org
Mortimer Adler outlined the Paideia approach in his 1984 book,
Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. The National Paideia Center,
housed at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, supports the
efforts of educators implementing the Paideia Program through networks,
staff development, a newsletter, and other publications. The goal of the
Paideia Program is to provide a rigorous liberal arts education in grades K
through 12 that will allow all graduates to have the skills needed to earn a
living, to think and act critically as responsible citizens, and to continue
educating themselves as lifelong learners. Instructional goals are based on
acquisition of knowledge, development of intellectual skills, and enlarged
understanding of ideas and values. These are addressed through three in-
structional approaches: didactic instruction, coaching, and small group
seminars. Schoolwide restructuring is necessary to fully implement all three
instructional pieces, as Socratic seminars often require longer class periods
(up to 2 hours), while coaching may call for smaller classes enabling teach-
ers to spend more time with individuals. Paideia is currently being imple-
mented in 10 high schools.
TALENT DEVELOPMENT HIGH SCHOOL
WITH CAREER ACADEMIES
http://www.csos. jhu.edu/Talent/high.htm
The Talent Development High School (TDHS) was first implemented
in 1994 as a partnership between the Johns Hopkins University Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) and
Patterson High School in Baltimore, Maryland. The goal of TDHS is to
improve indicators of student achievement and behavior by raising expecta-
tions for all students and providing the mechanisms to help them meet
those expectations. The mode! is composed of separate Career Academies
for grades 10 through 12 and a Ninth Grade Success Academy. Career
Academies are thematic, self-contained "small learning communities" or
"schools-within-a-school" that integrate career and academic coursework.
The Talent Development High School mode! asserts that all students can
learn in demanding, high-expectation academic settings. Essential compo-
nents of the mode! include a demanding common core curriculum based on
high standards for all students, a supportive learning environment to en-
courage close teacher-student relations and an orderly academic climate,
career-focused schoolwork, a college-bound orientation, no tracking, and
flexible uses of time and resources. TDHS is currently being implemented in
39 high schools.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
reform models
