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 97
Climate, Organization, Composition, and
Size of Schools
Moving from the classroom to the school, in this chapter we summarize
the conclusions of various domains of research on how school climate,
organization, composition, and size are related to student engagement in
learning. The social and economic circumstances of students' families and
neighborhoods greatly influence student engagement, and as mentioned
earlier, schools cannot "do it all." But the evidence is clear that schools can
make a significant difference, and that their effects on students' engage-
ment, learning, and future opportunities depend substantially on how they
structure the learning environment, and on the values they communicate to
students and their families.
We chose to examine school climate, organization, composition, and
size in part because there was, for each, a fairly substantial research base
suggesting effects on student engagement or learning, and because all are
amenable to change. As in other chapters, we cast a broad net for evidence
and did not limit ourselves to studies that measured student engagement
directly. The inclusion of studies that focused on student achievement as the
outcome is based on the assumption that gains in achievement imply in-
creased engagement.
SCHOOL CLIMATE
Conceptualizing School Climate
School climate refers to the values, norms, beliefs, and sentiments asso-
ciated with routine practices and social interaction in schools. Theorists
97
OCR for page 98
98
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
and researchers have used a wide variety of terms to refer to aspects of
school climate including atmosphere, culture, environment, morale, school
community, and school ethos. Accompanying divergent conceptualizations
are different measurement instruments (cf. Gottfredson, HybI, Gottfredson,
and Castandeda, 19861. Although the design of the qualitative and correla-
tional studies reviewed in this chapter limit the degree to which causal
conclusions can be drawn, the evidence is consistent enough to give sub-
stantial confidence in a conclusion that qualities and factors related to
school climate can affect student engagement and learning. Research-based
judgments about desirable practices, however, require a careful examina-
tion of the specific definition and measurement of school climate in studies.
Investigations of school climate date back as far as Willard Waller's
(1932) classic treatise on the sociology of the school, which he conceived as
a miniature society as well as a formal organization. Following in Waller's
footsteps, Hollingshead's (1949) case study of a small, midwestern commu-
nity and its school system, and Gordon's (1957) account of "Wabash High"
several years later portrayed the social system and organizational culture of
single high schools.
Tames Coleman's study of the "value climates" of ten midwestern high
schools in the late 1950s, summarized in The Adolescent Society (Coleman,
1961), claimed to document the pervasive influence of the adolescent sub-
culture on students' academic values, performance, and social activities. In
this provocative book, Coleman concluded that in the typical high school,
the adolescent social system channels the energies of students into nonaca-
demic directions, and that the system provides a set of social rewards and
punishments that supports athletics and other social activities and discour-
ages intellectual pursuits. Coleman's study prompted a wealth of commen-
taries, subsequent empirical studies, and debate on the antecedents, nature,
and consequences of the "adolescent society" in contemporary America
(Boocock, 1966, 1972; McDill and Rigsby, 19731.
In 1979, Michael Rutter and colleagues published a study of 12 nonse-
lective, inner-city, secondary schools in London, which established the no-
tion of "ethos" as an important quality of schools (Rutter et al., 1979; see
also Grant, 1988, and John Dewey, 1900, who referred to the school as a
small society). A school's ethos concerns the coalescence among practices,
beliefs. values. and norms. as Driscoll (1995, p. 217) explains:
The concept of school ethos . . . is far more than an aggregate collection
of individual variables. Rutter et al. recognized that it is the interaction of
social processes and not merely their sum that explains the variance in the
performance outcomes measured . . . the "ethos" of an effective school is
in large measure a reflection of general, schoolwide expectations of con-
sistent values and norms that permeate the institution. The ethos of an
effective school is characterized by generally shared high expectations of
OCR for page 99
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 99
teachers and respect for them; positive models of administrators and other
teachers for teacher behavior that reflects concern for one another; and
some system of feedback through which teachers can evaluate their work.
Rutter's stucly was in part a reaction to an earlier highly publicized
stucly conclucteci by Coleman and colleagues (Coleman et al., 1966), which
conclucleci that nonschoo! variables, especially the racial background and
economic circumstances of students, accounted for the vast majority of
differences in eclucational outcomes among schools, not differences among
schools themselves. Rutter criticized Coleman's survey methods and his
focus on tangible resources, arguing that the stucly haci unclerestimateci the
magnitude of school effects because it haci not consiclereci the social climate
. .
anc organization.
With the 1980s came the concept of "the school as a community."
Implicit in both the ethos and "communitarian" conceptualizations is an
assumed synergism in the operation of the school the notion that the
whole of a good school is more than the sum of its parts. New concepts like
community, democracy, and "an ethic of caring" (Nociclings, 1988)
emerged, based on the assumption that students' attachment to school and
their academic achievement are contingent on first satisfying teachers' and
students' social and personal needs (Phillips, 1997~.
Descriptions of communal or communitarian schools are strikingly
similar to descriptions of out-of-school environments that appear to sup-
port healthy adolescent clevelopment (e.g., McLaughlin, 2000; National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002~. According to a recent
review of evidence related to out-of-school environments (National Re-
search Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002, pp. 90-91), students are
most engaged when the social context promotes physical safety; provides
some structure and opportunities for youth to clevelop new skills in the
context of warm, supportive relationships; and promotes positive social
norms.
A relative newcomer to conceptualizations of school climate is the
notion of "academic press." In a series of publications, Shouse (1996a,
1996b, 1997) and Phillips (1997) aciciress an ongoing clebate related to
what appeared to be competing visions for increasing student engagement
and learning a communitarian climate, as already clescribeci, versus a cli-
mate characterized by academic press, clefineci succinctly by Shouse (1996a,
p. 175) as "the degree of normative emphasis placed on academic excel-
lence by members of the organization" (see also McDill et al., 1986~. The
notion of academic press is related to what has been referred to in the
literature as high expectations for success, and which has been shown to
predict relatively high achievement (e.g., Evans, 1997; Hoy and Sabo, 1998;
Marks, Secacla, and Doane, 1996; Newmann, 1992~.
OCR for page 100
100
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
The evidence we will review suggests that these two conceptualizations
of school climate are not, in fact, incompatible.
Effect of School Climate on Engagement and Learning
Building on previous research on private and public high schools
(Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore, 1982), which had been highly criticized for
not addressing problems of selection bias, Coleman and Hoffer (1987)
studied school communities in private and public schools using the second
wave of data from the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study
(National Center for Education Statistics, 19821. They reported Catholic
high schools as having higher average achievement than public schools,
lower dropout rates, and greater success in placing their graduates in some
type of post-secondary institution. Although selection bias could not be
ruled out altogether, they controlled for the variables most likely associated
with selection bias, and attributed the better outcomes in Catholic schools
in part to a strong, positive, disciplinary climate and conforming student
behavior.
Also using data from the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1982), Bryk and Driscoll's (1988)
subsequent study examined in greater detail the elements of a communally
organized school, and demonstrated the importance of the school commu-
nity to the quality of both public schools and Catholic schools. In contrast
to much of the earlier literature, it provided quantitative evidence on the
effects of school community and has served as the prototype for many of
the more recent efforts to demonstrate the importance of school climate for
adolescents' school attachment, engagement, and achievement. The authors
posited three crucial components of communally organized schools: (1) a
shared value system that pervades the school and derives from a shared
history; (2) a common agenda for school members involving coursework,
activities, rituals, and traditions that function as a unifying factor; and (3)
an ethic of caring that permeates relationships among students and staff
and between staff and students. Bryk and Driscoll's most important finding
was that communally organized schools (schools with these three sets of
qualities), whether public or private, had better attendance, higher morale,
and better mathematics achievement.
Using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988
(NELS 88), Lee with Smith (2001) examined whether reforms promoting
communally organized schools were associated with indicators of student
engagement and achievement. The NELS 88 database includes information
on 800 high schools and a nationally representative sample of 25,000
students. These students were first studied when they were in eighth grade
in 1988. Follow-up data were collected for the cohort in 10th grade and
OCR for page 101
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 101
12th grade.1 Additional data from the students' teachers and on the charac-
teristics of their high schools also were collected and used in this study.
Using hierarchical linear modeling in part to control for possible con-
founds, the research design compared traditional "bureaucratically" orga-
nized schools with communally organized schools. According to Lee with
Smith (2001, p. 1031:
The bureaucratic structure of most high schools relies on affectively
neutral social relationships to facilitate the administration of standardized
rules and procedures. Strong personal ties among adults, or between adults
and students, make it more difficult for staff to comply with standard
practices and procedures.
Communal schools, in contrast, were structured to facilitate the cre-
ation of emotional bonds between teachers and students and also among
teachers. Lee with Smith (2001, p. 104) describes the characteristics of
communally organized schools as follows:
Rather than formal and affectively neutral relationships, members of com-
munally organized schools share a common mission. Staff and students
interact outside the classroom; adults see themselves as responsible for
students' total development, not just for the transmission of lessons.
Teachers share responsibility for students' academic success, often ex-
changing information and coordinating efforts between classrooms and
across grades.
Analyses revealed that communal schools had better outcomes than
bureaucratic schools for both teachers (satisfaction, morale, absenteeism)
and students (less class cutting, less absenteeism, lower dropout rates; see
also Marks, 2000~. Lee also found that disparities in these outcomes associ-
ated with ethnicity and class were smaller in communally structured schools
than in others. Additional studies suggest that supportive and caring schools
may be especially beneficial for disadvantaged students (Battistich et al.,
1995; Battistich et al., 1997; Bryk and Driscoll 1988; Bryk et al., 1993~.
Lee with Smith (2001) examined alternative explanations of the advan-
tages she observed of communally structured schools, such as differences in
the curriculum and instruction. The most potent predictor of student out-
come differences was teachers' collective responsibility for learning (see
also Lee, Dedrick, and Smith, 1991~. This factor reflects teachers' views on
their students' abilities and willingness to learn, their sense of responsibility
for the learning of their students, whether teachers believe they can "get
125 percent of the 8th grade student participants in the study were not surveyed 4 years
later when their cohort reached 12th grade because they either had been retained in grade or
had dropped out of school.
OCR for page 102
102
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
through" to even the most difficult students, whether teachers assess their
own effectiveness, and whether they change how they teach depending on
whether their students are learning. In schools where teachers assumed
collective responsibility for their students' learning, students learned more,
and differences associated with race and class were less prominent. Schools
that had developed practices associated with the communal mode! were
relatively high on the measure of teachers' collective responsibility for learn-
ing, but the causal order between school restructuring and collective re-
sponsibility is unclear. The authors point out that schools may be able to
implement particular reform practices effectively because their teachers have
these attitudes. Whether teacher collective responsibility (or self-efficacy) is
a consequence or a cause of communal practices, evidence from many
studies suggests its value in promoting student engagement and learning
(e.g., Bandura, 1993, 1997; Lee, Dedrick, and Smith, 1991; Tschannen-
Moran et al., 1998~.
Findings from Bryk and Schneider (2002) support Lee's findings re-
garding the importance of teacher attitudes for student outcomes, and fo-
cused attention on another aspect of a communal social climate (see also
Marks, 20001. In a longitudinal study documenting the effects of school
reform in Chicago between 1991 and 1997, Bryk and Schneider found that
"relational trust" was essential to school improvement. The extent to which
relational trust was present in hundreds of Chicago schools was determined
by teacher responses to survey questions about their interactions with the
principal, fellow teachers, and parents. The questions addressed issues such
as respectfulness, belief in each others' competence and the willingness to
fulfill obligations, caring about each other professionally and personally,
and putting the interests of kids first.
Bryk and Schneider found that in schools with the highest achievement,
nearly all teachers reported strong relational trust characterizing their inter-
actions with the principal; three-fourths reported strong relational trust
with fellow teachers, and 57 percent reported trusting relationships with
parents. In bottom-quartile schools, fewer than half had trusting relation-
ships with the principal, only a third with fellow teachers, and 40 percent
reported trusting relationships with parents. Schools with strong relational
trust had a 50-50 chance of making significant advances in mathematics
and reading achievement; only one in seven schools with weak relational
trust made similar advances. Relational trust was higher in small schools
(fewer than 350 students) and in schools in which administrators, teachers,
and students chose to be there instead of having been assigned.
A few findings suggest strategies for promoting relational trust. In the
study by Lee with Smith (2001), teachers in schools high on communality
were likely to have a common planning time and to work in interdiscipli-
nary teams. Opportunities to work collaboratively may have contributed to
OCR for page 103
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 103
respectful, trusting relationships among teachers and between teachers and
administrators. The high levels of parent involvement in communally orga-
nized schools may have promoted more trusting relationships with teachers
and administrators, although parent involvement is also likely to be a result
of feelings of trust.
Studies of alternative high schools created for students at risk of drop-
ping out provide additional support for the value of a communal social
climate. These programs operate either within regular schools or as sepa-
rate, alternative schools. They generally provide a complete, but alterna-
tive, educational program separate from the one found in regular, compre-
hensive schools.
There have been several evaluations of alternative programs for at-risk
students at the secondary level that bear on the importance of the educa-
tional climate. Stern, Dayton, Paik, Weisberg, and Evans (1988) evaluated
10 within-school academy programs in California high schools; Wehiage et
al. (1989) evaluated 12 alternative and 2 comprehensive schools; and
Dynarski and Gleason (1998) evaluated 3 within-school and 6 alternative
schools. Although the programs differed in the types of students they en-
rolled, the curricula and services they provided, and the way they were
structured, there appear to be several common features among programs
with relatively low dropout rates:2
· a caring and committed staff who accepted personal responsibility
for student success;
· a school culture that encouraged staff risk taking, self-governance,
and professional collegiality; and
· a school structure that provided for a low student-teacher ratio and
a small class size to promote student engagement.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that student engagement and
learning are fostered by a school climate characterized by an ethic of caring
and supportive relationships; respect, fairness, and trust; and teachers' sense
of shared responsibility and efficacy related to student learning. The evi-
dence is clear, however, that a communitarian climate is not sufficient to
increase academic engagement and learning. Equally important is a focus
on learning and high expectations for student achievement, or "academic
press. "
2Effective programs were programs in which there was a statistically significant difference
in dropout rates between program participants and those in the control group computed at
the 10 percent level. For example, dropout rates for participants in the Seattle Middle College
program were 27 percent compared to 42 percent for students in the control group (regular
high school students).
OCR for page 104
104
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
The term "academic press" does not mean "pressure." Press means
focusing students' attention on genuine learning (rather than simply going
through the motions). Teachers "press" students to learn by encouraging
them, by paying attention to their work and giving constructive feedback,
by not accepting low or half-hearted effort, by holding them accountable,
by providing assistance when they need it, and by not giving up on them.
Simply having informal conversations with students about college and ca-
reer goals is a form of academic press.3
A strong press for achievement might seem to contradict the notion
that engagement is promoted by a supportive, communal school climate.
But the evidence suggests that the combination is both achievable and
desirable. Shouse (1996a, p. 184) explains:
Any achievement effects associated with a sense of community stem pri-
marily not from consensus and cohesion, but instead from the strength
and transmission of particular organizational values related to the impor-
tance of academic endeavor. Without such commitment, commonality of
beliefs, activities, and traditions and care for students as individuals are
unlikely to affect achievement levels in positive ways, and may even work
to impede them. An important corollary follows from this, however: the
most powerful impact on student achievement should occur when a
school's sense of community is built around a solid structure of academic
press.
Consistent with this hypothesis, Shouse, using NELS:88 data on high
schools serving economically disadvantaged children, found that achieve-
ment effects were particularly strong when high communality was accom-
panied by high academic press (Shouse, 1996a, 1996b, 1997; see also
Marks, 2000; Phillips, 19971. Boyd and Shouse (1997) conclude, "average
achievement in low-SES Esocioeconomic status] schools having high levels
of both academic press and communality, in fact, rivaled that of schools
serving more affluent students; the least academically effective low-SES
schools were those that combined strong communality and weak academic
press. "
Lee and Smith (1999) also assessed the relative effects of the communal
organization mode! (social support for learning) and academic press (focus-
ing on content reform directed at increasing academic standards) on stu-
dent engagement in school and achievement in math and reading. They
3Students in a national study who claimed that this occurred frequently in their school had,
on average, higher educational expectations for themselves and higher postsecondary educa-
tion participation (Wimberly, 2002). Compared to white students, African-American students
claimed that such conversations occurred less frequently in the schools they attended.
OCR for page 105
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 105
analyzed 1994 data from the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, which
included 30,000 sixth- and eighth-grade students in 304 public elementary
schools (K-8) in Chicago. The findings indicated that the relationships
between social support and performance on standardized achievement tests
in mathematics and reading were stronger in schools with greater academic
press (Lee and Smith, 1999, pp. 934-9351. The authors conclude:
Our point is that reforms that focus on both the academic and the social
domains are important.... To succeed in schools that press them to
learn, students need support from the people with whom they interact
(Lee and Smith, 1999, p. 935~.
The findings of the complementarily of academic press and a com-
munitarian school context provide important guidance for efforts to make
urban high schools more engaging and effective as learning environments.
These findings on school climate, moreover, are consistent with research on
achievement motivation, discussed in Chapter 2, which reveals that stu-
dents are more engaged in contexts in which they fee! socially connected
and in which they are held to high standards. Taken together, the evidence
suggests that high schools need to convey a clearly articulated and coherent
set of values that focus on learning and achievement in the context of close
and caring relationships with adults and peers.
Policies for "Trouble-Makers"
Policies for how to deal with behavior problems have direct implica-
tions for the school climate as well as for the trouble-making students' own
engagement especially their persistence in school. An understandable re-
sponse to adolescents who violate the rules, undermine a climate focused on
learning, and threaten students' and teachers' feeling of safety is to remove
them to suspend them for some number of days or to expel them alto-
gether. This form of disengagement has been described as "discharge";
"students drop out of school, schools discharge students" (RichI, 1999,
p.2311.
The students who are asked to leave are typically low performers with
poor attendance (Lee and Burkam, 1992; Rumberger and Larson, 1998).
Being prohibited from attending school puts them further behind, and makes
it more likely that they will drop out (Lee and Burkam, 1992; Rumberger,
1995; Rumberger and Larson, 1998; Swanson and Schneider, 19991. More-
over, being suspended or expelled may not seem like much of a punishment
for students who are already disengaged from school. Thus, although sus-
pension and expulsion may create a more hospitable environment for the
teachers and students remaining in school, they are more likely to exacer-
bate than to help the disengagement of the students who are misbehaving.
OCR for page 106
106
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
Students in urban schools are more likely than others to be suspended.
Nationwide, more than 3 million students were suspended from school
during the 1997-1998 school year, nearly 7 percent of all students (Office
for Civil Rights, 20001. But suspension rates vary widely among students
and schools, even schools within the same district (The Advancement Project
and The Civil Rights Project, 20001. Black students are more than twice as
likely to be suspended as white students nationwide (13.2 percent versus
5.5 percent). As a result, urban schools, with high concentrations of stu-
dents of color, generally have higher suspension rates than other schools.
The recently growing policy of zero tolerance for violations of school safety
rules is likely to increase the number of students who are forced to disen-
gage from school (Skiba and Peterson, 1999), and these policies are more
often applied in urban schools serving low-income students than in schools
serving more affluent students (Kaufman et al., 2001, Table All.
One strategy that has been used to deal with seriously misbehaving
students is to send them to alternative schools. But this too can aggravate
any inclination towards disengagement. In their longitudinal study of 100
Latino high school students in Austin, Romo and Falbo describe the "spe-
cial" schools the school district created for difficult students. Youth who
had broken school rules were mixed in these schools with those who had
committed serious, even violent crimes. In the district's own evaluation,
staff reported that students who attended these special schools were more
likely to drop out of school than were comparable students who stayed in
the regular high school (Romo and Falbo, 1996,p.87~.
Clearly prohibiting students from attending school, either for some
fixed amount of time or permanently, will not increase their engagement in
school. From this perspective, the policy makes little sense. When alterna-
tive arrangements are made for students who have difficulty functioning in
a regular school or are making it impossible for other students to be en-
gaged, care must be given to the composition of the alternative arrange-
ments, and attention needs to be paid to the social climate of these schools
in which the students are the most in need of a caring, communally oriented
context focused on achievement.
"Zero-tolerance" policies and alternative school programs for disrup-
tive students do not address the day-to-day challenges related to discipline
that classroom teachers in many urban schools encounter. To a substantial
degree, implementing the kind of engaging instruction described in Chapter
3 in a caring, respectful social context should reduce discipline problems.
Consistent with the notion of creating a respectful social context, re-
cent efforts to develop effective discipline strategies have emphasized col-
laboration instead of authoritarian, punishment-oriented approaches with
students having an active voice in deciding on matters of classroom man-
agement (Charles, 2000, 20021. An emphasis on democratic classroom
OCR for page 107
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 107
principles and student responsibility moving students from being "tour-
ists" in the classroom to being "citizens" (Freiberg, 1996, p. 32) is also
being touted. Creating a climate of trust also has been proposed as a pro-
active strategy for maintaining order and cooperation (Charles, 20001.
Charles (2002, p. 9) suggests that to be effective in today's classroom,
teachers need to make "all students fee! welcome, replacing reward and
punishment with strong values, asking students to contribute ideas for
resolving problems . . . moving beyond the usual conception of discipline in
favor of developing a sense of community in the classroom."
There is currently no evidence on the effectiveness of these more egali-
tarian approaches to student discipline. They are, however, compatible
with findings suggesting that students are more engaged in academic tasks
when they are in a trusting, caring and respectful social context.
SCHOOL ORGANIZATION
By organization we mean how teachers and students are sorted and
how instruction is delivered. The way high schools are organized can affect
engagement in learning by the messages the organization conveys and by
the opportunities it creates for students to experience a climate that pro-
motes engagement.
High schools are currently experimenting with many aspects of school
organization to facilitate closer relationships and more personalized teach-
ing, in part by enabling teachers to see fewer students and students to see
fewer teachers each day. One organizational feature that is touted by many
experts is scheduling some courses in longer blocks (at least 90 minutes) to
allow deeper and more sustained engagement and more individualized pac-
ing. These courses are often multidisciplinary and team taught. A second
feature is referred to as "looping" teams of teachers working with cohorts
of students for at least two continuous years. Looping allows more sus-
tained relationships to develop among teachers and students, as well as
more individualized instruction.
These organizational changes are usually embedded in efforts to con-
vert large high schools into smaller units or to create new small high schools.
Consequently, it is impossible to untangle the effects of any particular
organizational feature. As a package, however, they seem to have consider-
able value.
The Coalition Campus Schools Project (CCSP), for example, redesigned
two large and very troubled New York City high schools, Julia Richman
High School in Manhattan and James Monroe High School in the Bronx
(see Darling-Hammond et al., 20021. The design was derived from success-
ful schools launched earlier Central Park East Secondary School, Interna-
tional High School, and the Urban Academy. Teachers work in interdisci-
OCR for page 109
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 109
tracking (some teachers teaching almost exclusively low-track courses and
some teachers teaching almost exclusively classes with relatively higher
achieving students) was more extensive in schools with relatively high pro-
portions of low-income and minority students (see also Lucas, 19991. More-
over, low-track teachers reported significantly lower levels of administra-
tive support, control over instructional choices, and influence over school
decisions. Finley (1984), similarly, reports also that the low-track teachers
in her study were accorded less respect by their peers and were less involved
in professional development.
A few studies have examined the effect of tracking on student engage-
ment. Ethnographers in both Great Britain and the United States have
concluded that tracking polarizes students into positive and negative aca-
demic attitudes and behavior (see Berends, 19951. It is possible, however,
that the differences in attitudes existed before students entered a tracking
system.
Wiatrowski, Hansell, Massey, and Wilson (1982) analyzed attitudes
toward school in a longitudinal data set and found no differences, based on
students' track, in 12th graders' attachment to and misbehavior in school,
after controlling for social background variables and initial attitudes. Using
High School and Beyond longitudinal data from 1980 to 1982, however,
Berends (1995) found modest but significant effects of track placement on
students' college expectations, absenteeism, disciplinary problems, and en-
gagement to school (reported interest in school and time spent on home-
work), with students in the academic track showing more favorable out-
comes.
Coleman and Hoffer (1987) attributed the lower dropout rates and
higher average achievement that they found in Catholic schools to less
curricular tracking. Similarly, in their study of 4,450 sophomores in 160
public and Catholic high schools from the High School and Beyond data
set, Bryk and Thum (1989) found that students were more likely to persist
in schools that had less curricular differentiation and more students in
academic programs, even after controlling for the academic and social class
background of students. In their study of 11,794 sophomores in 830 high
schools from the NELS:88 data set, Lee and Smith (1995) found that schools
where more students took advanced coursework had higher levels of stu-
dent engagement, defined in terms of attitudes and self-reported effort,
after controlling for student academic and social class background. A few
other studies suggest that being in a low track reduces the likelihood of
students taking challenging, college-preparatory classes, even after control-
ling for socioeconomic status and previous achievement (Braddock and
Dawkins, 1993).
Low-track courses may undermine students' motivation unnecessarily.
In mathematics, for example, most teachers believe that there is a clear
OCR for page 110
110
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
sequence for learning, and that students cannot process high-level concepts,
such as algebra, until they have mastered basic computational skills
(Grossman and Stodolsky, 1994, 1995; Stodolsky and Grossman, 20001.
As a consequence, students who enter high school with poor basic skills are
likely to receive drill in basic concepts rather than more motivating instruc-
tion that engages them in challenging, open-ended problem solving. Re-
search discussed in Chapter 4 shows clearly that even students who have
relatively poor skills can engage in instruction that allows them to engage in
deep analysis, and there is considerable evidence now that algebraic and
other mathematical concepts can be introduced at many levels and at al-
most any age (RAND Mathematics Study Panel, 20021.
Formal and comprehensive tracking is less common now than in the
past. High schools more often offer courses that are differentiated by level
of achievement or perceived ability of students. High-achieving students
take honors and Advanced Placement courses, but they are not distin-
guished formally as being in a college-bound track.
A common strategy to make advanced courses accessible to low-in-
come students and students of color who have in the past been dispropor-
tionately placed in remedial or vocational tracks is to give students the
choice of taking more advanced courses. Although choice theoretically pro-
vides opportunities for all students to be held to high expectations and to be
engaged in challenging learning experiences, in reality, students end up
being sorted, or they sort themselves along the same class and ethnic lines
that applied to more formal tracking structures. For 3 years Yonezawa,
Wells, and Serna (2002) studied 10 racially and socioeconomically mixed
secondary schools that had voluntarily implemented detracking, giving stu-
dents the choice of taking more advanced courses. Few of the Black and
Latino students took advanced classes for a variety of reasons, including
lack of information, failure to meet prerequisites, and a lack of encourage-
ment from counselors or teachers. One student in their study described a
counselor's weak encouragement (p. 521: " . . . she said . . . 'Who knows, if
you work real hard, you can probably . . . keep up.' " Some of the most
significant barriers were psychological. The students themselves often did
not take advantage of opportunities because they had experienced too many
years of being perceived to have low skills, and they lacked the confidence
to take advanced courses, or they were anxious about being uncomfortable
in classes with predominantly white and Asian and more affluent students.
They feared being uncomfortable or disrespected in classrooms where they
were different from the other students. Some also expressed concerns about
the burden of demonstrating their own capability as well as countering
racial stereotypes. As one student in an honors math class explains (p. 561:
OCR for page 111
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 111
I was like, "Oh man, I don't even belong in here," because it was like 30
Caucasian kids and one African student. I felt like I had to prove myself
and prove that Blacks aren't stupid. fI felt like] if I were to get a problem
wrong and raise my hand, they would look at me and say, "Ah, that
R1~ ink ~~ T born ~ ~ learn via 1 1 n r1 tar Arts 1 ret ~m
~~ r--~--~ ~~ · · · I transferred to just The]
advanced level.
Although eliminating a rigid tracking system is a step in the right
direction, allowing choice is not enough to eliminate the status quo with
course-taking patterns differentiated along social class and race lines. To be
effective, such a policy decision would need to be accompanied by con-
certed efforts to create a social climate that informed and encouraged low-
income students and students of color to participate in a rigorous and
challenging curriculum. Special efforts also would have to be made at the
classroom level to ensure that all students felt valued, respected, and in-
cluded.
Most important, strategies would need to be implemented to ensure
that all students in a class are able to handle the material covered and the
academic demands of the course a difficult task in a class of students who
have dramatically different skill levels. One organizational strategy that has
been used successfully at the college level for students who are not profi-
cient in English is to link tutoring and small-group learning, often with a
specialist in reading or English as a Second Language (ESL), to a regular
class (Benesch, 1988a). Thus poor readers or English-language learners
have the advantage of being integrated in regular classes, but with the extra
support they need to master the material. In one program at University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), English-language classes were linked to
content courses (e.g., in political science or psychology; Snow and Brinton,
19881. The language class assisted students in developing reading, writing,
and study skills that were directly related to the content course. City Uni-
versity of New York created a block of three linked courses freshman
social science, ESL reading, and ESL writing (Benesch, 1988b). Like the
UCLA program, the links were designed to help students develop basic
skills in the context of developing content knowledge. Hostos Community
College in New York connected small tutor-led groups to content courses,
such as biology, business, and early childhood education (Hirsch, 19881.
Although we did not find examples of this strategy being applied at the
high school level, the approach addresses some of the problems of the
typical strategy of creating remedial or ESL courses that isolate low-skilled
students and English-language learners from high-skilled and native En-
glish-speaking peers. The strategy gives students access to regular courses,
and special instruction designed to help them master the material of the
course. Although not proven, the approach merits some experimentation in
urban high schools.
OCR for page 112
2
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
A key concern in classrooms with cultural, linguistic, and academic
diversity is that students create social rankings within the classroom based
on "status" differences, including academic ability (Cohen, Lotan, and
Leechor, 19891. Differences in literacy resources at home, the use of stan-
dard English, and knowledge of academic discourse are often perceived by
both students and teachers to reflect intellectual ability. These perceptions
can be translated into a status hierarchy, which can influence students'
individual behavior and contributions to the group. For example, those
students with high academic status typically talk more and express their
opinions more freely, while "low-status" students defer to their leadership
(Cohen, 19971.
Cohen and Lotan's mode! of "complex instruction" (a mode! of col-
laborative learning) was designed to address these status differences in the
classroom (Cohen and Lotan, 19971. Their studies suggest that teachers can
reduce the influence of academic status by publicly recognizing the contri-
butions and value of many different kinds of intellectual competencies in
the classroom and by emphasizing that every student brings valuable and
different strengths which are required for the group's success. Although
most of the research on complex instruction has been done at the elemen-
tary level (Cohen and Lotan, 1997), Bower (1997) found that students in
llth-grade social studies classes in which the approach was used gained
more in achievement than the control group. In summary, although the
evidence suggests that tracking and other policies that limit students' access
to a rigorous curriculum have negative effects on some students' engage-
ment, simply eliminating tracking or formal prerequisites is not sufficient.
These organizational changes need to be supplemented with others that
provide students with the encouragement, support, and structures they
need to be able to achieve success.
SCHOOL COMPOSITION
Policy decisions at the district level can affect the distribution of stu-
dents among schools, and the evidence suggests that those policies affect
student engagement and learning. Although we know little about the mecha-
nisms involved, correlational evidence suggests that the social composition
of students in a school influences student achievement above and beyond
the effects of student characteristics at an individual level . Student compo-
sition may also influence achievement indirectly, through its relationship
with other school characteristics, such as resources and practices.
Kahienberg (2001) proposes that school composition affects student
learning in part by influencing three different peer mechanisms the influ-
ence of peers on learning through in-class and out-of-class interactions
(e.g., cooperative work-groups, study groups), the influence of peers on the
OCR for page 113
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 113
motivation and aspirations of fellow students, and the influence of peers on
the social behavior of other students (Kahienberg, 2001; see Chapter 3 for
a more detailed discussion of peer effects). Student composition might also
affect some of the climate variables discussed earlier, such as teachers'
expectations for student learning and the degree to which they press for
excellence or develop supportive, personalized relationships with students.
Research has shown that several aspects of student composition are
associated with student performance: the average socioeconomic status of
the students in the school, their average academic skills, and the schools'
racial and ethnic composition. Schools serving relatively more students
from high socioeconomic backgrounds and with high academic skills have
lower school dropout rates, lower absentee rates (Bryk and Thum, 1989),
and lower student mobility rates, after controlling for the individual effects
of student background characteristics. An analysis of 26,425 sophomores
attending 968 schools from the High School and Beyond data indicated
that the effect of school socioeconomic composition on dropout rates was
about one-third to one-half as strong as the effect of individual socioeco-
nomic status (Mayer, 1991).
Because the extent and quality of resources, such as the proportion of
qualified and experienced teachers, are confounded with the proportion of
low-income students, it is not possible to untangle these confounds from
the effect of the student body composition itself on student engagement. In
future research it will be important to identify the reasons for the effects of
the student body composition on student engagement and learning. We
suspect that in addition to differential resources, differences in standards,
expectations, and in the curriculum mediate school composition effects.
SCHOOL SIZE
The research evidence on small schools suggests that reducing substan-
tially the size of schools is a promising strategy for achieving the kind of
personalized education that engages youth. Definitions of "small" for the
purpose of research varies, with some studies considering a high school
enrolling 400 or fewer students as "small" (Howley, 2002) and others
considering "small" to be any number up to 1,000 students (e.g., Lee,
20011. Howley (2002) suggests that the terms "smaller" and "larger" are
more useful, allowing for relative comparisons to be made (see also
McLaughlin and Drori, 20001. Researchers studying school size also use
many different definitions of academic engagement including attendance,
persistence, graduation rates, and sense of belonging and some use stan-
dardized test scores. Despite some inconsistencies in definitions and find-
ings, a careful review of the evidence supports three tentative conclusions:
(1) smaller school size is associated with higher achievement under some
OCR for page 114
4
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
conditions; (2) smaller schools improve achievement equity; and (3) smaller
schools may be especially important for disadvantaged students (Howley,
2002~.
One of the first challenges to the effectiveness of large, comprehensive
high schools in the United States came from Roger Barker and Paul Gump's
1964 book, Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behav-
ior. Their study of more than 200 schools revealed that a much higher
proportion of students participated in school activities in smaller schools
than in large ones. In the nearly 40 years since Barker and Gump's book
was published, many researchers have sought to examine the effects of
school size on student engagement and achievement. Barker and Gump's
original challenge to the assumption that bigger is better has been sup-
ported and expanded, and although questions remain about school size, we
can conclude that bigger usually is not better.
Whereas some studies find no difference between the achievement lev-
els of students in large and small schools (e.g., Caldas, 1987 Louisiana
schools]; Haller, Monk, and Tien, 1993 flOth graders in math and science];
Meinick, Shibles, Gable, and Grzymkowski, 1986 Enonurban Connecticut
schools]), many studies find students in small schools doing better than
those in large schools (e.g., Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone, 1982 Enational data
sample]; Eichenstein, 1994 t10 New York City public high schools]~. In a
relatively large study of the approximately 300 high schools in New Jersey,
Fowler and Walberg (1991) found that students in smaller high schools
performed better on achievement tests than students in larger schools (see
also Walberg and Fowler, 1987; Walberg, 1989, 1992~. Data tracking
students from large schools in Philadelphia that converted into small schools
suggest that small schools can also increase attendance, course passage,
persistence, and graduation rates (McMullen, 1994~. Wasley and colleagues
(2000) likewise found more persistence in small schools in Chicago, in
restructured existing large schools as well as autonomous, free-standing
small schools. Fetler's (1989) study in California similarly reported lower
dropout rates as well as higher achievement in smaller schools.
In contrast to these studies, which found a linear relationship between
school size and achievement, Lee's analyses of the National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS 88) showed a curvilinear relationship
(Lee, 2001; see also Lee, V. E., 20001. Schools of about 300 to 900 students
performed better than both larger and smaller schools. The advantages of
being small appeared to diminish substantially below a threshold of about
300 students. We suspect that the national data set, which included a
substantial number of very small (<300 students) schools, explains why Lee
found a curvilinear relationship when other researchers found a linear rela-
tionship. The data sets used by researchers who studied relatively populated
states such as California and New Jersey may not have had enough very
OCR for page 115
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 115
small high schools to affect the statistical findings. Taken together, the
findings suggest that smaller might be better up to a point, but below that
point small schools may have disadvantages, such as in course offerings and
other resources, which affect student achievement.
The evidence suggests that relatively small schools may also promote
achievement equity. A few studies have shown dramatically higher levels of
academic engagement among poor and working-class youth of color in
small schools relative to their peers in large schools (e.g., Ancess, 2000;
Fine, 1994; Lee and Smith, 1995, 1997; Meier, 1998; Wasley et al., 2000;
for reviews see Fowler, 1995; Gladden, 1998; end Raywid, 19981. Lee
(2001) likewise found that disparities in achievement gains based on SES
were smallest in the three smallest categories of school size (up to 1,200
students). With regard to promoting equity, being very small did not appear
to create any disadvantages.
The evidence on greater achievement equity in small schools suggests
that school size may be especially important for economically disadvan-
taged students. Taking a somewhat different approach to examining pos-
sible differential effects of school size on students from different economic
backgrounds, Howley and Bicke! (2000) found that small school size re-
duced the impact of poverty on student achievement. In their analysis of
data from three states (Texas, Georgia, and Ohio), they found that "the
lower the income in the community, the more student achievement is
benefited by smaller schools" (p. 41. They describe a possible "differential
excellence effect," an interaction effect of socioeconomic status and school
size, in which larger sizes are particularly harmful in low-income commu-
. .
nltles.
Schools-Within-A-Schoo!
Findings suggesting the benefits of small schools have stimulated the
creation of schools-within-a-school (SWAS) dividing schools into small
learning communities, sometimes associated with academic or vocational
themes (see Chapter 6, this volume). The research supporting the advan-
tages of this structure is not as strong as research comparing whole schools
that vary in size (e.g., Cotton, 1996; Howley, 2002; Meier, 19951. The
evidence does, however, show some benefits for students in small learning
communities with regard to both academic achievement and attitudes toward
school. In an evaluation of the Kansas City SWAS program, Robinson-
Lewis (1991) found that achievement test scores for SWAS students
increased during their years in the SWAS program. Students also showed
improved attendance and grades, and believes the program had helped
them improve their basic skills. In a similar evaluation, Levine and Sherk
(1990) found evidence of benefits for the SWAS programs in Kansas City,
OCR for page 116
116
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
New York, and Orlando urban middle and high schools. Students in all
three metropolitan areas showed improved reading comprehension during
participation in the SWAS programs. Finally, Eichenstein (1994) evaluated
the Project Achieve program for at-risk students in New York City public
high schools. She found that restructuring existing schools into "houses"
(averaging 250 students) was associated with improved attendance, student
responsiveness, and student satisfaction.
Inside Small Schools What Really Matters?
Smallness by itself is not likely to promote greater engagement (Dar-
ling-Hammond et al., 20021. More likely a smaller number of students
makes it easier to implement policies and create the kind of climate that
studies suggest are conducive to high levels of engagement.
Achievement motivation theory and findings discussed in Chapter 2
provide some clues as to why small schools might typically engage youth
better than large schools. For example, small schools should facilitate mean-
ingful faculty-student relations, a sense of belonging and attachment, more
individualized instruction that can create optimal levels of challenge for all
students, and opportunities for both students and teachers to exercise au-
tonomy. In the absence of these effects, we suspect smallness in itself has
little value.
Very few studies have documented directly these kinds of possible me-
diators of the effect of size on student engagement. One exception is a study
of Chicago elementary schools, in which students in small schools were
more likely to report "academic press" (the feeling that teachers challenged
them to reach high levels of academic performance), "peer academic sup-
port" (their friends tried hard to get good grades, attended classes, believed
paying attention in class was important, treated homework assignments
seriously, and followed school rules), positive "classroom behavior" (class-
mates treated each other with respect and care), and "safety" (perception of
personal safety in and around school; Sebring et al., 1996~.5 Lee with Smith
(2001) also found that a communal climate is more likely to be seen in
small schools, which, according to the research discussed earlier, supports
student engagement.
Small schools that do not also adjust their organization and instruction
may have few advantages. Note that in studies finding positive effects of
small schools on student engagement and learning, the schools also imple-
5Two federally funded studies are currently under way, looking for the "active ingredients"
in effective small learning communities (Gambone, Klem, Moore, and Summers, 2002).
OCR for page 117
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 117
mented a variety of other innovations, such as block scheduling, looping,
multidisciplinary courses, and teachers seeing fewer students and students
seeing fewer teachers (Darling-Hammond et al., 20021.6 A noteworthy and
probably essential component of small schools that produces learning gains
is a great deal of attention to instruction including developing a curricu-
lum that challenges students to understand concepts deeply, adjusting modes
of teaching to individual students' skills and learning styles, and providing
extra supports for students who need them to succeed.
The small schools that are most effective with respect to academic
engagement, persistence, and graduation rates have also developed and
implemented thoughtful and rigorous alignment of curriculum, pedagogy,
and assessment systems in which youth and faculty are held publicly ac-
countable to high standards (Fine, 1994; Wasley et al., 20001. The small
schools that are least effective are those that are simply small in size, but
have developed neither curricula nor assessment systems that demand rig-
orous engagement and performance by all (Wesley et al., 20001.
Some caution in interpreting the research on school size is in order
because selection bias most likely contributes to the positive findings dis-
cussed. Many small schools are open to all students within a district or
geographical area larger than the existing neighborhood high school, and
require students and families to apply or at least put themselves into a
lottery. Some make particular requirements of families and students, and
admit students to some degree on a judgment about whether the "fit" is
good. Teachers and administrators also often choose to teach in small
schools, and some small schools are able to select from among a large pool
of teachers and administrators. Selection bias also can be relevant in studies
of schools within schools, because these are sometimes theme based and
attract students who have interests that match the school theme. Tracking
also occurs, although not necessarily by design, with low- or high-achieving
students systematically self-selecting into different schools or learning com-
. .
munltles.
Although selection bias may play a role in some studies of the effect of
school size on students' engagement and learning, we suspect that it does
not explain all of the differences that have been found. Studies do show that
small schools have advantages for students who typically perform very
poorly in school, and if selection played a role, it may not be entirely
because of "creaming," but because choice and matching have their own
benefits. We recommend, however, that future researchers pay careful at-
6Intensive experimentation with small high schools sponsored by the Gates Foundation has
resulted in 10 design principles for effective small schools; see http://www.stanford.edu/dept/
SUSE/csrn.
OCR for page 118
118
ENGAGING SCHOOLS
tension to the possible role of selection bias of students, teachers, and
administrators.
CONCLUSIONS
A review of the evidence presented in this chapter provides convincing,
if not conclusive, evidence that school climate, organization, composition,
and size can have important effects on student engagement and learning.
Effective schools communicate high expectations for their teachers and
students in the form of academic press and an atmosphere of trust and
caring relationships among teachers, administrators, parents, and students.
To achieve this kind of climate, teachers need opportunities to develop
relationships with each other and with their students. Promising strategies
for promoting caring relationships include decreasing the size of schools
and the number of students seen by each teacher and the number of teach-
ers seen by each student, block scheduling' and looping.
Research on school organization suggests that tracking undermines
engagement for students in the lower tracks, but that merely offering more
choices to those students does not eliminate differential course taking. Stu-
dents who have a history of poor achievement or who were previously
excluded from challenging courses often do not have the confidence to take
the more challenging courses. Teachers and administrators will need to
overcome these psychological barriers by providing strong encouragement
and eliminating the option of watered-down courses. In addition, they need
to make sure that supports are provided for students to be able to succeed
in challenging courses.
Student composition within a school is associated with student engage-
ment; the more high-achieving and high-SES students in a school, the more
individual students are engaged and learning. Special efforts need to be
made to increase the resources of schools serving a high concentration of
low-income students and to maintain a climate that is conducive to high
engagement. To the degree that there is diversity in students' economic
backgrounds' efforts should be made to mix students from different back-
grounds.
There is also convincing evidence that small schools can confer an
advantage for those students most at risk, and may help achieve greater
equity in achievement outcomes. But the committee does not recommend
creating small schools without consideration of the qualities of schools that
have been shown to promote student engagement and learning challeng-
ing and clear standards, personalization, meaningful and rigorous peda-
gogy and curriculum, and professional learning communities. Moreover, it
is not clear from the evidence that these qualities can be achieved only in
small schools, although it appears more difficult to achieve them in large
OCR for page 119
CLIMATE, ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION, AND SIZE OF SCHOOLS 119
schools. We do not yet know whether the school-within-a-school strategy
will show the same benefits that are seen in some studies of autonomous
small schools. But the evidence suggests that this is a strategy worth inves-
tigating, and studies are underway that will provide useful information on
the potential of this school reform strategy.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
school climate
