This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 20:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Peabody Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

What Research Tells Us About the Impactand Challenges of Smaller LearningCommunitiesThomas H. Levine aa University of ConnecticutPublished online: 13 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Thomas H. Levine (2010) What Research Tells Us About the Impact andChallenges of Smaller Learning Communities, Peabody Journal of Education, 85:3, 276-289, DOI:10.1080/0161956X.2010.491431

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2010.491431

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 85: 276–289, 2010Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0161-956X print / 1532-7930 onlineDOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2010.491431

What Research Tells Us About the Impact and Challengesof Smaller Learning Communities

Thomas H. LevineUniversity of Connecticut

In the United States, considerable financial and human resources have been devoted to breakingsome large high schools into smaller learning communities (SLCs). This article reviews research thatcompares SLCs to comprehensive high schools on a variety of measures. Extant research neithersupports nor refutes the promise of SLCs to improve academic achievement; however, research doessuggest that SLCs can improve attendance, graduation rates, and students’ experience of high schoolsas supportive environments. The article also uses empirical research to identify three challenges SLCsmust overcome if they are to improve academic achievement: focusing on instructional improvement,ensuring equity and rigor, and transcending school history.

Over the past decade, impressive amounts of money and human resources have been investedin breaking up the large, comprehensive high school. Funding from the U.S. federal governmenthas helped 1,535 larger high schools “convert” into smaller learning communities (SLCs) or adoptkey features of such SLCs (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2009). The Gates,Carnegie, and Annenberg foundations have devoted more than a billion dollars to reinventingthe U.S. high school, increasing support and incentives for such “conversion high schools.” Thesmall schools movement—including the conversion of large high schools into SLCs—was termedthe “biggest and hottest high school reform in education today” in 2005 (Miner, 2005, p. 21),and it appears to be reformers’ best current answer for meaningfully improving high schools.Although the Gates Foundation’s decision to stop supporting SLCs may have cooled the mostenthusiastic rhetoric, the current U.S. Secretary of Education supports SLCs, and stimulus moneymay fund more SLC work (McGray, 2009). SLCs remain an important element of the schoolreform landscape.

SLCs are created when existing comprehensive high schools decide to break themselves intoeither autonomous smaller high schools or other kinds of less autonomous units, such as housesor academies. Thus, SLCs are distinct from small schools, which exist in stand-alone buildingsand which are not usually formed from the existing staff of one comprehensive high school. Inspite of considerable effort and financial support for SLCs, research findings about their impacton students are just beginning to emerge. Such research, at present, does not provide sufficientevidence either to support or refute SLCs as a promising means to improve academic achievement.

Correspondence should be sent to Thomas H. Levine, University of Connecticut, Curriculum & Instruction, NeagSchool of Education, 249 Glenbrook Road U-2033, Storrs, CT 06269-2033. E-mail: thomas.levine@uconn.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE IMPACT AND CHALLENGES OF SLC 277

Extant research does, however, suggest that SLCs can improve student attendance, graduationrates, and students’ sense of high schools as supportive environments. Research also points tothree key obstacles or challenges for SLCs: focusing on instructional improvement, maintainingequity and rigor, and transcending school history. To the extent that SLCs can—or are helped—toaddress these challenges, they may not only affect desirable intermediary outcomes but alsoimpact student learning.

In the remainder of this introduction, I summarize research regarding high school size toexplain the rationale for SLCs. In the next section of this article, I ask whether SLCs havebeen shown to significantly improve any measurable results associated with large high schools. Idescribe and assess current research and then describe key findings. I close this review identifyingthree challenges SLCs must address to improve student achievement.

Research on high school size has associated larger populations of students with increased drop-out rates (Gardner, Ritblatt, & Beatty, 2000; Werblow & Duesbery, 2009), increased incidence ofviolence and vandalism (Chen, 2008; Haller, 1992), and reduced participation in school activities(Green & Stevens, 1988). Although larger high schools typically offer a more diverse array ofcourses, this diversity also creates stratification of student outcomes, as students are tracked intodifferent levels of courses and, as a result, different levels of rigor and academic learning (V. E.Lee & Smith, 1997; Oakes, 1985).

There is some contradictory evidence, however, regarding high school size and student learninggains measured by standardized testing. A study of stand-alone, small high schools found nodifference between small and large high schools in three of four districts studied (Shear et al.,2008). Another study of math achievement gains found a curvilinear relationship (i.e., the smallestand largest high schools were most effective in promoting improvements in math achievement;Werblow & Duesbery, 2009).

In addition to these research findings, scholars and reformers worry that large schools arealienating and bureaucratic organizations that hinder

• strong professional communities that help teachers improve their instruction (Meier, 1995;Sizer, 1985; Wallach & Gallucci, 2004)

• teachers’ capacity to know individual students as people or as learners (Lambert & Lowry,2004; Steinberg & Allen, 2004)

• the development of communication and trust between educators, students, and families(Epstein, 2001; Lambert & Lowry, 2004)

Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993) observed that coordinating the work of large high schools “typicallyimposes demands for more formal modes of communication and encourages increased workspecialization and a greater bureaucratization of school life” (p. 299). The more impersonal,bureaucratic nature of these schools may limit their ability to promote caring bonds or culturallyresponsive ways of reaching students traditionally underserved by public education (Sizer, 1985;Valenzuela, 1999); however, even affluent, college-bound students who might appear to be wellserved by traditional high schools may be learning about the game of getting into college ratherthan becoming ethical, lifelong learners (Pope, 2001).

Large schools are often seen as impersonal, bureaucratic institutions that limit trust and learningbetween all the key stakeholders; thus, it is not hard to understand why reformers seek to breaklarge high schools into smaller units. SLCs are intended to help teachers know and work with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

278 T. H. LEVINE

each other, students, and families on a more personal scale, under arrangements intentionallyaimed at promoting trust, individualization, and a renewed focus on good teaching and learning.

Would it be possible to mitigate the problems associated with large schools without a radicalreorganization of schools such as breaking into SLCs? Although piecemeal reforms can probablyimpact one or two of the problems associated with large schools, such “tinkering” has notappeared to change core patterns of curriculum and instruction observed in schools over decades(Cuban, 1993; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Sociologists have observed “reflexive conservatism” inthe nature of the teaching profession and the organization of schools (McLaughlin & Talbert,2001). In addition, the balkanized nature of high schools—with teachers often feeling allegianceto departments (Siskin, 1994; Siskin & Little, 1995)—makes uniting faculties behind whole-school reform efforts more challenging than it might be in elementary schools. Given somediscouraging results from the current U.S. high schools, it is reasonable to ask whether SLCs asnew “break-the-mold” schools (Shear et al., 2008, p. 1989) can achieve better results than thecurrent model.

DO SLCs PRODUCE BETTER OUTCOMES THAN LARGECOMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS?

Four groups of researchers have produced findings from evaluative studies of SLCs that includecomparisons with matched comprehensive high schools. These groups of researchers studied

• 26 Gates-supported conversion high schools• 23 First Things First (FTF) high schools and middle schools• Five Talent Development (TD) schools in Philadelphia• three conversion high schools (and eight of the small schools created within them) supported

by the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative (CHSRI)

Publications from the groups evaluating these schools provide a basis for describing the impactof SLCs and of comparison comprehensive schools on students and on teachers.

Assessing Extant Research on SLCs

These studies all used strong quasi-experimental designs and multiple methods of data collection,including surveys of teachers and students, site visits, and standardized achievement test scores toget at a variety of outcomes. The studies of TD and FTF schools were comparative interrupted timeseries designs. This means that they included multiple data points to establish baselines beforeschools converted into SLCs, and more data points after conversion; these studies addressed akey threat to validity by also including comparison with schools in the wider district or matchedschools, and they included measures to address differences in the student populations of theschools involved.

Studies of Gates and CHSRI schools did not establish a baseline or identify trends postinter-vention with as many data points, but they also included comparisons to matched schools or to thewider district. These studies used hierarchical linear modeling to analyze data. Hierarchical linear

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE IMPACT AND CHALLENGES OF SLC 279

modeling allowed the researchers to separate out variance in outcomes caused by within-schoolfactors (individual student- or teacher-level factors, such as race or special education status),and then at a second level to explore what factors accounted for variance between schools. Inaddition, these studies featured measures assessing the quality of instruction and, in the case ofthe Gates research, of student work. Such measures provided insight and trustworthiness beyondthe self-reported data about teaching practice used in the FTF and CHSRI studies; the TD studydid not include data about teachers’ classroom practices.

In spite of their strengths, these studies have several limitations for assessing the impactof SLCs. In all of the three reform models—or the multiple models adopted by various Gatesschools—restructuring into SLCs was accompanied by other kinds of reform, such as provisionof intensive professional development or the creation of systems of faculty advocacy for students.Thus, these evaluations cannot single out restructuring into SLCs as the sole cause of any effectsobserved; nevertheless, these studies, taken together and juxtaposed with other research notednext, suggest that SLCs may create improved conditions for teaching and learning and that SLCshave not yet produced consistent, measurable patterns of actual improvements in teaching andlearning. Results are often reported at the level of changes in school graduation, attendance rates,or achievement data rather than comparisons of individual students. The nature of students wholeave or enter SLCs or comparison schools might affect results, as incoming students have notexperienced the SLC or comparison school throughout all of their high school years. In addition,where SLCs successfully reduced dropout rates, direct comparisons of achievement test data mayunderestimate the impact of SLCs on improving academic outcomes or rates of absenteeism;in other words, more traditionally unsuccessful students may be staying in school at SLCs butlowering mean achievement data and absentee rates.

The greatest limitation in research, at present, is the limited time frame of data collection.Current research on SLCs explores the impact of the reform over 1 to 4 years after conversion.Only Quint, Bloom, Black, and Stephens (2005) included some data addressing whether—andhow—the implementation of SLCs over more than 4 years impacts teaching and learning inschools.

Researchers have published various results from evaluative studies since 2000, and others haveconducted case studies that illuminate some of the dilemmas or processes that SLCs may face.I synthesize findings from this literature next. I do not include the conclusions of literature thatis not based on empirical research here. Such writing typically offers some mixture of anecdotalevidence, practical advice from one or several schools’ experience, and deeply held convictionin favor of high school conversion (e.g., French, Atkinson, & Rugen, 2007; Gregory & Smith,1987; Meier, 1995; Warren & Hernandez, 2005).

Also absent from this article is the larger body of emerging research on small schools, orschools in small, mostly rural communities. Many advocates of SLCs cite studies of smallschools to support breaking large high schools into SLCs. There is good reason, however, toquestion the applicability of small school findings to SLCs. Ready, Lee, and Welner (2004)identified three key differences between new start-up small schools and SLCs, explaining thatschools that are small by design are typically (a) purposefully created from scratch; (b) locatedin new physical buildings, and with a new social grouping of teachers and students; and (c)often based on teacher and student self-selection. Shear et al. (2008), after comparing start-upsmall schools with SLCs, observed that the professionals starting up new small schools “weregenerally teams of extremely motivated teachers and school leaders” (p. 1994) who shared the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

280 T. H. LEVINE

goal of creating “an environment in which students would feel both academically motivated andpersonally supported” (p. 1994). In contrast, SLCs usually draw on the same group of teachers,students, and initial curricula that already existed before conversion in often low-performingschools. SLCs face significant challenges in building a new sense of mission, and in figuring outhow to use physical spaces and existing staffs not designed to support separate subunits. Severalresearchers have concluded that changing large, comprehensive high schools into effective SLCsis more difficult than creating new schools (American Institute for Research & SRI International,2003; V. E. Lee & Ready, 2007; Shear et al., 2008). This research makes clear that we cannotuncritically generalize emerging, positive findings regarding small schools to SLCs. We needmore studies to confirm or refute the promise of SLCs.

Impact of SLCs on Student Outcomes

What does available data tell us regarding conversion high schools’ impact on student learningand on other outcomes for students? As summarized in Table 1, research shows no clear patternsregarding achievement gains, but it does offer some positive findings regarding other desirableoutcomes.

Attendance

Three of the four groups of SLCs studied provide some evidence of improving attendancerates more than comparison schools. At Gates schools, researchers found no difference betweenattendance rates pre- and postconversion or between SLCs and comparison schools (Shear et al.,2008). At TD schools, attendance rates improved 4.6 percentage points more than comparableimprovements at comparison schools (p < .01; Kemple, Herlihy, & Smith, 2005).1 At the long-running Kansas City FTF schools, annual improvement in graduation rates for each school yearbetween 2000 and 2004 ranged from 1.7 to 8.6 percentage points above the level of improvementoccurring in comparison schools (Quint et al., 2005). For 2 of the 4 years of available data, thesedifferences were statistically significant (p < .01). In five districts that had hosted FTF schools foronly 2 or 3 years, no such improvements were observed (Quint et al., 2005). At CHSRI schools,attendance rates for the first cohort improved during each of the 4 years that data were collectedwhen compared to rates at matched schools (Kahne, Sporte, de la Torre, & Easton, 2008). In twoof those years, these differences were statistically significant (p < .01).

Graduation Rates

In all of the groups of SLCs that had at least one cohort of students reach graduation, there is atleast some degree of evidence suggesting that SLCs had higher graduation rates than comparisonschools. Relevant data are not available for Gates schools. Only two TD conversion high schools

1Please note that if rates improved only 0.1% in comparison schools and 8.7% in TD schools, this would comprise animprovement of 8.6 “percentage points,” a more meaningful comparison than stating that the rate of improvement was860% greater in SLCs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE IMPACT AND CHALLENGES OF SLC 281

TABLE 1Identifying Differences Between Schools Breaking Up Into SLCs and Comparison Schools on Commonly

Measured Educational Outcomes

Outcome Gates SchoolsTalent

DevelopmentFirst

Things First

Chicago HighSchool Redesign

Initiative

Attendance No significantdifference

Improvement Improvement atoriginal sites

Improvement

Graduation rates NA (no schoolsyet graduatingseniors)

PossibleImprovementa

Improvementa Possibleimprovement

Progression ratesfrom ninth to tenthgrade

No significantdifference

Improvementa NA Possibleimprovement

Student engagement Decrease NA Decrease at FTF highschools; increase atFTF middleschoolsb

NA

Standardizedacademicachievement testdata in math andEnglish languagearts

No significantdifference

Slightimprovement inmath, none inreadinga

Improvements in bothsubjects at originalsites; no pattern ofimprovements atnewer sitesa

No significantdifferences

Note. There are a number of cases where one group of researchers reported initial findings about one of the groupsof smaller learning communities (SLCs) listed here, and then issued updated findings after collecting more data. Thistable reflects only the most recent results available. Results such as “improvement” or “decrease” reflect data showinga statistically significant difference (p < .05 or better). Where results were statistically significant, but only at the 10%level or no p values were reported, findings were summarized as “possible improvements” in this table.

aData are reported at a school—rather than individual student—level and thus do not reflect any students going to orcoming from other high schools. This could affect graduation, attendance rates, and achievement data. bComparativedata are unavailable, but statistically significant differences were shown pre- and postconversion into SLCs.

had graduating cohorts of students; each graduated two cohorts. For the 1st year, graduation ratesimproved by 4 percentage points compared to baseline data from the same schools in prior years(Kemple et al., 2005). In contrast, for this first cohort of students, graduation rates decreased by4 percentage points in comparison (non-TD) schools. This comparison suggests that TD schoolsimproved graduation rates by 8 percentage points when compared to similar schools, an impactthat is statistically significant (p not reported). The second cohort graduated at a rate that was7 percentage points higher than comparison schools, but this result was not statistically significant(Kemple et al., 2005). Graduation rates were similarly compared between the long-running FTFschools in Kansas City and comparison schools; for each of 4 years of data, statistically significantdifferences were found. The implementation of FTF reforms coincided with graduation rates thatwere 10.6 and 15.7 percentage points higher than the prior difference in baseline graduation ratesfor the same schools (all results at least p < .05; Quint et al., 2005). FTF schools consistentlyhad more improvement in graduation rates than comparison schools; these differences werestatistically significant in 2 of 4 years (p < .01; Quint et al., 2005). The CHSRI schools had only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

282 T. H. LEVINE

one cohort of students who had been in school for 4 years. Of these students, 51% graduated,whereas only 44% graduated from comparison schools; this real difference was only marginallystatistically significant (p = .09; Kahne et al., 2008). As with other findings, research conductedover more time with larger numbers of students may confirm or complicate these findings.

Progression Rates

Three studies reported data relevant to rate of students progressing from 9th to 10th grade orbeyond. Two of these studies found some evidence of improvement in progression rates in SLCs.The rate of students progressing from 9th to 10th grades was no different between Gates andcomparison schools in the two districts for which data were available (Shear et al., 2008). The TDschool study, using a slightly different measurement of promotion to 10th grade, found that about60% of students in TD and comparison schools were promoted before implementation (Kempleet al., 2005). During the 1st year after implementing TD reforms, the percentage of TD studentspromoted to 10th grade increased by 7 percentage points, and it increased 10 percentage pointsin Year 2. In comparison schools, compared with the baseline, the promotion rate decreasedby 1 percentage point and rose 3 percentage points during Years 1 and 2, respectively. Thesedifferences were statistically significant at the level of p < .05 and p < .10, respectively (Kempleet al., 2005). The first study of the first cohort of CHSRI ninth graders (Kahne, Sporte, & Easton,2005) found more students “on track” in proceeding into 10th grade and toward graduation,but the difference was not statistically significant (p < .19); by junior year, dropout rate was7 percentage points lower for CHSRI students, which showed marginal statistical significance(p < .07; Kahne et al., 2008).

Student Engagement

Students reported lower levels of engagement postconversion in Gates Schools (Shear et al.,2008). At FTF schools, survey measures of student engagement offered mixed results over time.Levels of engagement decreased at FTF high schools and improved at FTF middle schools;some of the differences were statistically significant compared to the year before conversion(Quint et al., 2005). No surveys were administered in comparison schools, which thus preventedcomparison. Studies of TD and CHSRI schools did not report data about student engagementbeyond attendance data described previously.

Student Support

Table 1 does not include measures of student support, as the exact outcomes and measuresvaried across studies, and this portion of data sometimes was collected and reported without anycomparison to similar schools; nevertheless, these findings are particularly intriguing. At GatesSLCs, student and teacher surveys found significant increases in personalization as well as inrespect and responsibility, two of six components of a broader school climate scale (Shear et al.,2008). At FTF schools, middle and high school students self-reported significantly higher levels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE IMPACT AND CHALLENGES OF SLC 283

of support from their teachers during the 2 years after conversion when compared to the planningyear. In survey responses, the percentage of students who experienced low support from theirschool also decreased over time (Quint et al., 2005). At CHSRI schools, student survey responsesshowed significantly higher levels of the following features than comparison schools: senseof belonging, peer support for academic achievement, classroom personalism, student–teachertrust, and teacher support (Kahne et al., 2008). Research on TD schools did not measure students’experience of support.

Academic Achievement Test Data

Data from standardized tests of math and English/Language Arts were equivalent in Gatesschools and in comparison schools (Shear et al., 2008). Both TD and comparison schools showedsome improvement from baseline scores, but there were no clear systematic differences betweenthe two groups of schools with one exception (Kemple et al., 2005). There was a 10% improvementin students scoring in the below basic category in math in Talent Development schools, comparedwith a 4% decrease in comparison schools, a statistically significant difference (p not reported;Kemple et al., 2005). For the FTF schools that had been running for up to 8 years in Kansas City,changes in state testing shifted statistical analysis in ways that would make it harder to showachievement gains; nevertheless, the FTF evaluation identified clear and sustained improvementin achievement test data at middle and high schools (Quint et al., 2005). In 2 of the 3 yearsfor which data were reported, rates of students scoring “proficient” in reading rose by morethan 10%, and rates of “unsatisfactory” scores decreased by more than 10%, results that wereall statistically significant (p < .05). There were modest but statistically significant (p < .05)reductions in students scoring “unsatisfactory” in math during 2 of 3 years (Quint et al., 2005).There were even smaller improvements in students scoring proficient, most of which werenot statistically significant at any level. Results from the much newer expansion sites beyondKansas City, reflecting between 1 and 3 years of implementation, showed no clear trend (Quintet al., 2005). In CHSRI schools, there were no statistically significant differences in student testscores compared with similar students elsewhere in the district over four years of data, with onemarginally significant exception (Kahne et al., 2008).

Related Results From Two Additional Studies

Two additional studies offer results that corroborate and extend some of the insights of theseevaluation studies regarding the impact of SLCs on students. The final evaluation report of thefederal SLC program (Bernstein, Millsap, Schimmenti, & Page, 2008) focused on all schools in theprogram, even though participating schools did not necessarily break up into SLCs; some schoolsused federal funding simply to adopt some feature of SLCs, such as freshman academies. Theevaluation study also only reports outcomes pre- and post-implementation of whatever reformsschools adopted, without comparative data from similar schools. Still, it is interesting to notethat this report’s conclusions are in line with results from the evaluation studies just discussed:After only 2 to 3 years of school reform, there was no or modest impact in intermediary results(e.g., no change in attendance, modest improvements in promotion from 9th to 10th grade,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

284 T. H. LEVINE

improved participation in extracurricular activities); there was no clear trend in student academicachievement (Bernstein et al., 2008). M. Lee and Friedrich (2007) compared student academicprogress in 193 schools that broke into various kinds of SLCs with each other and with otherschools in their respective states. SLC programs “appeared to make slight progress in studentachievement year by year” (p. 270); in other words, SLCs’ students made slightly more yearlyprogress over 3 years when compared with other schools’ students in the same state (p < .5).The presence of adult advocacy or teacher advisory systems was the one feature studied thatwas associated with a statistically significant increase in student achievement (p < .5; M. Lee &Friedrich, 2007).

WILL SLCS IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING IF GIVEN MORE TIME?

SLCs are a new reform. There has not yet been sufficient time or quantity of research to saya great deal definitively about SLCs’ promise to improve student academic achievement. AreSLCs still “working out the kinks,” a diagnosis implying that they just need more time? Orwill SLCs continue to produce inconsistent results in terms of student learning because theyface some insurmountable challenges? Ethnographic research points toward several challengesthat SLCs must overcome; their success in addressing these areas could determine whetherSLCs ultimately position teachers and students for improved achievement. In other words, withpractical and scholarly efforts to address these areas, SLCs might realize their promise to providea rigorous, responsive education for all students, including those traditionally underserved bypublic education.

Challenge 1: Focusing on Instructional Improvement

Reformers have proposed that teachers working in SLCs and small schools can collaboratein ways that improve teaching practice and relationships with students (French et al., 2007;Meier, 1995; Sizer, 1985). The most recent evaluation of Gates Schools, however, concludedthat practical issues regarding space, staff, students, and classes often overwhelm the intentionto focus on curriculum and instruction during the first 3 years of SLC work (Shear et al., 2008).It is not just internal organizational issues that may pull SLCs’ focus away from instruction.Although ostensibly granted autonomy, SLCs often must coexist with mandates or pressuresfrom the district, state, or national level that also require their attention, such as the testingand accountability implications of No Child Left Behind (Shear et al., 2008). They have feweradministrators to buffer teachers from the need to respond to, react against, or accommodate suchpressures. The school director of one conversion school described how she “wanted to get back toinstruction” but also explained how “you get pulled away . . . when you’re fighting for respect andwhen you’re fighting for autonomy and governance” (Galleta & Ayala, 2008, p. 1972). On onehand, it seems that SLCs will reach their promise of improving student learning only if teacherswork together on improving curriculum and instruction; on the other hand, there appear to bereal and pressing logistical and administrative issues that must be addressed when dissolving oldroutines, structures, and sources of authority and services.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE IMPACT AND CHALLENGES OF SLC 285

Research beyond the realm of SLCs suggests that the traditional norms of the teaching pro-fession promote teacher autonomy, privacy, and noninterference with colleagues’ work (Little,1990; Lortie, 1975; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Newly collaborative SLC teachers may avoidengaging in the kinds of conflict and critical inquiry required to change practices collectively un-less they develop significant levels of trust and capacity for collective inquiry (Achinstein, 2002;Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Little & Curry, 2008). Although such norms make generative teachercollaboration challenging, one 1st-year SLC intentionally structured some of its collaboration tofocus on teaching practice and data about student learning; in spite of the demands of startingup a new SLC, such collaboration produced more quantity of teacher talk about instruction whencompared with more unstructured collaboration (Levine & Marcus, 2010) and appeared to belinked to changes in instructional practice (Levine & Bunch, 2007). These findings suggest thatteachers would benefit from training and support regarding how to structure and focus their worktogether.

SLCs that fail to position teachers for ongoing improvement in instructional practice may stillproduce some good outcomes: Simply changing students’ experience of support and connection isno trivial shift, and may have some impact on learning as well as absenteeism, drop-out rates, andgraduation. To the extent that teachers do not focus on improving their own and their colleagues’instruction, however, SLCs will not realize their full potential to improve student learning.

Challenge 2: Ensuring Equity and Rigor

One of the promises of SLCs is the creation of more diverse options that better match individualstudents’ interests, learning styles and career ambitions. Thus, many SLCs adopt a theme thatconveys their identity. Brooklyn’s Prospect Heights High School, for instance, now houses theBrooklyn School for Music and Theater, the Brooklyn Academy for Science and the Environment,the International High School at Prospect Heights, and the High School for Global Citizenship. Tothe extent that SLCs maximize a sense of having a different curriculum, instructional approach,and shared culture, they may be more likely to realize the ideal of creating a “good fit” withspecific students. Such distinct schools may also unite teachers and students with shared beliefsand objectives, producing more coherence, community, and shared mission than traditional highschools typically achieve.

V. E. Lee and Ready’s (2007) study, looking carefully within and across five conversionhigh schools, concluded that distinctive SLCs can result in unintentional stratification, relegatingtraditionally underserved groups of students to less rigorous academic experiences. All five ofthe conversion high schools studied by V. E. Lee and Ready offered students a choice among“very different” SLCs that featured different themes, vocational foci, and expectations (p. 121).Students’ choices were often based on the “extent to which they were willing to let high schoolmake demands on their time and effort” (p. 121), and thus resulted in stratifying high- and low-performing students based on SLCs’ reputations. For example, one conversion high school hada math/science magnet school that developed a reputation for requiring a lot of academic effort.Even motivated students uninterested in math or science chose the school because they wantedthe most academically rigorous education. This school attracted a disproportionate amount of theschool’s modest number of non-Hispanic white students. An SLC in another school acquired thenickname “the ghetto” and a reputation for enrolling low-achieving African-American students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

286 T. H. LEVINE

and holding them to low behavioral and academic standards (V. E. Lee & Ready, 2007, p. 108).All five of the conversion high schools in the study had lower status SLCs which staff termed“dumping grounds” (p. 109). Schools serving racially diverse students witnessed clear racialimbalances in some of their SLCs (V. E. Lee & Ready, 2007).

Schear et al. (2008), in looking across Gates-sponsored conversion high schools, noted howthe reorganization of teaching staffs can contribute both to more coherent identity and to inequityamong different SLCs. Most high schools tried to honor teacher preference when assigningteachers to newly forming SLCs. At one school, this meant that teachers who previously workedin the International Baccalaureate program—generally considered an elite offering—ended upin one SLC. In another school, by choice, most of the coaches and student athletes congregatedinto one school, whereas another SLC attracted teachers and students associated with rigorousacademic programs like international baccalaureate programs (Shear et al., 2008).

With active effort, schools can ensure that SLCs do not re-create the stratification and seg-regation that occur within and across traditional high schools in school districts. In part, thisrequires creating forms of initial and ongoing review to ensure that all SLCs maintain rigorousstandards. Failing to address this challenge will limit improvements in academic achievement forall students.

Challenge 3: Transcending School History

SLCs face a third challenge that may or may not be insurmountable with intentional effort andself-awareness on the part of all stakeholders. Raywid (1996) may have overstated this challengewhile summing up others’ research on school reform, observing that “restructuring a schoolis almost always impossible; starting over holds far more promise” (p. 7). Many stand-alonesmall schools start “from scratch” with new buildings and faculties, and thus can create newnorms rather than changing old ones. SLCs, however, are usually formed from existing facultieswho continue to work in existing—and often low-performing—schools. These schools’ historiesinclude norms, routines, and patterns of relationships that teachers carry inside them.

A high school’s history also leads local communities to have clear expectations of a school.V. E. Lee and Ready’s (2007) study of five conversion high schools showed how communityexpectations can make it more difficult for SLCs to leave the legacy of the comprehensive highschool behind. The five conversion high schools they studied came into being in a wide varietyof ways, but the authors documented how the transition into SLCs didn’t constitute a significantbreak with the diverse extracurricular offerings that a large high school can offer. Most of theconversion high schools also appeared to face local political pressure to retain comprehensivecurricular offerings, such as AP courses and electives. Offering such courses required teachersor students to work across subunits, and thus weakened the identity, cohesion, and focus of theseunits. An earlier report on Gates schools also observed that some administrators and staff atconversion high schools felt that “bleeding of students and teachers into classes outside theirSLCs compromised the ‘purity of independence’ between” the SLCs (American Institute forResearch & SRI International, 2004, p. 40). V. E. Lee and Ready concluded that the SLCs theyobserved within five conversion high schools were “hybrid organizations” seeking to gain thebenefits of small schools while enjoying some advantages of the large comprehensive high school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE IMPACT AND CHALLENGES OF SLC 287

(p. 101). “Transforming deeply entrenched cultural norms and practices is no easy feat,” theyconcluded (p. 18).

Confirming these findings, the most recent evaluation of Gates schools also observed thatconversion high schools “tended to preserve many existing elements of their school rather thanstarting fresh with a blank slate.” This evaluation’s comparative analysis—between SLCs andstand-alone small schools—concluded that it was easier to “make decisions based on . . . what’sbest for the students rather than on how things have been done in the past” when a school is not“beginning with an existing school infrastructure and implementing a new vision” (Shear et al.,2008, p. 2005).

SLCs face a difficult balancing act: giving birth to the new while being comprised of thephysical and human resources associated with the old. So much continuity in the physical structureand school staff may make it harder for both staff and community members to significantlychange their expectations, objectives, and patterns of behavior. The ideal answer to this challenge,however, may not involve intentional acts of “erasure,” because an understanding of the narratives,practices, and traditions of the past may include perspectives and material useful to the present(Galleta & Ayala, 2008). To the extent that stakeholders explicitly discuss the challenges andpitfalls of having a history, they may be more able to understand and address the challenges asthey seek a level of change that includes patterns of student learning.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the large comprehensive high school has few defenders, some worry that SLCs do notrepresent a sufficiently powerful break from a broken model (Meier, 1995; Raywid & Schmerler,2003). Research reviewed in this article, however, suggests an exciting possibility: In spiteof the multiple obstacles, SLCs may create sufficiently different conditions that they improvegraduation and drop-out rates and improve students’ sense of being cared for in schools. Oneof the most pressing needs is for research that demonstrates impact on students over a longertime frame. It is interesting that the site where schools have engaged in up to 8 years of reformwork—much longer than other sites studied—has the clearest positive results (Quint et al., 2005),again suggesting the possibility that more time is needed. There are a number of reasons towonder, however, whether SLCs can consistently push teachers and schools to move beyond thenorms, local expectations, and entrenched patterns of practice to improve student achievement.Challenges to SLCs achieving systematic improvement in student learning include: sustainingfocus on instructional improvement, maintaining rigor while promoting distinctive SLCs withinone school, transcending the patterns of behavior and expectation bequeathed by a school’shistory, and overcoming professional norms that hinder teachers taking collective responsibilityfor improving instructional practice.

Others have shown how reforms wash over schools in recurrent waves, sometimes bringinga measure of improvement after the hype subsides but rarely delivering all of the promisedsystemic reforms (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). It is unreasonable to expect any one reform to succeedin creating effective education for all students; nevertheless, SLCs are showing promise whileworking with a disproportionate number of students who are traditionally underserved by publicschooling. School administrators’ and policymakers’ attention spans can prevent ongoing supportand study of a promising but complex reform, and the Gates Foundation’s shift in focus away

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

288 T. H. LEVINE

from SLCs may leave many existing SLCs more subject to mission drift or the pressing needs ofcash-strapped districts. If policymakers and stakeholders were to remain focused on the theoriesof action underlying SLCs, and if research could further illuminate the possibilities, pitfalls, andpathways to improvement associated with those theories, both policymakers and educators mightbe able to improve on the emerging results from the first round of evaluation studies. We don’t yetknow whether—or how high—SLCs can lift students’ standardized test scores and other valuedoutcomes. Given the significant investment of human and financial resources into this reform,and signs of progress shown to date, it would be a shame if we didn’t find out.

REFERENCES

Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict Amid Community: The Micropolitics of Teacher Collaboration. Teachers College Record,104, 4212–4455.

American Institute for Research & SRI International. (2003). High time for high school reform: Early findings from theevaluation of the National School District and Network Grants Program. Washington, DC: Author.

American Institute for Research & SRI International. (2004). The national school district and network grants program:Year 2 evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Bernstein, L., Millsap, M. A., Schimmenti, J., & Page, L. (2008). Implementation study of smaller learning communities:Final report (2008). Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/small-communities/final-report.pdf

Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.Chen, G. (2008). Communities, students, schools, and school crime: A confirmatory study of crime in U.S. high schools.

Urban Education, 43, 301–318.Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New

York: Teachers College Press.Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators for improving schools. Boulder,

CO: Westview.French, D., Atkinson, M., & Rugen, L. (2007). Creating small schools: A handbook for Raising Equity and Achievement.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin and Center for Collaborative Education.Galleta, A., & Ayala, J. (2008). Erasure and survival: Creating a future and managing a past in a restructuring high school.

Teachers College Record, 110, 1959–1985.Gardner, P. W., Ritblatt, S. N., & Beatty, J. R. (2000). Academic achievement and parental school involvement as a

function of high school size. High School Journal, 83(2), 21–27.Green, G., & Stevens, W. (1988). What research says about small schools. Rural Educators, 10(1), 9–14.Gregory, T. B., & Smith, G. R. (1987). High schools as communities: The small school reconsidered. Bloomington, IN:

Phi Delta Kappa.Haller, E. J. (1992). High school size and student indiscipline: Another aspect of the school consolidation issue?

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 145–156.Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S. E., de la Torre, M., & Easton, J. Q. (2008). Small high schools on a larger scale: Impact of school

conversions in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 281–315.Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S. E., & Easton, J. Q. (2005). Creating small schools in Chicago: An early look at implementation

and impact. Improving Schools, 8(1), 7–22.Kemple, J. J., Herlihy, C. M., & Smith, T. J. (2005). Making progress toward graduation: Evidence from the Talent

Development high school model. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED485348)

Lambert, M. B., & Lowry, L. K., with Copland, M., Gallucci, C., & Wallach, C. A. (2004). Knowing and being known:Personalization as a foundation for student learning. Seattle, WA: The Small Schools Project.

Lee, M., & Friedrich, T. (2007). The “smaller” the school, the better? The Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) programin U.S. high schools. Improving Schools, 10, 261–282.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE IMPACT AND CHALLENGES OF SLC 289

Lee, V. E., & Ready, D. D. (2007). Schools within schools: Possibilities and pitfalls of high school reform. New York:Teachers College Press.

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1997). High school size: Which works best, and for whom? Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 19, 205–227.

Levine, T. H., & Bunch, G. C. (2007). Community. In F. Pawan & G. B. Sietman (Eds.), For all our students: Collaborativepartnerships among ESL and classroom teachers (pp. 117–140). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate andconstrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 389–398.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistency of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. TeachersCollege Record, 91, 509–536.

Little, J. W., & Curry, M. W. (2008). Structuring talk about teaching and learning: The use of evidence in protocol-basedconversation. In L. Earl & H. Timperley (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence(pp. 29–42). New York: Springer.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McGray, D. (2009, May 11). The instigator. The New Yorker, pp. 66–74.McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.Miner, B. (2005). The Gates Foundation and small schools. Rethinking Schools, 19(4), 21–26.Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Pope, D. (2001). Doing school: How we are creating a generation of stressed out, materialistic, and miseducated students.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Quint, J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Stephens, L. (2005). The challenge of scaling up educational reform: Findings

and lessons from First Things First. New York: Manpower Demonstrations Research Corporation.Raywid, M. A. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, schools-within-schools, and separate small

schools (Urban Diversity Series No. 108). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 396 045).

Raywid, M. A., & Schmerler, G. (2003). Not so easy going: The policy environments of small urban schools andschools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Ready, D., Lee, V., & Welner, K. G. (2004). Educational equity and school structure: School size, overcrowding, andschools-within-schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 1989–2014.

Shear, L., Means, B., Mitchell, K., House, A., Gorges, T., Aasha, J., et al. (2008). Contrasting paths to small-schoolreform: Results of a 5-year evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s National High Schools Initiative.Teachers College Record, 110, 1986–2039.

Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Washington, DC: The FalmerPress.

Siskin, L. S., & Little, J. W. (1995). The subjects in question: Departmental organization and the high school. New York:Teachers College Press.

Sizer, T. R. (1985). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton.Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2009). SLC Awards database. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from

http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/slc01.htmlSteinberg, A., & Allen, L. (2004). Big buildings, small schools: Using a small schools strategy for high school reform.

Jobs for the Future. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/jff/bgbld smschl.pdfTyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.–Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University

of New York Press.Wallach, C. A., & Gallucci, C., with Copland, M., Lambert, M. B., & Lowry, L. K. (2004). Elevating the conversation:

Building Professional community in small high schools (Small Schools Project). Retrieved April 20, 2010, fromhttp://www.smallschoolsproject.org/PDFS/elevating full.pdf

Warren, C., & Hernandez, M. (2005). Portfolios of schools: An idea whose time has come. Voices in Urban Educationnumber 8, 5–11.

Werblow, J., & Duesbery, L. (2009). The impact of high school size on math achievement and dropout rate. The HighSchool Journal, 92(3), 14–23.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014