Ex Writer 38 | - ✏ Freelance Writer
Jan 20, 2016 | #1
Small learning communities (SLCs) are school organizations designed to improve student achievement in large, public schools that have 1,000 students or more. According to the Department of Education, "SLCs include structures such as freshman academies, multi-grade academies organized around career interests or other themes, "houses" in which small groups of students remain together throughout high school, and autonomous schools-within-a-school, as well as personalization strategies, such as student advisories, family advocate systems, and mentoring programs," (Department of Education). This section provides information on small learning communities and how they can impact student learning, particularly in the area of technology and technology implementations.
The concept of the small learning community has been around for many years. Carr instituted a small furor in New Orleans when she announced that the New Orleans Public Schools' plan to go to the "school within a school" plan was a new approach to education. Readers were quick to correct her misinformation, pointing out that the idea of the school-within-a-school or the small learning community had been adapted for use many years ago. In reality, the National Association of Secondary School Principle has been working with the concept of the school within a school, or small learning community, since February 1940. The concept remains in use today and is particularly utilized in school districts which hope to increase graduation rates, improve math and reading scores, improve the behavior of students in the classroom, improve the social behavior of students, and improve attendance of the students.
Washington State, which focuses on small learning communities, or "small schools" in the organization of their educational system, suggests that small learning communities are autonomous, are focused, are personal, and are committed to the equalization of races, cultural groups, and genders. Washington State asserts their goal is twofold: to increase achievement levels of all students, while simultaneously closing the achievement gap between any individual groups of students. Lee and Friedrich report that modest gains are being made in small learning communities across the nation, but there is still a gap between races and sexes.
Sparger stated that small learning communities were developed as an attempt to reverse problems that are endemic in large urban schools today. Bullying, violence, the inability to attract good principals, and low teacher morale were all problems that small learning communities ought to address. By creating a smaller learning environment with specialized teaching and more emphasis on the relationship between teachers and students, educators hoped to achieve a better graduation rate with a lower rate of drop outs. The next sections address the gaps, whether or not they exist, and whether or not they can be closed, along with their relationship to small learning communities.
One of the ways that it has been suggested which small learning communities contribute to the educational system is to increase graduation rates while decreasing dropout rates. The question arises, however, whether or not implementation of small learning communities automatically means that graduation rates will increase and dropout rates will decrease. Leonard, Leonard, and Sackney have reported that just because small communities for learning can be built does not mean that they are being built and utilized in the correct fashion. It appears that schools which are organized in specific learning models do indeed have success with increasing graduation rates and decreasing the rate of drop outs.
Kemple, Herlihy, and Smith have stated that the drop out rate in urban US high schools is abysmal. They characterise the problem as a "national crisis" (Kemple et al). They point out that the problem is of particular concern in areas of high poverty, where the drop out rate may exceed fifty percent. Even when students graduate from these schools, they may not be able to get and hold a job or obtain and maintain postsecondary education. Across the nation, the 'Talent Development High School model' is a reform initiative now being used in a number of school districts. The program works with all high school students but concentrates on ninth graders. By stressing attendance, the importance of gaining credits in academic classes (especially algebra) and promotion rates, the model increases graduation rates.
The program, which was originally concentrated in Philadelphia's urban city schools, developed the Ninth Grade Success Academy as the school-within-a-school program. The ninth graders were concentrated in learning communities and which utilized special curricula that concentrated on giving double length classes in English and Math. The results reflect that by the end of high school, graduation rates increased 8%, or 40 students per year, even with no other interventions.
One of the problems with the Talent Development High School Model is that students may be graduating, but they are not doing so within four years. Instead, many students are still taking extra time to graduate (Kemple et al., Executive Summary). In the beginning, instituting the project is very expensive, causing some school systems to decline to participate. An evaluation by the Institute of Education Sciences (IECS) suggests that the Talent Development High School Model may not be effective in increasing graduation rates at all. IECS suggests that the Talent Development model may be successful in helping students progress in school, but this evaluation does not suggest that Talent Development helps in increasing graduation or preventing dropouts. Indeed, IECS reports that there are no studies relating to this program which meet best standards for evidentiary studies.
Tyler and Lofstrom stated that the graduation rate at the present time is nearly the same as it was 40 years ago. Some variation in graduation rate, they report, is simply due to differences in how different states report GED rates. One of the larger issues, they suggest, is not that the graduation rate is largely unchanged, but rather that the demands on young adults are so much higher in this age of globalization than they were years ago. Thus, while the actual rates may be similar, they actually represent a decrease in functionality.
In summary, the 'experts' differ greatly in their opinions on whether or not small learning communities increase graduation rates and decrease dropout rates. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that some studies are based only on best practice levels of evidence while others are based on less stringent standards. The second reason is that the definitions of graduations and dropouts can vary significantly depending on the source. Since different analyses use different definitions of the terms, it is not possible to do a straight line comparison of the statistics in any meaningful manner. Tyler and Lofstrom stated that in general, most programs make no difference in preventing dropouts, a sad condemnation of the current educational system.
Kemple et al., reported that students who went through the Talent Development program generally earned five credits during the school year, and that three of those credits were heavy academic classes of English, math, and science. The program appeared to increase the number of students who achieved credits by about 8% a years. Students who participated in this program generally earned extra ninth grade credits that totaled an additional 2/3 of a year credits. The program also increased the number of students who earned algebra credits by 25 percentage points. This means that nearly 125 more students earned algebra credits than prior to the program.
Tyler and Lofstrom support the use of the Talent Development Program Model in increasing both math and English scores. They state that the program will "prepare all students for high-level English and math courses, along with measures to increase parent and community involvement in the school," (p. 91). They suggest that the Talent Development Program's record is significant simply because it is difficult to find any program which has been able to make a real, documented difference in math and English scores. The fact that this particular program appears to have succeeded, then, is exceptional (p. 92). They do point out that the research design is "quasi-experimental" (p. 92) and thus is not well established. This is the same criticism that was reported by IECS regarding other studies.
Sparger reported that one of the keys to success in small learning communities is to replace "anonymity with community" (p. 12). Though the SLC can consist of any one of a number of models, all of them exist as a function of making the large high school smaller. Bill and Melinda Gates established an organization to create [good] small schools. The Gates model schools concentrated on rigor, relevance, and relationships as the three r's, rather than reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Lee and Friedrich suggested that the idea of the small learning community as being based partially in relationships is seated in the sociological concepts of association. By functioning in smaller school units rather than large high schools, students became associated with the same students and teachers on a day to day basis. As they formed relationships, they developed strong bonds. The bonds led to better social actions and behaviors. Each small school unit had at least one individual who was specifically to be a 'caring adult' who would serve to develop rapport and provide personal advice, and in essence to be an anchor for social attachment for the students affiliated with that school (Lee and Friedrich). Personally emphasized activities such as helping students develop career plans, helping them pick classes, and helping them develop learning plans all ensured a better social outcome for the student populace. In doing so, students who might otherwise have difficulty adapting to their schools would transition with less stress and would have a relationship with someone they could trust to look out for their interests.
By increasing the students' social capital, the small learning community helps increase the potential of students to achieve, both socially and academically. With many students in high risk families and suffering a lack of support, building the students' networks at school increased their levels of good behavior while concurrently increasing their social behaviors. As Lee and Friedrich stated, "With strong social ties in place, informal knowledge, expectations, mentoring, modeling, ideas, and decision-making can all be conveyed and shared" (p. 267). In increasing social ties, the student's life improves holistically. In summary, then, as small learning communities increase the social ties of the students, they increase the level of social capital; as the social capital increases, good behavior is reinforced as well as social and academic performance. The better the academic and social performance, the more chance of success and the greater the likelihood of graduation.
Sparger reported that students in smaller school settings have higher attendance rates. It appears that the more that students feel that they "belong" in a setting, the more they attend. Tyler and Rofstrom point out that attendance is not necessarily related to negativity of the student. Instead, students in the at-risk group tend to be older than the average student, have low grades, and have a child. In short, the students in the high risk group may be unable to attend because of pressing family obligations. By developing that sense of belonging, and by providing flexibility of classroom times (perhaps combined with technological interventions such as computer time), students can be helped to develop more consistent attention, which in turn leads to better grades.
Conclusion
This review of small learning communities has covered the history of small learning communities, the role of small learning communities in increasing graduation rates and decreasing dropout rates, increasing reading and math scores, and improving classroom and social behaviors. This section has investigated the use of small learning communities in increasing attendance, and provided information on conditions which affect student performance in small learning communities. Although the small learning communities offer a great deal of promise in the reduction of attendance problems, and an overall increase in student achievement, there is still controversy over the extent to which small learning communities can make a difference in graduation and dropout rates.
References
Carr, S. School within a school is new strategy to transform education. Times-Picuyne.
Department of Education. Smaller learning communities program. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
IECS. What works clearinghouse: Dropout provision. US Department of Education.
Kemple, J., Herlihy, C., & Smith, T. Making progress toward graduation: Evidence from the talent development high school model. MDRC.
Lee, M., and Friedrich, T. The `smaller' the school, the better? The smaller learning communities (SLC) program in US high schools. Improving Schools, 10(3), 261-282
Leonard, J. Frontiers in junior high school education. NASSP Bulletin.
Leonard, L., Leonard, P., & Sackney, L. Confronting assumptions about the benefits of small schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 29(1), 79-96 Small School Project. What are small schools?
Sparger, T. J. An investigation of implementations of smaller learning communities in Florida high schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Central Florida.
Tyler, J., & Lofstrom, M. Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. Journal Issue: America's High Schools 19(1) pp. 77-103.
History of Small Learning Communities
The concept of the small learning community has been around for many years. Carr instituted a small furor in New Orleans when she announced that the New Orleans Public Schools' plan to go to the "school within a school" plan was a new approach to education. Readers were quick to correct her misinformation, pointing out that the idea of the school-within-a-school or the small learning community had been adapted for use many years ago. In reality, the National Association of Secondary School Principle has been working with the concept of the school within a school, or small learning community, since February 1940. The concept remains in use today and is particularly utilized in school districts which hope to increase graduation rates, improve math and reading scores, improve the behavior of students in the classroom, improve the social behavior of students, and improve attendance of the students.Washington State, which focuses on small learning communities, or "small schools" in the organization of their educational system, suggests that small learning communities are autonomous, are focused, are personal, and are committed to the equalization of races, cultural groups, and genders. Washington State asserts their goal is twofold: to increase achievement levels of all students, while simultaneously closing the achievement gap between any individual groups of students. Lee and Friedrich report that modest gains are being made in small learning communities across the nation, but there is still a gap between races and sexes.
Sparger stated that small learning communities were developed as an attempt to reverse problems that are endemic in large urban schools today. Bullying, violence, the inability to attract good principals, and low teacher morale were all problems that small learning communities ought to address. By creating a smaller learning environment with specialized teaching and more emphasis on the relationship between teachers and students, educators hoped to achieve a better graduation rate with a lower rate of drop outs. The next sections address the gaps, whether or not they exist, and whether or not they can be closed, along with their relationship to small learning communities.
Small Learning Communities and the Increase in Graduation Rates
One of the ways that it has been suggested which small learning communities contribute to the educational system is to increase graduation rates while decreasing dropout rates. The question arises, however, whether or not implementation of small learning communities automatically means that graduation rates will increase and dropout rates will decrease. Leonard, Leonard, and Sackney have reported that just because small communities for learning can be built does not mean that they are being built and utilized in the correct fashion. It appears that schools which are organized in specific learning models do indeed have success with increasing graduation rates and decreasing the rate of drop outs.
Kemple, Herlihy, and Smith have stated that the drop out rate in urban US high schools is abysmal. They characterise the problem as a "national crisis" (Kemple et al). They point out that the problem is of particular concern in areas of high poverty, where the drop out rate may exceed fifty percent. Even when students graduate from these schools, they may not be able to get and hold a job or obtain and maintain postsecondary education. Across the nation, the 'Talent Development High School model' is a reform initiative now being used in a number of school districts. The program works with all high school students but concentrates on ninth graders. By stressing attendance, the importance of gaining credits in academic classes (especially algebra) and promotion rates, the model increases graduation rates.
The program, which was originally concentrated in Philadelphia's urban city schools, developed the Ninth Grade Success Academy as the school-within-a-school program. The ninth graders were concentrated in learning communities and which utilized special curricula that concentrated on giving double length classes in English and Math. The results reflect that by the end of high school, graduation rates increased 8%, or 40 students per year, even with no other interventions.
One of the problems with the Talent Development High School Model is that students may be graduating, but they are not doing so within four years. Instead, many students are still taking extra time to graduate (Kemple et al., Executive Summary). In the beginning, instituting the project is very expensive, causing some school systems to decline to participate. An evaluation by the Institute of Education Sciences (IECS) suggests that the Talent Development High School Model may not be effective in increasing graduation rates at all. IECS suggests that the Talent Development model may be successful in helping students progress in school, but this evaluation does not suggest that Talent Development helps in increasing graduation or preventing dropouts. Indeed, IECS reports that there are no studies relating to this program which meet best standards for evidentiary studies.
Tyler and Lofstrom stated that the graduation rate at the present time is nearly the same as it was 40 years ago. Some variation in graduation rate, they report, is simply due to differences in how different states report GED rates. One of the larger issues, they suggest, is not that the graduation rate is largely unchanged, but rather that the demands on young adults are so much higher in this age of globalization than they were years ago. Thus, while the actual rates may be similar, they actually represent a decrease in functionality.
In summary, the 'experts' differ greatly in their opinions on whether or not small learning communities increase graduation rates and decrease dropout rates. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that some studies are based only on best practice levels of evidence while others are based on less stringent standards. The second reason is that the definitions of graduations and dropouts can vary significantly depending on the source. Since different analyses use different definitions of the terms, it is not possible to do a straight line comparison of the statistics in any meaningful manner. Tyler and Lofstrom stated that in general, most programs make no difference in preventing dropouts, a sad condemnation of the current educational system.
Small Learning Communities and the Increase in Math and Reading Scores
Kemple et al., reported that students who went through the Talent Development program generally earned five credits during the school year, and that three of those credits were heavy academic classes of English, math, and science. The program appeared to increase the number of students who achieved credits by about 8% a years. Students who participated in this program generally earned extra ninth grade credits that totaled an additional 2/3 of a year credits. The program also increased the number of students who earned algebra credits by 25 percentage points. This means that nearly 125 more students earned algebra credits than prior to the program.
Tyler and Lofstrom support the use of the Talent Development Program Model in increasing both math and English scores. They state that the program will "prepare all students for high-level English and math courses, along with measures to increase parent and community involvement in the school," (p. 91). They suggest that the Talent Development Program's record is significant simply because it is difficult to find any program which has been able to make a real, documented difference in math and English scores. The fact that this particular program appears to have succeeded, then, is exceptional (p. 92). They do point out that the research design is "quasi-experimental" (p. 92) and thus is not well established. This is the same criticism that was reported by IECS regarding other studies.
Small Learning Communities and Improvements in Classroom and Social Behaviors
Sparger reported that one of the keys to success in small learning communities is to replace "anonymity with community" (p. 12). Though the SLC can consist of any one of a number of models, all of them exist as a function of making the large high school smaller. Bill and Melinda Gates established an organization to create [good] small schools. The Gates model schools concentrated on rigor, relevance, and relationships as the three r's, rather than reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Lee and Friedrich suggested that the idea of the small learning community as being based partially in relationships is seated in the sociological concepts of association. By functioning in smaller school units rather than large high schools, students became associated with the same students and teachers on a day to day basis. As they formed relationships, they developed strong bonds. The bonds led to better social actions and behaviors. Each small school unit had at least one individual who was specifically to be a 'caring adult' who would serve to develop rapport and provide personal advice, and in essence to be an anchor for social attachment for the students affiliated with that school (Lee and Friedrich). Personally emphasized activities such as helping students develop career plans, helping them pick classes, and helping them develop learning plans all ensured a better social outcome for the student populace. In doing so, students who might otherwise have difficulty adapting to their schools would transition with less stress and would have a relationship with someone they could trust to look out for their interests.
By increasing the students' social capital, the small learning community helps increase the potential of students to achieve, both socially and academically. With many students in high risk families and suffering a lack of support, building the students' networks at school increased their levels of good behavior while concurrently increasing their social behaviors. As Lee and Friedrich stated, "With strong social ties in place, informal knowledge, expectations, mentoring, modeling, ideas, and decision-making can all be conveyed and shared" (p. 267). In increasing social ties, the student's life improves holistically. In summary, then, as small learning communities increase the social ties of the students, they increase the level of social capital; as the social capital increases, good behavior is reinforced as well as social and academic performance. The better the academic and social performance, the more chance of success and the greater the likelihood of graduation.
Small Learning Communities and Improvements in Classroom Attendance
Sparger reported that students in smaller school settings have higher attendance rates. It appears that the more that students feel that they "belong" in a setting, the more they attend. Tyler and Rofstrom point out that attendance is not necessarily related to negativity of the student. Instead, students in the at-risk group tend to be older than the average student, have low grades, and have a child. In short, the students in the high risk group may be unable to attend because of pressing family obligations. By developing that sense of belonging, and by providing flexibility of classroom times (perhaps combined with technological interventions such as computer time), students can be helped to develop more consistent attention, which in turn leads to better grades.
Conclusion
This review of small learning communities has covered the history of small learning communities, the role of small learning communities in increasing graduation rates and decreasing dropout rates, increasing reading and math scores, and improving classroom and social behaviors. This section has investigated the use of small learning communities in increasing attendance, and provided information on conditions which affect student performance in small learning communities. Although the small learning communities offer a great deal of promise in the reduction of attendance problems, and an overall increase in student achievement, there is still controversy over the extent to which small learning communities can make a difference in graduation and dropout rates.
References
Carr, S. School within a school is new strategy to transform education. Times-Picuyne.
Department of Education. Smaller learning communities program. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
IECS. What works clearinghouse: Dropout provision. US Department of Education.
Kemple, J., Herlihy, C., & Smith, T. Making progress toward graduation: Evidence from the talent development high school model. MDRC.
Lee, M., and Friedrich, T. The `smaller' the school, the better? The smaller learning communities (SLC) program in US high schools. Improving Schools, 10(3), 261-282
Leonard, J. Frontiers in junior high school education. NASSP Bulletin.
Leonard, L., Leonard, P., & Sackney, L. Confronting assumptions about the benefits of small schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 29(1), 79-96 Small School Project. What are small schools?
Sparger, T. J. An investigation of implementations of smaller learning communities in Florida high schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Central Florida.
Tyler, J., & Lofstrom, M. Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. Journal Issue: America's High Schools 19(1) pp. 77-103.