small learning communities - kenton county · small learning communities: implementing and...

Small Learning Communities:Implementing and Deepening Practice

June 2007

Diana Oxley, Ph.D

Portland, Oregon

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500

Portland, Oregon 97204

503-275-9500

www.nwrel.org

[email protected]

Center for School and District Improvement

Recreating Secondary Schools Program

503-275-9629

© Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007

All Rights Reserved

iii

ContentsThe Aim of This Publication .............................................................................................................. v

Section I— Small Learning Communities: The State of the Art

What’s in a Name ..............................................................................................................................1

Five Domains of SLC Best Practices ...................................................................................................2

Ecological Facts of SLC Implementation and Practice ........................................................................6

Informing Versus Prescribing SLC Practice ........................................................................................7

Section II—Cultivating Effective Small Learning Communities

The Cycle of Continuous Program Improvement: Seven Steps ..........................................................9

How To Pursue Continuous Program Improvement: Working the Steps .......................................... 18

Section III—Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Teams

Best Practices Checklist .................................................................................................................... 21

Why These Practices Are Essential: In a Nutshell ............................................................................. 21

Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail .................................................................................... 22

Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................ 27

Section IV—Rigorous, Relevant Curriculum and Instruction





Section V—Inclusive Program and Practices





Section VI—SLC-Based Continuous Program Improvement



Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail… ................................................................................72

Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................75

Section VII—Building- and District-Level Support for SLCs

Best Practices Checklist for Building-Level Support .........................................................................83

Why These Practices Are Essential: In a Nutshell .............................................................................83

Why These Practices Are Essential: In Detail ....................................................................................84

iv

Emerging Practices for District-Level Support .................................................................................88

Why These Practices Are Important: In a Nutshell ...........................................................................88

Why These Practices Are Important: In Detail .................................................................................89

Tools for Continuous Improvement ................................................................................................91

References .................................................................................................................................... 113

Appendix: Self-Assessment in Five Domains ................................................................................ 121

v

The Aim of This PublicationSmall Learning Communities: Implementing and Deepening Practice brings together a knowledge base, tools, and

resources for implementing and deepening small learning community practice. Its aim is to provide

guidance to school staff and stakeholders in the demanding work of transforming 20th-century

comprehensive high schools into 21st-century learning organizations.

All high school staff members have an interest in improving their practice. They want what is best

for their students. They may envision adding small learning communities to their current offer-

ings but not see the need to transform their school. However, the research base and professional

consensus on which this publication rests provide encouragement for improvement through trans-

formation. Research points out the failure of efforts to graft small learning communities onto tra-

ditional high school structures. In response, many small schools networks, as their names suggest,

have sprung up to support school staff members who circumvent existing school structures and

develop autonomous small schools.

Small Learning Communities: Implementing and Deepening Practice is designed to support well-planned,

schoolwide reorganization into small learning communities. This guide offers fi ve domains of

research-based SLC practice and a cyclical process of improvement as a framework for organizing

staff members’ efforts to:

• Rethink their current practice

• Develop new structures and routines

• Sustain long-term efforts to implement fully functioning and effective learning communities

1

1. Small Learning Communities: The State of the Art

What’s in a Name?

The term applied to the practice of organizing high schools into smaller units has undergone many

changes over the last four decades. Houses and schools-within-schools came on the scene begin-

ning in the 1960s; magnet programs, career academies, and mini-schools in the 1970s; charters in

the late 1980s and 1990s; and fi nally, small learning communities today. The evolution in terms is

signifi cant. It parallels development in our thinking about the crucial ingredients of effective educa-

tion. The earlier terms emphasized small structure and curricular specialization and choice: both

crucial to improved teaching, yet not the complete story. Small learning community, in contrast,

encompasses these elements and more: a focus on the learner and learning, and in particular, the

active and collaborative nature of teachers’ and students’ work.

Concurrent with the reorganization of comprehensive high schools into small learning communi-

ties are initiatives to create new small schools. The small schools networks emphasize the impor-

tance of autonomy and fl exibility in functioning within large, rigid educational bureaucracies

(Cotton, 2001). The small schools movement, however, also speaks to student-centered curriculum

and instruction and collaboration among all members of the community (Fine & Somerville, 1998;

Wasley et al., 2000). Research and experience have led advocates of small learning communities

and small schools to a shared, basic notion of small unit schooling:

An interdisciplinary team of teachers shares a few hundred or fewer students in com-

mon for instruction, assumes responsibility for their educational progress across years

of school, and exercises maximum fl exibility to act on knowledge of students’ needs.

The term small learning communities is used here in its generic sense. It refers to all school rede-

sign efforts intended to create smaller, more learning-centered units of organization including small

schools and career academies.

Professional consensus. Just as small learning community research and practice have evolved, so has

professional consensus on secondary school redesign. Policy guidelines for middle level schools began

to incorporate recommendations for creating small learning communities in the 1980s and 1990s and

have sustained these guidelines to the present. This We Believe, the National Middle School Association’s

statement of their position on effective middle level school practice (1982; 1995; 2003), has long

advocated teacher teams and organization of large middle schools into small learning communities:

Their most recent position paper states: “The interdisciplinary team … working with a common

group of students is the signature component of high-performing schools, literally the heart of the

school from which other desirable programs and experiences evolve” (2003, p. 29).

Breaking Ranks, a publication of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, called

for the creation of “small units in which anonymity is banished” in 1996 (p. 45). Breaking Ranks

2

II identifi es seven cornerstone strategies for improving student performance, one of which is

to: “Increase the quantity and improve the quality of interactions between students, teachers,

and other school personnel by reducing the number of students for which any adult or group

of adults is responsible” (NASSP, 2004, p. 6). The other cornerstone strategies complement this

reduction in the scale of schooling by establishing “the essential learnings a student is required

to master” and by implementing “schedules fl exible enough to accommodate teaching strate-

gies consistent with the ways student learn most effectively” (p. 6). Taken together, the strategies

describe a form of school organization that diverges sharply from the traditional, comprehensive

high school.

Five Domains of SLC Best Practices

In New Small Learning Communities (2001), Cotton identifi ed several conditions and practices that dis-

tinguish successful small learning communities:

• Self-determination—Autonomy in decision making, physical separateness, self-selection of

teachers and students, and flexible scheduling must all be present to allow small learning

community members to create and realize their own vision.

• Identity—Small learning communities profit from developing a distinctive program of

study that originates in the vision, interests, and unique characteristics of their members.

• Personalization—Small learning community members know each other well. Teachers are

able to identify and respond to students’ particular strengths and needs.

• Support for Teaching—SLC teachers assume authority as well as responsibility in educating

their students. School leadership does not reside only in the administrative staff; admini-

strators teach, and teachers lead.

• Functional Accountability—SLC teams use performance assessment systems that require

students to demonstrate their learning and the SLC to demonstrate its success.

This publication also identifi es best practices but places them in a different kind of framework.

The best practices which confi rm and extend those identifi ed by Cotton are organized into fi ve

domains. The framework is designed to convey how small learning communities are organized

and operate within a multilevel educational system. The framework helps to answer questions

both about what constitutes SLC practice and what is needed to support SLC practice at multiple

levels of organization.

The best practices are drawn from a review of research (Oxley, 2006) on a variety of approaches to

small unit organization: small schools and career academies; small learning communities; houses; and

schools-within-schools. SLC strategies that qualifi ed as best practices were features of SLCs found to

have positive effects on student achievement in at least two research studies. The research base does

3

not demonstrate that the best practices have independent, causal effects on student achievement, only

that they are associated with effective SLCs.

The tree image shown in Figure 1 illustrates the nature of the relationships among the fi ve domains.

The structural supports for a tree’s foliage are its branches. In SLCs, teaching and learning teams—

the interdisciplinary teams of teachers and the students they instruct—are the basic structural sup-

ports for SLC work that results in student learning. Each branch supports three clusters of leaves, the

oxygen-generating element of the tree. One leaf cluster includes rigorous, relevant curriculum and

instruction practices; a second leaf cluster encompasses inclusive program practices; and a third,

continuous program improvement strategies. The branches stem from the tree trunk, the structural

support for the entire tree. In like fashion, SLCs depend on school/building and district-level poli-

cies and practices to support their growth and sustain their operation.

Each domain—and set of SLC practices belonging to it—are described briefl y below and in greater

detail in separate sections of this publication. The effectiveness and implementation of particular

practices depend on the implementation of others, and it is their combined action that mostly likely

produces a meaningful impact. Consequently, as the tree image suggests, it is important to consider

the fi ve areas and the individual practices as pieces of a larger whole.

1. Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Teams

The branches

SLC practice begins with interdisciplinary teaching and learning teams: the fundamental build-

ing blocks of 21st-century schooling. Successful teams occupy the center of not only teaching and

learning, but also program improvement efforts and school- and district-level policy making. Teach-

ers organize themselves into interdisciplinary teams. They also organize around the students the

team shares in common. Team members share time to collaborate on program design, lead learning

activities, and troubleshoot students’ progress over multiple years of study.

The student group is kept small by design, never exceeding more than a few hundred members.

Students come to know each other and their teachers well. That is because SLC teams organize

instruction to gain more instructional time with fewer students and SLC teams stay with students

for more than a year.

2. Rigorous, Relevant Curriculum and Instruction

First leaf cluster

Teaching and learning teams position teachers to form meaningful relationships with students as

well as facilitate a more authentic, active form of student learning. Without the considerable auton-

omy and fl exibility that teaching and learning teams bestow, it is extremely diffi cult for teachers to

design student work that is both challenging and personally meaningful to students.

4

Figure 1: Five Domains of SLC Practice

5

With a large block of time, the interdisciplinary team can organize fi eldwork, involve community

partners, and allow students to go where their questions lead them. Teams can integrate discipline-

based content in learning activities to create program coherence, opportunities for learning content

in different contexts, and connection to real-world issues.

3. Inclusive Program and Practices

Second leaf cluster

Small learning community practice offers a student-centered approach to reducing the achievement

gap that exists among students of different educational, cultural, and social class backgrounds. In

successful SLCs, students choose to enter a particular SLC on the basis of their curricular interests

and irrespective of their history of achievement. SLC teams include educational specialists, col-

laborate with students’ parents, use time and resources fl exibly, and tailor instruction to meet all

students’ needs for mastering challenging curricula.

Ineffective SLCs replicate or even exacerbate existing inequities in educational opportunities.

Regional educational laboratory staff members who monitor implementation of federally funded

SLC projects found that schools often form SLCs around existing honors and Advanced Placement

courses for high-achieving students and programs for at-risk students. They seldom include special

education students in SLC classes. For this reason, implementation of inclusive SLC programs and

practices demands special attention.

4. Continuous Program Improvement

Third leaf cluster

Integral to SLC teaching and learning is the interdisciplinary team members’ inquiry into the

effectiveness of their practices. Descriptions of research-based practices are abstractions of the

activities and routines that teams and students actually follow in schools. The actual activities refl ect

the unique conditions and needs of the particular teams and students involved. Consequently, an

integral part of the work of teacher teams is disciplined refl ection on their practice to ensure that

all students are learning. Teams’ refl ection on practice is never-ending: implementation of curricula

and learning activities requires long-term refi nement and adjustment as conditions and needs are

continually changing. To ensure that students continue to make progress, SLC teams engage in a

continuous cycle of program improvement efforts. Teams assess their practice by analyzing student

work and soliciting feedback from students, parents, and SLC partners.

6

5. Building/District-Level Support for SLCs

The tree trunk

All of the above practices must be supported by building- and district-level structures and policies,

which form the “tree trunk.” Building and district practices constrain what teachers and students

are able to do. For SLCs to fl ourish, the larger school and district must operate in a manner that sup-

ports them. A fundamental requirement for making the kind of adjustments necessary to support

SLCs is to give teachers and their students a major role in decision making.

Ecological Facts of SLC Implementation and Practice

FACT 1. SLC organization and curriculum and instruction are mutually supportive practices,

dependent on one another to realize positive effects on student learning.

Small is not enough is a refrain of small learning community initiatives around the country (Fine &

Somerville, 1998; Wasley et al., 2000). Small size creates the conditions to carry out student work

that is active and collaborative. Small size is not an end in itself. Teachers who lack knowledge of

and training in innovative teaching practices may not be able to envision what comes after creation

of a small community.

The converse is also true. Innovation in curriculum and instruction alone is not suffi cient to

increase student learning. As detailed in the next section, the size of the school community, estab-

lishing an interdisciplinary team, and providing common planning time also matter. Educators,

who are otherwise enlightened about curriculum and instruction, may still underestimate the

importance of the structure within which they work (Cuban, 1986, 1993, 1996). As a result, they

overestimate the extent to which structural reforms have actually been made (Jackson, 1990).

Researchers repeatedly fi nd that implementation of the structural elements of small learning com-

munities is incomplete (Felner et al., 1997; Oxley, 2001). An interdisciplinary team lacks common

planning time or teaches only a few of its classes in the small learning community; a small learning

community has hundreds of students, offers only a few courses, or fails to admit a mix of students.

Such missing structural elements prevent teachers from realizing the fruits of their planned curricu-

lum and instruction improvements.

Signifi cant investments of time, effort, and funds in professional development and curriculum and

instruction planning are needed to transform small communities into small learning communities.

Without implementation of key SLC organizational structures, these investments are quickly dissipa-

ted. Teachers become cynical, reluctant to try again. This is the history of school reform that faculty

members at most any high school can recite.

7

FACT 2. Small learning community practices cannot be fully implemented unless the larger

organization also changes to accommodate the new practices.

An inconvenient fact of small learning communities is that they cannot be simply added on to the

existing school organization (Cook, 2000; Muncey & McQuillan, 1993; Oxley, 2001; Wehlage,

Smith, & Lipman, 1992). The larger school structures and operations limit small learning commu-

nities in three ways:

1. Traditional practices in place at the building level often compete with those in small learning

communities. When administrative, counseling, and special education staff continue to oper-

ate at the school level, they carry out their roles without the intimate knowledge of students

that small learning community staff have. In turn, small learning community staff members are

unable to engage in decision making and student support that maximize their responsiveness to

student needs.

2. The simultaneous operation of old and new forms of school organization is less cost-effi cient

in a time of already inadequate resources. Under these circumstances, fl edgling small learning

communities seldom receive the levels of staff, materials, and space they require to function

optimally. Grants used to establish small learning communities may obscure this fact, but only

until the funds expire.

3. Practices that are inconsistent or contradictory with small learning community practices com-

municate that small learning community practices are exceptions to more general, higher, or

better “laws” governing education. The continued existence of older practices seems to say that

small learning communities constitute a remedy only for certain students (e.g., students who

are low achieving, in transition to high school, or in the last years of high school) or one that is

possible only under special budgetary conditions.

Informing Versus Prescribing SLC Practice

The fi ve domains of research-based practices provide more precise information about the shape of

reforms needed to establish effective small learning communities. They provide guidance, but they

may also seem to threaten practitioners’ spirit of local innovation.

It is important to recognize that the research-based practices identifi ed here are abstractions of the

highly varied practices actually in place in the schools studied. It seems likely that the particularities of

local practice are part of what makes an SLC successful—building on the school’s unique history and

character. In other words, the personalization and local identity of SLC reforms may be as important to

their implementation success as personalization and identity are to students’ academic success.

This publication intends to inform school staffs, not to prescribe their practice. It is a resource for

staff members’ own informed discussions about how to improve their practice.

9

2. Cultivating Effective Small Learning Communities

The Cycle of Continuous Program Improvement: Seven Steps

Implementing effective small learning community practice involves a cyclical process of program

improvement. All quality educational programs require continual reassessment to remain vital.

Moreover, by regularly examining their practice, teachers model openness to learning that is impor-

tant for students to observe and absorb.

Program improvement cycles may be short or long. They can occur on a daily, weekly, quarterly, or

annual basis depending on the desired depth and breadth of review. Regardless, a complete cycle

involves the seven basic steps depicted in Figure 2 and described below.

The tools for following the steps to improvement are included in this section and in the Appendix.

The particular tools to be used at each step are indicated in italics below. A set of tools tailored to

each domain of practice is also included in this publication; go to the Tools tab at the end of each

section to fi nd the set for that domain.

Step 1. Take stock of existing practice

The fi rst step in the continuous improvement cycle is refl ection on practice. Meaningful refl ection

entails critical examination of current activities through a team-based process of describing prac-

tices, reviewing data on their impact, and comparing them to research-based practices.

Self-Assessment in Five Domains. The Self-Assessment in Five Domains tool (Appendix) presents

research-based SLC practices along with three possible ways to implement each practice. The dif-

ferent versions of each practice are arrayed on a fi ve-point scale to indicate their likely impact on

students: low, intermediate, and high.

The tool asks staff to describe existing practice using evidence gathered from those involved,

and then rate its likely impact on the fi ve-point scale. Development of a thorough descrip-

tion—containing information such as number and types of students and staff involved; duration

and sequence of activities; and materials used—is itself a substantive act of review and refl ection.

Adequate description of some practices requires evidence of colleagues’ and students’ perceptions

of the practice. For example, only students can say whether the curriculum is relevant to them, and

only teachers can say whether they have been able to use planning time as they originally intended.

Staff members often gain a different sense of what is taking place when they collectively examine

concrete evidence and consider other colleagues’ or students’ perceptions.

10

Figure 2: Continuous Improvement Cycle

11

Even if staff members have not yet implemented SLCs per se, they most likely use practices related

to those in each of the fi ve SLC domains and can compare them to the latter.

Example: Staff members may currently have in place language arts/social studies blocks. They can

compare these instructional blocks to the SLC practice of organizing a team of teachers of language

arts, social studies, math, and science around a shared group of students.

Example: Staff members may have planning time but only for individual teacher preparation and

academic area collaboration. They can compare these to the SLC practice of providing common

planning time for interdisciplinary team members.

Step 2. Identify gaps between existing and desired practice

Describing and rating existing practice relative to a research-based standard helps to clarify the gap

between existing and desired practice. It also helps staff members identify what needs to be done to

close the gap. The Identify Gaps tool (page 12) asks staff members to identify what is needed beyond

what is already in place to realize best practices in each domain.

Descriptions of each best practice may point out to staff additional needs for improvement. The

task is to describe the needs as fully as possible before beginning to identify particular programs

or techniques that might be adopted to meet these needs. In this way, staff can avoid latching onto

“solutions” that incompletely address the true extent of needs. For example, in order for teachers

to teach more than half their classes in their SLC, a Teaching and Learning Team best practice, they

may need to teach three instead of two classes in their SLC. But a related need may be to increase

teachers’ commitment to or appreciation for the SLC approach and/or ability to teach some of the

content they enjoyed teaching outside the SLC inside it.

Step 3. Generate and study strategies to adopt

Analyze Strategies To Adopt. Identifying the gaps between existing and desired practice leads to

the next step of generating and studying one or more approaches to closing the gap. The Analyze

Strategies to Adopt tool (page 13) asks staff members to generate specifi c strategies that staff could

adopt to meet identifi ed needs for improvement. For each strategy, staff then needs to describe:

1. Strengths, including the needs it addresses

2. Existing school strengths or uniqueness on which the strategy builds

3. Resource requirements

4. Needs for change or adjustment in other areas of school operation to accommodate the strategy

Care should be taken again to describe as fully as possible the form strategies will take on the ground.

Including details of students and staff involved, materials needed, and location of activities allows staff

12

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eD

omai

n of

Pra

ctic

e

Best

Prac

tice #

1

Best

Prac

tice #

2

Best

Prac

tice #

3

Best

Prac

tice #

4

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

13

Anal

yze

stra

tegi

es t

o ad

opt

Dom

ain

of P

ract

ice

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Desc

riptio

n

of str

ategie

s

Need

s tha

t it ad

dres

ses

and o

ther s

treng

ths

Scho

ol str

ength

s, un

iquen

ess

it buil

ds on

Profe

ssion

al de

velop

ment

and r

esou

rce re

quire

ments

Need

for c

hang

e, ad

justm

ent

in oth

er ar

eas o

f the s

choo

l

14

members to make a more informed decision about what strategy to adopt. The Self-Assessment in Five Domains

tool (see Appendix) and other research documents provide a general idea of what the practice should

involve, but these examples are only abstractions of the specifi c approaches that each school takes.

After staff members generate strategies under each approach, they need to identify the strengths of

each approach. Of primary importance is whether the approach meets needs listed on the Identify

Gaps form. Other strengths could include benefi ts to stakeholders, in addition to students, or how

consistent the approach is with other reforms being made in the school.

Another category of strengths to consider is how the particular approach builds on the existing

strengths and unique qualities of the school, district, students, and community. Staff members’

ability to link new strategies with the existing identity and achievements of the school ensures that

existing strengths are recognized and maintained, as well as increasing the likelihood that staff and

stakeholders will support adopted practices.

In order to consider each approach fully, staff members also must identify what resources and

what changes or adjustments in other areas of the school will be needed to adopt the particular

approach. Each set of strategies will have its own set of resource requirements including person-

nel, professional development, materials, and facilities. Some strategies may also necessitate making

changes in other areas of the school’s program or operations to support the new practice or ensure

consistency. Changes in other areas of operation may point to the need for additional resources to

accomplish this.

Step 4. Develop consensus for adopting strategies

After studying the strengths and implementation requirements of each identifi ed set of strategies,

staff members are in a good position to make decisions about adopting a particular set. Discussion

of what is to be gained from each approach—as well as what will be required—should begin to

clarify support for and opposition to each approach. Further clarifi cation, study, and discussion may

be needed before staff members can reach agreement. Time devoted to reaching agreement may be

gained back through more successful implementation efforts. On the other hand, postponing adop-

tion of reforms must be weighed against the costs of student underachievement.

Staff leaders should master consensus-building techniques as a skill integral to continuous program

improvement.

Step 5. Devise implementation plan

Implement the Plan. To guide and help sustain implementation of chosen strategies, staff members

need to develop a plan that specifi es the key activities that will take place in order to achieve

successful implementation. The previous analysis of the resource needs and barriers to implemen-

15

tation often points to actions needed to support implementation of a given strategy. These actions

should be included in the implementation plan. Details to be included on the Implement the Plan tool

(page 16) in an implementation plan are: Who will be involved in activities? Who will take

responsibility for seeing they occur? When will they take place? The plan provides a ready refer-

ence for staff members, as well as a tool for later refl ection on the planning process.

Step 6. Develop plan to monitor implementation

Staff members need to assess on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of their efforts to improve prac-

tice. As part of their self-assessment, staff members may need to maintain records of their own and

students’ work; construct simple tools for gathering input from students and other stakeholders;

administer annual student and/or parent surveys; and arrange for school records of student charac-

teristics, attendance, and achievement to be disaggregated by the learning community.

To sustain these data collection activities, staff members must make them a part of their regular

school routine as opposed to a special task that occurs at a special time outside the fl ow of other

school activities. District personnel and external evaluators may assist staff members in collecting

and analyzing data and in establishing routines that minimize the time and effort needed to do so.

However, it is important that staff members own these routines and can easily accommodate them

in the context of common planning periods and days.

Gauge Success. As a guide to data collection, the Gauge Success tool (page 17) asks staff members to

identify:

1. Specifi c, measurable objectives of reforms

2. How objectives will be measured

3. When objectives will be measured

Written statements of objectives also provide stakeholders with a clear rationale for reforms.

Reform objectives should relate to both student learning and staff practice. Staff members may also

fi nd it helpful to specify more immediate as well as longer-range objectives of reforms. Articulat-

ing early indicators of the success of reforms—such as whether students fi nd learning activities

meaningful and challenging—gives staff members more information about what aspects of reform

are working and what may be infl uencing student achievement outcomes.

Student learning remains the bottom-line indication of whether reforms are successful or not.

Student attendance and engagement in schoolwork are instrumental to learning. The summary of

research on practices identifi ed in each SLC domain describes relationships between practices and

outcomes. In general, rigorous, relevant curriculum and instruction appear to enhance student

engagement and learning. Inclusive programs and practices appear to do the same, as well as narrow

the learning gap among students of different income and ethnic groups.

16

Impl

emen

t th

e Pl

anD

omai

n of

Pra

ctic

e

WHO

will

tak

e..

wha

t AC

TION

S to

impl

emen

t ad

opte

d st

rate

gies

Se

pt

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r M

ay

June

Ju

ly

Aug

17

Gaug

e Su

cces

sH

ow w

e w

ill kn

ow if

we

impl

emen

ted

Dom

ain

of P

ract

ice

succ

essf

ully

?

Stud

ent

lear

ning

and

pro

gram

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

Ho

w o

bjec

tives

will

be

mea

sure

d Ho

w o

ften

/whe

n to

col

lect

dat

a

18

For each expected outcome specifi ed, staff members should identify the measures they will use to

gauge outcomes and when data collection will occur. This exercise helps staff members anticipate

the kinds of data they may need to collect during the course of their work rather than at the end.

In addition, the task of identifying measures of outcomes forces staff members to reach agreement

about what constitutes an appropriate measure. Discussion of what legitimate measures are also

helps clarify staff members’ notions about expected outcomes and may lead to rethinking them.

Data collection activities should be included in the implementation plan.

Step 7. Implement plan

Staff members implement the plan of activities and note adjustments in what was carried out by

whom and when. Staff members consult the plan routinely to ensure that activities are completed,

especially tasks such as data collection that may get lost in the day-to-day press of teaching.

How To Pursue Continuous Program Improvement: Working the Steps

Developing highly functioning and effective learning communities is diffi cult work that is never fi n-

ished. For that reason, it is extremely important for staff to establish productive continuous program

improvement routines and structures. A key question then is how to accommodate continuous impro-

vement within the press of ongoing school activities. Here are some specifi c strategies to consider:

Take inventory of all existing school improvement projects. Before school leaders begin any

continuous improvement process, they should identify all existing school improvement projects,

partners, and funds. The aim of taking inventory of all school improvement activities is to develop

consistent objectives across projects and combine funds wherever possible to create and pursue a

coherent program of school improvement. Increasing overlap among projects will greatly enhance

overall progress toward school improvement.

During any given year schools may be involved in a number of different school improvement activi-

ties. Different school staff members may be assigned to different projects with the following results:

staff members do not know about what activities others are pursuing; different groups compete for

the same resources, including administrative support and adequate numbers of staff to plan and carry

out work. Worst of all, groups develop programs and reforms that are at odds with each other. For

example, academic department leaders work on implementing standards-based reforms while SLC

teams create integrated curricula for small learning communities. Because no cross-collaboration

occurs, the reforms confl ict with each other and give the appearance of inherent incompatibility.

Confl icting camps develop as some staff members support one type of reform and others another.

School reform efforts often proceed along different channels when, in fact, they share the same

general objectives. Staff must make a concerted effort to ensure that reform initiatives mutu-

19

ally enhance one another and that each contributes to an overarching, shared vision of effective

schooling.

Create time to collaborate. Adopt a school schedule that provides for early release or late start days

on a regular basis. Planning grants compensate school staff members for the extra time they spend

planning, but if the school schedule does not also accommodate routine staff collaboration, plan-

ning grants create an artifi cial set of conditions that evaporate at the end of the grant.

Reallocate some of the existing time meted out to department and full faculty meetings to small

work groups with the charge of studying and making recommendations about school reform.

Allow them to report out to one another regularly via e-mail and in person.

Create small groups to work on different areas of reform. Whole-school reform is too large and

complex an undertaking to assign to a single group of staff members. Consider creating a small

work group of four to six people to study developing and implementing strategies within each of

the fi ve domains of SLC practice. Each group could direct its work to answering an essential ques-

tion related to its domain of SLC practice:

• Interdisciplinary teaching and learning teams: How can we maximize interdisciplinary teams’ time, support, and flexibility to work together and with their students?

• Rigorous, relevant curriculum and instruction: How can we make curriculum and instruction more authentic, coherent, and challenging to students?

• Inclusive program and practices: How can we create inclusive instructional groups based on student interest and provide adequate support for all students in these groups to meet high standards for learning?

• Continuous program improvement: What procedures, tools, and partners do interdisciplinary teams need to pursue continuous improvement of their SLC?

• Building and district support: What building and district-level policies and practices need to be alig-ned and reformulated to maximize support for the operation of SLCs?

Include diverse stakeholders as members of each group. Study groups should be interdisciplinary

and include students, parents, community members, administrators, counselors, and other school staff

members. Considerations for diversity must not overwhelm the need to keep groups to four to six

members. Devote attention to supporting participation of students, parents, and community members

who may fi nd it less convenient to attend than do school staff members. Advance agendas, telephone/

e-mail reminders of meeting dates, and refreshments at meetings may strengthen attendance.

Employ group collaboration strategies designed to optimize discussion and build consensus.

Numerous strategies have been developed to facilitate productive groupwork. Many schools use

them routinely. They prove their worth. They make it possible to balance leadership with broad

20

participation in decision making, and speed and effi ciency with careful, systematic study of the

issues. Some useful strategies included in Tools in this section can help the group:

• Keep on track. Group leaders can and should assemble an agenda for each meeting before-

hand but then solicit items at the meeting from other group members. Group members can

also weigh in on how much time they want to spend on each item or whether to reserve

discussion of particular items for another meeting. The group may wish to have a member

with good group facilitation skills facilitate meetings. The group facilitator functions only

to keep the meeting on track and refrains from participating in discussions.

• Build consensus. Group leaders can ask group members to indicate their level of agree-

ment on issues at several points in the discussion to determine whether the group needs to

discuss an issue further or is ready to vote. Fist-to-five voting (one finger means complete

agreement and five means complete disagreement) allows group members to indicate how

far away from agreement they are without engaging in lengthy explanations.

• Encourage openness. Group leaders can quickly surface members’ sentiments about an

item in question by asking all members to express what they’re thinking or feeling briefly

without explanation or detail.

• Encourage thinking outside the box. Group leaders can ask members to brainstorm ideas

and solutions with the goal of generating as many as possible without consideration for

feasibility or acceptance. Analysis and judgment of the items can be reserved for a later

time.

Closely inspect data. It’s diffi cult sometimes to make sense of data. They may not be arranged in

an optimal form. They may not speak directly to the point, and they do not speak for themselves.

It is very important for group members to spend time closely inspecting the data before drawing

conclusions. To facilitate thorough consideration of data, group members should fi rst:

1. Ask questions about the nature of the data; for example, ask how they were collected and calcu-

lated

2. Note what they see in the data and what the data may show

Exchange work with other groups to broaden input. As pointed out in the fi rst section of this

guide, the success of practices in one domain is connected with practices in other domains. Study

groups cannot work in isolation from one another for very long. At regular intervals, groups should

summarize their discussion points and conclusions and share summaries in writing and in person

with the other groups. Each group should invite the other groups’ questions and suggestions, note

their input, and directly address it in the next round of work.

21

3. Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning TeamsBest Practices Checklist:

� SLC interdisciplinary team (or teams)

organized around no more than a few

hundred students

� Interdisciplinary team remains with students

for multiple years of study

� Teachers have more than half-time

assignment to SLC

� Interdisciplinary team has common

planning time

� Interdisciplinary team actively collaborates

on curriculum, instruction, and student

progress

� Building space is suffi cient to create a home

base for collaboration

In a nutshell

Why These Practices Are Essential Research and exemplary SLCs demonstrate…

…that the size of the learning community affects the quality of students’ relationships with peers

and teachers and ultimately students’ educational outcomes. In smaller schools students are more

likely to form relationships that bind them to school, and teachers are better able to identify and

respond to students’ needs. Small learning communities are maximally effective when interdisci-

plinary team members share students in common and are thereby able to pool their knowledge of

students, communicate consistent messages, and create coherent instructional programs. Common

planning time is essential for team collaboration. Team collaboration heightens teachers’ shared

sense of responsibility for students’ learning. Teams that instruct most of their classes in the SLC

avoid confl icts with teaching responsibilities outside the team that might make team collaboration

and the scheduling of common planning time diffi cult. Dedicated building space also facilitates

team collaboration and in addition reinforces students’ identifi cation with the SLC.

22

In detail

Why These Practices Are Essential

SLC interdisciplinary team (or teams) is organized around no more than a few hundred students

SLC interdisciplinary team. The central feature of a high-functioning SLC is an interdisciplin-

ary team (or teams) of teachers who work closely together with a group of students they share in

common for instruction. Traditional schools organize teachers around subject areas. SLCs organize

teachers across subject areas to create a more student-centered form of schooling. Researchers fi nd

that SLC teachers enjoy greater interdisciplinary collaboration and consensus (Oxley, 1997b) and

instructional leadership, including program coordination (Wasley et al., 2000) than teachers in

traditional schools.

No more than a few hundred students. Decades of research on school size provide substantial

evidence that smaller high schools are associated with more favorable student outcomes than larger

high schools (Cotton, 2001; Gladden, 1998). Smaller high schools have unmistakably greater hold-

ing power: students are less likely to drop out, more likely to attend, and more likely to participate

in school activities (Lindsay, 1982; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). Smaller high schools experience

less student disorder and violence (Garbarino, 1978; Gottfredson, 1985; Haller, 1992).

And smaller high schools—despite having a more restricted set of curricular offerings—are associated

with greater academic achievement (Fowler & Walberg, 1991) although the fi ndings are more mixed.

Recent more precise analysis has been able to tease out the effect of size from that of other factors that

vary with school size. This research points out that smaller high schools are not only associated with

higher achievement but greater equity in achievement (Lee & Smith, 1995). That is, the achievement

gap usually found among students of different ethnicities is reduced in smaller high schools.

Exactly how small should a small learning community be? This is obviously one of the central

questions in establishing small learning communities. One study of high schools—not small learn-

ing communities—suggests that a size of 600 is an appropriate target (Lee & Smith, 1997). But

this fi nding pertains to schools with traditional curriculum and instruction organization. It is also

inconsistent with a basic premise of small learning communities—that all members of the com-

munity know each other— since it is impossible for teachers to know even the names of more than

500 students (Panel on Youth, 1973).

Small learning community practice counsels smaller schools of 200–400 (Cook, 2000; Fine, 1994).

Nationally, some of the most successful small learning communities have as few as 100 students

(Ancess, 1995). This size is comparable to Coalition of Essential Schools (Sizer, 1992) and National

Association of Secondary School Principals (1996) recommendations that teachers instruct approxi-

mately 90 students at any one time.

23

These recommended small numbers of students derive from seemingly minimum standards for

teaching effectively: teachers are able to get to know students’needs and interests and to provide

frequent, individualized responses to student work.

Students remain with their team for multiple years

Small learning communities that have attained national prominence on the basis of their students’

success encompass the entire four years of high school study (Cook, 2000; Meier, 1995). Com-

mon to prominent high school reform models that have also proven successful are small learning

communities that extend across at least two years of study (http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us; Legters,

Balfanz, & McPartland, 2002).

A mechanism of this success may be the cross-grade coherence and consistency of the academic

program (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001a, b; Wasley et al., 2000). Students are

more likely to learn when new material builds on their prior knowledge (Bransford, Brown, &

Cocking, 1999). Moreover, students are more motivated to learn when teachers peg academic

challenge just ahead of students’ level of competence (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993).

Teachers in multiyear SLCs can use the knowledge they gain about students in one year to shape

their subsequent learning experiences (Fine & Somerville, 1998). A second mechanism of these

successful multiyear SLCs may be that they promote connections between older, more compe-

tent peer role models and younger students, another factor shown to enhance learning (Benard,

1990; Fazio & Ural, 1995).

Research indicates that small unit organization confi ned to just the ninth-grade level, as in interven-

tions designed to ease students’ transition to high school, has “positive though modest effects on

students’ academic outcomes” (Quint, Miller, Pastor, & Cytron, 1999). These researchers concluded

that broader intervention was required. The “Talent Development High School” model, which com-

bines a ninth-grade Success Academy with 10th- through 12th-grade career academies, employs a

separate transition year unit subdivided into smaller groupings and a specially designed curriculum.

Ninth-graders in this model passed state exams in some areas and were promoted at higher rates

than before the academy was implemented (McPartland, Balfanz, Jordan, & Legters, 1998).

However, other research suggests that the Talent Development model may not be as effective as con-

tinuous 9th- through 12th-grade small learning communities (Oxley, Croninger, & DeGroot, 2000).

Researchers who compared ninth-graders in a Success Academy with those in a comparable school

organized into 9th- through 12th-grade SLCs reported that Success Academy students disliked being

separated from the advanced students while ninth-graders in the 9th- through 12th-grade SLCs val-

ued upper level students for “setting examples for the younger ones” and “show(ing) us around.”

In addition, high teacher turnover emerged as an enduring problem in the ninth-grade Success

Academy unlike in the 9th- through 12th-grade SLCs where teachers also taught students at other

grade levels and found satisfaction in seeing students mature into graduating seniors.

24

Schools that offer themed initial 9th- through 10th-grade and advanced 11th- through 12th-grade

SLCs or career pathways (Allen, 2001; Legters et al., 2002) postpone transition to advanced SLCs

until students reach 11th grade. In these two-year SLCs, teachers can still capitalize on knowledge

of students from one year to the next (instead of having to start afresh with each new entering class

of students) and can employ upper grade students as role models. In addition, this model increases

student choice and opportunities for exploration.

It is key that students advance to upper level SLCs of some kind and not to a traditionally structured

school. Failure to reorganize the upper grades communicates that staff is not persuaded that SLCs

represent a more effective form of schooling, appropriate for advanced students as well as those with

special needs such as transition or remediation (Allen, 2001; Ready, Lee, & LoGerfo, 2000). Most often

under these circumstances, lower grade SLCs also suffer from lack of full implementation.

SLC team members instruct more than half their class load in the SLC

In the most successful learning communities, teachers instruct all (Cook, 2000; Meier, 1995) or at

least most of their classes within their SLC (http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us).

Teachers who divide their time between their SLC and classes outside their SLC run the risk of short-

changing their SLC’s requirements for collaboration. Successful small learning communities devote

regular time to student advisement, curriculum planning, and collaboration on problems of practice

in addition to individual teacher preparation. At Urban Academy, a U.S. Department of Education Blue

Ribbon School of Excellence and small learning community of just 100 students, teachers devote one

hour/week to student advisement, two-and-a-half hours every two weeks to curriculum planning, and

three hours/week to a staff meeting—a total of more than fi ve hours/week on average (Ancess, 1995).

Practically speaking, it is diffi cult for teachers to dedicate this much time to a small learning

community when it is not their primary commitment. In addition, the more classes SLC teachers

instruct outside their SLC, the more diffi cult it is to schedule common planning time for SLC teams.

SLC team shares planning time in common

Common planning time facilitates collaboration among interdisciplinary team members. Research

frequently identifi es common planning time as a feature of successful teaming and academic pro-

grams linked to positive student outcomes (Felner et al., 1997; McPartland et al., 1998; Newmann

et al., 2001a, b; Oxley, 1997b). It is a nearly constant item on short lists of SLC practices necessary

for maintaining a focus on instructional improvements (for example, www.nwrel.org/scpd/sslc/

elements.shtml).

Among successful small learning communities, common planning time comes during shared

preparation periods during the school day (http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us), a single late start or

25

early release day each week, or a block of time during which students leave school to do com-

munity-based service/study (Meier, 1995). Common planning time does not guarantee improved

teaching and learning, however. Teams must devote this time to curriculum and instruction plan-

ning and problemsolving that increase program coherence and academic challenge (Newmann et

al., 2001a, b).

Teacher team actively collaborates on curriculum, instruction, and student progress

SLC teacher teams that spend common preparation time actively discussing and planning cur-

riculum and instruction improvements, as well as troubleshooting student progress, contribute to

small learning communities’ effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Ort, 2002; Oxley, 1997b;

Wasley et al., 2000).

Successful small learning communities do not appear to depend on extraordinary individuals as

much as on regular collaboration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Wasley et al., 2000). Collegial

exchange among team members serves to broaden input and deepen consideration of the educa-

tional problems they face. Ancess’ (1995) description of a problem-solving session held by the staff

of a successful SLC provides a compelling illustration of a school that learns (Senge et al., 2000).

Sharing ideas and observing each other’s work provides an effective form of professional develop-

ment by expanding individual members’ teaching repertoires and socializing new team members

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2002).

Team members’ collaboration also engenders a sense of shared responsibility for their students’ suc-

cess (Wasley et al., 2000). Teams able to pull together in the same direction across disciplines and

grades felt more effi cacious and committed to students’ ongoing learning than teachers working in

traditional schools.

Building space is suffi cient to create a home base for SLC collaboration

Physical proximity of the SLC interdisciplinary team’s classrooms is a requirement for effective

small learning community functioning.

Research repeatedly fi nds that physical proximity is instrumental to key small learning community

functions. Physical proximity of teachers’ classrooms facilitates teacher collaboration (Christman,

Cohen, & Macpherson, 1997; Wasley et al., 2000), promotes interaction among teachers and stu-

dents (Ancess, 1995; Oxley, 1990), and helps to establish a separate identity and sense of commu-

nity among members (Raywid, 1996).

Small learning communities may make do with a single, large classroom or pair of adjacent class-

rooms. However, teacher collaboration and students’ identifi cation with their SLC will likely suffer.

The inability to designate more adequate space may also refl ect a lack of schoolwide commitment

26

to SLCs and the need to make painful adjustments to optimize their functioning. Other SLC require-

ments are likely to be compromised as well.

In contrast, SLCs that provide a space where teachers and students can interact before and after class

generate a feeling of belonging and a clear sense that teachers care about students: “… students

learn that a school can be both educational and personal” (Ancess, 1995, p. 8).

27

1. Interdisciplin

ary Te

aching

and

Learning Te

ams

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am(s

) sha

res

no m

ore

than

a fe

w h

undr

ed s

tude

nts

in c

omm

on fo

r ins

truc

tion

SLC

is c

ompo

sed

of a

facu

lty th

at w

orks

wit

h 40

0 or

few

er s

tude

nts;

cla

sses

con

tain

som

e st

uden

ts

who

do

not b

elon

g to

the

SLC.

SLC

is c

ompo

sed

of a

n in

terd

isci

plin

ary

team

(s)

that

wor

ks w

ith

trad

itio

nal c

lass

load

of

150–

180

stud

ents

; SLC

cla

sses

con

tain

onl

y st

uden

ts w

ho

belo

ng to

the

SLC.

SLC

is c

ompo

sed

of a

n in

terd

isci

plin

ary

team

(s)

that

wor

ks e

xclu

sive

ly w

ith

90–1

20 s

tude

nts.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

28

Stud

ents

rem

ain

wit

h th

eir

teac

her

team

for

onl

y on

e ye

ar.

Stud

ents

rem

ain

wit

h th

eir

teac

her

team

for

two

year

s an

d in

SLC

s fo

r fo

ur y

ears

; tea

ms

loop

wit

h st

uden

ts o

r pr

ovid

e m

ulti

grad

e cl

asse

s.

Stud

ents

rem

ain

wit

h th

eir

teac

her

team

for

two

or m

ore

year

s an

d in

one

SLC

for

fou

r ye

ars;

9–1

0 an

d 11

–12

or 9

–12

team

s lo

op w

ith

stud

ents

or

prov

ide

mul

tigr

ade

clas

ses.

Team

s an

d th

eir s

tude

nts

rem

ain

toge

ther

for m

ultip

le y

ears

of s

tudy

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

29

Team

mem

bers

hav

e m

ore

than

hal

f-tim

e as

sign

men

t to

SLC

SLC

teac

hers

inst

ruct

hal

f or

few

er o

f th

eir

clas

ses

in

the

SLC

and

hav

e m

ulti

ple

com

mit

men

ts.

SLC

teac

hers

inst

ruct

mor

e th

an h

alf

of th

eir

clas

ses

in th

e SL

C, w

hich

is th

eir

prim

ary

com

mit

men

t.SL

C te

ache

rs in

stru

ct a

ll th

eir

clas

ses

in th

e SL

C, w

hich

is

thei

r pr

imar

y af

fi lia

tion

and

prof

essi

onal

iden

tity.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

30

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am m

embe

rs h

ave

com

mon

pla

nnin

g tim

e

Mos

t tea

m m

embe

rs s

hare

in c

omm

on s

ever

al

prep

arat

ion

peri

ods/

wee

k.A

ll te

am m

embe

rs s

hare

in c

omm

on s

ever

al p

repa

ra-

tion

peri

ods/

wee

k w

ith p

rovi

sion

s fo

r so

me

exte

nded

bl

ocks

of t

ime

(e.g

., pr

ep b

ack-

to-b

ack

with

lunc

h).

All

team

mem

bers

sha

re c

omm

on p

rep

peri

ods/

wee

k w

ith

prov

isio

n fo

r ex

tend

ed b

lock

s of

tim

e (e

.g.,

doub

le p

erio

d an

d ea

rly

rele

ase/

late

sta

rt d

ays.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

31

Team

s us

e pl

anni

ng ti

me

mos

tly to

talk

abo

ut in

di-

vidu

al s

tude

nts.

Team

s us

e ti

me

to ta

lk a

bout

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nts

and

plan

SLC

eve

nts.

Team

s us

e ti

me

to p

lan

curr

icul

um a

nd le

arni

ng

acti

viti

es a

nd d

iscu

ss s

tude

nts.

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am m

embe

rs c

olla

bora

te o

n cu

rric

ulum

, ins

truc

tion,

stu

dent

pro

gres

s

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

32

Bui

ldin

g sp

ace

suffi

cien

t to

crea

te h

ome

base

for c

olla

bora

tion

One

SLC

teac

her

has

a la

rge

clas

sroo

m o

r tw

o SL

C

teac

hers

hav

e ad

jace

nt c

lass

room

s to

use

as

a ho

me

base

.

Seve

ral o

f th

e SL

C te

ache

rs u

se p

roxi

mal

or

adja

cent

cl

assr

oom

s as

a h

ome

base

.A

ll SL

C te

am m

embe

rs h

ave

cont

iguo

us c

lass

room

s an

d of

fi ce/

mee

ting

spa

ce th

at e

xpre

ss th

e SL

C’s

iden

tity

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

33

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

team

bes

t pra

ctic

es

Inter

discip

linar

y tea

m sh

ares

no m

ore t

han a

few

hund

red s

tuden

ts in

comm

on

Stud

ents

rema

in wi

th the

ir tea

m for

mult

iple

year

s of s

tudy

Inter

discip

linar

y tea

ms

of tea

cher

s ins

truct

more

than

half t

heir

class

es in

SLC

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

34

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

team

bes

t pra

ctic

es

Inter

discip

linar

y tea

ms

of tea

cher

s hav

e co

mmon

plan

ning t

ime

Inter

discip

linar

y tea

m co

llabo

rates

on cu

rric-

ulum,

instr

uctio

n, an

d stu

dent

prog

ress

Build

ing sp

ace i

s su

ffi cien

t to cr

eate

a h

omeb

ase f

or S

LC

colla

bora

tion

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

35

Anal

yze

stra

tegi

es t

o ad

opt

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng te

am b

est p

ract

ices

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Desc

riptio

n

of str

ategie

s

Need

s tha

t it ad

dres

ses

and o

ther s

treng

ths

Scho

ol str

ength

s, un

iquen

ess

it buil

ds on

Profe

ssion

al de

velop

ment

and

resou

rce re

quire

ments

Need

for c

hang

e, ad

justm

ent

in oth

er ar

eas o

f the s

choo

l

36

Impl

emen

t th

e Pl

anIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

team

bes

t pra

ctic

es

WHO

will

tak

e..

wha

t AC

TION

S to

impl

emen

t ad

opte

d st

rate

gies

Se

pt

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r M

ay

June

Ju

ly

Aug

37

Gaug

e Su

cces

sH

ow w

e w

ill kn

ow if

we

impl

emen

ted

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y Te

achi

ng a

nd L

earn

ing

Team

s su

cces

sful

ly?

Stud

ent

lear

ning

and

pro

gram

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

Ho

w o

bjec

tives

will

be

mea

sure

d Ho

w o

ften

/whe

n to

col

lect

dat

a

39

4. Rigorous, Relevant Curriculum and Instruction

Best Practices Checklist:

� Interdisciplinary curriculum organized

around topics of interest to students and

essential skills/knowledge

� Rigorous, standards-based curriculum

� Minimum half-day block of instruction

� Collaboration with community partners

� Active, authentic student inquiry

In a nutshell


Research and exemplary SLCs demonstrate…

...authentic pedagogy involving active student inquiry into real-world problems with requirements

for in-depth study and critical evaluation of information is associated with higher student achieve-

ment than traditional curriculum and instruction. SLCs with documented success are those that

have created engaging interdisciplinary curricula through collaboration with community-based

partners and at the same time established high standards for student profi ciency in key discipline-

based content areas. The most powerful programs encompass at least half the student’s instructional

day and more than one year of study. Interdisciplinary teacher collaboration on curriculum and

instruction increases the program’s coherence and opportunities to reinforce essential skills and

knowledge across multiple contexts.

40

In detail


Interdisciplinary curriculum organized around topics of interest to students and essential skills and knowledge

A distinguishing attribute of successful small learning communities is a curriculum that has

relevance to the world outside school and personal meaning for students. Recent research indicates

that relevant student learning experiences are not incompatible with a rigorous curriculum. AIR

& SRI International (2005) found that teacher assignments in new, small schools were both more

rigorous and relevant in small schools than in comprehensive high schools used for comparison.

Most rigorous assignments were also relevant.

At a minimum, effective small learning community programs include interdisciplinary content

to give students opportunities to explore topics within authentic contexts not limited by the

boundaries of academic disciplines. Curricular themes, career interests (Legters et al., 2002;

McPartland et al., 1998), and cross-disciplinary inquiry (Ancess, 1995; Meier, 1995) create

meaningful connections among courses. Courses integrate college and career preparation (Little,

Erbstein, & Walker, 1996) and blend classical studies with multicultural content and students’ own

lives and interests (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002).

A critical ingredient of an interdisciplinary program is coherence. Cross-subject as well as cross-

grade teacher collaboration are essential vehicles of program coherence (Newmann et al., 2001a,b;

Wasley et al., 2000). Research on learning and cognitive development (Bransford et al., 1999;

Caine & Caine, 1991) indicates that coherence and consistency in academic programs allow

students to incorporate new understandings into prior knowledge and to alter prior knowledge

when necessary. Coherent programs give students recurrent opportunities to practice and to apply

knowledge and skills in new contexts.

Rigorous, standards-based curriculum

Holding all students to high standards to ensure educational equity and access to postsecondary

education and jobs is a centerpiece of all current major school reform initiatives (Legters et al., 2002),

including the creation of small schools and small learning communities (Fine & Somerville, 1998).

Successful small learning communities establish standards for student profi ciency that agree with the

community’s goals and values and at the same time equal or exceed state standards (Ancess, 1995).

In practical terms, holding high standards for academic achievement means offering a strong core

curriculum to all students (Sizer, 1992). To accomplish this, staff must fi rst eliminate academic tracks

and courses that water down content (www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/background/brochure.asp) and

provide support suffi cient to enable all students to access the core curriculum (Weinstein, 1996).

41

SLC encompasses at least a half-day block of students’ instructional day

Small schools advocates argue that students’ entire school day must be organized within their small

learning community in order to give teachers the degree of autonomy and fl exibility they need to

be responsive to students (Fine & Somerville, 1998).

Research shows that small units that encompass half the instructional day have favorable effects on

students’ sense of community and academic achievement (Felner & Adan, 1988; Felner et al., 1997;

McMullan, Sipe, & Wolf, 1994; Oxley, 1990, 1997b). In all cases, the half-day arrangement included

courses in four core academic disciplines. Students in half-day units were assessed relative to those

in no unit or units organized around only one or two classes; they were not compared to students

in all-day units. Consequently, it is not possible to say how much stronger the effect of an all-day

arrangement may be.

What is clear from both research and practice is that students register much less sense of commu-

nity from a two-course block such as the language arts/social studies blocks frequently found in

high schools (Oxley, 1990; Oxley et al., 2000). Moreover, teachers report that splitting up the SLC

block of classes among classes outside the community also diminishes the small learning communi-

ty’s impact.

SLC teachers collaborate with community partners

Teachers in successful small learning communities create collaborative relationships with commu-

nity partners. Teachers work with community partners to design curricula grounded in real-world

work and service (Ancess, 1995). Community partners enable teachers to extend classwork into

community contexts related to the topics and problems under study (Allen, 2001).

Collaboration with community partners also presents opportunities to conduct more authentic

assessment of student work by including outside experts in the review process (Ancess, 1995).

Community partner participation is also vital to teachers’ refl ection on their own work and con-

tinuous program improvement efforts (Christman et al., 1997). Community partners can be an

important source of outside, yet informed, opinion about the SLC program.

Students engage in active, authentic inquiry

Students in successful small learning communities actively explore topics, problems, and questions

and produce authentic demonstrations of their knowledge (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Meier,

1995; Oxley, 1997b).

SLC students play an active role in designing and carrying out academic work. They help teach-

ers identify problems to study, questions to research, books to read, and methods of demonstrat-

42

ing their knowledge and understanding (Ancess, 1995; Meier, 1995). They work individually and

collaboratively using class conversations to express and revise their thinking. They work inside class-

rooms and in the community alongside individuals with authentic expertise in the problem area

under study. SLC students frequently engage in project-based learning that requires them to collect

and critically analyze information, defend their conclusions, and make in-depth oral and written

presentations of their fi ndings (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Meier, 1995; Wasley et al., 2000).

Research fi nds that student work that involves this active mode of acquiring knowledge—authentic

pedagogy—is linked to heightened student achievement (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1995a, b).

43

2. Rigorou

s, R

elevan

t Curric

ulum

and

Instru

ction

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y cu

rric

ulum

org

aniz

ed a

roun

d to

pics

of i

nter

est t

o st

uden

ts a

nd e

ssen

tial s

kills

/kno

wle

dge

Stud

ents

par

tici

pate

in S

LC th

eme-

base

d fi e

ld tr

ips

and

clas

s ac

tivi

ties

in th

eir

regu

lar

curr

icul

um.

Stud

ents

do

seve

ral t

hem

e-ba

sed

inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y pr

ojec

ts/y

ear

in th

e re

gula

r cu

rric

ulum

and

lear

n es

sent

ial c

onte

nt a

nd s

kills

acr

oss

diff

eren

t cla

sses

.

Stud

ents

lear

n es

sent

ial s

kills

/kno

wle

dge

thro

ugh

a la

rgel

y in

tegr

ated

cou

rse

of s

tudy

org

aniz

ed b

y to

p-ic

s/th

emes

of

inte

rest

to a

dole

scen

ts a

nd r

elev

ant t

o th

eir

cultu

ral b

ackg

roun

d.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

44

SLC

pro

gram

mee

ts h

igh

stan

dard

s th

roug

h cl

asse

s or

gani

zed

arou

nd a

cade

mic

dis

cipl

ines

and

thei

r as

soci

ated

sta

ndar

ds.

SLC

pro

gram

mee

ts h

igh

stan

dard

s th

roug

h in

terd

isci

plin

ary

clas

ses

that

map

ont

o as

soci

ated

st

anda

rds.

SLC

est

ablis

hes

stud

ent p

rofi c

ienc

ies

and

form

s of

as

sess

men

t con

sist

ent w

ith

them

e an

d st

ate/

dist

rict

st

anda

rds.

Rig

orou

s st

anda

rds-

base

d cu

rric

ulum

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

45

Min

imum

hal

f-day

blo

ck o

f ins

truc

tion

Stud

ents

’ SLC

cla

sses

occ

upy

less

than

a h

alf-

day

bloc

k of

thei

r sc

hool

day

.St

uden

ts’ S

LC c

lass

es o

ccup

y a

half

-day

unb

roke

n bl

ock

of th

eir

scho

ol d

ay.

Stud

ents

’ SLC

cla

sses

occ

upy

mor

e th

an a

hal

f-da

y un

brok

en b

lock

of

thei

r sc

hool

day

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

46

Team

s co

llabo

rate

with

com

mun

ity p

artn

ers

Team

s co

llabo

rate

wit

h co

mm

unit

y m

embe

rs to

of

fer

spec

ial t

rips

and

act

ivit

ies.

Team

s es

tabl

ish

com

mun

ity p

artn

ersh

ips

to p

rovi

de

exte

nsiv

e fi e

ld-b

ased

stu

dy.

Com

mun

ity p

artn

ers

are

inte

gral

to te

ams;

they

hel

p pl

an, l

ead,

and

ass

ess

stud

ents

’ wor

k.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

47

Stud

ents

reg

ular

ly d

o in

depe

nden

t lib

rary

and

In

tern

et r

esea

rch

to b

road

en c

lass

room

mat

eria

ls

and

stud

y.

Stud

ents

res

earc

h to

pics

/iss

ues,

col

lect

and

eva

lu-

ate

info

rmat

ion

from

var

ied

sour

ces,

and

pre

sent

co

nclu

sion

s as

fea

ture

s of

spe

cial

pro

ject

s.

Stud

ents

reg

ular

ly g

ener

ate

rese

arch

que

stio

ns, c

ol-

lect

and

eva

luat

e in

form

atio

n fr

om v

arie

d so

urce

s,

and

docu

men

t wor

k in

in-d

epth

, aut

hent

ic f

orm

s.

Stud

ents

eng

age

in a

ctiv

e, a

uthe

ntic

inqu

iry

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

48

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eR

igor

ous,

rele

vant

cur

ricul

um a

nd in

stru

ctio

n

Inter

discip

linar

y cur

ric-

ulum

orga

nized

arou

nd

topics

of in

teres

t to

stude

nts an

d ess

entia

l sk

ills/kn

owled

ge

Rigo

rous

, stan

dard

s-ba

sed c

urric

ulum

Minim

um ha

lf-day

blo

ck of

instr

uctio

n

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

49

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eR

igor

ous,

rele

vant

cur

ricul

um a

nd in

stru

ctio

n

Colla

bora

tion w

ith

comm

unity

partn

ers

Activ

e, au

thenti

c stu

dent

inquir

y

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

50

Anal

yze

stra

tegi

es t

o ad

opt

Rig

orou

s, re

leva

nt c

urric

ulum

and

inst

ruct

ion

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Desc

riptio

n

of str

ategie

s

Need

s tha

t it ad

dres

ses

and o

ther s

treng

ths

Scho

ol str

ength

s, un

iquen

ess

it buil

ds on

Profe

ssion

al de

velop

ment

and

resou

rce re

quire

ments

Need

for c

hang

e, ad

justm

ent

in oth

er ar

eas o

f the s

choo

l

51

Impl

emen

t th

e Pl

anR

igor

ous,

rele

vant

cur

ricul

um a

nd in

stru

ctio

n

WHO

will

tak

e..

wha

t AC

TION

S to

impl

emen

t ad

opte

d st

rate

gies

Se

pt

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r M

ay

June

Ju

ly

Aug

52

Gaug

e Su

cces

sH

ow w

e w

ill kn

ow if

we

impl

emen

ted

Rig

orou

s, R

elev

ant C

urric

ulum

and

Inst

ruct

ion

succ

essf

ully

?

Stud

ent

lear

ning

and

pro

gram

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

Ho

w o

bjec

tives

will

be

mea

sure

d Ho

w o

ften

/whe

n to

col

lect

dat

a

53

5. Inclusive Program and Practices


� SLC membership is based on teachers’ and

students’ interest and choice to ensure

equitable access

� Teachers use time and space fl exibly to meet

needs of all students

� Teams tailor instruction to diverse students’

needs

� Special education and ELL instructors are

integral members of SLC teams

� Counselors are integral members of SLC

teams

� Teams advise/mentor students

� Teams collaborate with parents

In a nutshell



…students’ and teachers’ choice of their SLC on the basis of its curricular program is more likely

to create memberships in which teachers and students share the same interests and goals while the

students themselves vary in social class, ethnicity, and history of academic achievement. SLCs that

use pedagogical style as the basis of choice or random assignment to determine membership gen-

erate less diverse student groups and less buy-in, respectively. Practices associated with success in

serving diverse students in SLCs include SLC teams comprising special and ELL educators, subject-

area teachers, and counseling staff; student advisement; and parent collaboration. Teachers combine

these collaborative arrangements with instruction tailored to students’ diverse needs in high-func-

tioning SLCs. Adapting instruction to students’ needs includes using the fl exibility afforded by SLC

organization to make multiple, varied arrangements for learning.

54

In detail


SLC membership is based on student and teacher interests and choice

Small learning community research and practice indicate that success depends in large part on a

self-chosen membership that shares a commitment to the SLC’s unique focus or mission (Allen,

2001; Ancess, 1995; Cook, 2000; Meier, 1995).

Students’ ability to choose their small learning community is consistent with a student-centered

approach to education. Use of random assignment or admissions criteria to determine SLC mem-

bership eliminates the freedom students have, even in traditional schools, to match their interests

with the courses they take. However, traditional schools offer choice in courses at the expense of

program coherence and sense of community. SLCs can offer choice at the program level, if not the

course level, and—with suffi cient fl exibility—can also provide many choices within the program.

Students’ exercise of choice of SLC places a premium on informing middle school students and

their parents about high school SLC programs. Student choice also challenges schools to develop a

set of SLC programs that responds to a range of students’ interests and offers equal challenge and

opportunity for success.

If school staff meets these challenges, the payoff appears to be more informed and empowered

students and potent learning communities where members have the opportunity to develop their

interests with teachers and with peers who share them. In a study of high schools organized into

small learning communities, researchers compared students who chose an SLC on the basis of cur-

riculum theme with those who were randomly assigned to a subunit (Oxley et al., 2000). In the

two study schools whose SLCs are organized around curriculum themes and career interests, enter-

ing students generally chose SLCs different from those their best friends selected and got to know

students they otherwise would not have met. In these schools, students developed positive identifi -

cations with SLC teachers and peers based on shared learning interests and styles. In the third study

school with transition-year subunits to which students are randomly assigned, students struggled

to overcome their teachers’ negative perceptions of fi rst-year students and to distinguish themselves

from less serious students.

SLCs whose curricular programs intentionally or unintentionally attract lower or higher achieving

students create tensions among SLCs and long-term instability of small unit organization (Oxley,

2001; Ready et al., 2000). In the study described above (Oxley et al., 2000), researchers also

compared students in schools with SLCs organized around curricular emphases with students in a

fourth school whose SLCs were organized around differing pedagogical philosophies (e.g., coop-

erative learning). Students in SLCs organized around pedagogy style tended to choose an SLC on

55

the basis of friends’ choices and parents’ beliefs about the SLC’s effectiveness and level of diffi culty.

These SLCs became identifi ed with relatively homogeneous groups of students in terms of ethnicity,

social class, gender, and academic aspirations.

SLCs organized around curricular themes are not immune to attracting socially or academically

homogeneous groups of students. For example, Wasley et al. (2000) found that schools-within-

schools, especially those with math and science themes, tended to attract higher achieving students

than the host school’s traditional classes.

SLC staff members’ ability to hold equally high standards and provide students an equal opportu-

nity to succeed is vital. Randomly assigning students to SLCs neither ensures equal standards and

opportunities nor engenders the kind of student motivation and interest that curricular themes do.

Counselor works as integral member of SLC team

School counselors are assigned to particular SLCs in order to work closely with SLC teams in

responding to students’ needs. In this way, counselors and teachers are more likely to intervene

with students in an informed and consistent manner.

Staff members of successful small learning communities interact with students across multiple roles

and contexts: as teacher, advisor, student admissions coordinator, and so on (Ancess, 1995; Oxley,

1990, 1997b). In such communities, counselors use their individual and group process skills to

help teachers organize student advisories, parent conferences, and classroom groups as well as to

counsel students (Oxley, 1993). Counselors with teacher certifi cation may also teach in the SLC.

Special educators/remediation specialists work as integral members of SLC team

Teaching specialists, including special education staff, are assigned to SLCs and work closely with the

teacher teams to organize and carry out instruction and student support (Oxley, 1993, 1997a, b).

Specialists’ integration with teacher teams replaces the traditional school practice of addressing stu-

dents’ learning needs in separate, specialized contexts apart from mainstream classrooms. Integrated

teams—with their augmented range of expertise—work with inclusive classes to provide consistent

instructional interventions, to avoid negative student labels, and to give special education students the

same choices as other students. These practices are consistent with communal school organization as

well as special education inclusion (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996) and the goal of the Individuals with Dis-

abilities Education Act to meet students’ needs in the least restrictive environment possible.

Unfortunately, the record of small learning communities’ inclusion of special education students

has been weak (McMullan et al., 1994; Wasley et al., 2000). Exclusion of special education students

from SLCs may seem to lighten the instructional burden, but at the same time excludes special

56

educators with pedagogical expertise needed to help content-area specialists diversify their instruc-

tional strategies. Yet, there is broad consensus that use of diverse instructional strategies holds a key

to educational effectiveness (Legters et al., 2002).

Teams make innovative fl exible use of time/space to meet needs of all students

Teachers respond fl exibly to student learning needs in part by taking full advantage of blocks of

instructional time and physical space to organize instruction in accordance with those needs (Dar-

ling-Hammond et al., 2002; Kemple & Herlihy, 2004; McPartland et al., 1998; Oxley, 1997b; Ratzki

& Fisher, 1990).

Traditional schools typically require students who fail to master the curriculum in the allotted

time to repeat failed classes and grades or participate in separate remedial courses or programs.

SLC structure gives teachers greater fl exibility to tailor instruction to the interests and needs of a

heterogeneous group of students. Successful SLCs adjust instructional time on an ongoing basis.

SLC teams create double as well as single periods of instruction during the week; teach extra

periods of instruction in core courses to fewer classes of students by fully integrating an elec-

tive into the core program; and gather up minutes that are allocated but not needed for passing

between adjacent classrooms and use them to lengthen advisory or other classes (Oxley, 1997a,

b). They create advisory periods of varying lengths of time during the week and arrange for

students to carry out community service to create teacher planning time (Meier, 1995). Inter-

disciplinary teams double instruction time in English and math, permitting students to complete

Algebra 1 by the end of ninth grade even if they spent the fi rst half of the year in Pre-Algebra

(Kemple & Herlihy, 2004).

Instruction is tailored to diverse students’ needs

Teachers group students for specialized instruction within the team and diversify learning activities

to increase routes to mastery (Legters et al., 2002; McPartland et al., 1998; Oxley, 1997a, b). SLC

teams design and provide the support needed. A special education teacher assigned to an SLC team

collaborates with four content teachers to differentiate instruction for groups that include students

who are not passing tests and those who require more challenging assignments. The special educa-

tor teams with a content teacher within his/her classroom or divides the entire group of students

into fi ve smaller classes for instruction (Oxley, 1997b). Teams develop multiple means for students

to demonstrate equal standards of profi ciency (Ancess, 1995). In sum, SLC teams take responsibil-

ity for meeting all their students’ needs rather than refer students to teachers without knowledge of

these students or ability to provide coherence and continuity of instruction (Wasley et al., 2000).

57

Teachers advise/mentor students

Staff members of successful SLCs meet regularly with small groups of advisees to monitor and

troubleshoot their academic progress (Ancess, 1995; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Oxley, 1997b;

McPartland et al., 1998).

Each SLC teacher advises and mentors a small group of students on a regular, ongoing basis as a

means to further personalize teaching and learning (Legters et al., 2002). Advisories with teacher/

student ratios that range from 1:25 to 1:10 meet once a day to once a week. Teachers discuss

personal as well as academic issues of concern to students (e.g., rules, graduation requirements, dif-

fi culties students are having) and contact parents as needed.

Teachers collaborate with parents

The small learning community conception of teaching and learning rests on the view that optimal

teaching occurs in a context in which teachers, students, and parents know each other and share a

commitment to the school’s particular mission (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Oxley, 1994b). The broad

base of collaboration serves to expand teachers’ knowledge of students’ learning needs and the

means to increase the consistency of students’ educational experiences. Parent collaboration allows

for more consistent communication of expectations and strategies for learning, which is key to pro-

gram coherence and increased student achievement (Newmann et al., 2001a, b).

59

3. Inclusive

Program

and

Instru

ctional P

racti

cies

SLC

mem

bers

hip

is b

ased

on

stud

ents

’ and

teac

hers

’ int

eres

t and

cho

ice

to e

nsur

e eq

uita

ble

acce

ssSt

uden

ts a

nd te

ache

rs c

hoos

e th

eir

SLC.

Stud

ents

and

teac

hers

cho

ose

thei

r SL

C; s

taff

off

ers

info

rmat

ion

abou

t SLC

s in

a v

arie

ty o

f fo

rmat

s (c

ouns

elor

s, e

ight

h-gr

ade

pres

enta

tion

s, b

roch

ures

)

Stud

ents

and

teac

hers

cho

ose

thei

r SL

C; s

taff

off

ers

info

rmat

ion

abou

t SLC

s in

a v

arie

ty o

f for

mat

s, m

oni-

tors

ent

erin

g st

uden

ts’ c

hara

cter

istic

s, a

nd a

djus

ts p

ro-

gram

to a

ttrac

t and

ret

ain

dive

rse

grou

p of

stu

dent

s.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

60

SLC

cla

ss s

ched

ules

are

the

sam

e as

the

scho

olw

ide

sche

dule

/allo

t unv

aryi

ng p

erio

ds o

f ti

me

for

sub-

ject

s.

Team

s sc

hedu

le b

lock

of

tim

e ac

cord

ing

to le

arni

ng

acti

viti

es a

nd s

tude

nts’

lear

ning

nee

ds.

Team

s ad

d in

stru

ctio

nal t

ime

for

rem

edia

l/ho

nors

w

ork,

use

onl

ine

tech

nolo

gy, a

nd p

ursu

e/cr

eate

le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

out

side

sch

ool o

r sc

hool

day

.

Team

s us

e tim

e an

d lo

catio

n fl e

xibl

y to

mee

t stu

dent

s’ le

arni

ng n

eeds

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

61

Team

s ta

ilor i

nstr

uctio

n to

div

erse

stu

dent

s’ n

eeds

Teac

hers

var

y w

hole

-cla

ss in

stru

ctio

n w

ith

smal

l gr

oup

and

indi

vidu

aliz

ed w

ork.

Teac

hers

use

a v

arie

ty o

f in

stru

ctio

nal s

trat

egie

s an

d of

fer

alte

rnat

ive

assi

gnm

ents

and

met

hods

of

dem

-on

stra

ting

kno

wle

dge

to g

ive

stud

ents

a c

hoic

e.

Stud

ent c

hoic

e in

ass

ignm

ents

and

met

hods

of

dem

onst

rati

ng k

now

ledg

e is

a r

egul

ar f

eatu

re o

f w

ork;

cho

ices

refl

ect

stu

dent

s’ v

arie

d st

reng

ths,

le

arni

ng s

tyle

s, c

ultu

ral e

xper

ienc

e, a

nd n

eeds

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

62

Teac

her s

peci

alis

ts a

re in

tegr

al m

embe

rs o

f tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng te

ams

Spec

ial/

ELL

teac

hers

are

ass

igne

d to

team

s bu

t te

ach

stud

ents

wit

h sp

ecia

l nee

ds o

utsi

de S

LC

clas

ses.

Spec

ial/

ELL

teac

hers

are

ass

igne

d to

team

s, h

elp

diff

eren

tiat

e in

stru

ctio

n, w

ork

wit

h in

divi

dual

stu

-de

nts

in in

clus

ive

clas

ses.

Team

s of

reg

ular

and

spe

cial

edu

cati

on te

ache

rs

plan

cur

ricu

lum

and

inst

ruct

ion,

div

ide

up s

tude

nts

to c

reat

e sm

all,

incl

usiv

e cl

asse

s.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

63

Cou

nsel

ors

wor

k ex

clus

ivel

y w

ith

stud

ents

in S

LC

to w

hich

they

are

ass

igne

d.C

ouns

elor

s w

ork

excl

usiv

ely

wit

h st

uden

ts in

SLC

s to

whi

ch th

ey a

re a

ssig

ned

and

assi

st w

ith

spec

ial

proj

ects

and

lear

ning

act

ivit

ies.

Cou

nsel

ors

wor

k ex

clus

ivel

y w

ith

stud

ents

in S

LCs

to w

hich

they

are

ass

igne

d an

d ar

e in

tegr

al m

em-

bers

of

the

inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am.

Cou

nsel

ors

are

inte

gral

mem

bers

of t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

team

s

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

64

Teac

hers

adv

ise/

men

tor s

tude

nts

All

team

mem

bers

hol

d w

eekl

y ad

viso

ry lo

ng

enou

gh f

or in

divi

dual

mee

ting

s w

ith

stud

ents

.A

ll te

am m

embe

rs h

old

wee

kly

advi

sory

long

en

ough

for

who

le-g

roup

act

ivit

y or

indi

vidu

al

mee

ting

s.

Stud

ents

lead

reg

ular

ly s

ched

uled

adv

isor

ies

wit

h ti

me

to p

lan

SLC

act

ivit

ies

and

even

ts f

or p

aren

ts

duri

ng th

e ye

ar.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

65

Team

s co

llabo

rate

with

par

ents

Team

s co

ntac

t par

ents

via

e-m

ail/

tele

phon

e an

d in

pe

rson

as

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nts’

nee

ds d

icta

te.

Team

s co

mm

unic

ate

wit

h pa

rent

s vi

a e-

mai

l/te

le-

phon

e, in

per

son

as n

eede

d; m

eet w

ith

all p

aren

ts

abou

t stu

dent

s’ p

rogr

ess

at le

ast o

nce

per

year

.

Team

s co

mm

unic

ate

wit

h pa

rent

s vi

a e-

mai

l/te

le-

phon

e, a

nd i

n pe

rson

as

need

ed; a

nd o

rgan

ize

a va

riet

y of

eve

nts

to a

llow

par

ents

to

look

at,

disc

uss

stud

ents

’ wor

k an

d pr

ogre

ss.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

66

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eIn

clus

ive

prog

ram

and

pra

ctic

es

SLC

memb

ersh

ip ba

sed o

n tea

cher

s’ an

d stud

ents’

inter

est

and c

hoice

to en

sure

eq

uitab

le ac

cess

Team

s use

time/s

pace

fl e

xibly

to me

et ne

eds

of all

stud

ents

Team

s tail

or in

struc

tion

to div

erse

stud

ents’

ne

eds

Spec

ial ed

ucati

on

and E

LL in

struc

tors

are i

ntegr

al me

mber

s of

SLC

teams

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

67

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eIn

clus

ive

prog

ram

and

pra

ctic

es

Coun

selor

s are

integ

ral

memb

ers o

f SLC

team

Team

s adv

ise/m

entor

stu

dents

Team

s coll

abor

ate w

ith

pare

nts

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

68

Anal

yze

stra

tegi

es t

o ad

opt

Incl

usiv

e pr

ogra

m a

nd p

ract

ices

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Desc

riptio

n

of str

ategie

s

Need

s tha

t it ad

dres

ses

and o

ther s

treng

ths

Scho

ol str

ength

s, un

iquen

ess

it buil

ds on

Profe

ssion

al de

velop

ment

and

resou

rce re

quire

ments

Need

for c

hang

e, ad

justm

ent

in oth

er ar

eas o

f the s

choo

l

69

Impl

emen

t th

e Pl

anIn

clus

ive

prog

ram

and

pra

ctic

es

WHO

will

tak

e..

wha

t AC

TION

S to

impl

emen

t ad

opte

d st

rate

gies

Se

pt

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r M

ay

June

Ju

ly

Aug

70

Gaug

e Su

cces

sH

ow w

e w

ill kn

ow if

we

impl

emen

ted

Incl

usiv

e Pr

ogra

m a

nd P

ract

ices

suc

cess

fully

?

Stud

ent

lear

ning

and

pro

gram

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

Ho

w o

bjec

tives

will

be

mea

sure

d Ho

w o

ften

/whe

n to

col

lect

dat

a

71

6. SLC-Based Continuous Program Improvement


� Teams refl ect on practice and engage in

continuous program improvement

� Teams use a variety of student data to refl ect

on practice

� Teams use input from stakeholders and

other critical friends to refl ect on practice

� Teams set and pursue professional

development goals that match with SLC

improvement needs

In a nutshell



…SLCs operate most effectively when teachers work as learning teams: they ask questions about

the adequacy of their practice; gather and analyze information designed to answer their questions;

and make decisions about how to modify their practice with input from students, stakeholders, and

knowledgeable colleagues. Learning teams also develop their own professional development plans

and as a result are better able to apply their training to program needs.

72

In detail


Teams refl ect on practice and engage in continuous improvement with stakehold-ers and other critical friends

Research indicates that small learning communities will realize their promise only if SLC teams

engage in a continuous process of improvement (Christman & Macpherson, 1996; Oxley, 2001).

Full implementation of small learning communities—as well as ongoing efforts to deepen prac-

tice—requires regular team refl ection on practice, including analysis of students’ work and percep-

tions of the program. Building-level examination of student outcomes may complement SLC teams’

refl ection on their practice but cannot replace it.

SLC teachers, who embody a spirit of inquiry and demonstrate an interest in learning, help to estab-

lish a modus operandi for the entire community (Senge et al., 2000).

Teams use a variety of student data to refl ect on practice

School staff members’ experience suggests that a variety of data is helpful to refl ecting on practice.

Students’ work, grades, and standardized test scores are key pieces of data to examine. Teams may

also need to fi nd out what students do after they graduate, what educational opportunities they

are able to pursue, and what course levels they are able to take. This becomes practicable when SLC

teachers and their partners assemble a simple telephone survey and call graduates to see what they

are doing. The information they gather will tell them if students’ level of mastery of the SLC cur-

riculum was adequate to gain them admission to higher education or job training opportunities

and to avoid remedial coursework.

Teams may also fi nd it important to gather information on incoming students’ backgrounds to

determine if the SLC program succeeds in attracting a diverse group of students. Students’ ethnicity

and socioeconomic status are often apparent to teachers, but systematic examination of such data

may reveal patterns that teachers did not detect informally. Persistent trends in admitting students

from lower or higher income levels may indicate the need to review how information about the

SLC is conveyed to students and parents, as well as how students and parents experience the pro-

gram once in it.

73

Teams use input from stakeholders and other critical friends to refl ect on practice

When considering ways to improve practice, teachers can benefi t from students’ routine involve-

ment in identifying problems and weaknesses and possible solutions (Ancess, 1995). Improving

practice also requires consideration of the perceptions of parents, administrators, and other teach-

ers whose outside perspective can broaden that of SLC teachers (Oxley, 1997b). In order to involve

stakeholders in a meaningful way, SLC teachers must provide them with adequate information,

especially access to classrooms and student work. Research organizations such as regional educa-

tional laboratories and universities can also help teams develop practical student data collection and

analysis routines they can use on an ongoing basis (Christman & Macpherson, 1996).

Teams set and pursue professional development goals that match SLC improve-ment needs

SLC teams identify and develop professional development opportunities that help them pursue their

mission and specifi c improvement goals (Christman & Macpherson, 1996; Darling-Hammond et

al., 2002; Wasley et al., 2000).

SLC teams avail themselves of both external and internal professional development, but to a large

extent arrange for exchanges among colleagues to enhance professional skills (Darling-Hammond

et al., 2002). What is distinctive in either case is SLC teachers’ own identifi cation of the particular

kind of professional development they need. As a result, SLC teachers have a better grasp than tradi-

tional teachers do of how the professional development fi ts with their goals and plans and how they

will put new knowledge and skill to use (Wasley et al., 2000).

75

4. Contin

uous P

rogram

Imp

roveme

nt

Team

s en

gage

in c

ontin

uous

pro

gram

impr

ovem

ent

Team

s ex

amin

e st

uden

t out

com

es a

t end

of e

ach

year

, re

ly o

n pr

ogra

m e

valu

ator

or

dist

rict

/sch

ool l

eade

rs to

co

llect

/ana

lyze

dat

a, a

gree

on

chan

ges

to m

ake.

Team

s ex

amin

e st

uden

t out

com

es a

t end

of g

radi

ng

peri

ods,

eng

age

as p

artn

er w

ith d

istr

ict/

scho

ol le

ader

s in

pro

gram

rev

iew

, agr

ee o

n ch

ange

s to

mak

e.

Stud

ents

pro

vide

feed

back

dur

ing

the

cour

se o

f all

activ

ities

; tea

ms

revi

ew s

tude

nt o

utco

mes

at e

nd o

f al

l maj

or u

nits

of w

ork,

dev

elop

ow

n im

med

iate

and

lo

ng-t

erm

pla

ns fo

r pr

ogra

m im

prov

emen

t.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

76

Team

s us

e sc

hool

wid

e st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t and

at

tend

ance

dat

a to

refl

ect

on

thei

r pr

acti

ce a

t the

en

d of

eac

h ye

ar.

Team

s us

e st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t and

att

enda

nce

data

for

the

stud

ents

in th

eir

SLC

to r

efl e

ct o

n th

eir

prac

tice

at m

id-

and

end-

of-y

ear

poin

ts.

Team

s re

gula

rly

anal

yze

thei

r st

uden

ts’ w

ork,

gra

des/

test

sco

res,

atte

ndan

ce, s

ucce

ss b

eyon

d sc

hool

, and

de

mog

raph

ic d

ata

to im

prov

e th

eir

prac

tice.

Team

s us

e a

varie

ty o

f stu

dent

dat

a to

refl e

ct o

n pr

actic

e

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

77

Team

s us

e st

akeh

olde

rs’ a

nd c

olle

ague

s’ in

put t

o re

fl ect

on

prac

tice

Team

s w

ork

wit

h sc

hool

lead

ers

and

eval

uato

r to

st

udy

data

and

idea

s fo

r im

prov

ing

prac

tice

.Te

ams

wor

k w

ith

scho

ol le

ader

s an

d ev

alua

tor

and

solic

it p

aren

ts’ a

nd c

omm

unit

y pa

rtne

rs’ o

bser

va-

tion

s of

pro

gram

and

stu

dent

wor

k to

impr

ove

prac

tice

.

Team

s in

volv

e pa

rent

s, c

omm

unit

y pa

rtne

rs, a

nd

eval

uato

r in

all

aspe

cts

of p

lann

ing

and

impr

ove-

men

t and

gat

her

colle

gial

inpu

t on

stud

ent w

ork

and

new

mat

eria

ls.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

78

Team

s se

t and

pur

sue

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t goa

ls th

at m

atch

SLC

impr

ovem

ent n

eeds

Team

s at

tend

dis

tric

t/sc

hool

-org

aniz

ed p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent s

essi

ons.

Team

s so

licit

and

pur

sue

idea

s fo

r pr

ofes

sion

al

deve

lopm

ent

that

add

ress

ide

ntifi

ed

need

s.Te

ams

form

ulat

e an

nual

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

-m

ent

plan

s th

at i

nclu

de t

eam

pla

nnin

g, c

olle

gial

ex

chan

ge, a

nd e

xper

t tr

aine

rs t

o ad

dres

s sp

ecifi

c

iden

tifi e

d ne

eds.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

79

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eC

ontin

uous

pro

gram

impr

ovem

ent

Team

s eng

age i

n

conti

nuou

s pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t

Team

s use

a va

riety

of stu

dent

data

to re

fl ect

on pr

actic

e

Team

s use

stake

holde

rs’ an

d co

lleag

ues’

input

to re

fl ect

on pr

actic

e

Team

s set

and p

ursu

e pr

ofess

ional

deve

lop-

ment

goals

that

match

SLC

impr

ovem

ent

need

s

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

80

Anal

yze

stra

tegi

es t

o ad

opt

Con

tinuo

us p

rogr

am im

prov

emen

t

Desc

riptio

n

of str

ategie

s

Need

s tha

t it ad

dres

ses

and o

ther s

treng

ths

Scho

ol str

ength

s, un

iquen

ess

it buil

ds on

Profe

ssion

al de

velop

ment

and

resou

rce re

quire

ments

Need

for c

hang

e, ad

justm

ent

in oth

er ar

eas o

f the s

choo

l

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

81

Impl

emen

t th

e Pl

anC

ontin

uous

pro

gram

impr

ovem

ent

WHO

will

tak

e..

wha

t AC

TION

S to

impl

emen

t ad

opte

d st

rate

gies

Se

pt

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r M

ay

June

Ju

ly

Aug

82

Gaug

e Su

cces

sH

ow w

e w

ill kn

ow if

we

impl

emen

ted

Con

tinuo

us P

rogr

am Im

prov

emen

t suc

cess

fully

?

Stud

ent

lear

ning

and

pro

gram

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

Ho

w o

bjec

tives

will

be

mea

sure

d Ho

w o

ften

/whe

n to

col

lect

dat

a

83

7. Building- and District-Level Support for SLCs

Best Practices Checklist for Building-Level Support:

� Buildingwide improvement goals align

with SLC needs

� Academic area goals align with SLC needs

� Building-level provisions for professional

development meet SLC needs

� Class scheduling and staffi ng are adjusted

to strengthen SLC programs

� Academic track/alternative program changes

are made to increase choice and challenge

across all programs

� Building-level policies are enacted to strengthen SLC self-governance

In a nutshell



…SLCs that have the most success with their students are not add-ons to the existing school organiza-

tion. They are the fundamental building blocks of school organization and the center of school activities.

Restructuring schools in this manner depends on aligning policies and practices across all organizational

units. Schools’ improvement plans—including their provisions for professional development—serve the

goals and objectives of SLC programs. Academic areas operate to advance SLC program development.

Successful SLCs also depend on the adoption of new principles of organizing and governing staff

and students at the building level. Most centralized functions and resources, including staff, are

shifted to SLCs to empower teacher cadres with extensive knowledge of students to respond effec-

tively to students’ learning needs. Administrators and content-area leaders participate directly in as

well as provide necessary forms of support for SLCs. SLC program needs drive class scheduling. Staff

restructures or eliminates at-risk and honors programs so that student achievement level is not a de

facto determinant of SLC membership, and high standards are a feature of all programs.

84

In detail


Buildingwide improvement goals align with SLC needs

The school’s improvement process and goals must be consistent with SLCs’ practices and needs for

improvement.

Numerous unrelated school goals and reforms detract from full and faithful implementation of any

one promising reform (Cohen, 1995). Frequently reforms, including SLCs, do not advance beyond

an initial stage of implementation before a new reform initiative emerges and fragments existing

reform efforts. School improvement efforts that encompass sustained coherent strategies are more

likely to promote successful student outcomes (Newmann et al., 2001a, b).

Academic department goals align with SLC needs

Academic department goals must support SLCs’ interdisciplinary teamwork. The emphasis of

instructional leadership must be to accommodate interdisciplinary needs and approaches to teach-

ing (McMullan, 1994; Ratzki & Fisher, 1990).

Cross-disciplinary teams may operate in tandem with cross-SLC academic discipline-based teams.

Both serve important ends. Academic discipline-based planning helps to ensure that interdisciplin-

ary programs incorporate important discipline-based knowledge and skills and are aligned with

content standards. Experts in curriculum integration (e.g., project-based learning) do not see aca-

demic disciplines as detractors, but rather as the wells from which interdisciplinary programs draw

(Allen, 2001; Beane, 1995).

Practically speaking, however, the operation of both SLC and academic discipline-based teams can create

competition for reform priorities and available planning time (McMullan, 1994; Oxley, 2001). SLC teams

combine teachers from academic departments whose preferred pedagogical approaches may differ, and

their efforts to develop authentic curricula often lead them to deviate from pacing and content of stan-

dardized discipline-based curricula. SLC teams’ curriculum development work also requires large blocks

of time while planning time must also be allocated to departments and schoolwide staff meetings. How

instructional leaders resolve these confl icts says a lot about the school’s commitment to small learning

community/student-centered practice and ultimately decides the success of SLC implementation.

85

Building-level provisions for staff planning/development meet SLC needs

Building-level provisions for professional development should refl ect a sustained commitment to

building capacity and consensus among teachers, parents, and administrators for implementing SLC

essential practices (Christman & Macpherson, 1996; Wasley et al., 2000).

Different school improvement initiatives tend to travel along different channels, involve different

groups of people, and have weak links to teacher practice (Cohen, 1995). Professional development is

needed as a tool to create a coherent framework for school reform activities. Professional development

should be designed to help teachers strengthen connections among their efforts to develop more

engaging and authentic curricula, raise standards for student performance, and build community—in

short, it should carry out a coherent vision of SLC practice (Christman & Macpherson, 1996).

Class scheduling and staffi ng are adjusted to strengthen SLC programs

In schools with successful small learning communities, changes in class scheduling and staffi ng were

made to allow SLC teams to implement innovative curriculum and instruction programs (Ancess,

1995, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2001; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Oxley 1990, 1997b; Ratzki &

Fisher, 1990). These programs use a variety of strategies to reduce the number of students that teams

instruct and to extend the amount of instructional time they have with students. Increased instruc-

tional time with fewer students allows teams to be more responsive to individual student’s needs and

to pursue community and project-based learning requiring large blocks of time.

Shifts in building-level staffi ng and class scheduling to reduce student/teacher ratios and increase

instructional time include allotting more non-instructional staff time to teaching (Gambon, Klem,

Moore, & Summers, 2002; Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997), folding separate remedial programs

into core subject-area instruction (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997; Oxley, 1990, 1997b), creat-

ing more planning time for teachers (Ancess, 1995; Gambone et al., 2002; Meier, 1995; Oxley,

1997b) and creating a 4x4 extended-period block schedule (Gambone et al., 2002).

Staffs of schools qualifying for schoolwide Title I funds folded separate reading classes into regular

core subject-area classes. They also assigned reading specialists to SLC teams to help organize read-

ing-across-the-curriculum, as well as teach core subjects (Oxley, 1990, 1993). The reading classes

with reduced class size were transformed into an extra period of instruction per week in each of the

four core content areas. Instead of the usual practice of teaching fi ve classes of students fi ve periods

each for a total of 25 periods per week, team members taught four classes for the same number of

periods of instruction. In this way, teams reduced the number of students with which they worked

from 150 to 120 and increased the amount of instructional time they had with each class.

In a school without federal funding, SLC team members who implemented project-based learning

were given a project period to teach in lieu of a sixth class of students (Oxley, 2002). They used the

period to extend instructional time in their core subject to pursue projects. Since each SLC teacher

taught one less core subject-area class, administrators augmented staffi ng in these areas through

reclaiming some staff members’ non-instructional time.

In another transformed school, teachers in one small school work exclusively with 100 students.

Each staff member carries out student advisement and admission as well as teaching to minimize

the student-teacher ratio (Ancess, 1995; Raywid, 1996).

Dual certifi cation, which some U.S. teachers and all German teachers have, is another means of

allowing teachers to teach the same students across courses to reduce the overall number of stu-

dents they teach. In German secondary schools, including those that have been restructured into

learning communities, each teacher instructs 90 students (Ratzki & Fisher, 1990).

Academic track/alternative program changes are made to increase student choice and academic challenge across all programs and SLCs

Schools that organize small learning communities simultaneously revamp dropout programs and

academic tracks in order to make student choice and academic challenge viable SLC educational

strategies (Fine & Somerville, 1998; Oxley, 1994a, 1997b).

To the extent that small learning communities coexist with dropout and tracked programs, they

become a de facto track. Students, parents, and teachers look to higher academic track courses for

academic challenge, to dropout programs for remediation and socialization, and to small learning

communities for something in between. Students’ history of academic achievement drives program

choice rather than substantive curricular interests. It is diffi cult for teachers and students alike to

pursue high academic standards where programs imply judgments of student ability (Weinstein,

1996).

Research shows that academic tracks are associated with assignment of disproportionate numbers

of white, middle-class students to higher tracks and ethnic minority, lower-class students to lower

tracks (Oakes, 1985, 1995). SLCs that operate as de facto tracks replicate these social class dispari-

ties (Ready et al., 2000) as well as the inadequacies of remedial programs (Grannis, 1991; Wong &

Wang, 1994). Consequently, dropout programs and tracked courses must also offer student choice

and distinctive substantive program offerings.

The necessity of school-level detracking does not rule out the practice of grouping students within

SLCs on an ad hoc and fl uid basis. Several SLC models create opportunities for remediation within

the SLC’s elective offerings (McPartland et al., 1998; Oxley 1993). For example, tutorial and inde-

pendent study periods can be linked to core courses to provide additional support.

86

87

Building-level policies are enacted to strengthen building and SLC self-governance

A distinctive feature of successful small learning communities is SLC teams’ representation and

active participation in building-level decision-making bodies (Cook, 2000; Oxley, 2001; Ratzki &

Fisher, 1990).

Governance councils in schools with small learning communities make SLC representation com-

mensurate with SLCs’ status as the major unit of building organization. These councils may contain

representatives of additional groups, including special education and academic disciplines.

Administrators assume supervisory and teaching roles in SLCs in addition to carrying out building-

level administrative tasks. In schools that have successfully implemented small learning communi-

ties on a schoolwide basis, the principal facilitates a shared decision-making process and serves as

an integral member of an SLC team (Cook, 2000; Ratzki & Fisher, 1990).

Assignment of administrators to SLCs is consistent with the idea that SLC staff members are better

positioned than centralized staff to respond to their students’ needs. They have more knowledge

of their students, easier access, and can make consistent interventions across their students’ classes.

To the extent that SLC teams look out for their students’ needs, including discipline, they free up

centralized staff to take on instructional leadership and teaching roles within SLCs. Administrators’

participation in SLCs reduces student-teacher ratios and increases the diversity of academic exper-

tise and support available to students within their SLC. In a larger sense, administrator participation

in SLCs leverages the transformation of traditional school structures that compete with small learn-

ing communities in the areas of decision making and resource allocation (Oxley, 2001).

District-Level Support for SLCs

Emerging Practices:

❑ District standardizes policies needed to

support SLC practice

❑ Policies strengthen SLC self-governance

❑ District negotiates teachers’ union contract

provisions to meet SLC staffi ng needs

❑ Provisions for professional development

increase SLC teams’ capacity for instructional

innovation

❑ District staffi ng and budgeting practices give

schools fl exibility in allocating resources to

meet SLC needs

In a nutshell

Why These Practices Are Important

Studies of restructuring districts suggest…

…districts can play a supportive role in SLC development and institutionalization when they

standardize policies that support SLC development across all schools, negotiate teachers’ union

contracts that enable SLC staff members to hire teachers needed to maintain program integrity,

and shift authority to schools while holding them accountable for meeting academic standards.

Increased school authority must be accompanied by increased fl exibility in how school staff allo-

cates resources including staff positions. Finally, districts can support SLCs’ instructional innovation

through professional development that recognizes the centrality of SLC team collaboration and

resources needed for it, e.g., planning time, student data system that disaggregates data by SLC.

88

89

In detail Why These Practices Are Important

District standardizes policies needed to support SLC operation

Reviewing and modifying district policies to increase support for SLC development appear to

offer greater advantages over granting policy waivers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Raywid,

Schmerler, Phillips, & Smith, 2003; Rizzo, 2000). Districts will sometimes grant schools waivers

from standard policies to enable staff to pursue key, innovative small learning community practices.

School schedules that permit regular late starts for team planning or curricula that integrate content

of multiple subject areas are examples of practices that have been impossible or diffi cult to pursue

without exceptions to district policies. But waivers are readily rescinded or allowed to lapse under

new leadership. They may also create tensions among schools operating under unequal policies.

Perhaps most important, policy by waiver communicates that regular policies are adequate for

most schools rather than being unresponsive to local school needs or, worse, inconsistent with new

empirically based knowledge. In such a policy environment, school staff members are less likely to

persist in developing innovative practices that become optimally effective and sustainable.

District policies strengthen building-level self-governance

The general shift of decision-making authority from district to school and from school to

teachers to increase their infl uence over school policy and practice is a key feature of successfully

restructured schools (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Rizzo, 2000). Deregulation that provides

autonomy for schools to pursue their vision of high intellectual standards including the authority

to hire staff consistent with the school’s vision contributes to the capacity of school staff to work

well as a unit. Staffs of such schools were able to form strong professional communities capable of

offering authentic pedagogy and promoting student achievement.

School autonomy in allocating resources, determining the curricular and instructional program,

and scheduling the school day and year as well as autonomy in staff hiring appear to be vital to

small learning community functioning (AIR & SRI, 2004). These autonomies of practice go against

the grain of the traditional, top-down approach to educational management which emphasizes

schools’ compliance with district directives and allocates considerable resources to oversight rather

than to the empowerment of school-level professionals.

District and teachers’ union negotiate contract provisions for meeting SLCs’ staff-ing needs

SLCs’ unique program identities and offerings create special staffi ng demands and, in turn, a need for

policies to fi ll them (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Raywid, Schmerler, Phillips, & Smith, 2003).

In many districts, teacher hiring that is based on seniority has proven a barrier to staffi ng SLCs with

90

teachers needed to carry out the SLC’s particular program. A teacher with special SLC qualifi cations

such as dual certifi cation, ability to teach two particular levels of math, or interest in program themes

can make or break an SLC’s program. Districts such as New York City point the way to more fl exible

policies. The New York City Board of Education negotiated a teachers’ union contract that allows

schools to suspend seniority with 50 percent agreement of staff. The effect was to give staff fl exibility

in teacher hiring without jettisoning considerations for seniority altogether. Ultimately, the teachers’

union supported a peer selection process in which SLC staff members interview and select staff.

District provisions for professional development increase SLC teams’ capacity for instructional innovation

District support for SLCs, particularly instructional innovation is most effective when it takes the

form of a professional development strategy that strengthens the effectiveness of collaboration

among SLC team members (Supovitz & Christman, 2005). Such a strategy legitimizes SLC leader-

ship, creates opportunities for SLC teachers to meet as a team, and helps teams secure professional

development tailored to their needs.

An effective district professional development strategy further builds SLC teams’ capacity to

improve their practice by helping teams develop data on their students’ achievement. At a mini-

mum, districts support teams’ examination of their practice in relation to student outcomes by

disaggregating school-level student data by SLCs and making these data available on a timely basis

(AIR & SRI, 2004; Supovitz & Christman, 2005).

District staffi ng and budgeting practices give schools fl exibility in allocating resources to meet SLC needs

Several districts altered their school staffi ng and funding methods to give school staffs more fl exibility

in allocating resources to support innovative SLC practices. For example, some districts adopted stu-

dent-based budgeting which allots a given amount of dollars per pupil plus extra funds for students

with special needs. This method contrasts with allocating staff positions to schools and determining

teacher salaries on the basis of average teacher salaries, which disadvantages schools with inexperi-

enced teachers. Other districts continue to assign staff positions to schools but allow salaries for posi-

tions to be converted into other positions. For example, salary dedicated to an administrator position

could be used instead to hire two lower level staff (Allen & Steinberg 2004).

Ability to allocate resources in accordance with the particular needs of small learning communities

appears crucial to realizing their full potential (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997). Just as existing

patterns of resource allocation have evolved to support comprehensive school organization—large

numbers of specialized staff, course, and tracks- so resources need to be reallocated to support small

learning community practices—lower student/staff ratios, more instructional time devoted to the

core curriculum, and greater integration of special needs instruction with regular instruction. This

appears to be as true at the district level as at the building level.

91

5a.

Building-

Level Sup

port

for SLC

s

Bui

ldin

gwid

e im

prov

emen

t goa

ls a

lign

with

SLC

nee

dsSc

hool

impr

ovem

ent p

lan

incl

udes

SLC

goa

ls a

nd

need

s.Sc

hool

impr

ovem

ent p

lan

inco

rpor

ates

det

aile

d sc

hool

wid

e SL

C pl

an a

nd e

nsur

es a

lignm

ent o

f oth

er

refo

rms

with

it.

Build

ingw

ide

impr

ovem

ent p

lan

is d

rive

n by

SLC

’s vi

sion

and

goa

ls.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

92

Aca

dem

ic a

rea

team

s co

ntin

ue to

pla

y pr

imar

y ro

le in

cu

rric

ulum

and

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds w

ork;

sha

re a

utho

r-ity

with

SLC

team

s ov

er s

taffi

ng a

nd c

lass

sch

edul

es.

SLC

team

s ex

erci

se a

utho

rity

ove

r st

affi n

g an

d sc

hedu

les;

aca

dem

ic a

rea

team

s w

ork

on c

onte

nt

stan

dard

s, h

elp

SLC

team

s en

sure

that

inte

rdis

ci-

plin

ary

prog

ram

s ad

dres

s co

nten

t sta

ndar

ds.

SLC

team

s ha

ve a

utho

rity

ove

r cu

rric

ulum

, sta

ffi n

g,

sche

dule

s; a

cade

mic

are

a te

ams

func

tion

to a

ug-

men

t tea

cher

s’ s

ubje

ct a

rea

know

ledg

e an

d ex

per-

tise

in o

rder

to m

axim

ize

SLC

team

s’ e

ffec

tive

ness

.

Aca

dem

ic a

rea

(dep

artm

ent)

goal

s al

ign

with

SLC

nee

ds

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

93

Bui

ldin

g-le

vel p

rovi

sion

s fo

r sta

ff pl

anni

ng/d

evel

opm

ent m

eet S

LC n

eeds

Scho

ol s

taff

pla

nnin

g an

d de

velo

pmen

t day

s an

d re

sour

ces

addr

ess

scho

olw

ide

impr

ovem

ent n

eeds

.Sc

hool

sta

ff p

lann

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent d

ays,

re

sour

ces

are

dire

cted

to S

LC d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

impr

ovem

ent n

eeds

.

Scho

ol s

taff

pla

nnin

g an

d de

velo

pmen

t res

ourc

es

are

allo

cate

d to

SLC

s.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

94

Cla

ss s

ched

ulin

g an

d st

affi n

g ar

e ad

just

ed to

str

engt

hen

SLC

pro

gram

s

Build

ing-

leve

l sch

edul

e an

d st

affi n

g ac

com

mod

ate

min

imum

SLC

req

uire

men

ts f

or in

terd

isci

plin

ary

team

s an

d co

mm

on p

lann

ing

tim

e.

Build

ing-

leve

l sch

edul

e an

d st

affi n

g tr

ade

off

spe-

cial

ty c

urri

culu

m o

ffer

ings

to g

ive

SLC

team

s m

ore

core

inst

ruct

iona

l tim

e w

ith

thei

r st

uden

ts.

Build

ing-

leve

l sch

edul

e an

d st

affi n

g al

lot m

ore

non-

in

stru

ctio

nal s

taff

tim

e to

teac

hing

, use

dua

l-ce

rtifi

ed

teac

hers

, fol

d se

para

te r

emed

ial p

rogr

ams

into

cor

e su

bjec

t are

a in

stru

ctio

n, a

nd c

reat

e m

ore

plan

ning

tim

e.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

95

Hon

ors/

AP

clas

ses

are

offe

red

wit

hin

a pa

rtic

u-la

r SL

C th

at u

ses

prac

tice

s de

sign

ed to

att

ract

and

su

ppor

t a d

iver

se g

roup

of

stud

ents

; pro

gram

s fo

r at

-ris

k st

uden

ts li

mit

adm

issi

on to

ove

rage

stu

dent

s.

Hon

ors/

AP

stud

ents

and

at-

risk

stu

dent

s pa

rtic

ipat

e in

an

SLC

pro

gram

of t

heir

cho

ice

in a

dditi

on to

ho

nors

/AP

cour

ses

and

at-r

isk

prog

ram

s w

hich

are

sc

hedu

led

to a

ccom

mod

ate

SLC

blo

cks

of in

stru

ctio

n.

All

SLC

s of

fer

hono

rs o

ptio

ns fo

r co

urse

s an

d su

ppor

t fo

r at

-ris

k st

uden

ts a

nd m

eet s

peci

al s

tude

nt n

eeds

th

roug

h co

llabo

ratio

n w

ith o

ther

edu

catio

nal i

nstit

u-tio

ns a

nd a

genc

ies.

Aca

dem

ic tr

ack/

alte

rnat

ive

prog

ram

cha

nges

are

mad

e to

incr

ease

stu

dent

cho

ice

and

chal

leng

e ac

ross

all

prog

ram

s

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

96

Bui

ldin

g-le

vel p

olic

ies

are

enac

ted

to s

tren

gthe

n SL

C s

elf-g

over

nanc

e

Build

ing

adm

inis

trat

ors

empl

oy s

hare

d de

cisi

on

mak

ing;

SLC

team

s pa

rtic

ipat

e in

bui

ldin

g-le

vel

gove

rnan

ce w

ith

othe

r gr

oups

.

Build

ing

adm

inis

trat

ors

empl

oy s

hare

d de

cisi

on

mak

ing,

are

mem

bers

of

SLC

team

s; S

LC te

ams

par-

tici

pate

in g

over

nanc

e w

ith

othe

r gr

oups

.

Adm

inis

trat

or o

pera

tes

as b

uild

ing

man

ager

and

in

tegr

al m

embe

r of

SLC

; SLC

team

s ha

ve m

ajor

rol

e in

bui

ldin

g-le

vel g

over

nanc

e, a

ssum

e re

spon

sibi

lity

for

stud

ents

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

97

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eB

uild

ing-

leve

l sup

port

for S

LCs

Build

ingwi

de

impr

ovem

ent g

oals

align

with

SLC

need

s

Acad

emic-

area

goals

ali

gn w

ith S

LC ne

eds

Build

ing pr

ovisi

ons f

or

staff p

lannin

g/dev

elop-

ment

acco

mmod

ate

SLC

need

s

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eB

uild

ing-

leve

l sup

port

for S

LCs

Clas

s sch

eduli

ng an

d sta

ffi ng a

re ad

justed

to

stren

gthen

SLC

pr

ogra

ms

Acad

emic

track

/alt

erna

tive p

rogr

am ar

e ad

justed

to in

creas

e ch

oice a

nd ch

allen

ge

acro

ss al

l pro

gram

s

Build

ing-le

vel

polic

ies ar

e ena

cted

to str

ength

en S

LC

self-g

over

nanc

e

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

98

99

Anal

yze

stra

tegi

es t

o ad

opt

Bui

ldin

g-le

vel s

uppo

rt fo

r SLC

s

Desc

riptio

n

of str

ategie

s

Need

s tha

t it ad

dres

ses

and o

ther s

treng

ths

Scho

ol str

ength

s, un

iquen

ess

it buil

ds on

Profe

ssion

al de

velop

ment

and

resou

rce re

quire

ments

Need

for c

hang

e, ad

justm

ent

in oth

er ar

eas o

f the s

choo

l

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Impl

emen

t th

e Pl

anB

uild

ing-

leve

l sup

port

for S

LCs

WHO

will

tak

e..

wha

t AC

TION

S to

impl

emen

t ad

opte

d st

rate

gies

Se

pt

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r M

ay

June

Ju

ly

Aug

100

101

Gaug

e Su

cces

sH

ow w

e w

ill kn

ow if

we

impl

emen

ted

build

ing-

leve

l sup

port

for S

LCs

succ

essf

ully

?

Stud

ent

lear

ning

and

pro

gram

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

Ho

w o

bjec

tives

will

be

mea

sure

d Ho

w o

ften

/whe

n to

col

lect

dat

a

102

5b.

Distric

t-Le

vel Sup

port

for SLC

s

Dis

tric

t sta

ndar

dize

s po

licie

s ne

eded

to s

uppo

rt S

LC p

ract

ice

Dis

tric

t wai

ves

polic

ies

that

pos

e ba

rrie

rs to

impl

e-m

entin

g an

d su

stai

ning

SLC

s fo

r re

stru

ctur

ing

scho

ols

Dis

tric

t pro

activ

ely

enac

ts p

olic

ies

need

ed to

sup

port

im

plem

entin

g an

d su

stai

ning

SLC

s fo

r re

stru

ctur

ing

scho

ols.

Dis

tric

t ext

ends

pol

icie

s th

at s

uppo

rt im

plem

entin

g an

d su

stai

ning

SLC

s to

all

scho

ols

to a

lign

polic

y w

ith

rese

arch

-bas

ed p

ract

ice.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

103

Dis

tric

t pol

icy

supp

orts

bui

ldin

g-le

vel s

elf-

gove

rnan

ce

and

hold

s sc

hool

s ac

coun

tabl

e fo

r st

uden

t out

com

es.

Dis

tric

t pol

icy

supp

orts

dec

entr

aliz

atio

n of

dec

isio

n m

akin

g au

thor

ity to

SLC

s an

d ho

lds

scho

ols

and

SLC

s ac

coun

tabl

e fo

r st

uden

t out

com

es.

Dis

tric

t pol

icy

supp

orts

inno

vativ

e bu

ildin

g m

anag

e-m

ent (

e.g.

, par

t-tim

e ad

min

istr

ator

s w

ho te

ach,

SLC

te

ache

r le

ader

s) a

nd h

olds

SLC

s ac

coun

tabl

e.

Polic

ies

stre

ngth

en S

LC s

elf-g

over

nanc

e

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Dis

tric

t neg

otia

tes

teac

hers

’ uni

on c

ontr

act p

rovi

sion

s to

mee

t SLC

sta

ffi ng

nee

ds

Dis

tric

t and

teac

hers

uni

on n

egot

iate

sus

pens

ion

of

teac

her

seni

orit

y hi

ring

rul

e if

75

perc

ent o

f fa

culty

ag

rees

.

Dis

tric

t and

teac

hers

uni

on n

egot

iate

sus

pens

ion

of

teac

her

seni

orit

y hi

ring

rul

e if

50

perc

ent o

f fa

culty

ag

rees

.

Teac

hers

uni

on c

ontr

act a

llow

s pe

er h

irin

g to

em

pow

er S

LC te

ams

to m

aint

ain

inte

grit

y of

thei

r pr

ogra

ms.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

104

105

Dis

tric

t sta

ff p

lann

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent d

ays

and

reso

urce

s ad

dres

s sc

hool

wid

e im

prov

emen

t nee

ds.

Dis

tric

t sta

ff p

lann

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent d

ays

and

reso

urce

s ar

e fo

cuse

d on

SLC

dev

elop

men

t and

im

prov

emen

t.

Dis

tric

t em

ploy

s a

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t str

ateg

y th

at a

ligns

the

acco

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

with

sup

port

s fo

r ap

plyi

ng p

rofe

ssio

nal t

rain

ing

(e.g

., ad

equa

te ti

me

for

colla

bora

tive

plan

ning

, dat

a fo

r re

fl ect

ion

on S

LC

prac

tice.

)

Prov

isio

ns fo

r pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t inc

reas

e SL

C te

ams’

cap

acity

for i

nstr

uctio

nal i

nnov

atio

n

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Staf

fi ng

and

budg

etin

g pr

actic

es g

ive

scho

ols

fl exi

bilit

y in

allo

catin

g re

sour

ces

to m

eet S

LC n

eeds

Dis

tric

t allo

ws

scho

ols

to c

onve

rt a

llotm

ents

of

staf

f po

siti

ons

to m

eet S

LC n

eeds

.D

istr

ict u

ses

stud

ent-

base

d bu

dget

ing

or o

ther

st

rate

gy to

max

imiz

e eq

uity

in s

choo

l bud

gets

and

sc

hool

s’ fl

exib

ility

in a

lloca

ting

res

ourc

es.

Dis

tric

t pro

vide

s eq

uity

and

fl ex

ibili

ty in

sch

ool

budg

etin

g an

d ac

tive

ly s

uppo

rts

scho

ols’

eff

orts

to

dire

ct r

esou

rces

to te

achi

ng.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

106

107

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eD

istri

ct-le

vel s

uppo

rt fo

r SLC

s

Distr

ict st

anda

rdize

s po

licies

need

ed to

su

ppor

t SLC

prac

tices

Polic

ies st

reng

then

SLC

self-g

over

nanc

e

Distr

ict ne

gotia

tes

teach

ers’

union

con-

tract

prov

ision

s to m

eet

SLC

staffi n

g nee

ds

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

108

Iden

tify

gaps

bet

wee

n ex

istin

g an

d de

sired

pra

ctic

eD

istri

ct-le

vel s

uppo

rt fo

r SLC

s

Prov

ision

s for

profe

s-sio

nal d

evelo

pmen

t inc

reas

e SLC

team

s’ ca

pacit

y for

instr

uc-

tiona

l inno

vatio

n

Distr

ict st

affi ng

and

budg

eting

prac

tices

giv

e sch

ools

fl exib

ility

in all

ocati

ng re

sour

ces

to me

et SL

C ne

eds

Wha

t is

need

ed t

o m

ove

exist

ing

prac

tice

tow

ard

desir

ed p

ract

ice?

109

Anal

yze

stra

tegi

es t

o ad

opt

Dis

tric

t-le

vel s

uppo

rt fo

r S

LCs

Des

crip

tion

of s

trate

gies

Nee

ds th

at it

add

ress

es

and

othe

r stre

ngth

s

Scho

ol s

treng

ths,

uni

quen

ess

it bu

ilds

on

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t and

reso

urce

requ

irem

ents

Nee

d fo

r cha

nge,

adj

ustm

ent

in o

ther

are

as o

f the

sch

ool

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

Stra

tegy

St

rate

gy

110

Impl

emen

t th

e Pl

anD

istri

ct-le

vel s

uppo

rt fo

r SLC

s

WHO

will

tak

e..

wha

t AC

TION

S to

impl

emen

t ad

opte

d st

rate

gies

Se

pt

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r M

ay

June

Ju

ly

Aug

111

Gaug

e Su

cces

sH

ow w

e w

ill kn

ow if

we

impl

emen

ted

dist

rict-l

evel

sup

port

for S

LCs

succ

essf

ully

?

Stud

ent

lear

ning

and

pro

gram

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

Ho

w o

bjec

tives

will

be

mea

sure

d Ho

w o

ften

/whe

n to

col

lect

dat

a

113

ReferencesAllen, L. (with Almeida, C., & Steinberg, A.) (2001). Wall to wall: Implementing small learning communities

in fi ve Boston high schools (LAB Working Paper No. 3). Providence, RI: Brown University, Education

Alliance, Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown. Retrieved October

15, 2004, from www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/LABWorkPaper/Wall2Wall.pdf

Allen, L.C., Steinberg, A. (2004). Big buildings, small schools: Using a small schools strategy for high school reform.

Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2004). The national school district and network grants

program: Year 2 evaluation report. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2005). Rigor, relevance, and results: The quality of

teacher assignments and student work in new and conventional high schools. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation.

Ancess, J. (1995). An inquiry high school: Learner-centered accountability at the Urban Academy. New York, NY:

Columbia University, Teachers College, National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools,

and Teaching.

Ancess, J. (2003). Beating the odds: High schools as communities of commitment. New York, NY: Teachers Col-

lege Press.

Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8),

616–622.

Benard, B. (1990). A case for peers. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Western

Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from

www.nwrac.org/pub/library/c/c_case.pdf

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bryk, A.S., & Driscoll, M.E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual infl uences and consequences for stu-

dents and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. (ERIC Document

Retrieval Service No. ED302539)

Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Associa-

tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Christman, J.B., Cohen, J., & Macpherson, P. (1997). Growing smaller: Three tasks in restructuring

urban high schools. Urban Education, 32(1), 146–165.

114

Christman, J.B., & Macpherson, P. (with Cohen, J., McCreary, J., & Reimer, F.). (1996). The fi ve school study:

Restructuring Philadelphia’s comprehensive high schools. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Education Fund.

Cohen, D.K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–17, 31.

Cook, A. (2000). The transformation of one large urban high school: The Julyia Richman Education

Complex. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education (pp.

101–120). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland, OR: Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED459539)

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1993). The measurement of fl ow in everyday life: Toward a

theory of emergent motivation. In J.E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992. Develop-

mental perspectives on motivation. Current theory and research in motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 57–97). Lincoln, NE:

University of Nebraska Press.

Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction: Another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan,

68(1), 7–11.

Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last? The case of the Juneior high school. American

Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 227–251.

Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 181–185.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S.W. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the

Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639–673.

Eisner, E.W. (1988). The ecology of school improvement. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 24–29.

Elmore, R.F. (1988). Early experience in restructuring schools: Voices from the fi eld. Washington, DC: National

Governors Association. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED306634)

Fazio, T.J., & Ural, K.K. (1995). The Princeton Peer Leadership Program: Training seniors to help fi rst

year students. NASSP Bulletin, 79(568), 57–60.

Felner, R.D., & Adan, A.M. (1988). The School Transitional Environment Project: An ecological inter-

vention and evaluation. In R.H. Price, E.L. Cowen, R.P. Lorion, & J. Ramos-McKay (Eds.), Fourteen

ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners (pp. 111–122). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

115

Felner, R.D., Jackson, A.W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of

school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points-

based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 528–532, 541–550.

Fine, M. (Ed.). (1994). Chartering urban school reform: Refl ections on public high schools in the midst of change. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fine, M., & Somerville, J.I. (Eds.). (1998). Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools.

Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service

No. ED427127)

Fowler, W.J., Jr., & Walberg, H.J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evalua-

tion and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189–202.

Gambone, M., Klem, A., Moore, W., & Summers, J. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions and

capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauff-

man Foundation.

Garbarino, J. (1978). The human ecology of school crime: A case for small schools. In E. Wenk &

N. Harlow (Eds.), School crime and disruption: Prevention models (pp. 123–133). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Institute of Education.

Gladden, M. (1998). The small schools movement: A review of the literature. In M. Fine & J.I.

Somerville (Eds.), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools (pp. 113–137).

Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service

No. ED427127)

Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective.

Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 1–29.

Gottfredson, D.C. (1985). School size and school disorder. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center

for Social Organization of Schools. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED261456)

Grannis, J.C. (1991). Dropout prevention in New York City: A second chance. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2),

143–149.

Haller, E.J. (1992). High school size and student indiscipline: Another aspect of the school consoli-

dation issue? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 145–156.

Jackson, A. (1990). From knowledge to practice: Implementing the recommendations of Turning

Points. Middle School Journal, 21(3), 1–3.

Kemple, J. & Herlihy, C. (2004). The Talent Development High School model. New York: MDRC.

116

Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in achievement

and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270.

Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1997). High school size: Which works best, and for whom? Educational Evalua-

tion and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205–227.

Legters, N., Balfanz, R., & McPartland, J. (2002, April). Solutions for failing high schools: Converging visions

and promising models. Paper presented at Preparing America’s Future: The High School Symposium,

Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED466942)

Lindsay, P. (1982). The effect of high school size on student participation, satisfaction, and atten-

dance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(1), 57–65.

Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American

society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762–796.

Little, J.W., Erbstein, N., & Walker, L. (1996). High school restructuring and vocational reform: The question of “fi t”

in two schools. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Docu-

ment Retrieval Service No. ED401454)

McCabe, J.G., & Oxley, D. (1989). Making big high schools smaller: A review of the implementation of the house plan

in New York City’s most troubled high schools. New York, NY: Public Education Association, & New York,

NY: Bank Street College of Education.

McMullan, B.J. (1994). Charters and restructuring. In M. Fine (Ed.), Chartering urban school reform:

Refl ections on public high schools in the midst of change (pp. 63–77). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

McMullan, B.J., Sipe, C.L., & Wolf, W.C. (1994). Charters and student achievement: Early evidence from school

restructuring in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Assessment and Policy Development.

McPartland, J., Balfanz, R., Jordan, W., & Legters, N. (1998). Improving climate and achievement in

a troubled urban high school through the Talent Development Model. Journal of Education for Students

Placed at Risk, 3(4), 337–361.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.

Miles, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high

performing schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Muncey, D.E., & McQuillan, P.J. (1993). Preliminary fi ndings from a fi ve-year study of the Coalition

of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 486–489.

117

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institu-

tion. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks II: Strategies for leading high

school reform. Reston, VA: Author.

National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus, OH: NMSA.

National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe:Developmentally responsive middle level schools.

Columbus, OH: NMSA.

National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Colum-

bus, OH: NMSA.

Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M., & Gamoran, A. (1995a). Authentic pedagogy and student perfor-

mance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312.

Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M., & Gamoran, A. (1995b). Authentic pedagogy: Standards that boost student

performance [Entire issue]. Issues in Restructuring Schools, 8, 1−14. Retrieved October 19, 2004,

from www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cors/Issues_in_Restructuring_Schools/ISSUES_NO_8_

SPRING_1995.pdf

Newmann, F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A.S. (2001a). Instructional program coherence:

What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analy-

sis, 23(4), 297–321.

Newmann, F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A.S. (2001b). School instructional program coherence:

Benefi ts and challenges. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. (ERIC Document


Newmann, F.M., & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators.

Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. (ERIC Document Retrieval

Service No. ED387925)

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96(4),

681–690.

Oxley, D. (1990). An analysis of house systems in New York City neighborhood high schools. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University, Center for Research in Human Development and Education. (ERIC Docu-

ment Retrieval Service No. ED368845)

118

Oxley, D. (1993). Organizing schools into smaller units: A planning guide. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University,

Center for Research in Human Development and Education. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service

No. ED364948)

Oxley, D. (1994a). Organizing schools into small units: Alternatives to homogeneous grouping. Phi

Delta Kappan, 75(7), 521–526.

Oxley, D. (1994b). Organizing for responsiveness: The heterogeneous school community. In M.C.

Wang & E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp.

179–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Oxley, D. (1997a). Making community in an inner city high school: Towards the merging of high

school restructuring and inclusion agendas. In D.D. Sage (Ed.), Inclusion in secondary schools: Bold

initiatives challenging change (pp. 103–132). Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources.

Oxley, D. (1997b). Theory and practice of school communities. Educational Administration Quarterly,

33(5), 624–643.

Oxley, D. (2001). Organizing schools into small learning communities. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 5–16.

Oxley, D. (2002). Churchill High Schools Small Learning Communities Project Evaluation. Eugene, OR: Churchill

High Schools.

Oxley, D. (2006). What makes small learning communities work. In K. Wong & S. Rutledge (Eds.),

System-wide efforts to improve student achievement. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Oxley, D., Croninger, R.G., & DeGroot, E. (2000, April). Considerations for entry level students in schools-

within-schools: The interplay of social capital and student identity formation. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document


Panel on Youth. (1973). Youth: Transition to adulthood. Washington, DC: U.S. Offi ce of Science and

Technology, President’s Science Advisory Committee. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No.

ED085303)

Pittman, R.B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Infl uence of high school size on dropout rate. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337–343.

Quint, J.C., Miller, C., Pastor, J.J., & Cytron, R.E. (1999). Project Transition: Testing an intervention to help high

school freshmen succeed. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. (ERIC

Document Retrieval Service No. ED434867)

Ratzki, A., & Fisher, A. (1990). Life in a restructured school. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 46–51.

119

Raywid, M.A. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, schools-within-schools, and separate small

schools. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban

Education. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED396045)

Raywid, M.A., Schmerler, G., Phillips, S.E., & Smith, G.A. (2003). Not so easy going: The policy environments

of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa-

tion and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED474653)

Ready, D., Lee, V.E., & LoGerfo, L.F. (2000, April). Social and academic stratifi cation in high schools divided into

schools-within-schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research

Association, New Orleans, LA.

Rizzo, J.A. (2000). School reform: A system’s approach. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Creating new schools: How

small schools are changing American education (pp. 133–149). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A

fi fth discipline fi eldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sizer, T.R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in.

Sondheim, D. (Webmaster). (2004). The Drake website [Web site]. San Anselmo, CA: Sir Francis Drake

High School. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/

Southern Regional Education Board. (1999). High schools that work: New partnerships and a national network to

improve high school education. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from www.sreb.

org/programs/hstw/background/brochure.asp

Supovitz, J. & Christman, J. (2005). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons from Cincinnati and

Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Wasley, P.A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N.E., King, S.P., Mosak, E. et al. (2000). Small schools, great

strides: A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.

Wehlage, G., Smith, G., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urban schools: The New Futures experi-

ence. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 51–93.

Weinstein, R.S. (1996). High standards in a tracked system of schooling: For which students and

with what educational supports? Educational Researcher, 25(8), 16–19.

Wong, K.K., & Wang, M.C. (Eds.). (1994). Rethinking policy for at-risk students. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

121

APPENDIX

Self-Assessment in Five Domains

123

Smal

l Lea

rnin

g C

omm

uniti

es

Self-Asse

ssment

in F

ive

Dom

ains

of

Res

earc

h-B

ased

SLC

Pra

ctic

e

124

Intro

ducti

on to the Self-Asse

ssment To

ol

This

sel

f-as

sess

men

t too

l allo

ws

you

to ta

ke s

tock

of

smal

l lea

rnin

g

com

mun

ity

orga

niza

tion

and

fun

ctio

ning

in fi

ve d

omai

ns o

f pr

acti

ce.

The

dom

ains

are

:

1. I

nter

disc

iplin

ary

Teac

hing

and

Lea

rnin

g Te

ams

2. R

igor

ous,

Rel

evan

t Cur

ricu

lum

and

Ins

truc

tion

3. I

nclu

sive

Pro

gram

and

Pra

ctic

es

4. C

onti

nuou

s Pr

ogra

m I

mpr

ovem

ent

5. B

uild

ing/

Dis

tric

t Sup

port

Each

dom

ain

cont

ains

a s

et o

f re

sear

ch-b

ased

pra

ctic

es. T

hese

pra

ctic

es

are

feat

ures

of

smal

l lea

rnin

g co

mm

unit

ies

and

smal

l sch

ools

that

hav

e

been

link

ed to

pos

itiv

e st

uden

t out

com

es. T

aken

toge

ther

, the

y op

era-

tion

aliz

e th

e de

fi nin

g ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

sm

all l

earn

ing

com

mun

itie

s:

auto

nom

y, id

enti

ty, p

erso

naliz

atio

n, a

foc

us o

n te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng,

and

acco

unta

bilit

y.

The

tool

is d

esig

ned

to h

elp

take

sto

ck o

f pr

acti

ce b

y pr

ovid

ing

a

rang

e of

des

crip

tion

s of

eac

h pr

acti

ce th

at s

ugge

sts

the

dire

ctio

n st

aff

coul

d m

ove

in to

incr

ease

impa

ct o

n de

sira

ble

stud

ent o

utco

mes

.

Thro

ugh

refl e

ctio

n on

pra

ctic

e th

at in

clud

es c

olle

ctio

n an

d an

alys

is o

f

data

on

refo

rms

that

hav

e be

en m

ade

and

stud

ent o

utco

mes

that

hav

e

been

obt

aine

d, s

taff

can

det

erm

ine

whe

re in

the

rang

e th

eir

curr

ent

prac

tice

falls

and

wha

t cha

nges

in p

ract

ice

they

cou

ld e

xpec

t to

lead

to

high

er s

tude

nt a

chie

vem

ent.

You

can

fi nd

mor

e in

form

atio

n ab

out t

he p

ract

ices

and

the

rese

arch

base

use

d to

iden

tify

them

in S

mal

l Lea

rnin

g Co

mm

uniti

es: Im

plem

entin

g an

d

Deep

enin

g Pr

actic

e, a

book

let a

vaila

ble

from

the

Nor

thw

est R

egio

nal E

du-

cati

onal

Lab

orat

ory.

Smal

l Lea

rnin

g C

omm

unit

ies

web

sit

e:

ww

w.n

wre

l.org

/scp

d/ss

lc/

125

Guidelin

es for U

se

• A g

roup

rep

rese

ntin

g th

e m

ajor

sta

keh

olde

rs in

sch

ool

impr

ovem

ent (

teac

hers

, adm

inis

trat

ors,

com

mun

ity

part

ners

,

stud

ents

, par

ents

) sh

ould

col

labo

rate

on

self

-ass

essm

ent a

nd

use

cons

ensu

s to

arr

ive

at a

rat

ing

for

each

item

.

• Su

bgro

ups

may

con

duct

the

self

-ass

essm

ent i

n ea

ch d

omai

n

and

repo

rt b

ack

to th

e la

rger

gro

up

for

thei

r in

put.

• Fo

r ea

ch it

em to

be

rate

d, th

e gr

oup

shou

ld f

irst

iden

tify

key

type

s of

dat

a th

at w

ill h

elp

them

thor

ough

ly r

efle

ct o

n th

eir

prac

tice.

It m

ay b

e ne

cess

ary

to g

ener

ate

data

, for

exa

mpl

e, b

y:

✔ H

oldi

ng f

ocus

gro

ups

wit

h st

uden

ts, p

aren

ts, o

r co

mm

unit

y

part

ners

✔ H

avin

g st

uden

ts o

r te

ache

rs fi

ll ou

t a b

rief

que

stio

nnai

re

✔ A

ssem

blin

g st

uden

t wor

k

✔ D

isag

greg

atin

g sc

hool

-lev

el s

tude

nt a

chie

vem

ent a

nd d

emo-

grap

hic

data

by

SLC

• Fa

cilit

ate

open

and

thor

ough

exa

min

atio

n of

the

data

. Allo

w

grou

p m

embe

rs to

:

✔ A

sk q

uest

ions

abo

ut th

e na

ture

of

the

data

(ho

w d

ata

wer

e

colle

cted

and

cal

cula

ted,

etc

.)

✔ N

ote

wha

t the

y se

e in

the

data

and

wha

t the

dat

a m

ay s

how

befo

re th

ey b

egin

to c

onsi

der

wha

t rat

ing

the

data

indi

cate

• D

ocum

ent y

our

rati

ng w

ith

key

piec

es o

f da

ta to

info

rm

othe

rs o

f th

e ba

sis

for

your

rat

ing.

126

Scho

ol _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

SLC

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Dat

e _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Inst

ruct

ions

On

the

follo

win

g pa

ges,

CIR

CL

E a

num

ber

from

1 to

5 to

indi

cate

wha

t des

crip

tor

and

leve

l of

impa

ct o

n st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t you

r cu

rren

t pra

ctic

e ap

prox

imat

es. T

he n

umbe

r “1

” in

dica

tes

low

impa

ct; t

he n

umbe

r “5

” in

dica

tes

high

impa

ct. D

escr

ibe

the

actu

al p

rac-

tice

in th

e sp

ace

prov

ided

for

com

men

ts, a

nd a

ttach

ava

ilabl

e do

cum

ents

to s

uppo

rt y

our

ratin

g.

127

Team

mem

bers

hav

e m

ore

than

hal

f-tim

e as

sign

men

t to

SLC

SLC

teac

hers

inst

ruct

hal

f or

few

er o

f th

eir

clas

ses

in

the

SLC

and

hav

e m

ulti

ple

com

mit

men

ts.

SLC

teac

hers

inst

ruct

mor

e th

an h

alf

of th

eir

clas

ses

in th

e SL

C, w

hich

is th

eir

prim

ary

com

mit

men

t.SL

C te

ache

rs in

stru

ct a

ll th

eir

clas

ses

in th

e SL

C, w

hich

is

thei

r pr

imar

y af

fi lia

tion

and

prof

essi

onal

iden

tity.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Stud

ents

rem

ain

wit

h th

eir

teac

her

team

for

onl

y on

e ye

ar.

Stud

ents

rem

ain

wit

h th

eir

teac

her

team

for

two

year

s an

d in

SLC

s fo

r fo

ur y

ears

; tea

ms

loop

wit

h st

uden

ts o

r pr

ovid

e m

ulti

grad

e cl

asse

s.

Stud

ents

rem

ain

wit

h th

eir

teac

her

team

for

two

or m

ore

year

s an

d in

one

SLC

for

fou

r ye

ars;

9–1

0 an

d 11

–12

or 9

–12

team

s lo

op w

ith

stud

ents

or

prov

ide

mul

tigr

ade

clas

ses.

Team

s an

d th

eir s

tude

nts

rem

ain

toge

ther

for m

ultip

le y

ears

of s

tudy

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

1. Interdisciplin

ary Te

aching

and

Learning Te

ams

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am(s

) sha

res

no m

ore

than

a fe

w h

undr

ed s

tude

nts

in c

omm

on fo

r ins

truc

tion

SLC

is c

ompo

sed

of a

facu

lty th

at w

orks

wit

h 40

0 or

few

er s

tude

nts;

cla

sses

con

tain

som

e st

uden

ts

who

do

not b

elon

g to

the

SLC.

SLC

is c

ompo

sed

of a

n in

terd

isci

plin

ary

team

(s)

that

wor

ks w

ith

trad

itio

nal c

lass

load

of

150–

180

stud

ents

; SLC

cla

sses

con

tain

onl

y st

uden

ts w

ho

belo

ng to

the

SLC.

SLC

is c

ompo

sed

of a

n in

terd

isci

plin

ary

team

(s)

that

wor

ks e

xclu

sive

ly w

ith

90–1

20 s

tude

nts.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

128

Bui

ldin

g sp

ace

suffi

cien

t to

crea

te h

ome

base

for c

olla

bora

tion

One

SLC

teac

her

has

a la

rge

clas

sroo

m o

r tw

o SL

C

teac

hers

hav

e ad

jace

nt c

lass

room

s to

use

as

a ho

me

base

.

Seve

ral o

f th

e SL

C te

ache

rs u

se p

roxi

mal

or

adja

cent

cl

assr

oom

s as

a h

ome

base

.A

ll SL

C te

am m

embe

rs h

ave

cont

iguo

us c

lass

room

s an

d of

fi ce/

mee

ting

spa

ce th

at e

xpre

ss th

e SL

C’s

iden

tity

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Team

s us

e pl

anni

ng ti

me

mos

tly to

talk

abo

ut in

di-

vidu

al s

tude

nts.

Team

s us

e ti

me

to ta

lk a

bout

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nts

and

plan

SLC

eve

nts.

Team

s us

e ti

me

to p

lan

curr

icul

um a

nd le

arni

ng

acti

viti

es a

nd d

iscu

ss s

tude

nts.

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am m

embe

rs c

olla

bora

te o

n cu

rric

ulum

, ins

truc

tion,

stu

dent

pro

gres

s

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am m

embe

rs h

ave

com

mon

pla

nnin

g tim

e

Mos

t tea

m m

embe

rs s

hare

in c

omm

on s

ever

al

prep

arat

ion

peri

ods/

wee

k.A

ll te

am m

embe

rs s

hare

in c

omm

on s

ever

al p

repa

ra-

tion

peri

ods/

wee

k w

ith p

rovi

sion

s fo

r so

me

exte

nded

bl

ocks

of t

ime

(e.g

., pr

ep b

ack-

to-b

ack

with

lunc

h).

All

team

mem

bers

sha

re c

omm

on p

rep

peri

ods/

wee

k w

ith

prov

isio

n fo

r ex

tend

ed b

lock

s of

tim

e (e

.g.,

doub

le p

erio

d an

d ea

rly

rele

ase/

late

sta

rt d

ays.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

129

Min

imum

hal

f-day

blo

ck o

f ins

truc

tion

Stud

ents

’ SLC

cla

sses

occ

upy

less

than

a h

alf-

day

bloc

k of

thei

r sc

hool

day

.St

uden

ts’ S

LC c

lass

es o

ccup

y a

half

-day

unb

roke

n bl

ock

of th

eir

scho

ol d

ay.

Stud

ents

’ SLC

cla

sses

occ

upy

mor

e th

an a

hal

f-da

y un

brok

en b

lock

of

thei

r sc

hool

day

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

SLC

pro

gram

mee

ts h

igh

stan

dard

s th

roug

h cl

asse

s or

gani

zed

arou

nd a

cade

mic

dis

cipl

ines

and

thei

r as

soci

ated

sta

ndar

ds.

SLC

pro

gram

mee

ts h

igh

stan

dard

s th

roug

h in

terd

isci

plin

ary

clas

ses

that

map

ont

o as

soci

ated

st

anda

rds.

SLC

est

ablis

hes

stud

ent p

rofi c

ienc

ies

and

form

s of

as

sess

men

t con

sist

ent w

ith

them

e an

d st

ate/

dist

rict

st

anda

rds.

Rig

orou

s st

anda

rds-

base

d cu

rric

ulum

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

2. Rigorou

s, R

elevan

t Curric

ulum

and

Instru

ction

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y cu

rric

ulum

org

aniz

ed a

roun

d to

pics

of i

nter

est t

o st

uden

ts a

nd e

ssen

tial s

kills

/kno

wle

dge

Stud

ents

par

tici

pate

in S

LC th

eme-

base

d fi e

ld tr

ips

and

clas

s ac

tivi

ties

in th

eir

regu

lar

curr

icul

um.

Stud

ents

do

seve

ral t

hem

e-ba

sed

inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y pr

ojec

ts/y

ear

in th

e re

gula

r cu

rric

ulum

and

lear

n es

sent

ial c

onte

nt a

nd s

kills

acr

oss

diff

eren

t cla

sses

.

Stud

ents

lear

n es

sent

ial s

kills

/kno

wle

dge

thro

ugh

a la

rgel

y in

tegr

ated

cou

rse

of s

tudy

org

aniz

ed b

y to

p-ic

s/th

emes

of

inte

rest

to a

dole

scen

ts a

nd r

elev

ant t

o th

eir

cultu

ral b

ackg

roun

d.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

130

Stud

ents

reg

ular

ly d

o in

depe

nden

t lib

rary

and

In

tern

et r

esea

rch

to b

road

en c

lass

room

mat

eria

ls

and

stud

y.

Stud

ents

res

earc

h to

pics

/iss

ues,

col

lect

and

eva

lu-

ate

info

rmat

ion

from

var

ied

sour

ces,

and

pre

sent

co

nclu

sion

s as

fea

ture

s of

spe

cial

pro

ject

s.

Stud

ents

reg

ular

ly g

ener

ate

rese

arch

que

stio

ns, c

ol-

lect

and

eva

luat

e in

form

atio

n fr

om v

arie

d so

urce

s,

and

docu

men

t wor

k in

in-d

epth

, aut

hent

ic f

orm

s.

Stud

ents

eng

age

in a

ctiv

e, a

uthe

ntic

inqu

iry

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Team

s co

llabo

rate

with

com

mun

ity p

artn

ers

Team

s co

llabo

rate

wit

h co

mm

unit

y m

embe

rs to

of

fer

spec

ial t

rips

and

act

ivit

ies.

Team

s es

tabl

ish

com

mun

ity p

artn

ersh

ips

to p

rovi

de

exte

nsiv

e fi e

ld-b

ased

stu

dy.

Com

mun

ity p

artn

ers

are

inte

gral

to te

ams;

they

hel

p pl

an, l

ead,

and

ass

ess

stud

ents

’ wor

k.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

131

Team

s ta

ilor i

nstr

uctio

n to

div

erse

stu

dent

s’ n

eeds

Teac

hers

var

y w

hole

clas

s in

stru

ctio

n w

ith

smal

l gr

oup

and

indi

vidu

aliz

ed w

ork.

Teac

hers

use

a v

arie

ty o

f in

stru

ctio

nal s

trat

egie

s an

d of

fer

alte

rnat

ive

assi

gnm

ents

and

met

hods

of

dem

-on

stra

ting

kno

wle

dge

to g

ive

stud

ents

a c

hoic

e.

Stud

ent c

hoic

e in

ass

ignm

ents

and

met

hods

of

dem

onst

rati

ng k

now

ledg

e is

a r

egul

ar f

eatu

re o

f w

ork;

cho

ices

refl

ect

stu

dent

s’ v

arie

d st

reng

ths,

le

arni

ng s

tyle

s, c

ultu

ral e

xper

ienc

e, a

nd n

eeds

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

SLC

cla

ss s

ched

ules

are

the

sam

e as

the

scho

olw

ide

sche

dule

/allo

t unv

aryi

ng p

erio

ds o

f ti

me

for

sub-

ject

s.

Team

s sc

hedu

le b

lock

of

tim

e ac

cord

ing

to le

arni

ng

acti

viti

es a

nd s

tude

nts’

lear

ning

nee

ds.

Team

s ad

d in

stru

ctio

nal t

ime

for

rem

edia

l/ho

nors

w

ork,

use

onl

ine

tech

nolo

gy, a

nd p

ursu

e/cr

eate

le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

out

side

sch

ool o

r sc

hool

day

.

Team

s us

e tim

e an

d lo

catio

n fl e

xibl

y to

mee

t stu

dent

s’ le

arni

ng n

eeds

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

3. Inclusive

Program

and

Instru

ctional P

racti

ces

SLC

mem

bers

hip

is b

ased

on

stud

ents

’ and

teac

hers

’ int

eres

t and

cho

ice

to e

nsur

e eq

uita

ble

acce

ssSt

uden

ts a

nd te

ache

rs c

hoos

e th

eir

SLC.

Stud

ents

and

teac

hers

cho

ose

thei

r SL

C; s

taff

off

ers

info

rmat

ion

abou

t SLC

s in

a v

arie

ty o

f fo

rmat

s (c

ouns

elor

s, e

ight

h-gr

ade

pres

enta

tion

s, b

roch

ures

)

Stud

ents

and

teac

hers

cho

ose

thei

r SL

C; s

taff

off

ers

info

rmat

ion

abou

t SLC

s in

a v

arie

ty o

f for

mat

s, m

oni-

tors

ent

erin

g st

uden

ts’ c

hara

cter

istic

s, a

nd a

djus

ts p

ro-

gram

to a

ttrac

t and

ret

ain

dive

rse

grou

p of

stu

dent

s.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

132

Teac

hers

adv

ise/

men

tor s

tude

nts

All

team

mem

bers

hol

d w

eekl

y ad

viso

ry lo

ng

enou

gh f

or in

divi

dual

mee

ting

s w

ith

stud

ents

.A

ll te

am m

embe

rs h

old

wee

kly

advi

sory

long

en

ough

for

who

le-g

roup

act

ivit

y or

indi

vidu

al

mee

ting

s.

Stud

ents

lead

reg

ular

ly s

ched

uled

adv

isor

ies

wit

h ti

me

to p

lan

SLC

act

ivit

ies

and

even

ts f

or p

aren

ts

duri

ng th

e ye

ar.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Cou

nsel

ors

wor

k ex

clus

ivel

y w

ith

stud

ents

in S

LC

to w

hich

they

are

ass

igne

d.C

ouns

elor

s w

ork

excl

usiv

ely

wit

h st

uden

ts in

SLC

s to

whi

ch th

ey a

re a

ssig

ned

and

assi

st w

ith

spec

ial

proj

ects

and

lear

ning

act

ivit

ies.

Cou

nsel

ors

wor

k ex

clus

ivel

y w

ith

stud

ents

in S

LCs

to w

hich

they

are

ass

igne

d an

d ar

e in

tegr

al m

em-

bers

of

the

inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y te

am.

Cou

nsel

ors

are

inte

gral

mem

bers

of t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

team

s

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Teac

her s

peci

alis

ts a

re in

tegr

al m

embe

rs o

f tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng te

ams

Spec

ial/

ELL

teac

hers

are

ass

igne

d to

team

s bu

t te

ach

stud

ents

wit

h sp

ecia

l nee

ds o

utsi

de S

LC

clas

ses.

Spec

ial/

ELL

teac

hers

are

ass

igne

d to

team

s, h

elp

diff

eren

tiat

e in

stru

ctio

n, w

ork

wit

h in

divi

dual

stu

-de

nts

in in

clus

ive

clas

ses.

Team

s of

reg

ular

and

spe

cial

edu

cati

on te

ache

rs

plan

cur

ricu

lum

and

inst

ruct

ion,

div

ide

up s

tude

nts

to c

reat

e sm

all,

incl

usiv

e cl

asse

s.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

133

Team

s co

llabo

rate

with

par

ents

Team

s co

ntac

t par

ents

via

e-m

ail/

tele

phon

e an

d in

pe

rson

as

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nts’

nee

ds d

icta

te.

Team

s co

mm

unic

ate

wit

h pa

rent

s vi

a e-

mai

l/te

le-

phon

e, in

per

son

as n

eede

d; m

eet w

ith

all p

aren

ts

abou

t stu

dent

s’ p

rogr

ess

at le

ast o

nce

per

year

.

Team

s co

mm

unic

ate

wit

h pa

rent

s vi

a e-

mai

l/te

le-

phon

e, a

nd i

n pe

rson

as

need

ed; a

nd o

rgan

ize

a va

riet

y of

eve

nts

to a

llow

par

ents

to

look

at,

disc

uss

stud

ents

’ wor

k an

d pr

ogre

ss.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

134

Team

s us

e st

akeh

olde

rs’ a

nd c

olle

ague

s’ in

put

Team

s w

ork

wit

h sc

hool

lead

ers

and

eval

uato

r to

st

udy

data

and

idea

s fo

r im

prov

ing

prac

tice

.Te

ams

wor

k w

ith

scho

ol le

ader

s an

d ev

alua

tor

and

solic

it p

aren

ts’ a

nd c

omm

unit

y pa

rtne

rs’ o

bser

va-

tion

s of

pro

gram

and

stu

dent

wor

k to

impr

ove

prac

tice

.

Team

s in

volv

e pa

rent

s, c

omm

unit

y pa

rtne

rs, a

nd

eval

uato

r in

all

aspe

cts

of p

lann

ing

and

impr

ove-

men

t and

gat

her

colle

gial

inpu

t on

stud

ent w

ork

and

new

mat

eria

ls.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Team

s us

e sc

hool

wid

e st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t and

at

tend

ance

dat

a to

refl

ect

on

thei

r pr

acti

ce a

t the

en

d of

eac

h ye

ar.

Team

s us

e st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t and

att

enda

nce

data

for

the

stud

ents

in th

eir

SLC

to r

efl e

ct o

n th

eir

prac

tice

at m

id-

and

end-

of-y

ear

poin

ts.

Team

s re

gula

rly

anal

yze

thei

r st

uden

ts’ w

ork,

gra

des/

test

sco

res,

atte

ndan

ce, s

ucce

ss b

eyon

d sc

hool

, and

de

mog

raph

ic d

ata

to im

prov

e th

eir

prac

tice.

Team

s us

e a

varie

ty o

f stu

dent

dat

a

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

4. Contin

uous P

rogram

Imp

roveme

nt

Team

s en

gage

in c

ontin

uous

pro

gram

impr

ovem

ent

Team

s ex

amin

e st

uden

t out

com

es a

t end

of e

ach

year

, re

ly o

n pr

ogra

m e

valu

ator

or

dist

rict

/sch

ool l

eade

rs to

co

llect

/ana

lyze

dat

a, a

gree

on

chan

ges

to m

ake.

Team

s ex

amin

e st

uden

t out

com

es a

t end

of g

radi

ng

peri

ods,

eng

age

as p

artn

er w

ith d

istr

ict/

scho

ol le

ader

s in

pro

gram

rev

iew

, agr

ee o

n ch

ange

s to

mak

e.

Stud

ents

pro

vide

feed

back

dur

ing

the

cour

se o

f all

activ

ities

; tea

ms

revi

ew s

tude

nt o

utco

mes

at e

nd o

f al

l maj

or u

nits

of w

ork,

dev

elop

ow

n im

med

iate

and

lo

ng-t

erm

pla

ns fo

r pr

ogra

m im

prov

emen

t.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

135

Team

s se

t and

pur

sue

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t goa

ls

Team

s at

tend

dis

tric

t/sc

hool

-org

aniz

ed p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent s

essi

ons.

Team

s so

licit

and

pur

sue

idea

s fo

r pr

ofes

sion

al

deve

lopm

ent

that

add

ress

ide

ntifi

ed

need

s.Te

ams

form

ulat

e an

nual

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

-m

ent

plan

s th

at i

nclu

de t

eam

pla

nnin

g, c

olle

gial

ex

chan

ge, a

nd e

xper

t tr

aine

rs t

o ad

dres

s sp

ecifi

c

iden

tifi e

d ne

eds.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

136

Bui

ldin

g-le

vel p

rovi

sion

s fo

r sta

ff pl

anni

ng/d

evel

opm

ent m

eet S

LC n

eeds

Scho

ol s

taff

pla

nnin

g an

d de

velo

pmen

t day

s an

d re

sour

ces

addr

ess

scho

olw

ide

impr

ovem

ent n

eeds

.Sc

hool

sta

ff p

lann

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent d

ays,

re

sour

ces

are

dire

cted

to S

LC d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

impr

ovem

ent n

eeds

.

Scho

ol s

taff

pla

nnin

g an

d de

velo

pmen

t res

ourc

es

are

allo

cate

d to

SLC

s.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Aca

dem

ic a

rea

team

s co

ntin

ue to

pla

y pr

imar

y ro

le in

cu

rric

ulum

and

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds w

ork;

sha

re a

utho

r-ity

with

SLC

team

s ov

er s

taffi

ng a

nd c

lass

sch

edul

es.

SLC

team

s ex

erci

se a

utho

rity

ove

r st

affi n

g an

d sc

hedu

les;

aca

dem

ic a

rea

team

s w

ork

on c

onte

nt

stan

dard

s, h

elp

SLC

team

s en

sure

that

inte

rdis

ci-

plin

ary

prog

ram

s ad

dres

s co

nten

t sta

ndar

ds.

SLC

team

s ha

ve a

utho

rity

ove

r cu

rric

ulum

, sta

ffi n

g,

sche

dule

s; a

cade

mic

are

a te

ams

func

tion

to a

ug-

men

t tea

cher

s’ s

ubje

ct a

rea

know

ledg

e an

d ex

per-

tise

in o

rder

to m

axim

ize

SLC

team

s’ e

ffec

tive

ness

.

Aca

dem

ic a

rea

(dep

artm

ent)

goal

s al

ign

with

SLC

nee

ds

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

5a.

Building-

Level Sup

port

for SLC

s

Bui

ldin

gwid

e im

prov

emen

t goa

ls a

lign

with

SLC

nee

dsSc

hool

impr

ovem

ent p

lan

incl

udes

SLC

goa

ls a

nd

need

s.Sc

hool

impr

ovem

ent p

lan

inco

rpor

ates

det

aile

d sc

hool

wid

e SL

C pl

an a

nd e

nsur

es a

lignm

ent o

f oth

er

refo

rms

with

it.

Build

ingw

ide

impr

ovem

ent p

lan

is d

rive

n by

SLC

’s vi

sion

and

goa

ls.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

137

Bui

ldin

g-le

vel p

olic

ies

are

enac

ted

to s

tren

gthe

n SL

C s

elf-g

over

nanc

e

Build

ing

adm

inis

trat

ors

empl

oy s

hare

d de

cisi

on

mak

ing;

SLC

team

s pa

rtic

ipat

e in

bui

ldin

g-le

vel

gove

rnan

ce w

ith

othe

r gr

oups

.

Build

ing

adm

inis

trat

ors

empl

oy s

hare

d de

cisi

on

mak

ing,

are

mem

bers

of

SLC

team

s; S

LC te

ams

par-

tici

pate

in g

over

nanc

e w

ith

othe

r gr

oups

.

Adm

inis

trat

or o

pera

tes

as b

uild

ing

man

ager

and

in

tegr

al m

embe

r of

SLC

; SLC

team

s ha

ve m

ajor

rol

e in

bui

ldin

g-le

vel g

over

nanc

e, a

ssum

e re

spon

sibi

lity

for

stud

ents

.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Hon

ors/

AP

clas

ses

are

offe

red

wit

hin

a pa

rtic

u-la

r SL

C th

at u

ses

prac

tice

s de

sign

ed to

att

ract

and

su

ppor

t a d

iver

se g

roup

of

stud

ents

; pro

gram

s fo

r at

-ris

k st

uden

ts li

mit

adm

issi

on to

ove

rage

stu

dent

s.

Hon

ors/

AP

stud

ents

and

at-

risk

stu

dent

s pa

rtic

ipat

e in

an

SLC

pro

gram

of t

heir

cho

ice

in a

dditi

on to

ho

nors

/AP

cour

ses

and

at-r

isk

prog

ram

s w

hich

are

sc

hedu

led

to a

ccom

mod

ate

SLC

blo

cks

of in

stru

ctio

n.

All

SLC

s of

fer

hono

rs o

ptio

ns fo

r co

urse

s an

d su

ppor

t fo

r at

-ris

k st

uden

ts a

nd m

eet s

peci

al s

tude

nt n

eeds

th

roug

h co

llabo

ratio

n w

ith o

ther

edu

catio

nal i

nstit

u-tio

ns a

nd a

genc

ies.

Aca

dem

ic tr

ack/

alte

rnat

ive

prog

ram

cha

nges

are

mad

e to

incr

ease

stu

dent

cho

ice

and

chal

leng

e ac

ross

all

prog

ram

s

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Cla

ss s

ched

ulin

g an

d st

affi n

g ar

e ad

just

ed to

str

engt

hen

SLC

pro

gram

s

Build

ing-

leve

l sch

edul

e an

d st

affi n

g ac

com

mod

ate

min

imum

SLC

req

uire

men

ts f

or in

terd

isci

plin

ary

team

s an

d co

mm

on p

lann

ing

tim

e.

Build

ing-

leve

l sch

edul

e an

d st

affi n

g tr

ade

off

spe-

cial

ty c

urri

culu

m o

ffer

ings

to g

ive

SLC

team

s m

ore

core

inst

ruct

iona

l tim

e w

ith

thei

r st

uden

ts.

Build

ing-

leve

l sch

edul

e an

d st

affi n

g al

lot m

ore

non-

in

stru

ctio

nal s

taff

tim

e to

teac

hing

, use

dua

l-ce

rtifi

ed

teac

hers

, fol

d se

para

te r

emed

ial p

rogr

ams

into

cor

e su

bjec

t are

a in

stru

ctio

n, a

nd c

reat

e m

ore

plan

ning

tim

e.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

138

Dis

tric

t neg

otia

tes

teac

hers

’ uni

on c

ontr

act p

rovi

sion

s to

mee

t SLC

sta

ffi ng

nee

ds

Dis

tric

t and

teac

hers

uni

on n

egot

iate

sus

pens

ion

of

teac

her

seni

orit

y hi

ring

rul

e if

75

perc

ent o

f fa

culty

ag

rees

.

Dis

tric

t and

teac

hers

uni

on n

egot

iate

sus

pens

ion

of

teac

her

seni

orit

y hi

ring

rul

e if

50

perc

ent o

f fa

culty

ag

rees

.

Teac

hers

uni

on c

ontr

act a

llow

s pe

er h

irin

g to

em

pow

er S

LC te

ams

to m

aint

ain

inte

grit

y of

thei

r pr

ogra

ms.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Dis

tric

t pol

icy

supp

orts

bui

ldin

g-le

vel s

elf-

gove

rnan

ce

and

hold

s sc

hool

s ac

coun

tabl

e fo

r st

uden

t out

com

es.

Dis

tric

t pol

icy

supp

orts

dec

entr

aliz

atio

n of

dec

isio

n m

akin

g au

thor

ity to

SLC

s an

d ho

lds

scho

ols

and

SLC

s ac

coun

tabl

e fo

r st

uden

t out

com

es.

Dis

tric

t pol

icy

supp

orts

inno

vativ

e bu

ildin

g m

anag

e-m

ent (

e.g.

, par

t-tim

e ad

min

istr

ator

s w

ho te

ach,

SLC

te

ache

r le

ader

s) a

nd h

olds

SLC

s ac

coun

tabl

e.

Polic

ies

stre

ngth

en S

LC s

elf-g

over

nanc

e

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

5b.

Distric

t-Le

vel Sup

port

for SLC

s

Dis

tric

t sta

ndar

dize

s po

licie

s ne

eded

to s

uppo

rt S

LC p

ract

ice

Dis

tric

t wai

ves

polic

ies

that

pos

e ba

rrie

rs to

impl

e-m

entin

g an

d su

stai

ning

SLC

s fo

r re

stru

ctur

ing

scho

ols

Dis

tric

t pro

activ

ely

enac

ts p

olic

ies

need

ed to

sup

port

im

plem

entin

g an

d su

stai

ning

SLC

s fo

r re

stru

ctur

ing

scho

ols.

Dis

tric

t ext

ends

pol

icie

s th

at s

uppo

rt im

plem

entin

g an

d su

stai

ning

SLC

s to

all

scho

ols

to a

lign

polic

y w

ith

rese

arch

-bas

ed p

ract

ice.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

139

Staf

fi ng

and

budg

etin

g pr

actic

es g

ive

scho

ols

fl exi

bilit

y in

allo

catin

g re

sour

ces

to m

eet S

LC n

eeds

Dis

tric

t allo

ws

scho

ols

to c

onve

rt a

llotm

ents

of

staf

f po

siti

ons

to m

eet S

LC n

eeds

.D

istr

ict u

ses

stud

ent-

base

d bu

dget

ing

or o

ther

st

rate

gy to

max

imiz

e eq

uity

in s

choo

l bud

gets

and

sc

hool

s’ fl

exib

ility

in a

lloca

ting

res

ourc

es.

Dis

tric

t pro

vide

s eq

uity

and

fl ex

ibili

ty in

sch

ool

budg

etin

g an

d ac

tive

ly s

uppo

rts

scho

ols’

eff

orts

to

dire

ct r

esou

rces

to te

achi

ng.

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

Dis

tric

t sta

ff p

lann

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent d

ays

and

reso

urce

s ad

dres

s sc

hool

wid

e im

prov

emen

t nee

ds.

Dis

tric

t sta

ff p

lann

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent d

ays

and

reso

urce

s ar

e fo

cuse

d on

SLC

dev

elop

men

t and

im

prov

emen

t.

Dis

tric

t em

ploy

s a

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t str

ateg

y th

at a

ligns

the

acco

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

with

sup

port

s fo

r ap

plyi

ng p

rofe

ssio

nal t

rain

ing

(e.g

., ad

equa

te ti

me

for

colla

bora

tive

plan

ning

, dat

a fo

r re

fl ect

ion

on S

LC

prac

tice.

)

Prov

isio

ns fo

r pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t inc

reas

e SL

C te

ams’

cap

acity

for i

nstr

uctio

nal i

nnov

atio

n

Low

Im

pact

1

2 3

4 5

Hig

h Im

pact

small learning communities - kenton county · small learning communities: implementing and...

Documents