Contrasting Paths to Small-School Reform: Results of a 5-year Evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's National High Schools Initiative

Abstract

Background/Context In 2000, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation began an ambitious initiative intended to catalyze the fundamental transformation of American high schools. This article summarizes the results of a 5-year national evaluation of the first stage of the foundation's initiative. Purpose/Objective This article focuses on two contrasting strategies to small-school reform: starting new small high schools, and converting large schools into smaller learning communities. For each strategy, it reports on the progress of the reform in its first several years, student outcomes, and key implementation factors that shape progress and outcomes for startup and conversion schools. Research Design The evaluation summarized in this article used a mixed-methods design. Data and analyses in this article come from surveys of teachers, students, and school leaders; case study site visits that collected a range of qualitative data; the collection and analysis of teacher assignments and student work; and district records of attendance and achievement. Findings/Results Results show that although both strategies have the potential to promote learning environments that are more personalized and that encourage students to work to higher standards, start-up schools in their first several years showed positive results in terms of attendance and some indication of student achievement gains, whereas these outcomes did not emerge for conversion schools during the timeframe of the study. Conclusions/Recommendations Results reported by the evaluation must be taken in the context of the typically slow pace of significant educational reform. Despite the many tasks facing start-up schools in their first 3 years and the challenges posed by limited budgets and incompatibilities with district systems, these schools were quickly able to establish strong and supportive school climates without apparent compromise to student academic achievement. Conversion school progress was slowed by an early focus on structural changes and the challenges of equitable reassignment of existing staff and students, with less initial clarity of vision for the learning environment or initial emphasis on instructional change. More evidence is needed concerning the long-term outcomes for students in these schools and the feasibility of creating small schools at scale, and therefore the degree to which either strategy is likely to support the ultimate goal of promoting educational excellence and equity for all high schoolers.

Student Achievement, School Structure, and the Effects of Small Learning Community Implementation in Los Angeles: A Network Approach

“…Another comprehensive implementation study, (Shear et al, 2008), addressed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's National High Schools Initiative, which funded new small high schools and the conversion of large comprehensive high schools into separated, autonomous schools within high schools. The study found mixed or no results for these conversions.…”

“…Additionally, the study was hampered by a lack of longitudinal data, sometimes drawing conclusions from one or two years of data, though the authors do note that results from case studies hint that the seven conversion schools surveyed had low prior levels of student achievement, were plagued by teacher staffing issues, and in general had many startup growing pains, which might contribute to finding mixed results from a shortterm evaluation. Finally, the Gates Foundation conversion model ideal was strict autonomous SLCs (Shear, et al, 2008), a model that essentially involves breaking up a (semi-)coherent institution and setting off a power struggle for control of individual learning communities (Raywid, Schmerler, Phillips, & Smith, 2003), a process known to be fraught with peril (Muncey & McQuillan, 1996).…”

“…Most studies have suggested that SLCs are associated with better academic outcomes (Cotton, 2001;Raywid, 1996), but less so for test-score outcomes (Bernstein, et al, 2008;James-Burdumy, et al, 2008;Shear, et al, 2008). Chapter 6 adds to this literature by presenting results from a large school district using a plausibly causal model, including changes in multiple academic outcomes associated with the implementation of SLCs (Research question 5).…”

“…This decrease in effective community size is associated with an increase in the feelings of connectedness for those students (McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002;Weiss, Carolan, & Baker-Smith, 2010). Additionally, the student may share course schedules with more students (Neubig, 2006), and see each other more often during the day, giving them more of an opportunity to make friends (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988), increase their attachment to school (Shear, et al, 2008), and thereby improve academic outcomes (V. E. Lee & Smith, 1993).…”

“…Table 5.7 shows correlations with English test score levels. Foreshadowing things to come, like James-Burdumy (2008), Shear (2008), andBernstein (2008), not many structural measures have significant correlations with test scores (none affected test score gains). Only the eleventh grade fraction of connected students in the same community correlation is significantly different from zero, and then only before SLC implementation for those schools that eventually implemented SLCs.…”