The Difficulty of Identifying Rare Samples to Study: The Case of High Schools Divided Into Schools-Within-Schools

Abstract

This note has two purposes: (1) to describe a process used to identify a rare sample of U.S. public secondary schools, those that are completely divided into smaller subunits that we call “schools-within-schools” (SWS); and (2) to provide descriptive information about the schools of that kind that we identified in our national search in Fall 1998. The procedures that we used to locate “full-model” SWS high schools in the United States involved snowball sampling and telephone interviews, in which we used a two-stage screening strategy. Although we searched extensively, we located a modest number (n = 55) of full-model public SWS high schools. Beyond spelling out our methodology for locating this unusual sample, we provide descriptive information about the schools along several dimensions: their regional location, the type of communities in which they are located, the size of their school districts, how many students they serve, their racial or ethnic compositions, and the themes on the basis of which their subunits are organized. We offer tentative conclusions about the SWS reform based on our research.

Educational Equity and School Structure: School Size, Overcrowding, and Schools-Within-Schools

“…Although the term has several meanings, we use the term schools-within schools to refer to high schools where all students and most faculty are members of only one of several smaller instructional units. This full-model SWS structure is distinguished from a more common format, where large high schools offer only one or two small schools, and most students remain in the regular high school program (Lee, Ready, & Johnson, 2001). For example, Stern, Raby and Dayton (1992) describe the career academy movement in California, which often involves one or two career-based ''schools'' within a larger comprehensive high school.…”

“…SWS high schools commonly allow students to select their subunit, based presumably on their individual preferences and attraction to the various subunits' themes and offerings (Lee et al, 2001;McPartland et al, 1996;Ready, Lee & LoGerfo, 2000). The goal of permitting subunit choice is to foster commitment among students and to increase their engagement with school.…”

A Review of Empirical Evidence About School Size Effects: A Policy Perspective

“…"Schools-within-schools" has been the most frequently cited policy response to the challenges that arise from large school size. But this alternative has been more talked about than actually implemented (Lee, Ready, & Johnson, 2001), so little evidence has accumulated to demonstrate that its hoped for benefits actually materialize. In any event, this alternative leaves the mechanisms explaining its hoped for benefits largely unexplored in a systematic way.…”

Small schools and the pressure to consolidate.

“…Instead, within-school grouping arrangements (e.g., into houses or schools-within-schools) have been the typical response. These arrangements constitute administrative simulations of smaller size, and the record of success for such efforts is not good (Lee, Ready, & Johnson, 2001;Raywid & Schmerler, 2003). The arrangements may be called schools, but they typically lack the autonomy and operational distinctiveness inherent in naturally existing schools (Meier, 1995;Raywid & Schmerler, 2003).…”