This article presents a longitudinal case study of an urban high school as it transitioned from one comprehensive reform model to another over a 10-year period. The study is based on qualitative interview data and quantitative data on student outcomes. Despite evidence of improved student outcomes during this reform period, the school could not meet state-mandated improvement goals because of the large proportion of students who entered with already longstanding patterns of low attendance and low achievement prior to high school. Addressing these deep structural issues will require a more systemic, rather than school-centered, focus.
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis (CRESPAR Report #70) . Baltimore and Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
2.
Bottoms, G., Fox, J.N., & New, T. (2000). The 2000 “High Schools That Work” assessment: Improving urban high schools. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
3.
Bottoms, G., & Mikos, P. (1995). High schools that work. Executive Educator, 17, 37-38.
4.
Boyer, E.L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Carnegie Forum on Education and Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
6.
Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J. (2003). Secondary career and technical education and comprehensive school reform: Implications for research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 73, 231-272.
7.
Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/nslc.pdf
8.
Finn, C. (2002, April). What ails U.S. high schools? How should they be reformed? Is there a federal role?Paper presented at Preparing America's Future: The High School Symposium, Washington, DC.
9.
Goldhaber, D. (2002, February 13). What might go wrong with the accountability measures of the No Child Left Behind Act?Paper prepared for the Will No Child Truly Be Left Behind? The Challenges of Making This Law Work Conference, Washington DC.
10.
Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future . New York: McGraw Hill.
11.
Greene, J.P. (2002). Public school graduation rates in the United States (Civic Report No. 31). New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
12.
Gregory, T. (2000). School reform and the no man's land of high school size. Retrieved March 28, 2003, from http://www.smallschoolsproject.org/articles/download/gregory.pdf
13.
Grubb, W.N. (1995). Coherence for all students: High schools with career clusters and majors. In W. N. Grubb (Ed.), Education through occupations in American high schools (pp. 97-113). New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
Harvey, J., & Housman, N. (2004). Crisis or possibility? Conversations about the American high school. Washington, DC: National High School Alliance.
15.
Hershey, A.M., Silvergerg, M., Haimson, J., Hudis, P., & Jackson, R. et al. (1999, February). Expanding options for students. Report to congress on the National Evaluation of School-to-Work Implementation. Executive summary. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
16.
Hughes, K.L., Thomas, R.B., & Mechur, M.J. (2001). School-to-work: Making a difference in education. A research report to America. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, Institute on Education and the Economy.
17.
Kaufman, P., Bradby, D., & Teitelbaum, P. (2000). High Schools That Work and whole school reform: Raising academic achievement of vocational completers through the reform of school practice. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
18.
Kemple, J.J., & Herlily, C. (2004). The talent development high school model: Context, components, and initial impacts on ninth grade students' engagement and performance . New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
19.
Legters, N.E. (2000). Small learning communities meet school-to-work: Whole school restructuring for urban comprehensive high schools. In M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents (pp. 309-337). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Legters, N.E., Balfanz, R.W., Jordan, W.J., & McPartland, J.M. (2002). Comprehensive reform for urban high schools: A talent development approach. New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241-270.
22.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205-227.
23.
McAndrews, T., & Anderson, W. (2002). Schools within schools. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461915)
24.
McPartland, J. (2004). Proposal for the Center for Research to improve low performing schools. Unpublished manuscript, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
25.
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.
26.
Muncey, D.E., & McQuillan, P.J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
Nathan, J., & Febey, K. (2001). Smaller, safer, saner successful schools. Minneapolis: Minnesota University, Center for School Change, Humphrey Institute.
28.
Neild, R., & Balfanz, R. (2001). An extreme degree of difficulty: The educational demographics of the ninth grade in Philadelphia's high schools. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
29.
Noguera, P. (2002). Beyond size: The challenge of high school reform . Educational Leadership, 59(5), 60-63.
30.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Powell, A., Farrer, E., & Cohen, D. (1985). The shopping mall high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
32.
Roderick, M., & Camburn, E. (1999). Risk and recovery from course failure in the early years of high school. American Educational Research Journal , 36, 303-343.
33.
Sizer, T.R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .
34.
Stern, D., Dayton, C., & Raby, M. (1998). Career academies and high school reform. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.
35.
Stern, D., Raby, M., & Dayton, C. (1992). Career academies. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
36.
Stiefel, L., Berne, R., Iatarola, P., & Fruchter, N. (2000). High school size: Effects on budgets and performance in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 22(1), 27-39.
37.
Swanson, C. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn't? A statistical portrait of public high school graduation, Class of 2001. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Education Policy Center.
38.
Uriquola, M., Stern, D., Horn, I., Dornsife, C., Chi, B., Williams, L., et al. (1997, November). School to work, college and career: A review of policy, practice, and results1993- 1997. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
39.
Waltemeyer, M., Jones, D., & Balfanz, R. (2002). Transition to advanced mathematics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
40.
Wasley, P., Holland, N., King, S., Mosak, E., & Powell, L. (2000). Small schools: Great strides, a study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education.
41.
White, P.A., Porter, A.C., Gamoran, A., & Smithson, J. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics: A look at three transition courses. NASSP Bulletin, 81(586), 72-83.
