In light of the consistent underperformance of the comprehensive high school, districts across the country, mostly urban, have begun creating small schools, believing that they may offer a more personalized, supportive, and demanding learning environment. To explore this assumption, this article examines small-school reform through the lens of complexity theory, considering both the promise and problems associated with this approach to educational change.
Purpose/Objective
With complexity theory as an analytic lens, this article looks at extant research in the area of small-school reform. Specifically, the article draws on fundamental features of complexity theory (e.g., initial conditions, distributed authority, control parameters, fractals, and synergy) as a way to assess both the problems and promise of small-school reform.
Intervention/Program/Practice
This article focuses on the effects of small-school reform— specifically, the impact of small schools, defined in general as those that enroll between 300 and 450 students, have an explicit thematic focus, promote broad democratic participation for all community members, and attempt to personalize students’ education as a means to enhance educational achievement.
Research Design
Drawing on the lens of complexity theory, this article offers a secondary analysis of research that I and others have conducted. Employing specific features of complexity theory, this article offers an analysis of these studies from a new analytic perspective.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Overall, complexity theory is “good to think with.” It offers a systematic way to conceptualize and direct reform in a dynamic, nonlinear system. It is not precise, and certainly not predictive, but complexity theory—with its attention to changed interactions, initial conditions, distributed authority, control parameters, and fractals—offers a holistic framework for understanding the systemic nature of educational reform. Too often, efforts at educational change have been atheoretical, ignoring the multiple, interrelated, and interacting elements of our schools and school systems. Viewing the educational system as composed of isolated and discrete structures, such efforts assumed that complicated phenomena could be understood by analyzing their constituent parts, when in fact the sum of the whole was greater, and more complex, than the sum of the individual parts. Consequently, reforms modified one or two elements in a system apart from related elements, assuming that these actions would produce the intended outcome through a linear, cause-and-effect relationship. But often, the status quo endured. Rather than assuming such predictable and linear interactions among discrete elements in an educational system, complexity theory draws attention to the evolving interrelationships among system elements at various levels of the system. It offers a means to analyze emerging patterns and trends to illuminate how the disparate system parts are, or are not, working together.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AncessJ., and OrtS. W. (1999). How the Coalition Campus Schools have re-imagined high school. New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University.
2.
AxelrodR., and CohenM. D. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Free Press.
3.
AyersW. (2000). Simple justice: Thinking about teaching and learning, equity, and the fight for small schools. In AyersW., KlonskyM., and LyonG. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 1—8). New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
AyersW., KlonskyM., and LyonG. (Eds.). (2000). A simple justice: The challenge of small schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
BickelR. (1999a). School size, socioeconomic status, and achievement: A Georgia replication of inequity in education. Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433985)
8.
BickelR. (1999b). School size, socioeconomic status, and achievement: A Texas replication of inequity in education. Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433986)
9.
BossoC. (1994). The contextual bases of problem definition. In RochefortD.A., and CobbR.W. (Eds.), The politics of problem definition: Sharing the policy agenda (pp. 182—203). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
10.
BrykA. S., and SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
BuellM. J., and CassidyD. J. (2001). The complex and dynamic nature of quality in early care and educational programs: A case for chaos. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 209—221.
12.
Center for Collaborative Education. (2003). How Boston pilot schools use freedom over budget, staffing, and scheduling to meet student needs. Boston: Author.
13.
Center for Collaborative Education. (2006). The essential guide to pilot schools. Boston: Author.
14.
ClinchyE. (2000). Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-SmithM., DavisD., and FriesM. K. (2002). Multicultural teacher education research, practice, and policy. In BanksJ.A., and BanksC.M. (Eds.), The handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931—975). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
ColemanJ. S. (1990) Equality and achievement in education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cook-SatherA. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3—14.
20.
CoplandM. (2003) Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 375—395.
21.
CorbettD., and WilsonB. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher, 24(5), 12—17.
22.
CottonK. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance (Close-Up Series No. 20). School Improvement Research Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
23.
CottonK. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/nslc.pdf
24.
Darling-HammondL. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5—17.
25.
Darling-HammondL. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5—15.
26.
DavisB. (2003). Toward a pragmatics of complex transformation. Journal of Canadian Association of Curriculum Studies, 1, 39—45.
27.
DavisB., and SumaraD. (2001, Winter). Learning communities: Understanding the workplace as a complex system. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92, 85—95.
28.
DavisB., and SumaraD. J. (2005). Challenging images of knowing: Complexity science and educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 305—321.
29.
DavisB., and SumaraD. J. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
DonaldsonG. A. (2001). Cultivating school leadership: Connecting people, purpose, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
31.
DuffyF. M. (1997). Knowledge work supervision: Transforming schools systems into high performing learning organizations. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(1), 26—31.
32.
ElmoreR. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1—25.
33.
EvansR. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
FerreroD. (2005). Pathways to reform: Start with values. Educational Leadership, 63, 8—14.
35.
FordhamS. (1996). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, ideology, and success at Capitol High. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
FoutsJ. T., BakerD. B., and RileyS. C. (2001). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Model School Initiative: Year 1 evaluation results. Seattle, WA: Fouts and Associates.
37.
FowlerW., and WalbergH. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189—202.
38.
FullanM. (with Stiegelbauer, S.). (2002). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
FullanM. (2004, April). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meetings, San Diego, CA.
40.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
41.
GeneseeF. (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
GleickJ. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
43.
GoddardR. D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital perspective on students’ chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 59—74.
44.
GoodladJ. I., SoderR., and SirotnikK. A. (Eds.). (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45.
HargreavesA. (1997a). Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In and and HargreavesA. (Ed.), ASCD yearbook: Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp. 1—26). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
46.
HargreavesA. (1997b). Cultures of teaching and educational change. In BiddleB.J., GoodT.L., and GoodsonI.F. (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching, Volume II (pp. 1297—1319). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
47.
HargreavesA. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press.
48.
HaycockK. (1998). No more settling for less. Thinking, 4(1), 3—12.
49.
HemmingsA. (2000). High school democratic dialogues: Possibilities for praxis. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 67—91.
50.
HobanG. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
51.
HowleyC. (1999a). The Matthew Project: State report for Montana. Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433173)
52.
HowleyC. (1999b). The Matthew Project: State report for Ohio. Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433175)
53.
HowleyC. (2002). Small schools. In and and MolnarA. (Ed.), School reform proposals: The research evidence (pp. 49—77). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
54.
JacobsonM. J., and WilenskyU. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11—34.
55.
JensenH. (1998). Self-organized criticality: Emergent complex behavior in physical and biological systems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
56.
JohnsonJ., DuffettA., FarkasS., and CollinsK. (2003). Teachers: Students in large high schools more likely to “fall through the cracks” (Policy memorandum). Retrieved July 22, 2005, from Public Agenda Web site: http://www.publicagenda.com/press/press_release_detail.cfm?list=41
57.
JohnsonS. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York: Touchstone.
58.
KahneJ. E., SporteS. E., de la TorreM., and EastonJ. Q. (2006). Small high schools on a larger scale: The first three years of the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.
59.
KempleJ. J. (2001). Career academies: Impacts on students’ initial transitions to post-secondary education and employment. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
60.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1994) The dreamkeepers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
61.
LambertM. B. (2003, August). Things you can count on happening. Paper presented at the Learning Network/Small Schools Project seminar on small-school reform, Seattle, WA.
62.
LambertM. B., LowryL., CoplandM., GallucciC., and WallachC. (n.d.). Knowing and being known: Personalization as the foundation for student learning. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Workshop.
63.
Larsen-FreemanD. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141—165.
64.
LeeV., and LoebS. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers’ attitudes and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 3—31.
65.
LeeV., and SmithJ. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66, 164—187.
66.
LeeV., and SmithJ. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241—270.
67.
LegtersN., BalfanzR., JordanW. J., and McPartlandJ. M. (2002). Comprehensive reform for urban high schools: A talent development approach. New York: Teachers College Press.
68.
LeshR. (2006). Modeling students modeling abilities: The teaching and learning of complex systems in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 45—52.
69.
Levi-StraussC. (1964). Mythologies. New York: Basic Books.
70.
LevineE. (2002). One kid at a time: Big lessons from a small school. New York: Teachers College Press.
71.
LewinR. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72.
LiebermanA., and MillerL. (1999). Teachers: Transforming their world and their work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
73.
LipmanP. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
74.
LittkyD. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone's business. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
75.
LouisK. S., MarksH. M., and KruseS. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757—798.
76.
MartinK. (2004, April). Leadership in living organizations. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
77.
McDermottR. P. (1987). Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to illiteracy and social stratification. In and and SpindlerG.D. (Ed.), Education and cultural process (pp. 47—65). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
78.
McQuillanP. J. (1995, April). Knowing and empowerment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
79.
McQuillanP. J. (1997). Humanizing the comprehensive high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 644—682.
80.
McQuillanP. J. (1998). Educational opportunity in an urban American high school: A cultural analysis. Albany: State University of New York Press.
81.
McQuillanP. J. (2002). From big to small: A qualitative study of the Manual Educational Complex Experience. Report submitted to the Colorado Small Schools Initiative, Manual Educational Complex, and Denver Public Schools, Denver, CO.
82.
McQuillanP. J. (2003). Two years into small school reform: The Manual Educational Complex at a crossroads. Report submitted to the Colorado Small Schools Initiative, Manual Educational Complex, and Denver Public Schools, Denver, CO.
83.
McQuillanP. J. (2004). Three years down the road: Small school reform at the Manual Educational Complex. Report submitted to the Colorado Small Schools Initiative, Manual Educational Complex, and Denver Public Schools, Denver, CO.
84.
McQuillanP. J. (2005, December 15). Memo to Mapleton, Colorado. Unpublished memo shared with Mapleton School District, Mapleton, CO.
85.
McQuillanP. J., and EnglertK. S. (2001). The return to neighborhood schools, concentrated poverty, and educational opportunity: An agenda for reform. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 28, 739—770.
86.
MeierD. (1998). Can the odds be changed? In FineM., and SomervilleJ.I. (Eds.), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at public schools (pp. 85—92). Chicago: Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
87.
MohananK. P. (1992). Emergence of complexity in phonological development. In FergusonC., MennL., and Stoel-GammonC. (Eds.), Phonological development (pp. 49—67). Timonium, MD: York Press.
88.
MohrN. (2000). Small schools are not miniature large schools: Potential pitfalls and implications for leadership. In AyersW., KlonskyM., and LyonG. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 139—158). New York: Teachers College Press.
89.
MunceyD. E., and McQuillanP. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
90.
NathanL., and MyattL. (2000). A journey toward autonomy. In and and ClinchyE. (Ed.), Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education (pp. 17—37). New York: Teachers College Press.
91.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author.
92.
O'DayJ. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293—329.
93.
OgbuJ. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 312—334.
94.
OstermanK. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323—368.
PetersonP. L., McCarthyS. J., and ElmoreR. F. (1996). Learning from school restructuring. American Journal of Education, 33, 119—153.
97.
PowellA., FarrarE., and CohenD. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational market place. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
98.
RaywidM. A. (1995). Alternatives and marginal students. In WangM.C., and ReynoldsM.C. (Eds.), Making a difference for students at risk (pp. 119—155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
99.
ReadyD. D., LeeV. E., and WelnerK. G. (2004). Educational equity and school structure: School size, overcrowding, and schools-within-schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 1989—2014.
100.
ReigeluthC. M. (2004, April). Chaos theory and the sciences of complexity: Foundations for transforming education. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
101.
ReynoldsS., LuschR., and CrossD. (2004, April). Higher education administration in a dynamic system. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
102.
RiehlC. J. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research70, 55—81.
103.
SarasonS. B. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
104.
SarasonS. B. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the schools and the problem of change.” New York: Teachers College Press.
105.
SchmokerM. (1997). Setting goals in turbulent times. In and and HargreavesA. (Ed.), ASCD yearbook: Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp. 128—148). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
106.
ShippsD., KahneJ., and SmylieM. A. (1999). The politics of urban school reform: Legitimacy, city growth, and school improvement in Chicago. Educational Policy, 13, 518—545.
The Small Schools Express. (2005). Rethinking Schools, 19(4), 4.
109.
StaceyR. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
110.
Stanton-SalazarR. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
111.
StevensW. D., and KahneJ. E. (2006). Professional communities and instructional improvement practices: A study of small high schools in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago.
112.
TochT. (2003). High schools on a human scale: How small schools can transform American education. Boston: Beacon Press.
113.
Tschannen-MoranM., and HoyW. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70, 547—593.
114.
WalbergH. (1989). District size and student learning. Education and Urban Society, 21, 154—163.
115.
WalbergH., and FowlerW. (1987). Expenditure and size efficiencies of public school districts. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 5—13.
116.
WalbergH., and WalbergH. (1994). Losing local control. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 19—26.
117.
WheatleyM. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
118.
Wong-FillmoreL. (1992) Against our best instincts. In and and CrawfordJ. (Ed.), Language loyalties (pp. 52—67). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
