Support for small schools, and specifically for the creation of small, autonomous schools of choice, has grown considerably in the past decade—particularly in the context of urban schooling. Funded by private and public monies, small-school initiatives have been implemented in most of the nation's city school districts and have become a favorite reform strategy among grassroots community groups, corporate foundations, advocates for teacher autonomy, social activists, policy makers, and school superintendents alike. Although some opposition to small-school reform has emerged in recent years, criticism has primarily been confined to issues of how the strategy is being implemented and by whom and is rarely directed at the concept of the reform itself.
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to explain the widespread appeal of small-school reform. It asks, Given the multiple school reform strategies that have emerged over the past quarter of a century, why does the creation of small, autonomous schools of choice attract such varied and strong support? I seek to answer this question not by looking at small-school reform on the ground, but rather through an investigation of the ideas and beliefs on which the reform is based. Specifically, I offer an ideological genealogy of small-school reform by tracing the public arguments offered in support of the reform back to a set of assumptions about the political, cultural, and economic purposes of public education.
Research Design
I conducted my analysis by examining the vast array of popular and scholarly writing on small-school reform, as well as media reports, unpublished papers, conference proceedings, e-mail lists (LISTSERVs), Web sites, promotional brochures, requests for proposals, and other documents related to the reform effort. These sources allowed me to identify the salient beliefs and assumptions embedded within support for small-school reform and to explore how the reform strategy functions as a unifying framework for reformers with disparate goals and agendas.
Analysis
I begin by examining the political purposes ascribed to small-school reform, which I argue join together ideologies on the political left and right through an emphasis on local empowerment that reduces the role of the general citizen in educational governance. I then explore the cultural goals associated with small-school reform and assert that they are largely embedded in nostalgia for the small, bounded communities of yesteryear that seek to reconfigure the large public square into multiple, and narrowly drawn, small ones. Finally, I consider the economic purposes attached to small-school reform and find that they are rooted in the twin assumptions that a central function of schooling is to increase productivity and that the best way to achieve this objective is to model schools after businesses that compete with one another in an open educational marketplace.
Conclusions
This analysis demonstrates that although tensions and contradictions exist both within and across the various strands of support for small-school reform, they are unified in promoting a notion of public schooling that privileges private interests and constructs the “public” in public education in narrow and fragmented terms. Thus, the widespread appeal of small-school reform should be understood as part of a broader trend in the United States to reduce the role of the citizen in educational governance and to frame the public purpose of education as a private good.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AIR/SRI. (2004). The National School District and Network Grants Program: Year 2 evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
2.
AIR/SRI. (2006). Evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's high school grants initiative: 2001–2005 final report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
3.
AndersenP. (2005, April 2). Private money, public schools and the best of intentions. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved April 8, 2005, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com
4.
AppleM. (2001). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
5.
AyersR. (2000). Social justice and small schools: Why we bother, why it matters. In AyersW., KlonskyM., and LyonG. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 95—109). New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
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.
7.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (n.d.). Making the case for small schools [brochure]. Seattle, WA: Author.
8.
BloomfieldD. (2006, January 25). Come clean on small schools. Education Week, pp. 34—35.
9.
BowlesS., and GintisH. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
10.
BronnerS. E. (1999). Ideas in action: Political tradition in the twentieth century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
11.
BrykA. S., and DriscollM. (1998). The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
12.
CarmichaelS., and HamiltonC. (1967). Black power: The politics of liberation in America. New York: Random House.
ChubbJ. E., and MoeT. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
15.
ClinchyE. (2000). Introduction: The educationally challenged American school district. In and and ClinchyE. (Ed.), Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education (pp. 1—16). New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
ClinchyE. (2001). Needed: A new educational civil rights movement. Phi Delta Kappan82, 492—499.
17.
CooksonP. W. (1992). The ideology of consumership and the coming deregulation of the public school system. In and and CooksonP. (Ed.), The choice controversy (pp. 83—99). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
18.
ConantJ. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
CottonK. (1997). School size, school climate, and student performance. School Improvement Research Series, Close up #20. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html
20.
CottonK. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
21.
DeweyJ. (1915). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
DreebenR. (1968). On what is learned in school. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
23.
FassP. (1980). The IQ: A cultural and historical framework. American Journal of Education, 65, 4, 431—458.
24.
FineM. (1994). Chartering urban school reform: Reflections on public high schools in the midst of change. New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
FineM. (1998). What's so good about small schools? In FineM., and SomervilleJ. (Eds.), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools (pp. 2—13). Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
26.
FineM. (2005). Not in our name. Rethinking Schools19(4), 11—14.
27.
FineM., and SomervilleJ. (Eds.). (1998). Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
28.
FliegelS. (1993). Miracle in East Harlem: The fight for choice in public education. New York: Manhattan Institute.
29.
FowlerW., and WalbergH. J. (1991). School size, characteristics and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189—202.
30.
FrankT. (2000). One market under God: Extreme capitalism, market populism, and the end of economic democracy. New York: Doubleday.
31.
FreireP. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
32.
FullerB. (2000). (Ed.). Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
FullerB., ElmoreR., and OrfieldG. (Eds.). (1996). School choice: Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice. New York: Teachers College Press.
GladdenR. (1998). The small school movement: A review of the literature. In FineM., and SomervilleJ. (Eds.), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools (pp. 113—137). Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
36.
GottfredsonD. C. (1985). School size and school disorder. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
37.
HargreavesA. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.
38.
HarrisonB. (1994). Lean and mean: The changing landscape of corporate power in the age of flexibility. New York: Basic Books.
39.
HauserP. M. (1965). Urbanization: An overview. In HauserP.M., and SchnoreL. (Eds.), The study of urbanization (pp. 1—47). New York: John Wiley.
HenigJ. (1995). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
HowleyC., StrangeM., and BickelR. (2000). Research about school size and school performance in impoverished communities. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448968)
43.
IatarolaP. (2005). Learning from experience: New York City's small high schools. PEA Bulletin30(1), 1—5.
KatzM. (1975). Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational change in America (expanded ed.). New York: Praeger.
46.
KempleJ. J., and SnipesJ. C. (2000). Career academies: Impacts on students’ engagement and performance in high school. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
47.
KirpD. (2000). Almost home: America's love-hate relationship with community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
KlonskyM. (2000). Remembering Port Huron. In AyersW., KlonskyM., and LyonG. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 23—32). New York: Teachers College Press.
LabareeD. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: A genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 123—154.
51.
LabareeD. (1997). Private goods, public goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39—81.
52.
LacosteJ. (2001, April 21). Push for smaller schools intensifies. Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved April 21, 2001, from http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com
53.
LeeV. E. (2000). School size and the organization of secondary schools. In and and HallinanM.T. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 327—344). New York: Klewar/Plenum.
54.
LeeV. E., ReadyD., and JohnsonD. (2001) The difficulty of identifying rare samples to study: The case of high schools divided into schools-within-schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 365—379.
55.
LeeV. E., and SmithJ. B. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 205—227.
56.
LevinH. (Ed.). (1970). Community control of schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
57.
LewisD. A., and NakagawaK. (1995). Race and educational reform in the American metropolis: A study of school decentralization. Albany: State University of New York Press.
58.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129—151.
59.
LubienskiC. (2001). Redefining “public” education: Charter schools, common schools, and the rhetoric of reform. Teachers College Record, 103, 634—666.
60.
MathewsJ. (2005, November 29). The colossal-campus challenge: For some, multitude of choices outweighs crowds at schools of 4,000 and more. The Washington Post, p. A15.
61.
MatusowA. J. (1984). The unraveling of America: A history of liberalism in the 1960s. New York: Harper and Row.
62.
McMullanB. J., SipeC. L., and WolfW. C. (1994). Charters and student achievement: Early evidence from school restructuring in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Center for Assessment and Policy Development.
63.
McNeilL. (1988). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.
64.
MeierD. (1996). The power of their ideas. Boston: Beacon Press.
65.
MeierD. (2000). Will standards save public education?Boston: Beacon Press.
66.
MerzC., and FurmanG. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. New York: Teachers College Press.
67.
MillerR. (2002). Free schools, free people: Education and democracy after the 1960s. Albany: State University of New York Press.
68.
MirelJ. (1993). The rise and fall of an urban school system: Detroit, 1907–81. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
69.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1996). How safe are the public schools: What do teachers say? Issue brief in creating safe and drug-free schools: An action guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
70.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the secretary of education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: The Commission on Excellence in Education.
71.
NehringJ. (2000, August 2). A nation of boutiques. Education Week, p. 43.
72.
NeumannR. (2003). Sixties legacy: A history of the public alternative schools movement, 1967–2000. New York: Peter Lang.
73.
NoddingsN. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
74.
NogueraP. (1994). More democracy not less: Confronting the challenge of privatization in public education. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 237—250.
75.
Office of the Vice President. (2000, January 12). Vice President Gore announces new investment to create smaller, safer and more successful high schools (2000 White House education press releases and statements). Retrieved March 23, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/01-2000/wh-0112a.html
76.
OgawaR. (1994). The institutional sources of educational reform: The case of school-based management. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 519—548.
77.
OrfieldG. (1978). Must we bus? Segregated schools and national policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
78.
OrfieldG., and EatonS. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The New Press.
79.
OxleyD. (1990). An analysis of house systems in New York City neighborhood high schools. Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368845)
80.
PageL., LayzerC., SchimmentiJ., BernsteinL., and HorstL. (2002). National evaluation of smaller learning communities: Literature review. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
81.
PangleL. S., and PangleT. (1993). The learning of liberty: The educational ideas of the American founders. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
82.
PappanoL. (2001, April 8). The chalkboard: When bigger may not be better. The Boston Globe, p. 5.
83.
PerlsteinD. (2004). Justice, justice: School politics and the eclipse of liberalism. New York: Peter Lang.
84.
PittmanR. B., and HaughwoutP. (1987). Influence on high school size on dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 337—343.
85.
PowellA., FarrarE., and CohenD. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Prospects for the future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
86.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
87.
QuindlenA. (2001, March 26). The problem of the megaschool. Newsweek, p. 68.
88.
RavitchD. (November 6, 2005). Downsize high schools? Not too far. The Washington Post, p. B7
89.
RaywidM. A. (1999). Current literature on small schools (ERIC Digest). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425049)
90.
RaywidM. A., and OshiyamaL. (2000). Musings in the wake of Columbine: What can schools do?Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 444—449.
91.
RaywidM. A., and SchmerlerG. (2003). Not so easygoing: The policy environments of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED474653)
92.
ReadyD., LeeV., and WelnerK. (2004). Educational equity and school structure: School size, overcrowding, and schools-within-schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 1989—2014.
93.
RobelenE. W. (2005, November 16). Gates high schools get mixed review in study. Education Week, pp. 1, 20.
94.
RossinowD. (1998). The politics of authenticity: Liberalism, Christianity, and the New Left in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
95.
RuryJ., and MirelJ. (1997). The political economy of urban education. In and and AppleM. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 22, pp. 49—113).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
96.
SchubertW. H. (2000). John Dewey as a philosophical basis for small schools. In AyersW., KlonskyM., and LyonG. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 53—66). New York: Teachers College Press.
97.
ScottC. (1908). Social education. Boston: Ginn and Company.
98.
ScottJ. (Ed.). (2005). School choice and diversity: What the evidence says. New York: Teachers College Press.
99.
ShippsD. (2000). Echoes of corporate influence: Managing away urban school troubles. In CubanL., and ShippsD. (Eds.), Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping with intractable American dilemmas (pp. 82—105). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
SpringJ. (1972). Education and the rise of the corporate state. Boston: Beacon Press.
104.
SternD., DaytonC., and RabyM. (2000). Career academies: Building blocks for reconstructing American high schools. Berkeley, CA: Career Academy Support Network.
105.
StiefelL., LatarolaP., FruchterN. A., and BerneR. (1998). The effects of size of student body on school costs and performance in NYC high schools. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy.
106.
TochT. (2003). High schools on a human scale: How small schools can transform American education. Boston: Beacon Press.
107.
TorresK. (2001, March 7). School restructuring plan unveiled: Students will enroll in ‘career clusters’ in secondary schools. St. Paul Pioneer Press, p. 5B.
108.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
109.
TyackD., and CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
110.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Making the case for smaller learning communities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
VanceR. B. (1966). High schools in the South: A fact book. Nashville, TN: George Peabody College for Teachers.
113.
Vander ArkT., and WagnerT. (2000, June 21). Between hope and despair: The case for smaller high schools. Education Week, pp. 50, 76.
114.
WasleyP. A., FineM., GladdenM., HollandN. E., KingS. P., and MosakE.. (2000). Small schools great strides: A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education.
115.
WatkinsW. H. (2000). Our country is rich, our people are poor: Education, justice, and the politics of structural adjustments. In AyersW., KlonskyM., and LyonG. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 9—12). New York: Teachers College Press.
116.
WellsA. S., SlaytonJ., and ScottJ. (2002). Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter school reform and educational consumption. American Educational Research Journal39, 337—361.
117.
WirthL. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 1—24.
118.
WolchJ. (1989). The shadow state: Transformations in the voluntary sector. In WolchJ., and DearM. (Eds.), The power of geography: How territory shapes social life (pp.197—221). Boston: Unwin Hyman.
119.
YonezawaS., WellsA. S., and SernaI. (2002). Choosing tracks: “Freedom of choice” in detracking schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 37—67.
120.
ZaneN. (1994). When “discipline problems” recede: Democracy and intimacy in urban charters. In and and FineM. (Ed.), Chartering urban school reform (pp. 122—135). New York: Teachers College Press.
