Small learning communities require accommodations from all school stake-holders. This article describes the reorganization efforts of two middle level and two high schools in rural and urban environments into small learning communities. Routine collaborative problem-solving and learning processes are needed to carry the long-term burden of developing structures and practices that challenge taken-for-granted organizational values and assumptions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arick, J., B. Everhart, D. Hagstrom, D. Krug, G. Nave, and D. Oxley. 1995. A system review of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century. Salem, Ore.: Oregon Department of Education.
2.
Bryk, A., and M. Driscoll. 1988. The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Madison, Wis.: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.
3.
Cohen, R.1994. The ordeal of change: A true story of high school reform. Teachers College Record96 (2): 148-166.
4.
Cook, A.2000. The transformation of one large urban high school: The Julia Richman Education Complex. In Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education, edited by E. Clinchy. New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
Cuban, L.1986. Persistent instruction: Another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan68 (1): 7-11.
6.
Cuban, L.1992. What happens to reforms that last? The case of the junior high school. American Educational Research Journal29 (2): 227-251.
7.
Cuban, L.1993. The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. Phi Delta Kappan75 (2): 182-185.
8.
Cuban, L.1997. Change without reform: The case of Stanford University School of Medicine, 1908-1990. American Educational Research Journal34 (1): 83-122.
9.
Felner, R. D., A. W. Jackson, D. Kasak, P. Mulhall, S. Brand, and N. Flowers. 1997. The impact of school reform for the middle years. Phi Delta Kappan78 (7): 528-550.
10.
Fine, M., and J. Somerville. 1998. Small schools, big imaginations. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
11.
Hatch, T.1998. The differences in theory that matter in the practice of school improvement. American Educational Research Journal35 (1): 3-31.
12.
Lee, V., A. Bryk, and J. Smith. 1993. The organization of effective secondary schools. In Review of research in education vol. 19, edited by L. Darling-Hammond. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
13.
Lee, V., and J. Smith. 1995. Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education68 (4): 241-270.
14.
Louis, K., and M. Miles. 1990. Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
McMullan, B., C. Sipe, and W. Wolf. 1994. Charters and student achievement: Early evidence from school restructuring in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Center for Assessment and Policy Development.
16.
Meier, D.2000. Can the odds be changed? What it will take to make small schools ordinary practice. In Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education, edited by E. Clinchy. New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Muncey, D.1994. A response. Teachers College Record96 (2): 167-174.
18.
Muncey, D., and P. McQuillan. 1993. Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan74 (6): 486-489.
19.
Murphy, J.1994. A response. Teachers College Record96 (2): 174-179.
20.
National Middle School Association (NMSA). 1982. This we believe. Columbus, Ohio: NMSA.
21.
Oxley, D.1990. An analysis of house systems in New York City neighborhood high schools. Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.
22.
Oxley, D.1993. Organizing schools into smaller units: A planning guide. Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.
23.
Oxley, D.1994. Organizing for responsiveness: The heterogeneous school community. In Educational resilience in inner-city America, edited by M. Wang and G. Gordon. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
24.
Oxley, D.1995. Mutual promises of middle school and inclusive education: Round 3, pressing for full implementation. Eugene, Ore: Specialized Training Program.
25.
Oxley, D.1997a. Making community in an inner-city high school: Towards the merging of high school restructuring and inclusion agendas. In Models and strategies for inclusive education at the secondary level, edited by D. Sage. Syracuse, N.Y.: National Professional Resources.
26.
Oxley, D.1997b. Theory and practice of school communities. Educational Administration Quarterly33: 624-643.
27.
Oxley D., and F. Bodone. 2000. A case study of “U.S. Grant High School.”Ann Arbor, Mich.: School of Education.
28.
Oxley, D., R. Croninger, and E. DeGroot. 2000. Considerations for entry level students in schools-within-schools: The interplay of social capital and student identity formation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 24-28 April, New Orleans, La.
29.
Oxley, D., C. Droege, and J. Williams. 1995. Report to “Douglas Middle School”: A post-Brown document. Eugene, Ore.: Schools Project.
30.
Prestine, N.1994. A response. Teachers College Record96 (2): 179-182.
31.
Ready, D., V. Lee, and L. LoGerfo. 2000. Social and academic stratification in high schools divided into schools-within-schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 24-28 April, New Orleans, La.
32.
Sarason, S.1982. The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
33.
Sarason, S.1990. The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Senge, P.1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
35.
Wehlage, G., G. Smith, and P. Lipman. 1992. Restructuring urban schools: The new futures experience. American Educational Research Journal29 (1): 51-93.
