Successful School Downsizing

School Administrator, Oct, 1997 by Mary Anne Raywid

An authority on the small-schools movement outlines key considerations for moving to smaller units

S mall schools are racking up an imposing research record. Solid evidence links them to fewer discipline problems, lower dropout rates, higher levels of student participation, steadier progress toward graduation and more learning.

Small schools are especially beneficial in each of these regards for disadvantaged or at-risk students, who appear to depend to a greater extent on school size and organization for succeeding than do more fortunate youngsters.

But the small-school gains don't follow along automatically in the wake of downsizing, and experience to date yields several lessons important to making good on the promise. Changes are necessary at central-office and building levels, as well as at the new small-unit level. Here are a half dozen lessons that are emerging most clearly and importantly at each of these levels.

Systemwide Issues

Given the research evidence on the advantages of small size and the fact that large schools are what most communities have today, how should school leaders proceed?

Fortunately, large school buildings are no bar to small schools, so quite a lot can be done and at relatively low cost. Multiple schools-within-schools or small schools can be created in large buildings. School districts across the country, including smaller cities and towns as well as larger ones, have moved to do so. Creating small schools--either anew or in newly subdivided school buildings--may be one of the least expensive ways to transform present practice and outcomes. And the process of creating a new school may be the most effective change process yet devised for converting a failing behemoth into a series of smaller successful units or for turning an adequate school into a set of outstanding ones.

* Impetus and encouragement from the top is essential.

Make sure all stakeholders--including those who don't know they are--understand why such a move is important. In Danville, Va., Superintendent Andy Overstreet has done this with the help of a set of overheads he carries around with him, ready for display at any opportunity to familiarize both st ff and community with the district's stunning demographics. He some times s is kidded about it, but people are beginning to grasp why school change in Danville is essential.

As Yale's Seymour Sarason insists, change is impossible unless the people in the situation believe they're in trouble and need to change.

* Assist those interested enough to volunteer.

The move toward smaller units works best if the superintendent's office directly and actively supports the small schools initiative by creating opportunities for volunteer groups of teachers to work together. This is the way it worked 25 years ago in the nation's first attempt at systematically encouraging small school development in New York City's District 4. The process calls for support for those who do step forward, in the form of release time or compensated time for elaborating on their designs. The process requires policies to guide those who want to try.

* Be sure policies governing small-school development are clear and broadly announced.

The policies should require school planners to substitute interest-based grouping for ability grouping and tracking. This takes at least two policy thrusts. First, each school proposed should have a theme or focus enabling it to attract a set of constituents (teachers as well as students and parents) who share goals and see education in a similar way.

Second, no small school can set itself up through its theme or admissions practices to drain off the ablest, most accomplished or most motivated students. Without such policies, the first groups of teachers to volunteer tend to end up with the strongest, most teachable youngsters--and equity-based complaints are sure to follow.

* Adjust district operating procedures from the start.

As New York City Public Schools learned, relying on "policy by exception" does not work. The new schools will require different scheduling, different teaching appointment procedures and recognition as separate entities (i.e., being assigned their own number or name). Unless new policies are explicitly framed in these regards, the waiving of existing ones will be left to the discretion of middle-level officeholders who may or may not turn out to sympathize with the venture.

* Decide what sort of entity the new small schools are to be.

Are schools-within-schools established by and accountable to the building principal, with their survival tied to his or her tenure? Or are they separate small schools sanctioned and supported by central administration?

The first option, schools-within-schools, risks minimal change (see related story, page 20) and insufficient separateness, autonomy and stability. It also maintains the traditional role and function of the building principal. The separate schools option calls for restructuring building organization, along with the role of principal.