High School: Erasing Borders

Journal of College Admission, Fall 2006 by Wright, Dianne, Bogotch, Ira

Disparate Discourses

The language used by the University administration and staff was always optimistic, yet tentative. Most of the work on-the-ground was prefaced with ambiguous phrases such as "It depends"; "We'll double check"; "I can't tell you [now]"; "We don't have a policy"; "If that's not working, then..." In contrast, students and parents insisted that "there were promises made" that needed to be kept. Students and parents wanted something concrete; they wanted to hear specifics. They wanted actions to meet their concerns. Several times during the first year, the disparate discourses looked as if they would tear the innovative program apart. There were even accusations of being less than honest and downright deception, and threats of returning to old high schools.

Remarkably, there were no permanent ruptures. Both sides learned how to communicate better. First and foremost, the administrators acknowledged to parents and students that they needed to do a better job of communicating in letters to parents. Likewise, parents and students learned to work through discussions on policies and procedures. Moreover, the leadership team moved decisively on a number of issues to nail down policies and decisions, ranging from course registration, the date and place for graduation, field trips, and other daily policies all changed from words to action.

Interestingly, one discourse never wavered. That was best captured in the program coordinator's use of language, i.e., the very first day of the school term, the coordinator asserted: "Nothing is impossible." Throughout the year, her message to the students was consistent: "We do better together." Her discourse functioned as the glue that held the community together.

At the same time, there were indications of interpersonal conflict among the leadership team and its staff-all just below the surface. Outwardly, the rhetoric was "if we all work together, we can work this out." Below the surface, it was left up to individuals to learn their new roles. Clearly, the staff was stretched.

Learning and Growth Efficiency: Standards, Quality and Accountability

As with many innovative projects, pre-planning also has its limits. Oftentimes, participants in this initiative indicated that they felt as though they found themselves waiting around and hearing false promises. As the year progressed, however, wait time was reduced. Transitions became smoother. The students had access to all members of the leadership team, the staff, and whenever necessary, members of the steering committee. Systems communications, too, improved across the large state university campus.

Discussion

Despite setbacks, one student earned a 4.0. Another, however, stopped going to class and was placed on probation. Some took too many credits. Some withdrew from courses, and therefore did not earn full credit toward high school graduation. Most of the first-year 10th through 12th graders, however, did well. The University High students also took advantage of varied "collegiate" opportunities while taking their courses with high grades. A new curricular track was also developed.