Schools-within-school: Shortcut with shortfalls?
Six large, urban high schools were recently awarded grants to implement a schools-within-school (SWS) program. [1] In a matter of years, Ohio has become one of the prime test markets for this rapidly expanding movement. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has already financed $20 million toward that end — part of the state’s largest private investment in public education. [2] Will this effort be the answer to Ohio’s education woes?
In conjunction with the Cincinnati-based KnowledgeWorks, the Gates Foundation has jointly spearheaded a 41-school research stage to study the possibilities for expanding SWS. The Gates-KnowledgeWorks’ initiative requires “smaller learning communities” of up to 400 pupils functioning either autonomously in a single facility or several stand-alone sites.
Most often, a public building divides into several thematic regions (such as the performing arts or entrepreneurship) where students and teachers are pooled. The ultimate goal is to reap the unique benefits of a small school with the facilities and resources of one much larger.
Unfortunately, educators and policymakers may have latched too readily onto the SWS concept as a substitute for small schools. While research is still developing, experience demonstrates that different class tracks running within the same building can be a relatively fragile arrangement.
There are two principal reasons why schools-within-school are unlikely to attain an equivalent degree of success as stand-alone small schools. First, SWS are too close to one another. Much of the success of either type of school depends upon its autonomy. When a former unit is thematically fragmented while the students, teachers, and physical structures remain the same, resource wars and pedagogic jealousy can only be amplified.
For example, a recent Bank Street College of Education study recorded “many” instances where SWS struggled to “change schedules and/or length of the day,” which interfered with not only the bell system but also other SWS students’ concentration. [3] Teachers complained that the better their performance, the more they were pulled from their SWS to provide leadership in the host school. The double commitment drained time and energy that might have been better spent on the children themselves.
This difficulty of creating a successful atmosphere for SWS is detailed in the book Welcome to Heights High, which focuses on the attempt to create smaller learning communities in Cleveland Heights High School in the early 1990s. The book details how envy, union politics, racial tensions, and an institutional preference for the status quo hindered the SWS from day one, despite the best efforts of supportive staff and administrators. [4]
Another reason why SWS may not be as effective as freestanding small schools is that they remain too distant from the populations they serve. Some of the greatest advantages of small schools — such as community support and involvement — result not only from a small school size, but also from the geographic proximity to its attending families. Schools-within-school do nothing to place students in closer contact with their communities.
Additional concerns remain. The Bank Street study noted that students were frequently assigned to SWS without consent — violating one of the basic premises and strengths of a small school. Principal loyalty was also discouraged. In the schools studied from 1997-1999, 30 percent experienced principal turnover, and this forced the closure of four of seven affected SWS. One principal chose to simply disband all SWS and revert back to a conventional structure. Parents, students, and educators can exercise little sway because their influence is too dispersed.[5]
For these reasons, most SWS closed within two years while failing to register any test score improvements that might have made the experiment worthwhile. Indeed, the average school-within-school student “performed significantly worse in reading and math than those in other high schools.” [6]
Schools-within-school are likely to be an inadequate substitute for the truly independent small school. While recognizing that SWS might be the only sensible solution for transforming large schools in good physical condition, policymakers should focus on ensuring that all new school construction creates smaller, independent schools.
Notes
[1] “KnowledgeWorks Foundation Selects 6 High Schools for Transformation,” Press Release, KnowledgeWorks Foundation, 20 August 2003.
[2] Andrew Welsh-Huggins, “Private foundations announce $31.5M grant,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 9 March 2002.
[3] “Patricia A. Wasley, et. al., Small Schools, Great Strides (New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, 2000).
[4] “Diana Tittle, Welcome to Heights High: The Crippling Politics of Restructuring America’s Public Schools (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1995).
[5] Wasley, Small Schools, Great Strides, 53.
[6] Kate N. Grossman, “Small schools are aiming big,” Chicago Sun-Times, 1 October 2001.
Danielle Mendola is a former research intern with The Buckeye Institute.
