Alex Torrez (Cohort 4) Dissertation Proposal, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System

1. The Impact of Smaller Learning Communities on Closing the Achievement Gaps among
Student Population Groups in Texas High Schools
By
Alex Elias Torrez, M.Ed.
William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair
Donald Collins, Ph.D., Committee Member
Carl Gardiner, Ed.D., Committee Member
Douglas Hermond, Ph.D., Committee Member
Solomon Osho, Ph.D., Committee Member
Dissertation Proposal in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree
Educational Leadership
Prairie View A&M University
August 2010

2. Abstract
The Impact of Smaller Learning Communities on Closing the Achievement Gaps Among
Student Population Groups in Texas High Schools
August 2010
Alex Elias Torrez: B.S., Lubbock Christian University
M.Ed., Sul Ross State University
Dissertation Chair: William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.
Despite a growing body of positive evidence, researchers have not yet determined
whether or not the Smaller Learning Community (SLC) design is a viable vehicle for
transforming schools into the 21st century model necessary to ensure the students of
America can compete in a global economy. The most recent education reform legislation
resulting from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which mandates academic achievement for
all students regardless of their cultural background, economic status, or race, once again
placing student achievement at the forefront of transformation efforts. Most educators
agreed that closing the gap between student populations requires a unique approach to
guide the conversion of traditional practices to innovative platforms that moves away
from teacher-centered delivery of curriculum to student-centered learning. Although
current practices in education have addressed the achievement and completion gap, these
practices are not addressing it as effectively and efficiently as required to ensure that no
child is left behind. In addition, the reality that the United States and its youth will
require 21st century skills to compete in a global economy is motivating educational
2

3. leaders to seek new and effective transformation initiatives that will advance their
campuses in meeting or exceeding student performance expectations.
The research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed Smaller
Learning Communities (SLCs) and traditional high schools, as reported on the
Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic
subpopulations?
2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and
traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA
and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulations?
3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-themed SLCs and
traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?
4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates between career-
themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?
Descriptive statistics will be used to compile demographic information comparing
traditional high schools and non-traditional SLC high schools. For the first two research
questions, a series of Factorial ANOVAs will be calculated to determine if meaningful
differences in the areas of English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics exist in
student achievement between the two different types of high schools. For research
questions three and four, a series of Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) will be calculated
to determine if there is a meaningful difference in the areas of attendance and
dropout/completion rates. An analysis of 2009 AEIS data will be conducted to determine
3

4. the difference of Smaller Learning Communities and student achievement, economically
disadvantaged, and attendance, dropout/completion rates. The findings are still to be
determined.
4

5. Table of Contents
Abstract..................................................................................................................................................................2
Abstract......................................................................................................................................2
Chapter I.................................................................................................................................................................8
Chapter I.....................................................................................................................................8
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................8
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................8
Background of the Problem.........................................................................................................................11
Background of the Problem.........................................................................................................................11
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................................................12
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................................................12
Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................13
Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................13
Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................14
Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................14
Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................................................................14
Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................................................................14
Significance of the Study...............................................................................................................................15
Significance of the Study...............................................................................................................................15
Assumptions......................................................................................................................................................16
Assumptions......................................................................................................................................................16
Delimitations of the Study............................................................................................................................17
Delimitations of the Study............................................................................................................................17
Limitations of the Study................................................................................................................................17
Limitations of the Study................................................................................................................................17
Definitions of Terms.......................................................................................................................................17
Definitions of Terms.......................................................................................................................................17
Organization of the Study.............................................................................................................................22
Organization of the Study.............................................................................................................................22
Chapter II: Review of Literature................................................................................................................24
Chapter II: Review of Literature......................................................................................24
To Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools........................................................24
To Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools........................................................24
Transformation of Schools...........................................................................................................................25
Transformation of Schools...........................................................................................................................25
A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change.......................................................................26
A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change.......................................................................26
1960s: The Sputnik effect........................................................................................................................26
1960s: The Sputnik effect.............................................................................................................................26
1980s: A Nation at Risk............................................................................................................................27
1980s: A Nation at Risk.................................................................................................................................27
1990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)..................................29
1990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)........................................29
Goals 2000: Educate America Act........................................................................................................30
Goals 2000: Educate America Act.............................................................................................................30
No Child Left Behind. ...............................................................................................................................30
5

6. No Child Left Behind. .....................................................................................................................................30
A New Administration..............................................................................................................................32
A New Administration...................................................................................................................................32
Impact of reform efforts...........................................................................................................................33
Impact of reform efforts................................................................................................................................33
Smaller Learning Communities..................................................................................................................34
Smaller Learning Communities..................................................................................................................34
Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities........................................................36
Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities.............................................................36
Relationships and smaller learning communities. ......................................................................38
Relationships and smaller learning communities. ...........................................................................38
Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities...............................................41
Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities....................................................41
The Design of Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................................................44
The Design of Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................................................44
Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities...........................................48
Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities...........................................48
The Right Steps to Successful Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................52
The Right Steps to Successful Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................52
Concluding Remarks.......................................................................................................................................55
Concluding Remarks.......................................................................................................................................55
Chapter III: Methodology.............................................................................................................................57
Chapter III: Methodology...................................................................................................57
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................57
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................57
Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................58
Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................58
Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................59
Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................59
Research Method.............................................................................................................................................59
Research Method.............................................................................................................................................59
Research Design...............................................................................................................................................61
Research Design...............................................................................................................................................61
Population of the Study.................................................................................................................................63
Population of the Study.................................................................................................................................63
Instrumentation...............................................................................................................................................64
Instrumentation...............................................................................................................................................64
Procedures.........................................................................................................................................................65
Procedures.........................................................................................................................................................65
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................................66
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................................66
References..........................................................................................................................................................69
References...............................................................................................................................69
Appendix A: List of 21st century skills...................................................................................................77
Appendix A: List of 21st century skills..........................................................................77
Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes................................................................................................77
Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes................................................................................................77
Learning and Innovation Skills .................................................................................................................77
6

7. Learning and Innovation Skills .................................................................................................................77
Information, Media and Technology Skills ...........................................................................................77
Information, Media and Technology Skills ...........................................................................................77
Life and Career Skills .....................................................................................................................................78
Life and Career Skills .....................................................................................................................................78
Appendix B: Leading Organizations Establishing “Standards of Practice” for Career
Academies...........................................................................................................................................................79
Appendix B: Leading Organizations Establishing “Standards of Practice” for
Career Academies.................................................................................................................79
Appendix C: National High School Graduation Rates, Class of 2005 .........................................80
Appendix C: National High School Graduation Rates, Class of 2005 ..................80
7

8. Chapter I
Introduction
Researchers continue to state the claim that high school students lack adequate
academic preparation and may even be in a decline in preparedness for 21st century
success. Receiving major attention is the widening gap that researchers have determined
exists between the readiness of sub-populations and the growing number of students that
do not graduate. It has been estimated that between 53% and 55% of minority students
nationwide are not completing high school in the four-year format (Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, 2003, p. 2). According to Wick (2007), “The world is changing faster
and in more ways than any of us could have imagined even a few years ago. This is the
world our children inherit, yet our public schools have been among the slowest
institutions to change” (p. 1). Most educators would agree that Frederick Taylor’s 19th
century factory model of “one size fits all” is no longer effective in terms of addressing
the student equity gap and the required skills that 21st century graduates need to compete
within a global work force. As Feldman, Lopez, and Simon (2006) point out:
The large comprehensive high school was conceived at the beginning of the
twentieth century to fit an industrial society. These schools were originally
expected to be sorting mechanisms for an economy that had a place for students
who did not graduate. They were not intended to educate all students to the level
of college readiness and the system has always done a grave disservice to some
children and communities (p. 7).
With student equity concerns, industry, and the global economy, educators are
continuously challenged to find new and innovative ways to change the schoolhouse
DNA. Most educators would agree that this process must start by understanding the new
8

9. millennium student and the factors that continue to contribute to a lack of success for
many students.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation offer five reasons why large comprehensive
high schools have failed to meet the needs of students:
1. Incoherence: High schools offer a dizzying array of disconnected courses with
little guidance;
2. Isolation: Many teachers see more than 150 students daily. Both teachers and
students have little adult contact;
3. Anonymity: High schools have doubled in size in the last generation, resulting in
overcrowding and reduced student and teacher interaction;
4. Low expectations: Only one of the four to six tracks in most high schools
prepares students for college; and
5. Inertia: High Schools are slow to change due to large and isolated staffs,
restrictive state and district policies and employment agreements, over precise
higher education entrance requirements, and an array of interest groups dictating
much of school policy (Feldman, Lopez, & Simon, 2006, p. 7).
According to these factors outlined by the Gates Foundation, as well as similar
ones from other researchers such as the U.S Department of Education raise the question
of what structure or vehicle will provide the best components needed for change. One
proposed solution is a Smaller Learning Community (SLC) model. An SLC is designed
to provide three major avenues for learning: 1) student groups divided into smaller teams
intended to improve relationships and connect students to both teachers and their school
2) development of teacher teams that provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate on
9

10. student success and individual needs; and 3) instruction that offers a more relevant and
integrated delivery of curriculum. In addition, Oxley (2006) stated:
The central feature of a high-functioning SLC (Small Learning Community) is an
interdisciplinary team (or teams) of teachers who work closely together with a
group of students they share in common for instruction. Traditional schools
organize teachers around subject areas or departments. SLCs organize teachers
across subject areas to create a more student-centered form of schooling (p. 22).
The SLC helps students make horizontal connections among disciplines instead of having
an insulated vertical instructional experience.
The teacher’s role as a leader in this transformation process is critical to the
success of SLCs. As the primary source for student learning and coordinators of the
methodology by which the curriculum is delivered, the teacher serves as an integral part
of the transformation. If the efforts of SLCs are to succeed, dedicated teachers must be
trained and supported in contemporary interdisciplinary teaching strategies and the
required cross-curricula collaboration.
In addition to committed teachers, academic leaders must recognize and embrace
the need for educational transformation. Schools are bound by state and federal
accountability mandates to improve student achievement for all. Academic leaders who
are committed to transforming schools into educational institutions that support rigor,
relevance, and relationships will find that the smaller learning community model provides
many of the requirements that improve student achievement and close the sub-population
gap, thus satisfying political mandates and enhancing 21st century skills required to
succeed in a global economy. This study is designed to determine if the smaller learning
community model indeed holds such promise.
10

11. Background of the Problem
There are several reports and studies released over the past four decades such as
the “Nation at Risk” that has continued to raise concern regarding the public school
system in America. In addition, the growing gap between populations and the increasing
number of economically disadvantaged students must be part of the equation. High
schools in general have received the majority of negative attention, resulting in many
attempts to address concerns over the past 40 years; as Oxley (2006) explained, in the
1960s, high school reformers first began organizing schools-within-schools, focusing on
career/vocational pathways (p. 1). In the 1970s, reform efforts progressed toward
developing magnet programs, career academies, and mini-schools before introducing
charter schools in the 1980s. All of these attempts to reorganize schools have led to the
evolution of the present-day SLC model (Oxley, 2006).
To maintain the country’s competitive status in a global economy, American
educators must strive to meet the challenge of graduating versatile, adaptable, and highly
skilled students. This challenge encompasses finding the right design to transform
education beyond the traditional classroom that most Americans have experienced. The
challenge also comes with many educators venturing into uncharted territory and having
conversations about the canyons that exist between traditional instruction and meaningful
transformation. Writing about the complexity of transformation, Schlechty (2009)
states:
Make no mistake, transformation is not as simple as installing a new program, a
new process or new procedure. Unlike efforts to improve the operation of
existing systems, transformation requires more than changes in what people do; it
requires changes in what they think and what they feel about what they do. It
requires changes in the images people have of the organizations in which they
11

12. work and live, as well as changes in the way they envision the roles they play in
those organizations (p. 210).
As educators continue to have discussions about change, transformation must become
central to these conversations. Change is not superficial reform. It comes from the inside
out. Education cannot be transformed with the same reform efforts used in the past.
Statement of the Problem
Despite a growing body of positive evidence, researchers have not yet determined
whether or not the SLC model is an effective vehicle for transforming schools into a
more effective model for the 21st century. However, academic leaders continue to search
for a design to ensure that American students can compete in a global economy while
successfully closing the achievement gap among sub-populations. The most recent
educational reform legislation resulting from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates
achievement for all students regardless of their background, economic status or race, once
again placing student success at the forefront of transformation efforts. In addition, the
reality that the United States and its youth will require 21st century skills to compete in a
global economy is motivating educational leaders to seek new and effective transform
initiatives that will allow high school campuses to meet or exceed student performance
expectations.
Selecting the appropriate method for this conversion process will be an important
decision required for the success of educational transformation efforts. Although
research on school improvement is now in its fourth decade, systematic research on what
the change should actually be has been a major source of deliberation as school systems
continue a traditional 19th century model of instructional delivery. Countless
12

13. improvement initiatives have been deployed that directly influence student learning and
the quality of teaching, but few have had the long-term impact required for true
transformation of the educational system. Although the SLC design, especially one that
involves career themes, has many elements that may meet present educational
transformation efforts, limited research has emerged that compares this model to the
traditional high school and determines if achievement gaps between student populations
are closing.
Research Questions
The following questions will guide the study:
1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed Smaller
Learning Communities (SLCs) and traditional high schools, as reported on the
Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic
subpopulations?
2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and
traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA
and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulations?
3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-themed SLCs and
traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?
4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates between career-
themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?
13

14. Null Hypotheses
H01 - There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement
between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for
TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations?
H02 - There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement
between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for
TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulation?
H03 - There is no statistically significant difference in student attendance between
career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?
H04 - There is no statistically significant difference in student dropout/completion
between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this conceptual quantitative study is to determine if a difference
exists between the implementation of the career-themed smaller SLC design and an
increase in high school students’ academic achievement, attendance, and high school
completion/dropout rate between populations as reported in the Texas Education Agency
AEIS report. The study will compare 25 career-themed SLCs and 25 demographically
similar traditional non-SLC schools. The study will focus on three areas: first, to
determine whether or not there are statistically significant differences in the achievement
gaps among ethnic sub-population TAKS scores in English language arts and
Mathematics when comparing career-themed Smaller Learning Communities with
traditional programs; second, to identify whether or not there is a statistically significant
14

15. difference in the achievement gap between low socioeconomic status (SES) students and
non-low socio-economic status students, based on English language arts and Mathematics
TAKS scores, when comparing career-themed SLCs and traditional programs; and third,
to identify whether or not a statistically significant difference in attendance and
completion/dropout rates exists when comparing career-themed SLC students' attendance
compared to those of traditional high schools. The data from each of these 3 areas will be
drawn from data reported in the AEIS for sub-populations.
Significance of the Study
Transforming schools into a 21st century model will be required to ensure that
American students can compete in a global economy. In order to meet changing
expectations for post secondary education, as well as close the achievement gap in
student learning and instruction, educational leaders across the nation have been
implementing the SLC design. Results gathered from this study will provide information
to educational leaders about student achievement as it relates to the effectiveness of
SLCs.
Another consideration is that the sustainability of educational change created by
the SLC movement remains vulnerable to today's school district and campus financial
constraints and post-grant commitments that SLCs require. Budget cuts and the financial
deficits in most school districts have resulted in school districts selecting to cut SLCs,
leaving the smaller school design and its components in the archives as just another failed
initiative. This study is an attempt to examine the difference that Career Academy SLCs
have on three areas: academics, attendance, and completion/dropout rates. The
methodological protocol and the research-based literature developed by this study will
15

16. provide school leaders with data to be able to ascertain whether or not SLCs impact the
gaps in student achievement, attendance, and high school completion/dropout.
Educational reform efforts have been attempted for centuries and continue into the 21st
century. It is important to understand how the design change with teachers, students, and
parents may impact the future of schools.
In addition, as schools are transformed and the teacher role changes within a
smaller learning organization, teacher preparatory programs and professional
development may be influenced. Although not the main focus of the study, new ideas
must have the support of all leaders in the district, especially the campus administration,
to successfully achieve the change required to improve student academic success,
attendance, and high school completion. According to Fullan (2002), ”We now must
raise our sights and focus on principals as leaders in a culture of change and the
associated conditions that will make this possible on a large scale, sustainable basis
including the transformation of the teaching profession” (p. 14). Most educators would
agree that without strong central administrative and principal support, any sustainable
educational change, much less sustainable transformation, will be more difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve.
Assumptions
1. The schools used as the SLC campuses are organized in the career academy
model.
2. The high schools in this study are similar in demographics.
16

17. Delimitations of the Study
The delimitations of this study are:
1. This was a purposeful study. Only schools that were functioning as SLC
career academies were studied.
2. The study focused on public high schools that had implemented career-themed
SLCs.
3. The traditional high school structure was compared to the non-traditional high
school SLC career-themed design for this study.
4. The findings of this study are limited to the state of Texas.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study are:
1. It is possible that schools implemented different components of the career-
themed academy SLC design, which were not identifiable in this
investigation.
2. It is possible that schools are on different implementation timelines.
3. There are a limited number of SLC schools in Texas.
Definitions of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the key terms to be used are defined as follows:
• Academic Rigor: According to Daggett (2008), academic rigor “refers to
learning in which students demonstrate a thorough in-depth mastery of
17

18. challenging tasks to develop cognitive skills through reflective thought,
analysis, problem solving, evaluation, or creativity” ( p. 4).
• Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Report: The AEIS “pulls
together a wide range of information on the performance of students in each
school and district in Texas every year. This information is put into the
annual AEIS reports, which are available each year in the fall” (Texas
Education Agency, 2009).
• Achievement Gap: “The achievement gaps exist when groups of students
with relatively equal ability do not achieve in school at the same levels; in
fact, one group often far exceeds the achievement levels of others. Gaps in
achievement exist across the nation and can be found based upon
race/ethnicity, income levels, language background, disability status and
gender” (National Education Association, 2006).
• Annual Dropouts: “The annual dropout rate is the percentage of students in a
specified grade range who drop out of school during one school year. This
data set includes both the number and rate of annual dropouts for all Grade
7-12 students and various student groups” (Texas Education Agency, 2009).
• Career Academies: A career academy is a school-within-a-school that focuses
on a broad occupational area, such as engineering, natural resources, or the
hospitality industry. Teachers and students are self-selected. The career
academy curriculum directs students’ attention to the application of school-
based learning by including in its curriculum work-based learning experiences
with businesses in the community (U.S. Department of Education, (2006).
18

19. • Educational Transformation: Schlechty (2009) explains it as:
“Transformation by necessity includes altering the beliefs, values, and the
culture in which programs are embedded, as well as changing the current
system of rules, roles, and relationships – social structure – so that the
innovation needed will be supported” (p. 3).
• High school completion: “The longitudinal high school completion rate is the
percentage of students in a class of beginning ninth graders who complete
their high school education by their anticipated graduation date. Numbers and
longitudinal rates are provided for all students and various student groups,
including graduates, continuers, dropouts, and GED recipients” (Texas
Education Agency, 2009).
• Interdisciplinary Lesson: Occurs when teachers from two or more curricular
areas (ideally sharing a common set of students) work together to plan and
implement an instructional unit by identifying and applying authentic
connections that transcend their individual disciplines (TexEd Consulting,
2009).
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The NCLB Act is an accountability system
covering all public schools and students based on challenging State standards
in reading and Mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3 to 8,
and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students
reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and state progress
objectives must disaggregated by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and
limited English proficiency, to ensure that no group is left behind. School
19

20. districts and schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
toward statewide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on
course to meet state standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives
or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement
Awards (Texas Education Agency, 2009).
• Professional development: Give teachers, principals, and administrators the
knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet
challenging State academic content standards and student academic
achievement standards (United States Department of Education, 2004).
• Smaller Learning Community (SLC): Any separated and defined school-
within-a-school or individualized learning unit within a larger school setting.
Students and teachers are scheduled together and frequently have a common
area of school in which to hold most or all of their classes. SLC may or may
not have a career theme or a set sequence of courses for students. The most
comprehensive SLCs include: an administrative structure with a principal,
lead teacher, and guidance counselor; a heterogeneous team of students and
teachers (ranging in size from 350-500, with sub teams of 150); a home base
or specific section of the school; an academic focus or career theme; extra
help for students; data to drive decisions; time used effectively, including
common planning time for teachers; coaching support and focused
professional development for staff; inculcated traditions, practices, and
beliefs; freshman orientation and support; service learning and work-based
20

21. learning opportunities; opportunities for student voice; advisory support;
postsecondary planning; and a senior project (Sammon, 2008, p. 13).
• Relevant Learning: According to Daggett (2008), relevant learning “refers to
learning in which students apply core knowledge, concepts, or skills to solve
real-world problems” (p. 5).
• Student Engagement: The extent to which students are motivated and
committed to learning, have a sense of belonging and accomplishment, and
maintain relationships with adults, peers, and parents that support learning
(Daggett, 2009).
• Sustainable Educational Change: Sustainability in educational change
consists of five key and interrelated characteristics: (1) improvement that
fosters learning, not merely change that alters schooling; (2) improvement that
endures over time; (3) improvement that can be supported by available or
obtainable resources; (4) improvement that does not negatively affect the
surrounding environment of other schools; and (5) Improvement that
promotes ecological diversity and capacity throughout the educational and
community environment (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003).
• Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills: “As mandated by the 76th Texas
Legislature in 1999, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(TAKS™) was administered beginning in the 2002-2003 school year. The
TAKS™ measures the statewide curriculum in reading at Grades 3 to 9; in
writing at Grades 4 and 7; in English Language Arts at Grades 10 and 11; in
Mathematics at Grades 3 to 11; in science at Grades 5, 10, and 11; and social
21

22. studies at Grades 8, 10, and 11. The Spanish TAKS™ is administered at
Grades 3 through 6. Satisfactory performance on the TAKS™ at Grade 11 is
a prerequisite to a high school diploma” (Texas Education Agency, 2009).
• Transformation: The transformation of a school “requires several significant
shifts – from unconnected thinking to systems thinking, from an environment
of isolation to one of collegiality, from perceived reality to information-driven
reality, and from individual autonomy to collective autonomy and collective
accountability” (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004).
• Twenty-first century skills: Competencies needed to succeed in the current
economy and prepare for the changing world as a wage earner and citizen (see
Appendix A for complete details).
Organization of the Study
This study will consist of five chapters. Chapter 1 contains the introduction,
background of the problem, statement of the problem, research questions, purpose of the
study, significance of this study, assumptions, delimitations and limitations, and
definition of terms. Chapter 2 is a comprehensive review of the literature on the
historical perspective of reform efforts, learning organizations, Smaller Learning
Communities, and the role of the teacher, principal, and district in Smaller Learning
Communities. Chapter 3 describes the study methodology, including the research
questions, hypotheses, design strategy, underlying assumptions and rationale, sampling
design, measures applied for data collection and analysis procedures, and limitations of
the methodology. The expected findings will be briefly discussed. Chapter 4 will offer a
comprehensive review of the data analysis and findings before providing a summary of
22

23. all findings and a conclusion. Chapter 5 will include a comprehensive discussion of the
implications of the findings and recommendations for future studies.
23

24. Chapter II: Review of Literature
To Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools
The rapidly changing world has accelerated the discussions of educators, industry
leaders, and politicians regarding the quality of the nation’s schools and whether
graduates are prepared to enter post-secondary education, as well as the work force. The
expectations of America’s graduates have been changing, yet the educational system has
remained largely stagnant since the early 1900s. Grubb (2007) lamented, “The high
school has been extraordinarily averse to change: At least 70 years of criticism have
failed to dent this 19th century institution” (p. 33). Americans continue to be comfortable
with the present platform for delivering instruction; this has resulted in a lack of success
for educational innovations and limited political pressure to motivate systemic change.
Contributing to the lack of political attention is the reality that the populations with most
to benefit are the farthest removed from the circle of influence. Lofstrom (2007) states,
“The majority of Hispanic and African-American students attend schools located in
central cities. Students in these two minority groups also attend schools in district with
lower expenditure per pupil” (p. 8).
Nevertheless, transforming schools continues to be a concern that has produced
federal and state mandates, as well as recommendations, with a focus on closing the sub-
population achievement gap and preparing students for post-secondary and 21st century
opportunities. Current U.S. high school students will experience multiple career changes
and will likely be employed in occupations that do not exist at this time. In a 2006 report,
Answering the Challenge of a Changing World Strengthening Education for the 21st
24

25. Century, the U.S. Department of Education wrote, “Today, America faces not a streaking
satellite, but a rapidly changing global workforce. The spread of freedom is spurring
technological innovation and global competition at a pace never before seen” (p. 4).
Given the changes in the global economy and the requirements of the 21st century
student, the U.S. educational system cannot continue to provide the same type of
instruction that it has implemented in the past. As Wolfe (2007) explained, "In virtually
any occupation, learning is part of the job. Gone are the days when employees learned to
master a single task and then spent the next 40 years repeating that task” (p. 40).
Consequently, educators must remain flexible and innovative to keep up with the needs
of the new millennium student and close the achievement gaps among student sub-
populations.
Transformation of Schools
As school districts work on the concept of change, they must go beyond the
standard thinking of reforming processes and procedures or introducing the latest
teaching fad. These methods of attempting change have proven to be mostly ineffective
and short-lived. The buffet-style approach has also contributed to a passive resistance in
educators, creating the belief that this initiative too shall pass. Academic leaders must
think about changing the way schooling is delivered and structured if true transformation
is to be accomplished. Schlechty (2009) stated, “Transformation by necessity includes
altering the beliefs, values, and meanings – the culture – in which programs are
embedded, as well as changing the current system of rules, roles, and relationships –
social structure – so that the innovations needed will be supported” (p. 3). In order to gain
the support required to move the process forward, educators must understand several
25

26. concepts. First, “the 21st century learner is fundamentally different than those of the past.
The instructional strategies and practices used will vary based upon how these students
learn best” (Daggett, 2008, p. 1). Second, “schools must be transformed from platforms
for instruction to platforms for learning, from bureaucracies bent on control to learning
organizations aimed at encouraging disciplined inquiry and creativity” (Schlechty, 2009,
p. 5). Finally, educators must learn from past lessons that resulted in failure or short-lived
successes. A commitment to long-term financial support, professional development, and
the support of a belief system that matches the changing student learning styles and needs
is crucial to any conversation about real transformation.
A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change
1960s: The Sputnik effect.
The history of public education has been overshadowed by criticisms of not
measuring up to world standards. According to Schramm, Williams, Krasnow,
Grossman, and Walters (2008), “The systems and infrastructure [of education] have not
changed in line with what is now needed to ready U.S. workers to compete in this new
global economy” (p. 6). The criticism of Americans schools in the second half of the
century was again ignited by the launching of the Russian space capsule, Sputnik, in
1957. Surprised and stunned by this event, the American public became more observant
of critics who claimed that U.S. schools lacked the rigor to compete in the race for space
and national security.
The resulting criticisms of U.S. education prompted President Johnson to
authorize the Commissioner of Education to conduct a nationwide survey of U.S. Schools
26

27. as part of his “war on poverty.” “The resulting report, Equality in Educational
Opportunity, was published in July 1966” (Marzano, 2003, p. 2). Although the report was
developed by seven authors, it was titled “The Coleman Report” (1966), named after its
senior author. The results of the study only intensified findings such as the following:
Taking all these results together, one implication stands above all: that schools
bring little to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background
and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means
that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer
environment are carried along to become the inequities with which they confront
life at the end of school (p. 325).
The study concluded that there was a strong correlation between student academic
achievement and family background. As a result of The Coleman Report, several
researchers conducted studies to support and dispel the findings in the report.
1980s: A Nation at Risk.
In 1983, with much fanfare, the White House released A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform to the American public. The report that was prepared
by a prestigious committee steered by Secretary of Education Terrell Bell was fueled by
the fact that President Ronald Reagan endorsed it in one of his speeches. The report
states that both the American society and educational institutions had lost sight of the
basic purposes of schooling and that our educational institutions were accepting mediocre
performance from our students (The National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983). Findings in the report were centered on curriculum, expectations, time, and
teaching. In addition to the “Nation at Risk” report, Schlechty (2009) states that, “In the
1980s, the apparent ascendance of Japanese over American manufacturers was attributed
to the rising tide of mediocrity that was said to be besetting America’s schools” (p. 4).
27

28. Five recommendations were outlined as a result of A Nation at Risk. The first was
a minimum graduation curriculum that included the following: “(a) 4 years of English;
(b) 3 years of Mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e)
one-half year of computer science. For the college-bound, two years of foreign language
in high school are strongly recommended in addition to those taken earlier” (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The second recommendation in the
report suggested raising expectations of students by setting higher graduation
requirements for admission into colleges and universities. The third recommendation
was to make more effective use of a school day as well as lengthen the school day and
school year. The fourth was a seven-part recommendation made in an effort to improve
teaching and make it a more rewarding and respected profession. The fifth and final
recommendation of the commission was the recommendation that citizens elect officials
who would be responsible for leading the reform efforts by creating stability and
providing the fiscal support to reform American schools.
Most of the recommendations were not out of the realm of what education could
consider; however, the following statement was insightful and aligned with the 21st
century student achievement conversations that have been difficult to fully implement:
“We must emphasize that the variety of student aspirations, abilities, and preparation
requires that appropriate content be available to satisfy diverse needs. Attention must be
directed to both the nature of the content available and to the needs of particular learners”
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).
28

29. 1990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
In the 1990s, a study titled Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) again raised questions regarding the proficiency of U.S. schools. “The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is the largest and most ambitious
international study of student achievement ever conducted. In 1994–1995, it was
conducted at five grade levels in more than 40 countries (the third, fourth, seventh, and
eighth grades, and the final year of secondary school” (TIMISS 1995 Home Page). The
first report indicated that 4th grade students performed average when compared to
students from other countries, but found a notable drop in the 8th grade students; future
reports found that 12th grade American students preformed much lower than their
counterparts in other countries. During a 1998 press conference on 12th grade TIMSS
results, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley observed the following, “These results
are entirely unacceptable, and absolutely confirm our need to raise our standards of
achievement, testing, and teaching, especially in our middle and high schools --and to get
more serious about taking math and science courses” (Riley, 1998). Once again, the call
to action was made as Secretary Riley outlined five areas needing to be addressed in an
effort to increase student achievement. The steps included 1) building a foundation in
middle school; 2) raising state assessment standards; 3) recommending four years of math
and science; 4) ensuring more teachers were prepared to teach math and science; and 5)
concluding much like the Nation at Risk report, with a call to arms: “as a nation, we must
make sure that all students – not just the elite or the brightest – understand the importance
of math and science in their lives” (Riley, 1998).
29

30. Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
The reform efforts that resulted from A Nation at Risk raised awareness, but failed
to accelerate student achievement to the desired level. Consequently, the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) was signed into law on March 31, 1994. The Act
established eight guiding principles aimed at improving student achievement: first, was
the expectation that all children would start school ready to learn; second, an increase in
the high school graduation rate to at least 90 percent; third, an expectation that students in
grades 4, 8, and 12 would demonstrate competency in the core subjects and that schools
should ensure students use their minds, helping them be more productive employees and
citizens; fourth, set the expectation that the U.S. would lead the world in math and
science achievement; fifth, adult literacy for every American; sixth, drug, weapon, and
violence-free schools; seventh, increase teacher professional development; and finally,
increase parental involvement. Every state and their educational leaders were expected to
reform their schools to achieve all eight national goals by 2000.
No Child Left Behind.
President George W. Bush announced what he called “the cornerstone” of his
administration, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Rajala (2003) emphasizes that, as
a result of NCLB, the role of the federal government has changed by asking schools to
describe success in terms of what each student accomplishes. It is the latest reform effort
in a series of initiatives featuring high-stakes accountability, student achievement,
standards, and parental choice.
30

31. NCLB has created a higher awareness on what statistics have been illustrating for
decades. Significant gaps do exist between minority and majority students as well as the
economically disadvantaged. Among minority students, the problem is even more severe
with nearly 50 percent of African American and Hispanic students not completing high
school on time (America's Promise Alliance, 2009). The achievement gap is not closing
fast enough to ensure improved living and earning opportunities for these sub-
populations. According to Zhao (2009), “these gaps almost certainly put the minorities at
a disadvantage for securing high-income jobs in the future. Plenty of evidence shows the
close association between amount of education and future earnings” (p.13). As the
United States continues to make progress recovering from the present economic
recession, the academic achievement gaps, as illustrated in Appendix C, show the
2004-2005 graduation rates as 50.6 percent for Native Americans, 55.3 percent for
Blacks, and 57.8 percent for Hispanic students.
Although there are reports that many states are making progress, the significant
academic achievement gaps between student sub-populations continue to draw social and
political attention, which has brought to light the need to transform schools for future
national and individual economic benefits. The Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the
Graduation Gap report stated: “Notably, earning a high school diploma has increasingly
been described not just as a source of individual economic benefit but also as an essential
foundation for the nation’s competitiveness in a rapidly globalizing world economy”
(Swanson, 2009). Social awareness and concern regarding the need to complete high
school resulted in the call to action from several organizations, including The Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation and The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. These
31

32. organizations launched the Strong American Schools Campaign, which urged presidential
candidates during the 2008 election to continue the dialogue on education. These
conversations resulted in three suggestions, which are closely correlated to many of the
fundamental concepts promoted by the Smaller Learning Community (SLC) model.
As part of its call to action, the Strong American Schools Campaign, the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation (2007) urged leaders to address and debate three common-
sense priorities:
1. Strong American education standards. Regardless of where they live, all
students need to acquire knowledge and skills that prepare them for
college, for the workplace, and for life.
2. Effective teachers in every classroom. We need to enable teachers to
improve their skills, measure teachers’ performance in the classroom, and
pay them more if they produce superior results or take on challenging
assignments.
3. More time and support for learning. We need to provide successful and
struggling students alike more time for in-depth learning and greater
personal attention.
A New Administration.
President Obama’s education plan has focused on reestablishing the U.S. as the
world leader in education. In addition, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act includes $5 billion for early learning programs; $77 billion for elementary and
secondary education; $48.6 billion to stabilize state education budgets; $5 billion for
32

33. competitive funds to close the achievement gap; and finally $30 billion to address college
affordability.
On July14, 2009, President Barack Obama stated the following: “…but, we also
have to ensure that we're educating and preparing our people for the new jobs of the 21st
century. We've got to prepare our people with the skills they need to compete in this
global economy” (The White House Office Press Secretary, 2009).
The statement was followed by the announcement of The American Graduation
Initiative: Stronger American Skills through Community Colleges. In addition, the
President’s remarks included the following goal: “By 2020, this nation will once again
have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world” (The White House Office
Press Secretary, 2009).
The American Initiative is an effort to strengthen the nation’s community colleges
and provides an affordable education to ensure a stronger 21st century economy. The
plan also calls for: five million additional community college graduates; creating a
community college challenge fund; funding innovative strategies for completion;
modernizing facilities; and creating new online skills laboratories.
In addition, the Obama-Biden College Agenda expands Pell Grants, college
credits, and focuses on reforming the student loan program, expanding the loan agent
participation base beyond banks and other government lenders.
Impact of reform efforts.
For the past four decades, politicians have called for education reform. In the
United States, the education reform movement has: (1) focused increasingly on the
development of new standards for both students and teachers; (2) intensified with a call to
33

34. go beyond reform; and (3) began a transformation of the educational process. In the
1960s, the space race resulted in a call for more academic rigor. In the 1980s, the White
House released A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The 1990s
brought the TIMSS reports and Goals 2000, and former President George W. Bush left
schools with the legacy of NCLB. Public school reform has been at the forefront of
political agendas for decades, leaving no American President without the challenge of
addressing education. Now, President Barack Obama has the opportunity to lead our
nation beyond reform and to transform the American education system.
A challenge for transformational efforts will continue to be the inconsistent
history of the many different initiatives that have resulted from past reform efforts. Until
recently, educational transformation was done in a disjointed manner. Legter (1999)
states, “More and more educators are understanding that piecemeal reform too often
produces a confusing and inefficient proliferation of programs that generates resource
battles, reinforces inequity, and ultimately helps only a few students” (p. 23). As the
nation transitions from one President’s educational agenda to a new President’s agenda,
the challenge for educators will be to establish sound research based on ideas and
initiatives that will result in change and by doing so, ensure the academic achievement,
equality among student populations, and 21st century skills required for students to
compete in the 21st century global society.
Smaller Learning Communities
In the context of education, transformation may be defined as moving schools
from 19th century traditional platforms, which are centered on the instructor and
instruction, to learning environments that meet students’ ability and knowledge levels.
34

35. This type of progressive and aggressive thinking is required to move learning into new
dimensions that increase overall student academic success and close the achievement
gaps among student sub-populations. Schools committed to changing the design of
instructional delivery have the best opportunity to institute an environment, which
identifies student academic needs as the principal focus for success. Educators who want
to lead schools effectively through the 21st century have the task of establishing a
direction for standards and design that ensures rigor, relevance and relationships in order
to benefit students and prepare them for a global economy.
Finding the best vehicle to move a school forward is first and foremost a decision
for innovative school leaders. Many educators have implemented career-themed Smaller
Learning Community (SLC) models as a means to advance the transformation process.
Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) state that “implementing smaller learning communities in
large schools can be argued as the best way to advance student achievement and improve
teacher professional learning” (p. 60).
The benefits associated with dividing schools into SLCs have increased the
interest in this type of school design. “Research has been rapidly accumulating that, as
far as high schools are concerned, size does matter – and smaller is better” (Daniels,
Bizar, and Zemelman, 2001). Student achievement in small schools has been found to be
superior to that in large schools (Bates 1993; Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982; Eicherstein
1994; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Miller, Ellsworth, and
Howell 1986; Robinson-Lewis 1991; Walberg 1992) (as cited in Cotton, 1996).
Restructuring high schools by creating career-themed SLCs represents a major step
toward personalizing education, creating a different platform for learning, and
35

36. establishing the right conditions to ensure 21st century student preparedness while closing
the achievement gaps among student sub-populations. SLCs consist of three main
concepts that may prove to be the design required to transform schools. These concepts
are as follows: create a culture of collaboration for students and educators to ensure
authentic and relevant learning; create smaller schools-within-schools to ensure that
students benefit from meaningful relationships with both peers and educators; and, as a
result of collaboration, relevant learning, and relationships, smaller schools support the
academic rigor necessary to ensure competitive 21st century graduates.
Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities.
The traditional model of education creates a system in which most teachers are
accustomed to being isolated from their peers, and the primary topics of discussion are
content and curriculum instead of shared students and individual academic needs. If
schools are to effectively address important issues such as student achievement,
attendance, and completion/dropout rates, academic leaders must give teachers the time
and place to collaborate. Oxley (2006) states: “Smaller Learning Communities are
maximally effective when interdisciplinary team members share students in common and
are thereby able to pool their knowledge of students, communicate consistent messages,
and create coherent instructional programs” (p. 21). Providing common planning
opportunities without giving up instructional time within the school day continues to be
one of the biggest obstacles to transformation.
Besides creating a schedule that allows common planning, establishing an
environment that supports increased collaboration requires instituting an effective
Professional Learning Community (PLC) initiative. The PLC is a foundation for
36

37. assisting SLC teams in understanding the benefits resulting from small-school
collaboration opportunities. “The first and most fundamental task of building a
collaborative culture is to bring together those people whose responsibilities create an
inherent mutual interest in exploring the critical question of PLC” (DuFour, DuFour,
Eaker, & Many, 2006). In addition, the SLC model, by its design of grouping teachers
and students, assists the enhancement and support of the PLC initiative.
In a report on 21st century high schools titled Breaking Ranks: Changing an
American Institution, working in communities is supported as a best practice. The report
stated:
The success of a high school depends on its being more than a collection of
unconnected individuals. The word “community” implies a commonality of
interests and so it should be in any high school. The building of community very
much involves the members of the staff. And, on a practical level, the synergy of
cooperation ought to end up enabling the educators in a high school to accomplish
more for the students than they could by acting on their own. School
improvement more readily succeeds in situations in which teachers work in a
collegial manner (National Association of Secondary School Principals, (2001 p.
90).
Despite the obstacles that are associated with changing the paradigm of meaningful
collaboration, common benefits include the possibility of enhancing student relationships
with peers and faculty, increased academic achievement, improved attendance, and
decreased dropout rates. These results can help to encourage and support the idea of
innovation.
It is important to note that establishing PLCs to enhance SLC teams may result in
some opposition. Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) state: “the challenge for administrators
is overcoming the established traditional school and familiar structure that creates an
environment of isolation for teachers” (p. 64). This disconnect creates a negative
37

38. cycle of non-collaboration and produces long-term difficulties for campus teams who
are prepared to move forward with a more collaborative approach to teaching.
DuFour (2005) noted: “Despite compelling evidence indicating that working
collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in many schools continue to work in
isolation” (p. 36). Therefore, a major focus for education leaders is to establish the
right framework and purpose for teachers to have meaningful collaboration, moving
away from traditional isolation to a more personalized learning environment. Miller
and Rollnick (2002) found that “motivation is in many ways an interpersonal process,
the product of an interaction between people" (p. 22). Most educators would agree
that bridging the divide between a structure that has been mostly non-collaborative to
one that provides an opportunity for teachers to work together create new
relationships, and focus on individual students is a critical factor in ensuring the right
academic setting for students and teachers. Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith,
Dutton and Kleiner (2000) state, “A strong professional community encourages
collective endeavor rather than isolated individual efforts” (p. 327). Developing a
sense of teamwork and an understanding of the strength of collective collaboration
will be crucial to breaking down institutional isolationism and to transform schools.
Relationships and smaller learning communities.
Educators and students in large high schools are familiar with the difficulties of
developing meaningful relationships. A benefit associated with SLCs is that teachers are
grouped into smaller schools or teams that work with the same cohort of students
assigned to that community. In addition, the structure provides a teacher, who has
limited or no history with a group of students, the support of an existing cohort who has
38

39. knowledge of the students’ personalities and academic strengths and weaknesses. This
support system increases the potential to assist struggling learners and improve the grade-
level transition process.
Substantiating studies have established that students need relationships with
adults as part of a healthy learning environment. Adult connections and personalization
improve the school experience. An important component to closing the achievement gap
among student populations is the personalization that occurs as a result of the smaller
learning community model.
Each student needs to know at least one adult in the school is closely concerned
with his or her fate…The relationship between the student and the advocate
should ensure that no youngster experiences the sense of isolation that frequently
engulfs teenagers during this critical period of their lives. Having someone on his
or her side can help a young person feel a part of the school community (National
Association of Secondary Principals, 2001, p. 31).
A feeling of belonging can begin a process that crosses cultural histories and
economic social barriers, bringing students to a common place so that academic success
can flourish, attendance can improve, and graduation plans can be realized. The sense of
connectedness that comes from belonging to a group helps students have the confidence
to engage in authentic conversations with caring adults about the importance of
continuing to improve academically.
If high achievement for all students is the goal of reform, then personalization and
a rigorous curriculum are two essential ingredients. Although some students might be
able to make it through four years of high school despite the lack of any personal
connections, all students require a supportive environment-some more than others.
Creating that environment is essential to bringing learning to fruition. (National
Association of Secondary Principals, 2004, p. 67).
39

40. Fundamentally, most educators agree that relationships are a key ingredient to a
rewarding and academically successful student experience. Many students fail to
complete high school due to a lack of connection to adult educators at their schools. The
Grad Nation Guidebook (America’s Promise Alliance, 2009) cited some of the following
as reasons that students fail to complete school:
• Life Events: Students drop out because of an event or a need outside of
school. Pregnancy, incarceration or out-of-home placement in the juvenile
justice system, health problems, aging out of foster care, caring for an ill
family member, or needing to work to support themselves or family members
are the most frequent factors.
• Fade Outs: Students drop out because they no longer see the point of staying
in school. Often these are students with decent grades and attendance records
who at some point become bored, frustrated, or disillusioned with school and
believe they can make it in life on their own without a high school diploma.
• Push Outs: Some students may be viewed as behavioral problems or low
achievers, and/or they seldom attend school. Once these students reach the
legal dropout age, sometimes their schools apply administrative rules —
related to suspensions, inadequate credits earned by a certain age, or chronic
absenteeism — to remove them from school or transfer them to another
school.
• Failure to Succeed in School: Students drop out of school because they do not
pass enough courses or earn enough credits to be promoted to the next grade.
Many of these dropouts begin to fall off the path to graduation in the middle
40

41. grades, where they begin to fail courses, miss a lot of school, or misbehave.
The key point for promotion — or failure — is from 9th to 10th grade. These
students often have to repeat the entire 9th grade and, without any supports,
do no better the second time. At some point after repeated attempts to
succeed (though often with decreasing effort), it seems to them that they will
never succeed in school, so they drop out. (p. 26-7)
As educators struggle to understand the many dynamics that contribute to a
student’s poor attendance, lack of academic achievement, and low completion/dropout
rates, especially among student sub-populations, the personalization of education must be
harnessed more effectively than in previous decades. SLCs may provide an effective way
for students to build more relationships with teachers, thereby enhancing their experience
of school, as well as their academic achievement and related factors.
Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities.
Future graduates will continue to require increased academic preparation and
skills in order to be successful in the rapidly changing postsecondary landscape. This
reality will require educators to have a clear understanding of how academic rigor and
relevance will be a part of gearing up students. Lopez (2006) states, “The emerging
national consensus argues that all students should have access to the rigor and standards
of a college prep program curriculum, and high school standards must be more firmly
anchored in the skills demanded by colleges and real world employers” (p. 17). The
continued emphasis on academic rigor has been driven by the statistics showing that
many students who attend two and four-year colleges need remedial coursework.
Daggett (2008) defines academic rigor as “learning in which students demonstrate a
41

42. thorough in-depth mastery of challenging tasks to develop cognitive skills through
reflective thought, analysis, problem solving, evaluation, or creativity” (p. 2). Educators
that understand the shift in demands from both colleges and present day employers know
that rigors curriculum must be balanced by allowing students to apply their real world
knowledge giving them the content relevance required to be creative and innovative.
The application of instructional rigor and relevance to improve the level of
student engagement must be of utmost importance if schools are to address the needs of
students, especially those of who have traditionally been disconnected and, therefore,
academically unsuccessful. Through the SLC design, teachers are provided a structure to
collaborate and build more authentic interdisciplinary and thematic lessons, a major
component of the framework that creates genuine student engagement and elevates
academic achievement. According to Lee (2003), instructional assignments that connect
to real-world problems and offer the opportunity for creativity and problem solving
motivate students and dramatically increase the quality of teaching and learning.
Providing the right structure for teachers to collaborate and connect learning beyond their
own discipline, while creating rigorous and relevant instructional assignments, is at the
core of bridging the sub-population academic gap. Daggett (2005) supports these ideas by
noting:
Studies have shown that students understand and retain knowledge best when they
have applied it in a practical, relevant setting. [An educator] who relies on
lecturing does not provide students with optimal learning opportunities. Instead,
students go to school to watch the teacher work. The International Center’s
Rigor/Relevance Framework is a powerful tool that has captured the imagination
of teachers to aspire to teach students to high rigor and high relevance. All
educators can use the Rigor/Relevance Framework to set their own standards of
excellence as well as to plan the objectives they wish to achieve. This versatile
Framework applies to standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. (p. 2).
42

43. Figure 1 illustrates Daggett’s (2005, 2009) suggested movement from traditional
instructional assignments to cross-curricular and career-skill relevance. As educators
develop and utilize instructional assignments and strategies that connect learning from A
and C quadrants into the B and D quadrants, students will benefit from their expanded
applied learning. According to Daggett (2009), educators who require utilization and
application of 21st century skills (see Appendix A for details) in the D quadrant increase
the likelihood that students learn and are able to apply knowledge in quadrants A, B, and
C, as well as on state assessments.
6 Evaluation
D
5 Synthesis C
Adaptation
Assimilation
4 Analysis
3 Application
A B
2 Comprehension
Acquisition Application
1 Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5
Knowledge Apply Apply Apply Apply
in one knowledge in knowledge knowledge to knowledge to
discipline one across real-world, real-world,
discipline disciplines predictable unpredictable
situations situations
Figure 1. Rigor/relevance framework with progression of assignments arrow. Adapted
from Achieving Academic Excellence Through Rigor and Relevance, by W. R. Daggett,
2005, http://www.daggett.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdf, and The Solutions to
School Improvement, by W. Daggett, 2009, Symposium hosted by the Harris County
Department of Education.
As shown by the arrow in Figure 1, educators seeking to provide quality
instructional assignments that connect learning to real-world situations must start by
understanding the basic framework that drives this philosophy. Unfortunately, rigor and
relevance have almost become a cliché in the educational arena. This fact makes it
necessary for educators to understand that rigor does not mean more and harder, but
rather the depth of teaching and the clarity of learning for students during a lesson. Davis
43

44. (2010) states: “You can use a simple text and still make your lesson rigorous. With the
right kind of questioning and the right kind of activities, you can make students delve
deeper into a text regardless of its length and/or complexity” (p. 14)
Instructional assignments that are interdisciplinary are more likely balanced in
multiple quadrants of the Rigor/Relevance Framework. The most effective instructional
assignments are designed to help students move from quadrant A to quadrant D as their
content knowledge increases. Students who have the strongest quadrant A knowledge
may have the best opportunity to move seamlessly to other quadrants. In addition, it is
likely that students may learn a concept better in quadrant B when application to real-
world situations is connected to the learning. The ultimate goal for educators is to teach
lessons that help students work in quadrants B and D, assisting them in developing skills
that aid in post-secondary education, as well as becoming more competitive in a 21st
century global economy. Educators must provide students with the opportunity to
practice what to do when students do not know what to do (Daggett, 2008).
The Design of Smaller Learning Communities
For the purpose of this study, the Career Academy SLC structure was selected as
the main focus. Although there may be different variations of the career academies, most
are designed in some form with the following areas of career fields:
• Communication, Law, and Social Services;
• Design, Technology, and Engineering;
• Visual and Performing Arts;
• Medical and Health Sciences; and
44

45. • Business and Applied Technologies.
The major attribute of the career academy design is the connection to
postsecondary discussions, based on the career choice component. Career academies are
considered to have the potential to reengage high school students in the learning process
because they allow students to exercise a voice in determining the trajectory of their
experiences in high schools. The connection to career choice leads to endless
possibilities for teachers to connect student learning to relevant experiences and support
student discussions regarding potential career interests, along with the skills required to
obtain the career. In addition, the career academy SLC design is conducive to
interdisciplinary instruction, which must be a major element of SLCs so that students
make the connections across disciplines and to real world situations. The Career
Academy Network defines career academies as:
“… a small learning community within a high school, which selects a subset of
students and teachers for a two-, three-, or four-year period. Students enter
through a voluntary process; they must apply and be accepted, with parental
knowledge and support. While academies vary in size, they usually have from
one to three sections of students at each grade level, or 100-300 students in all.”
This definition was agreed upon in 2005 by leading organizations (see Appendix
B for complete details).
There are different types of SLCs that may be more suitable for different schools
based on their academic status, culture, or community expectations. The U.S. Department
of Education (2006) describes four mains SLC structures:
• Structure I: Academies are subgroups within schools, organized around
particular themes. For example, career academies combine key principles of
the school-to-career movement—integrating academic and vocational
instruction, providing work-based learning opportunities for students, and
45

46. preparing students for postsecondary education and employment—with the
personalized learning environment of a small, focused learning community.
Teachers and students integrate academic and occupation-related classes as a
way to enhance real-world relevance and maintain high academic standards.
Local employer partnerships provide program planning guidance, mentors,
and work internships. Career academies share with other restructuring
initiatives an emphasis on building relationships between students and adults
(teachers as well as work-site supervisors and other employer representatives).
• Structure II: House plans divide students in a large school into groups of
several hundred, either across grade levels or by grade levels. Students take
some or all courses with their house members and from their house teachers.
House arrangements may be yearlong or multiyear arrangements. House
plans personalize the high school experience but usually have limited effect
on curriculum or instruction. Each house usually has its own discipline plan,
student government, social activities, and other extracurricular activities,
although students may also participate in activities of the larger school.
Grouping ninth-graders into a separate house is one way to ease freshman
transition to high school.
• Structure III: A school-within-a-school is a small, autonomous program
housed within a larger school building. Schools-within-schools are generally
responsible to the district rather than to the host school’s principal, and are
formally authorized by the superintendent or board of education. Schools-
within-schools have their own culture, program, personnel, students, budget,
46

47. and school space (negotiating the use of common space with the host school
in the same way office building tenants arrange for use of shared conference
facilities). Like an academy, the school-within-a-school structure supports
constructive relationships between and among students and teachers by
grouping students together each year to take core courses with the same group
of teachers, thus increasing the supports students receive from peers, teachers,
and other adults.
• Structure IV: Magnet programs use a specialty core focus (such as math,
science, creative arts, or a career theme or cluster) to attract students from the
entire school district. Some magnet programs have competitive admission
requirements; others are open to any interested student. Students in a magnet
program stay together for their core classes and may take other courses with
non-magnet students.
The following graph shows the number of SLCs using the five major structures:
Percentages of SLC Schools Implementing Each Type of SLC Structure (n=105)
47

48. Figure 2. (Note: Percentages exceed 100 percent within a school year because schools may implement
more than one SLC structure.) Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic
Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003. Percentages based on number of respondents completing survey
module corresponding to each type of SLC structure.
Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities
Closing the achievement gaps will become even more urgent considering the
demographic swing in race, ethnicity, immigration, and growing projections of low SES
K-12 student enrollment. In addition to the demographic shifts and the need for students
with more advanced 21st century skills, educational leaders must continue to focus on
transformation and innovative strategies to support the diversification of the nation’s
schools. The changes in demographics are illustrated in the following chart:
48

49. Numeric Change in the Projected U.S. Population by Race and Hispanic Origin:
2000 to 2050 (in millions)
156.9
97.2
23.0
17.5
11.6
7.6
Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic all Hispanic (any Total
White alone Black alone Asian alone other races race)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 National Projections
Redesigning high schools by creating SLCs represents a step toward personalizing
education and establishing the right conditions for improved student achievement and
graduation rates. However, experienced educators recognize that there is no silver bullet
for ensuring student success and that true transformation will be more complex than
previously thought. Cotton (2001) points out that, once the notion is dispelled that small
school size alone is somehow magical, educators, students, parents, and others are better
situated to appreciate the results that well-conceived and well-operated small schools are
producing (p. 6). As a result, communication regarding the short-term and long-term
benefits of SLCs will be critical to sustaining the redesign and realizing the desired
49

50. student academic success that will address the low graduation rates. The following chart
depicts the graduation challenges facing Texas educators:
Figure 4. Texas Graduation Gap. Numbers were calculated prior to rounding. All graduation
rates are for the school year 2005–06. Source: Alliance for Excellence in Education (2009).
Addressing the many challenges associated with lower graduation rates for
minority and economically disadvantaged students continues to be a major obstacle for
educators. Addressing school size may assist in overcoming one of the major barriers to
student success. Howley and Bickel (2000) found that:
1. The larger the school, the greater the negative effect of poverty on student
achievement. The less affluent the community, the smaller a school should be
in order to maximize performance, as measured by standardized tests.
2. The correlation between poverty and low achievement is as much as 10 times
stronger in larger schools than in small ones.
50

51. 3. Although the relationship between school size, poverty, and achievement
holds true for all races, minority children are more likely to be enrolled in
large schools. (p. 12)
The complexities resulting from a global economy and an evolving workforce
magnify the importance of not just graduating students but ensuring that they are well
equipped with the 21st century skills they are going to need to succeed. “Since almost 90
percent of the fastest-growing and highest-paying jobs require some postsecondary
education, having a high school diploma and the skills to succeed in college and the
workplace are essential” (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009, p. 1). Innovative
educators understand the expectation for improved skills and that a major ingredient will
be a student’s capacity to apply his or her knowledge.
The skills necessary to succeed in both higher education and the workforce,
termed 21st century skills, are gaining extensive attention from researchers, businesses,
and educational institutions. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004) described
these skills as the following (see Appendix A for complete details):
1. Core subjects and 21st-century themes—global awareness; financial,
economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy; civic literacy; and health
literacy.
2. Learning and innovation skills—creativity and innovation, critical thinking
and problem solving, and communication and collaboration.
3. Information, media, and technology skills—information literacy; media
literacy; and information, communications, and technology (ICT) literacy.
4. Life and career skills—flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-
direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and
leadership and responsibility.
51