Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters, on the small schools initiative
Panel on Educational Policy, November 28, 2005
To ask the appropriate questions about the planned formation of new small schools and “learning communities” that the Mayor announced last week, it is important to first learn from the experience of those small schools already formed. According to the independent evaluation of the New Century High Schools, completed last March by Policy Studies Associates, which was only publicly released after the NY Times received a leaked copy, these new small schools do appear to be providing better opportunities for their students. But at the same time, the evaluation confirms many of our worst fears about the way the initiative was implemented – as well as revealing disturbing information previously undisclosed. 1
•By gaining access to student records, the analysis substantiates what DOE officials have long denied – that these schools recruit students with better scores, attendance, and overall records than the population from which they are drawn. See for example the recent NYC Partnership report -- which misleadingly compares NCHS students to the average student citywide.2 As the Policy Studies report points out, "These citywide comparisons are of only limited usefulness, since [this] initiative is intended to improve education opportunities and outcomes for students who might otherwise attend some of the city's most troubled high schools." Thus their evaluation properly compares the earlier records of students at the new small schools to those attending neighboring or host comprehensive high schools.
By gaining access to student records, the analysis substantiates what DOE officials have long denied – that these schools recruit students with better scores, attendance, and overall records than the population from which they are drawn. See for example the recent NYC Partnership report -- which misleadingly compares NCHS students to the average student citywide.2 As the Policy Studies report points out, "These citywide comparisons are of only limited usefulness, since [this] initiative is intended to improve education opportunities and outcomes for students who might otherwise attend some of the city's most troubled high schools." Thus their evaluation properly compares the earlier records of students at the new small schools to those attending neighboring or host comprehensive high schools. The students at the small schools had eighth grade math and reading scores significantly higher than their peers in the comparison schools; and 97% of them had been promoted in the prior year, compared with only 59% of the students at the comparison schools.3 They had better attendance records (91% compared to 81%), and were less likely to have been suspended. They were much less likely to need special education services. Only six percent of Bronx NCHS students had IEPs, compared with 25% at the comparison schools; and none of the NCHS special education students had the most serious disabilities. 4 Indeed, teachers at the new small schools praised their principals for "recruiting more high-performing students".
What safeguards are now in place to make sure that the small schools planned for the future do not worsen this inequitable trend?
To the contrary, it appears that one third of the new funds from the Gates foundation and other private sources will be used to establish selective high schools, which by design will leave our most at-risk students behind. 5
•The independent evaluation also notes the increased pressure and worse overcrowding caused by the new small schools, with host or neighboring schools, operating at almost 200% capacity as a result.6 In the report, both teachers and principals noted the hostility from staff and students at the host schools that followed: "According to them, the tension stemmed from host schools being overcrowded and resenting having to give up resources and space to the small schools...Another [teacher] said..."Our students fight with the students from the other schools --- that's the extent of [our relationship with them.]” Clearly, the fact that most of the schools that had smaller schools placed within them subsequently became Impact schools was not coincidental.7
The independent evaluation also notes the increased pressure and worse overcrowding caused by the new small schools, with host or neighboring schools, operating at almost 200% capacity as a result.6 In the report, both teachers and principals noted the hostility from staff and students at the host schools that followed: "According to them, the tension stemmed from host schools being overcrowded and resenting having to give up resources and space to the small schools...Another [teacher] said..."Our students fight with the students from the other schools --- that's the extent of [our relationship with them.]” Clearly, the fact that most of the schools that had smaller schools placed within them subsequently became Impact schools was not coincidental.7 Many others have noted the negative effects of the small schools initiative not only on "host" schools or neighboring high schools but on higher achieving schools as well -- as a huge influx of transfers, including many "at risk" and special education students excluded from these schools, flooded other schools nearby. See for example, the comments of Robert Leder, principal of Lehman High school, who wrote that "one of the most serious negative results ”of the small schools initiative “ ....has been to transfer thousands of displaced students, often the most at-risk to other, already overcrowded schools." He reports an increase in 50% of the number of special education students at Lehman, "because of the system's failure to include these students proportionately in the new school registers....In all candor, logic and reality, how can a school like Lehman be expected to absorb this tremendous increase in register and still remain a well-functioning, viable school?" 8
Where will these new schools be located?
If they are placed in already existing school buildings, they will likely lead to worse outcomes and higher dropout rates for the students at these pre-existing schools, as well as increased tensions.
•Contrary to the small schools philosophy, the independent evaluation found that teaching methods at the new schools continued to be traditional and focus on memorization and learning facts, and “on low-level knowledge and skills" (p.48) Much classroom time was spent on "disciplining students, which they were observed doing in 35 percent of the segments." Other elements supposed to contribute to the success of these schools, including interdisciplinary collaboration, “advisories” and strong relationships with community partners, were weak or absent at many schools. “A majority of partners did not have a major role in any of the areas of school operations about which they were asked.”(vi)
Contrary to the small schools philosophy, the independent evaluation found that teaching methods at the new schools continued to be traditional and focus on memorization and learning facts, and “on low-level knowledge and skills" (p.48) Much classroom time was spent on "disciplining students, which they were observed doing in 35 percent of the segments." Other elements supposed to contribute to the success of these schools, including interdisciplinary collaboration, “advisories” and strong relationships with community partners, were weak or absent at many schools. “A majority of partners did not have a major role in any of the areas of school operations about which they were asked.”(vi) •Staff at the schools reported being hampered because of DOE actions, including the break up of the HS Superintendency, which left them with little support. They also noted the lack of curriculum provided by the city for ESL and/or students with IEPs, and generally, an inability to diverge from the mandated curriculum. Teachers were also critical of their school’s overcrowded conditions, and how the rush to create so many new schools so quickly led to many being established without sufficient computers and even access to phone lines. Finally, principals noted that the workshops provided by the New York City Leadership Academy, were "their least valuable source of support."(p.31)
Staff at the schools reported being hampered because of DOE actions, including the break up of the HS Superintendency, which left them with little support. They also noted the lack of curriculum provided by the city for ESL and/or students with IEPs, and generally, an inability to diverge from the mandated curriculum. Teachers were also critical of their school’s overcrowded conditions, and how the rush to create so many new schools so quickly led to many being established without sufficient computers and even access to phone lines. Finally, principals noted that the workshops provided by the New York City Leadership Academy, were "their least valuable source of support."(p.31)•Yet these schools did appear to do better job, especially as compared to the overcrowded, chaotic conditions at the larger schools. While the students attending small schools maintained their previously good attendance, even the subset of students who previously had good attendance who enrolled at the larger high schools experienced a 10% drop in attendance in 9th grade. And while 6% of NCHS students transferred schools, and 10% were discharged from the system entirely, the transfer rate among incoming students at the larger schools was 14% and the discharge rate was 20% -- showing that more than a third of these students departed from the larger schools each year.
Yet these schools did appear to do better job, especially as compared to the overcrowded, chaotic conditions at the larger schools. While the students attending small schools maintained their previously good attendance, even the subset of students who previously had good attendance who enrolled at the larger high schools experienced a 10% drop in attendance in 9th grade. And while 6% of NCHS students transferred schools, and 10% were discharged from the system entirely, the transfer rate among incoming students at the larger schools was 14% and the discharge rate was 20% -- showing that more than a third of these students departed from the larger schools each year. •Why were the new small schools more successful at keeping their students engaged? Students reported that their teachers were able to know them well, give them individualized instruction and help, and provide lots of attention in and out of class. As one pointed out, "the teachers I have had at other schools never knew me." While class sizes at the larger high schools average 30 students or more, class sizes at most of the new small schools were between 13 and 20 students, as pointed out by the first year evaluation. 9 The fact that these schools provided much smaller classes was noted by students themselves in surveys as their most valuable quality.10 As a result, “Teachers listen to you and get your opinion.” “In a normal high school, they don’t talk to you when you have a problem. They don’t care.” Another student said, “Slipping through the cracks? Not at this school!” Indeed, without smaller classes it's hard to see how these schools could succeed in their mission at all.
Why were the new small schools more successful at keeping their students engaged? Students reported that their teachers were able to know them well, give them individualized instruction and help, and provide lots of attention in and out of class. As one pointed out, "the teachers I have had at other schools never knew me." While class sizes at the larger high schools average 30 students or more, class sizes at most of the new small schools were between 13 and 20 students, as pointed out by the first year evaluation. 9 The fact that these schools provided much smaller classes was noted by students themselves in surveys as their most valuable quality.10 As a result, “Teachers listen to you and get your opinion.” “In a normal high school, they don’t talk to you when you have a problem. They don’t care.” Another student said, “Slipping through the cracks? Not at this school!” Indeed, without smaller classes it's hard to see how these schools could succeed in their mission at all. Yet will the new, small learning communities (SLCs) at the eight large high schools also provide smaller classes?
It is impossible to say, given the lack of detail in the DOE press release, but I would guess not. Instead, it is likely that they will instead group students in “houses” or give them “advisories”, both of which are gimmicks that will be insufficient to ensure that they receive the close attention and support from their teachers that they need.
Indeed, at this point, there is not even an explicit plan on the part of the administration to ensure that the smaller classes provided by the already-existing small schools will survive. As another recent evaluation of the Gates-funded schools observes, budget pressures and a lack of sufficient planning led to a sharp increase in class size at two thirds of the schools they studied nationwide in their second and third years -- which severely undermined their ability to succeed.11
The researchers suggested that instead of continuing to establish more new schools, without a plan to sustain the features that make them successful, the Gates foundation and its grantees should instead “focus more of their energy and resources on protecting the schools that have already been started.”
And what about the majority of New York City students, who will continue to attend our larger high schools?
In the recent New Visions interim report, there is a timeline in which by 2010, "innovative educational methods from NYC's small high schools" are supposed to "improve teaching and learning at the city's traditional high schools." 12 This is critical, since even if its ambitious goal is achieved of 200 new smaller schools, fully two thirds of NYC students will continue to attend larger high schools.
As the class size in the small schools appear to be their most successful elements, without a plan to eventually provide smaller classes and more individualized instruction to all high school students, it is difficult to see how this will ever occur.
____________________
1 Michael C. Rubenstein, Elizabeth R. Reisner et.al., “New Century High Schools: Evaluation Findings from the Second Year,” March 16, 2005.
See also also David M. Herszenhorn, Study Raises Issues on Small High Schools
New York Times, November 4, 2005; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/nyregion/04small.html
2 Partnership for New York City, “Progress Report on New York City School Reform,” September 2005, http://www.nycp.org/pr/education_report.pdf
3 Only 10% of NCHS students scored below basic in their 8th grade ELA exams, compared with 35% at their host schools -- with a similar disparity in seen in math scores.
4 None of the small school students had the most serious special education diagnoses (autistic, deaf, emotionally disturbed, or brain impaired) while 3% of them did in the comparison schools.
5 NYC Dept. of Education press release, “Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein announce $24 million in private support for expansion of secondary school initiatives,” November 17, 2005; http://www.nycenet.edu/Administration/mediarelations/PressReleases/2005-2006/11172005.htm. From the announcement, it appears that $8.4 of the $24 million will go towards establishing new selective high schools.
6 As the "number of 9th graders entering the new schools did not match the number of ninth-graders being turned away from school that were being phased out." (p. 4)
7 Deteriorating conditions were observed at many other relatively high-achieving schools as well, such as Philip Randolph in Harlem, and attributed to the poor way in which the small schools initiative was implemented. See related article by David C. Bloomfield, Professor at Brooklyn college, “High School Reform: The Downside of Scaling Up,” Politics of Education Association Bulletin, Fall, 2005 at: http://www.fsu.edu/~pea/newsletters/pea_bulletin_fall_2005.pdf. Reportedly, many vocational schools have also suffered as a result, with their ability restricted from attempting to recruit students who were interested in their areas of specialization, as they were barred from HS recruiting fairs and the like, since DOE wanted to give the new smaller schools advantages in attracting higher-performing students. As a result, the vocational schools have been flooded with students who are not only low-performing but have no interest in the fields in which they now are required to take courses and to pass special exams in order to graduate.
8 Letter from Robert Leder, principal of Lehman HS, to Marlene Filewich, Local Instructional Superintendent, dated March 3, 2005.
9 Elizabeth R. Reisner, et.al., “Evaluation of the New Century High Schools Initiative: Report on Program Implementation in the First Year,” December 15, 2003;
“Two classroom features emerging from the classroom observations offer promise for the schools’ future development, however. These are small classes and generally high levels of time on task. The English language arts classes observed for the evaluation averaged 16 students present per class, with most classes serving 13 to 20 students. The largest class we observed numbered 25 students and the smallest class served only one student. During the 249 instructional segments for which data were recorded, an average of 82 percent of students were on task in any given 10-minute segment.” (44)
10 “In general, students also said that they liked the small class sizes, the willingness of teachers to provide extra help…”(p. 59) According to one student, “I like that it’s small, and we each get attention. There’s not one person who doesn’t get attention from our teachers. And they treat us all the same. In a normal high school, they don’t talk to you when you have a problem. They don’t care.” Another student said, “I like the close thing with teachers and that you can discuss your problems with them.”
11 American Institutes for Research and SRI International, “Creating Cultures for Learning: Supportive Relationships in New and Redesigned High Schools,” April 2005; http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/evaluation/Year%203%20Final%20Reports/Relationship%20Rpt%2010_21.pdf. “In school designs dependent on close teacher-student relationships that enable personalized learning, these increases have a pronounced effect. Teachers frequently cited their ability to spend time one-on-one with students as what makes these schooling environments possible; with more students in each class, such personalized attention became much more difficult to deliver.”
12 New Visions, “New Century high schools and the small schools movement in New York City,” Interim report, 2005;
