Below I am sharing with you the response that I recently wrote on August 26, 2008 to the Yahoo Small Schools Workshop Web Site. The question being asked is "Do SLCs Move the Needle?"
"As the point person for LAUSD for the past four years driving the
effort to redesign our high schools in Los Angeles, I have come to
some conclusions regarding this question. My first conclusion is that
this is the wrong question for me to answer? The question that I
found that needed to be answered is more like, "What will we
systemically do in each of our high schools that will lead to
increased academic achievement for all students?" My work was to
drive the SLC/small school effort, and we did that. As I retired from
the district on July 1, we had moved all but two LAUSD high schools
into a series of SLCs or small schools. The schools were at different
levels of implementation, so it was difficult to say whether it is
making a difference yet. We did have some indicators that showed
marked improvement in some areas, but not yet in all academic areas.
My experiece has taught me that in order to change schools, as John
Watkins says, we have to include everyone in the process. The key to
starting real change is creating shared vision. Doing that is not
easy with the staff transiency that occurs in many large urban high
schools. The improvement of academics builds off of this common
vision. If a district says, "we will have SLC in every high school'
without consideration as to what that means, we probably won't much
improvement in our student outcomes. When schools put too much effort
into creating structures, such as SLC, without connecting those
structures to the instructional and personalization needs of the
students, the SLC will have minimal positive effect. If the SLC/small
schools are created around the specific instructional and
personalization needs of the community, they have a better chance of
reaching the established academic goals.
It is for this reason that I see charter schools and small schools as
easier structures for reaching the academic outcomes expected. The
common vision is built into the structure, where it is a very
difficult conversion process for SLC, especially if those SLC are part
of the big school where an existing vision for all SLC already is in
place. (You might find interesting the ongoing success being seen at
the Student Empowerment Academy, a New Tech model high school, on the
campus of Jefferson HS in LAUSD).
I further learned that when good hearted educators sit together and
hold conversations around the needs of students, common vision can be
created. Parents and community leaders need to enter into these same
conversations with the educators. From these conversations come
plans to meet the specific needs of a group of students in the area of
instruction and personalization. Then, and only then, can educators,
parents, and community leaders determine the structure that will best
fit the plans that have come out of a shared vision and common
conversations. It may be that on one campus SLCs are the answer, on
another site, something else will be the look of a new structure.
What we cannot do in our urban communities is continue to run high
schools as we have for the past 100 years, because our society's
needs, our family's needs, and our students' needs have changed.
Without connecting our kids to content and people, we cannot make a
positive difference in the life of these students. Can SLCs do that,
of course. Is the SLC structure the only structure that will do that,
no. So, the question of whether SLCs move the needle or not, does not
tell us enough. They can move the needle, and in some places they may
be doing so, but they are not the only way to move the needle, and in
some school communities they may not be the best way to move the
needle.
I know that although retired from my careeer with LAUSD, I will
continue to help schools and school systems to find the way to move
the needle, whether it be through SLCs, small schools, or some other
yet to be determined structure. However, I will not look for one
answer to moving the needle, I will try to stay open minded as I work
with educators and community members in this important process."
I hope that in my previous muses and in future comments on this blog that I explain in greater detail what I am saying to this national group of educators who are leaders of school reform around the nation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Having a shared vision is the most neglected conversation in implementing this work. It is often the elephant in the room. Given the demands on the schools' available resources, there is never enough time for the conversations to mature.
It is a classic horse in front of the carriage approach when schools undertake reform without taking into account having a shared a vision because effort is focused on the more tangible structural changes which are easier to bring about than changing attitudes and beliefs.
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for sharing your observation. My observations as a principal were clearly aligned to what you shared here. I have always found that educators at all levels put the time and minimal resources that they have into the "tangible" areas of this profession and spend little or no time on the backbone structures, like common vision, that will allow for improved academic achievement. I worked for the last four years of my career in one district trying to build an understanding around this vary issue. Hopefully, I can continue to help school and district leaders see the necessity for creating a healthy infrastructure.
Post a Comment