By creating smaller schools-within-schools, teachers increase interdisciplinary interaction with other teachers, students see a unity and relevancy among their classes, and students will feel more involved in a school community. These outcomes will effect an improvement in student-student, student-teacher, and teacher-teacher relationships and, therefore, enhance student achievement. Our students and teachers in [schools-within-schools] receive more interdisciplinary input, feel more of a "small school" intimacy, and have a greater identity.--A Teacher
All of the complementary reform efforts, as with proponents of AAI, see great value in creating smaller learning environments for students. While smaller school structures often live under the guise of several names--academies, school-within-schools houses, or clusters--they have similar characteristics: a common cohort of students (usually 200 to 400), who are working together with a common cohort of teachers. Together, the teachers (and often the students) create the curriculum around an agreed-upon focus or area of inquiry.
As evidenced by the teachers involved in the AAI project, working together is both refreshing and difficult. A similar response was conveyed by the teachers that we interviewed from complementary reform efforts. They urged us to convey to readers the importance of "process" type issues, including creating a common vision, building a consensus, establishing group dynamics, and taking the time for reflecting about progress. As one teacher said in regards to the importance of vision,
Even though the visions and the realities are not quite the same--you have to start from someplace; if you don't start with a vision, you might as well forget it. The vision has now come more in line with the reality, in that we cannot always get what we want, though we work very hard to do it.While another captured the essence of working as a team:
We still disagree all of the time, but then we come to true consensus. True consensus, the way I see it, is agreeing with your own little caveats--listen, I don't think this is going to work, but I am going to go along with it for now, and if it doesn't work, I am not going to say I told you so.While it seems quite obvious, we learned once again that in the formation of a school-within-a-school, the establishment of professional and pedagogical viewpoints is but half the battle--the interpersonal relationships among the teachers cannot be overlooked.
Dilemmas
In addition to the advice about the change process, teachers shared with us their dilemmas about the structural and conceptual framework of building smaller schools and programs. They wrestled with how to select a theme for the program and then help students decide which theme is for them. They held many conversations about how to use themes without re-creating tracking between houses or academies within a school, and how to balance the focus of the theme within existing vocational and academic standards. These dilemmas pertain equally to programs when AAI is the theme. As teachers reflected on their experiences, here is what they told us about these dilemmas:
Making Schools-Within-Schools Distinct
Because teachers wanted to create schools-within-schools that students could identify with and feel a sense of belonging to, they needed to make these schools distinct from one another in some way. Teachers brainstormed about ways to make everything from curriculum to student groupings to particular skills developed foster this sense of belonging so that students would not get lost in the shuffle. Because they chose to emphasize "community," many schools-within-schools became isolated within the comprehensive high school. Each functioned as the one-room schoolhouse ideal and, therefore, was isolated from others. Because the priority was to create a community for students, students could not be in classes with other teachers, scattered throughout the building, as this would be disruptive to the close-knit and cohesive program.
However, they recognized that this type of isolation can both limit students' class selection, a benefit of large high schools, or lead to competition among different schools-within-schools. Some school-within-a-school teachers steered clear of isolation for these reasons among others. They rejected it because of the negative consequences which can result, namely, school-within-a-school competition, limited student choices, limited career exploration and skill development, and tracking of students.
Clearly, questions of isolation or program integrity create a tradeoff that teachers and students need to make. There are two issues teachers discussed in regards to this tradeoff--the effects a theme-driven, isolated school-within-a-school can have on a student's high school experience and the competition between schools-within-schools.
Creating and Using Themes in Schools-Within-Schools
Using themes to create distinct schools-within-schools was common with the teachers we interviewed. Some teachers saw themes as a means to appeal to student interests, to provide a real context in which to learn abstract concepts, or to connect frequently separated subject areas. Others noted that themes ease the process of integration and provide students with a definite identity. Teams spent a considerable amount of time defining their themes, each using different methods. Clearly, this is a path common to AAI teachers, where the theme is focused on a broadly defined industry.
Some of these schools did develop their themes based on broadly defined industries in order to prepare students to enter careers in the field upon graduation. Other schools explained that they developed their themes based on student interests, while others developed them based on teacher interest--or what they found exciting. If teacher interests are at the center, teachers will be more invested and excited about what they are doing and regard it as worth the difficulty of starting a new school. This excitement will, in turn, trickle down to the students. They learned that teacher buy-in can be as important as establishing student interest--it is difficult to foster student interest if teachers are bored themselves with the process and content.
Some teachers warned us about the tension between using these themes to drive a program and allowing these themes to become ends in themselves. Because developing a school around a theme is a complex process on many levels, a theme can end up being little more than a catchy add-on to a school and fail to accomplish any of the goals it has the power to accomplish. One teacher warned,
I think having a theme is catchy right now--it is not that they are bad, but alone they are not enough. I am skeptical of programs designed around themes like "law," "arts," etc. The names become the means and ends and often the curriculum is the same old same old.And another said,
When [x] program got started, it was the same old same old, only they met together on occasion. They haven't really changed anything. It is the same old thing, just packaged differently. It is like buying a box of Frosted Flakes with the new packaging--they really haven't changed, and their philosophy isn't any different. They have restructured what they call it, but they haven't restructured their thinking or the delivery of instruction.Thus, as the teachers involved in the AAI project learned, it takes many years to re-create a school or projects with strong themes; it is more than re-grouping students, but, instead, cuts to the root of each discipline. Teachers need to reconsider what and how students learn. However, when they are successful in making programs distinct from one another, another dilemma arises--student choice of which school-within-a-school they will attend.
Why Students Choose Themes: How do students chose which school-within-a-school they will attend? One teacher explained the formal process at her school:
Students make their own choices as to whether or not they want to attend this school-within-a-school. We go around to incoming ninth graders and do a presentation--they see presentations from each of the schools-within-a-school in our school building and they make their choices. . . . At the end of each year, students once again choose; and those who are uncomfortable and want to get out may go to a counselor and make another choice.We learned that recruitment to schools-within-schools was somewhat minimal, while young students, age 13, had several pressures weighting down their decisions--including family and friends. Teachers explained, for example, that they advertised their schools-within-schools on Whittle TV and through assemblies at middle schools. Because students received only a brief overview, their choices were probably not that well-informed. With school-with-a-school themes focused on career exploration/development and academic consistency, student decisionmaking is critical. Regardless of whether or not the staff of a school perceives a theme to be a means to prepare students for a specific career or a means to further ends, students often perceive the use of the theme in the same way.
We asked teachers how and why they believe students choose a particular theme or school-within-a-school. Most said that many students simply decide based on peer decisions or based on a limited amount of knowledge. One teacher provided the following opinion:
Maybe one-third have somebody who is in that field in the family, or friends or relatives; another third may be sort of ambivalent--they don't know what they want to do, but this sounds interesting; and another third just happen to get into it because of a particular teacher or it has a good reputation or their friends are there.Another teacher from a vocational school commented,
Students make their choices for a variety of reasons, some more well-founded than others. More serious, mature students think of reasons such as security, opportunities, and a genuine satisfaction. Others have reasons such as that is where my friends are, it's fun, or it's where the money is. They can be influenced by a career area instructor, curriculum, opportunities, friends, family, and popular opinion.How comfortable were these teachers with this process? Not many were--most expressed their reservations. Many indicated that, as they created components of the schools-within-schools, they focused the majority of their time on designing curriculum and building teams of faculty members. Consequently, they neglected, to some degree, to figure out better methods by which students can choose the program in which they will enroll. Given this, teachers felt they needed to think about building flexibility into programs and defining broad foci for themes. Both of these solutions are similar to the core goals of programs using the AAI theme.
Tracking: Related to the issue of program integrity and student decisionmaking is tracking. Teachers and administrators warned of the tendency of theme-focused schools-within-schools to unintentionally become tracking systems as, in an attempt to create program integrity, they became autonomous and isolated. The beauty of schools-within-schools are its focus, student identity, and community; however, the means used to achieve these goals often limit the content students are introduced to or the skills they develop. Furthermore, themes also limit students' opportunities to work with a diversity of other students. One principal from a vocational high school commented on this tendency. Because there is a movement at his school to create clusters of similar career areas and to schedule students within those clusters into the same classes, he worries deeply about the potential negative consequences of such a movement. While the benefits towards vocational and academic integration could be tremendous, he points out,
If the academics are bound by a theme, if you are in auto body and auto mechanics then you are going to have the same English teacher for three years and the same group of students. You're limiting; you are tracking. Some career areas attract more males and others more females; it leads to homogeneous groupings.Teachers affiliated with schools-within-schools continually questioned how autonomous their programs should be. They emphasized the need for very flexible structures--structures which allow students to move easily from one program to another and suffer no consequences, for example, allowing students to remain in high school longer to complete extra requirements. Although flexibility sacrifices program integrity and integration across subjects, teachers advised that schools-within-schools provide students with the option to participate in programs and classes in other schools-within-schools. The goal is to strike some sort of a balance. As one teacher suggested,
What needs to be done is that [students] have to be allowed to go out of their small school to get extra, supplemental types of classes. We have to build that type of flexibility to ensure that students who want to take auto shop or a psychology class which may not be in their small school curriculum, have that opportunity. . . . Whatever works best for the particular student should be the focus--you have certain core classes [within the school-within-a-school] that every student is going to take--those are the meat and potatoes--but I don't think you can then hold students back from venturing out and having other experiences.Another teacher explained that students within his school-within-a-school can move around if they find that a theme program they have chosen is not for them. Programs and classes which are established within particular theme-driven schools-within-schools are not exclusively for students from that school. If students are interested in health careers, but are not part of the health school-within-a-school, they have the option to participate in an internship program run through the school-within-a-school or take a science class designed for the school-within-a-school. He believes this will help students to explore different fields while developing their skills in a specific area. Themes should not limit options for students either within the program or outside of it; flexibility needs to be built in so that students do not feel trapped within one program or shut out of another.
Flexibility broadens the opportunity for career exploration. If one school-within-a-school is designed around the theme of business and another health, what opportunities exist for students to learn about the career area affiliated with a different program in the school? If students are enrolled in a business program, does that mean they will have deep exposure to the business world but little understanding of the opportunities that exist within the health industry? Without such opportunity, both skill development and the breadth of career exploration may be limited. As one teacher pointed out,
A student in the health program will definitely learn about health careers, but because of the lack of teacher availability, will not be able to take a language or an advanced math or science course. Also, he will not be able to learn to type, nor learn what other occupational areas might suit him. It's fine if a student KNOWS what he wants to do at the end of eighth grade. [As a teacher in a business program], I have no idea what I would tell a student who might want to go into art. We have an art school-within-a-school, but [business students] cannot take their classes.The same concern about students' experience in and exposure to a diversity of career areas also holds true for subject matter content. While isolated theme schools have the tendency to limit students' career exploration, they also affect students' overall academic education. For example, as some schools place a greater focus on the arts, students may lose out on math and science skills; as another focuses on science, a student might lose out on writing skills. Among the teachers we spoke with, a general concern surfaced about the creation of well-rounded programs for students. As many schools-within-schools create focused programs to appeal to student interests and facilitate the integration process, teachers highlighted the pitfalls about sacrificing academic standards in certain disciplines. As schools-within-schools become more focused, they can become isolated, lose their connections to the comprehensive school, and lose sight of connections to certain academic areas. Questions surface over how far, curricularly speaking, the theme should drive content. As one illustrated, "One school-within-a-school may have a strong humanities component but a weak math and science one, while another has computers as an integral part of [its] program." How can the experiences that students receive be equal in terms of standards across the board?
One teacher advised that the role of department heads should be reestablished to maintain standards for each discipline across the schools-within-schools. In many schools, they are currently little more than figure heads, and the school-within-a-school coordinators have taken the lead: "If there were meetings, not just in the schools-within-schools, which is what we are basically doing now, if we met by departments as well, there would be more cohesion. . . . At the moment, there is no definitive curriculum."
One school, which has made enormous strides in working through some of these tensions, affirmed this idea. This particular comprehensive school has maintained the role of departments while creating schools-within-schools, which has made a difference in both communication and academic standards. Another practitioner explained how, initially, the faculty created a schoolwide vision but it was too general and, therefore, did not, in her words, "translate into what went on in the classroom." Because the school was having a difficult time working through outcomes and standards, they broke into small teams. They attempted to focus conversations on issues of change in the teams, instead of having the frequently side-tracked conversations on student discipline, in hopes that they would establish components that would spread into a whole-school movement. The teams began to voice a desire for schoolwide standards and assessment because the teachers were worried about the lack of consistency in the academic content, skills, and rigor from one school-within-a-school to another. They decided to use the departments to establish schoolwide standards. One coordinator explained,
That was something the teams had asked for because when they come to their team meeting, an English teacher on each one of those teams would bring only what they wanted. If we had schoolwide standards for what is expected in English, then they can come to their team table and say this is what my department feels is important for a ninth grader in English and that is being said at all four team tables, so there is much more continuity and it gets us a step closer to the school goals. We have begun that process by departments; the people will leave the departments and take the department information back to their teams. Then you have four subject areas (English, math, science, social studies) around a table, and each one brings to the table what their particular department or discipline says are essential skills. You lay them down on the table and say, "Okay, given that all of these departments would like to give for a ninth grader, what project would incorporate those?" It gives them a lot more of a solid foundation to start with. If each team is doing that, they are all starting with the same--this is what the department thinks is important--but then that will be tailored to who is on the team and to some extent the kids they are serving.This process not only helped to provide students with well-rounded programs, it also made the process of integrating subject areas and establishing connections between classes easier than usual. However, clearly there is a tradeoff between allowing the whole school process to dominate versus school-within-a-school coherency, community, and integrity.
Competition Between School-Within-Schools
One key role teachers identified in creating schools-within-schools is that of coordinators. Coordinators are not only needed to oversee the development of their own school-within-a-school, but also for working with the other small schools within their building. They are needed to call meetings, facilitate planning, and oversee the development of relations with the other schools-within-schools. One pitfall to bear in mind is that, while all of the teachers we spoke with underscored the importance of this role, they also warned of problems that come with it: The coordinator is often a former teacher who has had no extra training for his or her new responsibilities. One teacher illustrated,
The [school-within-a-school] coordinators need to receive more training. They need to be taught a little more about scheduling and the allocation of funds and group dynamics. Look at how much training a principal gets in all of the nitty gritty details to make a school run smoothly. These people are teachers--a lot of them just have bachelor's degrees. They have been in a classroom and don't know what form to use for what; they should be trained.Another affirmed this comment with the suggestion that materials needed to be developed to train coordinators. She said it is too often assumed that if you have been running a classroom for fifteen years you are equipped to run a program. When coordinators are faced with the unpleasant task of facilitating a meeting, they have little experience to draw upon. She explained, "There is nothing in teachers' backgrounds that gives them that experience--you can't tell a team to open up its books and read when [the members] are getting out of control!"
We learned that a second problem of the schools with which we spoke, understandably, were the tensions which surfaced as groups of teachers began to establish their own school-within-a-school programs. School-within-a-school competition emerged throughout, leading to fragmentation of the comprehensive high school's student body and staff. Is there any way to attain peaceful coexistence if there is a need for such isolated structures?
Several teachers from one school spoke frequently about the "bad blood" that surfaced among faculty members throughout the comprehensive high school because the schools-within-schools were in competition about everything from resources, to students, to each one's successes and failures. Teachers from one school attributed this competition to the lack of clearly defined processes for allocating resources and the lack of a guiding mission for the school as a whole. As one teacher explained, these divisions can have a profound effect on students as well as staff. Schools-with-schools competition, animosity, and jealousy can spin out of control and result in stringent fragmentation and stratification throughout the comprehensive high school. She wrote,
Students in one [school-within-a-school] do not get to know students in others. There is a feeling of alienation because the school is fragmented and, for the most part, does not work as a unit. Competition, jealousy, and back-biting are rampant among the [school-within-a-school] coordinators. They fight over funding, resources, room space, [and] supplies. At department and faculty meetings, they go from being mildly sarcastic to outright hostile. . . . The [schools-within-schools] have proved to be a double-edged sword. They are positive because they enhance students' self-esteem and provide opportunity for career development. They also offer teachers the opportunity to more fully interact with students and each other. They are negative because they often cause stratification, alienation, and dissatisfaction.One teacher advises schools to bring in an outsider to help to work through the school-within-a-school relations. She believes this can help to alleviate some of the unhealthy competition that exists:
Get some outside agency or somebody outside of the school to oversee it and intervene because if it is someone in the school, it is too personal--the principal could be accused of playing favorites when he or she really isn't. It creates a lot of animosity with people you have to live with.Another school, which has established good relations between their schools-within-schools, affirms this advice. A teacher explained the interrelationship among the schools-within-schools as follows:
The schools-within-schools have slightly different focuses, but ultimately, I think, they drive the focus of the school. It is like putting a mosaic together. A mosaic has some unity in order to be a product. There has to be some framework that the schools-within-schools fit into. You are going to be able to see the various parts of it differing, but in the end, there is going to be some amount of unity; there needs to be.Another coordinator explained that good relations may have resulted because each school-within-a-school began with equal amounts of money and randomly grouped students so that there were no gifted or at-risk groupings. Thus, the allocation of new resources had been extremely fair. According to this teacher, the competition that exists between the schools-within-schools at her school is healthy--it actually motivates staff to do and learn more. She illustrated,
In the spring, one [of the schools-within-schools] put up a showcase and they put student work in and suddenly there were all of these showcases of student work all over the school.On the other hand, teachers from another school with a particularly unsatisfactory process for allocating resources pointed to money as the root of unhealthy competition within the comprehensive high school. One teacher recalled what happened when the comprehensive high school was given two language teachers without a formal process to determine how those teachers would be used by the six schools-within-schools:
The Spanish teacher decided he liked one of the schools-within-schools and [that school-within-a-school] liked the Spanish teacher; they kidnapped him so he teaches all of his classes in that school-within-a-school. Students from outside of the school-within-a-school cannot taken classes within it. The students in my school-within-a-school cannot take Spanish. They do not have a language requirement.What happens if students in her school-within-a-school have to take a language for college entrance? "Then they have to take it at a community college and pay for it--or otherwise they have the option of applying to the other school-within-a-school," she said.
One school also explained that the role of administrators was very helpful in maintaining a sense of equability. She explained that there were four assistant principals at the school, and each was assigned to a school-within-a-school. She illustrated what she viewed the positive effects of this to be:
Three of the teams had really good, supportive assistant principals who rolled up their sleeves, took part in it, and had things to share. On one of the teams, the administrator chose not to go to meetings, or he would go once in a long while and then fall asleep when he was there. It may be a coincidence that was a dysfunctional team, but it got the least done because they didn't have the push. It wasn't all his fault, but certainly had he been there and helped to keep them on track, it would have helped.Issues To Consider
According to the experiences of teachers, coordinators, and administrators who have begun the process of breaking their comprehensive high schools down into smaller units, in the end, the benefits are worth the energy required to create and sustain schools-within-schools. They did, however, advise considerable forethought before beginning the process.
As the previous section demonstrates, central to the development of schools-within-schools is the ability to problem solve and collaborate throughout the process. Creating schools-within-schools requires teachers to problem solve together to create a common vision, build consensus, reflect on decisions and practices, create themes, develop well-rounded programs, provide broad career exploration, and work through competitive schools-within-schools relations. As these teachers emphasized, it is necessary to figure out how to approach delicate tensions, tradeoffs, and dilemmas throughout the process.
The teachers we interviewed advise others to consider the following list of issues before and during the planning and implementation processes. These questions may help guide or frame conversations in your school: