Eka Nursari

7/31/2019 Eka Nursari

1/43

Eka Nursari

Rabu, 27 Mei 2009

Jurnal Inggris

Improving Schools

http://imp.sagepub.com

Creating small schools in Chicago: an early look at implementation and impact

Joseph E. Kahne, Susan E. Sporte and John Q. Easton2005; 8; 7Improving SchoolsDOI: 10.1177/1365480205048929

The online version of this article can be found at:http://imp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/7

Published by:http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Improving SchoolsAdditional services and information for

http://imp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://imp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Permissions:

http://imp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/1/7

Citationsb y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m
http://ekanursarii.blogspot.com/http://ekanursarii.blogspot.com/


2/43

Creating small schools in Chicago: anearly look at implementation and impactJoseph E. KahneMills College, California

Susan E. Sporte and John Q. EastonConsortium on Chicago School ResearchAbstractThere is widespread concern in many US cities about student alienation, dropout and under-achievement in large urban high schools. Chicago, with support from the Gates Foundationand other agencies, has embarked on a major reform involving the establishment of newsmall schools and the division of larger schools into smaller ones. This article reports onearly evaluations of the project, alongside previous evaluations of small high schools. Ithighlights early effects such as: improved relationships; cooperation between teachers;awareness of personal difficulties; student engagement; and better attendance. Although itis too early to demonstrate the result in terms of summative attainment measures, these

clearly provide a strong foundation.Keywords community, ethos, small schools, trustIncreasingly, researchers, policymakers, school leaders, and concerned citizens arerecognizing that high schools in the United States are in need of major reform or, assome have put it, in need of being re-invented (Harvey and Housman, 2004). Currentresearch often highlights that high schools are not preparing students for college, work,or life (American Diploma Project, 2004), and that they lead to increased alienation(American Youth Policy Forum, 2001). The problem is especially severe in large urbanhigh schools, which disproportionately serve students of low socioeconomic status andstudents of color. In Chicagos public schools, for example, where more than 85 per centof students come from low income backgrounds and 91 per cent are students of color,only 29 per cent of all 9th graders were reading at grade level in 2000 and the cumula-tive dropout rate for the most recent cohort of students was 43 per cent (Allensworth,2004: 10; Allensworth and Easton, 2001) As Daniels et al. write, Americas highschools are failing all of our kids some of the time and some of our kids all the time(2001: 22).As a result of these concerns, many educational reformers are looking to small schools asa possible response to what Powell et al. (1985) characterized as impersonal, incoherent,Improving Schools SAGE PublicationsVolume 8 Number 1 March 2005 722ISSN 1365-4802 DOI: 10.1177/1365480205048929b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

8 Improving Schools 8(1)and ineffective comprehensive shopping mall high schools. This focus reverses atrend often associated with James Bryant Conant (1959) who, roughly 50 years ago,argued that small rural schools would be less effective than larger comprehensive highschools that could provide students with greater opportunities through an appropriately


3/43

differentiated curriculum.Reform focused on smaller, more personal schools has been spurred by educators suchas Deborah Meier (1995), researchers such as Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage(1995), and by foundations. Most notably, the Annenberg Foundations $500 millionschool reform effort emphasized reducing school size and the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation has now committed $647 million (Hendrie, 2004) to improving schoolsthrough the creation and replication of small high schools. Energized by these efforts,the city of Chicago and other urban districts are placing the creation of small schoolsat the center of their high school improvement strategies.Small school reform in ChicagoChicago provides a valuable setting from which to consider the challenges and possi-bilities of small school reform. It is the third largest district in the United States, serv-ing some 439,000 students. Slightly more than 100,000 of these students are in grades912, attending one of 95 high schools, including roughly a dozen small schools andcharter schools. In addition, as noted above, overall student performance in highschools is unacceptably low. In response to this problem, the district, like many across

the country, has instituted a wide range of policies to improve educational opportuni-ties and outcomes for these students. The district has made schools accountable forstudent performance, sanctioning those who do not meet test-score performance levels;has created a system of selective enrollment schools intended to attract and retain high-achieving students; has strengthened the list of courses required for graduation, and hascreated both opportunities and requirements related to professional and curriculardevelopment (Lee, 2002).As one part of their strategy for high school reform, the district, the Gates Foundation,and local funders recently launched the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative(CHSRI). CHSRI aims to support redesign by developing almost three dozen newsmall high schools.1 It began in September 2001 through a $12 million grant from theBill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This grant was matched by $6 million from foun-dations in Chicago. The goal of the first phase of this initiative was to convert up tofive large high schools into 1520 autonomous small schools over five years. In April2003, CHSRI received a second grant of almost $8 million from the Gates Foundationto open 12 new (rather than converted) small high schools over five years (Office ofSmall Schools, CPS). The first five autonomous small schools opened within threeconverting buildings in the fall of 2002.To learn from and support this process, we have begun a three-year study of this effort.Our goal is to provide formative and summative analyses for the Initiative and to addto the broader dialogues on the reform of low-performing urban high schools. Now oneyear into this study, this article focuses on the five converting small schools that openedin the fall of 2002. We report findings regarding both implementation and impact as ameans of raising issues and considering possibilities since the initiative is just begin-ning, it is far too soon for any summative judgments.b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

Kahne et al.: Creating small schools in Chicago 9


4/43

What we know from prior research and what we need to knowVarious reviews of the literature on student achievement and school size indicate thatthis strategy does indeed improve student outcomes (Cotton, 1996; Darling-Hammondet al., 2002; Haller, 1993; Holland, 2002; Howley, 1989; Lee, 2002). There is alsoevidence that small schools can promote more equitable access to academically

demanding courses (Bryk et al., 1993), more equitable achievement gains (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Lee & Smith, 1995), and lower dropout rates (Darling-Hammondet al., 2002; Holland, 2002; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). In addition, Barker andGumps seminal study (1964) also demonstrated that small schools can dramaticallyincrease students opportunities for participation and leadership in a wide range ofextracurricular activities, so even marginal students get involved. Not all findings arepositive, however. Wasley et al. (2000) and Hess and Cytrynbaum (2002) both studiedsmall schools in Chicago and found enhanced engagement but not a consistent impacton student achievement. More recently, when asked about the academic value of smallschools, Tom VanderArk, executive director of the Gates Foundation, admitted thatproof was hard to come by.2 Other research suggests that smallness alone is not

enough; for example, the beneficial value of small schools depends on the degree towhich they promote factors such as personalization and an interactive, authentic andchallenging curriculum while avoiding inequitable divisions in students opportunitiesto learn (see Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Lee, 2002).Thus, although much has been written about small high schools, and although the foun-dation community and many reformers believe that this strategy can improve the lifechances of high school students, the evidence base is quite limited. Indeed, the promo-tional nature of much of the literature limits our confidence in some of the findings. Inaddition, while current scholarship indicates that small schools are often associatedwith improved outcomes, neither the magnitude nor the consistency of these effects areclear, and the factors that can lead small schools to produce improved outcomes are notwell understood. Often identification of features responsible for success is based oncase studies of effective small schools and not on comparisons of effective and ineffec-tive small schools with controls for demographic and other relevant variables. In someof the qualitative literature, there is no or insufficient discussion of the methodologicalapproach that led to identification of features responsible for desired outcomes. Manystudies do not compare key elements of design strategy or small school structure schools within schools, freestanding small schools, newly created small schools,schools created by breaking up large schools. Finally, we dont currently know as muchas we need to about policy efforts to implement small schools on a large scale. And,our understanding of these policy decisions and their relation to successful smallschools and successful implementation of small school reform is quite limited.Our study represents an attempt to respond to these questions. We are interested inunderstanding district-wide efforts to promote small school reform we want to knowboth about the implementation challenges posed by this policy direction and about theimpact of the reform on teachers and, most importantly, students. In addition, weultimately hope to better understand the relationship between changes in the contextscreated for teachers and students and ultimate outcomes for students. Since, at thispoint in time, we are only able to report on the first year of the effort, our goals forthis article are much more limited. We aim to inform answers to three broad sets of


5/43

questions:b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

10 Improving Schools 8(1) How is Chicagos effort to implement small schools on a large scale proceeding? Are small schools creating the contexts for principals, teachers, and students thatreformers believe will ultimately lead to desired reform and improved outcomes? What are early indications of the small schools impact on student outcomes?To provide a framework for this discussion, the section that follows outlines a modelthat details mechanisms through which the creation of semi-autonomous small schoolsof choice is thought to lead to desired outcomes.Our framework for inquiryTo respond to issues noted above, rather than testing whether outcomes at small schoolsare better than those at larger ones, we believe it makes more sense to examine whether

small semi-autonomous schools of choice create conditions that enable improvedopportunities and supports for students and whether these, in turn, foster improved out-comes. This framework, or theory of change, is detailed in Figure 1. It was developedthrough consideration of relevant literature, analysis of documents related to theInitiative, and through interviews and discussions with key stakeholders. The frame-work or Theory of Change (Weiss, 1995) portrays the mechanisms through whichvaried features of small school reform are thought to promote desired contexts forstudents and teachers. It also details how these contexts, in the presence of district, stateand federal influence, can promote both curricular change and desired outcomes.The basic argument views small schools as enabling but not as guaranteeing improve-ment. Proponents believe that small, largely autonomous, schools of choice will belikely to foster desirable contexts for teachers and students contexts characterized by,for example, trust, coherent vision, and commitment. These contexts, in turn, willenable the development of high quality instruction and personalized academic andsocial support which will, in turn, lead to desired student outcomes. As Michele Finehas written:Small may be a necessary condition for a nonselective high school to excel. Small is neces-sary if teachers are to have rich conversations with one another about practice, policy,inquiry, and student work. Small is necessary if students are to feel attached to each otherand to faculty. (Fine, 1998: 4 as cited in Husbands & Beese, 2001)Specifically, as outlined in Figure 1, those designing and working to implement smallschools situated within school districts posit that desirable student outcomes will be theproduct of numerous factors. First, and primarily, they believe that if a district (Box 1;box numbers refer to those in Figure 1) creates small, voluntary, relatively autonomousschools and limits bureaucratic control (Box 2) that it will create schooling contextswhere trust, coherent vision, and commitment will be more likely to take root (Box 3).Such schools will also have distributed leadership and be marked by strong and vibrantprofessional communities, where teachers share in decision making, reflect on andshare practice, and collaborate with each other. Moreover, they believe that creatingsuch contexts for teachers and principals is fundamentally important as a means of


6/43

fostering a setting where productive reform can occur (Box 6). Clearly, both thecreation of this context for teachers and principals and the broader context for reformare also being shaped by the provision of resources and supports from both CHSRI andthe district (Boxes 4 and 5). Federal and state curriculum standards and accountabilitystructures, as mediated by the district (Box 5), also help structure this setting. Ideally,

b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

4. Chicago High SchoolRedesign Initiative5. District, state, and federalCurriculum standards and accountabilitystructures; Support from district (e.g. Office ofSmall Schools, Area Instructional Offices)Resources, supports, and

limited oversight7. Curricular and instructional quality2. Small schoolfeatures teachers andprincipals3. Small schoolcontext teachers andprincipals6. Productive setting forinstructional reformAligning external resources,support, and standards withschools coherent visionSmall size,voluntary, someautonomy,limitedbureaucracyDistributedleadership,trust, coherentvision,commitment,professionalcommunity12. Studentexperience13. Student


7/43

outcomes11. Productive affectivesetting for studentsAcademic andsocial personalism,

studentengagement,academic press,trust teachersand students, focuson academicstandardsTest scores,on-track rates,graduationrates,

attendance1. DistrictResources,policies thatenable smallschoolsTeacher commitment to studentlearning in a personalizedatmosphere of respect and trust8. Small schoolfeatures students andparents9. Small school context: studentsAligned with student interest,commitment to school visionSmall size,student choice10. Small school context: parentsTrust, involvement/support for schools visionFigure 1: Theory of action: Chicago High School Redesign Initiative

12 Improving Schools 8(1)this combination of internal vision and external forces will lead to improved curricularand instructional quality (Box 7), which should have a positive impact on studentexperience (Box 12), leading to improved student outcomes (Box 13). Those helpingto shape and implement this initiative must deftly balance their need to provide supportand direction with their need to protect the small schools autonomy. The primacy ofsmall school autonomy and flexibility must also be balanced with the need for account-ability and bureaucratic structures so that the reform can function effectively and


8/43

responsibly on a large scale.The rationale for small schools extends beyond their ability to foster curricular andinstructional quality. Also central to the design are beliefs about how small schoolfeatures will be experienced by students and parents. In particular, proponents of smallschools believe that the schoolssmall size and provision of student choice (Box 8) will

create a highly desirable context for students, one in which students choose a learningenvironment based on their own interests, and are committed to the schools vision(Box 9). Such a context, the argument goes, will be bolstered by parental trust, support,and involvement (Box 10) and will help provide an effective setting for reform markedby mutual trust and respect between students, teachers, and parents (Box 11). This inturn will further magnify the benefits of the curriculum to create an experience for stu-dents characterized by features such as academic and social personalism, engagement,academic press, and trusting relationships between students and teachers (Box 12).These experiences, in turn, should make desirable student outcomes (Box 13) morelikely.Methodology

This article draws on both quantitative and qualitative analyses to explore contexts forstudents and teachers and their relation to student outcomes. The quantitative analysesuse both survey and record data, allowing us to compare the contexts and outcomes ofthe small schools and the contexts and outcomes of traditional high schools servingsimilar populations of students. The qualitative analyses rely on interviews and focusgroup discussions to highlight key dynamics and to study implementation opportuni-ties and challenges.For the quantitative study we analyzed responses from the Consortium on ChicagoSchool Researchs biannual district-wide survey, including responses from some29,000 9th and 10th graders and almost 3000 high school teachers (see Appendix A fora more detailed description of our sample and method). We used Hierarchical LinearModeling to see whether students and teachers in these small schools reported higherlevels of measures believed to be present in improving schools than did similar studentsand teachers in similar schools. For teachers these measures included indicators ofschool leadership, professional community, and parent and community support; forstudents the measures included indicators of parent and community support, qualityinstructional program, and a student-centered learning climate. For the analysis ofstudent outcomes, we focused first on 9th graders. Again we used Hierarchical LinearModeling to compare attendance rates, drop-out rates,3 and on-track rates (a measureof freshman student success)4 for students at the small schools with those of similarstudents at large traditional high schools. We also compared 11th grade test scores forthe three small schools enrolling 11th graders with the 11th grade test scores of similarstudents, since systematic testing of high school students in CPS occurs in the 11th grade.b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

Kahne et al.: Creating small schools in Chicago 13As part of the qualitative study, we interviewed each schools principal/director andmet with a focus group of teachers and a focus group of students at each school. We


9/43

also interviewed the converting school principal in each building, attended parentmeetings at two of the schools, and met with program staff at two schools. These inter-views were transcribed and coded, and the results were organized into categories.FindingsAs noted above, our analysis of data informs answers to three broad questions. Our

findings are discussed below.Question 1: How is Chicagos effort to implement small schools ona large scale proceeding? Have CPS and CHSRI been able toprovide the support/resources and flexibility assumed to berequired for successful reform?As anticipated, Chicagos efforts to implement small schools on a large scale haveproved challenging. At the same time, these efforts have been aided by varied supportsfrom the CHSRI staff and the district as well as by teacherscreative visions and enthu-siasm for the reform. We describe these supports and constraints on implementationbelow.5Problems with implementation took relatively predictable forms, both operational and

philosophical. The volume of tasks associated with creating a small school was enor-mous limits on time and resources were particularly challenging. As a principal of ahost school explained, April 6th was the announcement [that wed be converting ourhigh school into small schools] and then I had to open three [new small] schools inAugust.Core infrastructure from the district (Box 1) was often problematic. For example, somesmall schools did not get some of their start-up monies from the district until schoolshad been in operation for three months. Similarly, some small schools lacked sciencelabs, computers, telephones, office space, and overhead projectors. Working throughthese and related challenges diverted time that could have been spent on programmaticdevelopment. As a result, one teacher explained, We were building on the fly. Thingsof concern just slipped through the cracks.Implementation was further complicated by uncertainties regarding the level of auto-nomy they would be granted by the district (Boxes 1 and 2). Specifically, those involvedwith the small schools often expected more autonomy and flexibility than they feel theyreceived. As an external partner for one of the small schools put it, The system wantsto standardize. Are the small schools the same as charter schools or not? Are theyautonomous, or not? Similarly, a teacher explained that there were often conflictsbetween the small schools curriculum design and the districts instructional goals(Boxes 5 and 6):There was a mixed message that the new small schools should develop an idealized curricu-lum of what theyd like to have. Then there was the other side saying, No, no, you have tomeet our measurement. And so that was very unclear and so thats really hard for teachers.Similarly, at several schools, the goal of having teachers lead the reform conflictedwith district regulations and procedures regarding teacher evaluation and otherb y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

14 Improving Schools 8(1)


10/43

management issues (Boxes 2 and 6). This undermined efforts to create a productivesetting for reform. Teachers in one school, for example, wanted to debrief the results ofa walk-through from the Area Instructional Officer in a meeting immediately follow-ing the event. District policy, however, dictated that the results of such walk-throughsare to be shared only with the principal, who then shares comments with the teaching

staff. As more than one angry teacher put it, And were supposed to be teacher led!We didnt have the teachers we needed to start [September], and we still dont have theteachers we need [May]. (Principal)I dont think CPS [Chicago Public Schools] knows what we are, what they want us to be.(Teacher)At the same time that challenges associated with implementation were substantial,most teachers and small school leaders also said that they received valuable supportfrom both the district and the CHSRI staff (Boxes 4 and 5). I couldnt say enoughabout the support we get from the Office of Small Schools . . . and the Initiative, andthe key list of others, one principal told us. Several others echoed these sentiments.Most schools appreciated opportunities for professional development, although this

attitude was not shared by all:The Initiative is very good at guiding us to professional development as well as providingfor us, which is great because its really something new for a lot of us. We have older staff,and [they are] very set in their ways. So, we need professional development to get all theteachers on-board with strategies to make us better teachers.While professional development has begun, however, innovative changes in curriculumand instruction were limited during the first year of implementation. To the extent thatthere have been instructional changes, they have centered on incorporating out-of-school experiences into the curriculum and promoting interdisciplinary projects (Box 7).We go out into the city once a week and we tie it in with our curriculum. So, weve gone tothe Museum for science, weve gone to the Planetarium, weve gone on a walking architec-tural tour . . . Weve gone to the Museum of Science and Industry to look at the great trainexhibit. [We] tie that in with history.At a different small school, one principal told of us, Our commitment is to make surethat every class they take integrates arts infused with the class, as a learning strategy,as a tool to get them to advance their academic achievement.For the most part, principals and teachers agreed that the first year emphasis was onlaunching the schools and they hoped to be able to focus more on teaching and learn-ing in year two. As one teacher told us, We have ideas of what we want the curricu-lum and instruction to look like next year, and so were going to spend some time[working on] that during the summer.This teachers perspective was common. Teachers and principals alike noted increasedenergy and commitment for reform but also were clear that the hard work of fosteringimproved opportunities for teaching and learning had yet to occur. This is hardly surpris-ing. As we detailed above, changes to curriculum and instruction are not inevitable out-comes in small school reform. Rather, small schools can foster contexts and supportsthat enable innovation related to teaching and learning. Thus, even though the first yearmight be too soon to expect significant changes related to instruction, it would not betoo soon to see whether the context for meaningful change is developing.b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08


11/43

h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

Kahne et al.: Creating small schools in Chicago 15Question 2: Are small schools creating contexts for principals,

teachers, and students that can support desired reform and fosterimproved outcomes?Finding (a): teachersWe saw a great deal of evidence that small schools are creating desirable contexts forteachers and principals to pursue reform (Box 3). For example, teachers at the smallschools told us:I would say without qualification that every single one of our teachers loves the fact thatthey participate in the governance of the school and there is shared decision-making.(Principal)One of the things that is happening, is that we have more contact [with each other] incomparison with the host school. We meet every day almost, we see each other all the time.

(Teacher)Last year I must have used ten sick days. This year I have used one. (Teacher)Consistent with these and similar statements by teachers, our survey of teacher per-spectives found that teachers at CHSRI schools ranked many aspects of their contextmore positively than did other similar teachers at other similar Chicago high schools.6To quantify teacher perspectives, we relied on the Consortiums teacher measures relatedto school leadership, professional capacity, and parent and community partnerships.The Consortium has analyzed teacher responses to these measures on five surveyadministrations over the last decade.7As noted in Table 1, our survey results reveal sizable and statistically significant differ-ences between CHSRI small high schools and other high schools in Chicago. Teachersat CHSRI schools reported more participation in decision making, a greater sense ofcollective responsibility for student learning, more opportunities for reflective dialog,a greater sense of mutual trust and more collaboration among teachers. In addition,teachers reported higher levels of parent participation at school. Marginally significant(p < .1) differences related to program coherence and innovation were also noted. Insum, we saw relatively consistent and strong evidence that the new small schools werecreating the kind of professional communities that might foster desired reform andimproved outcomes. Most importantly, the qualities small schools appear to havepromoted, such as teacher collaboration and influence, align with the rationales fordeveloping small schools (i.e. small schools were supposed to promote teacher collab-oration and influence, program coherence, etc.).No statistically significant differences were found with respect to several other teachermeasures of: school leadership (principal instructional leadership, teacherprincipaltrust); professional capacity (access to new ideas, quality professional development,school commitment); or parent and community partnerships (knowledge of studentculture, teacher outreach to parents, teacherparent trust). However, while not statisti-cally significant, in all of these cases, CHSRI schools scored higher than other highschools in Chicago.Finding (b): students


12/43

Students who attended the CHSRI small high schools rated many aspects of theirexperience more positively than students from the rest of Chicagos high schools (Boxb y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

16 Improving Schools 8(1)Table 1: Differences in teacher survey measures between CHSRI schoolsand non-CHSRI schools serving similar student populationsSurvey measure Measure descriptionDifference1Teacher influence# The extent of teachers involvement in school 2.75*decision makingCollective responsibility# Extent of teachers shared commitment to 2.18*improving the school so all students learnReflective dialogue# How often teachers discuss instruction and student 1.99*

learning with each otherTeacherteacher trust# Extent to which teachers express respect for each 1.95*other and for teachers who are leaders and who areexperts at their craftCollaboration among The level of cooperation and collaboration among 1.88*teachers# teachersParent support Teachers perceptions of the level of parent 1.01*involvement and support for the schoolProgram coherence# Extent to which teachers feel programs in their 1.73~school are coordinated with each other and withthe schools missionInnovation# Teachers perceptions of whether they are 1.64~continually learning and trying new thingsNotes: 1Differences measured in standard deviation units; #: See Box 3; : See Box 10;*: significant at p < .05; ~: significant at p < .10.12). Teachers dont pay attention to students at a large high school, a student told us.Small school students get more attention. A different student explained it this way,We have relationships with our teachers. They understand us and they help us witheverything.Our student survey responses corroborated these focus group findings. We analyzedstudent responses to the Consortiums student measures, testing whether studentsattending CHSRI small high schools responded differently to measures of Student-Centered Learning Climate, Quality Instructional Program, and Parent and CommunitySupport. As with the teacher measures, student responses have been analyzed for fivesurvey administrations over the past 10 years (see note 7).As detailed in Table 2, students who attended CHSRI small high schools rated manyaspects of their experience more positively than those attending other high schools inChicago. Specifically, they reported greater academic personalism, a stronger presstoward academic achievement, more engagement, and higher levels of studentteachertrust.8 These results are encouraging. Related research would lead us to expect a


13/43

relationship between student learning (Box 13) and the aspects of curriculum andschool climate reflected in measures of academic engagement, academic personalism,academic press, and teacherstudent trust (Box 12) (see for example Bryk & Schneider,2002; Bryk et al., forthcoming; Lee et al., 1999).b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08


Kahne et al.: Creating small schools in Chicago 17Table 2: Differences in student survey measures between CHSRI schoolsand non-CHSRI schools serving similar student populationsSurvey measure Measure descriptionDifference1Academic personalism# Degree to which students perceive that their 1.59*teachers give individual attention to and areconcerned about their students.

Press toward academic Gauges whether students feel their teachers 2.18*achievement# challenge them to reach high levels of academicperformance.Academic engagement# Students reports about their interest and 1.99*engagement in learning.Studentteacher trust# Students perceptions about the quality of their 1.95*relationships with teachers.Notes: 1Differences measured in standard deviation units; #: See Box 12; *: significant atp < .05.Moreover, since these qualities of the student experience are all central goals of thesmall school reform effort, it is encouraging that small schools appear to support suchgoals.No statistically significant differences were found between students at CHSRI smallhigh schools and students at other traditional high schools in other measures of parentand community partnerships (human and social resources in the community, parentsupport for student learning) and student-centered learning climate (peer support foracademic work, student classroom behavior, safety).Some teachers get into it. They make you want to be included. Its not like they force you.Its like the way they do it. They make it interesting. (Student)Im glad that I went to [small school] because I learned how to be a leader not a follower andhow to live your life instead of fighting. They really focus us here. (Student)Question 3: What are early indications of the small schools impacton student outcomes (Box 13)?At the outset of this discussion, we should say that after only one year of operation, weare hesitant to place too much emphasis on data related to outcomes. The first year ofa reform is often spent setting-up: hiring staff; outfitting classrooms; negotiating howto share a building; working through alternative schedules; and preparing for curricu-lar change through staff discussions and professional development. Actual changes tocurriculum and instruction therefore may not occur to a large degree during year oneso there may be a lag in changes to student outcomes. We therefore place greater stock


14/43

in the analysis of school context presented above than in analysis of student outcomes.Still, given the importance of outcome data, it makes sense to share it, as long as weresist the urge to judge the Initiative by its perceived impact on student outcomes at thispoint in time.9Tentative finding (a)

Small schools appear to be promoting improved attendance.b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

18 Improving Schools 8(1)Students at CHSRI small high schools were absent 29.3 per cent fewer days than similarstudents at similar high schools. This difference was statistically significant (p < .05).Tentative finding (b)Small schools may be promoting higher numbers of students who are on track tograduate in four years (see note 3).

There are indications that students at CHSRI schools are more likely to be on-trackthan other similar students. This difference is not statistically significant (p < .19),however.Tentative finding (c)Students at the CHSRI small high schools performed no differently on standardizedtests than similar students at traditional high schools.For this analysis we used only those three schools having 11th graders, which is theonly high school group that takes a standardized test. Student test performance at thesethree schools was not different than test performance at schools serving demographi-cally similar students. See note 9 for a list of control variables.Assessments regarding the impact of small schools on the kinds of outcomes notedabove will become more meaningful as the Initiative matures.Discussion and implicationsOur review of the data collected on the reforms first year highlights both challengesassociated with implementation and some meaningful accomplishments. Without adoubt, there have been significant challenges associated with implementation, but suchchallenges should be expected and do not appear to have prevented the creation of agenerally desirable context for reform. While it is too soon to tell whether these newsmall schools enhance student performance in Chicago, the early results indicate thatsome important pre-conditions are in place. The developing contexts for students andteachers in these small schools appear to be more conducive to meaningful change inteaching and learning than the contexts of larger schools that serve similar populationsof students.For the reasons stated above, we put less stock in early indicators of student outcomes.One year simply isnt enough time to expect implementation of enhanced curriculumand instruction. That said, schools appear to have fostered a sizable improvement inattendance and they may be improving students likelihood of being on-track. We havenot yet seen evidence that attending small schools impacts test scores. We expectgreater clarity on all of these outcomes as the Initiative matures and the sample sizegrows.


15/43

As the study continues, we should also be better able to assess the reforms theory ofchange. For example, do changes in teacher and principal contexts lead to shifts inpractices and to improved outcomes? While we are not yet in a position to comment onsuch relationships, it is already clear that factors associated with implementation deservecareful attention and that fostering small schools on a large scale can be challenging for

districts. Indeed, there are specific challenges associated with the focus of this specificeffort, over and above the standard implementation challenges associated with any newb y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

Kahne et al.: Creating small schools in Chicago 19reform. For instance, attention to tensions between small schools autonomy andflexibility on the one hand and the districts need for accountability and bureaucraticstructures on the other is fundamentally important. The best ways to think about this orother tensions embedded in the initiatives theory of change are not yet clear.

What is clear is that both opportunities and challenges present themselves to districtspursuing small high schools on a large scale. Given widespread efforts to move schoolsin this direction, both in Chicago and around the nation, we will hopefully know muchmore in the years to come.Appendix ATa ble A1: Sample: small school demographicsEntering 9th School racial/ethnicGrades Per cent grade mean composition: per centName Number served Special Ed achievement1 Black Latino WhiteCHSRI high schoolsB.E.S.T. 66 9 27.3 6 (225.6) 86.4 13.6Chicago Discovery 387 912 14.7 8 (242.9) 48.0 51.7AcademyPhoenix 232 912 27.2 6 (227.3) 80.5 19.0School of the Arts 261 911 21.8 6 (226.0) 100School ofEntrepreneurship 250 910 20.0 7 (235.2) 100All CPSnon-alternative 97,879 16.1 8 ( 246.3) 50.4 36.8 9.3Note: 1Achievement based on 8th grade ITBS scores. First number gives approximate gradelevel based on national norms at the end of the year. Number in parentheses gives scale scoreaverage. In general, national norms by end-of-grade level are as follows: 6th grade = 227,7th grade = 239, 8th grade = 250, 9th grade = 260.Survey sample101. CPS high school teachers: 67 schools; responses from 47 per cent of high schoolteachers.2. CHSRI teachers: four schools; responses from 59 per cent of eligible teachers at allfive schools. Response rates at three of these schools exceeded 87 per cent. In thefourth school, three of 17 teachers responded, for a response rate of 73 per centamong the participating four schools.


16/43

3. CPS 9th and 10th grade students: 67 schools, responses from 50 per cent of sur-vey-eligible students.4. CHSRI students: four schools; responses from 55 per cent of eligible students at allfive schools. Response rates in three schools ranged from 69 per cent to 91 percent. In the fourth school, 39 per cent of the students completed the survey, for a

response rate of 65 per cent among the participating schools.b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

20 Improving Schools 8(1)Record dataData from 23,666 freshmen for whom we have CPS administrative records. Data from10,551 juniors for whom we have both prior 8th grade test scores and standardized testscores from the spring of 2003.Methodology

Analyzing the contexts for students and teachersWe used teacher and student responses to the May 2003 Consortium on ChicagoSchool Research Survey to estimate whether the contexts for teachers and studentswere different at CHSRI schools than they were for similar teachers and students atsimilar non-CHSRI schools. Ninth and 10th grade students and teachers of all gradelevels take this survey.We used the Consortiums teacher and student survey measures as our outcomevariables. We focused on those measures with theoretical or practical implications.We used 3-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling to conduct these analyses. Thisapproach allows us to adjust for measurement error, to control for individual character-istics of students and teachers, and to control for aggregate characteristics of the schoolsthemselves. The set of controls we used depended on both theory and initial analysis.Analyzing student outcomesWe used CPS administrative data for freshman students in academic year 2002/2003 toestimate whether student outcomes were different for students at CHSRI schools thanthey were for similar students at similar non-CHSRI high schools. We chose to focuson freshmen for three reasons. First, 9th grade is a pivotal year for students, and theirexperiences during that year are increasingly important for their ultimate success inschool. Second, students in the other grades spent part of their academic career at anon-small school, potentially confounding the results. Finally, 9th grade is the onlygrade that all of the schools have in common.We used the number of days a student was absent and whether a student was on-trackby the fall of 2003. To be on-track a student must have earned enough credits to becomea sophomore and must not have more than one failing grade in a core course (English,math, science, social science).Again, we used Hierarchical Linear Modeling to estimate whether the average numberof days absent at a CHSRI school differed from the average number of days absent forsimilar students at a non-CHSRI school and whether the odds of a students beingon-track was different for students in CHSRI schools than for similar students insimilar non-CHSRI schools.


17/43

We used Hierarchical Linear Modeling to estimate whether the average 11th gradestudent scores on the Prairie State Achievement Exam differed from the average 11thgrade student scores at non-CHSRI schools serving similar students. Because studentsdo not take standardized tests in grades 9 or 10, we used 8th grade test scores on theIowa Test of Basic Skills as our measure of prior academic achievement.

The authors can be contacted by email at: [email protected], [email protected]@uchicago.edub y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o m

Kahne et al.: Creating small schools in Chicago 21Notes1 This focus is not new to Chicago. In 1995, the Chicago Board of Education endorsed a resolution(950829-RS2) which affirmed the value of developing small schools, and six small charter

schools as wellas one district small school were in operation prior to CHSRIs launch.2 He also commented neither is there proof of the academic value of large schools (cited inHarvey andHousman, 2004: 13).3 This analysis uncovered data collection flaws that make it inappropriate to analyze drop-out ratesat smallschools this year.4 Students who are on-track at the end of their freshman year have accumulated enough credits toadvanceto 10th grade and no more than one failing grade in a core course (English, math, science, socialstudies).Students who are on-track after their freshman year are five times more likely to graduate withinfour yearsthan those who are not (Miller et al., 2002: 21).5 For more details on these implementation challenges, see A Snapshot of the First Year ofImplementation(Sporte et al., 2003).6 When making these comparisons, we controlled for individual and school-level characteristics.At theschool level we controlled for mean student academic achievement, mean student socioeconomicstatus, theracial/ethnic composition of the schools student body, and whether or not the school was onprobation. Atthe teacher level we controlled for gender, race/ethnicity, whether they were new to the school,their years ofexperience, their education level, and the subject matter they taught.7 For a thorough description of the measures, including a list of the items on each and reliabilitystatisticsfor 2003, see Key Measures for School Development at www.consortium-chicago.org


18/43

8 In carrying out this analysis, we controlled for school characteristics including mean academicachieve-ment and socioeconomic status of the student body as well as the schools racial/ethniccomposition. We alsocontrolled for students gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, special education status,

whether theyhad ever been held back, and their prior academic test scores.9 As noted in our methodology section, these findings are based on analysis of record data forstudents inthe 9th grade. Our use of hierarchical linear modeling enabled us to control for students gender,race/ethnic-ity, socioeconomic status, special education status, whether they had been held back, and theirprior academ-ic test scores. We also controlled for the schools average achievement, the schools meansocioeconomicstatus, and the schools racial/ethnic composition.

10 A complete discussion of the 2001 survey, including sampling and response rates can be foundin thesurvey manual, which can be accessed at www.consortium-chicago.org/surveys/s0002.html. The2003manual will be posted in the fall of 2004; most details are similar to those found in 2001.ReferencesAllensworth, E. M. (2004) Ending Social Promotion: Dropout Rates in Chicago afterImplementation of theEighth Grade Promotion Gate. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School ResearchAllensworth, E. M. & Easton, J. Q. (2001) Calculating a Cohort Dropout Rate for the ChicagoPublicSchools: A Technical Research Report. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.American Diploma Project (2004) Ready or not: creating a high school diploma that counts.Online:http://www.achieve.org/dstore.nsf/lookup/ADPsummary/$file/ADPsummary.pdf [accessed 5 July2004].American Youth Policy Forum (2002) High schools of the millennium: report of the work group.Online:http:// www.aypf.org/publicationsHSchools_round_3.pd [accessed 5 July 2004].Barker, R. & Gump, P. (1964) Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior.Palo Alto,CA: Stanford University Press.Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2002) Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. NewYork: RussellSage Foundation.Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E. & Holland, P. B. (1993) Catholic School and the Common Good.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E. M., Luppescu, S. & Easton, J.Q. (forthcoming)Organizing


19/43

Schools for Improvement.Conant, J. B. (1959) The American High School Today: A First Report to Interested Citizens. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08


22 Improving Schools 8(1)Cotton, K. (1996) School size, school climate, and student performance. Northwest RegionalEducationalLaboratory. Online: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html [accessed 29 July 2004].Daniels, H., Bizar, M. & Zemelman, S. (2001) Rethinking High School: Best Practice in Teaching,Learning,and Leadership. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J. & Wichterle Ort, S. (2002) Reinventing high school: outcomes

of the coali-tion campus schools project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 63973.Haller, E. J. (1993) Small schools and higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research in RuralEducation,9(2), 6673.Harvey, J. & Housman, N. (2004) Crisis or Possibility: Conversations about the American HighSchool.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.Hendrie, C. (2004) High schools nationwide paring down. Education Week, 23(40), 12830.Hess, G. A. & Cytrynbaum, S. (2002) The effort to redesign Chicago high schools: effects onschools andachievement. In V. Lee (ed.) Reforming Chicagos High Schools: Research Perspectives on SchoolandSystem Level Change, pp. 190490. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Holland, N. E. (2002) Small schools transforming teacher and student experiences in urban highschools. InV. Lee (ed.) Reforming Chicagos High Schools: Research Perspectives on School and SystemLevel Change,pp. 89124. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Howley, C. B. (1989) Synthesis of the effects of school and district size: what research says aboutachieve-ment in small schools and school districts. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 4(1), 212.Husbands, J. & Beese, S. (2001) Review of selected high school reform strategies. Paper preparedfor theAspen Program on Education. Workshop on High School Transformation. Aspen, CO, USA, 1722 July.Lee, V. (2002) Setting Chicago high school reform within the national context. In V. Lee (ed.)ReformingChicagos High Schools: Research Perspectives on School and System Level Change, pp. 717.Chicago, IL:


20/43

Consortium on Chicago School Research.Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. (1995) Effects of high school restructuring and size gains in achievementand engage-ment for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 24170.Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B, Perry, T. E. & Smylie, M. A. (1999) Social Support, Academic Press, and

StudentAchievement: A View from the Middle Grades in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Consortium on ChicagoSchoolResearch.Meier, D. (1995) The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem.Boston,MA: Beacon Press.Miller, S. R., Allensworth, E. M. & Kochanek, J. R. (2002) Student Performance: Course Taking,TestScores, and Outcomes. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1995) Successful School Restructuring. Madson, WI: Center on

Organizationand Restructuring of Schools.Office of Small Schools, CPS (2004) Online: http: www.smallschools.cps.k12.il.us/grants.html[accessed 5July 2004].Pittman, R. & Haughwout, P. (1987) Influence of high school size on dropout rate. EducationalEvaluationand Policy Analysis, 9(4), 33743.Powell, A., Farrar, E. & Cohen, D. (1985) The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers intheEducational Marketplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Sporte, S., Correa, M., Kahne, J. & Easton, J. Q. (2003). Chicago High School Redesign Initiative:ASnapshot of the First Year of Implementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago SchoolResearch.Wasley, P., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N., King, S., Mosak, E. & Powell, L. (2000) SmallSchools:Great Strides. New York: Bank Street College of Education.Weiss, C. (1995) Nothing as practical as good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation forcomprehensivecommunity initiatives for children and families. In New Approaches to Evaluating CommunityInitiatives.Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.b y amr il mu ha mm ad on O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 08h t tp :/ /imp .s a ge p u b .c omD ow n lo ad e d fr o mDiposkan oleh Eka Nursari di 01:26Label: 2.2. JURNAL
http://ekanursarii.blogspot.com/2009/05/jurnal-inggris.htmlhttp://ekanursarii.blogspot.com/search/label/2.2.%20JURNALhttp://ekanursarii.blogspot.com/2009/05/jurnal-inggris.htmlhttp://ekanursarii.blogspot.com/search/label/2.2.%20JURNAL


21/43

Eka NursariRabu, 27 Mei 2009Jurnal InggrisMeningkatkan Sekolahhttp://imp.sagepub.com

Menciptakan sekolah kecil di Chicago: tampilan awal pada implementasi dan dampakJoseph E. Kahne, Susan E. Sporte dan John T. Easton2005; 8; 7Meningkatkan SekolahDOI: 10.1177/1365480205048929

Versi online dari artikel ini dapat ditemukan di:http://imp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/7

Diterbitkan oleh:

http://www.sagepublications.com

dapat ditemukan di:Meningkatkan SekolahTambahan layanan dan informasi untuk

http://imp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://imp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Langganan:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navCetak ulang:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://imp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/1/7

Kutipanoleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c omD ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

Menciptakan sekolah kecil di Chicago: sebuahawal melihat pelaksanaan dan dampakJoseph E. Kahne


22/43

Mills College, CaliforniaSusan E. Sporte dan John T. Easton Konsorsium Penelitian Sekolah ChicagoAbstrakAda kekhawatiran luas di banyak kota di AS tentang mahasiswa, putus sekolah alienasi dan di

bawah-prestasi di sekolah menengah perkotaan besar. Chicago, dengan dukungan dari Gates Foundationdan lembaga lainnya, telah memulai sebuah reformasi besar yang melibatkan pembentukan barukecil sekolah dan pembagian sekolah yang lebih besar menjadi lebih kecil. Artikel ini melaporkanevaluasi awal proyek, di samping evaluasi sebelumnya dari sekolah tinggi kecil. Inimenyoroti efek awal seperti: hubungan baik; kerjasama antara guru;kesadaran kesulitan pribadi; keterlibatan siswa, dan kehadiran yang lebih baik. Meskipunterlalu dini untuk menunjukkan hasil dalam hal langkah-langkah pencapaian sumatif, inijelas memberikan fondasi yang kuat.Kata kunci masyarakat, etos, sekolah kecil, kepercayaanSemakin, peneliti, pembuat kebijakan, pemimpin sekolah, dan warga yang bersangkutan

mengakui bahwa sekolah-sekolah tinggi di Amerika Serikat membutuhkan reformasi besar - atau,sepertibeberapa telah menempatkan hal itu, yang perlu menjadi kembali menemukan (Harvey danHousman, 2004). Saat inipenelitian sering menyoroti bahwa sekolah tinggi tidak mempersiapkan siswa untuk kuliah,bekerja,atau kehidupan (Proyek Diploma Amerika, 2004), dan bahwa mereka mengakibatkan peningkatanketerasingan(Amerika Pemuda Forum Kebijakan, 2001). Masalahnya terutama parah di kota besarsekolah tinggi, yang tidak proporsional melayani mahasiswa dari status sosial ekonomi rendah danmahasiswa warna. Di sekolah umum Chicago, misalnya, di mana lebih dari 85 persensiswa berasal dari latar belakang berpenghasilan rendah dan 91 persen adalah mahasiswa warna,hanya 29 persen dari seluruh siswa kelas 9 yang membaca pada tingkat kelas pada tahun 2000 dancumula-Tingkat putus sekolah tive untuk kohort terbaru dari siswa adalah 43 persen (Allensworth,2004: 10; Allensworth dan Easton, 2001) Sebagai Daniels dkk. menulis, 'tinggi Amerikasekolah gagal semua anak-anak kita beberapa waktu dan beberapa anak-anak kita sepanjang waktu'(2001: 22).Sebagai hasil dari kekhawatiran ini, reformis pendidikan banyak yang mencari ke sekolah kecilsebagairespon mungkin untuk apa yang Powell et al. (1985) ditandai sebagai impersonal, tidak koheren,Meningkatkan Sekolah SAGE PublikasiVolume 8 Nomor 1 Maret 2005 7-22ISSN 1365-4802 DOI: 10.1177/1365480205048929oleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c omD ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

8 Meningkatkan Sekolah 8 (1)


23/43

dan sekolah tinggi 'pusat perbelanjaan' yang komprehensif tidak efektif. Fokus ini membalikkantren sering dikaitkan dengan James Bryant Conant (1959) yang, sekitar 50 tahun yang lalu,berpendapat bahwa sekolah kecil di pedesaan akan kurang efektif dibandingkan yang lebih besartinggi yang komprehensifsekolah yang dapat memberikan para siswa dengan kesempatan yang lebih besar melalui tepat

dibedakan kurikulum.Reformasi difokuskan pada yang lebih kecil, lebih personal sekolah telah didorong oleh pendidiksepertiDeborah Meier sebagai (1995), peneliti seperti Fred Newmann dan Gary Wehlage(1995), dan oleh yayasan. Paling menonjol, Yayasan Annenberg itu $ 500.000.000Upaya reformasi sekolah menekankan mengurangi ukuran sekolah dan Bill dan Melinda GatesFoundation telah sekarang berkomitmen $ 647.000.000 (Hendrie, 2004) untuk memperbaikisekolahmelalui penciptaan dan replikasi sekolah tinggi kecil. Energi dengan upaya ini,kota Chicago dan kabupaten kota lainnya menempatkan penciptaan sekolah kecildi pusat strategi sekolah tinggi perbaikan.

Reformasi sekolah kecil di ChicagoChicago menyediakan pengaturan yang berharga dari yang untuk mempertimbangkan tantangandan POSSI-bilities reformasi sekolah kecil. Ini adalah distrik terbesar ketiga di Amerika Serikat, serv-ing beberapa 439.000 siswa. Sedikit lebih dari 100.000 siswa di kelas9-12, menghadiri salah satu dari 95 sekolah tinggi, termasuk kira-kira selusin sekolah kecil danpiagam sekolah. Selain itu, seperti disebutkan di atas, kinerja siswa secara keseluruhan di tinggisekolah tidak dapat diterima rendah. Menanggapi masalah ini, kabupaten, seperti banyak di seluruhnegara, telah melembagakan berbagai kebijakan untuk meningkatkan pendidikan kesempatan,ikatan dan hasil bagi para siswa. Kabupaten telah membuat sekolah-sekolah bertanggung jawabprestasi siswa, sanksi mereka yang tidak memenuhi uji skor tingkat kinerja;telah menciptakan suatu sistem sekolah selektif pendaftaran dimaksudkan untuk menarik danmempertahankan tinggisiswa mencapai, telah memperkuat daftar kursus yang diperlukan untuk kelulusan, dan telahmenciptakan peluang maupun persyaratan yang berkaitan dengan profesional dan kurikulerpengembangan (Lee, 2002).Sebagai salah satu bagian dari strategi mereka untuk reformasi sekolah tinggi, kabupaten, YayasanGates,dan lokal penyandang dana baru-baru ini meluncurkan Initiative Chicago Sekolah Tinggi Redesign(CHSRI). CHSRI bertujuan untuk mendukung desain ulang dengan mengembangkan hampir tigalusin baruschools.1 tinggi kecil ini dimulai pada bulan September 2001 melalui hibah $ 12 juta dari yangBill dan Melinda Gates Foundation. Hibah ini dicocokkan oleh $ 6 juta dari foun-dations di Chicago. Tujuan dari fase pertama dari inisiatif ini adalah untuk mengkonversi sampaisekolah tinggi lima besar menjadi 15-20 sekolah kecil otonom selama lima tahun. Pada bulan April2003, CHSRI menerima hibah kedua dari hampir $ 8 juta dari Gates Foundationuntuk membuka 12 baru (bukan dikonversi) sekolah tinggi kecil di atas lima tahun (KantorSekolah Kecil, CPS). Lima pertama sekolah kecil otonom dibuka dalam waktu tigamengkonversi bangunan di musim gugur 2002.Untuk belajar dari dan mendukung proses ini, kami telah memulai studi tiga tahun dari upaya ini.


24/43

Tujuan kami adalah untuk menyediakan analisis formatif dan sumatif untuk Inisiatif danmenambahkanuntuk dialog yang lebih luas pada reformasi yang berperforma rendah sekolah menengahperkotaan. Sekarang salah satutahun ke studi ini, artikel ini berfokus pada lima sekolah kecil yang dibuka mengkonversi

pada musim gugur 2002. Kami melaporkan temuan mengenai kedua pelaksanaan dan dampaksebagaicara mengangkat isu-isu dan mempertimbangkan kemungkinan - karena inisiatif hanya dimulai-ning, itu terlalu cepat untuk setiap penilaian sumatif.oleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c omD ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

Kahne et al:. Menciptakan sekolah kecil di Chicago 9Apa yang kita tahu dari penelitian sebelumnya dan apa yang kita perlu tahuBerbagai ulasan literatur pada prestasi siswa dan ukuran sekolah menunjukkan bahwa

strategi ini memang meningkatkan hasil siswa (Cotton, 1996; Darling-Hammondet al, 2002;. Haller, 1993; Belanda, 2002; Howley, 1989; Lee, 2002). Ada jugabukti bahwa sekolah kecil dapat mempromosikan akses yang lebih adil untuk akademismenuntut program (Bryk et al., 1993), keuntungan prestasi lebih adil (Darling-Hammond et al, 2002;. Lee & Smith, 1995), dan angka putus sekolah lebih rendah (Darling-Hammondet al, 2002;. Holland, 2002; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). Selain itu, Barker danStudi mani Gump ini (1964) juga menunjukkan bahwa sekolah kecil secara dramatis dapatmeningkatkan kesempatan siswa untuk partisipasi dan kepemimpinan dalam berbagai macamkegiatan ekstrakurikuler, sehingga bahkan siswa marjinal terlibat. Tidak semua temuan yangpositif, namun. Wasley et al. (2000) dan Hess dan Cytrynbaum (2002) baik dipelajarikecil sekolah di Chicago dan keterlibatan ditingkatkan namun tidak menemukan dampak yangkonsistenterhadap prestasi siswa. Baru-baru ini, ketika ditanya tentang nilai akademik kecilsekolah, Tom VanderArk, direktur eksekutif Yayasan Gates, mengakui bahwa'Bukti' sulit untuk datang by.2 Penelitian lain menunjukkan kecilnya itu saja tidakcukup, misalnya, nilai manfaat dari sekolah-sekolah kecil tergantung pada tingkatyang mereka mempromosikan faktor seperti personalisasi dan interaktif, otentik danmenantang kurikulum sementara menghindari perpecahan dalam peluang siswa yang tidak adil 'untuk belajar (lihat Darling-Hammond et al, 2002;. Lee, 2002).Jadi, meskipun telah banyak tulisan tentang sekolah tinggi kecil, dan meskipun foun-dation masyarakat dan reformis banyak yang percaya bahwa strategi ini dapat meningkatkankehidupankemungkinan siswa SMA, bukti dasar cukup terbatas. Memang, promo-Sifat internasional dari banyak literatur batas kepercayaan kami dalam beberapa temuan. DalamSelain itu, sementara beasiswa saat ini menunjukkan bahwa sekolah kecil sering dikaitkandengan hasil yang lebih baik, baik besarnya maupun konsistensi efek inijelas, dan faktor-faktor yang dapat menyebabkan sekolah-sekolah kecil untuk menghasilkan hasilyang lebih baik tidakdipahami dengan baik. Seringkali identifikasi fitur yang bertanggung jawab untuk keberhasilan


25/43

didasarkan padastudi kasus sekolah-sekolah kecil yang efektif dan bukan pada perbandingan yang efektif danineffec-tive kecil sekolah dengan kontrol untuk variabel-variabel demografis dan lainnya yang relevan. Dibeberapa

literatur kualitatif, ada diskusi ada atau tidak mencukupi dari metodologipendekatan yang menyebabkan identifikasi fitur yang bertanggung jawab untuk hasil yangdiinginkan. Banyakstudi tidak membandingkan elemen kunci dari strategi desain atau struktur sekolah kecil -sekolah di sekolah-sekolah, sekolah kecil berdiri bebas, sekolah kecil yang baru dibuat,sekolah dibuat dengan memecah sekolah besar. Akhirnya, saat ini kami tidak tahu sebanyakseperti yang kita perlu kebijakan tentang upaya untuk melaksanakan sekolah kecil dalam skalabesar. Dan,kami memahami keputusan ini kebijakan dan hubungannya dengan kecil yang suksessekolah dan keberhasilan pelaksanaan reformasi sekolah kecil sangat terbatas.Studi kami merupakan upaya untuk merespon pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini. Kami tertarik dalam

pemahaman kabupaten-lebar upaya untuk mempromosikan reformasi sekolah kecil - kita ingintahubaik tentang pelaksanaan tantangan yang ditimbulkan oleh arah kebijakan dan tentangdampak reformasi terhadap guru dan yang paling penting, siswa. Selain itu, kamiakhirnya berharap untuk lebih memahami hubungan antara perubahan dalam konteksdibuat untuk guru dan siswa dan hasil akhir bagi siswa. Sejak, saat inititik waktu, kita hanya bisa melaporkan pada tahun pertama usaha, tujuan kami untukartikel ini jauh lebih terbatas. Kami bertujuan untuk menginformasikan jawaban atas tiga set luaspertanyaan:oleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c omD ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

10 Meningkatkan Sekolah 8 (1) Bagaimana upaya Chicago untuk menerapkan sekolah kecil di suatu proses skala besar? Apakah sekolah kecil menciptakan konteks untuk kepala sekolah, guru, dan siswa yangreformis percaya pada akhirnya akan mengarah pada reformasi yang diinginkan dan hasil yanglebih baik? Apakah indikasi awal dari dampak sekolah kecil 'pada hasil siswa?Untuk memberikan kerangka untuk diskusi ini, bagian yang berikut menguraikan modelbahwa mekanisme rincian melalui mana penciptaan semi otonom sekolah kecilpilihan adalah pemikiran untuk mengarah pada hasil yang diinginkan.Kerangka untuk penyelidikan kamiUntuk menanggapi masalah yang disebutkan di atas, daripada menguji apakah hasil di sekolahkecillebih baik daripada di yang lebih besar, kami percaya akan lebih masuk akal untuk memeriksaapakahkecil semi-otonom sekolah pilihan menciptakan kondisi yang memungkinkan peningkatanpeluang dan mendukung bagi siswa dan apakah ini, pada gilirannya, mendorong peningkatankeluar-


26/43

datang. Kerangka, atau teori perubahan, adalah rinci dalam Gambar 1. Ini dikembangkanmelalui pertimbangan literatur yang relevan, analisis dokumen yang terkait denganInisiatif, dan melalui wawancara dan diskusi dengan stakeholder kunci. Bingkai-bekerja atau "Teori Perubahan '(Weiss, 1995) menggambarkan melalui mekanisme yangberagam fitur reformasi sekolah kecil diperkirakan untuk mempromosikan konteks yang

diinginkan untuksiswa dan guru. Hal ini juga rincian bagaimana konteks, di hadapan kabupaten, negaradan federal pengaruh, dapat mempromosikan baik perubahan kurikuler dan hasil yang diinginkan.Argumen dasar yang dilihat sebagai sekolah kecil memungkinkan namun tidak menjaminmeningkatkan-pemerintah. Para pendukung percaya bahwa sekolah kecil, sebagian besar otonom, pilihan akancenderung mendorong konteks diinginkan untuk guru dan siswa - dicirikan oleh konteks,misalnya, kepercayaan, visi yang koheren, dan komitmen. Konteks ini, pada gilirannya, akanmemungkinkan pengembangan kualitas tinggi dan instruksi pribadi dan akademikdukungan sosial yang akan, pada gilirannya, mengakibatkan hasil yang diinginkan siswa. SebagaiMichele Baik

telah menulis:Kecil dapat menjadi kondisi yang diperlukan untuk sebuah sekolah tinggi nonselektif untukunggul. Kecil adalah iden-sary jika guru memiliki percakapan kaya dengan satu sama lain tentang praktek, kebijakan,penyelidikan, dan pekerjaan siswa. Kecil diperlukan jika siswa merasa melekat satu sama laindan untuk fakultas. (Fine, 1998: 4 seperti dikutip dalam Suami & Beese, 2001)Secara khusus, seperti diuraikan pada Gambar 1, mereka merancang dan bekerja untukmengimplementasikan kecilsekolah yang terletak di dalam mengandaikan sekolah kabupaten yang diinginkan hasil siswa akanmenjadiproduk dari berbagai faktor. Pertama, dan terutama, mereka percaya bahwa jika sebuah distrik(Kotak 1;nomor kotak merujuk kepada mereka dalam Gambar 1) menciptakan kecil, sukarela, yang relatifotonomsekolah dan batas-batas kontrol birokrasi (Kotak 2) bahwa itu akan menciptakan konteks sekolahdi mana kepercayaan, visi yang koheren, dan komitmen akan lebih mungkin untuk mengambil akar(Kotak 3).Sekolah tersebut juga akan memiliki didistribusikan kepemimpinan dan ditandai dengan kuat danbersemangatkomunitas profesional, di mana guru berbagi dalam pengambilan keputusan, merenungkan danberbagi praktek, dan berkolaborasi satu sama lain. Selain itu, mereka percaya bahwa menciptakankonteks tersebut untuk guru dan kepala sekolah yang fundamental penting sebagai saranamembina suasana di mana reformasi produktif dapat terjadi (Kotak 6). Jelas, baikpenciptaan konteks untuk guru dan kepala sekolah dan konteks yang lebih luas untuk reformasijuga sedang dibentuk oleh penyediaan sumber daya dan mendukung dari kedua CHSRI dandistrik (box 4 dan 5). Federal dan negara bagian kurikulum standar dan akuntabilitasstruktur, seperti yang dimediasi oleh distrik (Kotak 5), juga membantu struktur pengaturan ini.Idealnya,oleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c om


27/43

D ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

4. Sekolah Tinggi chicagoRedesign Inisiatif5. Kabupaten, negara bagian, dan federal

Kurikulum standar dan akuntabilitasstruktur; Dukungan dari kabupaten (Kantor misalnya dariKecil Sekolah, Kantor Wilayah Instruksional)Sumber Daya, mendukung, danpengawasan terbatas7. Kurikuler dan instruksional kualitas2. Kecil sekolahfitur -guru dankepala3. Kecil sekolah

konteks -guru dankepala6. Produktif pengaturan untukinstruksional reformasiMenyelaraskan sumber daya eksternal,dukungan, dan standar dengansekolah visi yang koherenUkuran kecil,sukarela, beberapaotonomi,terbatasbirokrasiTerdistribusikepemimpinan,kepercayaan, koherenvisi,komitmen,profesionalkomunitas12. Mahasiswapengalaman13. Mahasiswahasil11. Produktif afektifpengaturan untuk siswaAkademik dansosial personalisme,mahasiswaketerlibatan,


28/43

akademik tekan,kepercayaan - gurudan mahasiswa, fokuspada akademikstandar

Skor tes,di-melacak tingkat,wisudatarif,kehadiran1. KabupatenSumber daya,kebijakan yangmengaktifkan kecilsekolahGuru komitmen untuk mahasiswa

belajar dalam pribadisuasana hormat dan kepercayaan8. Kecil sekolahfitur -mahasiswa danorang tua9. Sekolah kecil konteks: siswaSesuai dengan minat siswa,komitmen visi sekolahUkuran kecil,mahasiswa pilihan10. Sekolah kecil konteks: orang tuaPercayalah, keterlibatan / dukungan untuk visi sekolahGambar 1: Teori tindakan: Chicago Sekolah Tinggi Inisiatif Redesign

12 Meningkatkan Sekolah 8 (1)kombinasi visi internal dan kekuatan eksternal akan mengakibatkan peningkatan kurikulerdan kualitas instruksional (Kotak 7), yang harus memiliki dampak positif pada siswapengalaman (Kotak 12), yang mengarah ke hasil siswa membaik (Kotak 13). Mereka membantuuntuk membentuk dan mengimplementasikan inisiatif ini dengan cekatan harus menyeimbangkankebutuhan mereka untuk memberikan dukungandan arah dengan kebutuhan mereka untuk melindungi otonomi sekolah kecil '. Keunggulanotonomi sekolah kecil dan fleksibilitas juga harus seimbang dengan kebutuhan untuk akun-kemampuan dan struktur birokrasi sehingga reformasi dapat berfungsi secara efektif danbertanggung jawab dalam skala besar.Alasan untuk sekolah kecil melampaui kemampuan mereka untuk mendorong kurikuler daninstruksional kualitas. Juga pusat desain adalah keyakinan tentang bagaimana sekolah kecilfitur akan dialami oleh siswa dan orang tua. Secara khusus, para pendukung kecilsekolah percaya bahwa ukuran schools'small dan penyediaan pilihan siswa (Kotak 8) akanmenciptakan konteks yang sangat diinginkan bagi siswa, di mana siswa memilih belajar


29/43

lingkungan berdasarkan pada kepentingan mereka sendiri, dan berkomitmen untuk visi sekolah(Kotak 9). Konteks seperti itu, argumen itu, akan didukung oleh kepercayaan orang tua, dukungan,dan keterlibatan (Kotak 10) dan akan membantu memberikan pengaturan yang efektif untukreformasi ditandaioleh rasa saling percaya dan menghormati antara siswa, guru, dan orang tua (Kotak 11). Hal ini

gilirannya akan memperbesar manfaat dari kurikulum untuk menciptakan pengalaman bagi siswa-penyok ditandai dengan fitur seperti personalisme akademik dan sosial, keterlibatan,akademik pers, dan hubungan saling percaya antara siswa dan guru (Kotak 12).Pengalaman ini, pada gilirannya, harus membuat hasil siswa diinginkan (Kotak 13) lebihmungkin.MetodologiArtikel ini mengacu pada analisis baik kuantitatif dan kualitatif untuk mengeksplorasi konteksuntuksiswa dan guru dan hubungannya dengan hasil siswa. Analisis kuantitatifmenggunakan kedua survei dan data catatan, memungkinkan kita untuk membandingkan konteksdan hasil dari

kecil sekolah dan konteks dan hasil dari sekolah tinggi tradisional yang melayaniserupa populasi siswa. Analisis kualitatif mengandalkan wawancara dan fokusdiskusi kelompok untuk menyorot dinamika kunci dan untuk mempelajari implementasikesempatan,hubungan dan tantangan.Untuk studi kuantitatif kami menganalisis tanggapan dari Konsorsium di ChicagoSekolah Research dua tahunan tingkat kabupaten survei, termasuk tanggapan dari beberapa29.000 siswa kelas 9 dan 10 dan hampir 3000 guru sekolah tinggi (lihat Lampiran A untukdeskripsi yang lebih rinci dari sampel kami dan metode). Kami menggunakan Linear hirarkisPemodelan untuk melihat apakah siswa dan guru di sekolah-sekolah kecil dilaporkan lebih tinggitingkat tindakan diyakini hadir dalam meningkatkan sekolah-sekolah daripada siswa yang serupadan guru di sekolah yang sama. Untuk guru langkah-langkah termasuk indikatorsekolah kepemimpinan, komunitas profesional, dan orang tua dan dukungan masyarakat, karenalangkah-langkah termasuk siswa indikator dari orang tua dan dukungan masyarakat, kualitasinstruksional Program, dan mahasiswa-berpusat iklim belajar. Untuk analisishasil siswa, kami fokus pertama pada siswa kelas 9. Sekali lagi kami menggunakan Linear hirarkisPemodelan untuk membandingkan tingkat kehadiran, tingkat drop-out, 3 dan on-melacak tingkat(mengukurkeberhasilan mahasiswa mahasiswa baru) 4 bagi siswa di sekolah-sekolah kecil dengan orang-orang yang samasiswa di sekolah tinggi besar tradisional. Kami juga membandingkan skor nilai tes 11 untuksiswa kelas tiga sekolah mendaftar kecil 11 dengan nilai tes kelas 11 yang serupasiswa, karena pengujian sistematis siswa SMA di CPS terjadi di kelas 11.oleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c omD ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

Kahne et al:. Menciptakan sekolah kecil di Chicago 13Sebagai bagian dari studi kualitatif, kami mewawancarai kepala masing-masing sekolah / direkturdan


30/43

bertemu dengan kelompok fokus guru dan kelompok fokus siswa di sekolah masing-masing. Kamijuga mewawancarai kepala sekolah konversi di setiap gedung, dihadiri orangtuapertemuan di dua sekolah, dan bertemu dengan staf program di dua sekolah. Ini antar-pandangan ditranskripsi dan kode, dan hasilnya disusun dalam kategori.Temuan

Seperti dicatat di atas, analisis kami data menginformasikan jawaban atas tiga pertanyaan luas.KamiTemuan dibahas di bawah ini.Pertanyaan 1: Bagaimana usaha Chicago untuk menerapkan sekolah kecil diskala besar melanjutkan? Apakah CPS dan CHSRI mampumemberikan dukungan / sumber daya dan fleksibilitas dianggapdiperlukan untuk reformasi sukses?Sebagai diantisipasi, upaya Chicago untuk melaksanakan sekolah kecil pada skala besar telahterbukti menantang. Pada saat yang sama, upaya ini telah dibantu oleh mendukung bervariasidari staf CHSRI dan kabupaten serta dengan visi teachers'creative dan enthu-siasm untuk reformasi. Kami menjelaskan ini mendukung dan kendala pada implementasi

below.5Masalah dengan implementasi mengambil bentuk yang relatif diprediksi, baik operasional danfilosofis. Volume tugas yang berhubungan dengan menciptakan sebuah sekolah kecil enor-MoU - batasan waktu dan sumber daya yang sangat menantang. Sebagai utama darisekolah tuan menjelaskan, '6 April adalah pengumuman [yang kami akan mengkonversi kamiSMA ke sekolah-sekolah kecil] dan kemudian saya harus membuka tiga [baru kecil] sekolah diAgustus. "Inti infrastruktur dari distrik (Kotak 1) sering bermasalah. Misalnya, beberapasekolah kecil tidak mendapatkan beberapa uang mereka 'start up' dari distrik sampai sekolahtelah beroperasi selama tiga bulan. Demikian pula, beberapa sekolah kecil tidak memiliki ilmulaboratorium, komputer, telepon, ruang kantor, dan proyektor overhead. Bekerja melaluiini dan yang terkait tantangan dialihkan waktu yang bisa dihabiskan untuk programpembangunan. Akibatnya, seorang guru menjelaskan, "Kami sedang membangun on the fly. Halperhatian hanya menyelinap melalui celah-celah. "Implementasi adalah lebih rumit oleh ketidakpastian mengenai tingkat auto-nomy mereka akan diberikan oleh kabupaten (Kotak 1 dan 2). Secara khusus, mereka yang terlibatdengan sekolah kecil sering diharapkan lebih otonomi dan fleksibilitas dari mereka merasa merekaditerima. Sebagai mitra eksternal untuk salah satu sekolah kecil menaruhnya, 'Sistem inginuntuk standarisasi. Apakah sekolah kecil sama dengan sekolah piagam atau tidak? Apakah merekaotonom, atau tidak? "Demikian pula, seorang guru menjelaskan bahwa ada sering konflikantara desain kurikulum sekolah kecil dan tujuan instruksional kabupaten(Kotak 5 dan 6):Ada pesan yang membingungkan bahwa sekolah kecil baru harus mengembangkan curricu-idealkurikulum dari apa yang mereka ingin miliki. Lalu ada sisi lain berkata, 'Tidak, tidak, Anda harusmemenuhi pengukuran kami "Dan. jadi itu sangat tidak jelas dan agar benar-benar sulit bagi paraguru.Demikian pula, di beberapa sekolah, tujuan guru memiliki memimpin reformasi bertentangandengan peraturan kabupaten dan prosedur mengenai evaluasi guru dan lainnyaoleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c om


31/43


14 Meningkatkan Sekolah 8 (1)'Manajemen' masalah (Kotak 2 dan 6). Hal ini merusak upaya untuk menciptakan produktifpengaturan untuk reformasi. Guru di satu sekolah, misalnya, ingin berdiskusi hasil

sebuah 'berjalan-melalui' dari Petugas Daerah Instruksional dalam pertemuan segera tindaking acara tersebut. Kebijakan daerah, bagaimanapun, mendiktekan bahwa hasil seperti berjalan-throughharus berbagi hanya dengan kepala, yang kemudian berbagi komentar dengan ajaranstaf. Seperti lebih dari satu guru marah mengatakan, "Dan kita harus menjadi guru dipimpin! 'Kami tidak memiliki guru-guru yang kami butuhkan untuk memulai [September], dan kami masihtidak memilikiguru kita perlu [Mei]. (Kepala Sekolah)Saya tidak berpikir CPS [Chicago Public Schools] tahu apa kita, apa yang mereka ingin kita untukmenjadi.(Guru)

Pada saat yang sama tantangan yang berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan yang substansial,kebanyakan guru dan pemimpin sekolah kecil juga mengatakan bahwa mereka menerimadukungan berhargadari kedua kabupaten dan staf CHSRI (Kotak 4 dan 5). "Aku tidak bisa mengatakan cukuptentang dukungan yang kami dapatkan dari Kantor Sekolah Kecil. . . dan Inisiatif, dandaftar kunci dari orang lain, "kata salah satu utama kami. Beberapa orang lain menggemakansentimen ini.Sebagian besar sekolah dihargai kesempatan untuk pengembangan profesional, meskipun hal iniSikap itu tidak dimiliki oleh semua:Inisiatif ini sangat baik membimbing kita untuk pengembangan profesional serta menyediakanbagi kami, yang besar karena itu benar-benar sesuatu yang baru bagi banyak dari kita. Kamimemiliki staf yang lebih tua,dan [mereka] sangat diatur dalam cara mereka. Jadi, kita perlu pengembangan profesional untukmendapatkan semuaguru on-board dengan strategi untuk membuat kita guru yang lebih baik.Sementara pengembangan profesional telah dimulai, bagaimanapun, inovatif perubahan dalamkurikulumdan instruksi yang terbatas selama tahun pertama pelaksanaan. Untuk batas yangtelah terjadi perubahan instruksional, mereka telah berpusat pada menggabungkan out-of-pengalaman sekolah ke dalam kurikulum dan mempromosikan proyek-proyek interdisipliner(Kotak 7).Kami pergi ke kota seminggu sekali dan kami mengikatnya dengan kurikulum kami. Jadi, kamitelah pergi keMuseum untuk ilmu pengetahuan, kita sudah pergi ke Planetarium, kita sudah berjalan padaarsitektur-tur budayanya. . . Kami sudah ke Museum Sains dan Industri untuk melihat kereta yang besarpameran. [Kami] dasi itu dengan sejarah.Di sebuah sekolah kecil yang berbeda, salah satu pokok menceritakan kami, komitmen kamiadalah untuk memastikanbahwa setiap kelas mereka mengambil terintegrasi seni diresapi dengan kelas, sebagai strategi


32/43

pembelajaran,sebagai alat untuk mendapatkan mereka untuk memajukan prestasi akademik mereka. "Untuk sebagian besar, kepala sekolah dan guru setuju bahwa penekanan tahun pertama adalah padameluncurkan sekolah dan mereka berharap untuk dapat lebih fokus pada mengajar dan belajar-ing pada tahun kedua. Sebagai salah satu guru mengatakan kepada kami, "Kami memiliki ide dari

apa yang kita inginkan curricu-kurikulum dan instruksi untuk terlihat seperti tahun depan, dan jadi kita akan menghabiskan waktubeberapa[Bekerja pada] bahwa selama musim panas. "Perspektif ini guru adalah hal biasa. Guru dan kepala sekolah sama mencatat peningkatanenergi dan komitmen untuk reformasi - tetapi juga jelas bahwa kerja keras pembinaankesempatan baik untuk mengajar dan belajar belum terjadi. Ini tidak surpris-ing. Seperti yang kita dijelaskan di atas, perubahan kurikulum dan pengajaran tidak terelakkankeluar-datang dalam reformasi sekolah kecil. Sebaliknya, sekolah kecil dapat memupuk dan mendukungkonteks

bahwa inovasi memungkinkan terkait untuk mengajar dan belajar. Jadi, meskipun tahun pertamamungkin terlalu cepat untuk mengharapkan perubahan yang signifikan berkaitan dengan instruksi,tidak akanterlalu cepat untuk melihat apakah konteks perubahan yang berarti berkembang.oleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c omD ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

Kahne et al:. Menciptakan sekolah kecil di Chicago 15Pertanyaan 2: Apakah sekolah kecil menciptakan konteks untuk kepala sekolah,guru, dan siswa yang dapat mendukung dan mendorong reformasi yang diinginkanhasil yang lebih baik?Menemukan (a): guruKami melihat banyak bukti bahwa sekolah kecil menciptakan konteks diinginkan untukguru dan kepala sekolah untuk mengejar reformasi (Kotak 3). Sebagai contoh, guru-guru di kecilsekolah mengatakan kepada kami:Saya akan mengatakan tanpa kualifikasi yang setiap satu dari guru kita mengasihi fakta bahwamereka berpartisipasi dalam pemerintahan sekolah dan ada pengambilan keputusan bersama.(Kepala Sekolah)Salah satu hal yang terjadi, adalah bahwa kita memiliki lebih banyak kontak [dengan satu samalain] diperbandingan dengan sekolah tuan rumah. Kami bertemu hampir setiap hari, kita melihat satu samalain sepanjang waktu.(Guru)Tahun lalu saya harus menggunakan sepuluh hari sakit. Tahun ini saya telah menggunakan salahsatu. (Guru)Konsisten dengan pernyataan ini dan yang serupa oleh guru, survei kami guru per-spectives menemukan bahwa guru di sekolah CHSRI peringkat banyak aspek dari konteks merekalebih positif daripada guru-guru lain yang serupa di lain Chicago tinggi sama schools.6Untuk mengukur perspektif guru, kami mengandalkan guru Konsorsium langkah-langkah terkait


33/43

untuk kepemimpinan sekolah, kapasitas profesional, dan orang tua dan kemitraan masyarakat.Konsorsium ini telah menganalisis tanggapan guru untuk langkah-langkah pada lima surveiadministrasi selama decade.7 terakhirSeperti tercantum dalam Tabel 1, hasil survei kami mengungkapkan cukup besar dan signifikansecara statistik berbeda-

ences antara sekolah CHSRI tinggi kecil dan sekolah tinggi lainnya di Chicago. Gurudi sekolah CHSRI melaporkan partisipasi yang lebih dalam membuat keputusan, rasa yang lebihbesartanggung jawab bersama untuk belajar siswa, lebih banyak kesempatan untuk dialog reflektif,rasa yang lebih besar rasa saling percaya dan kerjasama antara guru lebih. Selain itu,guru melaporkan tingkat yang lebih tinggi dari partisipasi orang tua di sekolah. Sedikit signifikan(P


34/43

lain dan untuk guru yang pemimpin dan yangahli kerajinan merekaKolaborasi antara Tingkat kerjasama dan kolaborasi antara 1,88 *guru guru #Dukungan orang tua Guru 'persepsi tingkat induk 1,01 *

keterlibatan dan dukungan untuk sekolahKoherensi program # Sejauh mana guru merasa program dalam 1.73 mereka ~sekolah dikoordinasikan dengan satu sama lain dan denganmisi sekolahInovasi # Guru 'persepsi dari apakah mereka 1,64 ~terus belajar dan mencoba hal baruCatatan: 1Differences diukur dalam satuan deviasi standar; #: Lihat Kotak 3; : Lihat Kotak 10;*: Signifikan pada p


35/43

Tekan arah Meteran akademik apakah siswa merasa guru mereka 2,18 *pencapaian # menantang mereka untuk mencapai tingkat tinggi akademikkinerja.Akademik keterlibatan # Mahasiswa 'laporan tentang minat mereka dan 1,99 *keterlibatan dalam belajar.

Siswa-guru percaya # Mahasiswa 'persepsi tentang kualitas 1,95 * merekahubungan dengan guru.Catatan: 1Differences diukur dalam satuan deviasi standar; #: Lihat Kotak 12; *: signifikan padap


36/43


18 Meningkatkan Sekolah 8 (1)Siswa di sekolah CHSRI tinggi kecil yang hari 29,3 persen lebih sedikit absen dari sejenissiswa di sekolah tinggi yang sama. Perbedaan ini secara statistik bermakna (p


37/43

hubungan seperti itu, sudah jelas bahwa faktor yang terkait dengan implementasi layakperhatian dan pembinaan sekolah kecil pada skala besar dapat menantang bagikabupaten. Memang, ada beberapa tantangan spesifik yang terkait dengan fokus khusus iniusaha, atas dan di atas penerapan standar tantangan yang berkaitan dengan baruoleh amr iklan il mu ha mm pada O c untuk ber 29, 2 0 08

h t tp:.. / / imp s a p u ge b c omD ow n lo d iklan e fr o m

Kahne et al:. Menciptakan sekolah kecil di Chicago 19reformasi. Misalnya, perhatian terhadap ketegangan antara otonomi sekolah kecil 'danfleksibilitas di satu sisi dan kebutuhan kabupaten untuk akuntabilitas dan birokrasistruktur pada yang lain adalah fundamental penting. Yang terbaik cara untuk berpikir tentang iniatauketegangan lainnya tertanam dalam teori inisiatif tentang perubahan yang belum jelas.Yang jelas adalah bahwa kedua peluang dan tantangan hadir sendiri untuk kabupatenmengejar sekolah tinggi kecil di skala besar. Mengingat luas upaya untuk pindah sekolah

arah ini, baik di Chicago dan di seluruh bangsa, kita diharapkan akan tahu banyaklebih di tahun-tahun mendatang.Lampiran ATa ble A1: Contoh: demografi sekolah kecilMemasuki 9 Sekolah ras / etnisPer Kelas komposisi persen berarti kelas: persenNomor Nama menjabat Khusus Ed achievement1 Hitam Putih LatinoCHSRI sekolah tinggiB.E.S.T. 66 9 27,3 6 (225,6) 86,4 13,6Penemuan 387 chicago 9-12 14,7 8 - (242,9) 48,0 51,7AkademiPhoenix 232 9-12 27,2 6 (227,3) 80,5 19,0School of Arts 261 9-11 21,8 6 (226,0) 100SekolahKewirausahaan 250 9-10 20,0 7 - (235,2) 100Semua CPSnon-alternatif 97.879 16,1 8 - (246,3) 50,4 36,8 9,3Catatan: 1Achievement berdasarkan skor ITBS 8 kelas. Nomor pertama memberikan perkiraannilaididasarkan pada norma tingkat nasional di akhir tahun. Angka dalam kurung memberikan skorskalarata-rata. Secara umum, norma-norma nasional akhir-tingkat kelas adalah sebagai berikut: kelas 6= 227,7 kelas = 239, kelas 8 = 250, kelas 9 = 260.Survei sample101. CPS guru SMA: 67 sekolah; tanggapan dari 47 persen dari sekolah tinggiguru.2. CHSRI guru: empat sekolah; tanggapan dari 59 persen dari guru yang memenuhi syarat disemualima sekolah. Respon tingkat di tiga sekolah ini melebihi 87 persen. Dalam


38/43

sekolah keempat, tiga dari 17 guru menjawab, untuk tingkat respon 73 persendi antara empat sekolah yang berpartisipasi.3. CPS 9 dan siswa kelas 10: 67 sekolah, tanggapan dari 50 pers

Eka Nursari

Documents

Transcript of Eka Nursari