Forming Small Learning Communities: Implementing Neighborhoods in an Existing High School
Jeffery
A. Lackney, Ph.D., A.I.A.
School Design Research Studio
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Submitted for Publication: July 6, 2001
With national attention on violence in schools, the social conditions
of schooling are now deservedly receiving as much attention as educational
reforms focused primarily on academic achievement. Strategies for addressing
the problems of violence in schools have focused on social program interventions
(Dwyer, Osher & Hoffman, 2000; Barrios et al, 2000) as well as creating
smaller learning communities where students can feel safe and socially
connected (Raywid, 1996).
The literature on small schools has, for nearly forty years, consistently
reported that participation in school activities, participation in extracurricular
activities, student satisfaction, number of classes taken, community employment,
and participation in social organizations have all been found to be greater
in small schools relative to large schools (Barker & Gump, 1964; Fowler,
1992; Irmsher, 1997; Lashway, 1998; Raywid, 1999, Duke, 2001). Small schools,
on the order of 500 or less, have lower incidence of crime levels and
less serious student misconduct (Garbarino, 1980).
More recent research on models of school restructuring (Oxley, 1994) lends additional support to the hypothesis that smaller schools can have a positive influence on achievement, school climate and student connectedness, thereby reducing the negative and destructive behaviors of students such as fewer discipline problems, fewer incidents of vandalism, reduced truancy and drug use, and a lesser drop-out rate (Fowler and Walberg, 1991). Research suggests a negative relationship between math and verbal ability tests and elementary school size controlling for socio-economic differences (Fowler, 1992). Additionally, smaller elementary schools particularly benefit African-American students' achievement (Fowler, 1992; Howley, 1994, June).
Lee, Bryk and Smith (1993, cited in Duke, 2001) argue that smaller groupings facilitate group cohesion, the frequency of communication between individuals, and the general management of the school. Larger schools typically must be subdivided into departments of units, with the consequence that school loyalties and inter-unit cooperation may be affected adversely. Subcultures form more easily in large schools, threatening the focused mission that has been associated with school effectiveness.
School size research most often refers to the size of the student body, large being 2,000 or more students in secondary environments for instance, while small being a broad range anywhere from 100 to 600 students in elementary and even secondary environments. Various methods for grouping may be indicated such as building smaller school buildings, utilizing satellite facilities, reorganizing and reallocating space in existing schools, and renovating and redesigning existing schools (Duke, 2001).
Research Questions
Rarely are the physical conditions for 'smallness' defined. Can smaller learning communities be formed in large physical buildings or must buildings become smaller to accommodate smaller student groupings? Scant references to the physical design determinants of behavior can be found in the literature on small schools research. The investigation of effective physical settings for small learning communities is non-existent.
This paper outlines the early phases of a longitudinal research program designed to answer the following questions: Can small learning communities form in existing school buildings designed for large student bodies, and if so, what is the role of the physical environment of the school in setting favorable conditions in forming small learning communities? How does the physical environment of the school contribute to the sense of sociality in schools? More specifically, what features, components or organization of the physical environment are critical to the formation of small learning communities? Finally, what role does youth participation play in the process of forming of small learning communities?
Research Case: James Madison Memorial High School
The majority of the 2,000 grades 9-12 students at James Madison Memorial High School are drawn from the far west side of Madison, Wisconsin, which includes three low-income neighborhoods. Memorial has been named a national school of excellence, its students achieve SAT and ACT scores that are significantly above average, and students excel in the classroom and in extracurricular activities ranging from theater to athletics. Nearly eighty-percent Memorial students come from two-parent families, and nearly seventy-percent have a parent with a college or professional degree, and ninety-percent of students attend a two-year or four-year college following graduation.
Although 82 percent of all Memorial freshman go on to graduate, among Hispanic/Latino(a) students, only 46 percent graduate, and among African American students, only 55 percent graduate. The grade point average among Memorial students overall is 2.77 on a four-point scale, but drops to 1.60 for African American students and 1.98 for Hispanic/Latino(a) students. One fourth of Memorial's students come from low-income families. One-fourth are students of color. Of the low-income students, nearly 70 percent are African American, Hispanic/Latino(a) or Southeast Asian. Seven percent are enrolled in an English as a Second Language program.
The widening gap between low and high-achieving students motivated Memorial High School to apply for and successfully obtain a three-year U.S. Department of Education Small Learning Communities (SLC) Federal Grant starting with the 2000-1 academic year for initial staffing, remodeling costs, supplies and equipment, and training. The goal of the Memorial High Neighborhoods is through a series of initiatives to close the achievement gap, to create a collegial school culture, to build student leadership and ownership for the future direction of the school, and increase and diversity student participation in extracurricular activities. Specific measures of success to be used in the evaluation of the project include (a) increased attendance, the percentage of students who graduate, grade point averages and ACT scores, credits to advance to the next grade level and enrollment in advanced placement courses; (b) Increased satisfaction with school climate, strengthen long-term relationships with staff and other students, reduce harassment, increase faculty interaction across departments, and increase parent involvement and school-community partnerships; and (c) Increase opportunities for all students to influence decisions, play leadership roles, and participate in extracurricular activities and school-wide programs.
The project proposes to restructure the entire school of 2,000 students into a nested organizational structure consisting of 100 Backyards, five Blocks and four Neighborhoods. First, one hundred Backyard Groups of 20 multi-grade level students and one teacher will be formed each with its own governance structure. Students will be assigned randomly at the beginning of the year to a Backyard group. Five Backyard groups will form a Block group and Block Council to plan and coordinate a variety of activities, such as undertaking service-learning projects, or making decisions to share at the neighborhood level. Five Block groups form one of the four Neighborhood groups (500 students and 25 faculty members) that will have a community center in a newly remodeled space within the school, a "park" (green space immediately adjacent to the center), and an "improvement budget" (discretionary funds). At the neighborhood level, students might form study groups, clubs or intramural sports teams.
Memorial's current physical layout offer very limited common spaces for social interaction. A significant portion of the federal grant for this project was dedicated to the creation of a community center for each Neighborhood in newly remodeled space at Memorial (see Figure 1).
In addition to physical changes, the school day itself will be restructured. Homeroom and study hall components will be reprogrammed to expand unstructured time, allowing students and staff to get together for Neighborhood activities. Homeroom will become a weekly meeting time for Backyard groups. Study-hall time will be shifted into Neighborhood Center activities that emphasize achievement and productivity. After the school day, the Neighborhood Centers will offer tutors and mentors, an environment that is conducive to study and computers for those students who do not have access at home. Finally, to accommodate the lack of after-school transportation due to extracurricular participation for some students, late bus service will be provided to low-income neighborhoods.
The Research Process
In keeping with the goals of the project, a cooperative action research approach was followed that engaged all interested members of the learning community - students as well as teachers - in the act of inquiry. This research strategy provided an opportunity to meet one of the central goals of the project that to increase opportunities for all students to influence decisions and take on leadership roles.
Planning Neighborhood Centers
Several action research projects have been initiated. The first involves a cooperative inquiry into the planning and design of the Neighborhood Centers. Within the context of the Memorial Neighborhoods project, this study asked the initial question, what features, components and organization of the Neighborhood Center are critical to the formation of small learning communities?
It is important to note that the schools-within-schools small school strategy was not being employed in the existing school building, rather autonomous Neighborhood Centers were identified throughout the building in available existing spaces of approximately 1,250 square feet that could accommodate 60-75 students at anyone time. These Neighborhoods are intended to act as nodes of organized activity. What should these Neighborhood Centers look like, and how should they be organized and managed over time?
A series of design workshops were conducted over a three month period in the Spring of 2001 and involved over one hundred students and faculty in determining the program, activities, organization and layout of each neighborhood center. The first workshop involved the entire volunteer group of students and faculty working in small groups. The next two workshops involved subsets of students assigned to one of the four Neighborhood center sites throughout the building. A series of design game exercises were employed in each workshop to facilitate student discussion (See Figure 2).
In the final two workshops, students from all the centers were brought together and worked as cross-functional teams identifying furniture, equipment needs, and other components of the centers. The results of the workshops were a series of diagrams outlining the intentions of students. Figure 3 illustrates the layout of one of the four neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Centers and Sociality
A second action research project initiated addresses the question of how the existing physical environment of the school contributes or inhibits a sense of sociality? Through discussions with students in an advanced placement psychology class the question of whether students would feel comfortable to hang-out in the neighborhood centers was asked. To answer this question, a baseline investigation was initiated with these students are researchers trained to use behavioral maps to collect baseline data on existing student social hang-outs within the building (Figure 4) which then will be compared with data collected once the Neighborhood Centers are in operation.
Will students continue to hang-out in the same places in the building and to the same degree, or will they begin to hang-out in and around the centers? What will be the territorial characteristics of the centers? Will certain sub-cultures claim the centers as their own or will the centers become centers that encourage new social group formations besides extant cliques?
Youth Participation
A third research study initiated by this project is interested in tracking student perceptions and impressions of the Neighborhood process. The question being asked in this study is what is the role of youth participation in forming smaller learning communities? An eight-item questionnaire survey was distributed to the entire student body. In addition, psychology students interviewed twenty students using the same questionnaire.
1. Do you feel that there is a need for change in the social environment at Memorial? If yes, what do you feel should be changed and why?
2. How would you describe the Memorial Neighborhoods to someone who didn't know anything about it?
3. How much change, if any, do you feel the neighborhoods will have on the social environment at Memorial? What kinds of changes do you feel the neighborhoods might have?
4. Do you believe students' ideas and opinions have been seriously considered in the planning of the neighborhoods?
5. Do you believe students have had ample opportunity for involvement inplanning of the neighborhoods?
6. Have you volunteered to participate in the planning of the neighborhoods? If yes, in what ways have you participated? If no, why haven't you participated?
7. What is your impression of the Memorial Neighborhoods?
8. What else do you think could be done to improve the social environment of Memorial?
Preliminary Survey Results and Findings
The eight-item questionnaire survey was distributed during homeroom and achieved a thirty-six percent response rate with 720 total complete surveys. Responses were evenly spit between male and female students. All ethnic groups in the school were represented: Sixty-four percent of responses were White, 15% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 9% Black, and 1% Native American.
The Need for Change in the Social Environment
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of students responding indicated that there is a need for change in the social environment at Memorial. Female students made up the majority of this opinion (64%), while male students (58%) made up the majority of those respondents indicating there was no need for change in the social environment (46%). Twenty-six percent (26%) of respondents had no opinion. Those respondents who indicated a change in the social environment was needed, were evenly represented by all ethnic groups (White, 25%; Black, 24%; Hispanic, 26%; Asian, 20%). Although the students' perceived need for change in the social environment is only one-quarter of the population, this data indicates that at a general level all ethnic groups see some need for change.
The majority of student respondents did not feel there were any major social problems at the school. These respondents felt the attempt to make students "fit in" were not worth the effort. These students expressed the opinion that the school administration can't "force" people be friends through a program. Those student respondents who did feel there was a problem indicated that racism, harassment, cliques were the main social problems present at the school that needed attention. These students also felt the need for a social environment that allowed one to express their own opinions, allowed for more meaningful teacher/student communication, and make students feel safe and accepted.
Impact of the Neighborhood Centers on the Social Environment
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of respondents felt that the neighborhoods will either big or some change the social environment at Memorial. This view was evenly split between male (48%) and female (52%) students as well as ethnic groups (White, 58%; Black, 50%; Hispanic, 52%; Asian, 57%). Only twenty-four percent (24%) of respondents felt there would be no change, while nineteen percent (19%) did not know.
The majority of students felt that the Neighborhood Centers and system would allow more students to get to know more of their fellow students, have more friends, decrease 'cliquey' behavior, and increase communication between upper and lower classes. A smaller group of students felt that the administration cannot "force students to become a community with a bunch of random kids" (referring to the random assignment proposed for making up the neighborhood groups). Another respondent argued: "you can't make people talk by putting them in a room together."
Student understanding of the purpose and activities of the Neighborhood Centers was mixed. Many respondents found it difficult to explain the neighborhood concept: "a place to go and have a small group of all grade levels to communicate with," "a way to get closer to people you don't know very well," "try to make school feel smaller". Students viewed the neighborhoods as "big study halls," "hang outs," "chill areas," and "like homeroom in middle school." Most student respondents saw the centers as more elaborate study halls.
Youth Participation
A majority, fifty-six percent (56%) of respondents believe that students' ideas and opinions have been seriously considered in the planning of the neighborhoods. When asked if they believe students have had ample opportunity for involvement in planning of the neighborhoods, sixty-seven percent (67%) responded yes.
Sixteen percent (16%) of respondents, or 102 students, indicated that they had volunteered to participate in the planning of the neighborhoods. That amounts to five percent (5%) of the student body as a whole - an expected result for participation in organizations. Again, participation was split evenly between male and female students, with an equal percentage of participation was observed by all ethnic groups (White, 13%; Black, 14%; Hispanic, 16%, Asian, 15%).
Students were involved in a number of different planning activities: Neighborhood Design Workshops (24%); Student Government (27%); Website Team (5%); Community Partnerships (8%); Staff Development Group (4%); Planning Backyard Time Periods (10%); Planning for Activity Periods (22%). These results indicate that there was modest but broad participation by students in the neighborhood planning process.
Student apprehension to the change process has been expected by the school administration. There is evidence that the administration has made efforts to involve students in every aspect of the planning process. A large majority of student respondents just did not see the point of participating in a project they felt was not going to succeed. An overwhelming majority of students are cynical toward the project and feel that the project is "full of good intentions but won't fulfill its Purpose". Another student responded, "Okay, we have them, but [I] don't see a real need for them". One student who did participate indicated, "kids began to put ideas down, but now adults are mainly controlling what's going on". On a more positive note, one student stated, "[Its] not the best plan, but hopefully one that will be a catalyst for change. [Its] wonderful that the administration is doing something but no one thinks neighborhoods will help.
Discussion
The
Memorial administrative team feels that the neighborhood concept will
create a smaller school feel in a larger campus and will eventually show
a positive influence on school climate and student connectedness. The
intent is for this improved social environment to lead to achievement
improvements over time as well. The neighborhood centers and their governance
structure are planned specifically to intentionally create smaller groupings
of students in an attempt to facilitate group cohesion and the frequency
of communication between individuals. These assertions remain hypotheses.
This paper has been intended as a preliminary report of a longitudinal
research effort. Baseline data reported above will be compared with data
collected once the Neighborhood Centers have been occupied. Behavioral
mapping will be conducted cooperatively with advanced placement psychology
students continuously through the year to track changes in use from that
intended by student neighborhood design workshops. A post-construction
evaluation will be conducted in the first few months of occupancy followed
by a more detailed post-occupancy evaluation in the Spring of 2002.
For additional Information on Memorial's Neighborhoods:
Updates on the Neighborhoods can be seen at Memorial High School's website at http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/jmm/nbrhood/index.htm.
Also see Implementing a Neighborhood Structure in and Existing High School: A Case Study in Cultural Change.
Jeff Lackney can also be contacted directly at lackney@epd.engr.wisc.edu.
References
Barker, R. & Gump, P.V. (1964). Big school, small school. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barrios, L.A., Baer, K., Bennett, G. Bergan, A., et al. (2000). Federal activities addressing violence in schools. The Journal of School Health, 70(4), 119-140.
Dwyer, K.P., Osher, D. & Hoffman, C.C. (Spring, 2000). Creating responsive schools: Contextualizing early warning, timely response. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 347-365.
Fowler, W. and Walberg, H.J. (1991). School size, characteristics and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189-202.
Fowler, W.J., Jr. (1992). What do we know about school size? What should we know? Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Available from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Duke, D. (2001). Reducing the negative effects of large schools. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. http://www.edfacilities.org.
Garbarino, J. (1980). Some thoughts on school size and its effects on adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 19-31.
Howley, C. (1994, June). The academic effectiveness of small-scale schooling (An Update). ERIC Digest ED372897. http://7-12educators.about.com/education/primseced/7-12educators/msub10.htm?COB=home&terms=downsizing
Irmsher, K. (1997). School size. ERIC Digest, Number 113. ED414615 97. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed414615.html
Lashway, L. (1998-99, Winter). School size: Is smaller better? Research Roundup 15, 2. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/W98-99.html
Oxley, D. (1994). Organizing schools in small units: Alternatives to homogeneous grouping. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(7), 621.
Raywid, M. A. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, schools-within-schools, and separate small schools. Urban Diversity Series No 108. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. (ED 396 045). http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/mono/UDS108.pdf
Raywid, M. A. (1999). Current literature on small schools. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Charleston, WV. (ED425049 99)
