My point: Trying to fix high schools in a vacuum doesn’t work. Yet, we try to do it over and over and over.

Not talk of adding much in the way of curriculum, mind you, just talk of removing the wall that keeps kids constrained in silos.

I’m having a hard time seeing how they’re going to deliver on any of the “proof points” we’ve talked about without a massive adjustment to the way FTE budgets are allocated. You can’t cut 5 positions from Jefferson and add much curriculum, as far as I can figure.

Heck, I didn’t know what I wanted to do career-wise until I was in my thirties, and I’m sure glad I got a broad-based high school education, including physics, calculus, theatre arts, instrumental music, journalism, photography, English Lit, etc.

Yes, some kids will never go to college — that’s why we have technical focus options like Vocational Village. But the removal of comprehensive high schools in poor neighborhoods, in favor of the Gates silo model, has been clearly discriminatory to our poorest students, and has clearly contributed to their continuing declines in enrollment.

So far, only the Jefferson community has complained loudly enough to get some small, tentative steps toward restoring comprehensive education in their cluster.

Luckily for our middle and upper-middle class citizens in the Wilson, Lincoln, Grant, and Cleveland clusters, they don’t have to fight for this. They get it by default, but have to deal with overcrowding from all the in-transfers of students who just want a basic, comprehensive high school education.

As Steve said, however, “siloed” schools are a problem. They severely limit options for all the students they enroll. That’s not a recipe for success.

Small schools should, if structured properly, concentrate on creating closer relationships with at-risk students. The emphasis in Portland, especially via the Gates’ grants, has been on academics and “achievement”. That’s no way to create meaningful teacher-student relationships.

Ok, so I agree that in the case of Small School in Portland they have been fairly unpopular. Whether they are hugely unpopular would be hard to quantify… there must be some support… in my school I will admit most are unhappy, but some are also willing to give it a go. The disadvantages have been stated here pretty clearly. In terms of advantages, they differ. In many schools, students are given an opportunity to specialize in what they hope to pursue as a career. This could be hugely beneficial if we can get past the notion that every kid, regardless of their future plans, should be channeled into college. In addition, in many schools, students will have the same group of teachers for multiple subjects. This, in theory, allows for a much more personal experience.

Again, I do not fully support small schools, and believe they are a bad choice for some schools. What I am not clear about is whether small schools are actually the problem with all of the PPS ‘experimnets,’or if the schools are being set up to fail by NCLB, and or poor administrations (Jefferson comes to mind.) I would like to see the outcome in districts that actually give this program a true opportunity to work. I believe there are some examples of small schools working in certain places, although I am unsure where specifically… for some reason Tacoma rings bell.

Removing educational opportunities by forcing students into narrow academic silos has only further alienated families from these schools. Allowing students to transfer willy-nilly around the district has also exacerbated the concentration of poverty, and all the problems that come with it.

If PPS were serious about addressing these problems, they’d acknowledge the challenges of NCLB, but also put their own policy under the microscope.

An honest assessment of the Gates small schools will show that they are hugely unpopular, and will not succeed in luring middle class families back.

What do families transfer for? Comprehensive high schools, as evidenced by the transfer statistics at schools like Grant, Lincoln and Cleveland.

Now dang it, you’ve got the theme from “Welcome Back Kotter” stuck in my head!

‘Several factors may have influenced the low numbers, said Leslie Rennie-Hill, the district’s chief of high schools. Under the federal No Child Left Behind law, students at schools that don’t meet federal benchmarks in math and reading have the option to transfer to a higher-achieving school.
The exodus left Marshall and Roosevelt with “a harder population to teach, a population with more academic challenges,” she said.’

Particularly important is the final sentence. NCLB is the true problem, as it makes more . Rather than allow for true equity, it creates a greater devide. Anyone who can afford to bolt, will bolt. Socio-economically who do you reckon is left? What sort of teachers wish to teach in such a school? NCLB makes bad schools worse, by allowing the majority of the best students/ and any others who can afford to leave to go. Now, certainly the equity comes in to questions when you look at who can afford (time/money/access) the luxury of traveling across town to go to school, when there is one in the neighborhood.

Small schools are something I am certainly not convinced are the answer. They do limit some options, although in most cases a student can be accomodated by changing small schools, or just having access to other schools class schedule. At my particular school, students frequently go outside of their school, and I even teach an entire class of students outside my school.
Comments regarding it taking time to take effect, etc… are also valid. One major problem is all the protest. How can such a system make gains when nobody will give it a chance.

Use some rational thought when considering the impact of NCLB on this; it may not be the sole problem, but whether small schools or not, it is a huge problem.