Re-Imagined High School: The Coalition Campus Schools Project in New York - Literature review Example

Assessing a Re-Imagined High School: The Coalition Campus Schools Project in New York Few socio-civic institutions carry strong impact on the quality of life for the citizens of a country than the high school. High school is an institution so essential in laying the foundation for citizen participation in a country’s economy and civil society. In a globalizing world, school reforms that make high school graduates competent in high-level skills and prepared to attain high education are gradually taking shape to meet the demands of the society (Cheng, 2003). In the U.S., however, the public schools as an institution are challenged to cope with these changing educational demands. One project – the Coalition Campus Schools Project (CCSP) launched in New York City during the early 1990s – may well be one of the answers to calls to restructure social structures of high school. Such initiative, which involves the transformation of two large, comprehensive New York high schools with eleven small schools during the early 1990s, was the subject of this paper based on a review of a development program. Following the identification of the issues relative to the leadership, educational quality and improvement measures pursued by the Coalition Campus School Project, there will be recommendations to be made based on theoretical approaches in educational leadership. This paper will then assess the different aspect of the project, first as an innovation in design initiative. Also subject of the evaluation is the outcome of abandonment of the standard class sizes for students in large, comprehensive learning facilities built like “factories.” The paper ends with a short conclusion Background: Advocates of the small new model schools in New York believe the project is a direct response to the mounting criticisms hurled against bigger learning environments. Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort (2002) said in their papers that with “factory model” schools, students and teachers have little opportunity to build strong relationships, which is essential in encouraging academic success of minority and low-income students. This is coupled with other dilemmas, such as segregated curriculums and unequal program options, and slow response in meeting students’ needs. As part of a broader school restructuring initiative, the CCSP was collaboration between the New York City Board of Education and the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE). For this project, the CCSP replaced two of the city’s high schools – Julia Richman High School in Manhattan and James Monroe High School in the Bronx – which each served up to 3,000 students. The innovative restructuring model was shaped by plans provided by developers’ visions or definitions of what it means to be an effective high school. As a strategy, smaller high school model is aimed at altering the academic structure of the same to improve students’ academic rigor in the curriculum and achieve high educational achievement. Thus, when school’s capacity to change is enhanced, student’s achievement may be improved (Kyriakides and Campbell, 2004). The CCSP, on one hand, appear faithful to its goals of raising opportunities for students’ to learn in a new learning model without impeding their chances of gaining support to realize their full academic promise. On the other hand, although the transformative scheme was not geared toward increasing college-going levels and preparedness of undeserved pupils per se, it does offer the potential to do so. Assessing the Small, Personalized Learning Environments Evaluation it is said always carries with it values and purposes. Kyriakides & Campbell (2004) identified two overarching goals of school evaluation that may be applied in this study: 1) improvement of organization quality, and 2) improvement of teaching and learning. In the implementation of school reforms, Shulman, Sullivan & Glanz (2008) believe the best interests of the school, teachers and students are ensured and promoted when evaluation is undertaken. With features that CCSP introduced, all are aimed at improving achievement and commitment to school. The small learning communities espoused by the Project are organized around a common core of principles to help prepare students to “use their minds well”. Apart from the said feature, other significant features include: common academic standards supported by performance-based assessment; interdisciplinary curriculum focused on inquiry and intellectual skills; small pupil loads for enhanced personalization and family involvement; and, shared decision-making. Smaller schools have greatly benefited many stakeholders, particularly students. Educational researchers backed smaller schools because it help produce higher achievement, lower dropout rates, lower rates of violence and vandalism, more positive feelings about self and school, and more participation in school activities (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort, 2002). In this paper, the different aspect that make this learning model unique and effective will be evaluated through the issues and tensions that come along the implementation of the model, particularly on account of the leadership, education quality and improvement measures adopted. A. Governance Since subschools of the CCSP typically share large spaces, such as gymnasium and auditorium (Ancess & Ort, 1999; Gladden, 2000), functional structure for building governance must be established to ease tensions that are likely to happen. In this scenario, the schools are said to belong to the three superintendence, which are expected to be unified in their commitment to self-governance and building accountability. Apart from these activities, these building leaders are expected to guard their autonomy and in so doing, may even risk fighting policies when they feel the same are not serving the best interests of their pupils, the schools, and the building. But when building leaders are at odds with one another, their commitment and work may suffer, or when the ‘personal’ enter the picture. Building leaders, who each develop their own vision and practices in governing and managing, are said to be shaped by couple of core personal values. These values that are often part of the leaders’ strong humanitarian ethics compel them to naturally be concerned with the promotion of respect, fairness and equality, caring for the well-being and holistic development of students and staff, integrity and honesty (Day, Harris, & Hadfield, 2001). Aware of the possible tensions that may surface, Board of Education (BOE) officials have adopted a collaborative hierarchical model, allowing the campus director to make the final decisions. This in effect means that there will be a single supervisor given an oversight authority. In addition, it should be noted also that each school in the building under the Project must operate well enough to meet the school’s needs and to gain and command respect of the other in the campus. To do so, cooperation among each school must topple competition between schools and between the learning models adopted. Meeting each school’s needs, apart from competing and conflicting ideas, may perhaps become one of the tensions that are likely to build. Thus, school administrators must be capable and ready to compromise to gain cooperation and support from constituents because decisions are shaped mostly be reinforcing or conflicting values held by the different stakeholders in this regard (Notman, 2007). Finally, Harris, & Hadfield (2001) underscored that key to sound judgment is the school administrator’s ability to work with people. B. Resistance to change At its birthing phase, it is inevitable to receive resistance to the changes suggested by the campus model as the Project requires bold adjustments in the restructuring of the schools to a campus. Teachers may then become first among the other stakeholders to resist and resent the changes unless their preconceptions will be proven wrong about the difficulties that they will encounter in the adjustments that may be required from them with regard to their current functions. Hargreaves (1995) explained once that everyday reality is often left unquestioned and taken for granted. But if schools will change, common problems and practices will be determined and solutions will be rendered. Contrary to the quest for authoritarian power and the imposition of one’s personal vision to others, the campus model may have required school administrators to work closely with others as equals. Unless this rationale and its importance will be understood, the school community will be seen working collaboratively. Notman (2007) suggested this approach to leadership, saying that values alignment is an important scheme in determining potential outcomes from the decision-making process and crises management. C. Autonomy and support Even in large “factory model” high school models where the issue of autonomy or the authority and independence from control in making decisions is common, the campus model is also inclined to experience this tension. The same is true in this innovative model as different stakeholders contend with size, space, student outcome assessments, paperwork, and media for traditional expectations conformance. Among the issues that superintendents are likely to confront is the imposed requirement for them to increase student admission in order to fill up “underutilized” space (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort, 2002). Some quarters believe that there is just a misunderstanding with regard to how the BOE understood the proper use of space. Cheng & Tam (1997) believe that this lack of understanding of the complex and intricate nature of education initiatives is common criticism hurled against policymakers. Often, this misunderstanding creates miserable problems. For its part, policymakers often look for reasons to justify the end. In fact, Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort (2002) even note that pressure mounted to compel schools to comply with bureaucratic policies that go against the educational mission of the schools. These mandates restrict the instructional options and capacity of teachers to make decisions based on the needs of their students, implying lack of trust and belittling of the teacher’s commitment to the vision of the campus model. This limitation of the role by educators in the context of externally initiated change has been the subject of a study made by Day, Harris & Hadfield (2001) about challenges to school orthodoxy. The researchers suggested that school administrators and teachers must learn to balance how change within the school can be initiated in non-intrusive approach so as not to invite tensions among other stakeholders. Most educational policies are geared towards the promotion of education quality and achievement of success for all the stakeholders. Without the clear understanding of the complex and intricate nature of education quality, however, education policies will fail (Cheng & Tam, 1997). Outlook and Recommendations Foes the campus innovative model really works in advancing education quality? Advocates, critics and even policymakers have been mired in this unrewarding issue for much of the 1990s. Decades of experience in the classroom, refinements in curriculum and methodology, and gains in student achievement have made believers out of countless teachers, administrators, researchers, and parents and yet, these advances have failed to quell some quarters’ skepticism about the concept of smaller learning environments When Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort (2002) are to be asked about whether student achievement has improved, their reply will be in the affirmative. In their study, they recorded that the subject high schools within the campus project posted the highest graduation rates among the New York City reform initiatives, with college-going rate among graduates of up to 89%. Multiple researches on high school restructuring practices aimed at improving student outcome and equitable outcomes reveal that these practices maintain its positive impact, which are consistent with predictors for college enrolment and success (Cheng & Tam, 1997; Cheng, 2003; Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort, 2002). Without doubt, reforming high schools is a complicated practice, often requiring fundamental institutional change. High schools engaged in restructuring practices concentrated on academic order and social support, gains in student achievement, engagement and equity are immensely high (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Ort, 2002). Evaluative and instructional functions are keys in ensuring and promoting the best interests of the different stakeholders in innovation initiatives (Shulman, Sullivan & Glanz, 2008). In this context and following the assessment of the campus model, this paper believes that institutional restructuring of all high schools must be carefully assessed to guide future policymakers and implementers. Briefly, this paper recommends the following proposed actions but such entails that stakeholders first discuss them as the basis to introduce changes – a. High schools should continue pursuing efforts to improve the organizational structure. This way, the development of supportive relationships for students will be facilitated. With positive relationships, students gain access to information they need in planning and preparing for higher education. b. Policymakers, model developers, universities, and other related institutions should help formulate reform initiatives that will prepare students college-going attitude. c. Common core curriculum must be implemented by schools that include requirements for students to complete advanced work in science and mathematics and eradicate non-important subjects for the fulfillment of their needs for college preparedness. d. System should be created to provide guidance and help to academically unprepared students who enter high school with the goal of helping them improve their learning rates. Bibliography Blase, J, & Blase, J. (1999). Implementation of shared governance for instructional improvement: principals' perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration. Caldwell, B. (2000). Scenarios for Leadership and Abandonment in the Transformation of Schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11 (4), p. 475-499. Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in Education. Quality Assurance Education, 5 (1), 22-31 Cheng, Y. C (2003). Quality Assurance in Education: internal, interface, and future. Quality Assurance in Education, 11, (4), 202-213 Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Wichterle Ort, S. (2002). Reinventing High School: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (3), p. 639-673. Day, C., Harris, A., and Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school leadership. International Journal in Education, 4 (1), 39-56 Earley, P. (2003). Leaders or Followers? Governing Bodies and their Role in School Leadership. Educational Management & Administration, 31 (4), 353-365 Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of School Improvement: An Overview. Educational Leadership. Hargreaves, D.H. (1995). School Culture, School Effectiveness and School Improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, University of Cambridge, 6 (1), 23-46 McTaggart, T.J. (1999). Seven Steps to Successful System Governance. Trusteeship, 7 (4), 18-22 Notman, R. (2007). Connecting with the self: How we might assist the personal development of school leaders. ACEL International Conference on New Imagery for Schools and Schooling, 1-12 Robinsons, V. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Acel Monograph, (41) Scott Swail, W. and Williams, A. (2005). School Reform and College Access Success: A Review. Boston, MA: Pathways to College Network, p. 1-20. Shulman, V., Sullivan S., & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11 (4), 407-425 Read More