# data[].attributes.body
In the article or news story, Smaller Learning Communities That Actually Learned, published in Sage Journals on May 1st, 2005  by Jonathan Supovitz, he claims that smaller learning communities are more useful to students and help them learn more. Supovitz does this by gathering evidence to support their idea.Ultimately, they are suggesting to readers to be encouraged to go into smaller learning communities for a higher chance of education.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article or news story New Small Learning Communities: Findings from Recent Literature., published or reported in  Educational Research and Improvement by Kathleen Cotton, she claims that smaller learning communities enhance students education and help them improve. Cotton does this by using interviews to prove that. Ultimately, they are encouraging readers to be motivated into looking into smaller learning communities for students .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Educational Improvement , Elementary Secondary Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERIC - New Small Learning Communities: Findings from Recent Literature., 2001-Dec

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This document presents research findings about the results well-run small schools produce. It begins by giving definitions of the various types of small schools and smaller learning communities, such as focus or

# data[].attributes.body
In the article or news story US department of Education, published or reported in Office of Academic Improvement  by Terry Salingar, he or argues that most students aren’t prepared for school so they use smaller learning communities to help improve their education. Salingar  does this by using  pathos Ultimately, they are suggesting the reader to question on how much of lack of educations students get from just regular public schools as compared to smaller learning communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
educational environment; high schools; school restructuring; school size; academic standards; discretionary grants; educational improvement; educational innovation; elementary secondary education;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Archived: Resources -- Smaller Learning Communities Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page contains links to publications, research, reports, related sites, technical assistance, events notices, or presentations for the Smaller Learning Communities Program.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “The value of smaller learning communities” published in Education week on May 1st, 2015 by Larry Ferlazo, he argues that this is a great opportunity  for teachers to help students learn better. Ferlazo  does this by using pathos.  Ultimately, they are suggesting the readers encouraging to use smaller learning communities to work better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Education Week - Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week's question is:
What are 'Small Learning Communities' (dividing large campuses into special interest small schools) and how do they work?
Having worked for the past ten years in a school that is divided into "Small Learning Communities," I can't imagine teaching in any other kind of environment. I'll leave it to Ted Appel, the extraordinary principal of our school, to explain how it works in today's first response. Educators ReLeah Cossett, PJ Caposey and Tom Hoerr also contribute their commentaries today sharing different perspectives on what a "small learning community" might look like. Plus, you can listen to a ten-minute conversation I had with Ted and ReLeah on this topic at my BAM! Radio Show.

I've collected additional materials at The Best Resources For Learning About Small Learning Communities.
Response From Ted Appel
Ted Appel is the principal of Luther Burbank High School in Sacramento, California:
In 2001, the Sacramento City Unified School district launched an initiative for high school reform. The initiative. which was supported by a grant from the Carnegie Foundation, resulted in Luther Burbank High School reorganizing its 2000 students and approximately 100 teachers from a centrally organized and administrated program into eight small learning communities. Each small learning community consists approximately 250 students who take all their core classes (English, Math, Social Science and some science) with teachers assigned to the small learning community. Each SLC has a dedicated counselor assigned to it. There is a career path theme to each small learning community such as Law and Social Justice or Health and Medical Sciences. Electives are aligned to the career path theme. The most fundamental aspect of the small learning community is the opportunity for teachers to believe they have an opportunity to have an impact on the success of the students in their community and the belief that their actions make a significant contribution to the community. In my view, the most significant motivator you can give a teacher is the opportunity to make a difference. Because teachers work collaboratively with other teachers and counselors , and because they can engage with their students beyond one period a day for one semester or year, they believe their ongoing work can have that impact. They establish relationships that reflect a concern for their students beyond the short period of time the student may be in their class. This, in turn, changes the way the students think about their teachers. Additionally, SLCs provide teachers with more varied opportunities to lead and be part of the school community. Each small learning community creates an assortment of roles and responsibilities for teachers. These include facilitation of SLC meetings, chairing a career day or awards celebration and monitoring parent contacts. Giving teachers roles and responsibilities for the betterment of their community connects teachers to the overall community success. Finally, small learning communities make teachers and students less anonymous. In a large school some teachers and many students believe they can exist unnoticed. For both, this can mean feeling like you can get away with doing less than your best. It is much more difficult to pass unnoticed when you collaborate with colleagues on regular basis and each student knows that each teacher knows all of their other teachers. This breakdown of anonymity is the first step toward accountability.
Response From ReLeah Cossett
ReLeah Cossett Lent is an educational consultant, speaker, and author of numerous articles and books, including Literacy Learning Communities, Overcoming Textbook Fatigue, and, most recently, Common Core CPR:
Small learning communities can effectively change the impersonal nature of large schools, but their success depends upon the unique population of students as well as the interests and expertise of the faculty. Many schools seeking the advantages of "schools within schools"--lower drop-out rates, higher achievement, reduced isolationism (for teachers as well as students), and a surge in engagement-- create academy-type programs related to particular themes such as technology, law, music, international studies or fine arts. Though academy students must accrue appropriate credits, the coursework is more closely related to the theme of the academy, and often courses are multi-year, allowing participants to delve more deeply into topics than they might in traditional classes. The process for applying to such programs may be a learning experience in itself. Students sometimes undergo a rigorous interview along with the presentation of a portfolio that includes sample work, letters of application, and teacher recommendations. The smaller community concept is at the heart of many well known "school within school" programs, for example the International Baccalaureate program which targets high-achieving students and provides an international context for learning. Similarly, STEM programs offer an academic focus, specifically on science, technology, engineering and math. Ninth-grade academies are popular all across the nation and are sometimes physically removed from the rest of the high school population. The most successful learning communities have their own budget, faculty, administrators, and governance, making it a true school within a school. Strong support networks and personalized attention are generally hallmarks of any smaller community, components of learning that are especially important if there is little support at home. Students often develop lasting relationships not only with other students, but with teachers and community partners. In one school, for example, the local bar association created a law library at the school and offered internships during the summer for students in the law academy. If project-based, interdisciplinary learning is a component of study, as it often is, students have increased opportunities to apply what they've learned and prepare for college and career in authentic ways. Teachers seem to flourish in smaller communities as well since they often are free to try new approaches and work more closely with their colleagues in planning curriculum and sharing tasks. As might be expected, there seem to be few downsides to this "smaller" approach to learning, one that values individuals, relationships, autonomy, and shared interests.

Response From Tom Hoerr

Thomas R. Hoerr has been the head of New City School in St. Louis, Missouri, since 1981. Tom founded, directed, and taught in the Washington University Nonprofit Management Program. He is the author of Fostering Grit: How do I prepare my students for the real world? (ASCD, 2013), The Art of School Leadership (ASCD, 2005), and Becoming a Multiple Intelligences School(ASCD, 2000):
We learn best under the same conditions as do our students. We learn best when the content is developmentally appropriate, relevant, and engaging. And we flourish when we are part of a smaller group so that we can be part of a team, learning with and from one another. That last phrase, "learning with and from one another," is Roland Barth's definition of "collegiality" (from his book, Improving Schools from Within). As a school leader, a major task of mine is to create a culture where collegiality is the norm so that our teachers are learners and their students will benefit. Small learning communities increase the likelihood that collegiality will develop and flourish. Particularly in a large school, it can be difficult to create a feeling of team and a pattern of teamwork among faculty members, and it is hard to develop a sense of trust among everyone. Small work groups, though, more readily become learning communities in which the members get to know, rely upon, and trust one another. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos uses the "two pizza rule" for limiting the size of his work teams: If two pizzas aren't enough for a meal, the group is too large. By dividing a faculty into learning groups, we not only gain benefits in collegiality and teamwork, we are also able to simultaneously pursue several thrusts on student achievement. One group could look at how to differentiate instruction, another might investigate how to incorporate non-cognitive skills into the curriculum, and still another at what teachers and principals can do to foster grit, for example. By narrowing the focus for each of these learning communities, they are more likely to succeed in understanding the issue, becoming knowledgeable about needs and resources, and in developing strategies. Depending upon the length of time that these communities operate, periodic reports and updates should take place so that everyone understands what's happening in each group. It's important that the work of smaller learning communities be coordinated so that their efforts are in sync and synergy can occur. Ultimately, the learning communities share their findings and recommendations with the school's administration and the larger faculty. A small learning community might last for a semester, an entire year, or it might work with a shorter time frame. Regardless, we should be sure that the members are engaged and that their efforts are meaningful.
Response From PJ Caposey
PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator specializing in school culture and evaluation. He is Superintendent of the Meridian (Illinois) School District and a member of the ASCD Emerging Leader class of 2013:
Small Learning Communities can work!! They can serve students wonderfully, increase student achievement, and according to some studies increase student achievement and even enrollment in to post-secondary institutions. Large learning communities can work!! They can serve students wonderfully and increase student achievement. In fact, according to US News and World Report, the top non-selective enrollment school in my home state of Illinois serves 4,031 students. So, what gives?? The Gates Foundation champions the success of the Small Learning Community model with more influence by the than any other institution and is often met with critique and opposition. The Gates Foundation in and of itself is polarizing, and this subject too attracts its share of critics, including educational superpower Diane Ravitch. This debate has proven two things - there is plenty of research to support either the 'in favor' or the 'opposed' perspective and the other qualities the Gates Foundation has deemed essential for a school to be high performing are pretty dead on. It is difficult to argue that schools should not have a common purpose, high expectations, use technology as a learning tool, focus on performance, allow time for collaboration, and have a personalized focus for each student. So - minimally, everyone should be able to agree on some of the core beliefs behind the Small Learning Community movement. I too have my personal bias - seeing that I have spent the last 6 years of my life serving Districts that house high schools of 600 students or fewer. Do I think small schools and small learning communities potentially provide an experience a large, traditional school cannot - absolutely. I also believe that in the small learning community the following things are what really make the difference - not the enrollment number of the school:

People - The quality of a school cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. I am not the first to say it, but there is nothing that could possibly make me believe in that statement more. As a school leader, give me great teachers and we can do great things - period.

Purpose - Leadership provides direction and vision. A school without a clear focus and/or too many foci will not achieve great results. The ability to set out upon a course and stay true without deviation (even when new, shiny initiatives present) is what makes schools great.

Personalization - Anybody who does not believe that socio-emotional issues impact learning at a nearly unquantifiable rate at the secondary levels simply has not taught in one. The personalization of an education is not just about the things that manifest in to test scores - it is about serving the whole child.

Resources - Functioning well as a small learning community takes appropriate resources. Being small, poor, and unable to provide the resources necessary to serve kids appropriately solves no problems. The bottom line is that there are haves and have-nots in education - too frequently the have-nots are the schools serving kids who need the most resources.

Thanks to Ted, ReLeah, PJ and Tom for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] .When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it's selected or if you'd prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo.

Anyone whose question is selected for weekly column can choose one free book from a number of education publishers.

Just a reminder -- you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email or RSS Reader... And,if you missed any of the highlights from the first three years of blog, you can see a categorized list below. You won't see posts from school year in those compilations, but you can review those new ones by clicking on the monthly archives link on this blog's sidebar:
Classroom Management Advice Student Motivation Implementing The Common Core Teaching Reading and Writing Parent Engagement In Schools Teaching Social Studies Best Ways To Begin & End The School Year Teaching English Language Learners Using Tech In The Classroom Education Policy Issues Teacher & Administrator Leadership Instructional Strategies Assessment Teaching Math & Science Brain-Based Learning School Relationships Author Interviews Professional Development
Education Week has published a collection of posts from blog -- along with new material -- in an ebook form. It's titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching.

Watch for the next "question-of-the-week" in a few days...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Response: The Value of 'Small Learning Communities'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week's question is: What are 'Small Learning Communities' (dividing large campuses into special interest small schools) and how do they work? Having worked for the past ten years in a school that is divided into "Small Learning Communities," I can't imagine teaching in any other kind of environment.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article or news story, “What research says about smaller learning communities”, published or reported in Educational Leadership Reshaping High Schools  by Jane L. David  he argues that small learning communities result in desired outcomes, such as increased attendance, decreased dropout rates, more personalization, higher test scores, and more teacher collaboration. Davi  does this by using logos to gather real information from smaller learning communities compared to regular public school and comparing the results. Ultimately, they are motivating other students that this really helps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
May 2008 | Volume 65 | Number 8
Reshaping High Schools Pages 84-85

Jane L. David

Alarmed by high failure rates and primed by large foundation investments, urban districts from Los Angeles to New York City are breaking up low-performing high schools into small learning communities.

What's the Idea?

Statistics on dropouts, failure rates, and low student achievement all underscore the dismal condition of most large urban high schools. For students, such schools commonly offer impersonal environments and irrelevant, watered-down courses. Advocates for small learning communities argue that these problems cannot be solved without fundamentally restructuring the schools.

Drawing on the history of small alternative schools and schools within schools that have succeeded in creating more nurturing environments for students and their teachers, the notion of breaking large high schools into smaller units has found favor as a way to increase personalization, relevance and rigor of coursework, and teacher collaboration.

Although some small learning communities are newly created small schools, most result from converting large high schools into several subdivisions, which might be identified by a theme or become autonomous schools with their own administration and budget.

What's the Reality?

Under pressure from No Child Left Behind to "restructure" low-performing schools, urban districts find themselves with limited options. With the added incentive of substantial funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a growing number of districts are breaking up large low-performing high schools into small learning communities.

In most districts, schools can choose how they will reorganize themselves. Some turn to models developed by external consultants; others create their own designs. Either way, the territory is largely uncharted, and no particular strategy has demonstrated a proven track record on a large scale.

Converting large high schools to small learning communities is a mammoth undertaking: What is the curriculum? What happens to the orchestra? The football team? How are students matched to learning communities? Which community gets the calculus teacher? These decisions require lengthy preparation to engage teachers, students, and the community in thoughtful discussions. District pressure to move quickly can, and usually does, undermine the effort.

What's the Research?

Researchers have looked across a range of high schools of different sizes and asked whether size is associated with achievement and dropout rates. These studies produce mixed results. For example, Lee and Smith (1997) analyzed data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) and found that schools with 600-900 students and those with 900-1,200 students show slightly higher gains in reading and math achievement than either smaller or larger high schools. They caution that schools can be too small, limiting curricular options for students. On the other hand, using the same national database, Rumberger and Palardy (2005) found that achievement gains averaged across four subjects were slightly higher in larger schools (more than 1,200 students). However, these larger schools all had higher dropout and transfer rates.

Recent studies ask whether purposely created small learning communities result in desired outcomes, such as increased attendance, decreased dropout rates, more personalization, higher test scores, and more teacher collaboration.

A national study commissioned by the Gates Foundation (Evan et al., 2006) looked at 50 schools, including both new schools and redesigned or conversion schools. Researchers found more positive climates in the new smaller schools, including more personalized relationships for students and collegiality among teachers, compared with traditional comprehensive high schools. Redesigned schools also moved in this direction, but more slowly. Each type of school had its own drawbacks: The newly formed schools strained teacher capacity, leading to teacher burnout; one-half of the redesigned schools had lower attendance than traditional high schools.

The study team also compared samples of student work from the small schools with samples from traditional high schools. In the new high schools (but not the redesigned ones), the team found some evidence of work that was more rigorous and more relevant to the real world in English, but not in mathematics. The authors concluded that successful small learning communities rarely result from breaking up large high schools.

The Chicago High School Redesign Initiative, begun in 2001, launched the conversion of five large high schools into small autonomous schools. Evaluators found a more personal and supportive climate for both students and teachers in the small learning communities, but no evidence that this climate produced changes in instruction or in student achievement test scores. The researchers did find some evidence of reduced dropout rates (Kahne, Sporte, & de la Toree, 2006). Quint (2006) synthesized findings across a series of studies of three high school redesign efforts and reached the same conclusion: Although such reforms may improve school climate, the change in climate is not reflected in achievement gains.

These studies converge in finding that small learning communities can create more positive relationships among students and among teachers, more often in new schools than in redesigned large schools. Although no studies find higher achievement test scores in redesigned high schools, one study suggests a plausible connection between increases in personalization and student success. Allensworth and Easton (2007) conclude that a strong relationship with the teacher and a perception that the course is relevant results in higher student attendance and that 9th grade attendance and course grades are powerful predictors of high school graduation.

What's One to Do?

For both teachers and students, creating a more personalized climate is a valuable end in itself and can certainly set the stage for changes in instruction. But expecting achievement to improve in the short term as a result of reorganizing students and teachers is unrealistic.

For small learning communities to influence learning, plans for improving what takes place in the classroom must be as explicit as plans for changing the school's structure. What's missing in current efforts is a substantial investment in teachers-for example, providing opportunities to learn what it means to teach in a rigorous manner and how to achieve relevance by changing the nature of curriculum and instruction.

The planning and birth of small learning communities ask teachers to take on many new roles, which can leave them less time for professional learning. Moreover, fewer colleagues who teach the same courses are now part of their immediate community. Without a focus and investment in teaching and learning, structural changes can actually inhibit teachers' motivation and ability to improve their instruction.

References

Allensworth, E. M., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago public high schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

Evan, A., Huberman, M., Means, B., Mitchell, K., Shear, L., Shkolnik, J., Smerdon, B., et al. (2006). Evaluation of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's High School Grants Initiative: 2001-2005 Final Report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and SRI International.

Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S., & de la Torre, M. (2006). Small schools on a larger scale: The first three years of the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205-227.

Quint, J. (2006). Meeting five challenges of high school reform: Lessons from research on three reform models. New York: MDRC.

Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer rates as alternative indicators of high school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 3-42.

Jane L. David is Director of the Bay Area Research Group, Palo Alto, California; jld@bayarearesearch.org. She is the author, with Larry Cuban, of Cutting Through the Hype: A Taxpayer's Guide to School Reform (Education Week Press, 2006).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Small Learning Communities - Educational Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
May 2008 | Volume 65 | Number 8 Reshaping High Schools Pages 84-85 Jane L. David Alarmed by high failure rates and primed by large foundation investments, urban districts from Los Angeles to New York City are breaking up low-performing high schools into small learning communities.