# data[].attributes.body
In the article " small learning communities; benefits and planning" published by Rebecca Molineaux she identifies all the benefits for students and teachers in small community learning. Molineaux does this by stating th pros and cons of both regular and small learning community classes. Ultimately she does this by  listing all the positive sides on converting to small community learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 5 Small learning communities ; benefits and planning

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 5 Small learning communities ; benefits and planning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Small Learning Communities: Benefits and Planning Consideration - Education Week

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Informed Educator examines the use of small learning communities to address the disadvantages of large, comprehensive schools in a cost-effective manner. The different types of small learning communities are described, and the research on both small schools and small learning communities is discussed.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "what is a small learning community published by Abby Oiler she explains what rexactly a small learning community is and how it works. Oiler does this by exaplifying the success in previous small learning communities. Ultimately they are informing the readers that if done right, small learning communities can be very effective.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 4 What is a small learning community?

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 4 What is a small learning community?

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "small learning Communities" published by Robert Balfanz he  points out how you can impliment small learning communities  and make it work. Balfanz does this by researching students and how they perform in regular classes and why the results were low. Ultimately, they are letting the readers know that small learning communities are a unique new method of learning.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article  "The smaller learning Communities" published by Lise Foran she states that small learning communities have the same curiculum and same understanding of learniing just in a different enviroment. Foran does this by demonstarting the achievements and growth some schools have gotten by switching to small community learning. Ultimately, they are informing readers that small learning communties are a afficient way of learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 2 AACPS Smaller learning Communities

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 2 AACPS Smaller learning Communities

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Educational leadership"  published by Iane  L. David he points how small learning communities benefit kids in numerous ways. David doess this by  stating all the statistics in dropouts, and failure rates in regular classes. Ultimately, they are informing readers that small learning communities are new and improved way of learning.

# 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.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Do small learning communities work in big schools?
2. What are the benefits of small learning  communities?
3. How many teachers are there in small learning communities?
4 Do small learning communities make teaching easier for teachers