High School Reform
As a pivotal American institution, the public high school needs change. Put simply, not enough students graduate high school, and those who do are less and less prepared for the world they face as members of the workforce. Fortunately, legislators, policymakers, teachers, and advocates have united in an effort to reform this struggling institution.
The Problem: Dropout Rates, Achievement Gap, and Shortcomings in Workforce Readiness
According to Jay Greene at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the overall high school graduation rate in 2002 was 71%. More alarming, however, are the disparities behind that percentage. Where 78% of white students graduated with a regular diploma, the number was only 56% for African-American students, and 52% for Hispanic students.
Also compounding these disheartening percentages is the fact that they have “remained flat over the last decade.” High school students went from graduating at 72% in 1991 to 71% in 2002. With such stagnantly low rates of completion, the only good news is that, according to the same study, the percentage of students graduating high school “with both a diploma and the qualifications to attend a four-year college has improved from 25% in 1991 to 34% for the class of 2002” [1].
Even granting this increase in college readiness, the proportion of students who are not prepared for college upon graduation is still an overwhelming majority (66% of graduates according to Greene). According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress—a highly respected test administered throughout all public districts—the national average for 8th to 12th grade improvement in reading and math from 1998-2002 and 1996-2000, respectively, was 25 and 31 points [2]. For reading that is roughly two and a half years worth of improvement and for math roughly three years. Making sense of this preparation gap, the American Diploma Project, a 2001 Achieve, Inc. research initiative designed “to restore value to the diploma,” reported that in 2004, 28% of college freshmen needed remedial courses in English and math before they were able to begin regular coursework, and, even with this refresher, “fewer than half [of all high school graduates] leave with a degree” [3] Clearly, public high schools are not preparing enough students for college—but what about the workforce?
A 2005 study conducted for Achieve, Inc. revealed that 39% of high school graduates say “there are gaps in their preparation for what is expected of them in their current job” [4]. Employer assessments also placed 39% of recent high school graduates below the level of preparation for entry-level jobs [5]. A problem must exist if well over a third of the students and employers polled in a representative study expressed dissatisfaction.
Working Toward a Solution: Themes of the Reform Movement
A principle issue in addressing these problems has been, quite simply, the size of public high schools. According to Kathleen Vail in her article “Remaking High School,” schools have traditionally sought a comprehensive, stratified approach relying on three tracks—college-bound, general, and vocational. The result, especially for those students “not taking college-prep classes” she claims, is that “many students feel anonymous,” and “size prevents teachers from getting to know their students well” [6] Personal attention is barely possible for any student within this system and, even worse, those outside of the college-bound curriculum have no motivation to take challenging classes.
Relationships
Due to this almost universal charge against large high schools, a mantra of personalization has evolved throughout the reform movement. At the federal level, grants totaling just over $835 million have been awarded to local educational agencies since 2000 under the “Smaller Learning Communities” initiative as outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This competitive grant system has aimed at breaking up large, comprehensive high schools of 1,000 students or more into smaller, more personalized communities of no more than 600 students. Grantees have pursued personalization strategies such as creating schools within schools, career academies, restructuring the school day, instituting personal adult advocates, and developing teacher advisory systems. As far and away the most significant push from the federal level, this initiative hopes to place students in closer contact with more enlightened and responsive teachers.
Rigor
In another area, the reform movement has taken direct aim at improving the intensity of a high school education. According to Learning Point Associates (2005), “increasing the level of rigor for all high school students will promote the attainment of higher level skills” and allow “students to compete effectively in the information economy of the 21st century”[7]. In line with the higher achievement standards and accountability priorities under the NCLB, the Department of Education has partnered with state agencies to set up a limited, but inspirational “State Scholars Initiative.” Fourteen states have currently implemented this system which outlines more rigorous curricula, provides mentoring support, and creates alliances with business and postsecondary organizations to support universal enrolment in and completion of more demanding coursework.
As a collaborative between national and state leaders this program is representative of a general push toward closing the minority/non-minority student achievement gap. Where the achievement gap is not explicitly outlined in the language of the “State Scholars Initiative,” it is a natural target of any effort to help all students through more rigorous coursework. The San Jose Unified School District stands as one shining example at the district level. By applying college-ready requirements to all students, this program has doubled its number of Hispanic students enrolling in Advanced Placement classes while keeping its graduation rate steady. This dramatic turnaround was made possible through “intensive staff development,” which provided teachers with “broad repertoire[s] of instructional strategies.” The district also created extensive safety nets for students such as “Saturday academies, tutorials…and afterschool and summer extension classes.” Reforms were made possible through a national program sponsored by the College Board called Equity 2000 which provided professional development and program implementation. Districts ultimately had to cover costs, but this effort, nonetheless, represents a standard to which personalization should aspire [8].
Relevance
In addition to more rigorous courses, high school reform has also identified a need for preparation relevant to workforce demands. Narrowing in on the state policy level, The American Diploma Project proposed a two-tiered plan to improve both the relevance and the rigor of public high school curricula: “first, state policy-makers need to anchor high school graduation requirements and assessments to the standards of the real-world…in return, colleges and employers need to start honoring and rewarding student achievement on state standards-based assessments by using these performance data in their admissions, placement, and hiring practices”[9]. This is a specific, but representative solution to a broad problem—linking education to “real world” success. Federal efforts have echoed this cry for relevance, taking such forms as “America’s Career Resource Network,” and the “College and Career Transitions Initiative.” Both funded under the Office of Vocational and Adult Education and spurred by NCLB priorities, these programs help connect students to career pathways and secondary education dual degree opportunities while also providing resources and training to teachers and administrators.
More Promising Initiatives and Practices
At the broad state policy level, the National Governor’s Association has launched a “Redesigning the American High School” initiative. As part of an expansive vision, this proposal has been coupled with “An Action Agenda for Improving America's High Schools” and “Getting it Done: Ten Steps to a State Action Agenda.” This $26.3 million initiative has been generously supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and will continue to be carried out in two phases of grants awarded to 27 “Honor States” carrying out research-driven reforms
High school reform efforts have also produced a number of promising individual reform models throughout all policy and implementation levels. The Southern Regional Education Board’s “High Schools That Work (HSTW)” model currently operates as one of the oldest and largest of these programs. Launched in 1987, implemented at 1,200 sites in 32 states, and continuing to take on new dimensions, this model captures many of the themes permeating the reform movement. It combines a “rigorous academic core” with either “a career/technical concentration” or an “academic concentration” to ensure that students take challenging and relevant classes. HSTW also “create[s] supportive relationships” through the creation of individual “teacher advisers.” The advisers work to help “parents and students…set goals… [and] take the right courses”[10]. Determined efforts like HSTW comprise the ground-level backbone of the high school reform movement.
Another exemplary model is John’s Hopkins University’s “The Talent Development High School Model.” Employed in 33 high schools in 12 states, this program focuses on five primary elements: “small learning communities…curricula leading to advanced English and mathematics coursework, academic extra-help sessions, staff professional development strategies, and parent-and-community-involvement”[11] Much like HSTW, this model focuses on the three main themes of high school reform—relationships, rigor, and relevance. Other models that have been effective are First Things First, America’s Choice, and Career Academies.
By allowing students to earn both a high school diploma and two years of college credit toward a bachelor’s degree, the Early College High School Initiative (spearheaded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) takes a more dramatic approach to restructuring high school curricula. The goal of the initiative is to establish 170 new small schools by 2008 dedicated to making “higher education more accessible, affordable and attractive by bridging the divide between high school and college.” Using small, personalized environments, the initiative will create more positive incentives for students by placing teacher support and a postsecondary degree closer at hand.
Lastly, several major foundations have made significant commitments to high school reform that are bearing important lessons. The Carnegie Corporation of New York’s Schools for a New Society, is supporting district wide reform and community engagement; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has focused on the creation of more personalized learning environments for youth; and the KnowledgeWorks Foundation has supported the Ohio High School Transformation Initiative to help large comprehensive high schools move toward smaller learning communities.
Resources
Smaller Learning Communities
http://www.ed.gov/programs/slcp/index.html
State Scholars Initiative
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hs/factsh/ssi.html
http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/
America’s Career Resource Network
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/acrn.html
http://www.acrnetwork.org/
College and Career Transitions Initiative
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hs/factsh/ccti.html
http://www.league.org/league/projects/ccti/index.html
National Governor’s Association—Honor States
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.4096192acba1c8899cdcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=8521f68ff8f87010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
Southern Regional Education Board—High Schools That Work
http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/hstwindex.asp
The Talent Development High School Model
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/tdhs/
Ohio High School Transformation Initiative
http://www.ohea.org/publicEducation/learners/improving/HSTransformationInitiative.aspx
First Things First
http://www.irre.org/ftf/
America’s Choice
http://www.ncee.org/acsd/index.jsp?setProtocol=true
Career Academies
http://www.mdrc.org/project_29_1.html
The Early College High School Initiative
http://www.earlycolleges.org/
Carnegie Corporation of New York’s Schools for a New Society
http://www.carnegie.org/sns/index.html
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Education/TransformingHighSchools/default.htm
KnowledgeWorks Foundation
http://www.kwfdn.org/
National High School Alliance
http://www.hsalliance.org/
The Educational Alliance at Brown University
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/topics/reform.shtml#itemDSC1134a
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory—Comprehensive School Reform
http://www.ncrel.org/csri/
OVAE High School Reform Programs
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hs/ovgrants.html
NCLB Overview
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/edpicks.jhtml?src=ln
National Conference of State Legislatures
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/HSReform.htm
Education Policy Information Clearinghouse
http://www.eplc.org/clearinghouse_highschool.html
[1] Greene, J.P., & Winters M.A. (2005, February ), p. 1.
[2] National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1996, 1998, 2000, 2002). 1998, 2002 Reading Assessment; 1996, 2000 Math Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Center for Education Statistics
[3] The American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma that Counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., p.3
[4] Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies. (2005). Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work? Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. p. 3
[6] Vail, Kathleen. (2004). Remaking High School. National School Board Journal, Volume 191, No. 11, Retrieved February 7, 2006, from <http://www.asbj.com/2004/11/1104coverstory.html>
[7] North Central Regional Education Laboratory. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Strategies to Improve High Schools. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, Inc. p. 7
[8] Murray, Linda. (2004). The San Jose Unified School District Story: Implementing a College-Ready Curriculum for All. Profiles in Leadership: Innovative Approaches to Transforming the American High School, p. 91
[9] The American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma
that Counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., p.3-4
[10] Southern Regional Education Board. (2005). High Schools That Work: An Enhanced Design to Get All Students to Standards. Atlanta, GA, p. 2
[11] Kemple, James J., Herlihy, Corinne M. (2004). The Talent Development High School Model: Context, Components, and Initial Impacts on Ninth-Grade Students’ Engagement and Performance. New York, NY: MRDC, p. 3, Retrieved February 7, 2006 from <http://www.mdrc.org/publications/388/overview.html>
This American Youth Policy issue brief was written by Charles Stayton.
The American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), a nonprofit, nonpartisan professional development organization based in Washington, DC, provides learning opportunities for policy leaders, practitioners, and researchers working on youth and education issues at the national, state, and local levels.
AYPF events and publications are made possible by a consortium of philanthropic foundations: Carnegie Corporation of New York, Ford Motor Company Fund, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GE Foundation, William T. Grant Foundation, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Lumina Foundation for Education, Charles S. Mott Foundation, and others.