Small learning communities (SLCs) have been shown to benefit both teachers and students, according to a number of publications. They have contributed to the development of SLCs as a method of school improvement that seems to reduce the achievement gap between students from various ethnic origins while simultaneously raising student achievement. Despite their contributions to our knowledge of the SLC approach’s potential, these papers raise the question of what particular instructional, curricular, and organizational practices result in these intended outcomes. In response, the published research and documentation findings that answer this question are compiled in this paper.
To date, “true believers” and those having a specific viewpoint to present — the benefits of professional academies, for instance — have mostly dominated writing about small learning communities. There hasn’t been much thorough research done on the subject, and while many academics have written about it, they have mostly done so as devout believers rather than as academics. Rather, we have a body of literature that is frequently mislabeled as “the research on small schools and small learning communities.” It is full of arguments and anecdotes, frequently quite compelling, but it lacks a clear structure. Finding SLC practices that have been experimentally related and may be crucial to reaching targeted educational results is its main goal.
Over the past forty years, the phrase used to describe the process of dividing particular high schools into several smaller learning units has changed significantly. This approach was referred to as “houses” and “schools within schools” in the 1960s, “mini schools” and “magnet schools” in the 1970s, “charter schools” in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and most recently, “small learning communities.” The development of terminology is significant because it reflects the shift in perspective regarding the essential components of successful education.
Although incomplete, the preceding phrases place an emphasis on curricular specialization, choice, and modest structure—features that are essential to interesting academic programs. In contrast, the phrase “small learning community“ refers to all of these things as well as others, such as an emphasis on students and learning and, specifically, the dynamic and cooperative character of the work that teachers and students do. Additionally, it reflects the shift to a curriculum, instruction, and collaboration among all community members that are student-centered and highlights the value of autonomy and flexibility in operating within large, inflexible educational bureaucracies. The corpus of knowledge that now serves as the foundation for small learning community (SLC) practice has changed along with the designations for small unit organizations. This intricate system of curriculum, instruction, and school organization now need empirical support and a specification of present practices. What particular techniques are required of educators in order to use the SLC approach?
SLC procedures must be specified on each of the three dimensions of curriculum and teaching, school and district accommodations, and small unit structure due to two fundamental ecological realities about educational organization. Curriculum, instruction, and school organization are interdependent activities that complement one another in order to achieve the intended impact on student learning. The nationwide theme of SLC programs is “small is not enough”. Small size fosters an environment that encourages active and collaborative student work. Small ness, though, is not a goal unto itself. Teachers who are not trained in or knowledgeable about creative teaching methods might not be able to imagine what a small community will look like after it is established. However, creative curricula and teaching methods alone are also insufficient to improve student learning. Common planning time, an interdisciplinary team, and the size of the school community are also crucial, as explained in the following section.
Despite their general knowledge of curriculum and teaching, educators may nonetheless undervalue the significance of the framework in which they operate; consequently, they may exaggerate the degree to which structural changes have been implemented. Scholars consistently discover that the structural components of SLCs are not fully implemented. When an SLC has hundreds of students, provides just a small number of courses, or does not admit a diverse student body, members of multidisciplinary teams either do not share planning time or only teach a few of their classes there. Teachers are unable to reap the benefits of their planned curriculum and instructional enhancements because of these lacking structural components.
To create small learning communities, significant time, energy, and financial expenditures must be made in curriculum and instruction planning as well as professional development. These investments quickly evaporate, instructors grow pessimistic, and the bleak history of school reform that the faculty of practically every high school is familiar with is repeated if important SLC organizational mechanisms are not put in place. Fully implementing curriculum and instructional rearrangement requires that the broader system of which it is a part adapt as well to the new practices.
It is not possible to merely add SLCs to the current school structure. SLCs are constrained in three ways by the wider school operations and structures. First, SLCs frequently face competition from traditional building-level procedures. As a result, SLC employees are unable to participate in student support and decision-making procedures that would optimize their ability to respond to the requirements of students. Second, it is not cost-effective to run both the new and old school organization models at the same time. Flanking SLCs rarely obtain the amount of personnel, supplies, and space they need to operate at their best in an environment with already insufficient resources. This truth may be obscured by grants used to create SLCs, but only until the funds’ expiration. Third, by continuing to exist, practices that are in conflict with or in opposition to SLC practices convey that SLC practices are an exception to better or more general “laws” regulating education.
The continuation of previous practices suggests that SLCs are only an option for specific kids (such as low-achieving pupils, those making the transition to high school, or those in their last years of high school) or that they are only feasible under very specific financial circumstances. The necessity of identifying key SLC practices in the areas of curriculum and instruction, school and district accommodations, and small unit structure is dictated by the linkages between practices on many levels and dimensions of educational organization. It would be detrimental if SLCs seemed to have too many requirements, as some people may view such detailed delineation as overprescription. However, the viability and long-term upkeep of SLCs depend on their complete implementation. The body of research on school reforms over the last few decades clearly indicates that school reorganization attempts fail due to lack of implementation rather than a flaw in the model itself.
Therefore, it’s critical to understand that implementing SLCs entails more than just adding new school activities; it also entails a significant adjustment and a schoolwide reorganization. It is not possible to implement every good SLC practice all at once, or even within a year or two. Similar to democracy, education that benefits all students is an ongoing endeavor to advance practice by expanding and strengthening a very promising strategy. The benefit of thoroughly identifying key SLC practices could be that it provides guidance for future actions, a general path to follow, and means of focusing attention.
The SLC procedures listed in the following section are typical of SLCs and have been shown via study and evidence to have a positive impact on student outcomes. By establishing a connection between a collection of general methods and favorable student results, this body of research contributes to the answer of the question of what makes for optimal SLC practice. The study is limited in its capacity to statistically assess the independent impact of individual behavior on student performance. SLC practices are interrelated, as previously mentioned. Implementing practices in one area of an educational institution depends on implementing others in the same and other areas, and their combined action is probably what has a significant impact. Nevertheless, methodical research and ongoing development initiatives can assist in identifying particular tactics that best implement the general practices that have been identified thus far.
Positive student results are associated with the following SLC organizational practices, according to research and the experience of highly successful learning communities:
– The SLC enrolls only a few hundred students.
There is strong evidence from decades of studies on school size that small high schools are more frequently linked to positive student results than large ones. ue to the fact that students are more likely to attend, participate in school activities, and drop out less frequently, small high schools clearly have higher holding power. Student disruption and violence are lower in small high schools.
Although the results for small schools are more mixed than those for large ones, tiny high schools are likewise linked to higher academic accomplishment than large ones, even if they offer a more limited range of curricular offerings. Small high schools are not only linked to higher accomplishment than large schools, but also to greater equity in achievement, according to recent, accurate study that can separate the impact of size from the impacts of other factors that change with school size. In other words, small high schools tend to lessen the achievement gap that is typically observed among students of particular nationalities.
However, what is the ideal SLC size? This is undoubtedly one of the main concerns when creating SLCs. According to one study, a target size of 600 is suitable for high schools rather than SLCs. However, this finding only applies to institutions that use a traditional curriculum and structure for education. Since it is impossible for teachers to know even the names of more than 500 kids, it also goes against a fundamental tenet of SLCs, which is that everyone in the community knows one another. Schools with 200–400 pupils are recommended as the ideal size by small learning community practice. As few as 100 students attend some of the most prosperous SLCs. Teachers are able to learn about students’ needs and interests and respond to their work on a frequent basis in a personalized manner.
– At least one half-day of the students’ instructional day is covered by the SLC.
Advocates for small schools contend that in order to provide teachers with the level of independence and flexibility they require to respond to children, the entire school day must be planned within their SLC. According to studies on half-day SLCs, students’ academic performance and sense of community are positively impacted. The half-day schedule always includes classes in the four main academic subjects. In contrast to students in all-day units, students in half-day units were evaluated in relation to those in no unit or units structured around just one or two classes. As a result, it is impossible to predict how much more powerful an all-day arrangement may be. Research and practice both demonstrate that students who take two-course blocks, such the language arts/social studies block commonly seen in high schools, record little to no sense of community. Additionally, the impact of SLC classes is lessened when they are divided into half-day equivalent classes for classes outside of the SLC community.
– At least two years of study are included in the SLC.
The four years of secondary school are covered by small learning communities that have achieved national recognition based on the achievements of their pupils. SLCs that span at least two years of study are typical of well-known high school reform models. As students are more likely to learn when new materials build on their past knowledge, the academic program’s cross-grade coherence may be a reason for this achievement. Furthermore, when teachers design academic assignments that are just a little bit above their students’ proficiency level, students are more inclined to study. Teachers in multiyear SLCs can influence students’ subsequent learning experiences by using the information they learn about them in a single year. These effective multiyear SLCs may also foster relationships between younger students and older, more capable peer role models, which has been demonstrated to improve learning.
Small unit organizations limited to the ninth grade, such as those aimed at facilitating kids’ transition to high school, had good but minor benefits on students’ academic achievements. The researchers came to the conclusion that more extensive intervention was necessary. This model includes a distinct transition year unit that is broken into smaller groups and a carefully created curriculum. It combines a ninth-grade success academy with career academies for grades 10 through 12. Under this strategy, ninth graders were promoted at higher rates than prior to the academy’s implementation and passed state exams in some subjects.
Other studies, however, indicate that continuing SLCs for grades 9 through 12 would be more beneficial. Researchers who compared ninth graders in a success academy with those in a similar school divided into SLCs for grades nine through twelve found that ninth graders in the SLCs valued upper-level students for “setting examples” and “showing us around,” while students in the success academy detested being separated from the advanced students. Furthermore, compared to ninth- to twelfth-grade SLCs, where teachers also taught students at other grade levels and took pride in watching their pupils grow into graduating seniors, high teacher turnover rates were a persistent issue in the ninth-grade success school. The shift to advanced SLCs is delayed until students reach the eleventh grade at schools that offer career routes or themed initial 9th–10th grade and advanced 11th–12th grade SLCs. Teachers in these two-year SLCs can still employ upper-grade students as role models and build on their prior understanding of the kids from year to year (rather than having to start over with every new class of students). Additionally, students have more options and exploring opportunities thanks to the two sets of SLCs — initial and advanced.
Students moving up to higher level SLCs of some kind instead of attending conventionally structured schools is essential to the SLC’s success and to increased student achievement. If the upper grades are not reorganized, students and other stakeholders can easily deduce that school administrators do not believe that SLCs are a more effective educational model suitable for advanced students and those with special needs. In these situations, lower-grade SLCs frequently experience incomplete implementation as well.
– Teachers in interdisciplinary teams have students in common.
Even tiny schools that are traditionally structured follow a curriculum-centered approach, allocating teachers and students to certain subject areas. A more student-centered approach to education is created by the SLC, which groups teachers — one from each major subject area — into an interdisciplinary team that shares pupils. Coordination of education and student support across core courses is made possible by these multidisciplinary teams. According to studies on learning and cognitive development, academic programs that are coherent enable students to modify their prior information as needed and incorporate new understandings into their existing knowledge. Students who participate in coherent programs frequently get the chance to practice and apply their knowledge and abilities in novel settings. In order to establish program coherence, cross-grade and cross-class teams are crucial. Compared to typical schools, researchers find that SLCs exhibit more multidisciplinary collaboration and consensus and instructional leadership, including program coordination.
– In the SLC, team members teach more than half of the students.
Teachers in the most effective learning communities teach all or the majority of their classes within their SLC. Teachers risk undervaluing their SLC’s collaborative requirements if they split their time between their SLC and classes outside of it. In addition to teacher preparation, successful SLCs set aside time on a regular basis for curriculum planning, student counseling, and teamwork on practice issues.
Teachers and SLC with only 100 students, dedicate an average of 8.5 hours per week to noninstructional work, which includes one hour for student advising, 2.5 hours every two weeks for curriculum planning, and three hours for staff meetings. In practice, it is challenging for educators to devote this much time to an SLC when it is not their main responsibility. Additionally, scheduling common planning time with SLC team members becomes increasingly challenging the more classes SLC teachers teach outside of their SLCs.
– Planning time is shared by the SLC team.
Collaboration between members of an interdisciplinary team is facilitated by shared planning time. Common planning time is often identified by research as a characteristic of effective teamwork and academic programs associated with favorable student results. This is an almost constant item on short lists of SLC practices required to keep an emphasis on instructional improvements. One late-start or early-release day per week, a block of time during which students leave school to complete community-based service or study, or shared teacher preparation periods during the school day are examples of common planning time among effective SLCs. However, shared planning time does not equate to better instruction and learning. In order to improve program coherence and academic challenge, teams must use this time to prepare curriculum and instruction as well as solve problems.
– SLCs collaborate with community stakeholders and parents.
The SLC concept of teaching and learning is based on the idea that the best learning happens when parents, community partners, teachers, and students get to know one another and are committed to the school’s mission. Teachers in successful SLCs build a wide network of these cooperative relationships. The extensive network of collaboration helps teachers better understand the learning requirements of their pupils as well as how to improve the coherence and genuineness of their educational experiences. Program coherence and improved student accomplishment depend on parents working together to communicate expectations and learning strategies consistently. Teachers can pursue authentic, community-based education by working with community partners. This includes having outside experts examine student work. Teachers’ reflection on practice and ongoing program improvement also heavily depends on the involvement of parents, students, and community partners.
– The SLC has enough building space to establish a foundation for cooperation.
Numerous studies have shown that important SLC functions depend on the interdisciplinary team’s classrooms being physically close to one another. Being physically close to teachers’ classrooms encourages interaction between teachers and students, fosters teacher collaboration, and aids in the development of a distinct identity and sense of community among participants. A single large classroom or a pair of nearby classrooms may be sufficient for small learning communities. But under this structure, student identification with their SLC and teacher collaboration are probably going to suffer. Lack of school-wide commitment to SLCs and the necessity of making difficult changes to maximize their operation may also be reflected in the inability to provide a suitable location. It’s conceivable that other SLC standards will be breached. SLCs that offer a place for team instructors and their students to socialize before and after class, on the other hand, foster a sense of community and make it evident that teachers value their pupils. Students learn that a school can be both educational and personal.
– Student and instructor choice determines entrance to small learning communities.
According to research and SLC practice, a self-selected membership that is dedicated to the organization’s distinct emphasis or mission is crucial to the SLC’s success. A student-centered approach to education is compatible with allowing students to select their own SLC. Even in typical schools, students have the freedom to match their interests with the courses they take, but this freedom is eliminated when random assignment or admissions criteria are used to decide SLC membership. However, program consistency and a sense of community are sacrificed in traditional schools to provide choice in curriculum offerings. If not at the course level, SLCs can offer options at the program level. If they have enough flexibility, they can also offer a wide range of options within the program.
Informing middle school students about high school SLC programs is a top priority when it comes to students’ choice of SLCs. Additionally, student choice pushes educators to create a suite of SLC programs that cater to students’ interests while providing equal opportunity for success and challenges. The benefits of teachers overcoming these obstacles seem to include more knowledgeable and capable pupils as well as strong learning communities where participants can explore their interests with like-minded classmates and teachers.
Researchers compared students who selected an SLC based on curriculum theme with those who were assigned at random in a study of high schools divided into SLCs. In two studies, schools whose SLCs were structured on job interests and curriculum themes, incoming students stated that they chose different SLCs than their best friends and met people they would not have otherwise met. Based on similar learning interests and approaches, students at these schools formed positive identities with SLC teachers and peers. Students in a third study found it difficult to overcome their teachers’ unfavorable opinions about first-year students and to set themselves apart from less serious peers in transition-year units to which they were assigned at random.
– Students from a variety of backgrounds are drawn to small learning communities.
Curriculum and instructional programs that cater to a variety of student demographics are the foundation of successful SLCs. Intentionally or inadvertently, SLC programs may draw in high or poor achievers, which could lead to conflicts within SLCs and the long-term instability of small unit organization. According to the studies discussed in the preceding section, small-unit organizations can draw students based on their common interest in the SLC’s subject and build communities of socially diverse students. However, this effect is not present in all SLC offers. Researchers also contrasted students in schools with SLCs structured around curriculum emphases with students in a fourth school whose SLCs were structured according to different pedagogical philosophies (e.g., cooperative learning) in the study mentioned above. Pupils in pedagogically structured SLCs tended to select an SLC based on the recommendations of their friends and their parents regarding the SLCs’ efficacy and degree of difficulty. These SLCs came to be associated with comparatively homogeneous student populations in terms of gender, social class, ethnicity, and academic goals. Small learning communities built around curriculum themes are not immune to drawing in student populations who are intellectually or socially homogeneous. Schools inside schools, particularly those with scientific and math themes, tended to draw students who performed better than those in the host school’s regular classes. It is crucial that SLC staff members are able to hold all students to high academic standards and provide them an equitable chance at success. Assigning students to SLCs at random does not guarantee equal opportunities and standards, nor does it produce the same level of student engagement and drive as curricular topics.
The following district and school accommodations are linked to more successful SLCs, according to research and documentation of successful SLCs:
– Within an SLC, school administrators have specific responsibilities.
The notion that SLC staff members are better equipped to address the needs of their students than centralized staff members is supported by the assignment of administrators to SLCs. Staff members at SLC are able to make consistent interventions throughout their students’ classrooms, have quicker access, and know their students better. SLC teams free up centralized staff members to assume teaching and instructional leadership responsibilities inside SLCs to the degree that they attend to the needs of their students. Students in SLCs have access to a wider range of academic help and knowledge thanks to administrators’ involvement, which also lowers student-teacher ratios. Their involvement in a given SLC not only strengthens it but also aids in changing conventional school institutions that compete with SLCs for resources and decision-making authority. Even principals play a crucial part in an SLC team in schools that have effectively adopted SLCs on a school-wide level, taking on supervisory and instructional responsibilities in addition to their administrative duties.
– Counseling staff members are assigned to specific SLCs.
In order to collaborate closely with SLC teams in meeting the needs of kids, school counselors are allocated to specific SLCs. Teachers and counselors are more likely to intervene with pupils in a consistent and knowledgeable manner when they do this. Successful SLC staff members engage with students in a variety of capacities and settings, such as instructor, adviser, student admissions coordinator, and so forth. In these settings, counselors assist teachers in planning parent conferences, student advisories, and group projects in the classroom in addition to providing student counseling. They do this by using their individual and group process abilities. In the SLC, counselors who hold a teaching certification may also instruct.
– Remedial experts and special educators have particular SLC tasks.
Assigned to SLCs, teaching specialists — including special education staff members — cooperate closely with teacher teams to plan and execute instruction and provide student support. The conventional educational practice of attending to students’ learning requirements in distinct, specialized contexts outside of regular classes is replaced by the integration of specialists with teaching teams. With their expanded areas of expertise, integrated teams collaborate with inclusive classrooms to offer consistent educational interventions, steer clear of derogatory student labels, and provide special education kids with the same options as regular children. These methods are in line with the objective of meeting students’ needs in the least restrictive setting possible, as well as communal school organization and special education inclusion.
Sadly, special education children have not always been included by SLCs. Although excluding special education students from SLCs would appear to reduce the workload for teachers, it really keeps out special educators who possess the pedagogical know-how required to support content area specialists in broadening their teaching approaches. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that a fundamental to educational efficiency is the application of a variety of instructional methodologies.
– The objectives of the academic departments match those of SLC.
The objectives of academic departments should encourage the multidisciplinary collaboration of SLCs. Instructional leadership must prioritize accommodating multidisciplinary needs and teaching philosophies across the entire school. It is possible for interdisciplinary SLC teams to collaborate with academic discipline-based teams that support other school units. Both accomplish significant goals. Planning according to discipline helps guarantee that multidisciplinary programs are in conformity with content requirements and include crucial discipline-based knowledge and abilities. According to experts in curriculum integration (such as project-based learning), academic fields are not rivals but rather the sources of inspiration for interdisciplinary programs. However, in practice, the presence of both academic discipline-based and SLC-based teams may lead to competition for available planning time and reform priorities. SLC teams typically diverge from the pacing and content of standardized, discipline-based curriculum in their pursuit of creating authentic curricula since they bring together teachers from many academic disciplines who may have diverse pedagogical preferences. Large blocks of planning time are also necessary for the curriculum development work done by SLC teams; however, departmental and school-wide staff meetings must also be included in this period. A key component of SLC implementation is the way instructional leaders handle these disputes, which reflects the school’s dedication to SLC and student-centered practice.
– Staffing levels and class schedules are modified to allow SLC teams to create new creative curricula and instructional initiatives.
To enable SLC teams to execute creative curriculum and instruction programs, schools with successful SLCs adjusted personnel and class scheduling. These programs employ a variety of tactics to increase the amount of instructional time teams spend with students and decrease the number of students that teams teach. With fewer students and more instructional time, teams may better attend to the needs of each individual student and pursue project and community-based learning, which calls for significant time commitments. To prevent cost increases, innovative SLC programs require changes in building-level staffing and class scheduling strategies. These changes include recruiting dual-certified instructors, integrating distinct remedial programs into core subject education, increasing teacher planning time, and minimizing noninstructional time in order to devote more time to teaching. To help organize reading across the curriculum and teach core subjects, staff members in certain schools chose to assign reading specialists to SLC teams and integrate separate reading classes into regular core subject classes. Each of the four core courses now receives additional training each week in place of the smaller reading classes. Team members reduced the number of students they worked with by teaching four classes of students for the same number of instructional times as opposed to five. SLC team members adopting project-based learning were given a project period to teach in place of a sixth class of pupils in a school without federal support. They extended class time in their primary topic to work on projects during the project period. Administrators increased personnel in these areas by reclaiming some staff members’ noninstructional time because each SLC teacher taught one fewer core topic class. One small school’s teachers worked only with 100 pupils in another school that had undergone transformation. To reduce the student-teacher ratio, each staff member teaches and does several tasks.
Another way for instructors to lower the total number of students they teach is by allowing them to teach the same pupils across classes through dual certification, which some American teachers possess.
– To improve student choice and academic challenge across all programs and SLCs, dropout programs and monitored courses have been modified.
In order to make student choice and academic challenge real, sustainable SLC educational techniques, schools that implement SLCs concurrently restructure academic tracks and dropout programs. The SLC finds itself in a vulnerable position if programs and tracks are not modified. SLCs form a de facto track to the degree that they coexist with monitored and dropout programs. For intellectual challenge, parents, instructors, and students turn to higher academic track courses; for remediation and socializing, they turn to dropout programs; and for something in between, they turn to SLCs. In these situations, program selection is influenced more by students past academic performance than by their genuine curricular interests. When programs entail assessments of students’ abilities, it is challenging for both teachers and students to pursue high academic standards. According to research, white middle-class pupils are more frequently linked to high academic tracks than lower-class, ethnic minority students. These social class differences and the shortcomings of remedial programs are replicated by SLCs that function as de facto tracks. As a result, tracked courses and dropout programs need to provide students with options and unique, substantial program offerings.
The practice of ad hoc and flexible student grouping within SLCs is not precluded by the requirement for school-level de-tracking. Within the SLC’s elective offers, a number of SLC models include remedial options.
– The objectives and needs of SLC are in line with the goals of school improvement.
The objectives and methods of a school’s improvement must align with the procedures and areas in need of development of its SLCs. The full and faithful execution of any one promising reform is hampered by a number of other school goals and improvements. A new reform idea frequently arises and fractures previous reform initiatives, progress past the first stage of implementation. Successful student outcomes are more likely to result from school reform initiatives that incorporate consistent, well-thought-out tactics.
– School governance structures include representation from small learning communities.
Fair representation on building-level decision-making bodies is a defining characteristic of successful SLCs. Although representatives of other groups, such as academic disciplines and special education, may be included on governance councils in the schools where these SLCs are located, the percentage of SLC representatives on these councils should be in line with the SLCs’ standing as the main organizational unit.
– SLC needs are met via staff planning and development arrangements made by the district and schools.
A consistent dedication to fostering capacity and agreement among educators, parents, and administrators for putting the fundamental SLC practices into reality should be reflected in the professional development offerings of schools and districts. Professional development is necessary as a tool to establish a cohesive framework for school reform efforts since many school improvement programs often follow distinct paths with shaky connections to teacher practice. In order to implement a cohesive vision of SLC practice, professional development should be created to support instructors in fortifying the links between their initiatives to create more authentic and engaging curricula, enhance student performance standards, and foster community.
Curricular and Instructional practices
Positive student outcomes are linked to the SLC curriculum and instructional strategies listed below:
– The SLC provides a genuine educational program.
A curriculum that has personal value for students and relevance to the world outside of school is a defining characteristic of effective SLCs. To provide students with opportunity to investigate subjects in real-world settings that are not constrained by academic field borders, courses at the very least incorporate interdisciplinary content. Courses are meaningfully connected through interdisciplinary inquiry, professional interests, and curriculum topics. In addition to combining classical studies with multicultural content and students’ personal lives and interests, the courses incorporate college and career preparation. Teachers create courses based on real-world work in collaboration with community partners.
– The curriculum at the SLC is demanding and based on standards.
A key component of all contemporary significant school reform projects, including the small schools/SLC movement, is holding all children to high standards in order to promote educational equity, access to postsecondary education and employment, removing academic tracks and courses that dilute the content, and offering support adequate to allow all students to access the core curriculum.
– Teams of teachers actively work together to develop curricula, teach, and monitor student progress.
The effectiveness of SLCs is influenced by small learning community teams who actively discuss and plan curriculum and instruction changes, troubleshoot student achievement, and spend common preparation time. Regular collaboration seems to be more important for successful SLCs than exceptional individuals. Collegial communication among team members helps to increase the range of perspectives and depth of analysis of the educational issues they encounter. By broadening each member’s teaching repertoire and interacting with new team members, exchanging ideas and evaluating one another’s work facilitates effective professional development.
A sense of shared accountability for the performance of their pupils is also fostered by team members’ participation. Compared to teachers in traditional schools, teams that could coordinate their efforts across disciplines and grade levels felt more effective and dedicated to the continuous learning of their pupils.
– Active, genuine, student-centered work is done, including working with partners in the community.
In effective SLCs, students actively investigate subjects, issues, and queries and generate genuine examples of their understanding. Students at SLC actively participate in the planning and execution of academic assignments. Teachers can use them to find topics to study, research questions, books to read, and ways to show what they know and understand. They express and refine their ideas both individually and collectively through class discussions.
They collaborate with people who have genuine expertise in the topic area being studied both within and outside of classrooms. Project-based learning, which is commonly used by SLC students, calls for them to gather and evaluate data, support their conclusions, and present their findings in-depth both orally and in writing. Research indicates that higher student accomplishment is associated with student work that incorporates this active mode of knowledge acquisition.
– Teams utilize time and space creatively and adaptably to accommodate the needs of every student.
Teachers adapt their lessons to meet the requirements of their students in part by making the most of their allotted instructional time. Students at traditional schools are usually required to repeat classes or take part in separate remedial courses or programs if they are unable to master the curriculum within the allocated period. Teachers can adapt their lessons to the needs of their students according to the SLC structure. To increase pathways to mastery, teams can mix learning activities, group students for specialized instruction within the team, and modify instructional time as necessary. SLC teams create and offer the required assistance. Instead of sending kids to teachers who don’t fully understand them or have the necessary background information to deliver education in a coherent manner, the teams assume responsibility for attending to all of their students’ needs.
– Teachers work with parents and offer guidance and mentoring to pupils.
In order to troubleshoot their academic progress and to further personalize teaching and learning, each teacher in a successful SLC regularly and continuously mentors a small group of students. Advisories meet once a day or once a week, with teacher-to-student ratios varying from 1:25 to 1:10. Teachers speak with students on both academic and personal matters that affect them (such as rules, graduation requirements, or challenges they are facing) and get in touch with parents as necessary.
– Teams work with stakeholders and other important friends to continuously improve their practices.
According to research, instructors must participate in an ongoing, inclusive process of improvement if SLCs are to fulfill their potential. Regular teacher reflection on practice, which includes reviewing student work and gathering feedback from stakeholders, is necessary for ongoing attempts to enhance practice. Additionally, educators in SLCs who exhibit an interest in learning and a spirit of inquiry contribute to the development of a community-wide modus operandi. Students’ replication of such engagement in seeing issues, shortcomings, and potential solutions helps these teachers think of ways to enhance their practice. In order to improve practice, it is also necessary to take into account the opinions of parents, administrators, other educators, and university researchers, whose external viewpoints might extend those of SLC instructors. SLC teachers must provide stakeholders with sufficient information, particularly access to classrooms and student work, in order to engage stakeholders in a meaningful manner. In particular, university partners and stakeholders can assist in creating student data that can be used to objectively evaluate improvements over time.
– Teams establish and work toward professional development objectives that align with the demands of SLC improvement.
To further their mission and particular improvement objectives, small learning community teams find and create professional development opportunities. Although the teams take advantage of both internal and external professional development opportunities, they mostly organize colleague exchanges to improve professional abilities. In any scenario, what sets SLC instructors apart is their own recognition of the specific type of professional development they require. Because of this, SLC teachers are better able to understand how professional development aligns with their plans and goals and how they will apply newly acquired knowledge and abilities than traditional teachers.
Conclusion
As of right now, theory and research have shed light on what makes small learning communities unique and whether or not they actually raise student accomplishment as predicted. However, characteristics and outcomes don’t explain what makes small learning communities fundamental in terms of practical methods that improve students’ learning. What does it mean to give schools characteristics that define SLC, such accountability, teacher support, autonomy, identity, and personalization? This study aims to pinpoint the specific behaviors linked to the beneficial impacts of small learning communities on students. Additionally, it aims to arrange these research-based practices in a way that highlights the interdependencies between them as well as the requirement that SLC curriculum and instruction be isomorphic with SLC structure and school and district-level practices.
Small learning community reforms may become clearer and more intricate as a result of these attempts to define research-based SLC practices. Although it offers more specific direction, giving reforms more specificity could jeopardize practitioners’ spirit of local inventiveness. However, it is crucial to understand that the research-based practices mentioned in this paper are merely abstractions of the particular practice types that are being used in the schools under investigation. Given the school’s distinct advantages, background, and personality, it is conceivable that the peculiarities of local practice contribute to its success. Just as individualized and identity-bestowing methods inside SLCs contribute to students’ achievement, personalization and local identity may be crucial to the implementation and impact of SLC reforms.
Megan Wilson is a teacher, life strategist, successful entrepreneur, inspirational keynote speaker and founder of https://Ebookscheaper.com. Megan champions a radical rethink of our school systems; she calls on educators to teach both intuition and logic to cultivate creativity and create bold thinkers.
