Today, the New York Times featured this article on "failing" Jamaica High. Given Ds two years in a row and boasting a graduation rate of 50%, the school is slated to shut down after it's last class of freshman has graduated (or not). The school will then be "shut down" and filled with four smaller schools - a concept that is heavily supported by Mayor Bloomberg.
Here in Baltimore, the same idea has been applied. Many of the mega-schools of the past have been "shut down" and filled with two or more new schools. The high school formerly known as Northern High School was shut down and replaced with W.E.B. Du Bois High School, Reginald Lewis High School and the Samuel Banks High School. After looking this history up one article stated that this school transformation happened in order to, "make high schools smaller to help increase the student teacher ratio, increase parental involvement and improve student safety." This is just one of the many examples of school "replacement" found across the city. And not only are these schools replaced with several smaller schools, these new schools often have "alternative focuses" such as technology, trades, or the arts.
But is this strategy really working? Does closing down a large, "failing" high school and replacing it with several smaller, "themed" high schools within one building the best way to help failing schools? Instead of working with what is there (and shown by the NYTimes article), partially working, it seems that the "best" move is to simply close a school and give it a new name (or several) and attach some sort of career-based theme. However, are we really seeing results? Are these new, smaller, "arts" and "technology" schools really producing better educational experiences "for the kids?" Or is it just an expensive attempt at rebranding? This article, as well as the current situation in Baltimore City, makes me curious about whether or not it is worthwhile to go through all of these expensive changes in order to create smaller schools. Instead, I wonder about completely revamping an existing large high school in order to increase retention, enrollment, and educational results. Are many more smaller schools really the way to successful school reform?
1 comment:
I completely agree with your post, although I would have said otherwise before reading it..
Smaller is better is what most people think, but statics don't always show this. I like your point about how if smaller schools are not really making a difference, it's a big waste of money. By creating all these small high schools, we're also creating smaller opportunities for students. Why not put that money into making these larger schools great? Why are they failing in the first place?
We have a lot of questions but no real answers just a bunch of quick fix solutions. I don't believe smaller high schools are the solution given what we have seen in Baltimore thus far. They are still failing, there is still a high drop out rate and now the spending has doubled. Find the source of the problem, then you'll find the solution.
Post a Comment