Evidence continues to mount that smaller high schools get better results than larger ones. In small settings, children—particularly those who were underperforming—learn more, behave better, and are less likely to drop out.1 Harlem’s Central Park East—a freestanding school with upward of 300 students in grades 7 through 12—graduates over 90 percent of its students, mostly from poor homes, and sends almost all of them on to four-year colleges. Experiments with small-school environments in Boston, Chicago, and other cities show similar results.
Small schools appear to work not because classes are smaller but because teachers get to know students as individuals and take an ongoing interest in their success. Unfortunately, high schools in the largest US cities tend to have enrollments in the thousands. Yet the huge school buildings most such cities have inherited can be subdivided into small learning communities, which help students in much the same way that small freestanding schools do. These smaller units can retain the advantages of size by sharing specialized elective courses, extracurricular activities, and athletic programs with other small learning communities.
Physically reconfiguring schools is only the beginning. Small-school programs require their creators to rethink the way schools are organized and governed....