smaller schools aren't better schools

On the heels of Ryan's series on diplomas comes this analysis of Oregon's small high school experiment. Backed by the Gates Foundation, districts created 400-student academies, hoping the smaller schools would cut dropout rates and prepare more youngsters for college.

Didn't happen.

In Hillsboro, Ore., Liberty High broke into small schools four years ago, but its dropout rate remains the highest in a district with three other traditional high schools. Despite progress in getting more students to take college-prep courses, three in five Liberty graduates fall short of entry standards for the University of Oregon — the district's definition of college-ready.

Twyla Baggarley, who graduated from Liberty this month, passed Advanced Placement calculus as a junior but worries that she might not be primed for college after a lackluster senior year. Tired of teachers who taught straight from the textbook, she chose to take just one full-year core course, AP English, and padded her schedule with photography and two periods of PE.

She and other students say administrators seemed so caught up in tinkering with the small schools' structure that they didn't pay enough attention to the quality of teaching.

It's the program's a-ha moment, but for me, it's a no-duh moment. Smaller schools, or, for that matter, smaller classes, make zero difference if the pedagogical model stays the same. Canned, derivative, disengaging teaching and curriculum will be as ineffective in a school of 400 as they are in a school of 4,000.

At least the foundation is learning from failure:

This fall, Gates probably will switch the focus of its grants for fixing high schools to target teaching and raise teacher quality, says Vicki Phillips, who directs Gates' education initiatives.

Repeat after me: there is no single panacea for education.

Oregon's standards: up to standard?

While we're debating Washington Learns' recommendations here in the Evergreen State, our Beaver State friends have similar issues on the table.

With the state Department of Education swamped with more than 100 e-mails a day on the topic, the Board of Education announced this week that it would push back the final vote on the proposal until mid-January.

The state has beefed up the number of credits students need to graduate. Legislators boosted the English and math credits to four and three, respectively, in 2005.

Chairman Jerry Berger said the board seems to be leaning toward requiring students to take higher-level math classes rather than letting pre-algebra courses count toward a diploma.

The new proposal also would boost the science requirement from two credits to three, including two years of laboratory science.

Good in some ways--all students deserve a challenging education--but I fear for electives and vocational programs, which are already at risk because of increased emphasis on standardized testing. I'm not yet convinced that all students need advanced study in science and math, as interesting as those subjects are to me, and as economically useful as a degree in either can be. Aren't there better incentives, college- or market-wise, that would draw in more students to Science and Its Language? Or is there a good argument to be made that all students should take Calculus and Physics?