Oakland Small Schools Veteran
Shares Battle Scars with
Los Angeles Stakeholders

“The transformation of large comprehensive high schools is probably the civil rights issue of our time,” says Steve Jubb, president and founder of the Bay Area Coalition of Essential Skills (BayCES).

Mr. Jubb is no idle commentator; he is the man to whom Oakland schools turned when they needed to make a major change in their district. In Oakland, Mr. Jubb and his team took two of California’s three worst performing high schools and transformed them into vibrant small schools. His experience is invaluable not just for the successes but also for the pitfalls and “unintended consequences” that he readily shares with SLC practitioners.

Today, 50 percent of high school students in the Oakland district are in small schools.  Jubb expects to increase that rate to two-thirds by 2007. He says that Oakland took these considerable steps because quality education is a critical predictor of economic empowerment, and the most significant academic outcomes for urban students today are seen in the transformation from large high school institutions to small learning communities.

At the end of September, Mr. Jubb came down to Los Angeles at the behest of Local District 4. They asked him to share his experience and battle scars at a round table forum on small school learning communities.

The district invited board member staff, district and teacher representatives, and other key stakeholders to join Steve at the forum, hosted by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.  The next day, Mr. Jubb spoke to the LAUSD Board of Education during their discussion of a motion and policy on small learning communities - be sure to read the related article in this month’s newsletter!

Jubb is a tall man with graying hair and an experienced, easy way about him. When he talks about the challenges a mid-implementation small school faces, he gets intent on his message: Do not be afraid - this is without a doubt the right strategy to take - but do not rush blindly into the future. We must be prepared.

“Fundamentally, small schools need to be able to control their means of success,” Jubb said.  This is a critical part of his message, whether or not you accept his distinction between SLCs and small schools.

“The term small learning communities is used very loosely to cover all efforts at personalization, but there is a critical mass – structural, instructional, personal elements and more – that is required to have a true small school,” he says.

Jubb advocates defining small schools as having:

• A unique school code (identification number) within the district
• A principal or school administrator with leadership authority over the entire small school
• Complete budgetary autonomy
• And significant curricular, structural and scheduling autonomy

This is a topic highly debated across the country. While Jubb makes a hard and fast distinction between SLCs and small schools, others believe there is a broader underlying spectrum.  Victoria Bergsegal, president of Architects for Achievement, suggests a continuum, at <http://www.archachieve.org/Thinking2/Continuum.html>. Clearly there are benefits to both ways of thinking.
 

Jubb’s Implementation Tips

“It’s vital that the interplay between urgency and thoughtfulness be taken into account when creating your implementation plan,” Jubb said at the Chamber of Commerce meeting.  As much as Los Angeles schools may need to be transformed into small schools and SLCs, stakeholders must not speed the process along too quickly. At the same time, the process cannot become paralyzed seeking agreement on the details.  It is also important that the district office align their processes and policies to support the SLC plan.

“The lack of a detailed plan for the district [in Oakland] caused a lot of heartache.  You need a well-developed implementation plan… think through the unintended effects.”

“But don’t be afraid of change,” Jubb said.  His ideal, robust implementation plan is one that allows for a “cyclical process” of assessment and change as it branches out several years into the process.

For example, somewhat into the implementation at Fremont High School, “we faced groups that had self-segregated, because we hadn’t built anything into the system to protect against that. We had to decide to restart that process… which was daunting, but necessary.”  Change is an inherent part of small schools and SLCs, not only at the beginning, but as part and parcel of their existence. Learn to accept change, anticipate it, and work with it on your own terms.

Another lesson learned the hard way, Jubb said, was how important it is to “work out things like curricular autonomy in advance,” he says. “It’s tough, because not all teachers if given autonomy in the classroom will do the right thing, which is why you need to have a process to monitor outcomes.”

Creating effective safeguards for equity can be very complicated, Jubb admitted, but developing the best possible “choice policy” for parents and students is important.  His team spent a lot of time on this, taking into account a wide range of factors.  Eventually, he said, they had to write their own software to help balance the choice alternatives.

Leadership development is also key within Jubb’s model.  The Oakland district built up a wide network of CBOs very organically, from ACORN to faith-based groups.

Jubb’s Assessment Tips

When it comes time to assess the progress of your small schools and SLCs, be wary of standardized test scores.  “In current school models, often the most challenged students drop out by the latter portion of a normal school year, which means they don’t take the statewide tests. You need to anticipate that a successful small school or SLC will increase the number of students retained - and that students who wouldn’t normally be around to take those tests will still be there.”

If assessment planning has anticipated this dilemma correctly, depressed scores can become a possible indication of success rather than failure.

First and foremost, anticipate the effects of increased student retention, not only on test scores but also in other areas, including an increased demand on facilities. Secondly, it may be wise for Los Angeles schools to analyze test data in a way that establishes how retention impacts standardized test scores.  Use this information to develop a plan that will as nearly as possible assess the SLC’s impact on student achievement.

At both meetings, Jubb acknowledged that the work required by small schools and SLCs is hard, but it has tremendous value to the students currently mired in large, comprehensive high schools.  Jubb urged his listeners, “Don’t avoid it because you’re scared.  This is the right thing to do; it must be done.”

In approaching their work in Oakland, BayCES ran its own analysis of economies of scale. They established that schools with 300 to 500 students can be run income-neutral, at a level equivalent to large schools – which neatly dovetails with the LAUSD Board of Education’s recent decisions.

"I thought Jubb provided a heartfelt perspective from a teacher turned political organizer,” said one audience member several weeks after Jubb’s visit. “He was able to speak to each detail of implementation very frankly. After sitting in on the conversation with Jubb, I really understood the magnitude of the task in front of us and I really felt that change in L.A. was inevitable. Given the resulting Board motion regarding SLCs, I think the organizers of the event – Edmundo Rodriguez, Cris Gutierrez and David Rattray – should be commended for bringing such a knowledgeable voice to share his experiences with us."

Jubb’s observations provide an excellent reflecting pool for Los Angeles schools to use when making plans for mid-level implementation of SLCs.  LAUSD can “go to school” on Oakland, studying schools that are in their second, third, fourth year of implementation.  In fact, BayCES will be hosting a special Fall Forum in San Francisco November 11-13, emphasizing “Equitable Schools for a New Democracy.”