A recent article discusses how the image of high schools often differs from their culture and the effectiveness of student learning. This article reminded me of the high school change publication I wrote 20 years ago. Looking back, many of those recommendations are still valuable today. I recall a particular piece where I talked about the need for all high schools to change. High schools have many meaningful traditions and resist changing the status quuo.
Based on my observations of hundreds of different schools, I proposed six different types of high schools. This list is a good reflection tool for high school leaders to look hard at where their school is and what needs to change. You can access a longer paper on how different schools should approach the change process. The following is a list and description of how I would differentiate schools that need to embrace change.
Fresh Start describes high schools that are new comprehensive schools, a new charter high school, or a recent conversion to small learning communities. These schools have a fresh start unbound by traditions.
Movie Set describes high schools that have an excellent image and tradition. They meet all state accountability measures. However, their public image is better than their true performance. They look good superficially, but behind the public façade, these high schools are not serving many students well.
Good to Great are high schools with many good achievements and want to move to the next level. These schools have difficulty getting everyone to commit to change.
Slippery Slope describes high schools with a history of good performance, but their environments and/or communities are changing rapidly. They may be experiencing demographic shifts or changes in funding. Without some turnaround, they are on the downward slide toward poor performance.
Excellent Education Except describes high schools that have “excellent education, except” — except they don’t meet achievement for many one or more subgroups. These schools are good by traditional measures, but the standards and subgroup performance has identified weaknesses.
Not for My Children describes schools for which there is unanimous agreement that they have significant problems, such as student underperformance, high attrition rates, poor attendance,
low graduation rates, and often poor student behavior.