SUSE Home | Stanford Home | SUSE Faculty |

Case Library Home > The Mill Town Case and Small Schools Reform   Case No 2006-11 Title The Mill Town Case and Small Schools Reform Publication Year 2006 Author(s) David Diehl; Daniel McFarland Abstract Text This case describes the conversion of Mill Town High School (MHS), a large urban school in the Northeast, into five small schools. The conversion at MHS can be seen against the backdrop of a large national reform movement advocating the creation of small schools and the conversion of existing large schools into small ones. And like the specific efforts in Mill Town, this larger reform movement is funded significantly by the Bill Gates Foundation which, in the early 2000’s, made small schools the cornerstone of its domestic philanthropic agenda. In Mill Town the decision to create small schools came from two sources: first, the district's poor academic performance and second, the growing influx of Latinos into the traditionally working-class white city, a population the school felt unsure how to serve. The restructuring of MHS into small schools had several stated purposes: to foster stronger relationships between students and teachers; to create a personalized learning environment for all students; and to facilitate professional collaboration and cooperation among teachers. Initial survey and academic data suggested mixed results. Like many other small schools researchers have looked at, the affective and social dimensions of MHS seem to have improved through the reform, while academic outcomes appear to have remained constant. Electronic Copy Available download pdf   Case Reviews Write an online review   3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:   Motivating Teachers For Small School Reform Aug 31, 2008 Will Riley During the planning period of Mill Town High School, the authors reported that "There was a sense among many of the administrators and staff members that CES won because it was the least proscriptive program in terms of what it asked teachers to do, and therefore become the favorite of those least enthusiastic about reform." I was wondering how the CES reform model was less proscriptive than the other school reform models. I also want to know the specific reasons offered by the adminstrators and staff members in favor of CES and against the Paideia model. In general, it seems like a vote for reform will tend to go toward the path of least resistance for those who do not buy into the advantages of the reform. If the administrators and staff did not sufficiently understand how the structural reforms facilitated better teaching methods, then they may not have sufficiently buy into the proposed reforms. Would we have seen more academic improvement in the students if the teachers had a better understanding of school reform model opened up new teaching methods? To answer this, I'd need to know how the various school models constrain and facilitate better teaching methods. If we could make the case to teachers and adminstrators that the organization of the school directly effects effective teaching methods, then I predict the teachers and administrators would be more motivated to implement the reform. Although small school size may not be sufficient for improving academic performance (teachers also need to know how to take advantage of their smaller organizational opportunities), it still may be necessary.   Was this review helpful to you?        View All Cases | Advance Search