Introduction D EFINITION: "revolutionize, v.t. . . . 3. To change completely." This is the story of some promising developments which could conceivably revolutionize the instructional programs of our small rural high schools. Some of these developments are so new that they are in the experimental stage; others are quite old and of demonstrated soundness but have simply never "caught on." Many of these developments have significant implications for our secondary schools of all sizes in all locations, and some of them, where appropriately modified, have significance for other educational institutions serving other age levels. All of these developments are at this moment being tried experimentally in some public high school. Indisputable conclusions as to the success or failure of such developments may not be known for several years; in fact, evaluative criteria are admittedly not yet firmly established, while control groups have been too often lacking; but the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that there are many developments here of promise both to the future experimenter and the present practitioner in our schools. We have known for some time beyond any reasonable doubt that we will continue to have for many years several thousand small high schools enrolling several million of our young people annually. Furthermore, we have evidence that far too often the young people in such schools unfortunately have not received a comparable education to that of their peers in larger schools. How can their education be improved? There is no single answer to this question, but most suggested answers relate to the need for further school district reorganization. Excellent progress has been made in this regard, but we still have over 35,000 operating school districts in our 50 States. The realignment and combining of these districts depend on the local voting citizens, and it is a responsibility that must be met. Are the current systematic movements to improve small high schools in opposition to the school district reorganization movement? The answer is an unqualified no. They are simply designed to offer assistance now to all small high schools and to offer future assistance to the high schools which will remain relatively small before or after reorganization plans are effected. Dr. Elbie Gann, Assistant Commissioner for the Colorado State Department of Education, has coined a phrase which aptly describes the schools under consideration. He refers to them as the "necessarily existent" small high schools which should be improved because of their smallness-not in spite of it. Dr. Gann and all others concerned with this problem recognize that the school district reorganization movement has eliminated, fortunately, thousands of "unnecessarily existent" small school districts, and it will continue to combine many more of them into larger operating units. However, many high schools will remain small after all possible reorganization has been effected, while others will exist for an indefinite period prior to reorganization. These schools need and deserve help. It is impossible to define precisely the "small high school." Nevertheless, the attempt must be made with the understanding that a "gray" area exists here between the large and the small. There is general consensus among the experts that any high school, regardless of its organization, which enrolls fewer than 200 pupils is small. It would usually enroll fewer than 40 in the senior class. The factor of relative geographical isolation, however, is a vital one in this respect and must also be given proper consideration. Within this context a suburban school enrolling 190 might not be as "small" as an isolated school enrolling 250 in a relatively remote region of our Nation. We use the figure 200 merely because it is safe to say that all high schools below this figure are certainly quite small and that most of them are in dire need of assistance. It must, of course, be noted that many schools enrolling somewhat more than 200 may be considered "too small" by some, but our concern here is with the small, relatively isolated high school, and this is our delimitation. The latest available statistics for 1958-59 indicate there were 8,084 small schools (as we have delimited the term) and that they had enrolled in them 1,650,000 pupils. It is a matter of conjecture how much these figures will be reduced in the next 10 years, but there is considerable doubt that the reduction will be a truly significant one. In any event the current figures are rather formidable ones when it is recognized that these represent 42 percent of all our 19,191 high schools (excluding junior high schools) and 20 percent of the 81⁄4 million young people enrolled in our high schools. Here, then, is the story of the first modifications to have been brought about in recent years which involve broad experimentations designed to improve the instructional programs of small high schools. With minor exceptions such experiments are concerned wholly with administrative techniques the means for making possible the end result of more effective learning. What is to be learned-or course content is the supreme challenge yet to be met. Perhaps this study can contribute directly to identification of improved means and indirectly to a successful meeting of the challenge ahead. Extensive references are made throughout this study to the Catskill Area Project in Small School Design (CAP) and the Rocky Mountain Area Project for Small High Schools (RMAP). These two projects have much in common and constitute the broadest and most intensive series of organized experiments designed to improve small high schools that we have ever known. Both projects are composed of many cooperating school districts which began their fourth and final experimental school year of operations in September 1960. The organizational structure and operational plan of the projects differ considerably, but each project has received major financial support from the Ford Foundation's Fund for the Advancement of Education. For detailed information beyond that presented in this study contact: Ralph G. Bohrson, Director RMAP State Department of Education and James J. Sampson, Coordinator 215 Home Economics Building 578830 0-61—2 Promising Experimentation A S WE ENTER the decade of the sixties carrying with us the same unsolved educational problems of too many students, too few teachers, inadequate facilities, and a pressing need for curricular revision, our educators are aware as never before that there is no panacea button waiting to be pushed-no single remedy waiting to be found which will solve any one or any group of these most vexing problems. The surest gains in the direction of eventual solutions will come about only through sound research and through experimental testing, in school settings, of promising hypotheses. The results of such experiments currently and in the years ahead need wider immediate publicity than they have received in the past. This seems particularly important for our small high schools so often located in relatively isolated, rural settings. There, the typical educational problems mentioned above, with the exception of "too many students” are more acute than in urban communities. The problems affecting rural schools are interlocked, and improvement in any one area will assist in solving problems in the other areas. Technological Communications The advance of technological developments and their accompanying experimental applications to education need to be watched closely by those leaders responsible for improving our small high schools. It is in such schools that the acute shortage of teachers and the sharp limitation on possible course offerings in the curriculum defy direct solution. Indirectly, the educational implications of advancements in technological communications offer much promise. Specifically, the promise rests in the area of stored knowledge. |