Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities: A Case Study of Mountlake Terrace High School

Full text

Converting a Comprehensive High School
Into Small Learning Communities:
A Case Study of Mountlake Terrace High School
by
Catherine A. Wallach
2002
The Small Schools Project
University of Washington
Center on Reinventing Public Education
http://www.smallschoolsproject.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………. 1
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. 4
The Case for Small Schools ………………………………………………………………… 6
School Background ………………………………………………………………………….. 9
Research on School Change ………………………………………………………………… 14
A Timeline of Reform: The First Two Years of Terrace’s Conversion Process ………… 21
Key Lessons Learned From the Conversion Process……………………………………… 33
Part I: Process
How can the administrative team share decision-making power and plan for leadership
changes? …………………………………………………………………………………… 34
Timeline ……………………………………………………………………………….…. 36
Small Learning Community Selection Process ……………………………………….…. 37
Conversion Facilitation ……………………………………………………………….…. 38
How can the existing teaching staff be equitably allocated among the new SLCs? ………. 40
How should the school phase in SLCs, over time or all at once? …………………………. 42
How can the school avoid segregating the student body by race, gender, skill and
socioeconomic level in creating SLCs? ……………………………………………………. 42
How can the school use the grant money most effectively? ………………………………. 44
Part II: Relationships
How can the Steering Team build staff buy-in and adequately address concerns? ………... 45
How can the leadership maintain faculty support when the process turns in unpredicted
directions? ………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
How can the Steering Team build buy-in among parents and students? …………………... 51
How can the school generate the necessary district-level support? ……………………….. 55
Additional Space ………………………………………………………………………… 57
Transportation ……………………………………………………………………………. 57
On the Horizon …………………………………………………………………………….. 58
Professional Development …………………………………………………………….…. 58
Leadership …………………………………………………………………………….…. 58
Implementing Sustainable Small Learning Communities …………………………….…. 59
Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………………………………………….. 61
Decentralized Control ……………………………………………………………………….. 61
Engaged School Community ………………………………………………………………... 62
Professional Development …………………………………………………………………... 64
Alternate Design Processes …………………………………………………………………. 64
Applying the Lessons Learned ……………………………………………………………... 66
References …………………………………………………………………………………… 69

Appendices
Appendix 1: Interview Protocol and Questions ………………………………………………. 70
Appendix 2: SLC Definitions ………………………………………………………………… 71
Appendix 3: Tuning Protocol ………………………………………………………………… 72
Appendix 4: Focus Group Rubric …………………………………………………………….. 73
Appendix 5: Expert Panel Rubric …………………………………………………………….. 75
Appendix 6: Conversion Timeline …………………………………………………………… 77
Appendix 7: Conversion Facilitator Job Description ………………………………………… 78
Appendix 8: Teacher Selection Criteria ……………………………………………………… 79
Appendix 9: Conversion Options …………………………………………………………….. 80
Appendix 10: Things Held in Common ……………………………………………………… 81

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To capture the benefits of small schools, a growing number of large traditional high schools are
breaking into smaller units. Mountlake Terrace in Edmonds, Washington is one example of a
comprehensive high school converting into several autonomous small schools, which will exist
within the same building. This paper is a case study of the initial stages of Mountlake Terrace’s
change process and reflects a work in progress.
Small schools research shows that youth in schools designed to serve 400 students or fewer have
higher academic achievement, better attendance and graduation rates, more extracurricular
involvement, and a better sense of belonging. But few examples exist of successful school
conversions. As with other comprehensive school reforms, the conversion process is extremely
complex. In order to provide a model for future school conversions, this paper recounts the first
two years of Mountlake Terrace’s change process, examines how the staff dealt with its most
difficult aspects, and provides general recommendations to schools, districts and funders
supporting conversions.
Lessons Learned from the Conversion Process
Mountlake Terrace’s conversion process raised difficult questions about changes in leadership,
the equitable distribution of staff and students among the new small learning communities and the
use of school resources. The need to build buy-in and support among the staff, parents, students
and district office posed more challenges. The most salient features of successful school change
are reflected in the following lessons about decentralized control, a multi-level approach that
engages the entire school community, and professional development that focuses on desired
student outcomes.
Decentralized Control
• School leaders must foster a trusting environment for change through shared decision-making
and by encouraging people to share their concerns.
• Teacher leaders and administrative leaders must exercise the authority they have been given
and remain steadfast when others express doubt.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
2
Engaged School Community
• School leaders must engage parents and students in the change process early and in
meaningful ways. Encourage them to advocate for small learning communities on behalf of
the school.
• School leaders must educate their district office about small schools as they educate
themselves, in order to create a shared vision for success.
Professional Development
• School leaders must improve staff sophistication about small schools through site visits,
workshops, research review, and design development.
• The change process must balance between focusing on the student-centered goals of
conversion and the logistical tools for achieving it.
• Small school designs must incorporate supporting evidence, evaluation and accountability
components.
Recommendations for Schools, District & Funders
Mountlake Terrace’s experience provides example and insight into the process of enacting
comprehensive change. Lessons highlighted in this case study are echoed by the research on
school change. They can be applied to schools embarking on a conversion as well as the districts
that house them and the funders who support them.
Complex comprehensive reform requires a deliberate and thoughtful process. School leaders
should:
• Begin by looking at student data, demonstrating the need for change and developing a shared
vision for success.
• Dedicate one full-time staff member to coordinate the complex conversion effort, including
directing communication and organizing long-term planning.
• Create shared leadership, where teachers and managers engage in shared decision-making
and risk taking.
• Be supportive, engaged and knowledgeable about small schools.
• Allow people to feel safe about sharing their concerns.
• Support the conversion with professional development.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
3
Schools can not achieve this kind of comprehensive change independent of their district. District
leaders should:
• Talk to other districts attempting a similar reform.
• Support schools in the same way that school leaders support their communities, by being
engaged and knowledgeable about the school’s conversion process.
• Promote school autonomy by sharing the authority for traditionally district level decisions
and union negotiations.
Terrace had already established much of the critical conversation about teaching and learning that
must take place before a school can embark on this kind of change, and it is still a difficult
process. To better prepare future grantees, funders should:
• Require a joint application between a school and its district in order to promote shared buy-in
and accountability for the conversion effort.
• Require a plan for improvement that delineates problems, plans to address them, and ways to
measure progress.
• Re-consider the funding formula to reflect the costs associated with school change rather than
the size of the student body.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
4
INTRODUCTION
There is a growing trend in school reform toward creating small schools. The change is about
more than size; reformers hope to create safer, more personalized schools that promote the
academic success of all students. For practical reasons, many of the next generation of small
schools will not be freestanding. Instead, several autonomous small learning communities, born
of a traditional large high school, will exist within the same building. Mountlake Terrace High
School is one school that has taken on this transformation challenge. In a four-year change
process, this traditional comprehensive high school is breaking itself down into several
autonomous, small learning communities. The purpose of this paper is to examine how they did
it, what about the process worked and what might have been done better. Hopefully, one school’s
experience will provide lessons and guidance to the many schools that will follow.
Administrators and teachers engaged in this type of school conversion want models. While there
is considerable research to support the idea of small schools, there are few examples of large high
schools having converted into several small schools – while school was still in session. Further,
most research is based on freestanding small schools, not those sharing the same traditional large
school space or those which were born from one comprehensive school. Mountlake Terrace High
School can serve as one such model.
Methodology
This paper was written at the end of year two in a four-year change process at Mountlake Terrace
High School. A Department of Education planning grant funded the first year, while the ensuing
conversion process was funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Even as
the paper was completed, new decisions were being made at the school. Therefore, this account of
a high school conversion process describes a work in progress.
My understanding of the change process at Mountlake Terrace High School comes from five
months of interviews, focus groups and observed Steering Team meetings. While I only caught a
glimpse of a much longer reform effort, I benefited from the institutional memory of teachers and
administrators who have been at the school for many years. The school also developed an
excellent web site with a timeline and materials to support their reform work.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
5
I spoke with members of all levels of the school community, including teachers, administrators,
students, parents and the district liaison. I met individually with teachers representing various
points of view along the continuum of support for school change, however one teacher did
decline the offer to speak with me. I obtained special insight and help from the Gates grant
coordinator, a former parent volunteer whose two children attended Mountlake Terrace High
School. Because she was not a teacher, nor a school administrator, she provided a unique
perspective and supplied many artifacts of the change process. I observed focus groups with
randomly selected students who critiqued the small school proposals and spoke with students who
were somewhat more familiar with the conversion process.
The six parents I interviewed by telephone were not representative of the whole population.
Rather, they were familiar with the school change process, having gone to parent meetings and
school-led focus groups. The Steering Team met every other week; I observed their meeting
process as well as which topics came up for discussion and debate. I interviewed many of the
Steering Team members, which consisted of seven teachers, including one union representative,
the Principal and two Assistant Principals. For interview questions and protocol see appendix 1.
I chose to focus this case study on Mountlake Terrace High School for several reasons. First, the
school is farther along in the process of breaking into small learning communities (in terms of
number of years invested) than any other Gates grantees. Second, the administration and the
school faculty are creating a success. The process is moving along better than might be
reasonably expected and they are open to sharing their achievements as well as their challenges.
Lastly, while urban schools are often recognized as inadequately serving their students, suburban
schools can hide behind a more homogeneous student population to claim uniform success.
Mountlake Terrace High School is confronting its own data and making changes to ensure an
excellent education for all students.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
6
THE CASE FOR SMALL SCHOOLS
Though researchers expound the virtues of small schools, reversing the long-standing trend in
school consolidation has been a slow process. In the latter half of the 20th century, the total
number of grade schools in the United States declined sixty-nine percent despite a seventy-
percent increase in the population. Consequently, the average school enrollment rose more than
five times – from 127 to 653. The average high school has more than doubled in size, from 321
in 1959 to 777 in 1998 (Gregory, 2000). The trend toward school consolidation stemmed from the
theory that in order to be cost effective and to offer a comprehensive curriculum, a secondary
school must have a least one hundred students in its graduating class, though that number has
grown considerably over the years. In his 1959 book, The American High School Today, James
Conant claimed that the small high school was the number-one problem in education and that its
elimination should be a top priority. Unfortunately, this belief has carried through to today, even
when research has repeatedly found small schools to be superior to large schools on most
measures and equal to them on the rest (Cotton, 1996).
There is some debate about what small means. Most researchers consider high schools serving
between 400 and 800 students to be small (Cotton, 1996). Tom Gregory (1992) warns that once a
school reaches 500 students it will still try to function as a big school, through centralized
governance and an impersonal educational approach. With this predictable failure in mind, the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations’ small schools initiatives consider the ideal school size to be
400 students or fewer.
Student achievement in schools this size is at least equal – and often superior – to student
achievement in larger schools (Cotton, 1996). The academic measures used in this research
include grades, test scores, honor roll membership, subject-area achievement and assessment of
higher-order thinking skills.
An important distinction to make is between schools that are small by design, and those that are
small by default. The research evidence discussed by Kathleen Cotton (1996) supports schools
that are purposefully small and utilize strategies that take advantage of their size. Schools
struggling in the aftermath of a student exodus are not likely to see these results. These schools,
which are small by default, still try to function as big schools. With a routine of textbook-
dominated classes, traditional governance structures and impersonalization, they retain the factory

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
7
model (Gregory, 2000). (A helpful analogy is the difference between small classes that are
under-subscribed because of a teacher’s poor reputation versus those with capped enrollment.)
Studies show that students in small schools take more responsibility for their own learning and
that instructional strategies associated with higher student performance are commonly employed.
Team teaching, integrated curriculum, multiage grouping, cooperative learning and performance
assessments are more often implemented in small schools. Students’ learning activities can be
individualized, experiential and relevant to the world outside of school. Classes are generally
smaller and scheduling is much more flexible (Cotton, 1996).
Small schools focus on specific education goals, while large schools offer a full menu of options.
Though large schools can offer a broader range of classes, researchers find that it takes a
disproportionate increase in school size to add a little variety to curriculum: on the average, a 100
percent increase in enrollment yields only a seventeen percent increase in variety of offerings.
Studies also show that the majority of students in large schools never take advantage of this added
variety. It is quite possible for small schools to offer a curriculum that compares favorably with
those offered in larger settings, in terms of its breadth and depth (Cotton, 1996).
Attendance rates are higher in small schools and behavior problems are fewer. Students who
transfer from large schools generally exhibit improvements in their attendance and, in terms of
dropout rates, small schools exhibit considerably more holding power than large schools (Cotton,
1996). Many researchers have found behavior problems to be so much greater in large schools
that any redeeming qualities of larger size are canceled out by the challenges of maintaining an
orderly learning environment. Their studies conclude that small schools have far fewer incidents
of social disruption in terms of classroom disorder, vandalism, aggressive behavior, theft,
substance abuse and gang participation (Cotton, 1996).
In small schools, everyone’s participation is needed to complete teams, offices and clubs.
Therefore, students in small schools are more likely to join extracurricular activities and to hold
important positions in the activities in which they are involved. This kind of participation often
leads to a sense of belonging, strong leadership skills and higher rates of parent involvement.
Some may argue that larger schools present even more extracurricular activities. Though
technically this is true, a twenty-fold increase in school population leads to only a five-fold
increase in opportunities to participate. Thus in large schools, a greater proportion of students are
left out (Cotton, 1996).

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
8
Compared to larger schools, students in small schools experience a much greater sense of
belonging and a higher quality of interpersonal relationships. This includes social bonding to
teachers and school, improved self-esteem, and better personal and academic self-concepts.
Small schools which are organized as communities of caring also promote better teacher
perceptions of school administration, higher staff morale and a stronger sense of personal efficacy
(Lee, 2000).
Considering the typical constraints of school budgets, it is unrealistic to suggest that districts
build a number of new, small high schools. Rather, as Smith and Lee (1996) conclude, a reform
initiative should aim to create “smaller administrative and instructional units” such as several
autonomous small schools within a school, sharing the same large building. Because they are
simpler and smaller high school organizations, these learning communities can be more
supportive and attentive to student learning.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recognizes the benefits of small schools and has
committed over $250 million to help create smaller, personalized learning environments that help
all students achieve nationwide. Ideally, schools created through this initiative will have no more
than 400 students. For many high schools, this will mean transforming from their current size into
several small learning communities housed within the same building. Mountlake Terrace was the
first individual high school to receive a Gates grant, partly because of its commitment to
dismantling itself over the next few years into an “educational multiplex” (Shaw, 2001).
Mountlake Terrace received the grant in the spring of 2001, though the change process actually
began one year earlier, with funding from an U.S. Department of Education Smaller Learning
Communities grant.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
9
SCHOOL BACKGROUND
Mountlake Terrace High School is located in Edmonds, Washington. In many respects, it is a
typical suburban high school. While it prepares some students for future success, the statistics
show that there are many it does not. In spite of a plethora of academic and extracurricular
activities, the school does not adequately serve the needs of all students.
Edmonds is a residential suburb located approximately twenty miles north of Seattle. The district
has a history of supporting school levies for special programs and operations, and spent $72.25
million in school construction bonds over the past three years. To the west is the Puget Sound,
with a small historic area and ferry service to nearby islands. The main north/south highway,
Interstate 5, cuts through Edmonds creating a division between the more expensive waterfront
homes and the lower income residential areas. Until the 1990’s, which marked the beginning of
reform efforts at the school, Mountlake Terrace had a reputation as the school to avoid.
A Menu of Options
Mountlake Terrace (referred to simply as Terrace) is one of four comprehensive high schools in
the Edmonds school district. Terrace occupies a modern building, with amenities such as
television and radio broadcast studios and a recently renovated greenhouse. Like most large
suburban high schools, Terrace offers a menu of academic options, consisting of approximately
232 course offerings taken in trimesters, 9th-12th grade. In addition to the traditional core
academics and five foreign languages, sample course offerings include calligraphy, interior
design, history of Rock ‘n’ Roll and robotic vehicles. Nine classes are available for English as a
Second Language.
Terrace offers a full sports program and twenty-two clubs, including an award winning student
newspaper. The music department, a point of school pride, offers seventeen different classes and
an array of club activities, including two jazz bands, a marching band, a wind ensemble, a
chamber orchestra and a symphonic orchestra. In spite of the wide array of opportunities, only
thirty-nine percent of students are involved in one of these activities. Furthermore, the level of
participation drops with each year of school, so that thirty-five percent fewer seniors are engaged
in these activities than are freshman.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
10
Size is an Issue
Students are assigned to schools in Edmonds based on boundaries drawn by the district.
Currently, Terrace has the largest high school population and is oversubscribed at 1,849 students.
In spite of its position on the poorer side of the highway, Terrace’s student body closely
resembles the district as a whole in terms of ethnic make-up. The percentage of students
qualifying for free or reduced price lunch is slightly less than the district as a whole, but is
surpassed by only one other high school in the district, which is also located on the east side of
Interstate 5. School administrators contend that the portion of Terrace’s low-income students is
actually higher, but students are too embarrassed to apply for the subsidized lunch program when
they get to high school.
School Demographic Information 2000-2001
Ethnicity
Mountlake Terrace High
Edmonds School District
Asian or Pacific Islander
14.1%
12.4%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
1.5%
1.8%
African American
3.0%
4.2%
Hispanic
4.5%
5.4%
Caucasian
76.8%
76.2%
Free or Reduced Lunch
14.6%
20.2%
As reported by the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Terrace is suffering from the effects of being too large and impersonal. To accommodate such a
large student population, Terrace has two different start times and three lunch periods. No adult in
the school knows all of the students and the 105 members of the teaching staff are not even
familiar with each other. As Seattle Times columnist Linda Shaw reported, “every day, Assistant
Principal Steven Gering gets a list of students who’ve left the school, and he often recognizes
none of their names.”
In addition to size, certain school characteristics challenge good teaching and learning. In a
trimester system, a student can take as many as eighteen different classes with eighteen different
teachers each year, never really being known by any one of them. The effects are evident:
Terrace’s current four-year retention rate is sixty-five percent. In other words, thirty-five percent
of the incoming freshman from 1996 dropped out of school by the spring of 2000. Long-term data
reveal that Terrace’s cohort graduation rate shrinks as the size of the freshman class grows larger.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
11
As reported by Mountlake Terrace High School.
Terrace’s scores on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) were lower than
the district tenth-grade average in 2000-2001. Although the school’s scores have improved over
the past three years, only 60.2 percent of students passed the reading portion of the exam, 38.5
percent passed the math, and 48.6 percent passed the writing. According to this measure, less than
half of the sophomore class is working at a grade appropriate level.
10th Grade WASL Trend
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
School
District
State
School
District
State
School
District
State
Reading
43.0
50.7
51.4
48.2
54
59.8
60.2
68.8
62.4
Math
38.1
34.1
33
37.2
37.2
35
38.5
46.4
38.9
Writing
39.1
44.7
41.1
30.4
34.5
31.7
48.6
54.8
46.9
Listening
74.9
73.6
72.2
75.8
75.9
77.8
87.5
87.8
84
As reported by the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
A History of Reform
Mountlake Terrace has a history of school reform and autonomy within the Edmonds school
district. The school’s decision making process is greatly influenced by the district’s commitment
to a consensus process. The district suffered a difficult teacher strike in 1986 and the
superintendent who came after, Brian Benzel, fostered a more professional learning community.
Among the new policies was the Draft #5 decision making process, which called for decisions to
be made in an inclusive, positive climate that is process-oriented and values-based. Decisions
must be equally accountable to all school staff and should include continuous evaluation and
Cohort Graduation Rate Decreases as
9th Grade Enrollment Increases
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
15.4%
23.8%
16.4%
26.0%
35.4%
45.6%
49%
42.2%
37.4%
36.2%
36.3%
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Percentage of Cohort That Did Not
Graduate in Four Years
Number of Students
Entering 9th
Graders
Dropouts
Non-Graduates

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
12
adjustment. District administrators admit this makes change harder and slower, but feel that in the
end it is better.
In 1990, Terrace was awarded a “Schools for the 21st Century” grant, which they used to rewrite
graduation requirements, create curriculum with a more hands-on learning style, and institute
senior year culminating projects. The staff began by discussing core values, which would later
become the base against which all school policies were measured. The school also switched to
trimesters at that time, in order to offer a wider variety of classes and engage students in a
college-like fashion. Some ideas that came from this grant were never implemented, such as year-
round school, which left a slight residue of cynicism for the next school change effort.
There was no assessment plan built into the 21st Century grant and it is unclear whether the
changes affected student achievement. However, it is clear that Terrace’s reputation changed at
that time from being the school that nobody wanted to attend. The experience also gave the staff a
solid foundation in talking about teaching and learning. Their commitment to applied learning
and project-based curriculum laid the groundwork for future reform efforts, including the
conversion to small learning communities.
Around 1995, the school leadership formed a committee called “Making a Big School Smaller”
whose mission was to help failing kids. Several ideas were implemented, but they were programs
rather than whole school changes. One of them was a school-within-a-school, which ninth grade
students joined by choice. The Block Program consisted of 120 students and four teachers. Both
teachers and students enjoyed the more intimate setting, but the small school developed a
negative stigma within the larger setting of Mountlake Terrace High School and the staff was not
committed enough to expand the idea to the entire ninth grade. The program was cut in 2001, in
part to make way for the school-wide small schools reform effort.
Mark Baier became the principal of Terrace in 1998, after serving as assistant principal for five
years. He hired two assistant principals, Paul Tytler, who had interned at Terrace and Steven
Gering, who had interned at Cambridge Rindge and Latin high school outside Boston, where
students were divided into five academies. At this time, Terrace’s reform effort was stuck, having
implemented some programs with the 21st Century grant, but no whole school changes. The staff
had also experienced about thirty-percent teacher turnover in five years. This transition, along
with teacher discontent with the status quo and new demands at the state and district levels
convinced Principal Baier that something had to change. He implemented extended periods in

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
13
order to reduce teacher workloads and increase student/teacher contact time, but it was not
enough. At the end of the administrative team’s second year together, Tytler and Gering
discovered the Department of Education Smaller Learning Communities planning grant and were
passionate about applying for it.
During the 2000-2001 school year, Terrace received the Smaller Learning Communities grant and
formed a “Structure and Policy” committee to explore the research on small schools. The group
was comprised of teachers, administrators and one parent. Not yet committed to the idea of small
schools, they began by envisioning what they wanted in their ideal school. This is where the
current journey began for Mountlake Terrace High School’s conversion into several small
learning communities.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
14
RESEARCH ON SCHOOL CHANGE
Mountlake Terrace High School has embarked on a process whose complexities are well
documented. Comprehensive school change, such as converting into several small learning
communities, requires engaging the school community in a different way than would a more
incremental reform, such as piloting a new curriculum. Changes in school structure and
leadership as well as new teacher roles and responsibilities sound good in theory but can be
frightening to implement.
Public education is replete with reform ideas, but sees very little substantive change. This is not
necessarily due to bad programs or policies. Rather, the change process itself is vastly
underestimated. An inability to understand schools as having unique cultures with entrenched
power relationships and an inability to learn from past experience conspire to doom most reform
efforts to failure (Payne & Kaba, 2001).
The Problem
Barriers to reform exist at all levels of schools. Administrators horde power, emotionally fatigued
teachers resist implementation, and district administrators force new innovations into old
organizational paradigms. The institutional environment, the structure of support for school
change and the school’s relationship with its central office and the community are each important
components of the school reform process. They also represent common roadblocks to success.
Institutional Environment
Like many bureaucracies, schools have a tendency to protect the existing power arrangements.
Leaders with fragile egos may mandate change with top-down authority or vacillate between
autocratic and collaborative decision making (Payne & Kaba, 2001). By sharing power with only
a small group of teachers, school administrators often stifle progress. Teachers in the role of
“change agent” can be perceived as getting special treatment from the principal and have
difficulty sparking the interest of their peers (Fine, 1994; Muncey & McQuillan, 1996). The
opposite also occurs, with everyone in the school evading responsibility. “Administrators blame
teachers, teachers blame parents (and students), parents blame teachers and administrators, and
everybody blames the superintendent and central office” (Tewel, 1995).
Large schools often suffer from poor internal communication. With over one hundred certified
staff sequestered in their classrooms, having meaningful conversations about school change is a

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
15
challenge. Such isolation also fosters a culture of distrust. Payne & Kaba (2001) found that the
level of trust and respect correlates very well with whether a school is improving or stagnating. In
a poor social climate, communicating the simplest information accurately can be difficult; when
people are not deliberately sabotaging the flow of information, they read things into messages
that were never intended. The same weak social structures contribute to a culture of “Happy
Talk,” where people put the best face on everything, in order to avoid stressful conversation
(Payne & Kaba, 2001).
Those leading the charge must be prepared for the political implications of change, which can
lead to a total breakdown in communication among school staff (Muncey & McQuillan, 1996).
Equity issues rise around whose voices are heard and what curriculum and pedagogy are
implemented. Tension exists between the old style and order of things and the new. Changes in
instructional leadership cause “turf” issues among teachers as well as conflicts around educational
philosophy and standards (Fine, 1994).
Teachers often harbor a generalized belief in program failure, having seen so many new
initiatives come and go. The resulting emotional fatigue leads to a culture of trying new methods,
but with the same old attitude (Payne & Kaba, 2001). School staff members are often too busy
dealing with day to day crises and events to understand the longer-term patterns that lie behind
them. They feel pressure to implement “quick fixes,” which will produce immediate results,
rather than implementing on-going staff reflection and crafting a genuine solution (Tewel, 1995).
Structure of Support for Implementation
Most school change efforts have a narrow support base and not enough leadership. In these
situations, all of the work falls on the principal or the faithful few. Realizing the importance of
teacher buy-in, some reformers require teachers to vote before bringing a new program into the
school. But, a few strong personalities can unduly influence the outcome. School leaders may
twist arms and some teachers may not truly understand what they are agreeing to (Payne & Kaba,
2001).
School leaders have a tendency to try to do too much too quickly and reform can easily take on an
inappropriate pace and scale of change. There is insufficient time for training, planning, reflection
and communication among staff. The teachers who are most eager to adopt new ideas are often
the young ones, typically a low-status social clique. Reform efforts therefore become embroiled

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
16
in “pre-existing cleavages of race, cohort and teaching philosophy, often before the reformers are
aware that such cleavages exist” (Payne & Kaba, 2001).
Poorly defining the purpose of reform will surely undermine the effort. As Kenneth Tewel (1995)
described, his school was in trouble when they realized that no one had defined the purpose of
reform as producing student achievement gains and neither curriculum nor instruction was central
to the restructuring effort. This stems from leadership’s lacks of deep understanding of policy
innovations (Payne & Kaba, 2001). Changes in school structure will also fail to create changes in
outcomes when there is insufficient or no professional development for teachers which supports
the reform (Fine, 1994). School improvement runs the risk of manipulating variables that are
school-level variables only when classroom practices remain unchanged (Harris, 2000).
District and Community Relations
The school district’s central office can impede school level change through a lack of support and
leadership. Political, organizational and resource issues at the district or state level provide
convenient excuses as well as legitimate constraints on school reform. Small schools, for
example, often have to overcome district policies that conflict with their school philosophy, such
as graduation requirements, scheduling and a standard curriculum. District policies that affect
teacher placements and union contracts also constrict a school’s autonomy in both real and
imagined ways (Fine, 1994). Principals may be unable to communicate with their central office to
even get a straight answer on which policies can be waived.
School leaders often leave parents and students out of the change effort. Lack of parent
communication, or engaging them too late in the process, can create a negative backlash. It may
lead to a power struggle between parents, district leaders and school administrators.
Massachusetts’ Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School wanted to change their student
placement model. Instead of students selecting from one of six “houses,” a system marked by
racial and socioeconomic segregation, they would be randomly assigned to one of five similar
small learning communities. The school involved parents throughout the planning process. But,
unresolved disagreements about school choice versus student assignment blew up in year two of
implementation. The elimination of elite academies, through random student placement into small
schools, meant that the most advantaged students were no longer guaranteed the best teachers.
After much parent protest, the school board decided to reinstate the choice system, prompting the
school’s principal to resign (Hurley, 2001).

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
17
Public Agenda, a nonprofit research and public opinion organization, found that parents are not
predisposed to the idea of small schools. While only thirty-two percent of parents surveyed had
given “a lot of thought” to breaking up large high schools, twenty-seven percent of them said they
would oppose such a proposal in their district (Public Agenda, 2002). Even small schools
supporters become dissatisfied when they are left out of the change process. Students at Denver’s
Manual High School staged a walkout because they felt that the transformation into small schools
had not gone far enough (Yettick, 2001).
Proven Solutions
Researchers have identified a virtual mine field of problems, but they have also discovered some
proven solutions. Schools with successful reform efforts focus on the actions which are necessary
to support change, identify the beliefs that underlie change, and develop the skills that are
necessary to make change (Muncey & McQuillan, 1996). Engaging all levels of the school
community simultaneously will help build a collective vision. But, this does not mean attacking
every problem at once, which will create a lack of focus and the inability to make the system
respond (Tewel, 1995). Three key elements that constitute successful school reform are
decentralized control, teacher and community buy-in, and professional development.
Decentralized Control
Without an effective balance between top-down and grass roots support, the reform process can
easily divide a school community. Comprehensive reform necessitates a reconceptualization of
leadership where teachers and managers engage in shared decision making and risk taking
(Harris, 2000). A key aspect of restructuring is teacher empowerment through authority equal to
their responsibility and with real accountability (Tewel, 1995). In small schools, administrators,
teachers and (sometimes) students share control in terms of interdisciplinary and team teaching,
shared problem solving and teacher evaluation (Smith & Lee, 1996). Broader participation
through joint authority and accountability will enhance teachers’ professional lives and in turn,
improve student learning (Tewel, 1995).
Small schools staff members take a collective responsibility for student learning and play various
roles within the school – instructor, advisor and administrator (Smith & Lee, 1996). When several
small learning communities exist within one larger school, new organizational challenges arise.
Reform efforts work best when schools and their districts have democratic decision making
processes. It is important to eliminate school policies and practices that undermine each school’s

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
18
autonomy, such as prescribed curricula. Access to and distribution of resources, both fixed and
allocated, must also be worked out between small learning communities (Fine, 1994).
A professionalized teaching staff does not diminish the need for a principal. Typically, both the
school principal and a leadership council coordinate restructuring efforts and external
constituencies, such as the private sector. But, a principal’s leadership function is grounded more
in her skills and knowledge rather than the power of the title. It is her job to create a secure and
trusting culture, where various stakeholders are willing to take risks. Principals must be hands-on,
physically present at important events and reiterating their support for the school change. As the
primary leader, the principal is the keeper of the vision and plays an integral role in
communicating it to others and inspiring them to join in (Tewel, 1995). Muncey & McQuillan
(1996) found success to be more likely when the school leader actively supports the conversion
effort, is respected by her peers, is committed to the change before receiving any grant money,
and stays for the entire transition time.
Effective leaders use a guiding vision and shared values to help their school community cope
with the uncomfortable reality of ambiguity. Administrators, department heads, and special
education coordinators, to name a few, will have to reinvent their roles as they go. “Right before
their eyes, the traditional school hierarchy is disappearing and the clear distinctions of title and
role are becoming blurred. Their traditional sources of power are changing and their leverage
with teachers has taken on new dimensions” (Tewel, 1995, p. 157). The extent to which the
change process becomes a positive force in teachers’ lives depends upon how well the process is
managed. Maintaining communication with all constituencies will keep the focus on progress,
rather than problem solving, and allow everyone to be heard in the process (Tewel, 1995).
Engaged School Community
Education reformers have not fully recognized the need to take into account contextual factors,
such as school history, leadership, staffing and incentives, when implementing school
improvement strategies (Harris, 2000). While people are loath to “reinvent the wheel,” a
program’s success at one school does not mean it is appropriate for another. It is more important
to create change that will be cherished and that addresses the unique needs of a specific student
population (Tewel, 1995).
Long term, informal conversation between teachers, non-certified staff, parents, volunteers and
district administrators creates an inclusive approach that involves multiple levels of the education

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
19
system (Smith & Lee, 1996; Muncey & McQuillan, 1996). Reforms are more likely to be
implemented and will last longer when several stakeholders take ownership, demonstrating their
support and leadership (Tewel, 1995). One method that schools employ is to host ongoing
forums, making planning and reflecting on school change part of the school routine and
professional development.
A multi-level approach means simultaneously encouraging school-level, teacher-level, and
classroom-level change, using internal as well as external activists and promoters (Harris, 2000).
It is also crucial to develop collaborative relationships with the union, the private sector, and the
community to ensure a network of support. One school, described by Kenneth Tewel (1995),
created brochures and sent out scouts to feeder schools. That person became the permanent
liaison to teachers and parents in that feeder school, which greatly improved communication.
Manual High School in Denver always includes parents in making presentations to the school
board or when applying to foundations.
Professional Development
School staff will require professional development training to take on their new small schools
roles. A principal’s leadership role changes from that of manager to that of instructional leader.
Small schools teachers are now generalists who must meet different expectations, such as more
flexible, interactive and cross-disciplinary teaching. Teachers also play an advisory role,
developing individual learning plans and personal relationships with students and their families.
Some teachers fear that they are not qualified to advise students, since they are not trained social
workers (Fine, 1994).
High school reform is meaningless unless it changes daily teaching and learning in the classroom
(Tewel, 1995). Highly effective school improvement programs focus on achieving specific
student outcomes and recent research outlines that variables at the classroom level account for
greater variation in student outcomes than do variables at the school level (Harris, 2000).
Professional development should be ongoing, relevant and focused on fostering student
achievement. In addition to new teaching strategies, professional development can provide
structures for intellectual inquiry and reflection about classroom practice, which eliminate teacher
isolation and build a community of professionals engaged in learning (Tewel, 1995).

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
20
Understanding the barriers to school reform and effective ways to overcome them prepared me to
focus on the change process at Mountlake Terrace High School. Based on the themes in the
literature, I planned to pay close attention to how the school addressed the following challenges:
• Sharing leadership and decision-making power
• Creating buy-in within the school community
• Obtaining district-level support
• Engaging parents and students in the conversion process

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
21
A TIMELINE OF REFORM:
The First Two Years of Terrace’s Conversion Process
2000-2001 Academic Year
In October of 2000, Mountlake Terrace received a Department of Education, Smaller Learning
Communities (SLC) planning grant for $50,000. Thirty-five staff members volunteered to sit on
four committees devoted to Structure & Policy, Assessment, Staff Development, and Alignment.
The administrative leadership team, including the principal and two assistant principals worked
closely with the committees. They began by looking at a vast array of research on small schools,
but their timeline became much shorter when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced
their Model Schools grant opportunity. The proposal required a small schools design to be
completed by January.
The Structure & Policy committee was devoted to envisioning SLCs for Terrace. The
administrative team invited Gwendine Norton, a six-year parent volunteer, to participate on the
Structure & Policy committee. In the beginning, it was difficult for Norton to get to know the
staff, gain their respect and be heard. There were times when the committee wanted to do things
that she disagreed with as a parent. But, some teachers did not value her opinion and accused her
of advocating personal views. In an effort to bring some other points of view onto the committee,
Norton provided names of other interested parents, but nothing ever came of it.
The committee started by envisioning their ideal schools. As the year went on, the group couldn’t
decide if it would be better for the small learning communities to be more the same, than
different. They began getting bogged down in myriad details, and decided to bring their ideas to
the larger staff. They had developed a concept for three, autonomous school academies. All
academies had to provide a curriculum that allowed students to meet the requirements to attend a
four-year college and/or technical school. They were built around individual themes including,
performing arts, fine arts & humanities, and math, science & technology. There was significant
buy-in to the idea of SLCs, but the committee’s proposal was met with tremendous criticism and
resistance.
Throughout this time, Terrace’s principal, Mark Baier, saturated the staff with articles and
research about small schools. As the Structure & Policy committee moved toward the idea of
creating SLCs, they led teachers in small group discussions on school in-service days to explore
small schools concepts, such as size, autonomy, student choice, a sense of belonging, and

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
22
intellectual focus. The school hosted nationally recognized small school researcher Valerie Lee
for a daylong workshop with the staff. Staff members also continued to debate structural issues,
including houses versus academies, distinct schools versus multiples of the same, and grade-level
grouping.
Terrace began communicating with parents about small learning communities as soon as the
school received the Department of Education planning grant. The administrative team made
phone calls, hosted parent nights, and included information about small schools in the school
newsletter. It was equally important to communicate with the younger students’ families as those
who attended Terrace. There was a small budget for parent outreach in the Gates grant, but most
resources came from the building budget. The work could be disheartening, like when they sent
an invitation to the families of all 8-11th grade students and only 40 people attended the event.
The low response was even more discouraging because administrators know that as soon as they
implement the SLCs, everyone will come out and ask what is going on.
In April 2001, the staff was not yet fully committed to the idea of small schools, but had to decide
if they would accept a Gates Foundation grant. As a visual aide, each of the small schools
structural concepts was placed along a continuum. The Gates Foundation’s small school concept
was also marked off, so people could see the structural changes required if they accepted the
grant. After lengthy conversation and debate, the staff took an informal vote to see how people
felt about accepting a grant to create several small schools from the existing comprehensive high
school. The administration wanted eighty- percent approval to accept. The first vote missed the
goal by about seven percent.
A week later, the entire staff met again in small groups, led by teachers, where people felt
comfortable airing their fears and concerns about small schools. The administrative leadership
observed and listened. At the end of the day, the full staff (including classified members)
convened in the gym to vote by ballot. An assistant principal counted the ballots right then, on the
floor, in front of everyone. There was ample approval to accept a grant. The goal of the process
had always been to work toward a consensus and address the concerns of the ten to twenty
percent who voted not to accept the grant. So, even after the vote, the entire group stayed together
in the open forum to have one more conversation about peoples’ concerns.
In April of 2001, Terrace received the grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, worth
$850,000 over three years. At this point, the Structure & Policy committee had disbanded and the

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
23
school’s Steering Team was leading the SLC process. The Steering Team’s purpose had always
been to set the vision for Terrace, which from this point forward revolved solely around small
schools. In light of this fresh focus, the staff newly elected members of the Steering Team,
comprised of teachers and the administrative leadership team. The staff also established the
Steering Team’s decision-making parameters at this time; if the group reached consensus on a
decision, the rest of the staff would support it.
The administrative leadership team continued parent and community outreach by making
presentations to the PTAs of the elementary and middle schools that were “feeders” to Terrace.
These presentations focused on the need for school change and the small schools research since
many of the conversion details were still missing. The school provided similar opportunities to
parents of 7-10th grade students, who would be most affected by the small schools
implementation.
Toward the end of the academic year, teachers and administrators visited other small schools
around the country, including several small schools that share the Julia Richman Educational
Complex in New York City, the New Country School in Henderson, Minnesota, and the School
of the Arts in Vancouver, Washington.
Summer 2001
Summer opportunities included a series of workshops hosted in Seattle by the Small Schools
Project. Topics included small schools leadership, advisories, parent and community
involvement, and building powerful learning experiences.
In thinking about the work ahead, Assistant Principal Steven Gering realized that the conversation
about school change needed to shift. Up to this point, the topics of discussion had been about the
logistics of breaking Terrace into small schools and the specific structural changes. There had not
been enough understanding about changing practice, in terms of teaching and learning. This was
evident in the way teachers talked about smallness being the solution to all the school’s problems
when the leadership saw smallness as only the first, necessary step in school change.
The details of the conversion were so significant they dominated the conversation. A distinction
had to be made between the goal and the tools for obtaining that goal, with equal attention paid to
both throughout the planning process. At Terrace, the goal was to “improve the rigor and standard
of teaching and learning.” The necessary tools included personalization through small learning

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
24
communities, unifying focus, autonomy, time to collaborate, and involvement of the entire school
community.
Steven Gering began thinking about ways to begin the next year on a high note. He was already
dreading the first two days back in August, full of more discussions and votes. A teacher led
design process, however, would empower the staff and could engage everyone. Gering brought
his idea for a Request for Proposal to the school Steering Team in early August and the group
decided to present it to the staff during their summer retreat.
2001-2002 Academic Year
In August, before school began, the Steering Team hosted a two-day retreat for all school staff at
a nearby community college. Participants were paid for their time, but it was not mandatory.
During these two days, the administrative leadership introduced the Request for Proposal (RFP)
process, for teachers to submit designs for new small schools. The design process employed a
technique outlined in the book Understanding by Design, called “backwards by design”. Design
teams had to first establish enduring understandings about what students should know, understand
and be able to do. Then, they designed a school to support them. This method forced each design
to have curricular ideas with a unifying focus and enduring value beyond the school (for
definitions see appendix 2). Some parameters already existed, based on decisions that the staff
had made about the conversion process the year before. But, the RFP process served to shift
teachers’ focus from school structure onto teaching and learning.
Every teacher joined a design team, though they would participate to varying degrees as the year
went on. During those first two days in August, teachers formed design teams after several group
discussions about education philosophy. The process was well planned, but in execution, some
people felt left out. Eight-member teams were to be formed after a session break, but when some
teachers returned to the room, the groups they had intended to join were already full. It was clear
that the teams were not permanent and there were opportunities to switch later in the year.
Teachers who did not attend the August retreat were later assigned to a design team.
As the 2001-2002 academic year began, Gwendine Norton was hired as the Gates grant
coordinator. She was responsible for establishing small schools research files, disseminating
Steering Team meeting minutes, coordinating RFP process materials and arranging parent and
community meetings. She also created a database of parents who had attended their events. The
administrative leadership team continued to invite parents to attend informal question and answer

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
25
sessions. Norton suggested that the principal pick up a previous school tradition of meeting
parents for dessert at someone’s home. In October Mark Baier began a series of “Dessert with the
Principal” events to pass out facts about the Gates grant and talk more about small schools.
Later that month, the school invited all the feeder schools’ PTA presidents, as well as all the
parents in the database, to dinner at the school. It provided the opportunity for parents to have a
sit-down conversation with Terrace’s leadership. The PTA president of a K-8 school was
particularly interested in advocating Terrace as a good transition for her students to stay in a small
learning community.
November marked the first occasion for teams to formally share their ideas. The thirteen design
teams met in four different groups during a half-day in-service. Each group’s teams were given a
turn to present their design ideas and receive feedback from the other teams. This process
followed a strict Tuning Protocol, where presenters have ten uninterrupted minutes to share their
work, and participants have five minutes to ask clarifying questions. Then, participants have
twenty minutes to discuss the work, giving “warm” and “cool” feedback. Presenters have eight
minutes to respond (see appendix 3). The principal, the assistant principals and the school’s
coach1 facilitated the process.
After the day of sharing, teachers were able to switch to another design team, though there was
much less movement than expected. Over the next several months, teachers incorporated the
feedback to further refine their design proposals. Teachers met during some in-service days, as
well as after school and during planning periods. They were each allotted 12.5 hours of additional
paid time to work on their SLC proposal, which was tracked by the grant coordinator. Teachers
who did not use all of their planning hours were able to give them to someone else in their group.
The final design proposals were due by February so that the school could begin hosting focus
groups and feedback forums for parents, students and other district teachers during the coming
months. To the Steering Team’s surprise and delight, all thirteen design teams submitted a SLC
proposal; teachers wrote two additional proposals, bringing the total to fifteen.
The Mountlake Terrace High School web site was updated to reflect the school’s work around
small schools. It made available a comprehensive list of small schools research, as well as
1 In August of 2001, Terrace received a coach from the Small Schools Project, funded by the Gates
foundation. The coach’s role was to help facilitate the school change process and provide technical
assistance to the leadership team.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
26
information about the school’s timeline and reform process. In February, each design team’s
proposal was posted. Teachers had a month to read them and provide anonymous feedback,
which was compiled by the grant coordinator and given to each team. It seemed unreasonable,
however, to require focus group participants to read each team’s full proposal. Instead, the
designs were reduced to one page descriptions, including the SLC’s size, governance structure,
enduring understandings, common focus, plan for teacher collaboration and personalization.
Outreach efforts continued through the end of the 2002 academic year. The school mailed another
newsletter to the families of 6th-11th grade students notifying them that the proposals were
available on-line and feedback was welcome via email. To engage more segments of the school
community in providing feedback on the SLC designs, the administrative leadership team set up a
series of focus groups with students, parents and district personnel. Focus group participants read
several one-page proposals and completed a rubric for each, which measured their opinion of the
SLC’s academic rigor, personalization, viability and comprehensiveness (see appendix 4). The
group then discussed their impressions of each SLC proposal and whether or not they/their child
was likely to choose it. The last step in the feedback process was a two-day workshop with
national small schools experts.
Steven Gering conducted a pilot focus group with his genetics class. For the hour-long meeting,
the full SLC proposals were reduced to one-page descriptions of the SLC’s size, governance
structure, enduring understandings, common focus, plan for teacher collaboration and
personalization. It was clear that students needed more time and detail to form real opinions about
the proposals. Another focus group was conducted with randomly selected students, representing
all four grade levels. Though information about the conversion process had appeared in the
student paper, students did not seem familiar with it.
The moderator asked students to read four of the thirteen SLC descriptions. While it seemed that
the one-page descriptions did not provide enough information for in depth feedback, students did
form initial opinions. Participants were uncomfortable with the idea of being pigeonholed into a
theme-based SLC, such as performing arts. They liked the idea of personalization, but did not
want teachers to be in close contact with their parents. Students also wanted the opportunity to get
to know many of their peers, not just those who might be in their SLC. They did not want to have
to stay with the same small group of students for lunch as well as all their classes. Many
participants liked the four and a half day schedule that some of the SLCs proposed. But, it was

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
27
unclear whether they realized that the early release allowed for students to engage in community-
based projects, rather than go home.
Additional student feedback was generated during the week of state standardized testing.
Teachers engaged 200 freshman in reading SLC proposals in their entirety. They answered
specific questions on a Scantron sheet, so the school could easily compile the response data. Also,
Gering and Norton cooked breakfast one morning for juniors and seniors who volunteered to
arrive early. They participated in small group conversations and used the feedback rubric from
the focus groups. These opportunities provided fun and easy ways to educate students, especially
freshman, on the SLCs during school time.
Parents were only able to discuss two SLC proposals in during their one-and-a-half hour focus
groups. The administration felt that parents knew too little about the process to give really helpful
feedback. Participants did not ask any questions about enduring understandings or student
assessment; they were more interested in core subject areas, such as reading and writing. Parents
also wanted to know how extracurricular activities would be integrated into the SLCs. The
parents felt that the proposals were too vague and unsubstantial.
The focus group with elementary and middle school principals from Terrace’s feeder schools was
not particularly helpful to the design teams, but did inform the participants about SLCs. They
were complimentary about the work Terrace had accomplished and wanted to know more about
the change process. As administrators, they asked good questions about the logistics of the
conversion and raised important concerns around equity in student assignment.
Design teams had one last opportunity to revise their proposals, incorporating all the feedback.
These were considered the final SLC proposals.
The administrative leadership was concerned about doing too much and being too isolated, such
that they could no longer see the big picture. They concluded that engaging a group of small
schools experts would help them determine which of the SLC proposals were most viable and in
what combination.
In April, the school hosted a group of six small schools experts from around the country for a
two-day review panel. Participants represented former small school principals, teachers and
university researchers who could judge the SLC proposals based on their experience and

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
28
knowledge of small schools. Two district representatives joined the group, including Terrace’s
assistant superintendent and someone to consider facility issues. Though participants received the
full proposals ahead of time, the first day and-a-half were devoted to twenty-minute presentations
by each design team, with time for questions. During the second day, the review panel met to
discuss and assign the proposed SLC designs into three categories – the model is compelling and
viable; the model might work with some changes; and the model is not compelling or viable.
In an effort to make the SLC selection process transparent, the Steering Team asked the expert
panel to provide written feedback for each individual design team. The expert panel judged each
SLC design based on the written proposal and the group’s presentation (see appendix 5). Each of
the designs could possibly be implemented, so the categorization became based on how
compelling the design was and how well it took advantage of the smallness. Only two proposals
received a top rank, which signified a confidence in the team members’ ability as much as in their
design. The vast majority of designs fell somewhere in the middle, with recommended changes.
The five that received a low rank were not compelling and in some cases not distinguishable from
each other. They were designs which tried to maintain the comprehensive high school, but with a
little bit of curricular focus.
The process of hearing each design team’s presentation turned out to be as important as the final
rankings. Participants learned more from listening to the groups than from reading the proposals.
It was also an opportunity for teachers to reflect on their deeper, yearlong thinking and expose
their personal motivation and passion, which is rare in a traditional high school. The
administrative leadership team benefited by observing the process and learned more about what
kind of professional development the staff will need in the coming years.
The Steering Team considered the review panel’s rating for each proposal, as well as previous
focus group and teacher feedback. The data was complex. While the expert panel was charged
with sorting the designs into specific categories, other groups rated the proposals on a scale.
Taking the average scores meant that most designs fell right in the middle. The Steering Team
also had to recognize the bias with which each group rated the proposals; teachers want a good
place to work, parent focus on academic rigor and experts favor more non-traditional designs.
With this information, the Steering Team began to construct “packages” of combined SLCs that
served multiple student and teacher interests, and whose combined enrollment levels served the
entire Terrace student population. Each design team was invited to send a representative to the

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
29
meeting in order to clarify questions about the team’s proposal. This presented a conflict of
interest for Steering Team members, each of whom was the representative of their design team.
One member proposed that ST members not advocate for their own SLC, but simply answer
questions. Subsequent meetings drew audience members comprised of teachers and students who
were interested in watching the process unfold.
In order to create the sought after balance within each package, the Steering Team first placed
each SLC design along several continuums:
Use of staff members
Teachers viewed as generalists ¤ Teachers viewed as specialists
Use of Staff Time
Schedule similar to current ¤ Schedule very different from current
Curriculum
Traditional course based ¤ Student driven, but aligned to standards
Personalization
Low personalization, mostly relying on small size ¤ Deliberately high personalization
Approach to Courses
Traditional coursework aligned with subjects ¤ Interdisciplinary coursework
The next step in the process began with looking at the SLCs recommended by the expert panel.
By weighing their merits as a package, the Steering Team would begin to learn which qualities, if
any, they were missing. The goal was to have enough variety in the options that students and
teachers would feel like there were at least two schools where they could be happy.
As Terrace moved closer to identifying the SLCs and the second planning year drew to a close,
teachers became more vocal about their concerns. In April, the Steering Team hosted several
lunchtime feedback sessions. Teachers were upset about decisions that they (erroneously)
perceived the Steering Team to have made and were scared of the decisions that had not yet been
made. Some felt manipulated by the process and others simply wanted the change process to stop.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
30
During a two-hour conversation, the Steering Team grappled with what to do. Their confusion
and frustration mounted as they wondered how to respond and whether quitting was an option.
One Team member provided a colorful analogy for why the group had to move forward with the
process; “if we’re perceived as being on a plane that’s going down, I don’t want to ask people
how they feel about it. Even if we’re on a plane that’s going on vacation, I don’t want to talk so
much about which sites to see that we run out of vacation time.” The group needed to keep the
concerns in perspective and find ways to meaningfully engage people in addressing them.
The Steering Team proposed four possible combinations of SLCs that could be created from the
current Mountlake Terrace High School. A primary concern was that the package should
represent the continuum of academic approaches, from the current traditional model to the most
innovative design. Option A was based on the expert panel’s recommendations, with an
additional school that represented a more traditional approach. Of the eight SLC designs in this
package, the largest served 400 students and the smallest served forty.
In creating Option B, the Steering Team began to discuss equity issues related to “magnet”
schools, such as those which incorporate performing arts or high tech curriculum. Because some
of the Steering Team members were uncomfortable relegating school resources to one particular
SLC, the technology-oriented school was dropped from this option. The very non-traditional
school of forty students was also excluded. Of the six schools in this package, five were part of
Option A and a different traditional design was substituted in.
Option C replicated Option B, except that it included the controversial technology-oriented
school, bringing the total to seven SLCs. There was also an Option D, which indicated that none
of the packages was adequate and the Steering Team should consider the respondent’s
suggestions.
The faculty members of the Steering Team presented the packages to all the certified staff the
next day, during a half-day in-service. To kick-off the event, the Assistant Superintendent
commended the staff on having made it this far in the process and reminded them of the
significance of this milestone. Then, a Steering Team member described the Team’s process for
creating the three packages. Participants were able to ask clarifying questions about packages and
process. Another member introduced the voting process, which would take place the following
week. For a package to be chosen, it would have to receive at least fifty percent of the votes, plus

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
31
one vote. Anything less, or if Option D received the most votes, would result in another round of
voting.
After the large group presentation, teachers broke into three small groups in order to ask more
detailed questions of the Steering Team representatives. People mostly asked questions about
electives and other logistics of the conversion process. Some staff complained that did not have
enough time to read the design proposals before having to vote. In hindsight, a Steering Team
member recognized their mistake of not having copies of the proposals available for people to
take right then to read over the weekend. This would have worked better than expecting people to
download them off the school’s web site.
Teachers had three days to return their ballots. They were counted at the next Steering Team
meeting and resulted in a sixty percent majority vote for Option A; twenty percent voted for
Option B and ten percent voted for each of Options C and D. The next steps included emailing
the results (with sensitivity to the fact that not everyone will be happy) and making copies of the
eight SLC designs available. At the end of the week, timed to coincide with another half-day in-
service, staff attended an information fair with representatives from each of the design teams.
That afternoon, there were four twenty-minute rotations where staff could hear more detailed
presentations about the SLCs that interested them the most.
A week later, teachers received another ballot to rank their top three SLC choices. Steering Team
members had collected anonymous preference sheets earlier, in order to see where teacher interest
lay. Remarkably, the teachers’ preferences seemed evenly distributed across the eight SLCs.
Indeed, when the Steering Team met to discuss the results of the teacher preference ballot, almost
everyone could be placed in their first or second choice.
To prepare for the meeting, the administrative leadership team created a poster for each of the
SLCs. Teachers’ names were placed in each SLC by subject area with a pink sticky-note to
denote first choice and a green one for second choice. This visual aide was very helpful for the
Steering Team to see the distribution of teachers among SLCs and where gaps still existed.
A few issues remained to be untangled. Some SLCs were still missing teachers in a particular
subject area and one teacher had been “bumped” from all of her choices by colleagues who had
participated on the design teams. The largest issue was that two of the SLCs had attracted the
same group of teachers, but the group was not large enough to adequately staff them both.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
32
Possibly, one of these SLCs would be eliminated and the other greatly expanded to absorb the
students. Or, each of the remaining SLCs could be expanded slightly. Either way, the Steering
Team decided that the SLC design teams should be consulted and the teachers should be able to
re-rank their preferences.
In the first week of June, the Steering Team will announce the coming year’s SLC planning
teams. The entire 2002-2003 academic year will be devoted to the second stage of SLC design,
which includes establishing the curriculum, schedule, leadership structure, advisories etc. The
Conversion Facilitators will be elected by their SLC colleagues and will become the new Steering
Team. Terrace’s new small learning communities will be implemented in the 2003-2004
academic year.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
33
KEY LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CONVERSION PROCESS
Compared to any of Terrace’s previous reform efforts, the school conversion process was far
more complex. The staff knew they were embarking on deep change, but they could not have
anticipated the magnitude and the complexity of the process, which required a lot of comfort with
ambiguity. As they moved forward, all members of the school community, including
administrators, teachers, students, parents and district personnel, grappled with difficult questions
and uncertainties.
As the literature on school reform predicted, the following questions represent some of the most
difficult aspects of the change process. The questions are divided into two parts; the first
represents issues related to leadership change and the conversion process. The second represents
challenges in creating buy-in and maintaining both internal and external relationships. The
answers presented here represent the way Terrace addressed these challenges and the thought
processes that accompanied them:
Part I: Process
1. How can the administrative team share decision-making power and plan for leadership
changes?
2. How can the existing teaching staff be equitably allocated among the new SLCs?
3. How should the school phase in SLCs, over time or all at once?
4. How can the school avoid segregating the student body by race, gender, skill and
socioeconomic level in creating SLCs?
5. How can the school use the grant money most effectively?
Part II: Relationships
1. How can the Steering Team build staff buy-in and adequately address concerns?
2. How can the leadership maintain faculty support when the process turns in unpredicted
directions?
3. How can the Steering Team build buy-in among parents and students?
4. How can the school generate the necessary district-level support?

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
34
PART I: Process
1. How can the administrative team share decision-making power and plan for leadership
changes?
Throughout the conversion process, the administrative leadership team2 was committed to
collaborative leadership, transparent decision-making, and consensus building. In part, this was
due to the district directive, Draft #5, but it mostly reflected the team’s commitment to small
school ideals. As many teachers explained, the administrative leadership team was a significant
part of the conversion process’s success so far.
Having three supportive administrators who were closely aligned in their beliefs about teaching
and learning was important for sustaining the change effort at Terrace. Receiving the grants made
it easier for the team to decide to pursue small schools. But, Gering and Tytler both had
experience working in small schools and all three administrators were committed to the idea.
They educated themselves by reading all the research literature they could, then educated the
staff. While all three remained very involved, Principal Baier freed up part of Gering’s time to
direct the effort by obtaining building interns from local universities who were funded by state
grants. With Gering free to focus on long-term planning, the Steering Team could effectively
manage the change, taking time to plan and reflect.
The two assistant principals put their jobs on the table in the very beginning in order to free up as
many resources as possible for the new school designs. Consequently, it is unclear what role, if
any, they might have at Terrace once the SLCs are implemented. It was a combination of their
vision for SLCs, knowing that two assistant principals would not fit within the new framework,
and a value of distributed leadership that kept them dedicated to working themselves out of jobs.
The administration set a good tone, where people respected each other’s ideas. While some
teachers felt threatened about their uncertain future in the school, they appreciated the way people
listened to each other. Assistant Principal Gering acknowledged peoples’ fears and concerns,
never making them seem stupid or unfounded. Staff members valued Gering’s honesty and
realism; he did not try to make everything sound like it was going to be perfect. In January 2001,
Terrace hosted Valerie Lee, a principal researcher of small schools and professor at the
2 The administrative leadership team at Mountlake Terrace High School consisted of Principal Mark Baier,
Assistant Principal Paul Tytler and Assistant Principal Steven Gering. They have worked together for four
years, since Baier hired the other two.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
35
University of Michigan. Again, teachers appreciated her balanced presentation of information,
including what is not known about school conversions.
At times, the administrative leadership team felt overwhelmed. They underestimated the logistics
and leadership that was required to develop the SLCs and did not know if the conversion would
even work. But, they did know that they could not ignore staff members’ fears and still move the
process forward. They worked hard to maintain a middle ground, understanding that part of
coaching people through change is helping them to see the new possibilities, which people
discover at different paces.
Additional support came in the form of a school coach. Louise Lowry joined Terrace’s
conversion effort in August 2001 in the role of an organizational development consultant. Being
more remote from the day-to-day issues than was the Steering Team, Lowry could ask hard
questions and provide a balanced overview of the issues. She also had the support of the Small
Schools Project, which provided training and resources to the Gates Foundation’s school
grantees.
The most tangible aspect of shared-leadership was placing the responsibility for the conversion
process with the Steering Team, which was comprised of seven elected teachers, including one
teacher’s union representative, and the administrative team. The administrative leadership left all
major decisions to the Team and the school staff gave the Steering Team the authority to make
decisions by consensus on their behalf
According to members of the Steering Team, the administrative leadership did not impose its own
agenda. They were up front about their ideas, created a structure to let them go, and supported the
Steering Team to take ownership of the process. Classified staff members were involved very
little in the beginning, sometimes included in staff votes. But, the longer they were left out of the
process, the more difficult it became to educate them enough to participate effectively. While the
Steering Team was not sure if it had been a problem so far, they planned to involve classified
staff more during the year of SLC planning.
The Steering Team led a change process that was thoughtful and deliberate. Typically, the
administrative leadership team brainstormed ideas and brought them to the Steering Team for
feedback. The Team would discuss, debate and revise the idea until they could reach a consensus.
If there were no consensus, the idea would go to the full staff for feedback or a vote. In this way,

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
36
the Steering Team structure encouraged a combination of top-down and bottom-up influence and
accountability. Information moved to the faculty level through written communication, email,
meetings and the school’s web site. Informal communication between the faculty and Steering
Team members was also an effective conduit.
The strongest aspect of Terrace’s change effort so far has been the decision making process,
particularly the way it involved the staff. Some Team members felt that if the school had simply
rushed into the conversion process, without being as thoughtful and deliberate about their
decisions, the staff would not trust the leadership and the decision making would have been
mostly top down. There still remained teachers with concerns about hidden agendas and lost jobs.
But, even those who were too uncomfortable or intimidated to voice their discontent to the
principal found other trusted people in power that they could talk to. Their comments, letters and
concerns were all raised at the Steering Team meetings.
The Steering Team grappled with several difficult issues, which were often coupled with the
judgement of whether to use their decision-making authority or to bring the complexity of the
debate to the staff. Often, Team members were uncomfortable making decisions without further
input from the general staff. The most salient issues included establishing the timeline, the
Request for Proposal process, the Small Learning Community selection process, the teacher
selection process, and the conversion facilitation process.
Timeline
The challenge in creating a timeline was establishing where to place all the little, but important,
pieces of the process. The complexity of the work made it difficult to know when to make certain
decisions. The staff was anxious to make structural decisions about the conversion, but as one
teacher described it, they had to learn to “embrace the messiness” instead. For example,
establishing the process for placing students in their SLCs was put on the back burner until the
SLC selection process was complete. Depending upon which schools were implemented,
multiples of the same design or several different designs, students might be randomly assigned or
given some form of choice. Another challenge was determining the order between assigning
teachers to the SLCs and assigning SLC leaders. In many new schools, leaders are first appointed
and then select their staff. To promote autonomy among the SLCs, however, some thought the
staff should be assigned first and then able to elect their own leader.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
37
Teachers perceived the timeline quite differently. Some thought the process was speeding ahead,
while others felt like it was too slow. In such a large school system, it did appear necessary to
plan more, rather than jump in. Originally the school planned to implement small schools in the
2002-2003 academic year. Now they will take that year to plan. SLCs will be implemented in the
fall of 2003 (see appendix 6).
Small Learning Community Selection Process
By the end of the 2001-2002 academic year, the Steering Team knew they needed to bring the
excitement back into the SLC design process. But, it was also the time to choose which designs
would be implemented. With everyone so heavily invested, they worried about alienating people
when they proposed a final combination of SLCs for implementation. In addition, those teachers
who had been less involved began to question the SLC concept more openly, as they realized that
it would really happen.
The Steering Team understood that their colleagues did not share their emotional or intellectual
acceptance of the conversion process, having not had the same level of conversation. But,
knowing that some people would not be happy whatever the outcome, they had to be careful to
avoid the temptation to make decisions just to make people feel comfortable. They struggled to
find a compromise between the desire to create consensus around a final SLC proposal and the
impossibility of pleasing everyone.
They could hold a staff vote, but it was unclear what percentage would indicate enough support.
The Team also worried that people might vote against a proposed combination of SLCs, because
they did not like a particular piece of it. In that case, consensus or even eighty-percent support
would never be achieved. The Steering Team did not have a good idea of how many staff
members were interested in each SLC, or how they could ensure support would fall evenly
between each SLC in their proposal. They also feared that eliminating some SLC proposals could
cause teachers to leave along the way; no one wanted the selection process to become a win/lose
situation. Some sensed that teachers would be unable to vote based on what was best for students
rather than what was best for them.
In developing a proposed combination of SLCs to implement, the Steering Team considered
teacher, parent and student feedback as well as the suggestions from their panel of small schools
experts. They thought similar designs could possibly be combined and considered how to get
feedback on the final proposal before putting it to any kind of vote. Steering Team members

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
38
contemplated hosting lunch meetings or asking staff to provide input via email. But, there was
concern that not all teachers had read the individual SLC designs and that perhaps they were
expecting the Steering Team to do the difficult work of narrowing the choices for them.
In the end, the Steering Team realized that they had to make a proposal to the staff, rather than
hold a whole staff discussion. They opened their meetings to all staff, about a dozen of who
attended, and put together three SLC packages. They were presented to the staff for a vote.
Conversion Facilitation
Each new SLC team elected a Conversion Facilitator to lead them through the process of
developing curriculum, scheduling etc. Originally, the idea was to assign a Teacher Leader to
each SLC. But, the Steering Team felt that teachers should have the autonomy to decide if they
wanted a Teacher Leader or would rather allocate the money for a different administrative
position. The Conversion Facilitator was a compromise – an interim leader who could later be
elected by the staff in order to become permanent.
The administrative leadership team created an initial draft of the Conversion Facilitator’s job
description (see appendix 7). The Steering Team provided feedback and voiced the concern that
nobody would want such a daunting position. The job seemed like two different roles in one: a
strategic decision-maker, requiring vision and leadership qualities, and an operational decision-
maker requiring organizational and networking skills.
They decided to make the job description available to the staff, hold lunchtime meetings to
answer questions, and develop a list of interested people by March. In June, the newly assigned
SLC groups would elect a Conversion Facilitator from the list of interested applicants. People
applied for the job with a letter of interest, without yet knowing which SLC designs would be
selected. The eight applicants were helpful in discussing what kind of professional development
the Conversion Facilitators would need and what the new school leadership model might look
like.
In addition to considering the role of a Conversion Facilitator, the Steering Team thought about
how someone could accomplish the work in addition to a full-time teaching position. Carving out
additional time in the Conversion Facilitator’s weekly schedule would be critical to the planning
process. The problem, however, was that Terrace did not have the money to pay for this much
additional planning time.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
39
Before beginning to recruit applicants, the Steering Team made sure that they had a consensus on
the need for the Conversion Facilitator position. This was critical to the process so that the group
would not back out when it was time to make painful decisions about funding sources. They
determined that the Conversion Facilitators’ combined extra planning time would total 1.4 F.T.E.
If the school’s additional grant applications did not come through, it would mean losing at least
one staff position. The Team was clear that Conversion Facilitators were necessary since the only
viable alternative was for the existing leadership (the principal and two assistant principals) to
facilitate the work for all the SLCs. In addition, being a Conversion Facilitator would be good
training for future Teacher Leaders.
The last debate with regard to Conversion Facilitators was how to align their planning time so
they could work as a team. While a full day of planning provided more consecutive time together,
a bit of time each day could move the process ahead since Conversion Facilitators would have
time to check in with their other SLC staff members.
One choice or the other might influence who applied. Missing one day per week meant having
another teacher cover classes, which was unattractive to some teachers. Another option was to
line up Conversion Facilitators’ lunch periods with an extra planning period so that they could
have two hours of planning time together each day. Ultimately, the Steering Team decided to
leave the decision to the applicants.
Next year, the Conversion Facilitators will become the Steering Team. In future years, the Team
will likely be comprised of each small learning community’s Teacher Leader. However, some
questions still remain. Considering each of the SLCs will serve a different number of students,
possibly ranging from as few as forty to as many as 600, should they have equal representation on
the Steering Team? In other words, should the new Steering Team operate like the House or the
Senate? In addition, what will be the role of the building principal?
In developing each of these processes, the administrative leadership team liberally shared its
decision-making power. This was partly by design and partly due to district policy. They shared
power primarily through the Steering Team, which the staff perceived to represent their interests.
While their consensus driven model was slow and process oriented, it was one of Terrace’s most
successful change elements.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
40
2. How can the existing teaching staff be equitably allocated among the new SLCs?
In the beginning of the discussion about assigning teachers to each SLC, staff members
questioned who had the authority to make the final decisions. Should a Teacher Leader be hired
for each SLC and then given the authority to select their staff? Or, should each SLC be staffed
first and then have the authority to elect a Teacher Leader? The Steering Team was not sure
where autonomy would best be placed. Other questions surfaced about whether the selection
process should take place before or after the summer and how that decision would affect the rest
of the conversion timeline.
Deciding that teachers would rank order their preferences based on the SLCs that had been
selected did not make the process much clearer. Not knowing how many students would
ultimately enroll in each SLC, it was impossible to predict how many teachers should be assigned
to it. If enough teachers were placed to serve 400 students, should the school then force that many
students to enroll in the SLC? Ultimately, the Steering Team decided they would allot teachers
based on the number of students that the SLC proposed serving and the subjects that would be
taught.
Establishing the teacher selection criteria also posed a challenge. Some staff members wanted to
know if seniority would be taken into account when considering people’s preferences. The
concept of seniority was an emotional touch point for some teachers and entrenched in the
traditional school culture. The school, however, had worked hard to maintain an open forum
where everyone was equal, and seniority did not seem to have a place in the process. Legally
speaking, it was not an issue because teacher assignment within the building was a function of the
building principal.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
41
Ideally, every teacher would be placed in his or her first choice SLC. The Steering Team
developed selection criteria in order to balance ethnic diversity, teaching experience, and
certification between the SLCs (see appendix 8). Teachers were not guaranteed that they would
be assigned to the SLC they helped develop. But, in the event of a tie, preference went to the
person who was originally part of the SLC team. This also raised a set of questions. Did it matter
when they joined the team, even if it was after the final proposals were written? What if they
were on the initial design team, but hardly participated? Unable to provide satisfactory answers,
the Steering Team decided to work off the assumption that all design team members participated
equally and that everyone made their SLC preference thoughtfully, not, for example, based on
their friends’ choices.
In order to determine which SLC characteristics most influenced teachers’ preferences, the
Steering Team conducted a staff survey. The top vote getting criteria included the SLC’s
focus/enduring understandings, the curriculum and/or common focus of the SLC, the teaching
style, the SLC’s method to create personalization, and academic rigor. Teachers were fairly split
in their feelings about needing to be a generalist vs. a specialist, as well as having to deal with
“non-academic” issues. The Steering Team thought this information would be helpful in selecting
the final SLC designs and in assigning teachers to them.
The Steering Team continued to discuss a dizzying array of potential issues. If many people
wanted to be on a particular SLC, would they consider creating it more than once? If teachers had
not read all the SLC proposals, should they receive extra paid time in order to make an informed
choice? How should electives teachers be assigned if no SLC explicitly includes their subject
area? If a teacher is unhappy with their SLC placement, should they use the existing appeals
process?
The unending stream of questions caused some Steering Team members to wonder if the process
should be about consciously trying to keep everyone on staff. Teachers had to realize the process
was not perfect and must be encouraged to “embrace the messiness.” The questions also made it
clear that the teachers assigned to each SLC for the coming year were essentially more advanced
design teams. After these new teams fleshed out the curriculum, classes and staffing needs, some
teachers may have to re-shuffle. Ultimately, a teacher may be assigned to implement a different
SLC than he or she helped design. While this would create two disruptions in staffing, it meant
not having to dictate each SLC’s number of full-time staff before they were designed.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
42
The 2001-2002 academic year ended with all teachers assigned to their SLC group. The timing
allowed people to spend the summer reflecting on their new placement and to come back renewed
in August. It also gave people the summer to find a new job, should they decide to move on.
3. How should the school phase in SLCs, over time or all at once?
The Steering Team wanted to finalize the conversion process and timeline by the end of 2001-
2002 academic year in order to prepare for following year’s SLC planning. They decided to
present the SLC phase-in options at a staff meeting. The previous year, staff members had
narrowed their preferences to either phasing in the SLCs over two years, beginning with some
combination of lower grades, or assigning all students to an SLC, but allowing each one to
establish its own implementation schedule over a period of three years (see appendix 9).
If the staff decided to phase in 9th-11th grade students first, then teachers who offered required
courses for seniors would be excluded from participating in the SLCs. While this option
facilitated the seniors meeting all their graduation requirements in the midst of large-scale
change, it disconnected the older students from being peer leaders. Some teachers suspected that
their absence might be a good thing for promoting each SLC’s unique, new culture because the
seniors were unlikely to let go of the Terrace’s traditional culture with which they are familiar.
Another consideration for the conversion process was to determine the best allocation of teacher
planning time over next two years. Because student registration takes place in February, most of
the SLC details would have to be in place by then.
4. How can the school avoid segregating the student body by race, gender, skill and
socioeconomic level in creating SLCs?
The small schools movement is driven, in part, by the desire to create more equitable educational
opportunities for students in order to see more equitable outcomes. Terrace’s Steering Team was
concerned with creating an equitable change process as well as equitable small learning
communities. When taken as a whole, SLCs in the final package should represent the various
interests of both students and teachers. Individually, the demographics of each SLC’s student
body should reflect Terrace as a whole. At the end of the 2001-2002 academic year, the Steering
Team was still discussing the ramifications that certain decisions had on issues of equity. They
were nowhere near solving the many challenges that arose.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
43
In creating the three potential packages of SLCs, the Steering Team wanted to make sure that
enough “traditional” options were available, both for teachers to work in and for students to
attend. Traditional models were ones that tended toward the right side of the continuums,
employing staff resources and approaching coursework in a way that is similar to the current
Terrace model. While these options do accommodate people who make change at a slower pace,
these schools propagate the status quo. Research shows that the status quo cannot be achieved in
a small school but some Steering Team members believe that eventually, these more traditional
SLCs will become more innovative.
Another debate revolved around whether or not to include “magnet” schools in the packages. In
this discussion, Steering Team members grappled with the question of when differences between
SLCs are an asset to equitable student outcomes and when they are a barrier. While a school of
performing arts may solve the problem of how to share the band among many SLCs, it also
means placing all music and theater teachers into one school, where they are inaccessible to other
students. This type of theme school also forces students to make a choice between the arts and
other themes, such as technology. Among Terrace’s SLC proposals, only the performing arts and
technology were represented in theme schools. So, students could not choose to focus on
humanities or science with the same intensity. Teachers, students and parents worried that
students do not want to commit to a four-year course of study in the 8th grade, when they register
for high school. The Steering Team thought that equity issues might be assuaged if students were
able to cross register in the 11th and 12th grades. But this practice compromises the autonomy of
the SLCs by requiring them all to share the same schedule.
Meeting the needs of the “elite” will remain a challenge in the early years of implementation.
Though the administrative leaders feel pressure from the Gates Foundation to cut Advance
Placement courses, they worry it will cause top students to leave. It is easy to say that the SLCs
will all include academic rigor, but the political reality of addressing parents’ concerns about AP
has been downplayed by the Foundation. The administrative leaders recognize that they are
playing both sides of the field, for practical and political reasons. But, they feel that teachers and
parents are not ready to go the distance to create fully autonomous schools yet.
By the end of the 2001-2002 academic year, the final SLC package was selected. It included a
performing arts school, so far intended to house the entire music program, as well as a technology
oriented school. In the coming year, a process will be developed to determine student assignment.
Currently, Terrace is planning to create “structured choice,” where students rank the SLCs by

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
44
preference and are assigned such that the student body of each SLC represents the diversity of
Terrace as a whole. Students will have three choices, all of which will be considered places where
the student will be happy. The Steering Team hopes that between those choices, the schools will
already be mostly balanced.
But, the school leadership has not solved student assignment issues with regard to race, language
and socioeconomic status, should the distribution not come out perfect. The twenty-three percent
minority students will be considered as one large group, since each ethnicity taken alone would
be impossible to distribute. But, if students’ top school choices do not result an even distribution,
should they be forced to change based on their race, gender or other factors or should certain
SLCs be exempt from this criteria? What if the school in question offers a specific curriculum,
such as performing arts or technology? Will the ESL and learning support programs be housed in
one SLC, all SLCs, or be housed independent of any SLC? What criteria will be sufficient to
allow a student to transfer between SLCs?
The conversations regarding additional space and district resources will also continue.
Administrators worry that locating some SLCs outside the current building will affect students’
choices. If too few students select an SLC, should it be cancelled after a year of teacher planning
or should students be forced into it? Can students be assigned to a SLC that requires special
transportation?
5. How can the school use the grant money most effectively?
The administrative leadership team underestimated the amount of work involved in the
transformation process. A half time grant coordinator was not nearly enough. Some felt that
Gering’s time should also be completely dedicated to working on the conversion process. The
school could coordinate focus groups, but no one had the time to collect, analyze and disseminate
the data they generated. The job list went on and on; the total cost to create small learning
communities was much more than anyone at the school had expected.
Everyone agreed that it was a good idea to spend most of the grant money supporting teachers
through the RFP process. The administrative leadership also realized that there would be trouble
if the money ran out before the staff was done planning. Next year, the staff will have to stay
focused on the designing the SLCs and building a solid foundation for implementation.
Hopefully, district allocated meeting days and common planning periods built into the SLC
models will be provide enough time to sustain the change once the grant money runs out.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
45
So far, the school has received about eighteen percent of its grant money. Of the money they
received, the school has spent approximately seventy percent of it; the rest sits in an interest
bearing account. The majority of the money was spent on a one-time purchase of sixty mobile,
wireless laptop computers to address the grant’s goal of using technology as a tool. However,
extra staff days and design team planning hours represent the majority of long-term spending to
support teachers in conducting the conversion effort.
PART II: Relationships
1. How can the Steering Team build staff buy-in and adequately address concerns?
Demonstrating the need for change was not about presenting student data; the staff already
recognized the need to better serve their students. Rather, the initial discussion was about
implementing whole school change versus incremental change. The Department of Education
planning grant provided the necessary time to educate people about small schools before applying
for the Gates Foundation grant. But, the staff was not yet bought in to the process of converting to
several small learning communities.
The transparent decision-making process built trust and buy-in, which was paramount for an
effective change process. A large part of the school’s success also came from the leadership team
First Year Grant Expenditures
0.90%
0.30%
43%
56%
0.20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Community Outreach & Communication
Grant Support (supplies and printing)
Professional Development (staff planning,
refreshments, Summer Institute and substitutes)
Technology (laptop computers, licensing, software,
furniture)
Travel
Percent of Total

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
46
opening the process up to the whole staff. They shared the research, published minutes from
Steering Team meetings and created channels for grass roots planning. The balance between top-
down and bottom-up leadership empowered and excited the majority of people to do time
consuming reform work on top of their regular jobs.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) represented a real turning point in Terrace’s conversion process.
The school had been trying to do too much, too fast. The change process was not well thought
out, organized or understandable and the staff was not involved. But once the RFP process was in
place, and part of Gering’s time was designated to it, the Steering Team could begin to plan ahead
and was no longer moving from crisis to crisis. Several teachers who had been talking about
leaving Terrace became more committed to the reform effort.
The previous year of planning by the Structure & Policy committee sometimes seems like a waste
of time to those who participated. But teachers also said that it was good to go down that path
first. They realized that it was too easy to dismiss someone else’s idea or disengage from the
process when you are left out of the conversation. The RFP process changed all of that. Instead of
fighting for the Structure & Policy committee’s ideas, the RFP provided an innovative and
inclusive process. In the end, the school may not get significantly different results in terms of the
small learning community designs, but the effort was worthwhile for the professional
development and staff buy-in.
The RFP was based on another state’s charter school proposal. By focusing on student outcomes
rather than structural elements, it forced teachers to design the small school concepts before
deciding how many small schools there would be. Engaging everyone and creating autonomy for
each small school empowered teachers to create their dream schools. At the same time, it took
power away from the “resisters” since no one person had veto power over others’ ideas. The goal
was to achieve autonomy for each, individual school, not a consensus on the combination of final
designs.
Although the transition into the RFP process at the two-day summer retreat was abrupt, the staff
received it well. Gering, who is trusted and respected in the school, presented the idea. All
teachers were required to join a design team, though people participated to varying degrees. Part-
time workers were typically the least engaged because of other obligations in their personal or
professional lives. In addition, some teachers were still not committed to the idea of small
schools. Steering Team members assume that when the staff is actually broken up into the

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
47
different SLCs, teachers who were less committed early on will either change their view or decide
to leave the school.
The varying degrees of participation and enthusiasm did not hold the process back, but it did slow
it down. The political reality was that the Steering Team had to build in many time-intensive
decision-making processes. Many felt that developing proposals at the grassroots level was the
only way, within the complexity of the conversion process, to have some success. Indeed, the
RFP process was an opportunity for the staff to think creatively “out of the box” with support
from their peers as well as the administration. One team member observed a “quiet celebration of
the creativity that’s been going into this,” as a positive side effect on the staff. It was the first time
some teachers had experienced a process that could bring about “deep order change.”
Another successful element of the process was that people held the belief that what existed could
be better. The change effort brought a whole new level of conversation to the hallways and the
lunchroom. Teachers engaged in dynamic debates about meaningful teaching and learning. The
change process created energy in the building amongst a core group of people, which grew
constantly. The administrative leadership team set the tone for shared authority and led the charge
on community engagement and district relations.
Teachers took great pride in Terrace’s work. They were excited to have the opportunity to
implement a school conversion, which nobody had done before. The process provided the
possibility of being inordinately creative. The work might even ultimately change state policy, as
more schools create small learning communities and force the state to reexamine current
regulations.
One teacher was stopped at a local education conference three different times by teachers who
saw Mountlake Terrace High School written on her name tag. As they spoke to her with
admiration for the work happening there, she realized that other teachers were looking to Terrace
as a model and for inspiration. Another teacher observed that once the school reform effort began,
something inside him changed and now he could never stop. The conversion process was a
personal and professional motivator for yet another teacher who said it was part of why he loved
his job.
In spite of Terrace’s success with the RFP process, some philosophical questions still remained.
How can the process allow people with a unique idea to have their own voice, other than arguing

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
48
with their design team to see things their way? How can school leaders reconcile the design
process with teachers’ different levels of time and commitment? How can the final selection
process be designed so there are not “winners” and “losers”? How can the school still address
important issues in the present, such as student anonymity, when the entire staff is planning for
the future?
The only SLC design requirement was that each SLC must provide a curriculum that allowed
students to meet the prerequisites to attend a four-year college and/or technical school. But, some
teachers worried that design teams, whose members did not equally represent all segments of the
school community, would misunderstand or even leave out important school programs. A
physical education teacher felt that other teachers did not really know what went on with PE and
was concerned that people pay attention to sports schedules in their planning. A guidance
counselor expressed anxiety that the members of some design teams did not understand the many
roles that counselors play and therefore would not incorporate these functions into their plans.
Such responsibilities included registering new students and transitioning them into their SLC,
helping students interpret their PSAT score, and taking ownership of large student issues like
sexual abuse and drug addiction. It was unclear whether counselors would remain as one
department serving all the SLCs or if they would be split between them. Because of this anxiety,
the department put together a proposal which explained their many functions and suggested how
to integrate them into the SLCs. Theirs was not a concern about dissolving the department, but
about how the services would be delivered, especially if counselors had to teach as well.
The Steering Team generated a list of school functions that might remain in common to all the
SLCs (see appendix 10). Some functions, such as custodial support, school-wide theatrical
performances and school colors can easily remain the same, but other decisions imply significant
compromises. Maintaining the varsity sports program means that SLCs must adopt a common end
time. Each centralized position, including an activities coordinator and a school newspaper
advisor reduces the budget for each SLC and compromises their autonomy. Many final decisions
will be made in 2003 when SLC staffs can better debate the tradeoffs of decentralizing activities
such as the yearbook, student government and secretarial support.
The RFP process shifted the reform focus from the logistics of conversion to redesigning teaching
and learning, for a while. It also provided a way to more fully engage the entire staff in planning
for their future, which fostered stronger buy-in. But, the process itself was a messy one with more

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
49
layers of complexity than anyone had anticipated. Although it deeply engaged many staff
members, others were left feeling alienated.
The enthusiasm for the RFP process was waning by January 2002. Some teachers were frustrated
with the lack of specific guidelines for their designs. They were concerned that the proposals
were built too heavily on theory rather than fact, and that teams could only speculate as to what
would really work with the students. At the same time, some teachers did not want to develop the
degree of detail required by the proposals. Spending time creating a “day in the life” scenario
seemed like a waste when the design may not even be chosen. As the reality of choosing SLC
designs became more real, teachers’ anxiety grew.
Even as Terrace prepared to select its final SLC designs, teachers came forward with uneasiness
about the conversion. The Steering Team was satisfied that people felt comfortable speaking out.
But, while the process was effective, teachers were not convinced it was worthwhile. Some feared
that SLCs would not affect student outcomes and that students liked Terrace as it was. Others
claimed that the conversion would not change the fact that Terrace was one big school.
Some teachers trusted the change process more than the change itself. The small, but important,
minority of teachers who do not yet buy into the small schools idea felt that their concerns were
appreciated, but were frustrated by the momentum toward reform. The Steering Team tried to
ensure a groundswell of support before accepting the Gates Foundation grant. But, there are risks
involved with determining change based on a school-wide vote. One teacher recalled someone
saying, “if we turn down the grant, the community will hang us.” She also speculated that some
people voted to go along because they trusted and admired Gering, not because they believed in
the reform itself.
Some teachers argued that Terrace already had several small learning communities, such as the
school newspaper, physical education and the band. People were not convinced that SLCs would
work better for all students, specifically special education and English language learners.
Electives teachers were especially nervous, unsure that eliminating choices was the best idea. It
was also rumored that design teams were cutting out administrative and counseling positions in
order to reduce class size. Some teachers were concerned with the idea of being generalists. As
one staff member put it, “I came to teach high school because I like science.”

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
50
While teachers generally felt supported by the administration’s consideration of room
arrangements between the SLCs, the science department had some concerns. They felt that
scheduling would be the biggest issue, since there were already more teachers than classrooms.
They worried about the SLCs sharing science equipment and space when they might be operating
on different schedules, including different class lengths.
Some teachers were cynical about the amount of support the school would get from the district,
the state, and parents for the work ahead. Steering Team members also worried that the Gates
Foundation’s expectations would push the school to move through the change process too fast.
One teacher interpreted the grant as Gates’ school reform experiment; if schools are not able to
convert to small learning communities with all this money and support, then who can?
If the final SLC selection caused people to quit, one teacher worried that their departure could be
perceived as rats fleeing a sinking ship. This could create unrest within the school and the
community, leading to bad publicity and becoming a burden on the school’s reputation. Another
teacher mused that he would be amazed if one SLC did not begin as a failure; it almost seemed
necessary in order for the others to succeed.
If the way to gain support for an idea is to back it up with research, some teachers felt they could
not support the specific changes they were making because Terrace was the research. Generally,
the staff felt that outsiders could not understand the scope of what the school was trying to
accomplish, or how difficult it can be to ignite school change.
Some teachers worried that the staff does not have the commitment to follow through on the SLC
ideas in order to make them a success. Elements of the plans may be implemented, but not the
complete vision. They predict this will happen because teachers do not have adequate time and
resources, even if they are excited about the change. The way the reform is set up, with teachers
planning on top of doing their jobs, is not conducive to creating successful or sustainable change.
The Steering Team was unsure how to address the many fears and concerns. The general strategy
was to create scheduled lunch sessions for people to come talk while Team members listened. Of
course, only negative comments surfaced during these discussions and it became difficult for
Team members to keep perspective. Should they take a poll of the staff’s general mood? Should
they vote on whether or not to continue with the conversion? In re-asserting their own
commitment to the process, it became clear that there could be no option to quit until they had

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
51
actually tried something. They would not question their success or failure until they had
completed the reform. In the meantime, they could be sensitive to the various reactions that the
SLC selection process would induce and hope that as teachers begin to work in the smaller
communities, they will all embrace the change. The future will also bring more formal
professional development, which will hopefully build teachers’ capacity and enthusiasm for
teaching in small learning communities.
2. How can the leadership maintain faculty support when the process turns in unpredicted
directions?
Toward the end of the 2001-2002 academic year, the leadership faced more vocal opposition to
the conversion. Verbal promises that had been made by the administrative leadership at the
beginning of the change process were no longer being kept, such as the option to turn back and
quit the reform. Terrace embarked on the process as an exploratory exercise; if the staff decided it
was the wrong direction, they could stop. But, stopping was no longer an option.
Teachers were also guaranteed that no one would lose their job in this process. Though
technically still true, teachers may have to change what they teach. For some, this feels like losing
a job. Steering Team members credit these inconsistencies to the complete ignorance of what the
school was getting into with the conversion process.
3. How can the Steering Team build buy-in among parents and students?
Early communication with parents took the form of local newspaper articles, open house
presentations and school newsletter articles. Parents and students became more engaged with the
reform process later on, mostly through focus group participation. Parents were impressed by the
extent to which Terrace’s administration sought their input, while students felt unheard. Their
attitudes about the conversion process also reflected some of the teachers’ concerns. Parents
worried that the proposals lacked substance and students feared that SLCs would not serve their
needs.
The parents who volunteered to be interviewed were part of the minority of parents who had a
good understanding of what Terrace was trying to accomplish with the small schools conversion.
While their children were generally high achievers, they supported the idea of creating a more
personalized school environment. Their concern was that the SLC proposals were unfocused and
academically unchallenging.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
52
Almost all of the interviewees had attended an information session or focus group at the high
school, which they heard about from a postcard or in one instance, a neighbor. One parent who
had not attended any formal meetings heard about the small schools conversion from his tenth
grade son. He then called Assistant Principal Gering and offered to help. Most interviewees had
children who attend Terrace now, as well as younger children who will be affected by the
conversion. One parent’s oldest son will be in ninth grade next year.
The parents took pride in Terrace’s good reputation, and did not want the conversions to blow it.
Most thought the school had kept them informed about the conversion process and were indignant
toward those who claimed ignorance. As a real estate agent, one mother deliberately clips
newspaper articles about the school and knew about the small schools effort from the beginning.
Others agreed that the school had done “everything they could” to notify parents, “if people even
read the local newspaper (the Enterprise) or the school newsletter, they would know that Terrace
was looking for parent feedback.” One parent was surprised at how few people attended Terrace’s
small schools information session. She also reported that parents at the middle school Q & A
were unhappy that they had not heard about the conversion sooner, adding, “I don’t know how
they couldn’t have heard about it. We all got the postcard.”
The Terrace web site was another excellent tool for some parents. One downloaded many of the
SLC proposals then emailed feedback to the Steering Team. But, another parent was frustrated
when she was only given a little information at the Q & A and then told to check out the web site.
She found it to be overwhelming and it took far too long for her to download any of the SLC
proposals. Some commented that not all parents have computer access.
Other parents felt that it was difficult to figure out what was going on at the school. Although she
tries to keep up with the school newsletter, one parent said a year had gone by before she knew
anything about the conversion effort, which made her feel very behind. Her neighbors still do not
know anything about it. Another parent was pro-active about attending school meetings and
providing feedback on the SLC proposals, but she never heard from the school again. Many
parents felt unsure that their feedback had been addressed and had no idea when the final SLC
decisions would be made.
Parents understood the goals of the conversion to be lowering the dropout rate and creating
smaller environments where teachers really know the students. They liked the idea of developing
a sense of community and personal responsibility While one parent admitted she was initially

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
53
unsure why Terrace needed to change, she loved the SLC concept and thought her son would do
well in it. Like their son, she and her husband “were not exceptionally smart or very poorly
behaved” when they were in high school, so the principal did not know who they were. She
believed that SLCs would allow for kids to be known and have extra support at all learning levels.
One parent felt better about the conversion process after participating in a focus group. She
welcomed the opportunity to give feedback on the designs and to ask questions about Advanced
Placement classes. She attributed her comfort with the process to Assistant Principal Gering,
whose “enthusiasm for this whole thing really keeps me going. I’ve put a lot of trust in him.” But,
other parents were not quite as satisfied.
In spite of their confidence in the concept of small schools, most parents thought that the SLC
proposals were vague, unfocused and too “granola”. As a former teacher, one parent felt that
schools could not successfully change everything at once; he suggested that Terrace focus on one
area, such as personalization. Others agreed that the RFP process was too loose and needed to be
reigned in. Parents were concerned about how little the teachers seemed to know about what they
were doing. They could not answer specific questions around how the SLCs will be organized or
how they will deal with special issues like the band or children with disabilities. “In a business
environment,” one parent commented, “these proposals would have been shot down a long time
ago.”
Parents also worried that some of the SLC models would not offer students a well-rounded
education. Curriculum focus was okay, but not if it meant eliminating certain subjects. Parents
wanted their children to be able to continue their elective courses through the end of high school,
and one thought that only entering students should be placed in SLCs. Some felt that their
younger children should have the same opportunities for curricular variety that their older
children had. They did not like the idea of pegging students to a particular SLC at such a young
age and were concerned that students be allowed to transfer.
Concern gave way to skepticism and cynicism. One parent recounted the story of another high
school in the district that changed its physical structure to match an instructional reform. Later,
the school reverted back to the old system and now is stuck with a building that no longer suits it.
Another parent wondered how the conversion would really make the school smaller since there
will be the same teacher to student ratio. A different parent admitted she might be a little resistant
to change because her son is doing well, but she could not help thinking about how much

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
54
planning money is being spent on teachers “creating these papers that are like their masters
theses!”
Most parents were engaged in the conversion process as much as they wanted to be, although
they were uncertain about future involvement. A few people had expressed interest in providing
more feedback, but were never contacted. One mom gave her email address at an event but never
heard from the school again. She would like to be more informed about the SLC selection process
and know who makes the final decision. Others were willing to sit in on meetings but did not
think they would be given the chance. One father did not have the sense that parents had been
involved in implementing the program in a “grass roots” way, though others appreciated the
opportunity to give honest feedback on the SLCs. One mom thought that middle school parents
should be more engaged with the conversion process since their kids have more at stake; she had
not heard anything by way of having a sixth grade child.
Not all parents want to stay involved. As one explained, ”I don’t want to be so involved that I’m
like a part of the staff. I like to give input and the way I’ve done it is okay. If even one half of the
parents responded it would be plenty of information. I don’t want to be any more involved than I
am right now.” Most parents just wanted to know that their concerns were heard. One father
voiced, “this is my school, this is my daughter’s school and I don’t want my daughter to be a
guinea pig in some experiment that’s not thought out in a very fundamental, practical way.”
Another mother worried that many of the SLC proposals altered the school schedule, leaving
students to find their own transportation. She cannot alter her work schedule in order to transport
her son and many students living over five miles away cannot walk. She questioned, “what’s the
answer if this problem isn’t addressed?”
Steering Team members agree that parents should have been more involved up to now. But, the
level of parent involvement has reflected the community culture, which according to the school is
supportive but not highly involved. Staff members expect more parent voices will rise as they
begin to see changes. Terrace’s small schools coach, Louise Lowry suggested engaging parents in
the coming year’s SLC planning. But, the staff resisted that idea.
Students felt that their concerns were not being taken into account. While there was support for
the conversion as well as against it, some students raised compelling concerns during focus
groups and feedback sessions. One student wrote a bitter condemnation of SLCs in a letter to the
school newspaper. The biggest concerns revolved around sacrificing current Terrace electives

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
55
options and college preparation courses. “The proposed release time is too late. It would interfere
with my after school activities such as dance and piano.” “I am worried that when it comes time
for me to decide what SLC I would like to be in, that none of them will spark my interest. Each
SLC is categorized, but I have many interests. This is why I like it the way it is because then I
have more choices for classes.” “The thing that I am worried about… is whether we are going to
be able to participate in as many AP/Honors courses as we would like, just being able to do one is
impractical and gives the smarter kids the short end of the stick.” “If I want to be ready for
college, I need to be able to realize that I won’t get all of the attention I need. These proposals
will just hold me back socially.”
Because students understood the small schools effort as a way to reduce the dropout rate, many
perceived the conversion to be at the expense of high achieving students. They did not see SLCs
as an attractive option for college-bound students who wanted a challenging curriculum and
opportunities to explore career options and interests. The Steering Team needed to do a better job
of defining the need for change as well as the benefits of SLCs to the students.
4. How can the school generate the necessary district-level support?
Receiving the Gates grant as an individual school, rather than as a district, caused Terrace to feel
somewhat isolated within the district. Principal Baier had to educate the district on small schools
and Terrace’s change process. The district was forced to consider how the conversion effort fit
within the bigger district picture. While the superintendent indicated that he wanted to be
supportive, he could not promise Terrace any additional district resources.
Principal Baier admits that good communication with the district should have began when
Terrace applied for the Gates grant. The superintendent’s signature, which was required for the
grant, was not enough to gain true district support. They first presented to the school board in the
spring of 2001 about the Department of Education planning grant. Subsequent presentations
occurred in six-month intervals, in the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2002. The effort was
insufficient to keep the board informed and engaged with the process. Nothing about Terrace’s
work appeared on the district’s web site, although two articles had appeared in the Seattle Times
newspaper.
The Edmonds school district is divided into quadrants, encompassing one traditional high school
and its feeder elementary and middle schools. Each quadrant has an assistant superintendent.
Terrace’s assistant superintendent, Pam Hopkins, recognized that Terrace could not accomplish

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
56
the conversion without the support of the rest of the district. She attended several Steering Team
meetings and kept in touch with the conversion effort. She spoke passionately about accepting the
Gates grant and advocated for Terrace within the central office.
As the liaison between the school and the district, Hopkins explained the depth of Terrace’s
conversion process to district personnel and relayed district-level concerns back to the school.
The district administration worried about issues regarding the union and teacher placement.
District leaders also wanted a guarantee that Terrace’s new instructional models would fulfill
student graduation requirements.
As the complexity of the conversion process became clearer, the Steering Team realized that the
necessary resources to complete the work went beyond the school. There were no specific district
policies prohibiting the SLCs and waivers would be easily obtained, but the lack of resources was
an issue. Terrace anticipated requesting waivers for teacher certification and graduation
requirements, such as seat time. But, the school needed district support to satisfy the need for
additional space and transportation. The district office did not resist or block Terrace’s work, but
it did not provide tangible assistance either. The superintendent, Wayne Robertson, wanted to be
supportive but had to weigh Terrace’s needs against those of the other schools in the district.
In March of 2002, Superintendent Robertson attended a Steering Team meeting to find out what
challenges lay ahead. He wanted to be prepared to field questions from parents and the school
board. Until then, his strategy for speaking to people in the community, was to emphasize why
small schools are important (i.e. relationships, caring adults), rather than inventing specifics about
what the small schools would look like. When pushed by Steering Team members to adopt the
conversion process as a district initiative and demonstrate more support and enthusiasm publicly,
the superintendent said that representing the entire district meant balancing the needs of all
schools. Although he felt unable to give Terrace district resources for additional school space, he
promised that emotional support would always be there.
Quadrant meetings provided an opportunity for school administrators to talk about the changes at
Terrace. But, the district did not encourage conversation between all the high schools. Some
teachers were concerned that the other high schools were pushing the district to create uniformity
across the high schools. The political reality was that the district was more focused on standards
reform than on promoting small learning communities. This left Terrace feeling isolated in their
conversion effort.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
57
In the spring of 2002, the district surprised Terrace. In response to the school’s request for
specific staff development training, the district office decided to sponsor Critical Friends Group
and Learning by Design workshops for the entire district in the coming summer. This
demonstrated the district’s responsiveness to Terrace’s professional development needs as well as
a willingness to share their reform efforts with the rest of Edmonds’ schools. The administrative
leadership team could only hope the district would become as supportive of Terrace’s space and
transportation needs.
Additional Space
Mountlake Terrace High School is already oversubscribed. If, as expected, converting to small
learning communities reduces the dropout rate, the school will have to move 600 students out of
the building. Assistant Principal Gering feared that a lack of additional space could break the
whole conversion effort. Housing all the students in the existing building was not an attractive
option, and the district would not allow portables. Telling teachers that they have to be out of a
certain room, by a certain time because another group is coming in would extinguish SLC
autonomy.
Edmonds did have an old, empty high school building, but it was located clear across the district.
Parents would probably be unwilling to send their children there. An old Boeing Company office
building provided another option, which Terrace could possibly use in connection with Edmonds
Community College. The building was nearby, had parking, a cafeteria and plenty of open space.
But, it was owned by a German holding company and Terrace did not have money to rent it. The
school would need significant district support to overcome the space issue.
Converting Terrace’s current building into SLCs raised a different set of issues. Though the
school was laid out with separate wings, it was unclear if each school could occupy a distinct
space. Moving science labs would be prohibitively expensive and the Steering Team had yet to
figure out how SLCs would share common space, such as the auditorium and vocational technical
lab.
Transportation
Autonomous SLCs should be able to set non-traditional start times. But, for Terrace students to
start late meant that all the elementary schools in their quadrant would have to change their
schedules as well. Currently, busses dropped off high school students before beginning their

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
58
elementary routes. Having Terrace students use public transit was one possible solution. But,
Edmonds did not have a comprehensive transit system and taking students away from traditional
school busses might cause problems with bus drivers’ union.
As the 2001-2002 school year ended, these issues were unresolved. It remains unclear how to
generate more district support and additional rumors are brewing about the desire for a district-
wide high school curriculum. While the SLC teams still have another year of planning, the move
toward decentralized leadership in an educational multiplex may make it even more difficult to
maintain strong district relations.
On the Horizon
Several issues remain to be worked out in the next year of SLC planning and the coming years of
implementation. Teachers will need professional development in order to take advantage of their
new small school environments and a new form of leadership will be established. In addition,
several challenges will arise with regard to fully implementing SLCs and sustaining the changes
over time.
Professional Development
Staff development must be the focus of coming years, because changing school size is only an
initial step in the conversion process. In the next academic year, teachers will be charged with
developing rigorous curricula that meets the needs of all students, as well as integrating
instructional practice and assessment. But, it is not clear that teachers are equipped to do this.
During implementation, teachers will enter an environment of shared authority, team teaching and
student advisories, which may be completely foreign to their experience. If Terrace converts into
SLCs without changing teachers’ practice and their approach to student learning, they may create
a real disaster. The challenge exists in discovering what motivations exist for teachers to want to
completely change their practice.
Leadership
The future also holds leadership changes. The two assistant principals may not have a place
within the new educational multiplex3 and Principal Baier plans to retire in two years. Until now,
the administrative leadership drove the conversion process. While they are confident that once
teachers begin working in their SLCs they will commit to sustaining the change, the
3 By the end of the 2001-2002 academic year, Assistant Principal Tytler had accepted an offer for the
Principal position at another school.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
59
administrative leadership team must focus next year on building a stronger culture for reform.
Typical teacher turnover combined with leadership changes could reverse all the changes made or
at least compromise the small schools model to the extent that it does not serve kids. So far, the
administrative leadership team has gambled on the fact that changed behavior will lead to
changed beliefs and attitudes, and not the other way around.
Implementing Sustainable Small Learning Communities
Tom Gregory (2000) has outlined five common errors of breaking up large high schools. They
relate to the autonomy, size, continuity, time and control of small learning communities. Terrace,
like all schools engaged in conversion, should heed his cautions as they implement their SLCs in
the coming years.
With the current plan, Terrace may end up committing three of the five errors – autonomy, time
and control. Terrace wants to maintain many of its big school traditions, such as sports and clubs,
which were “arguably the only cultural glue” that bound together “all the disparate pieces of (the)
big, anonymous school” (Gregory, 2000). But, mixed allegiances and the long established big
school culture will undermine the SLCs’ efforts to establish their own identities, while making
sports and clubs “depersonalized and remote from the more local lives” of SLCs (Gregory, 2000).
Gregory admits “continuing to offer esoteric electives across all (SLCs) is an attractive option” in
multiplex configurations because it is seen as maintaining the best of both worlds, “the rich
curriculum of a large, comprehensive high school and the more personalized environment of a
small school” (2000). Certainly, this reflects Terrace’s desire to allow upper-class students to
cross register for elective classes. But, by adopting a common bell schedule (the necessary
ramification) SLCs will not be able “to do much programmatically that’s different from what the
big school was able to do” (Gregory, 2000). Gregory explains, “responding spontaneously to an
unexpected learning opportunity – whether it’s a visiting author or a full solar eclipse that will be
visible in a nearby state – is almost as remote a possibility for the (SLC) as it is for a large high
school” (2000). Implementing traditional schedules also promotes the idea of traditional teacher
responsibilities, making programs that are known to enhance independent learning, such as
advisories, more difficult to justify (Gregory, 2000).
Big schools institute tight control in order to deal with having so many students in one place. But,
“freedom of movement is a necessary prerequisite to many powerful forms of learning. Students
must be well-known and trusted for such freedom to be possible” (Gregory, 2000). Terrace’s

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
60
SLCs may still have trouble allowing students such freedom since they will be strangers when
they move elsewhere within the large building. Needing to maintain control in the large building
may result in constrained teaching and learning in the SLCs as well.
Terrace does not seem likely to commit errors of size and continuity. The SLCs at Terrace have
been capped at enrolling 400 students. If they grow larger, their staffs will also become bigger,
such that they can no longer work together effectively. At this point, most schools revert back to
the big-school strategy of centralized governance. Terrace will implement SLCs across all four
grades. When schools create specialized programs, such as freshman academies or senior
institutes, students have too many transitions to make and are not around to mentor the younger
generation that follows.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
61
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Exceptional leadership, a high degree of trust among staff and years of conversation about school
reform have supported Terrace’s success so far. Yet, even in this environment, the conversion
process has been complex and difficult. As the literature on school reform describes, the most
salient features of successful school change include decentralized control, a multi-level approach
that engages the entire school community, and professional development that focuses on desired
student outcomes. Mountlake Terrace High School displays these qualities in much of their
change process. Their pioneering efforts have also illuminated some better practices.
Decentralized Control
fi Foster a trusting environment for change through shared decision-making authority between
administrators and teachers.
fi Exercise the authority you have been given. Those in leadership positions must remain
steadfast when others express doubt.
Mountlake Terrace High School achieved an effective balance between top-down and grass roots
support among the staff. The administrative team employed a leadership strategy where teachers
and administrators engaged in shared decision making and risk taking. The Steering Team was
the primary manifestation of shared leadership. Staff elections allowed its members not to be
resented as an elite group, but perceived as representatives of the whole staff. The consensus
based decision-making process fostered trust in the change effort and built a strong institutional
environment for reform.
An important element of Terrace’s success was providing Assistant Principal Gering the time to
focus on the change process. He was able to think strategically and plan ahead for the Steering
Team meetings. With this kind of support in place, the Team was able to brainstorm ideas, create
a long-term timeline and follow-through on their plans. Gering also coordinated external
resources, such as guest speakers, focus group participants and the panel of experts.
Some experts think it takes a year of exposure to a new system before a teacher can make an
informed decision about buying-in (Payne & Kaba, 2001). To get over the hump of anxiety that
swells as implementation nears, the Steering Team must demonstrate stronger leadership.
Members need to exercise the authority they have been given by taking a stand on complex issues
and remaining steadfast when others express doubt. Teachers who observed the two-hour

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
62
conversation where the Steering Team considered whether quitting was an option said that seeing
the Steering Team waffle scared them more than hearing the multitude of teachers’ concerns. In
their commitment to decentralized leadership, the Steering Team is almost too open to others’
viewpoints; they need to stand stronger as a unified and positive leadership team.
Engaged School Community
fi Engage parents and students in the change process early and in meaningful ways. Encourage
them to advocate for small learning communities on behalf of the school.
fi Educate the district office about small schools as you educate yourself in order to create a
shared vision for success.
The administrative leadership team did not have as much success engaging parents, students and
the district office as it did with teachers. Terrace began their community engagement process
slowly and much of the communication was too subtle. Newsletter articles did not catch the
attention of most parents and students. Information sessions and focus groups were good
strategies for bringing people into the change process, but did not prove to be very informative
for the school staff.
Parents and students should have understood the small schools research before participating in
focus groups. Parents who attended information sessions and focus groups heard the goal of the
conversion to be reducing the dropout rate through increased personalization, but they had
children with high academic achievement. Many, therefore, did not want to lose any of Terrace’s
curricular options, which contradicts the central small schools tenet of focus. Parents seemed
unclear that changes in teaching and learning are a major goal of the reform process. The student
feedback must also be taken in context; they can only compare the SLC proposals to their current
school environment. While many students disliked the idea of being assigned to a small group of
teachers and students, they might not be able to conceive of the benefits that it will afford them.
Now, the school’s challenge will be to redefine the purpose of small schools from one of reducing
the dropout rate, to that which benefits students at all achievement levels. The school must
overcome parents’ and students’ current feeling that small schools benefit low-achieving students
at the expense of the high achievers.
The administrative leadership could have engaged the school community earlier in the change
process and in more meaningful ways. If parents and students had joined staff members on small
school visits, they would be better able to conceptualize the SLC proposals. Administrators

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
63
theorize that the RFP process may have made parent involvement more difficult because
proposals lacked many details. But, engaging parents during the early stages of the change
process through information sessions and focus groups on the small schools research, would have
educated them on what kinds of changes to look for. In the same way Terrace posted the SLC
design proposals on their web site, national newspaper articles summarizing small schools
research could have been posted or periodically mailed out to educate parents about small schools
in an easy to read format. Using the parents to network among themselves might have also
encouraged more participation.
The school once considered having a parent join the Steering Team, though the idea met with
considerable resistance from other Team members. Forming a parent advisory council
representing various segments of the student body would be a more realistic commitment for a
parent and less threatening to the staff. The council could lead community engagement activities
on behalf of the school and communicate with parents through more informal conversation.
Parents and students could be invited to join SLC design teams. This would allow parents to be
familiar enough with the change process that they could present the case for small schools to the
community on behalf of the school. Other schools have found that this kind of demonstrable
commitment wins favor with the district, the community and potential funders. But, before
Terrace can significantly benefit from parent participation, staff members must get beyond
feeling threatened by too much parent involvement and reconceive parents as allies and resources
in solving problems.
The district office stayed in touch with the change process at Terrace through representation at
several of the Steering Team meetings. But, the nature of the school grant was that the district
never bought in to the small schools concept to the extent that Terrace did. While the district
office does not impede the school’s reform effort, it will not provide additional resources that
could otherwise be used within the district. Perhaps the Gates Foundation’s request for proposal
should have required joint application between a school and its district, encompassing more than
just a signature. Or, perhaps Terrace should have generated a shared vision for improvement with
the superintendent.
The administrative leadership team could have educated the district office about small schools,
from the beginning, as they educated themselves. Regular conversations and a joint commitment
would result in a district effort rather than an isolated school effort. So long as the district has no

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
64
investment in making the conversion a success, there is no district level incentive for the school
to engage in reform at all.
Professional Development
fi Improve staff sophistication about small schools through site visits, workshops, research
review, and design development.
fi Balance the focus between the student centered goals of conversion and the logistical tools
for achieving it.
fi Integrate supporting evidence, evaluation and accountability components into the school
designs.
Converting a comprehensive high school to several small learning communities requires
significant professional development. In the beginning of Terrace’s reform, teachers learned
about small schools and assumed new leadership roles, helping develop the timeline and the
process for change. Teachers fully engaged in designing small learning communities and
continued to learn about how to take advantage of small school size. In the future, professional
development will involve creating new structures for intellectual inquiry and reflection about
classroom practice, conducting advisory groups, and integrating curriculum.
The administrative leadership refocused the conversion on improved teaching and learning by
engaging all teachers in designing small learning communities. The Request for Proposal was an
important turning point for Terrace’s change process, not because it is the “right” way to plan
new schools, but because it engaged the entire staff in a positive thinking exercise. Designing
SLCs emphasized building something new versus the breaking down the existing school.
Many peoples’ belief systems were changed as a result of reading the small schools research. But,
the conversion process has so far revealed that most teachers are unable to make decisions based
primarily on the benefits to students. Though intellectually teachers want to do what is best for
students, they are often emotionally committed to their current jobs and those of their colleagues.
Conversations tend toward concerns with the work environment and maintaining existing
programs, before someone inevitably refocuses the group on student needs.
Alternate Design Processes
Having all teachers involved in the process created an environment of shared authority and risk
taking. But, the nature of the final selection process is that some people will feel like losers. A

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
65
better way to proceed toward narrowing the SLC selection might be to utilize the small schools
experts in facilitating the teachers to rank the proposals. The assistant principals observed that
one real value to the review panel process was hearing each design team’s presentation. Teachers
would benefit from the same opportunity. Design teams could present to each other then follow a
protocol to rank each proposal, with guidance from an outside expert in the field. This peer
review model would expose teachers to others’ thinking and result in a combined effort to
eliminate certain designs. It would support intensive learning around what challenges exist and
how they are best addressed.
Another strategy for narrowing the proposals would be to start with fewer of them. At another
Gates grantee school, the principal divided the teachers into SLC groups based on work styles and
expertise. These new staffs are now working together to design their schools. Though it is a less
inclusive approach, the teachers trusted their principal to take this step and felt less pressure since
it was out of their control. Another option is for a school staff to dream up several school models
as a large group. Then, together they could narrow the options down to six or fewer and everyone
would select one to work on. This way, all the planning time is spent on models that will actually
be implemented and less desirable models are rejected before teachers become too invested in
them.
Teachers, parents and experts were concerned that the proposals were based mostly on theory and
were too vague. Future RFP processes might consider requiring design teams to base their
proposals on researched and documented strategies. While the backward design process forced
teachers to focus on what outcomes their model would achieve, there was no identification of the
challenges that the new design aims to overcome. Without explicitly stating the goals, no
evaluation or accountability measures are built into the designs. Creating structures regarding
supporting evidence, evaluation and accountability will instill more confidence in the design
process and the proposals themselves.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
66
APPLYING THE LESSONS LEARNED
Mountlake Terrace High School serves as a model for schools taking on complex reform. Their
experience provides example and insight into the process of enacting comprehensive change.
Lessons highlighted in this case study are echoed by the research on school change. They can be
applied to schools embarking on a conversion as well as the districts that house them and the
funders who support them.
Lessons for School Leaders
Schools leaders undertaking changes that are comparable to those at Terrace can benefit from
their experience. Complex comprehensive reform requires a deliberate and thoughtful process.
Several lessons can be extracted from the first half of Terrace’s conversion process.
1. Begin by looking at student data, demonstrating the need for change and developing a shared
vision for success.
In committing to school reform, the school community must understand why the existing school
structure needs to change and agree upon how the new school should be different. Parents, staff
members, students and the district should all be included in this step. Ideally, schools will have
already considered creating small schools before receiving a grant, which was an asset to
Terrace’s conversion process.
2. Dedicate one F.T.E. to coordinate the conversion effort.
The conversion work is far more labor intensive than people imagine. A designated administrator
can direct communication, organize long-term planning, track decisions, and follow-up on action
items. Principals must also give this person the authority (and accompanying accountability) he or
she needs to get the job done.
3. Create shared leadership.
Comprehensive reform necessitates a reconceptualization of leadership where teachers and
managers engage in shared decision making and risk taking (Harris, 2000). This can be achieved
by electing a staff leadership team and/or by sharing the school design authority and
responsibility. Terrace’s Steering Team established a process that was trusted by the entire school
community. It was very important that the leadership never tried to short-circuit it by exercising
too much authority.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
67
4. Be supportive, engaged and knowledgeable.
Principals must be physically present at important events, reiterating their support for the school
change and inspiring others to join in. By educating others as they educate themselves, principals
can empower the school community and share important decision-making authority.
5. Allow people to feel safe about sharing their concerns.
Create processes for people to share their fears, anxieties and doubts. The leadership may not be
able to solve them all, but it is important to listen. The entire school community will benefit from
open, honest and consistent communication.
6. Support the conversion with professional development.
This reform is not merely about reconfiguring the school, it is about changing the school’s culture
and practice. High school reform is meaningless unless it changes daily teaching and learning in
the classroom (Tewel, 1995).
Lessons for District Leaders
Terrace can not achieve this kind of comprehensive change independent of their district and
district leaders must consider other schools’ competing demands. However, Terrace’s experience
has illuminated ways for districts to support schools in reform. Districts can facilitate the
conversion process through advocacy and keep from putting up roadblocks to success by
relinquishing some authority.
1. Talk to other districts attempting a similar reform.
Upon receiving the grant, district leaders should communicate with school and district personnel
who have already dealt with similar conversion efforts to learn about what kinds of challenges
they raised. Terrace’s Assistant Superintendent recommends considering issues related to district
resources that the school might need, such as space and transportation. Districts should also
consider how to work with the teachers association and how the district’s culture impacts school
autonomy.
2. Be supportive, engaged and knowledgeable.
District leaders can support schools in the same way that school leaders support their
communities. The district office must be knowledgeable about conversions and the school’s
reform process. A district representative can sit in on school planning meetings and attend

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
68
important events. The district can also help communicate the vision for school success to parents
and to the rest of the schools in the district.
3. Share your authority.
Grant schools autonomy in such issues as professional development, hiring decisions, curricular
choices, alternative assessment methods, and scheduling. Be willing to re-negotiate contract
provisions with unions, including those representing teachers, transportation employees and food
service employees.
Lessons for Funders
The three-year grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will provide Terrace with
ample time to complete the conversion process. However, Terrace had already established much
of the critical conversation about teaching and learning that must take place before a school can
embark on this kind of change. In the future, this foundation and others should encourage, or
require, schools to complete some of the school change planning before they request funding for
the implementation.
1. Require a joint application between a school and its district.
The application should demonstrate joint buy-in and accountability by the school and the district.
This way, schools will not feel isolated in their conversion effort and districts will have already
thought through some of the challenges that may impact the district.
2. Require a plan for improvement that delineates problems, plans to address them, and ways to
measure progress.
This will cause schools to look at student data and agree upon the need for change before
applying for funding. It will also support a change process that addresses specific school
challenges and allows for measurable results. By articulating where they are going, schools can
be held more accountable for getting there.
3. Re-consider the funding formula.
Funding schools on a per-pupil allocation may not reflect the true cost of school reform. All of
the schools engaged in this reform require long-term professional development and planning
time, regardless of their size. Terrace’s staff members often commented that even a grant of
$850,000 was not that much money considering the amount of work that had to be done, and the
number of teachers doing it.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
69

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
70
REFERENCES
Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance. Close-up #20.
Northwest Regional Education Library.
Fine, M., Editor (1994). Chartering urban school reform: Reflections on public high schools in
the midst of change. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gregory, T. (1992). Small is too big: Achieving a critical anti-mass in the high school. Hubert H.
Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Gregory, T. (2000). School reform and the no-man’s-land of high school size. Indiana University.
Harris, A. (2000). What works in school improvement? Lessons from the field and future
directions. Educational Research, 42(1), 1-11.
Hurley, M. (2001, October 7). Reshaping of Rindge. Boston Globe, p. W1.
Lee, V. (2000). Inside small and large high schools: Curriculum and social relations. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis (22), 2: p. 147-171.
Muncey, D. & McQuillan, P. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An
ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Yale University Press.
Public Agenda (2002). Sizing things up. A report for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Shaw, L. (2001, March 12). With schools, small seems a better fit. The Seattle Times.
Smith, J. & Lee, V. (1996). High school restructuring and the equitable distribution of
achievement. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, US Department of Education.
Tewel, K. J. (1995). New schools for a new century. St. Lucie Press.
Payne, C. M. & Kaba, M. (2001). So much reform, so little change: Building-level obstacles to
urban school reform. Forthcoming, Journal of Negro Education.
Yettick, H. (2001, December 31). Split decision; Students, administration at odds over Manual
High’s reorganization. Rocky Mountain News.
INTERNET SOURCES
Edmonds School District: http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu
Mountlake Terrace High School: http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/mths/default.htm
Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction: www.k12.wa.us

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
71
APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND QUESTIONS
Protocol
Each interview was conducted one-on-one. I let the interviewee choose the location for the
conversation, which for some was behind a closed door and for others was in the teacher’s
lounge. I began by explaining that I am with the University of Washington and the Small Schools
Project. If they did not already know, I told them that the Small Schools Project is funded by the
Gates Foundation to provide technical assistance to the schools in Washington State that received
grants. I further clarified that I was writing a case study of the reform process at Mountlake
Terrace, so that other schools might benefit from their experience.
I viewed my role as a listener and recorder, not one to inform the process. For example, I did not
respond to a teacher’s lack of confidence in the small schools theory, but carefully recorded all
his or her opinions. The interviews all followed the same basic questions and prompts:
• What has been your role in the change process?
• How involved do you feel you’ve been? How involved do you feel the staff as a whole has
been? (On a scale of 1-10.)
• How has the reform process been different from what you expected? In other words, have
certain things happened, while others have not?
• What about the reform process has worked and what has not?
Additional questions for Steering Team members:
• What are the biggest issues that the Steering Team has grappled with?
• What are the big issues on the horizon (that will be dealt with in the coming year or two)?
Additional questions for Administrative Leadership:
• How has your role as a leader changed with the reform process?
• What state and/or district policies get in the way of the school’s change effort?
Mountlake Terrace’s grant coordinator emailed an interview request on my behalf to all the
parents in the school’s database. Willing participants replied and I interviewed them by
telephone. The interviews all followed the same basic questions and prompts:
• How are you involved with Mountlake Terrace High School’s small schools effort?
• Why did you get involved?
• What’s your understanding of what the school is trying to do? What do you think?
• What about the parent engagement process has worked?
• What could have been done better?

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
72
APPENDIX 2: SLC DEFINITIONS
Equity between SLCs
A conscious attention to ensuring that all students regardless of the smaller learning community
that they are in have an equal opportunity for a rich educational experience; this process will also
ensure that we will avoid an educational imbalance between the SLCs. We will consider factors
such as gender, free and reduced lunch, ethnicity, ESL populations, and IEP status in maintaining
an ideal balance.
Autonomy
The ability of a group of staff members to make a decision in the best interest of students and
staff and to implement that decision in a timely manner. This is considered by many people as
the most important factor in establishing smaller learning communities. As one person in an
autonomous small school said, “We can make a decision on Monday and have it implemented by
Thursday.” Ideally, each SLC will be able to have as much autonomy as possible in staffing,
scheduling, budget, curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy.
Rigor (also referred to as academic press)
The press for high achievement for all students. The school is anchored on and organized around
a clearly defined “learning imperative” referenced to clear and public standards that are
frequently and authentically assessed.
Personalization
Programs and facilities are organized in ways that encourage the development of healthy student-
adult relationships. The school is small or feels small for every student in the building. These
continuous relationships create a web of support, a unified community, and challenges students
and teachers alike. The goal of this is to build a supportive school organization to help students
learn more.
Enduring understanding/Intellectual focus
Staff and students are focused on a few important goals. The focus is competence, not coverage.
Students struggle with complex problems, explore core concepts to develop deep understanding;
and apply knowledge in real world contexts. Students then show evidence of understanding in
performance assessment tasks that allow students to exhibit higher order thinking and helps
teachers and students set learning goals and to monitor progress.
Performance assessment/authentic assessment
These assessments are intellectual accomplishments that are worthwhile, significant, and
meaningful, such as those undertaken by successful adults in the work world. They mirror the
issues and problems faced by adults (thus they are authentic) and require the student to construct
knowledge, demonstrate in-depth understanding rather than superficial awareness, and to rely on
complex forms of communication.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
73
APPENDIX 3: TUNING PROTOCOL
Time: At least 30 minutes.
The tuning protocol is a formalized way to get feedback, on work in progress to examine student
work as a means to refine curriculum or practice. As with music this is a rehearsal where the
tuning of the instrument is vital to the quality of the music. The process can be as short as 30-40
minutes.
Specifics:
1. A person (the Tunee) brings any work in progress to a group of peers (the Tuners) for
“tuning.” It can be, for example, student work in progress, finished student work that a
teacher wishes to examine, a faculty committee bring a first draft of a proposal, etc…..
2. (10 minutes) Tunees share the presented work. No interruptions or questions are
allowed, just listening and note taking by the Tuners. The Tunee may ask for specific
feedback (framed feedback) or may leave it open (unframed feedback).
3. (5 minutes) Tuners may ask clarifying questions, but no discussion is allowed.
4. (22 minutes) Tuners discuss the work together, giving three kinds of feedback each in
separate intervals. The Tunee may only listen and take notes while the Tuners talk.
Feedback is directly related to the work at hand and does not refer to the Tunee.
• Warm Feedback – Positive points associated with the work.
• Cool Feedback – Questions that arise, doubts, gaps in the work.
• Hard Feedback – Challenges related to the work.
Hard Feedback is often not used until people are accustomed to this as a way to
learn rather than a personal matter or judgment.
5. (8 Minutes) The Tunee responds to the feedback given by the Tuners. Responses should
be about changes that might be made, new insights, and clarifications. Response is not an
opportunity to defend the work.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
74
APPENDIX 4: FOCUS GROUP RUBRIC
Name of Proposal:__________________________________
Potential
Finalist Finalist Doesn’t Meet
Quality (with revisions) My
Expectations
RIGOR/CURRICULUM
The curriculum seems interesting and
it would help me reach my goals after
High School.
PERSONALIZATION
If I was in this school, I think I would
be connected to the adults in the
school.
VIABILITY
I could see this school actually
working.
COMPREHENSIVENESS
Overall, this seems like a school that I
could join.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
75
1. If possible, identify TWO ideas that were good/great about any of the proposals you read.
Please include the proposal name in your response.
2. Identify TWO ideas that you least liked about any of the proposals you read. Please
include the proposal name in your response.
3. What additional information would have been helpful to you in making your decision?
Rate how important a factor each of the following will be on your decision to join a smaller
learning community. (Rate 1 – 10, 1=highly likely to affect my decision & 10= not very likely to
affect my decision)
1. The curriculum/what classes they offer _____
2. The teachers in the SLC _____
3. Which one my friends and/or siblings are selecting(ed) _____
4. The schedule _____
5. My parents input _____
6. The size of the school _____
7. The reputation of the SLC in the community _____
8. How they use technology & how much technology is available _____
9. Availability of advanced courses (like AP/college in the HS) _____
10. How the senior project works _____
11. Teaching style _____
12. Graduation requirements _____
13. How personalized it feels _____
14. Availability of integrated courses (eg: SS & Eng. taught together) _____
15. How involved students will be in SLC decision making _____

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
76
APPENDIX 5: EXPERT PANEL RUBRIC
Name of Proposal:_____________________________________________
Criteria:
Points
Available
Points
Awarded
Creating a personalized environment
a. Describe your design of a small, friendly learning community where every student
is known and encouraged.
b. Explain how your school design facilitates a learning community where teachers
and students develop productive relationships and where the quality of the
teaching and learning environment is always a primary concern.
c. Provide a description of how the SLC ensures equity and that every student can
realize maximum potential focused on high expectations, allowing teachers and
students to meet their educational goals and needs.
25
Developing a common focus for the SLC
a. Describe your SLC's common intellectual focus based on enduring
understandings, high expectations for all students, and skills that students will be
able to demonstrate. Explain how the common focus leads to in-depth authentic
learning.
b. Specify how the common focus guides the school as a central, integrating theme
that influences its activities and decisions.
c. Explain how all staff members will assist every student in achieving state and
local standards; how all students will be engaged in an ambitious and rigorous
course of study; and how all students will leave school prepared for success in
work, further education, and responsible citizenship.
d. Describe the assessment tasks students will be expected to produce and present to
real audiences.
20
Allocating time to collaborate
a. Provide a detailed explanation of how your SLC provides time for teacher
learning, planning, and collaboration.
b. Indicate how staff members will dedicate time to meet the needs of each student;
develop instructional skills; monitor, assess, align, and improve the academic
program; and confer in making decisions that affect the teaching and learning
environment.
10
Description of a day in the life of a student and teacher
Please provide a thorough description of The Day in the Life of the SLC and the
educational experience that will be provided for students and staff.
20
Size of School, Building Use, and Governance/Leadership
a. Provide the number of students in your SLC and what building needs you will
require.
b. Provide a general description of the leadership structure of your SLC and how
decisions will be made.
5
Proposed SLC is Viable and Compelling
While not a specific section, each SLC proposal will be scored on how viable and
compelling it is. A "viable" proposal promises a small learning community that is
realistically achievable and can function effectively while adhering to the MTHS vision. A
"compelling" proposal describes a creatively conceived and challenging academic program
based on enduring understandings and requiring a staff committed to teaching and learning
in a personalized environment.
20
Totals
100

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
77
Comment section
1. What I really liked about the proposal
2. Things that I thought would not work and/or were missing from the proposal.
3. Things that I would change before I implemented this proposal….
4. Additional comments (if necessary)

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
79
APPENDIX 7: CONVERSION FACILITATOR JOB DESCRIPTION
Length of employment: 2002-03 school year (to include some hours in August).
Major Functions and Responsibilities
Each small school selected will need the services of a conversion facilitator who will play a key
role in managing the various processes of creating a new, small school. All the work listed below
will be done in collaboration with the administration, other facilitators and members of the small
schools. The descriptors below are not intended to be inclusive of all of the functions and
responsibilities of this position; others may emerge as the process unfolds.
Strategic Responsibilities
1. Serve as a member of the MTHS Steering Team, participating in at least twice monthly ST
meetings and, as a member of this team, assisting with the development of plans and
processes for a wide variety of issues, including but not limited to the establishment of small
schools budgets and allocation of space.
2. Coordinate the development of a three-year small schools implementation timeline to include
all small school needs during the first three years.
3. Serve as a staff development liaison during 02-03 for training provided by the Edmonds SD.
4. Be committed to continuing self-education in SLCs to better understand small school work
and the curricular changes appropriate to this process.
5. Monitor small school work and ensure alignment with MTHS vision statement.
Operational Responsibilities
1. Serve as the primary small school contact person, including assisting with the registration
process.
2. Serve as liaison between Steering Team and one small school staff.
3. Provide management for the conversion process (i.e. program catalog, bell schedules, space,
student registration, WASL).
4. Plan/facilitate half days for small schools work.
5. Coordinate the establishment of a parent/student small school advisory.
6. Coordinate small school staffing needs for 03-04, including leadership needs.
7. Coordinate the development of small school waivers to OSPI.
8. Maintains files/records as necessary.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
1. Ability to communicate effectively with staff, parents and students using tact, courtesy and
good judgment.
2. Ability to work with a high degree of attention to detail.
3. Ability to delegate tasks.
4. Demonstrated ability to follow through.
5. Ability to prepare word-processed documents.
Compensation
The following are examples of the CF jobs could be configured. Compensation preferences will
be determined with input from the selected Conversion Facilitators. Total compensation cannot
exceed budgeted amounts.
1. .2 release all year long.
2. One full day release each week.
3. Work outside the school day at an hourly rate.
4. Saturday work at an hourly rate.
5. Combination of one or more of the above.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
80
APPENDIX 8: TEACHER SELECTION CRITERIA
The following process will be used this spring to help place staff members in their SLC group for
the next school year:
1. All teachers will select at a minimum their top 3 choices in ranked order. Staff members
will also have the option of using the same ranking for two proposals that they feel are
equal. For example, if you had two proposals that you would be equally comfortable as
having as your top choice, then you could rank two proposals with a number 1.
Additionally, if a proposal after the top three is not ranked, then the committee will
assume that you would not be comfortable being placed in that particular smaller learning
community.
2. Every effort will be made to give everyone one of his/her first three choices while
considering the staffing needs of the SLC with the certification that each staff member
has. When this is not possible we will use the following criteria.
a. Ties in preferences will go to individuals who were on the original RFP
group.
b. Beyond this, the following criteria (in order listed) will be used by a committee
that consists of the building principal, a district EEA representative(s), a
representative from Human Resources, and members of the Steering Team.
Every effort will be made to come to consensus on the placement for all staff
members; however, if they cannot come to consensus, the building principal will
have the final decision.
i. Giving everyone his or her highest possible choice – looking for a win-win
solution for everyone involved
ii. Ensuring that there is at least one staff member in each SLC who would be
willing to serve as a facilitator for their SLC next year (conversion
facilitator)
iii. Balance of teaching experience on each SLC
iv. An attempt to make all of the SLC staff composition to be as diverse as
possible.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
81
APPENDIX 9: CONVERSION OPTIONS
Small on Purpose:
Staging Redesign + Conversions
for MTHS
Slides taken from the Small Schools Project
Center on Reinventing Public Education
Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs
University of Washington
And modified based on MTHS
Steering Team input
smallschoolsproject.org
Conversion Options
For this scenario we will
assume that…
A comprehensive high school
of 1925 students …
… split into seven schools of
275 students each.
One fell swoop …
Planning
Year(s)
Year 1
Conversion Option #1
When and why might you do this?
What are some advantages and disadvantages
to this way of staging?
What’s happening here?
Phase in by grades …
Conversion Option #2
or
What are some advantages/disadvantages to
making one choice over another?
What’s happening here?
What’s
different?
Planning
Year(s)
Phase in by grades …
Conversion Option #3
When and why might you phase in by grades?
What are some advantages and disadvantages
to this way of staging?
Planning
Year(s)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Conversion Option #4
Combination …
When and why might you do this?
What are some advantages and disadvantages
of this way of staging?
What’s happening here?
We start 9-12 with the assignment of
all students, but every SLC chooses
its implementation schedule over a
three year period.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
82
APPENDIX 10: THINGS HELD IN COMMON
Varsity Sports: Remains unchanged. Students from all SLCs will be able to access the same
selection of interscholastic sports and WIAA sanctioned events as before.
q Implication: We will need a common end time for the SLCs in order to allow students access
to practices and competition. Coaching stipends will remain as is per negotiated agreement.
School Clubs: Remains unchanged. Students from all SLCs will be able to access the same
range of clubs and activities as before. However, over time we hope to significantly improve the
number of activities and clubs that we have available for students. Toward this end, the
possibility exists for clubs to be offered within SLCs.
q Implication: Over the next few years, each SLC should examine its capacity to offer
increased extracurricular experiences for members of its SLC and/or the larger community.
Stipends will remain as is per negotiated agreement.
ASB: Initially remains unchanged. The ASB could operate under its existing structure allowing
students from any SLC to participate as class officers and/or ASB officers. Steering Team
recommends increasing ASB participation via representation from each SLC as a means to
increase student involvement.
q Implication: The ASB officers will need to examine this possibility and develop a
recommendation and a governing structure on how this will work operationally (Timeline-
spring of 2003).
Musicals and Plays: Remains unchanged. School wide musicals and plays would remain
available for all students and serve as a way to unite students from differing smaller learning
communities. Additionally, opportunities for students in drama could occur through one or more
smaller learning communities.
q Implication: The funded position (paid as a stipend) would remain.
Yearbook: Remains unchanged. The yearbook would still be for Mountlake Terrace High
School. The yearbook staff could do additional layouts for each smaller learning community as
components of the yearbook; however, this would be a decision that the yearbook staff would
make.
q Still to be resolved: Currently, the yearbook class is offered during the school day as a course
available to all students. This could remain in a smaller learning community and/or could be
moved outside of the school day. (Timeline – January 2003).
Hawkeye: Decision to be decided by the Hawkeye advisor, staff, and administration. The
Hawkeye could continue to operate on an extended scheduled for all students just as it currently
does. Alternatively, a smaller learning community could take on the Hawkeye. Another option
could be some combination of these two options where student publications could be within a
community and available outside of the school day.
q Implications: If the Hawkeye remains on an extended schedule, then the .2 staffing currently
reserved for the publication would need to be taken out of the staffing pool before the
remainder of the FTE is distributed to the smaller learning communities. (Timeline – April
2003).
School colors and mascot: Remains unchanged. Since sports are a community activity, this
would be another feature that all SLCs would share.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
83
Common Spaces: We are proposing that the cafeteria, theater, library, gymnasium, parking, and
offices remain as common spaces.
q Implications: The scheduling and coordination of these spaces will fall to a building-wide
Steering Team to ensure that all of the SLCs have access to the common spaces. (Timeline
for the establishment of the Steering Team for the 2003—04 school year, May 2003).
Library Services: The librarian and the library support staff will continue to be run centrally and
will service all of the smaller learning communities.
q Implication: The staffing for these positions will taken out for this purpose before the
remaining FTE is distributed to the smaller learning communities.
Registrar Services: Remain unchanged. The registrar will serve all of the smaller learning
communities.
q Still to be resolved: The State has developed new software that allows for flexible scheduling
of smaller learning communities within a larger high school. We have seen the first iteration
of this software, but the timing of the official release of this software and all of the final
features of the software will have a major affect on the ability of the registrar to be able to
deal with different configurations of students within MTHS. We will continue to monitor this
development and analyze our needs.
Secretarial support: No recommendation at this time. During the next school year, we will
gather input from the smaller learning communities on their secretarial needs. Input on their job
organization and workload will also be solicited from the secretarial staff. A final decision will be
made by the building principal (in coordination with the Steering Team) next spring for the 2003-
04 school year.
Activities coordinator: Remains unchanged. The activities coordinator services for the high
school will remain unchanged from the current configuration.
q Implication: The staffing for this position will be taken out before the remainder of the FTE is
distributed to the smaller learning communities.
Learning Support Staffing: No recommendation at this time. The Learning Support department
in coordination with the building administration will make a recommendation for how their
department will operate in smaller learning communities. Ideally, the Learning Support staff will
be distributed through all of the SLCs; however, the details and logistics need to be resolved
around a number of issues before a final decision can be made.
q Timeline: This spring the Learning Support staff will formulate a plan for how their current
FTE will be distributed to the smaller learning communities. By April of the 2002-03 school
year, they will need to have their recommendation on how they will provide services to
students for the following year.
Building Principal: A building principal will remain as the instructional leader and building
manager for MTHS. This individual will chair the Steering Team, oversee the coordination of the
smaller learning communities, serve as the primary liaison to the District and community,
monitor the progress of the SLCs on the accountability measures, and maintain final
responsibility for staffing, budget, evaluation and other responsibilities as defined by the district.
Assistant Principals and Dean of Students: No decision. At this time, the plan is to eventually
take the FTE currently devoted to these positions, distribute them to the smaller learning
communities, and allow these groups to make decisions about the use of these funds and how
leadership will take place.

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
84
q Implications: Any decisions about these positions for the 2003-04 school year will need to
take place by the middle of April 2003. If a change is desired in terms of how these positions
will be used in the smaller learning communities, then we will need to process these changes
with the District, EEA, and possibly State.
Custodians: Remain unchanged. All custodial services will be provided centrally for the smaller
learning communities and will be directly responsible to the building principal.
Department chairs: No recommendation at this time. For the 2002-03 school year, the
department chair stipends will remain unchanged. In the future, if a change is desired in terms of
how the current department chair resources are being used, then the details would need to be
worked out with the District and the Edmonds Education Association. Future recommendations
for any potential changes would originate from the Steering Team and would include a time for
input from the staff at large.
Technology Instructional Support Staff: Remains unchanged at this time. The technology
support staff will remain unchanged for the smaller learning communities. Again, the FTE for
these positions (currently about .7 but will probably need to increase) will be reserved for these
positions before the remainder is distributed to the SLCs for use.
q Issues to be considered: With the addition of the technology resources provided by the Gates
grant, the technology support will need to be evaluated carefully. The building technology
committee will continue to operate (directly reporting to the Steering Team) and once
operational representatives from each SLC should be present.
Steering Team: The function and role of the Steering Team will largely be the same for the
2002-03 school year. Representation on the Steering Team will consist of conversion facilitators
and building administration. This shared leadership team will continue past next year with equal
representation from each SLC and the building principal.
q Implication: Compensation for Steering Team members will need to be analyzed and
considered for future years.
Shared students among SLCs: Students and their families will have the opportunity to
preference their smaller learning community as a natural part of registration. Using our
Educational Balancing Criteria, we will then assign students to an SLC for their 9-12 experience.
During the 11th and 12th grade years, we will provide an opportunity for students to access
programs in another smaller learning community that are not offered in their SLC. The logistics
of this will take place as cross registration on a space available basis similar to intradistrict
courses that are operational currently. Each SLC will be responsible for assisting its students in
accessing these courses; however, it will be the responsibility of each SLC to provide printed
materials that will make cross registration accessible for other students. Students in the 9th and
10th grade years will take any elective courses within their SLC.
q Implication: The Steering Team will analyze this policy during the 02-03 school year and
develop procedures and guidelines associated with this. The intent of these policies should be
to maximize personalization for students and affiliation with their SLC while still balancing
student needs to access programs that are not offered within their SLC. A common agreement
will need to be reached on how/when students will move.
Band, Orchestra, and Choral Music: The music department will operate on two levels. First,
there will be a concert band (and/or other general music offerings) offered to students from all
SLCs outside of the school day. This will allow any student who is interested in continuing in
music the opportunity to do so. The remaining FTE of the music department will be distributed

Converting a Comprehensive High School Into Small Learning Communities
Catherine A. Wallach, Small Schools Project, 2002.
85
to the SLCs. Correspondingly, these music offerings will be offered within the SLCs. As
described above, students will still be able to access these music offerings within an SLC during
their junior and senior years.
q Implication: The staffing for the shared music experiences will need to be reserved from the
general staffing pool before the remaining FTE is distributed. Additionally, the placement of
the music experiences for all of the SLCs will need to be analyzed carefully (and yearly) to
ensure that students can access these programs and still go to their smaller learning
communities for the remainder of their curricular experiences. (Note: We still need to
receive input from our music department about these proposed changes as well as process this
with the entire staff).
Curriculum (general): All smaller learning communities will need to provide the prerequisite
coursework to allow students to go to their next level of education, including access to a four year
college. Therefore, they will still need to meet Washington State graduation requirements and
Edmonds School District requirements for graduation.
q Implication: Curricular changes will need to be aligned with the State and all changes will
need to be approved by our school board as we move forward with implementation next year.