Proponents of the small schools movement like to throw around a saying, “small schools are not a panacea but they can work.” I agreed with this saying, despite beginning a strong opponent of the small schools movement. Some small schools have accomplished a lot in a short period of time, but turning all New York City high schools into small schools is not going to fix the many issues that plague NYC schools. So here’s my question to Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Klein, why are you focusing all your efforts on a movement that is not working? Sure some small schools work, but so do some large schools. Why not focus your energy on methods that are proven to work, like smaller class sizes, better professional development, and more collaboration. Millions of dollars have been spent on small schools without there being any significant results. Test scores are not increasing drastically, students behavior issues are not decreasing, and graduates are not attending college in any record numbers. Small schools have many of the same issues that large high schools have, plus new small schools have an extremely high percentage of new teachers and a high rate of turnover. This is a serious issue that is often overlooked when discussing small schools. The constant rotation of teachers and principles really hurts students, who all educators know do better in schools when there is a strong, stable leadership and staff.

So once again I ask, why? Imagine what could have been accomplished if all that money had been spent fixing existing schools or building new schools, with better facilities. New Utrecht High School in Brooklyn is an extremely well functioning large high school, despite the extreme overcrowding it is facing. This school desperately needs repairs and additional space, but with all of the DOE’s emphasis on small schools, New Utrecht has been largely ignored. New Utrecht is just one example of the Bloomberg/Klein leadership ignoring facts that do not suit their goals. These two men are so wrapped up in the small schools movement that they have failed to see and appreciate that there are alternatives methods that work. If Mr. Gates is willing to acknowledge that small schools are not working as he said in his annual letter, “Many of the small schools that we invested in did not improve students’ achievement in any significant way,“ then why can’t Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Klein. Bill Gates is not giving up on improving education in America, but he has decided that his money is not best spent on creating small schools. Without Gates money or outside funding small schools cannot work. Small schools are expensive and they need the extra funding to run successfully. So what happens ten years down the road when the dozens of small schools that opened under Bloomberg/Klein start to crumble? Do we start again with a new idea to revolutionize education? We should start now by looking at schools that are working, like New Utrecht, and mimic their success. Please Mr. Bloomberg, don’t ruin schools that are working and replace them indiscriminately.

Also discussed was how some schools create a “relevant curriculum” but the speakers did not square relevancy with a Regents curriculum.
Small schools should “theoretically” create more intimate, less anonymous institutions for at-risk kids, but it is a “divide and conquer” process that is about surveillance as much as it is about changing attitudes (and behavior was addressed yesterday and there are problems in the small schools).