None of the three key organizational characteristics is individually sufficient for strong freshman course performance in CHSRI small schools¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Schools holding only two of the three characteristics (developmental practices, deep principal leadership, teacher influence) did not produce strong first-year course performance, suggesting the combination of all three is needed. → W. David Stevens 2008

Evidence¶

W. David Stevens 2008¶

W. David Stevens. (2008). If Small Is Not Enough . . . ? The Characteristics of Successful Small High Schools in Chicago. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/if-small-not-enough-characteristics-successful-small-high-schools-chicago

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Cross-case comparison in the results section of the ten-school sample: four schools with only two of the three conditions all lacked strong course performance, while the four schools with all three had it. The report concludes "the combination of all three is both sufficient and necessary to do so."

"Yet unlike the four schools with all three characteristics, none of these four schools produced strong first-year course performance. This suggests that strong principal leadership, developmental practices, and strong teacher influence are not sufficient individually to produce strong course performance; the combination of all three is both sufficient and necessary to do so."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In CHSRI small high schools, strong freshman course performance is associated with the combination of developmental practices, deep principal leadership, and teacher influence — a broader claim this one bears on
• High-performing CHSRI schools shared four practices for guiding and sustaining instructional improvement: defining leadership responsibilities, creatively distributing them, institutionalizing routines, and focusing team work on school-wide goals — related
• Guidance and Development Policy Instruments Are Individually Insufficient for Instructional Change — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Strong personalized student supports tend to accompany strong freshman course performance but may not be essential — related
• Principal effects on student achievement are largely indirect, mediated through school organizational processes — related
• Building a strong learning climate by supporting and guiding teacher collaboration around common goals is highlighted as a key finding — related
• Knowledge of the on-track indicator and its use in district accountability were not enough to change school practice — related
• In one school, well-defined instructional priorities plus deliberate leadership facilitated sustained developmental practices — related
• Differences favoring CHSRI teachers on facilitators of instructional improvement were small and mostly not statistically significant — related
• The five essential supports matter in combination: strength on clusters of supports, not isolated domains, predicts improvement — a broader claim this one bears on
• Creativity-supportive school climates combine autonomy, psychological safety, teacher encouragement, and rich resources — related