High School Reform
Pinpointing the beginning of high school educational reform proves to be a somewhat
elusive task. Further identifying the tools, techniques, and policies that define high school
educational reform makes for an even more daunting task. This paper will explore facets of high
school reform in the United States, along with the impact it has had on education. As an
exhaustive exploration of high school educational reform would be nigh impossible (and beyond
the scope of this paper), highlights (and “lowlights”) will be addressed.
Before the 1980s, schools basically operated without oversight. National standards of
education did not exist. Essentially schools were simply entrusted to do their job in educating
students; the country assumed that these schools would do so. Eventually people started noticing
that something was wrong. Not all schools seemed to be functioning in a way that was beneficial
to society – or at least as beneficial as it should be. High school reform enters the stage. Gerald
N. Tirozzi writes, “No longer can the United States afford to have an education system that has
traditionally educated one-third and allowed one-third to fall through the cracks” in hi essay,
“Taking Charge of High School Reform” (Tirozzi). Tirozzi is the executive director of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals. One might think that this essay was
written in the 1980s prior to the implementation of education reform. One might then be quite
surprised to discover that this essay was published in March of 2005.
In “Design and Implementation of High School Reform: Perspectives from Research and
Practice,” Thomas M. Smith (University of California, Riverside), Marisa Cannata (Vanderbilt
University), Lora Cohen-Vogel (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), and Stacey A.
Rutledge (Florida State University) share: “There has been a proliferation of high school reform
models and interventions over the past few decades aimed at improving the nation’s high
schools, including increasing graduation requirements, introducing technology to classrooms,
grouping ninth-grade students into their own ‘academies,’ reorienting the curriculum toward
particular career themes, and implementing radical turnaround school modems. But there have
been few systematic efforts to map the high school reform landscape” (Smith, et al). These
writers hold a primarily positive perspective of the growth of high school reform in the twentyfirst century, though acknowledge that the growth is merely moderate and that the gaps in growth
of minorities persist. They also note that while many systems have been put in place to bolster
educators and educational systems that these systems and programs are often not properly
implemented. This can quite readily be viewed in many new teacher “orientation” programs, in
“opening day” activities within school districts at which educators are forced to sit through hours
of lectures about how sitting through hours of lectures is an extremely poor and detrimental
teaching tool. the accountability for the successful implementation of these programs is severely
lacking and, in many cases, can be viewed as a school district merely “checking a box.”
There have been myriad attempts at legislation to mandate high school reform. Most,
perhaps, carry more detriment than benefits for the education of students. “With the Advent of
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Race to the Top (RTTT), and School Improvement Grants (SIG),
schools’ and districts’ leaders are mandated to search for quick, effective, and sustainable
changes in instruction, assessment, and intervention to improve student results and avoid state
and federal sanctions” (Baete and Hochbein). The field of education certainly loves its acronyms
even when they make no sense whatsoever. This article alone contains no fewer than fourteen,
which may point up part of the problem in the density of these attempted reforms. Baete and
Hochbein go on to share that “Unfortunately, a wide body of research over the past half-century
[Aiken, 1942; Austin, 1979; Crandall et al., 1982; McLaughlin, 1990; Slavin et al., 1996;
Stringfield, Reynolds, & Schaffer, 2008; Tucker, 2011) has found shortfalls in taking reform to
scale.” While each of these pieces of legislation has an aim an improving that state of education
in America, those that are writing the legislation are out of touch with the realities of the current
classroom climate. Additionally, the educators that are charged with implementing this reform
and these new tools are not given the proper tools with which to correctly and efficiently utilize
these out of touch ideas.
Much of what has changed in the classroom environment is simply the end goal. As we
have moved from the Agrarian Age through the Industrial Revolution and into the New
Information Age, the community’s needs have evolved, as have the needs of students.
Experiments with school start and end dates, daily scheduling, and even “year-round” school
have been utilized in an attempt to meet those needs. A shift in focus from students needing to go
work on the farm to the ill-guided expectations that “all students need to go to college” to
preparing students to be college and career ready have greatly shaped the course of secondary
education. Through identifying that each student’s needs are different, schools have made efforts
to support those individual students in their unique paths rather than attempting to force these
diverse pegs all into the proverbial square holes. Anne C. Lewis writes in “Direct from
Washington: High School Reform” about states such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah
providing additional options for students in the way of creating technical and career-focused
pathways for students. She references a report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation: “the Casey
report involves helping young adults address obstacles to employment” (Lewis).
Many of the more successful efforts of school reform have focused on shifting to a
student-centered, rather that teacher-centered or administrator-centered, perspective. Promising
Futures (PF) and High Schools on the Move (HSOM) – here we return to those obtuse acronyms
– are characterized by “both describing the need for high schooling to be more personalized (i.e.
students better known and respected) and coherent” (Hamann). One might think that these ideas
are mere common sense, but it seems they required large, well-developed programs to come to
this conclusion. We have seen how students that feel “seen” and engaged are much less likely to
drop out of high school. Almost half of high school dropouts noted that not being interesting was
a significant contributing factor in dropping out of school. Almost seventy percent cited being
unmotivated or uninspired to continue (Bridgeland). Developing relationships with students and
keeping them engaged has been a significant element of high school educational reform,
beginning to yield positive results.
Finally embracing the emergence of technology has also been a key component in the
evolution of high school reform. Eighty percent of Americans have a “smart phone.” These
devices have 100,000 times the capability of the computer that put the first man on the moon.
Resources such as Google Classroom, Prezi, and Kahoot have provided new and innovative
ways to engage student learners in the classroom. Harnessing the power of the evolution of
technology and incorporating it into the classroom has provided ample opportunity for student
engagement, scaffolding, and instructional differentiation. The days of being required to grab
one’s gradebook on the way out the door for a fire drill are long in the past, as these are all now
stored on a distant server, even more greatly enabling student records to pass with them from one
grade to the next.
Much has changed in the field of education in the last forty years, just as much has
changed in the world. Educators have noted these changes and continually tried to keep up with
keeping students engaged and in the classroom. New techniques and tools are implemented every
year to ensure the relevance of public education in the ever-changing world. Some of the
techniques used forty years ago might cause laughter or even alarm being viewed through a 2022
lens, as likely will be true of some of the techniques being used today will be forty years from
now. The key lies in continually striving to reach students, engaging them, involving them in
their own learning, and helping them build a solid foundation to be well-rounded, well-educated,
full individuals, helping unlock their full potential to lead a full, rich life.
Works Cited
Ansell, Susan E. “High School Reform.” Education Week, 9 Dec. 2020,
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/high-school-reform/2004/09.
Baete, Glenn S., and Craig Hochbein. “Project Proficiency: Assessing the Independent Effects of
High School Reform in an Urban District.” Journal of Educational Research, vol. 107,
no. 6, Nov. 2014, pp. 493–511.
Hamann, Edmund T. “Systemic High School Reform in Two States: The Serendipity of StateLevel Action.” High School Journal, vol. 89, no. 1, Oct. 2005, pp. 1–17.
Lewis, Anne C. “High School Reform.” Tech Directions, vol. 63, no. 6, Jan. 2004, pp. 5–7.
Smith, Thomas M., et al. “Design and Implementation of High School Reform: Perspectives
from Research and Practice.” Teachers College Record, vol. 118, no. 13, Apr. 2016, pp.
1–18.
Tirozzi, Gerald N. “Taking Charge of High School Reform.” Leadership, vol. 34, no. 4, Mar.
2005, pp. 8–10.