A Report
of the
Small High Schools Project

Prepared by

Ray Barnhardt
Howard Van Ness
Joe Bacon
Tom Cochran
Leslie Dolan
Barbara Harrison
Bob Juettner
Eric Madsen
Kathe Rank Nabielski
Molli Sipe
Tom Wagner

Center for Cross-Cultural Studies
 University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

February 1979

 The Small High Schools Project is supported by grants from The Office
of Environmental Education, U.S. Office of Education (Grant no. G007701985),
Department of Education, State of Alaska, and by
contributed services of the
Center for Cross-Cultural Studies
 University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Acknowledgments

The following report is the product of the efforts and contributions of many individuals associated with small high schools in Alaska. We would especially like to express our appreciation to the students, parents, teachers, and administrators who generously gave of their time and ideas to help us better understand the potential of small high schools. We hope this report adequately conveys their concerns and perspectives. We also wish to thank the University of Alaska and the Alaska Department of Education for their support, as well as the U.S. Office of Environmental Education for their contribution to the development of environmentally-based education in Alaska. Finally, we express our appreciation to Irma Jean Stichter for her perseverance in making legible the many versions of the report, to Jim Stricks for the cover design, and to E. Dean Coon for his editorial assistance.

SMALL HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR RURAL ALASKA

Table of Contents

Volume I A Preliminary Report of the Small High Schools Project

I. Introduction

II. Programs for Small High Schools in Alaska

III. Conclusion

IV. Appendices

I. INTRODUCTION

The following report is the product of the first year's endeavors of the Small High Schools Project, which was implemented through a State appropriation to the State Department of Education (Cross-Cultural Education Development Program) and a U.S. Of lice of Environmental Education grant to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (School of Education, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies). The focus of the first year of the project was to examine the current status of small high schools, attempt to identify what was working and what wasn't, and then formulate a general design and set of recommendations for small high school programs that had the potential to help them develop into effective institutions. To accomplish this task, a group of graduate students were placed for eight months as on-site fieldworkers in nine varied communities around the state that were engaged in various stages of small high school development and operation. Their task was to learn how various community and school participants viewed the development of small high schools, and to observe the various approaches being used to determine which had promise and which didn't. The results of the various interviews, surveys, and observations were then assembled and sorted out by the project staff, including the graduate students (most of whom had extensive rural Alaskan experience) during a six-week summer workshop in Fairbanks. The result of that effort is the following report and recommendations.

The second year of the Small High Schools Project is aimed at further developing and field testing the ideas presented here, a task to which another group of graduate students and some cooperating teachers are currently addressing themselves. The final report, therefore, will not be issued until next year, after we have received reactions from various interested parties from around the state to this preliminary report, and have refined the ideas to the point where they are realistically attainable.

The report will be of little value if it is viewed as overly ambitious or out-of-touch with reality. Our hope is that, having developed this out of firsthand experience in the settings in which small high schools operate, it will make sense to the people involved and will help in the development of more effective and responsive small high school programs. Having gone through this exercise, it is our view that if some rather drastic steps are not taken soon to alleviate some of the problems small high schools are facing, the State will have failed in its bid to improve the quality of education for rural Alaskan students. Evidence of a backlash already exists, and more and more students are being short-changed each year. While skeptics might say the impending negligence is deliberate, it is our hope that good intent exists, and that by calling attention to the problem and offering some approaches to help alleviate it, the resources of the State, the school districts, the native corporations, the communities, the teaching profession, and the universities can be brought to bear in a unified effort to raise small high schools to a standard of performance of which we can all be proud. But much needs to be done, with little time to do it, so we can use all the help we can get. Please send us any ideas, suggestions or reactions that you may have.

II. PROGRAMS FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOLS IN ALASKA

A. Background

The central, sustaining feature of any school should be its program of studies. It is to the establishment and support of a "program" that all other features of a school system should be directed. An inherent characteristic of social systems, however, is that, once established, the original goals of the system often give way to organizational and administrative features of the system as a prominent concern of its members, and schools are no exception. The purposes for which small high schools were created have a tendency to get lost in the organizational push to replicate the institutional capability of a 2,000 student comprehensive high school in every community in the State, regardless of size, need, or capability. We cannot assume, however, that a small rural high school in Alaska must be patterned after its urban counterpart in Michigan. Instead, we must stand back and ask some basic questions about what we are attempting to do. What is a high school, and what are its purposes in the first place? What are the options as to what a high school can be? Who makes the decisions, and on what basis? How do you know if you have a high school, or just a collection of people doing something together?

While these questions would appear to be fundamental to the development of small high schools, the fact is they are seldom considered--until it is too late and the options have been limited by the construction of a "high school" building, the establishment of an "academic" program, and the placement of a properly "certificated" staff. The present pattern of school development is circumventing the opportunity for local input and variation in the design of school programs. But, how do we know what people want, and what is the range of options they are allowed to consider in making their wishes known? Whatever the responses to these questions, it is likely that they wouldn't make much difference anyway, because, in most cases, the persons available to implement the programs are themselves products of a conventional high school and have had no training to prepare them for developing or implementing unconventional programs. Their natural tendency, when thrown into an unfamiliar setting, is to recreate that with which they are familiar--presto, a standard comprehensive high school. Consequently, after a year or two of agonizing over why it's not working the way it did "back home," they move on to a more comfortable setting, and new recruits are brought in to start the process over again. Such is the lot of the student in the small high school--to teach new teachers the limitations of their preparation and of the system in which they are working.

It might be argued that if the small high schools aren't doing what is expected of them, the problem lies with the students rather than with the school. We won't attempt to mount a full scale refutation of that argument here, but will simply try to make some of our biases known. The school is responsible for providing a program that addresses the unique needs, and taps into the varying resources, of each student, rather than expecting all students to uniformly respond to a standardized experience designed at a particular time, in a particular setting to meet particular educational needs of a particular segment of the population. Derived from this point of view is the assumption that whatever measures of achievement are used to judge educational success, they are as much a measure of the school's achievement level as they are that of the students'. The ideas we present here are, therefore, in pursuit of ways in which to improve the school's ability to serve the needs of the students, rather than ways to get students to better conform to a preconceived design for a school program.

We are viewing a "program" as encompassing the structure, context, and method of instruction, as well as the curriculum content. Whatever problems small high schools have, they will not be solved by simply tinkering with the list of courses to be taught. Fundamental structural, functional, and organizational changes must be considered if high schools are to be effectively adapted to contemporary conditions in rural Alaska. But, before we pursue alternatives, let's take a look at what the small high schools look like today, so we can better determine how we might like them to look tomorrow.

B. Where Are We Today, and How Did We Get Here?

On September 3, 1976, the Governor of Alaska signed a Consent Decree as settlement of a civil class action suit brought against the State on behalf of "Alaska Native children of secondary school age." In this settlement, the State agreed that:

Therefore:

Thus began the transfer of responsibility for rural secondary education from State- and Federally-operated boarding schools and high schools in urban and regional centers, to the newly created Rural Educational Attendance Areas and school districts serving the 126 small rural communities named in the Tobeluk vs. Lind settlement. The educational rationale for the shift of emphasis from large schools in distant locations to small schools in the students' home community is summarized in the "Statement of Agreed Facts" that accompanied the settlement:

The assumed educational benefits of larger secondary schools have not materialized for most village students. The majority of such students have not enrolled in specialized curricula but in basic courses which can be taught in village schools. Village secondary schools offer a basic skills curriculum, which can be enriched by a variety of supplementary programs, in a personal atmosphere and in small-group situations. Local traditions, customs, and skills can be transmitted from the adult generation without the severe social dislocation inherent in removing adolescents from familiar surroundings ('Tobeluk vs. Lind, 1976).

The basic contention of the plaintiff in bringing suit against the State, however, was that many predominantly non-native communities were already being provided with a local secondary program, while predominantly native communities of similar size were not, which implied a pattern and practice of racial discrimination "which unduly burdens the exercise of plaintiffs' right to a public education." The basis for the consent decree, therefore, was not compelling evidence of the educational advantage of small high schools over the earlier boarding programs (though the inadequacy of the boarding programs was amply documented--see Kleinfeld, 1973), but rather it turned on narrow legal grounds of racial discrimination regarding the availability of a local high school program to some communities and not to others. As a result, a high school program was to be established in every community in the State with an elementary school and one or more secondary students, unless the community specifically declined such a program (which some communities have done--see Volume III). Little thought was given to the kind of educational activities that would be most appropriate for all these new high school programs.

The push was on, and, within a year of the settlement, nearly thirty new high schools were established, ranging anywhere from one to six teachers and one to 100 students. Each of the 126 communities was faced with the question, "Do we want a high school program in our community?" But, that wasn't always the question they were responding to when they gave their answer. In many communities, for example, the more immediate question was, "Do we want a gymnasium for our community?" The establishment of a high school meant the construction of a new set of facilities in the community, and a high school, naturally, includes a gym. "Of course, we want a high school!" said most communities, so the State Department of Education and the school districts put their energy and resources to the task of complying with the communities' wishes that "high schools" be constructed as soon as possible. Consequently, again, little time and attention was given to what was to go on in these new facilities (except for the gym, of course).

This is not meant to imply that a gym is not an important and needed facility for rural schools and communities, nor that it is the only reason communities sought a high school program, but rather to point out that thoughtful planning as to what kind of high school "program" was desired has often been overshadowed by the press to "Get that gym built!", or to "Keep our young people at home!". Though the school districts usually made hasty attempts to obtain community input regarding the type of high school program they wanted, the opportunity to pursue serious alternatives was severely limited by the press of time and the inadequacy of the decision-making processes used, so that most facilities were designed and built around a conventional high school model.

In general, where new facilities have been built, the adaptability of the programs of study to the particular needs and conditions of the community has been inhibited rather than enhanced by those facilities. Most initial programs of study, such that they are, have been spontaneous productions on the part of the teachers, with little outside guidance or support from the district or the State. Consequently, the teachers have had to resort to effective utilization of those resources and facilities most immediately available to them. Where no regular high school facilities were readily available, teachers were required to be more adaptive and innovative in what they taught and how they taught it (though some have used this as an excuse not to teach much of anything). While the lack of adequate facilities has imposed its own set of hardships and problems for the teachers, the provision of elaborate facilities sporting the latest furnishings which modern technology has to offer does not appear to be the magic solution to the small high school's problems either. There is still the prior question of "What kind of educational program is most appropriate for high school students in rural Alaska?" and that question tends to get lost in the State's rush to comply with a consent decree (build a facility), the communities' desire to get a gym (use a facility), and the teachers' efforts to keep all the machinery running (operate a facility). It is left to the student down at the end of the line to extract some kind of useful learning experiences from all of this and thus piece together an "education".

There are, of course, exceptions to the general description of conditions outlined above. Some communities are taking a cautious, self-examining, year-at-a-time approach to the development of a high school program. Some districts have employed a curriculum development specialist to work with the communities and schools in developing a coherent locally-responsive curriculum framework for the district. Some principals and custodians have learned how to operate "a Cadillac school in a Model T environment." And, some teachers have created exciting, innovative programs that have realistic meaning for their students. But, these are still the exception rather than the rule. For most rural Alaskan students, going to high school is still a rather dull routine, played out pretty much in the manner of students attending larger, impersonal high schools elsewhere in the country. The following accounts of the ups and downs in one day in the life of three students in three small rural Alaskan high schools are not unusual.

The school day, as experienced by these students, involves a repetitious series of fragmented, standardized activities presumed to have some inherent, universal educational value. The schools seem to be saying, "If it's good enough for Kalamazoo, it's good enough for the village too!" Wherever you go, the curriculum looks basically the same--the traditional subjects, with the traditional allotment of 50 minutes per day, offered in the traditional classroom setting, using the traditional teaching methods and materials. But, some things are not so traditional--teachers are burning out and leaving at an extremely high rate (50 percent - 100 percent turnover in many schools); students are resorting to extreme measures in response to their plight (three successful and at least six attempted suicides in one year at one school); academic achievement levels are consistently below national norms (only three out of 22 students in one school scored above the 50th percentile on a national test of academic progress--the use of which is a questionable practice in itself); and schools are being called upon to provide an ever-expanding array of special programs that derive from the unique physical and cultural setting in which they operate in rural Alaska (bilingual/bicultural, Indian Education Act, Johnson-O'Malley, special education, Title I, etc.). So, the approach to a high school program that may be appropriate for Kalamazoo (though some people there are questioning it as well) may not be appropriate or adequate for rural Alaska. And, as the initial excitement of the new small high schools wears off, more and more schools and communities are having to face those elusive issues. Why are teachers leaving? Why are students frustrated? Why are test scores so low? Why aren't the schools doing everything we would like them to do? The answers to these questions don't come in nice, simple, quick, easy solutions. They require looking at the system from the bottom up, and from the outside in. We will attempt to do that now by examining some of the most pervasive issues as they are being confronted by the schools and communities today and then explore some of the alternatives that are emerging in various corners of the State.

C. Current Issues in Small High School Program Development

Following are some of the main program issues that are being confronted by small high schools in Alaska today. Some are issues that any high school program must address. Others are unique to small high schools, while still others derive from particular conditions unique to rural Alaska. All will be treated as special problems of small high schools in a rural Alaskan context. To the extent that the treatment of the issues is generalizable to other situations, others are welcome to make use of it, but the concerns expressed here are immediate and focused on the rural Alaskan scene.

Issue #1 - What should a small high school in rural Alaska be doing? The most pervasive feature of small high schools at present is their general lack of direction. Although all schools can provide a list of courses which are presumably being offered, and some districts have gone as far as developing a district-wide curriculum complete with a list of goals and objectives, little attempt is being made in any school to rigidly adhere to an explicit course of studies, because none that are currently in use are deemed adequate. What one sees on paper and what one sees in practice in the school are often quite different. While such evidence of adaptability may appear desirable on the one hand, the lack of coherence, integration, cumulation, and purposefulness in the learning experiences that result from such a random approach, are clearly not desirable. This lack of direction is not something that can be blamed on any one set of participants in the process. It derives, in part, from our attempt to transplant, intact, an institution (the school) designed for one set of conditions into a setting in which the conditions are quite different, without preparing anyone for the adjustments they must make to make that institution work in the new setting. In addition, we load down the school in small rural communities with functions it was never designed to serve in the first place, including a variety of social services, community recreation programs, cultural revitalization activities, employment services (CETA), and specialized vocational/career training. There is no question that each of these services is important in itself and serves a useful and often necessary function in these communities. They might even be minimally achievable by a reasonably large, well-endowed, diversified institution. But when the added burden of these services is thrust upon the framework of a small-scale version of ö an institution already traumatized by a web of conflicting expectations regarding even its most basic function (instruction), we cannot expect much more than a disaster. And, in many small high schools, that is what we are potentially creating.

So what can be done about these potential "disasters"? How can a realistic direction for small high schools be established and what are the steps necessary to move in that direction? While some suggestions for a basic program will be provided in the last section of this chapter, a few prior issues and alternatives need to be discussed first.

A central problem in establishing direction for small high schools as they are presently operating is that they are overloaded. They are trying to do too much with too little. The standard response to this problem is to put in more--more money, more teachers, more materials, more facilities, and more programs. But more and bigger does not necessarily solve the problems (Averich, et al., 1972), and in fact, may create more and bigger problems, as indicated by the following statement of a small high school principal:

Small high schools have evolved in Alaska (for independent reasons) at the same time that large, comprehensive high schools are coming into question in rural communities elsewhere in the country (Sher, 1977). A major study of the relative effects of big schools vs. small schools has indicated that small schools provide distinct advantages with regard to the potential depth and personal quality of learning experiences that can be obtained. In small schools, students were found to participate more, school meant more to them, they were more tolerant of others, they formed closer, more lasting relationships, they were more effective in group processes, they could communicate better, they were more productive, and they found their work more meaningful (Barker and Gump, 1964). Small schools are more closely and integrally tied to the communities in which they operate and are, therefore, in a position to contribute more effectively to the development of student self-concept and sense of control, both of which are factors closely related to academic achievement (Weaver, 1975). Small schools also tend to allow for greater local control by being more directly tied to community resources and support systems, thus providing for a greater degree of shared responsibility between professionals and lay persons (Tyack, 1974). Given the above as potential benefits of the small high schools in Alaska, it would be unfortunate if we tried to resolve their current problems and inadequacies by emulating a model that is being questioned elsewhere because it is deficient in the very qualities we are seeking.

If bigger isn't necessarily better, what then can be done to make small high schools better? First of all, we need to give some thought to just exactly what it is we want the high schools to do. There are a variety of possibilities to choose from, but the school is equipped to do some things 1)better than others, and it cannot be expected to do everything. So some hard decisions must be made, but they must be made by a widely representative body with a clear understanding of the various options available.

Issues are often cast in inappropriate and overly simplistic "either-or" terms. "Students must be prepared for either life in the village, or life outside." "The school program must have either an academic emphasis, or a vocational emphasis." "Students should be treated either as individuals or as members of a social group." "Native culture is a factor either to be overcome by the school, or to be integrated into the school program." While these are all significant issues, they are not as dichotomous as is implied in the way they are often discussed. It should not be necessary for communities and students to have to choose between life in the village or life outside, between academic or vocational training, between native cultural ways or non-native cultural ways. These are all inherent aspects of everyday life for all students in rural Alaskan communities and should be treated as inter-related elements of a larger social process, rather than as forced choices implying that it has to be either one way or the other.

When educational issues are cast in dichotomous, forced-choice, prescriptive terms, the program decisions tend to revolve around what is to be offered (content), rather than how it is to be offered (a process). Communities are asked to make decisions about program content in anticipation of an implicit end product on the assumption that those responsible for implementing the program are prepared to enter into a process that will produce that end product. However, education is not such an exact science that educators can accurately predict that what goes in here will come out like this over there. Nor is such predictability necessary.

The school's role is to assist youth in their passage into adulthood, but adult roles arc varied and changing and, therefore, should not be approached in such a prescriptive manner that it limits the individual student's options. Education should be viewed, rather, as a social process involving continuous growth, adaptation and change on the part of those being educated, and, therefore, requiring the same on the part of the educational program. As we develop small high school programs we need, therefore, to think of learning as an ongoing process into which the school is to enter and contribute something useful. We need not predetermine what the outcomes should be, but we do need to involve everyone in the educational process who has a stake in the outcomes--particularly communities, parents, and students so that they can provide an ongoing role in shaping the direction of the process.

While small high schools have adapted to rural Alaska in limited ways because of their small size and remoteness, most still persist with the conventional curriculum framework that one finds in larger high schools elsewhere, and they are still framing the resulting problems with the conventional, either-or, content-oriented options. However, the nature of the problems are such that they will not be resolved by adapting this reading series, or purchasing that science kit. We need to reconsider the basic structure around which the school program is organized and explore alternative ways to bring that structure in line with the functions we want the school to serve.

If this is to be accomplished we need to think of the school in terms of its overall impact on the students who pass through it, rather than in terms of its day-to-day operation. The day-to-day activities should always derive from a close familiarity with the students, and an understanding of what the school can do to assist those students into adulthood. The activities of the school, then, should be a natural outgrowth of everyday life outside the school, and should encompass all aspects of that life as it is, or can expect to be experienced by the students. Subsistence living and employment are not mutually exclusive alternatives, but are both integral elements in the ebb and flow of life in a village. They should, therefore, also be integral elements in the ebb and flow of life in the school. Life in the village and life in Anchorage are not independent of one another, but are both interrelated aspects of a larger social-political-economic system of which we are all members. They should, therefore, both be reflected in the learning opportunities available to students in the school. Native cultures, as well as non-native cultures, are not static, autonomous states of being, but are all involved in a mutually influencing, constantly adaptive process of change. They should, therefore, all be recognized by the school as equally do that now by examining some of the most pervasive issues as they are being confronted by the schools and communities today and then explore some of the alternatives that are emerging in various corners of the State.

C. Current Issues in Small High School Program Development

Following are some of the main program issues that are being confronted by small high schools in Alaska today. Some are issues that any high school program must address. Others are unique to small high schools, while still others derive from particular conditions unique to rural Alaska. All will be treated as special problems of small high schools in a rural Alaskan context. To the extent that the treatment of the issues is generalizable to other situations, others are welcome to make use of it, but the concerns expressed here are immediate and focused on the rural Alaskan scene.

Issue #1 - What should a small high school in rural Alaska be doing?
The most pervasive feature of small high schools at present is their general lack of direction. Although all schools can provide a list of courses which are presumably being offered, and some districts have gone as far as developing a district-wide curriculum complete with a list of goals and objectives, little attempt is being made in any school to rigidly adhere to an explicit course of studies, because none that are currently in use are deemed adequate. What one sees on paper and what one sees in practice in the school are often quite different. While such evidence of adaptability may appear desirable on the one hand, the lack of coherence, integration, cumulation, and purposefulness in the learning experiences that result from such a random approach, are clearly not desirable. This lack of direction is not something that can be blamed on any one set of participants in the process. It derives, in part, from our attempt to transplant, intact, an institution (the school) designed for one set of conditions into a setting in which the conditions are quite different, without preparing anyone for the adjustments they must make to make that institution work in the new setting. In addition, we load down the school in small rural communities with functions it was never designed to serve in the first place, including a variety of social services, community recreation programs, cultural revitalization activities, employment services (CETA), and specialized vocational/career training. There is no question that each of these services is important in itself and serves a useful and often necessary function in these communities. They might even be minimally achievable by a reasonably large, well-endowed, diversified institution. But when the added burden of these services is thrust upon the framework of a small-scale version of ö an institution already traumatized by a web of conflicting expectations regarding even its most basic function (instruction), we cannot expect much more than a disaster. And, in many small high schools, that is what we are potentially creating.

So what can be done about these potential "disasters"? How can a realistic direction for small high schools be established and what are the steps necessary to move in that direction? While some suggestions for a basic program will be provided in the last section of this chapter, a few prior issues and alternatives need to be discussed first.

A central problem in establishing direction for small high schools as they are presently operating is that they are overloaded. They are trying to do too much with too little. The standard response to this problem is to put in more--more money, more teachers, more materials, more facilities, and more programs. But more and bigger does not necessarily solve the problems (Averich, et al., 1972), and in fact, may create more and bigger problems, as indicated by the following statement of a small high school principal:

Small high schools have evolved in Alaska (for independent reasons) at the same time that large, comprehensive high schools are coming into question in rural communities elsewhere in the country (Sher, 1977). A major study of the relative effects of big schools vs. small schools has indicated that small schools provide distinct advantages with regard to the potential depth and personal quality of learning experiences that can be obtained. In small schools, students were found to participate more, school meant more to them, they were more tolerant of others, they formed closer, more lasting relationships, they were more effective in group processes, they could communicate better, they were more productive, and they found their work more meaningful (Barker and Gump, 1964). Small schools are more closely and integrally tied to the communities in which they operate and are, therefore, in a position to contribute more effectively to the development of student self-concept and sense of control, both of which are factors closely related to academic achievement (Weaver, 1975). Small schools also tend to allow for greater local control by being more directly tied to community resources and support systems, thus providing for a greater degree of shared responsibility between professionals and lay persons (Tyack, 1974). Given the above as potential benefits of the small high schools in Alaska, it would be unfortunate if we tried to resolve their current problems and inadequacies by emulating a model that is being questioned elsewhere because it is deficient in the very qualities we are seeking.

If bigger isn't necessarily better, what then can be done to make small high schools better? First of all, we need to give some thought to just exactly what it is we want the high schools to do. There are a variety of possibilities to choose from, but the school is equipped to do some things 1)better than others, and it cannot be expected to do everything. So some hard decisions must be made, but they must be made by a widely representative body with a clear understanding of the various options available.

Issues are often cast in inappropriate and overly simplistic "either-or" terms. "Students must be prepared for either life in the village, or life outside." "The school program must have either an academic emphasis, or a vocational emphasis." "Students should be treated either as individuals or as members of a social group." "Native culture is a factor either to be overcome by the school, or to be integrated into the school program." While these are all significant issues, they are not as dichotomous as is implied in the way they are often discussed. It should not be necessary for communities and students to have to choose between life in the village or life outside, between academic or vocational training, between native cultural ways or non-native cultural ways. These are all inherent aspects of everyday life for all students in rural Alaskan communities and should be treated as inter-related elements of a larger social process, rather than as forced choices implying that it has to be either one way or the other.

When educational issues are cast in dichotomous, forced-choice, prescriptive terms, the program decisions tend to revolve around what is to be offered (content), rather than how it is to be offered (a process). Communities are asked to make decisions about program content in anticipation of an implicit end product on the assumption that those responsible for implementing the program are prepared to enter into a process that will produce that end product. However, education is not such an exact science that educators can accurately predict that what goes in here will come out like this over there. Nor is such predictability necessary.

The school's role is to assist youth in their passage into adulthood, but adult roles arc varied and changing and, therefore, should not be approached in such a prescriptive manner that it limits the individual student's options. Education should be viewed, rather, as a social process involving continuous growth, adaptation and change on the part of those being educated, and, therefore, requiring the same on the part of the educational program. As we develop small high school programs we need, therefore, to think of learning as an ongoing process into which the school is to enter and contribute something useful. We need not predetermine what the outcomes should be, but we do need to involve everyone in the educational process who has a stake in the outcomes--particularly communities, parents, and students so that they can provide an ongoing role in shaping the direction of the process.

While small high schools have adapted to rural Alaska in limited ways because of their small size and remoteness, most still persist with the conventional curriculum framework that one finds in larger high schools elsewhere, and they are still framing the resulting problems with the conventional, either-or, content-oriented options. However, the nature of the problems are such that they will not be resolved by adapting this reading series, or purchasing that science kit. We need to reconsider the basic structure around which the school program is organized and explore alternative ways to bring that structure in line with the functions we want the school to serve.

If this is to be accomplished we need to think of the school in terms of its overall impact on the students who pass through it, rather than in terms of its day-to-day operation. The day-to-day activities should always derive from a close familiarity with the students, and an understanding of what the school can do to assist those students into adulthood. The activities of the school, then, should be a natural outgrowth of everyday life outside the school, and should encompass all aspects of that life as it is, or can expect to be experienced by the students. Subsistence living and employment are not mutually exclusive alternatives, but are both integral elements in the ebb and flow of life in a village. They should, therefore, also be integral elements in the ebb and flow of life in the school. Life in the village and life in Anchorage are not independent of one another, but are both interrelated aspects of a larger social-political-economic system of which we are all members. They should, therefore, both be reflected in the learning opportunities available to students in the school. Native cultures, as well as non-native cultures, are not static, autonomous states of being, but are all involved in a mutually influencing, constantly adaptive process of change. They should, therefore, all be recognized by the school as equally valid ways of present day life to be nurtured, explored, and appreciated for what they are, as well as for what they were and for what we would like them to be. Students should not have to make choices (or have choices made for them) between subsistence or employment, between the village or Anchorage, or between native culture or non-native culture. All of these are, or will be, reflected in the totality of their life experiences, and, therefore, should also be reflected in their school experiences. As communities and districts attempt to sort out what they want their high schools to do, they need to think in general terms as to what the school can do to assist the students as they evolve into a multiplicity of roles.

The primary thrust of a particular high school program, then, should be on the development of generalizable skills applicable in a variety of settings, rather than on a limited number of particular skills that may or may not be useful to the students as they assume various adult roles. With such an approach, subject matter content serves as a means, rather than as an end in itself. The ends become defined in terms of ongoing processes (critical thinking, problem-solving, etc.), rather than as an itemized list of facts or specific competencies. (A more detailed rationale for this approach is included in Volume II--Barnhardt, 1979.)

If such ends are to be sought by communities, then the day-to-day activities leading toward those ends need to evolve out of a process of continued negotiation amongst all parties to the process (parents, students, teachers), so that those activities are not artificial and isolated but are consistent with the real world in which the student lives. This can best be accomplished by restructuring the curriculum so that it can incorporate the larger community environment and local resources into the learning process to the maximum extent possible. Means for accomplishing such a task will be outlined in a later section.

So, in response to the question, "What should small high schools be doing?", we can offer the following general suggestions:

Small high schools are at a critical stage in their development and are faced with the difficult question of which way to go--toward a conventional high school model, or toward some kind of alternative version? Whatever choice is made, it will require considerable rethinking as to how schools should go about their business, and who should be involved in making those decisions, issues to which we will address ourselves next.

Issue #2 - How can a small high school program be designed to achieve its purposes more effectively?
We have reviewed some general concerns regarding the purposes to which small high schools might address themselves. We will now examine some concerns relating to how small high schools might go about better achieving their purposes. But we need to first address the question, "Can small high schools be expected to achieve any purposes at all?" There are many parents and teachers who are quite ambivalent and uncertain about the capability of small high schools to do the job. The following comments from one teacher provide an example:

So, in a few short years, we are seeing the rural high school issue come full circle to the point where new teachers who are coming in unaware of the circumstances that led to the creation of small high schools, and experienced teachers who have been frustrated by the transitional problems, are suggesting that they be closed down and students sent away for their high school education. And the teachers aren't alone in their frustration and ambivalence about the potential of small high schools in meeting the needs of rural Alaskan students. Parents are also expressing concern not only in words but in action. Some communities have decided against a high school program altogether until they see them working elsewhere. One community shut their high school program down for a year of planning and program development after the first year proved to be little more than a day care service. And in some cases, parents are withdrawing their children from the local high school and sending them elsewhere. The following parent's comments were made after sending two children outside the village to go to high school:

Can small high schools do the job? Based on our observations, and the experience of parents, students, and teachers in a variety of settings, our view is that, despite their present problems and shortcomings, yes, they can do the job. Not only can they do the job, they must to the job, because the alternatives are no longer acceptable. There are enough bright spots to indicate that, given a willingness to break out of conventional ways of doing things, and given a supportive organizational structure, small high schools can provide a strong educational program. The problems are in designing those alternative ways of doing things, and creating adequate supportive organizational structures. How, then, might we go about these tasks?

The community as a learning environment: There is no evidence to suggest that any one type of high school program or approach is inherently better than another. The effectiveness of any program is highly situational, depending on who is implementing it and how they are going about it. However, the chances of a program being adaptive and responsive to the particular situation in which it operates can be improved by creating situations in which the responsibility for the direction of the learning that occurs is shared by a wide range of participants. That is, education should be viewed as a community-wide process in which everyone is engaged as both teacher and learner. The approaches that appear to offer most potential for this kind of broad-based participation are those that involve some kind of action-oriented, community-based learning experience. Such approaches are able to bring in local people and resources and thus provide opportunities for adapting the learning activity to the real-life context in which the student lives. Project activities, such as operating a store, or building a boat, for example, provide multiple and varied learning experiences that are shaped, at least in part, by the students, particularly when they are not confined to a classroom and a formal learningmode. Such approaches also provide avenues for peer-mediated learning to become a more functionally contributing part of the curriculum by fostering a sense of community in which all participants are engaged for mutually beneficial reasons. While some things can best be taught in a formal learning context, many of the handicaps of a small high school can be overcome by pursuing less formal methods for that portion of the program suited to such methods. (Descriptions of some experientially-oriented approaches to education are provided in Volume II.)

In addition to enabling more people to get into the action, experiential, community-based educational approaches are particularly well-suited to bicultural elements of a small high school program because they provide the opportunity for greater contextual influence on learning, and thus help to preserve the integrity of culturally indigenous activities. When such activities are taken out of context and placed in a formal school setting, they often lose their real cultural flavor and meaning, and can sometimes result in undermining the very value they are designed to preserve. For example, a teacher in a Southeast Alaska school had his students carve a "totem pole" as a class project relating to the local cultural heritage. A design was drawn on the cedar pole by the teacher and the students worked on it in the back of the classroom for' most of the year. However, when the pole was finally erected and dedicated in front of the school, it was very coolly received by the community I . They v I owed the pole simply as a carving and riot as a "totem pole." An old man explained: "In the old days, totem poles were Tlingits' way of telling a story." They were carved to symbolically represent a particular legend or record an event. Each pole told a story that had meaning to anyone who knew how to read the symbols. Figures on the poles were linked to specific clans and could be used only in prescribed ways. Totem poles were an important element in traditional Tlingit culture; their meaning and significance had not been forgotten, even though few remain in the village today. The carving in front of the school did not qualify as a totem pole: it had no coherent design, did not depict any event or legend, did not adhere to any prescribed format, and wasn't even a decent replica. It was "just a carving," and an insult to local tradition.

Moving such activities into the community does not, therefore, guarantee cultural sensitivity, because a well-meaning teacher might still create culturally inappropriate learning activities, simply because of a lack of understanding of how things are done in that setting. If community-based activities are to be effective, they must go beyond teacher-directed activities and involve local people in the shaping of the activities at a very basic operational level, which will require some careful rethinking of how schools are organized to achieve their purposes.

Programming for in-depth learning activities: While community-based, project-centered approaches provide a promising alternative way for small high schools to do things, such approaches cannot be effectively implemented without some major restructuring of the ways in which programs operate. Students cannot pursue an extensive, integrated field project with any continuity and depth to the experience if their day is chopped into 50 minute segments, each segment focused on a different activity in a different subject. Not only does such an approach lead to fragmented, discontinuous, and inefficient learning on the part of the student, it prevents the teacher from even attempting any kind of sustained learning activity, particularly when he/she is faced with eight or more preparations for twenty different students at four different grade levels (as are many small high school teachers).

The small high school teacher in such a situation is forced to resort to canned curriculum materials and a mechanistic approach to teaching because the variety of demands on time, energy, and resources prevent any opportunity for in-depth preparation. Furthermore, no one or two teachers can expect to have the expertise necessary to cover all the traditional high school subjects in any kind of depth.

One of the recommendations frequently offered by teachers and administrators as a means to address this problem is to cast the teacher in the role of "learning manager." The teacher would not be responsible for direct instruction, but would instead assemble resources and organize activities that would address the instructional needs of individual students. Heavy reliance would be placed on externally produced programmed materials and on technological teaching aids. While such an approach lends itself well to aspects of the curriculum that can be mechanistically organized (e.g., certain vocational training), it is not well suited to many other aspects of the curriculum that benefit from student-teacher and student-student interaction. Learning activities not only become further segmented and detached from reality, but in the process of becoming "individualized" they lose their potential for personalization and adaptability, both of which are essential features if the high school program is to accomplish some of the purposes outlined earlier. While the "learning manager" role deserves some consideration as a way of addressing certain features of a high school program, it cannot be substituted for the direct instructional role of a teacher without jeopardizing a major portion of the learning potential that a high school program has to offer. It may resolve some of the problems of teaching, but it complicates the task of learning. In the era of "individualized learning" and the quest for "measurable outcomes," the "learning manager" can appear to offer an appealing solution to some complex problems. But school districts should be extremely cautious in adapting such an approach without fully considering the consequences to the students.

A second suggestion frequently offered as a means to make the small high school teacher's role more manageable and still cover the curriculum is to adopt the multi-subject, multi-grade teaching model used in the elementary school programs. In this case, the teacher would be viewed as a generalist who knows a little bit about each subject, but is oriented more to the students and teaching than to the content of a particular subject field. While such an approach may have considerable merit with regard to flexibility and sensitivity to student needs, it presents the danger of a shallow curriculum. The self-contained classroom of the elementary school does not provide the means to pursue learning activities of the variety and depth necessary at the secondary level. The teachers cannot be expected to have the breadth or depth of subject-matter expertise, nor the ability to create the quality of learning situations necessary to cover a full high school curriculum. The result is likely to be the mechanistic, watered-down approach described in relation to the learning manager role.

How then, can we expect a small high school to offer opportunities for students to engage in sustained, in-depth, community-oriented learning experiences with adequate instructional support provided by a knowledgeable teacher? The most promising approach is that being explored by one school district under the title "saturation" learning. (It may also be referred to as "intensive" or "sustained" learning.) Instead of the conventional course structure of 50 minutes per day, courses are organized in large blocks of tine, ranging anywhere from one week to nine weeks or more, depending on the nature of the subject matter being covered. Such an approach offers unlimited possibilities with regard to the type and depth of learning activities that can be carried out, and the means by which varied learning resources can be utilized. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach were itemized by the district's curriculum specialist (Roberts, 1978).

The advantages of this approach clearly outweigh the disadvantages, but. nevertheless, implementing such an approach will not be a simple matter of reshuffling the course schedule. Consideration needs to be given to such additional organizational features as making courses available on an alternating year basis, and possibly linking two or three extremely small schools together to form one high school program. Whatever the combination of conditions that a small high school must address, the sustained learning curriculum structure along with project-centered, process-oriented content appears to offer the most versatile, adaptive, and responsive program design. A more detailed description of how such a design may be implemented will be offered in the last section of this chapter. But before we leave this issue we need to examine one more inhibiting factor in the implementation of an effective small high school program--the multiplicity of demands placed upon the teachers.

Functional separation of activities: In addition to the constrictions of a departmentalized, subject-oriented framework for organizing the school's instructional program, there are also a constantly growing number of noninstructional demands that intrude on the time available for organizing sustained learning activities. Whatever type of high school program is developed, it needs to be defined in fairly explicit terms, so that whatever is done can be done well. If the learning activities are too varied and diffuse, the program is likely to be shallow and lack direction. The program should be organized so that functionally related activities can be carried out in a supportive and contributory atmosphere, and by persons in appropriately defined roles. A teacher cannot effectively teach at the same time he/she is trying to manage the unending array of federal, social, medical, recreational, and other support and maintenance services that enter. into the school day. Following is a list of just some of the imposed activities around which a teacher must work to try to create a productive climate for learning.

Many of these activities are not built into the basic school program and, therefore, intrude on any kind of integrated learning activity the teacher may have planned. The following statement illustrates the problem:

Such intrusions require the teacher to adopt two roles simultaneously (teacher and manager) and in the process neither role is adequately fulfilled, and, often times, the teaching role is totally neglected. While both roles are necessary, they cannot exist simultaneously in the same person.

If we are to provide a learning environment suitable to related kinds of learning activities, we need to block out those activities in such a way that the necessary features of an appropriate environment can be sustained throughout those activities. One way in which learning activities can be segmented to fit varying learning environments is along lines of intellectual vs. social development (though any such divisions must always be recognized as artificial). Schools have historically been oriented to the development of specific intellectual and cognitive functions, and thus are designed to provide an environment best suited to such functions. Social and cultural functions, on the other hand, have traditionally been developed in the context of the home and community, where the appropriate support systems for such functions reside (National Panel on High School and Adolescent Education, 1976: 57). This segmentation of functions into different aspects of personal development can be accommodated in at least three ways.

One is to formally separate many of the existing social services and recreational functions from the school and place them in the hands of a community-based entity, such as a non-profit corporation. Some communities, for example, maintain their own community center, with the school arranging to use their gym, rather than the other way around. This could be pursued by other communities as a way to avoid the confusion of the school's role that was described earlier.

Another way to sort out functions is to create separate units within the school districts themselves to take responsibility for all the non-instructional functions currently attached to the school. Such an approach would require some additional staffing in the one- or two-teacher schools, but could be easily accommodated by restructuring some of the support services and staff that are currently making the rounds to these schools. The on-site teacher could then be freed up to concentrate on creating integrated instructional activities on a full-time basis.

A third approach, which is probably the most feasible at this time, is to segment the school day in such a way that half the day is blocked out exclusively without interruptions for the formal instructional functions focusing primarily on intellectual development and requiring the role of a "teacher", and the other half is organized to accommodate all the other social service and support functions that are more appropriately suited to the role of a "learning manager." In this way, the teacher/manager would have to change hats only once a day, rather than try to wear both hats at the same time. This would also insure the teacher time to concentrate more directly on the quality of the learning experiences in which the students are engaged, so that he/she would not have to resort to the impersonalized, individualized learning packages that are being used so widely in the small high schools as a substitute for teaching. Teachers might then be able to explore some creative alternatives to the forced-feeding approach that derives from the pressure of 6-8 or more preparations in varied subject areas for multiple grades.

The latter approach of block scheduling, when combined with the sustained learning structure outlined earlier, provides the maximum potential for a wide range of in-depth, productive learning activities to take place in a small high school setting. A full set of curriculum options can be made available to all students. The intrusion of non-instructional programs and activities is minimized. Opportunities for local community participation is enhanced. Available resources are used to their greatest potential. Cultural considerations can be more readily reflected in the program. And students can be provided with meaningful, in-depth experiences in a supportive and responsive social environment of shared learning.

Small high schools are being called upon to provide programs equal in quality to those offered elsewhere, and they cannot escape that responsibility by placing blame for a lower quality program on lack of student interest, or lack of resources, or lack of community support and understanding (all of which are commonly expressed frustrations). Schools and communities must, instead, form a partnership aimed at exploring all types of alternative approaches to the design of a small high school program so that mutually understood and agreed upon options can be pursued.

Issue #3 - How can greater continuity in the curriculum be achieved?
One of the most difficult problems encountered in providing small high school programs in rural Alaska is that of providing continuity in the curriculum while remaining flexible and adaptive to the varying and changing needs of the students. Staff turnover, student transfers, varying community expectations, and a content-oriented curriculum are all contributing factors to a disjointed, noncumulative series of educational experiences for most small high school students.

The most common response to this problem has been the checklist approach to curriculum design. Several districts have adapted a list of "competencies" that students are expected to acquire at each stage of their schooling. Each competency is accompanied by an explicit "performance indicator," so that when the appropriate performance indicates that the student has mastered a particular competency, that item is checked on the list and the student moves on to the next competency. Any teacher can, therefore, simply look at the checklist to determine what should be taught next.

On the surface, this appears to be a simple, efficient solution to the continuity problem. No more worry about teacher turnover or student transfers, and once the competency checklist and performance indicators have been adopted, no more problems with varying community expectations. But education is not such a simple process that one can divide it into discrete units and still expect it all to hang together. The focus of attention in the checklist approach becomes the checklist itself, rather than the student, so that flexibility is limited and everyone is expected to conform to a narrowly prescribed set of expectations. The teachers' and students' task becomes one of completing the checklist, rather than getting a well-rounded education (though the latter is presumed to he somehow imbedded in the checklist). Attention is focused on curriculum content that lends itself to measurable outcomes and can be acquired through a somewhat mechanical process, so that some of the more important aspects of adolescent development, such as selfconcept and identity formation, are often neglected. The result is continuity in the administration of the curriculum, but continued discontinuity in the learning that occurs. Though variations in the use of the checklist approach may be devised to address some of the problems outlined above, the tendency for the teacher to design day-to-day learning activities on the basis of a predetermined list of competencies, rather than as an outgrowth of interaction with the students results in a disregard for individual differences and makes students victims of the system. A highly structured and standardized curriculum accomplishes continuity at the expense of the students learning.

If program continuity is to be achieved in a manner that is beneficial to the student, it is first necessary to improve the quality of relationships between the teacher and the student, and the school and the community. One way by which this can be accomplished is by involving a greater number of people who know and understand the students on their own terms in the educational process--that is, people from the local community. This can be done by bringing more local people into the school as teachers, aides, resource persons, etc., and/or by moving more of the learning activities out into the community. Either way, learning activities are more rooted in natural community contexts and processes and, therefore, are more likely to hold together over time and be integrated across formal and informal learning situations.

Another important step toward program continuity is to develop an integrated curriculum framework that includes all the major options for learning experiences available to the students (travel programs, local projects, student exchanges, work-study programs, regional skill centers, urban internships, etc.), and then provide a number of alternative routes by which students may pursue their high school education, depending on individual needs and interests. The teacher can work out a general program of study for each student that meets the general requirements of the district, but is flexible enough to accommodate variations in local resources and individual aspirations. Program expectations can then be defined in terms of the processes by which learning occurs, and the content can serve as a means, rather than an end in itself. Thus, the ability to communicate becomes more important than the ability to diagram a sentence, and the ability to solve a problem becomes more important than the ability to recall a formula.

Within a curriculum framework built on such premises the student serves as the primary reference point, and everything else derives from that point. Program continuity is no longer an issue, because continuity of experience is implied. If the learning activities make sense to and for the student, the battle for continuity has been won. The framework for a basic curriculum to accomplish that task will be provided in the latter part of this chapter. But first it is necessary to address the question of how can we tell if the learning activities make sense for the student.

Issue #4 - How can we measure the effectiveness of a small high school program?
The issue of effectiveness of a school program enters into decisionmaking at all levels. Parents want to know how well their children are doing in school. Students want to know which course to take. Teachers want to know what they should teach. Administrators want to know if the teachers are doing a good job teaching. The school board wants to know if the schools are accomplishing district goals. And the State Department of Education wants to know how the different schools compare with one another.

How can we tell if the schools are doing a good job? What factors determine the quality of a school program? To respond to these questions, we must begin with the basic purpose for which small high schools exist: to help prepare students for the lives they will lead as adults. The ultimate measures of a school's effectiveness are imbedded, therefore, in the future actions of those who pass through it, and can be determined only from predictive measures that imply cause-effect relationships. But no measures exist at the present time that are universally applicable and can reliably predict that success in school will lead to success in later life (unless we measure success only in terms of being able to do well on achievement tests, which is what much of schooling seems to be about). The only thing we can say with any certainty at this point is that success on tests is a good indicator of success in school, and success in school is a good indicator of future success in school (Cole, 1978; Kleinfeld, 1978). Beyond that, measures of a school program's effectiveness must be viewed from a highly situational perspective and must allow for subjective assessments, based on the purposes of the program and people's perceptions of it. If a good cross-section of the people who will be affected by a program have been involved in its creation and operation, and are in a position to influence its future direction, and if those people all feel the program is effective, chances are it is, and will continue to be, effective in that situation. But that does not mean one can take the same program and transplant it to a new situation with a different group of people and expect the same results. Once again, the program must grow out of the local situation and involve local people in its operation to the maximum extent possible, if it is to achieve any significant degree of long-term effectiveness.

Money will not buy a successful program. More materials, more teachers, and more facilities will not necessarily make a better program. Nor will more students, or more stringent and varied academic requirements make for a stronger program. All of these things can help, but only if they grow out of a strong, unified sense of where a particular group of students is going and what it will take to help them get there. Too often, the recommendations for program improvement derive from past habit, rather than a careful look at present and future conditions. Although it may be easier for the moment to purchase a prepackaged curriculum from elsewhere than to develop a local curriculum design, experience indicates that such an approach will only prolong, rather than solve, the schools' problems. Several school districts have either abandoned or completely rewritten curriculum packages that were implemented around an imported design. While a particular program may look good on paper and have a record of success elsewhere, it will not succeed in a new setting if it has not evolved out of local concerns and interests. To be a success, therefore, a program must be adaptive and responsive to changing conditions and times. With such an approach, the focus is less on the end product and more on the processes by which it is achieved. If a wide range of people are intimately involved on an ongoing basis in determining the direction of a program and if the program is responsive to their concerns, the program becomes self-adjusting and the quality of the end product takes care of itself.

Over-emphasis on measurement of the end product as a basis for judging program effectiveness has led to a heavy reliance on standardized test scores as a means to assess the quality of the end product. This reliance on test scores poses at least two major problems. The first is that success (or failure) on tests in school does not necessarily predict success (or failure) in other tasks as an adult. Test-taking skills represent a rather narrow domain of activity for which correlation to other skills required in everyday life is very low. If standardized test scores are to be the basis for judging a program's effectiveness, then all that is necessary for teachers to do is to give students extensive practice in taking the appropriate tests (King, 1967: 83).

Actual performance in tasks of everyday life is a more reliable way of testing the skills that have been learned by students, provided opportunities for such performance are built into the school program. Even science and math skills can be assessed on the basis of the actions required to complete an appropriately conceived activity or project. While each student may use a different approach to accomplish a particular task, the completion of the task is in itself an indication of the range of the student's ability. It is not necessary, therefore, to delineate the specific "competencies" required of the student to the point that they get in the way of the student's performance. A student may be able to perform a complex task without being able to explain the precise steps in a way suitable to some standard form. That student should be recognized for the success of the larger task, rather than penalized for failure in the lesser task. We have a tendency to make simple things more complex by breaking them into such small increments that we lose sight of the whole. Tests are particularly notorious in this regard, and should be used only with extreme caution as a basis for judging an individual or a program's effectiveness.

The other major problem with tests as a measure of effectiveness is their questionable validity when used with students from varying cultural backgrounds. There is no such thing as a culture-free test. Variations in the content of a test, the structure of a test, the test setting, the language used, the person administering the test, and the very idea of tests have all been shown to be factors in determining the outcome of a test (Orasanu, et al., 1977). Since all of these variables are complicating factors in nearly all testing situations in rural Alaska, it is impossible to use test scores as valid indicators of a person's inherent ability or as measures of program effectiveness. While test scores are convenient to quantify and compare results of programs, they have a tendency to greatly distort reality. High school students in one school, for example, whose test scores indicated a 3rd and 4th grade reading level were quite able to read and follow the complex instructions accompanying Frostline kits. In another situation, the time and conditions for administering a test were deliberately manipulated to obtain the maximum number of students for the "special education" program (more students, more money). The sooner we can treat students as persons rather than as numbers on a scorecard, the sooner we can develop programs that address their needs, rather than the needs of the system itself. To that end, standardized tests should be either abolished or reduced in use to an absolute minimum.

One of the more recent extensions of the measurement approach into education is the "minimal competencies" movement. As average test scores in basic skill areas have dropped in recent years, pressure has been put on schools to develop standards that insure that all students demonstrate certain minimal skills before they move from one level to another or graduate from school. This has led to an emphasis on "competencies" as a means for establishing graduating requirements, which has inevitably led to test scores as a means for determining competency. Once again, such an approach establishes an extremely narrow set of criteria for presumably determining whether a person has acquired a particular set of life skills. What we end up with are a list of skills that are readily "measurable," and then conveniently disregard or deemphasize those that are not. In this case, we don't really improve the administrative situation either, because the State still requires districts to organize their programs around Carnegie units, which are time-based, so that a student who demonstrates all the competencies necessary for graduation in less than four years is required to fill in the remainder of the time with busy work before he or she graduates. Such inconsistencies only help to point out the inadequacy of a minimal competency approach as a means for defining a small high school program. Before such an approach can begin to address current problems, a much more thorough and less test-oriented assessment system will have to be developed, and more explicit criteria for the definition of competencies vis-a-vis Carnegie units will have to be established, neither of which are likely in the near future.

Another response of the schools to the charge of lowered standards has been to increase the number of units required to graduate from high school, assuming that more classes and more time will improve the quality of a high school education. This emphasis on increasing quantity rather than improving the quality of present offerings has the effect of placing the burden for change on the student, rather than recognizing the need to rethink the way requirements are currently organized and offered. It may be more fruitful to try to improve what we are doing now, than to add to our present inadequacies.

One final comment about measures of program effectiveness before moving on to the next issue. It appears that for many teachers and administrators (and possibly parents), an index of a good school operation is perpetual motion. If students are on the move (travel programs, work-study, meetings, sports events, field trips, etc.), it is presumed that good things must be happening. While each of these activities might provide a valuable learning experience for students from small communities, much of the motion seems to be used as a filler or as an excuse for avoiding more substantive program activities. Motion without direction and purpose does not necessarily add up to an educational experience, so the quality of a program cannot be judged by the amount of motion that is going on. Too much motion can be just as detrimental as not enough. Districts should review their programs and seek a balance between purposeful travel activities and more directed learning activities at home.

In summary then, we cannot judge the overall effectiveness of a small high school program by the number of students enrolled, the number of teachers teaching, the amount of materials on hand, by the size or sophistication of the facilities, by the standardized test scores, by the amount of motion going on, or by the amount of money that is being spent. We can, however, trust people's judgment, and if a broad cross-section of lay and professional people are involved in what the school is doing and feel good about it, we can assume that the school is doing a reasonably effective job of preparing students for their role as adults. If it is not doing an effective job, the participatory process will produce self-correcting measures to bring the program into line with community expectations. This process is at the heart of local control, but it is premised on a significant involvement of local people in the school program, a condition that is not widespread at the present time. Such involvement must be accomplished, or school programs will continue to be judged by criteria suited to administrative, rather than educational concerns.

Issue #5 - Who should make curriculum decisions and how should those decisions be made?
Decisions regarding curriculum are decisions that can greatly affect people's lives and, therefore, should not be made lightly. Neither should it be presumed that curriculum decisions made in one context will be appropriate in another context. Curriculum needs will vary from place-to-place, time-to-time, and even person-to-person. So curriculum decisions must be situationally based and must be built into the school program as an ongoing process.

Much of the curriculum decision-making in small high schools at the present time is left to the individual teachers, with very little, if any, guidance and support being provided from other sources. Consequently, the teachers either fall back on their own experience in high school or training, or they rely on published curriculum materials and guides as a basis for curriculum decisions. Since the teachers are neither trained nor given the assistance required to develop a locally responsive curriculum, when the limitations of the conventional approach to a high school program become evident, they become frustrated and either give up and leave or lash out at the community and school district for failing to support their efforts.

In one district, the small high school teachers were brought together for the first time in the spring of the second year of operation, and their first action was to oust the superintendent and district office personnel from the meeting, because they felt the central office was unable to provide them with the support they needed to fulfill their responsibility as teachers. The meeting ended without any resolution of the problem, but with a request to get together again to pursue the issues that were raised. On the one hand, the teachers were frustrated and angry over the lack of authority and direction from the school district administration, and on the other hand, they were frustrated with the uncertainty as to how to respond to community expectations regarding the high school program. But at the same time, they didn't want anyone telling them what they should or should not be doing as teachers. Everyone in the district was concerned about the curriculum, but no one seemed to be in a position, or was willing, to do anything about it.

This case was not an exception. Of the eight districts surveyed, only three were engaged in any kind of systematic, cooperative effort to develop a curriculum suited specifically to the needs of the students in that district. ¥[he others either neglected the issue, or were still engaged in disputes over defining roles and responsibilities> rather than addressing the substantive issues of curriculum form and content.

The most extensive and promising approach to the development of an "integrated, community-based curriculum" is that being explored by the Northwest Arctic School District (NWASD). (A description is included in Volume lI--Roberts, 1979). The most significant feature of their approach is that it brings the principal parties together in a collaborative curriculum development effort. Community members, professional staff, and district personnel all share responsibility in defining issues and generating ideas, through a series of committees and meetings, and a district curriculum director is responsible for putting those ideas into a workable design. From such a collaborative approach we can anticipate a curriculum design that reflects community interests, professional expertise, and district capabilities in a manner that is likely to be sustainable and supported by all parties involved.

Another important feature of the NWASD approach is that it contains a three-pronged developmental focus. Curriculum development is an integrated process involving program, staff, and community development activities. Such an approach is particularly appropriate in a context where rapid change is occurring, because it facilitates a merger of the differing perspectives on the developmental needs of the young people within the district. The development of the school program is coordinated with the determination of inservice training needs for the staff, as well as with the community and regional development activities of the local native corporations. Students are more likely, therefore, to be prepared for the conditions they will face as adults, and the staff is more likely to be equipped to offer a program suited to the students' needs.

Obviously, such an approach to curriculum development is not easy to implement. A large number of persons must be brought into the act--from the community, from the school, from the regional corporations, and from the district office, and that requires a lot of coordination. Close collaboration must exist between the various parties involved in determining social, economic, and educational needs for the region. This too, requires coordination. And all of these activities need to be continued on an ongoing basis so that necessary adjustments can be made as conditions and needs change. None of the above is likely to be accomplished without someone (a curriculum specialist, perhaps?) working full time to direct attention to the issues that need to be addressed, and facilitating the processes necessary to address them. Without such direction, the various parties will continue to pursue their own concerns in their separate ways, and little integration will occur. It is important, therefore, that districts identify someone as a full-time curriculum coordinator not to make unilateral curriculum decisions, but to establish broad-based participatory processes by which an integrated curriculum can evolve on a continuing basis. The Northwest Arctic approach illustrates how such processes can be established in a rural Alaskan context.

Issue #6 - How should the local culture be reflected in the curriculum?
Most small high schools in rural Alaska are offering some variation of a "bicultural" or "cultural heritage" program, including an occasional "native language" class, but in nearly all cases, these activities are viewed as supplemental to the regular school program, and they are oriented toward cultural traditions of the past, rather than toward contemporary village life. Because most teachers are not prepared to address cross-cultural concerns, and in many cases know less about the local culture than the students, the whole issue is usually either neglected or treated as a formal subject derived from books and detached from everyday concerns. Even "land claims" classes are taught as though corporations are a distant and foreign phenomena, when students are themselves often engaged in corporate activities and have ready access to corporate offices and resources. In some schools, by the tine students reach high school, they are so fed up and turned off with "studying" land claims that teachers who try to engage them in related kinds of activities run into resistance and disinterest.

Features of the local cultural scene that are most obvious (and, therefore, most teachable) such as arts and crafts, native languages, or land claims, are usually offered by the school as evidence of sensitivity and responsiveness to local cultural concerns, but in most cases such activities are supported by federal funds and are not integrated in any way into the regular curriculum. Since such offerings are dependent on the availability of supplemental funds and local expertise, they are not organized into any kind of developmental framework and often end up being repetitious and superficial. In addition, the activities are usually taken out of their natural cultural context and organized into a formal educational mode that detracts from rather than contributes to the cultural integrity of the learning experience.

If the local culture is to be seriously regarded and supported by the school system, some fundamental reorientation is going to be necessary. Learning activities are going to have to be taken out of the formal context of the school, which is designed to transmit a particular type of cultural behavior, and placed in natural community settings in which local cultural patterns can be learned and practiced. In addition, local people are going to have to be brought into the act to a far greater extent at all levels, to allow them to utilize their own socialization processes in the organization of learning activities. Means to accomplish such a task are discussed in greater detail in Volume II, and will be reflected in the curriculum design presented in this report. The important point is that culture and cultural processes are ongoing phenomena that need to be understood and addressed in their current everyday forms and practices, and not treated only as relics of some past life. If schools do not begin to more adequately and appropriately respond to local cultural conditions and processes, they will only succeed in perpetuating the same deficiencies with which schools have been plagued since their advent on the Alaskan scene.

Issue #7 - What about basketball?
Basketball fever is sweeping rural Alaska in epidemic proportions. In many communities, basketball has become nearly synonymous with "high school". As new high school facilities are being built, excitement mounts in each community, with everyone, young and old, asking, "When will the gym be ready?" Wise builders have learned to keep the hoops under tight security until the buildings have passed final inspection. Basketball, with all the trappings of uniforms, cheerleaders, tournaments, conferences, and rivalries has arrived in village Alaska, and it is here to stay. It is a major phenomena that pervades all aspects of village life, bringing together young and old, native and non-native, and school and community.

Few organized activities of external origin have been so eagerly adopted in native communities on such a widespread basis in such a short span of time as has basketball. It appears to serve very constructive functions in most communities, however, providing an opportunity for indoor activities in which everyone can participate, as spectator or player, and providing a means for physical energies to be directed into socially useful activities which contribute to a spirit of community. In many places, winning or losing is still secondary to the enjoyment of playing or watching or otherwise participating in the excitement and action of the game. Though basketball is a highly structured activity with its own cultural rules, to the extent that it is community based, it is evolving in ways generally compatible with and supportive of the cultural fabric of rural community life. Such is not always the case, however, when basketball is examined with regard to its relationship to the school.

Because the arrival of basketball in most rural Alaskan communities is concurrent with the establishment of high schools, the two have become highly intertwined. Basketball (or "damn basketball," as it is referred to in some circles) is a major preoccupation of students as well as staff in many schools. But in the school, it takes on a somewhat different character from the more informal, yet enthusiastic village approach to the game. Winning becomes a serious matter, and school teams come under immense pressure with a heavy emphasis on the varsity players. Rules established by the Alaska High School Activities Association govern everything from the amount of practice to the length of the season. Students who wish to participate find their academic and social behavior monitored to determine their eligibility to play. Teachers who dare to be coaches can even find their jobs on the line if they don't produce a winning team. The emphasis is on winning, rather than just having a good time.

But basketball isn't without its rationale as an educational activity. As with other team sports, it serves to "build character," "develop leadership," and imbue "team spirit," Though such experiences may be valuable for those few students who are on the team, they are often accomplished at the expense of the other students who do not happen to be on the team, and at the expense of other more extensive community-oriented functions that basketball could serve.

The district travel money allocated to each school is often concentrated on sending the basketball team and cheerleaders to games in other communities. In one case, a Boeing 727 jet was chartered to transport teams from the district to a tournament in another region. Other students are not only left without comparable travel opportunities, but the entire educational program of a small school is usually disrupted by the team's departure (see Juettner in Volume III). While some schools require team members to take schoolwork along when they go on extended tours, others consider the travel experience as just another day of school. I)during the height of the season many schools could just as well (and in some cases do) shut down because very little formal instructional activity takes place anyway. Small staffs that are already spread thin find themselves overwhelmed with the demands of keeping up with the team, at the same time that they are trying to keep the building warm, respond to central office, participate in community functions, and do a little teaching on the side. The net effect of such practices is to divert the communities' attention from all the other things the schools are supposed to be doing, and concentrate their involvement around basketball. Whether intentional or not, this has served to defer a critical review of small high school academic performance in many In ties.

Another more insidious practice in many schools is to use basketball as a club to motivate students to do "schoolwork". While such a practice is not unusual in itself, it is one more instance of small high schools adopting practices used in larger schools, without considering the uniqueness of the situation in which they are operating. If the only incentive to do schoolwork is to play basketball, then students have no reason to pursue schooling beyond the opportunity to play on a team, in which case education is no longer a significant activity. In addition, the value of basketball becomes narrowly conceived in terms of its contribution to the academic progress of a few individuals in relation to the teachers' goals, rather than in terms of its contribution to the social fabric of the community as a whole. Schools should seek to maximize opportunities for as broad a participation in such activities as possible, but they should not confound and encumber those opportunities by linking them to quite separate functions. By tying basketball to academic performance, the ultimate purposes and benefits of both may become subverted.

As we indicated in an earlier section, small high schools should not be overloaded with functions that are not directly related to the instructional program. One such function is organized league basketball. While physical education activities and intramural sports are manageable and can be kept in some sort of perspective, organized sports are extremely demanding and can quickly dissipate the limited energies of the staff in a small high school program. Recognizing, however, that basketball serves some very important functions in rural Alaskan communities, school districts and regional non-profit corporations should get together and fund a fulltime athletic/recreation coordinator for each community, who could supervise use of the gym as a community facility, and coordinate all athletic and recreational activities in the community. This would then free the school to get on with the business of education.

For those who wish to argue that sports can make an important contribution to education, we do not dispute the potential of basketball as a character building, leadership developing activity. It can also serve as an effective means for teachers to get to know students and work with them on other than academic terms. We are suggesting, however, that such benefits are being offset at the present time, by an over-indulgence in the competitive aspects of the game and a general disregard for its negative impact on the instructional program of the school. We suggest, therefore, that such activities either be functionally removed as a formal responsibility of the school, or that some innovative attempts be made to capitalize on the enthusiasm and deliberately build the instructional program around basketball. Whichever approach is taken, basketball needs to be treated as a community-wide phenomena and allowed to evolve in ways compatible with the cultural and social patterns of each region and community.

D. The Need for Alternative Approaches
The provision of locally accessible high school programs for Alaskan village youth is an awesome and complex task for those involved in meeting the terms of the Tobeluk consent decree. The securing of state monies for building physical plants to house the newly established programs, the construction of the buildings, the funding of the programs, and the process of planning for, staffing, and implementing these programs involves the total spectrum of educational and political decision-making in the state--from the statewide policy-making and administration level to the district and local community level.

Insofar as there is consistency across these levels of decision-making, the terms of the consent decree are in process of being met. Buildings are being constructed, staff is being hired, and curriculum materials are being ordered and used in classrooms around the state--in short, locally accessible high school programs are being established in communities that qualify and which also desire them.

As awesome and complex as is the task of establishing the small high school programs, fulfilling the promise that there will be satisfactory quality to the educational experience of the students in these programs presents an even more awesome and complex challenge.

The issue of the quality of the education provided by the newly established small high school programs would be difficult enough to address adequately if these programs were being added on to an existing stable, responsive, and "successful" educational framework--yet this is not the case. Many of the same problems concerning the quality of education, currently being highlighted by the establishment of the new high schools, were not adequately resolved in the operation of elementary school programs in Alaskan villages over the course of at least a generation. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the small high schools are being implemented at a time when rural Alaska is experiencing rapid social, economic, and institutional change. Finally, the new high school programs are being introduced during a time when serious concerns are being raised across the country about the direction and effectiveness of American high schools.

Why Alternatives?
During the first year of study it became increasingly clear that quality in the small high school educational programs could not be derived simply from hiring "good" staff (by conventional measures), buying curriculum materials, having a new physical plant and transplanting to a new setting the conventional model of the American comprehensive high school--a school with a compartmentalized curriculum, offering a great diversity of courses, and staffed by teachers expert in narrow subject areas (Conant, 1959). In large part, the development of quality educational programs for the small high schools depends upon the development of workable, manageable, and effective alternative ways of providing secondary education under the conditions that prevail in rural Alaska.

Six major aspects of the educational condition in rural Alaska not only make clear that effective alternatives are required if quality educational programs are to be developed, but also provide some direction for developing these alternatives:

What Kind of Alternatives?
While most small high schools are still struggling to replicate their larger urban counterparts, some are exploring alternatives and are attempting to determine what works and what doesn't. While such experiences have not yet been sufficient to warrant a list of specific principles around which effective programs can be built, some general patterns can be identified and suggested as guidelines for small high school program development. Features which seem to be important for program success include: providing for a strong community role in the design and implementation of educational programs; organizing programs around contemporary life in rural Alaska (particularly ANCSA and December 19, 1991); utilizing experientially-oriented, community-based, project-centered educational approaches; reorienting the teacher role to that of facilitator/co-learner; and maintaining flexibility and adaptability in the structure and content of small high school programs.

Some characteristics of programs that do not seem to work very well include: highly-structured, programmed, prepackaged curriculum; technological devices that are intended to substitute for the teacher (except when used for certain technical subjects); formalized, impersonal, or independent type learning activities; test-oriented, competency-based materials; and subject matter that is seemingly detached from rural Alaskan realities.

It must be emphasized that these patterns and characteristics are not generalizable to all situations. The successful features listed above may prove unsuccessful under certain conditions, just as unworkable characteristics may prove to be workable under other circumstances. These descriptions reflect patterns, however, that appear fairly consistently in the various approaches that are being tried in small high schools around the state, and will serve, therefore, as guidelines for the recommended approaches presented in this report. More detailed descriptions of specific alternative approaches will be provided later in this chapter and elsewhere in the report.

Factors to be Considered in Implementing Alternatives
Improving the quality of education in small high schools is not simply a matter of proposing some proven alternative approaches to the conventional high school. Several factors exist that can prevent the successful implementation of alternatives, unless careful planning and preparation is provided. The alternatives must be understood and the appropriate conditions must exist for their acceptance. Education is not an exact science with a hard technology and established cause-effect relationships, 50 you cannot prove that one approach is going to ultimately be any better than another. And since people are most comfortable with that with which they are familiar, you cannot introduce a new approach without laying a lot of groundwork and obtaining broad-based community and staff support. Change must be pursued in small increments and in a cooperative manner. Care must be taken to assess community and staff attitudes to make sure everyone possible is apprised of each step along the way, and that the need for and nature of the change is understood. Without such considerations, a teacher may, for example, unknowingly engage students in activities that violate community expectations regarding teacher/student roles, and thus thwart an otherwise promising effort. To overcome the inertia of traditional practices and promote serious consideration of alternatives, schools may consider activities such as trial runs through pilot projects," or site visits to other schools already trying a particular approach, or devoting special staff and resources to working closely with the community in building a localized program. The most important thing to remember is that it is people, not money, or materials, or fancy equipment, that makes for an effective program.

Another factor that can inhibit the options one can pursue in implementing alternatives is the organizational structure of the school system itself. Schools tend to be organized around a centralized authority structure, with decisions flowing from the top down. Small high schools are often physically far removed from, and have only tenuous communication links with the authority structure, and thus find it difficult to obtain the kind of support and decisions that are necessary to respond to community-specific needs. Since individual schools are organized around a centralized administrative structure, they are allowed to adapt their specific programs only to the point where they don't complicate the management needs of the system. This has reached the point in some instances where it appears that the schools exist to support the administration, rather than the other way around. Small high school programs must be given enough administrative autonomy and support to allow them to pursue alternatives specifically suited to the particular needs of a community. Many schools and communities have expressed great frustration at the lack of responsiveness to or distortion of their wishes by some distant "administrator." Only by the decentralization and sharing of administrative authority can such problems be overcome.

One other factor that inhibits any attempt at trying something different is the inadequacy or inappropriateness of staff training. Small high schools are especially plagued by this problem, because very few teachers or administrators are prepared specifically for work in small high school situations. Even in a conventional small high school program, teachers are not prepared to teach multiple subjects to multiple grades. Any effort to introduce alternative approaches only further aggravates an already difficult problem. Concurrent with or preceding the introduction of alternatives, there must be appropriate training for those who are responsible for implementation. In addition, a large scale preservice and inservice program is necessary to help new teachers develop the skills and approaches required to teach effectively in a small high school setting. Without such training efforts, any approach that is taken will always be playing a catch-up game, because teachers will never be in a position to build beyond what exists now.

Regardless of the direction that small high schools may take in the future, the factors outlined above need to be anticipated if any improvement in the quality of education is expected to occur through the implementation of improved practices. Small high schools are especially susceptible to positive change, but they also pose special problems to the successful implementation of such change.

Some Structural and Functional Alternatives
When pursuing alternative approaches in the organization and delivery of any educational program, it is necessary to consider the impact of those approaches on both the structure and the function of the school. The degree of difficulty one can expect to encounter in introducing any alternatives in a system is directly proportional to the degree of change that is required of the system. But there are different kinds of changes, and some are more difficult to accomplish than others. In general, variations in the function of a system are more easily accomplished than changes in the structure of the system. Changes that affect both structure and function can have the effect of creating a different kind of system operation altogether and, therefore, are the most difficult to accomplish.

The conventional function of a high school is to offer training in a set of standard academic and vocational skills. The conventional structure of a high school is a homogenous group of students interacting with a prescribed set of instructional materials under a teacher's supervision for limited periods of time in a detached environment. Any significant deviation from such a structure or function requires extensive planning and negotiations amongst all parties involved. And it is only with some significant changes in both structure and functions that small high schools are likely to approach the ability to offer anything near the quality of educational programs that is expected and required of them. We will look, therefore, at some of the alternative approaches that are available for small high schools and sort them out along the lines of the types of changes they imply.

The following chart summarizes the major options that we have identified and categorizes them according to their fit with the conventional structure and function of high school programs. A more detailed description of each option is provided in Volume II of this report.

Category I represents those alternative approaches to organizing and delivering educational programs that require little adjustment in either the structure or function of the school. Most approaches listed are simply attempts to systematize or increase the variety of program activities. Some approaches place the teacher in more of an instructional manager role, but in general, the students are still organized into a conventional subject matter, course-oriented framework. The ease with which such approaches can be implemented is evidenced by the large number of schools that are utilizing them. Many of them have the limitations, however, of being overly structured and oftentimes impersonal, both of which tend to be inhibiting characteristics for small high school situations.

ENTER GRAPH

Category II alternatives represent adjustments in the function of the school, but within the conventional structure. Folk schools, Native studies, and community-school programs attempt to incorporate aspects of the community into the formal school structure. Boarding schools and student exchange programs attempt to provide expanded learning opportunities for students by providing access to conventional school programs in alternative settings. In most cases, the alternatives listed in Category II build upon and enhance the conventional school program and, therefore, are fairly easy to justify and implement. Control and authority over such programs still remains in the hands of the teachers and the schools, however, and little accommodation is required by anyone. Thus, the net effect is sometimes negligible. Because they are usually peripheral to the regular school programs, these approaches often disappear as time, resources, and enthusiasm dwindle.

Category III reflects those alternative approaches that involve adjustments to the way conventional learning activities are structured, but not in the basic functions they serve. This category represents the most promising set of options, because they involve accommodations of the school structure to community patterns of learning, but they are not such dramatic departures from conventional practice that people are unwilling to consider them. They are approaches that tend to bring the school and community closer together and engage students in locally meaningful activities. In addition, they provide means to offer conventional subject matter, at the same time providing opportunities for learning broader process and social skills. The increased role of students and community in defining the nature of learning activities in these approaches leads to a shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered activities and to a sharing of the learning role by the teacher. It is to these types of activities that we suggest small high schools turn when looking for ways to accomplish the same purposes as a conventional high school, but through more suitable means (more complete descriptions of each approach and references for further information are included in Volume II).

Category IV approaches are generally the most difficult to implement, because they involve changes in both the structure and function of a conventional high school program. In the long run, many of these approaches hold the most promise for productive educational experiences for rural Alaskan youth, but it will take time to build up the expertise and understanding necessary to implement them in an effective manner. Some of these approaches, such as "travel programs," are already being used in various forms, but in most instances, they are not well thought out and are not part of an organized, integrated curriculum framework. On the other hand, sports programs are highly organized at many schools, but are not considered part of the formal educational program of the school, though they often intrude on the formal programs. To the extent that schools are willing and able to effectively implement Category IV approaches, we encourage such efforts, but care should be taken to properly prepare for and follow through on them.

In the outline of a basic small high school program that follows, we shall draw primarily from the alternatives outlined in Categories III and IV, because they most adequately reflect the kind of structural and functional adjustments to the conventional high school model that we feel are necessary to make small high schools in rural Alaska work. The categories we have created are not mutually exclusive, and schools should not restrict themselves to the approaches we have listed. Our purpose is to try to make some kind of sense out of the various approaches that are being tried and considered, and to encourage everyone to seriously consider such alternatives. There is much room for experimentation and new ideas, so this discussion should serve only as a starting point. The limits are nowhere in sight.

E. A Basic Program for Small High Schools: Some Suggestions
Having examined some of the current issues in small high school program development and having discussed some alternative approaches, some suggestions will now be set forth for a basic program design that takes into account the various issues and options that have been presented. The suggestions presented here represent a synthesis of those ideas and approaches that seem to have the greatest potential for addressing the educational needs of young people in rural Alaska. The suggestions are not new, nor are they restricted in application to small high schools. They are, however, organized and integrated in such a way that they provide an approach to small high school programs that is adapted to the unique conditions that face such programs in rural Alaska.

What is presented here is a broad, flexible, structural framework for a program to cover the basic and essential aspects of a high school curriculum. The specific form and content of such a program in a particular district must be worked out around local conditions and in the participatory manner outlined earlier. While the specific features of each program will vary from district-to-district and community-to-community, the general structure of the programs must have sufficient similarities to allow for the exchange of services and the transfer of students. Toward that end the following framework is offered as a basis for small high schools to build their programs and for the State to develop a network of training and support services to put the programs into effect.

Since this is a basic program intended to address only the essential aspects of a high school curriculum, school districts are urged to expand and elaborate upon the design to accommodate additional needs and resources that may exist in their area. Specific elements of the design will be further developed and field tested over the next year to provide the resource materials and additional assistance necessary for field implementation. If school district response is adequate, a major materials development and teacher training effort will be proposed which over the next five years could provide support for statewide implementation.

Function
An important aspect in the development of any school program is a recognition of the limitations of the system we are working with. This is especially so with small high school programs, where the limitations of the conventional school system are most pronounced. A small high school cannot do everything, at least not in the same way, that a large high school can, so we must identify what it is we expect the small high school to do.

We are working from the assumption that it is better to do a few things and do them well, than to try to do everything and end up doing things poorly. We suggest, therefore, that small high schools focus their efforts on those academic, social, and practical skills that can be most readily provided in a small school/community context, and then work with regional and urban centers to offer, as part of a coordinated curriculum sequence, opportunities to acquire those skills not readily attainable in the home community, such as urban living skills and those skills that require large investments in laboratory or technical facilities. Opportunities to travel and study in other educational contexts, if adequately conceived and planned, can become an integral part of a coordinated curriculum sequence and thus, relieve some of the burden on the local school program and facilities (Kleinfeld and Berry, 1978). The local program can then concentrate on more personalized programs built upon local resources and needs. The small high school program can serve as the home base for students as they explore the resources in other schools and communities for concentrated periods of time.

In addition to coordinating the curriculum with other schools and communities, small high schools should seek the support of the regional or village native corporations and other potential non-formal educational entities, in developing youth organizations and other community-based mechanisms for providing the social and educational opportunities that the school is not adequately prepared to provide. These could include recreational and sporting activities, social and cultural activities, health services, and many of the vocational programs for which the community is the most appropriate learning environment. If the school were relieved of such activities, it could concentrate on the development of strong basic academic skills, the function for which it was originally designed. To the extent that the school must continue to serve non-academic functions, those functions should be concentrated in one half of the day, with an exclusive emphasis on academics during the other half. In this way both functions can be served without interruption of the academic program.

Small high schools can, if appropriately conceived, provide a strong, personalized educational program built upon local community resources and responsive to individual student needs. Students can be prepared with the necessary skills to follow whatever path they choose in the future, without restricting them to one choice or another. To accomplish this, however, small high schools must limit their functions and explore alternative avenues for fulfilling those functions. The functions most appropriate for schools to pursue are those involving the development of basic academic skills.

Content
The content of the curriculum for a small high school must be adapted to meet at least two sets of conditions. First the content must be suited to the developmental needs of the students. Since individual needs vary and group needs change over time, the content should focus on process skills, such as communication, problem-solving, and critical thinking, rather than the traditional subject matter skills, which are often time-bound and ethnocentric. Subject matter may serve as a means by which process skills can be developed, but should not be the exclusive focus of the curriculum. A focus on process skills can also help us shift the basis for curriculum development from an emphasis on a body of knowledge to a renewed emphasis on the student. Until such a shift is made, we will continue to reconstruct the old content into new forms, without addressing the basic inadequacies of that content.

The second set of conditions that curriculum content for small high schools must address is the limited capability of the school itself. Limited staff, resources, and facilities restrict the range of offerings that can reasonably be expected, with any degree of quality, from a small high school. The curriculum content should, therefore, capitalize to the maximum extent on those resources that are available, and it should be organized in such a way as to make teaching and learning a manageable enterprise.

We suggest that the content of a small high school curriculum be organized around three broad, interdisciplinary areas of study: 1) communication arts, 2) environmental studies, and 3) cultural ecology. Within these three areas are contained the basic ingredients necessary to cover conventional subject matter content, as well as general process skills. In addition, these three areas of study can be readily adapted to the unique problems in rural Alaska and can draw upon existing resources to address those problems. The following chart summarizes the basic elements of such a curriculum design.

Some of the advantages to organizing the curriculum around the three areas of study listed are:

Some of the disadvantages to this approach are:

Though the disadvantages listed above will be difficult to overcome, it remains more a question of will than way. Many teachers are approaching their students from this perspective already, on an individual basis. What they lack is a comprehensive curriculum framework and a supportive climate within which to proceed. If school districts, the State Department of Education, and the universities can come to some general agreement on a curriculum framework, existing resources could be redirected toward the implementation of that framework at little additional cost or effort. The curriculum design outlined here is offered as one approach by which this may be accomplished.

Method
Effective implementation of a process-oriented curriculum requires reconsideration of the methods used to convey the appropriate learning experiences. Students do not develop social interaction skills by reading or listening to a lecture on them. They must engage in interaction themselves. It is necessary, therefore, that learning activities be experiential in design and take place as much as possible in natural community contexts. By moving learning activities into the community, or by bringing aspects of the community (people, events, etc.) into the school, the activities are more likely to have meaning for the students, as well as be more responsive to students' unique needs and interests. The students themselves, as well as other community members, can then become contributors to the curriculum development process on an ongoing basis, and teachers can share in the learning experience as facilitators, rather than as subject-matter specialists.

One of the most popular and versatile approaches to experiential, community-based learning is that of the project. Projects can be designed around nearly any subject, for nearly any length of time, to fit almost any situation and involving any number of students. Teachers often use projects as a means to supplement regular curriculum activities. We are suggesting, however, that projects become the focus of learning, and the other activities serve the support function. Projects are especially suited to the utilization of local resources and the surrounding environment. They involve the students in firsthand experiences that can provide useful services at the same time that they can provide sustained learning activities. When students build a boat, or operate a store, or plan a trip, or go camping, they learn much more than the immediate activity implies, and they are able to gain considerable satisfaction and support for their efforts.

Examples of projects developed by Alaskan teachers are included in Volume II, along with a more detailed rationale for their use. Teachers are encouraged to develop their own projects, big or small, in whatever subject areas they teach, and begin working toward a comprehensive project-centered approach to their teaching. A catalog of projects and a framework for their use will continue to be developed through the Small High Schools Project so that, eventually, a complete set of curriculum projects will be available for teachers to choose from to help adapt their teaching to the unique needs of the students in the communities in which they teach.

Structure
While it is possible to structure a high school program in an infinite number of ways, some ways lend themselves to particular purposes and approaches more so than others. The effective implementation of the process-oriented, community-based, project-centered approach described above requires some basic reordering of the conventional school structure.

First of all, opportunities for sustained learning activities must be provided by some form of block scheduling, where teachers are able to work with the same students for extended periods of time, so that large scale projects can be planned and carried out without interfering with other aspects of the program. While one teacher is covering a six-week unit in environmental studies, another can be escorting students on an extended travel program, and another can be working with students on the production of a native arts festival, and still other students can be attending a program at the regional high school that cannot be made available locally. By carefully planning of a complete program in this way, the district can make more effective use of its staff and resources, while providing students with a wide variety of in-depth learning experiences.

In addition to block scheduling, the school day should be segmented into academic and social blocks, so that each teacher is assured of at least a three-hour undisturbed time period during which students can become engaged ed in concentrated learning activities. In most cases, the mornings are best suited to academics and the afternoons to more social activities, though this may vary, depending on the seasonal activities of the community. With a segmented day, and block scheduling, teachers are required to plan and teach only one sustained learning activity at a time, and should, therefore, be able to do a more careful and thoughtful job. Similarly, students are able to immerse themselves in an activity in greater depth and with greater opportunity for exploring options.

Block scheduling is also suited to the problems of providing a complete high school program in a one- or two-teacher school. Since the curriculum content outlined earlier implies a minimum of three teachers to offer a full high school program, it is possible to link two or three or more small schools together to create one complete program. Teachers and/or students may then rotate to different schools according to the blocks of time required to complete various segments of the curriculum. Everyone would then have access to all parts of the curriculum without each school requiring a complete set of staff and facilities. Each school should have at least one teacher, however, that remains throughout the year, to provide continuity and support for the students.

Another variation in structure that can be used in the smaller schools is an alternating year curriculum. Instead of offering all subjects every year, the curriculum can be offered in two-year cycles, thus reducing the teaching load while still offering students a full curriculum over a two-year period (Murphy, 1977).

All of the structural variations outlined above require careful planning and thoughtful implementation. The teachers will find their past training of limited use and will be required to improvise in ways in which they have not previously had experience. Students will engage in activities not previously associated with schooling, and parents will wonder what everyone is doing. So any attempt to implement any of the above suggestions on a large scale should be carefully worked through by all parties concerned, and all the necessary support services should be developed beforehand. To do otherwise will assure that little change occurs over the long run.

Summary

Application
The basic small high school program design described above is intended to be adaptable to any small high school situation, with the details to be worked out in response to local conditions. Three examples of the application of the design are provided here to illustrate its adaptability to two different sets of conditions. The first (Option A) is a three-teacher high school serving a single community. The second (Option B) and third (Option C) are arrangements in which three one-teacher schools or two two-teacher schools in compatible communities are linked together in a cooperative staffing and programming framework. All three options are organized around the three general areas of study outlined earlier, and provide opportunities for an in-state and out-of-state travel program, access to regional school facilities, and an urban experience for senior students. Four nine-week blocks (the equivalent of a 180-day school year) are provided for each of the three areas of study, with another four nine-week blocks available for the "extended learning activities" offered outside the local community. Within each nine-week block, instructional units of three, six, or nine weeks duration may be offered.

Option A -- One School, Three Teachers

ENTER GRAPH 

SAMPLE OUTLINE OF A BASIC SMALL HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM

Option A -- One school, three teachers. Under Option A, students in a three-teacher school are able to engage in a full range of curriculum options with the opportunity for intensive, sustained, integrated learning activities. The three teachers (one each in communication arts, environmental studies, and human ecology) are able to work with a single grade level at a time, in a single area of study, for periods ranging from 3 to 18 weeks per unit. After the first year, students are able to participate in extended learning activities organized by the district to give them access to specialized learning resources (labs, equipment, staff) and alternative learning environments. The extended learning activities can be coordinated by special district staff, or by an additional resource person in each community/school. As the number of teachers increases, program offerings can be increased, or the teachers can specialize in specific topical units within the three general areas of study. The specific sequence of offerings can be varied to suit local cultural and seasonal patterns.

OPTION B -- Three Schools, Three Teachers

 ENTER GRAPH 

Option B -- Three schools, three teachers. Option B provides students in a one-teacher school with the same range of curriculum opportunities as Option A, but requires that three such schools link together to exchange and share resources, staff, and/or students. Although such a program could be offered in a single school with a single teacher, a more productive program is likely if two or three schools are able to coordinate their programs and allow teachers to concentrate their energies in a single area of study. This can be accomplished by organizing the three areas of study into nine-week blocks, and then rotating staff and/or students between schools. The extended learning activities can be offered to the different schools and grade levels concurrently, so that staff time and resources can be most effectively used to coordinate such activities. While each of the three areas of study is offered in each school each year, the sequence within each area could be organized on an alternating year basis and students grouped into two sets, so that teachers would be required to organize only two series of learning activities at a time, rather than four. This would have the effect of altering the sequence of study for students who enter on odd years from I-II-III-IV (as taken by students entering on even years) to II-I-IV-III. Therefore, segments I and II, and segments III and IV would each have to be interchangeable to allow them to be taken in reverse order. This should not be a problem if a project-centered approach is used. Otherwise, the only drawback of Option B is that it involves quarterly movement of teachers and/or students between schools, which can be disruptive to the program, as well as to the personal lives of the participants. But, such considerations must be weighed against the advantages of being able to offer a complete high school program with some degree of quality in a one-teacher school.

A variation of Option B that would allow teachers to remain in one community while maintaining responsibility for a single area of study for all three schools, would be to have the three teachers jointly develop the complete program of studies for the three schools, and then each teacher could tutor the students in their school who are engaged in activities that were designed by the teachers in the other two schools. Such an approach could be supplemented with occasional workshops in which all students are brought together, and by teachers traveling to the other schools on a regular basis. This kind of an extended team-teaching arrangement would link the three schools together in an integrated program, without placing the burden of relocation on the students or staff. It would also allow for considerable flexibility in the organization and sequencing of the program of studies.

OPTION C -- Two Schools, Four Teachers

ENTER GRAPH 

SAMPLE OUTLINE OF A BASIC

SMALL HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM

Option C -- Two schools, four teachers. The third option combines aspects of Options A and B for two cooperating schools that are staffed with two teachers each. Each area of study is offered in a one-year sequence on an alternating year basis, with each teacher responsible for a single area of study, along with a coordinator for the extended learning activities. In this way, teachers have to move back and forth between each school only once a year, though two moves per year would allow for a greater variety in sequencing. For example, Communication Arts I and II, and Environmental Studies I and II could be offered in the first year sequence, followed in the second year with segments III and IV, with the teachers switching schools in mid-year. Option C could also be offered in a single two-teacher school, if each teacher was prepared to teach two areas of study. Under such conditions, the sequencing of offerings could be easily varied to accommodate student and community needs. As with Option B, half the students would have to be organized to work independently while the other half worked with the teacher.

Extended learning activities. In each of the options outlined above, a four-part series of extended learning activities is provided for all students within the framework of their regular high school program. These activities consist of nine weeks in each of a regional high school program, an urban center program, and an in-state and out-of-state travel program, all of which are intended to provide students with learning opportunities beyond those readily available in the local community. The extended learning activities should be well thought out and organized into an integrated curriculum sequence, so that they can be part of the accredited program and maximum learning can occur. In most cases, these activities should be organized at the district level, since they would involve students from several schools at a time, though some larger schools may be able to utilize local staff, or

even employ their own extended learning activities coordinator/teacher. To be effective, all of these activities require well qualified staff and a great deal of advance planning.

The regional high school program should provide students access to labs, shop equipment, and other facilities that are too expensive or specialized to warrant development in each community. In most regions, such facilities already exist or could be easily assembled and, therefore, would require little more than careful planning to convert to regional use. In addition to regional facilities, students could also make use of facilities at the Seward Skill Center or Mt. Edgecumbe during this nine-week period. Placement would be determined by individual interests and the availability of training opportunities. A regional coordinator for such activities would probably be required to assist in the identification and development of facilities, and in the placement of students.

The urban center program is aimed at helping students develop urban survival skills and providing them with an opportunity to participate in activities that are situated in an urban environment. While students might spend some time visiting an urban school, this is not intended to be an urban high school experience. Instead, students should study and experience the total urban scene and learn how it interacts with rural communities. This could include activities such as work/study experiences (e.g., RSVP), observations, surveys, tours, live-in situations, attending meetings, conducting interviews, and then discussing the implications of all that they are doing for themselves and for their home community. Such a program will require a specially trained teacher living and working with the students in the urban center. Each district may employ such a person, or a more extensive program could be made available in each of the urban centers (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and ö Juneau) under the auspices of the State 1)Department of Education. Whichever approach is used, a well thought out urban center program should be a high priority for every rural district, and should be offered as an integral part of each student's high school learning experiences. This is a badly neglected area that should receive serious attention if small high schools are to offer more than a self-limiting, parochial educational program.

The in-state travel program is intended to serve some of the same functions as the urban center program, but focusing on a broader range of experiences. Activities might include a visit to the state capitol and observing the legislature in session, extended camping trips (Mt. McKinley, Kenai Peninsula), student exchanges across regions, and firsthand experiences with various industries in the state (oil production, logging, fisheries, etc.). All of these activities should be designed to maximize the learning that occurs and thus, serve to fulfill some of the basic curriculum requirements for the district. Once such a program is developed and implemented on a regular basis, the various participating groups can begin to offer segments of the program as an ongoing public-service function. The in-state travel program should give the students a good picture of the state as a whole, and their part in it.

The out-of-state travel program is an extended series of activities that revolve around a six- to nine-week trip through the United States. To be most effective as a learning activity, such a trip must go considerably beyond a whistle-stop tour. Students should become directly involved from the earliest planning stages, through the fund raising and trip organizing activities, and on to the post-trip reports and write-up. A description of some strategies for making an effective travel program are included in Volume II of this report. The specific itinerary for each travel program may vary according to student interests, schedules, and funding, but each scheduled stop along the way should have a purpose as deliberate as any activity offered in the school back home. Travel programs offer a rare and rich opportunity to provide students with firsthand experiences in situations that they would otherwise only be able to read or hear about. These opportunities should not be squandered, as many of them are now, by making last-minute arrangements to send students someplace because some unexpected funding suddenly became available. A well-planned travel program, organized by the students with the assistance of a well-qualified person, can be more "educational" than all the American history, government and geography books and films put together. It is primarily a matter of making the most of the resources and opportunities available.

One reservation is in order before we leave the topic of extended learning activities. An occasionally expressed rationale for programs such as those outlined above is to "expose students to the outside world," implying that the outside world is somehow better and more desirable, and by exposing students to it, they will be more inclined to strive to become part of it. That is not the intention of the programs described here, but it is an inherent danger that should be recognized and anticipated. While some students may find some aspects of the places they visit interesting and even intriguing, it is not likely that such experiences will have any long-term assimilationist effects. In fact, if properly organized, these activities can serve to strengthen, rather than weaken, the student's cultural ties by providing experiences that stimulate positive reinforcement of their group identity. The purpose of these activities is not to entice students away from their culture and community, but to provide them with a deeper sense of and, therefore, control over their relationship to the broader social, economic, and political order. iThich purpose is achieved, however, is determined, in part, by the attitudes of those persons responsible for implementing the program. Once again, it is important, therefore, that the local community have a major role in the design and implementation of these programs, so that the effects of the programs are compatible with community wishes.

What has been outlined so far is only the bare outline of an approach to a small high school program design for Alaska. Work is currently in progress to develop a complete set of Alaskan-based units for each of the areas of study outlined above, and to assemble the resources necessary to make those units available on a statewide basis. Much work is yet to be done to develop appropriate graduation requirements, accreditation standards, teacher training programs, etc. reflecting the outlined approach. If the field testing of this approach proves successful, such work will continue in earnest throughout the formative years of small high schools in Alaska.

III. CONCLUSION

Small high school programs are an established fact in most communities in rural Alaska. The inadequacy of the conventional design of a high school program for rural Alaska is rapidly becoming an established fact as well. The problems that small high schools are facing cannot be attributed to any particular party in the process, but their solutions are the shared responsibility of all parties involved. If widespread supportive actions are not taken soon, many small high schools are doomed to failure, along with a whole generation of young people whose education will be sorely needed during the next decade to help bring the potential benefits of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to fruition. Small high schools have been established at a critical point in the development of Alaskan native self-determination, and it is in the long-term interests of everyone involved to insure that these new institutions are able to meet the challenge. To do otherwise will only result in extensive social and economic disorder and a weakening of the cultural fabric that gives Alaska its strength and uniqueness.

Small high schools can be developed into effective institutions, but not without a careful rethinking of their basic functions and design, and a strong commitment of time, energy, and resources on the part of everyone involved. The outline of a basic small high school program design provided in this report is offered as a general framework around which local programs can be built and a statewide support system can be developed. We have attempted to address, in as comprehensive a way as possible, the many issues and problems we encountered in our fieldwork in small high schools during the past year. We have tried to identify which approaches seem to work and which do not, and have built a program design around those approaches that seem to have the most potential for effective application in rural Alaska.

What has been presented so far is only the rough outline of a complete high school program. We are addressing ourselves, during the second year of the Small High Schools Project, to the development of specific instructional units and materials and training programs that will provide more explicit help in actually implementing such a curriculum design. We are actively seeking ideas, input and reactions from anyone that feels they may have something to contribute to the Project, and we are planning to work with two or three school districts that are interested in field testing this approach on a district-wide scale.

In the meantime, we have assembled a list of recommendations, some general and some specific, addressed to various needs and participants, to assist small high schools in improving the quality of their educational programs. Many of the suggestions came from persons involved in the small high schools we worked with over the past year. Others are related to the implementation of the program design presented in this report. The recommendations are organized into two sections. The first section lists recommendations according to the group or agency responsible for their implementation. The second section lists recommendations oriented to particular needs relating to small high school program development. Recommendations which are addressed to both a need and a responsibility will be reflected in both sections.

A. Recommendations
Recommendations addressed to particular roles and responsibilities: The following recommendations are listed according to the parties responsible for their implementation.

State Department of Education

School Boards

Community School Committees

Superintendents

Curriculum Developers

Principals

Teachers

Students

Native Non-Profit Corporations

Universities

Recommendations addressing specific areas of need: The following recommendations are listed according to specific areas that are in need of attention if small high schools are to be improved.

Need: To Establish More Explicit Focus and Direction for Small High School Programs

Need: Greater Depth and Quality in Small High School Academic Programs

Need: Increased Attention to Contemporary Cultural and Community Conditions

Need: Greater Continuity in Small High School Programs

Need: Greater Community Participation in the Design and Operation of Small High School Programs

Need: Increased Information Exchange Networks for Small High School Programs and Staff

Need: Clarification of Teacher, Administrator, and Community School Committee Member Roles Relating to Small High School Operations

Need: Appropriate Training and Placement Procedures for Small High School Teachers and Administrators

B. Summary
The intent of the Small High Schools Project has been to address the issues relating to small high school program development in as comprehensive and integrated a manner as possible. As a result, we have listed over 100 recommendations on issues ranging from basketball to buildings to block scheduling. Since the recommendations are occasionally redundant, and some recommendations are obviously more important than others, we will now condense them down to ten or so that summarize the principal issues we have attempted to address:

C. References
Averich, Harvey A. et al. How Effective Is Schooling? A Critical Review of Research. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1972.

Barker, Roger G. and Paul V. Gump. Big School, Small School. Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1964.

Barnhardt, Ray. "Culture, Community and the Curriculum," In R. Barnhardt et al, Small High School Programs for Rural Alaska: Volume II. Fairbanks, Alaska: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alaska, 1979.

Cole, Michael. "How Education Affects the Mind." Human Nature 1(4): 50-58, 1978.

Conant, James Bryant. The American High School Today: A First Report to Interested Citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959.

Harrison, Barbara. "Travel Programs: Some Guidelines," In R. Barnhardt et al, Small High School Programs for Rural Alaska: Volume II. Fairbanks, Alaska: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alaska, 1979.

Juettner, Robert. "Basketball," In R. Barnhardt et al, Small High School Programs for Rural Alaska: Volume III. Fairbanks, Alaska: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alaska, 1979.

King, A. Richard. The School at Mopass: A Problem of Identity. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

Kleinfeld, Judith. A Long Way From Home: Effects of Public High Schools on Village Children Away From Home. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska, 1973.

Kleinfeld, Judith. Alaska Native Students and College Success. Fairbanks, Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, 1978.

Kleinfeld, Judith, and Franklin L. Berry. Village High Schools: Some Educational Strategies to Help Meet Developmental Needs of Rural Youth. Fairbanks, Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, 1978.

Murphy, D. M. "Rural Secondary Education: Some Alternative Considerations," In R. Barnhardt, ed., Cross-Cultural Issues in Alaskan Education. Fairbanks, Alaska: Center for Northern Educational Research, University of Alaska, 1977.

National Panel on High School and Adolescent Education. The Education of Adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

Orasanu, Judith et al. "A Critique of Test Standardization." Social Policy 8(2): 61-67, 1977.

Roberts, Helen. "The Development of an Integrated Bilingual and Cross Cultural Curriculum in an Arctic School District," In R. Barnhardt et al, Small High School Programs for Rural Alaska: Volume II. Fairbanks, Alaska: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alaska, 1979.

Sher, Jonathan P., ed. Education in Rural America: A Reassessment of Conventional Wisdom. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1977.

State of Alaska. Tobeluk vs. Lind Consent Decree. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska State Department of Education, 1976.

Tyack, David. The One Best System. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Weaver, Timothy. "The Case Against the Preston County Comprehensive Facilities Plan for Consolidating the Schools," In Jonathan P. Sher and R. B. Tompkins, Economy, Efficiency and Equality: The Myths of Rural School and District Consolidation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

Appendix A.

Number and Size of Small High Schools in Alaska

Small High School Programs in Alaska
Distribution by Number of Teachers
1977-78

Total number of high schools with six or fewer teachers -120

The above figures were derived from the 1977-78 Alaska Educational Directory by tabulating the number of teachers listed as teaching in full or partial high school programs offered by the REAAs, as well as by the city and borough school districts. The figures reflect estimated fulltime equivalent teaching positions, taking into account the fact that in many schools, teachers work at both the elementary and secondary level, and many "teachers" work on a part-time basis. One-teacher schools with K-12 programs have been included in the above figures.

Appendix B.

List of Regional Educational Attendance
Area High Schools in Alaska

REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL ATTENDANCE AREAS

Rural High Schools In Alaska

Appendix C.
List of Subjects Taught in
Small High Schools in 1977-78

SMALL HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECTS AS LISTED
IN THE 1977‹78 ALASKA EDUCATIONAL DIRECTORY

ENTER GRAPH 

APPENDIX D

Interview and Questionnaire Responses

Following is a tabluation of the responses to a set of questionnaires! interviews that were administered to students, teachers, and administrators associated with small high schools in rural Alaska. They are included here to give the reader an opportunity to see the range and nature of views expressed by various participants in the educational process. These comments represent but one of the sources of information out of which this report grow. The questionnaires and interviews did not provide sufficiently reliable information for them to be used in any more than a broad, impres‹ sionistic sort of way. The firsthand experiences of the persons on site, as participants and observers, served as the primary source of information, with the more systematically assembled data serving as a check and supplement.

Whenever possible, the questions were asked in the context of an interview, with the interviewer writing down the responses. When an interview was not possible, persons were asked to complete the questionnaire themselves. The responses were then reviewed and tabulated in abbreviated form, with similar responses grouped into one statement. The reader is cautioned, therefore, to be careful in making literal interpretations of any of the comments. Interviews/questionnaires were administered to 58 students, 46 teachers, and 20 administrators.

APPENDIX D-1 - Student Questionnaire Responses

 ENTER GRAPH 

APPENDIX E

School and Teacher Profile of Selected Small High Schools

Poll owing are brief profiles of the teachers and the programs in six small high schools in rural Alaska during the 1977-78 school year. In general, the schools included here are larger than most small high schools in the state, but they provide a reasonable sample of the range of staffing patterns that exist. The schools listed represent five different districts/ regions in the state, and all are operated by REAAs.

School A

High School A has twenty students in the 9th and 10th grades. It is taught by two teachers who are considered "high school" teachers and teach mainly to the 9th and 10th grades, and four other teachers who teach one or more classes, but spend the majority of their time teaching elsewhere in the school. The school day is divided up into six periods of 50 minutes each, with the students moving from room to room.

The Staff

Teacher A-1 is 24 years old, single, male, and hails from Michigan. This is his first year of full-time teaching, although he has worked one year as a full-time substitute in Michigan. A-1 is secondary certified in business and P.E. He resigned at the end of the school year, and hopes to find a job in Alaska where he can coach varsity basketball.

Teacher A-2 is 31 years old, single, male, and hails from Seattle. This was his third year of full-time teaching. He taught last year in Manokotak, and also taught one year in Washington. He is certified to teach secondary vocational education, and has a master's degree in industrial arts. A-1 resigned at the end of this school year, and hopes to find a job in the Pacific Northwest in industry.

Teacher A-3 is 31 years old, married, female, and has two daughters. She has five years experience and taught last year in rural Alaska. A‹3 spends most of her day with the 7th and 8th grades, but does teach two classes, sewing and cooking, to the high school students. She has secondary certification in social studies. A-3 and her husband, the Principal, both resigned at the end of the year, and their plans for next year are uncertain.

Teacher A-4 is 31 years old, married, male, and has two children aged four and two. He grew up in Dillingham, Alaska. He is elementary certified and teaches the 4th and one half of the 5th grade. He teaches one class to the high school students, Alaska studies. He has four years experience, all in the surrounding area. His wife is the ESL (English as a second language) teacher. Both plan to return next year.

Teacher A-5 is 29 years old, married, and has two daughters, aged four and two. He grew up in Oregon, and is certified to teach science in the secondary grades. He spends most of his day with the 7th and 8th grades, but does teach one class of science to the 9th and 10th grades. This is his first year of teaching. His wife does not teach. The couple plan to return next year.

Teacher A-6 is 27 years old, married, female, and has a one year old son. She grew up in Pennsylvania, and has taught three years, all in Village A. She is elementary certified and teaches the combined 5th and 6th grades. However, when it was discovered that none of the high school teachers could teach algebra, she agreed to teach it one period each day. Her husband is a former teacher who now is a village-based graduate student with the University of Alaska.

There are two other individuals who work with the 9th and 10th graders. One is the special education teacher, and the other is the Title I aide. However, both spend the majority of their day with elementary students.

Class Schedule for Fall Semester, 1977

* Work Study students perform a variety of jobs, such as helping the custodian, the cook, several teachers, and the principal. They are paid, and also receive credit toward their diploma.

Class Schedule for Spring Semester, 1978

School B

Teacher B-1 has elementary certification and a mater's degree in education. She taught 1st and 2nd grades from 9 a.m. until 1:45 and high school home economics from 1:50 to 3:25 daily. Her formal training in home ec. consists of attendance at one State-sponsored workshop in home ec. B-1 and her husband first came to this community 11 years ago from Florida. They taught four years here, two years in another village, and then returned to this community where they both now teach. There are five children in their household: two of their own children, two adopted children, and one boarding student. They live across the slough in a house with no running water or electricity. During freeze-up and break-up when it is difficult to get across the slough, B-1 teaches all children who live on the other side, regardless of their grade level. B-1 is in her mid-30's.

Teacher B-2 (married to B-1) has a secondary teaching certificate in social studies, an administrative certificate, and a master's degree in administration. He taught high school voc. ed. for four periods a day, one 5th and 6th grade social studies class, and one 7th and 8th grade spelling class. His formal training in voc. ed. has been through State-sponsored workshops. Next year, he is scheduled to teach only 5th and 6th grades. A vocational education specialist is to be hired for the high school voc. ed. classes.

This year, B-2 coached basketball and wrestling. In the past, he has been involved in a wide variety of extracurricular activities. He was principal teacher of the school in 1971. He is politically active. He serves on the City Council and was mayor of this community at one time. He is the community's representative on the X-CED regional panel. B-2 served as the teacher's union representative and observer in a dispute between the principal and a teacher this year. B-2 and B-1 participated in the Alaska Rural School Project when they first came to Alaska 11 years ago. B-2 is in his mid-30's.

Teacher B-3 taught grades 5 and 6 five periods a day and one period each of high school drafting and art. He retired in May after nine years here. Prior to coming here, he taught in rural schools in West Virginia for many years; in a southcentral community for five years; and, in an interior community for five years. He has secondary certification and a major in industrial arts education. B-3 lives alone in a home that he owns and intends to continue living here following his retirement.

Teacher B-4 taught high school French 1 and 2, and P.E. and health for grades 5 through 12. She has a bachelor's degree in French and a minor in P.E. and has secondary certification. She taught two years in Washington, substituted for two years there, and taught half a year in a larger community in this region before coming here. She took a leave in February to have a baby, and a long-term substitute was hired to fill in. B-4 and her husband are building a house here and plan to remain permanently. Her husband has had a variety of positions including ABE coordinator for KCC. She was not sure if she would teach in the fall or not. She is in her early 30's.

Teacher B-5 taught 7th and 8th grade English, reading, and social studies; high school English 1, 2, 3, and 4, creative writing, basic math, U.S. and world history, and American government. He has a master of fine arts in English degree and secondary certification. This was his second year of teaching, both years in this school. He came here as a BLM firefighter, married a local woman, and was offered a job in the school. They now have two small children. B-5 will not teach next year. He will return to work for BLM. He is in his middle 20's.

Teacher B-6 was hired late in the school year with Indian Education funds to teach music to all grade levels. He and his wife came from the lower 48, and they had an apartment in the local corporation apartments. Whether or not B-6 will continue was uncertain at last report. There was a problem with continued funding for his position. He is probably in his late 20's.

Teacher B-7 was this high school's first counselor. Since her salary was paid by JOM, she was technically employed by the local native corporation, not by the school. She was hired in January 1977. Prior to that time, she was a residential counselor in Anchorage for two years, and she had worked in recreation at an Anchorage elementary school. She has 21 graduate credits and is eligible for secondary certification in social studies.

Teacher B-7 worked hard at her job and established programs and activities far beyond what was required of her. She set up the cooperative work-study program, conducted the career exploration trips and a "career day" here in town, taught two reading labs each day, advised the Student Council and cheerleaders, traveled with the basketball team, and supervised practice for the Native Youth Olympics in addition to her responsibilities in vocational and personal counseling. One high school girl lived with B-7 most of the school year. They lived in a two-room cabin with electricity but no water.

Teacher B-7 will not continue as the counselor next year. She is spending the summer working with the school district to establish an itinerant counselor's position. Then, she will travel and eventually intends to return to school to finish her master's degree. She is probably in her late 20's.

Teacher B-8 spent many years as a real estate broker in Fairbanks. When she was in her mid-5O's, she decided she wanted to teach. She went to school in Washington where she completed a bachelor's degree. She is certified to teach secondary art. Her first teaching job was in this community last year. She taught business ed. courses, Alaskan history, and one art class. B-8 had many problems during this year. Conflicts with other staff members were frequent. She fell and broke her ankle in mid-year. Because of medical bills, she said, she was unable to pay the rent on her corporation-owned apartment, and she eventually moved into alternate housing. The principal recommended that she not be retained for the coming year. B-8 disputed his recommendation and was able to obtain the CSC's recommendation in her favor. The REAA board, however, voted not to retain her. She will not continue in this community.

Teacher B-9 taught a most impressive array of courses: boys' P.E. and health, algebra 1 and 2 ("math electives" on the schedule), 7th and 8th grade science, 7th grade math, 8th grade math, general science 1, and science 2

which included a class in chemistry and one in biology. He met with the Title 1 math aide daily to train the aide. He was also the boys' basketball coach. That extracurricular activity required 1-4/2 after school hours five days a week with the team. It also required considerable traveling. This was B-9's first year of teaching. He has a B.S. in biology and a secondary certificate from a university in Michigan. He worked in construction in Alaska before becoming a teacher. B-9 and his wife and three children lived in the corporation apartments. B-9 will teach here again next year. Lie is in his late 20's.

Teacher B-10 was the special ed. teacher in this community and three smaller villages nearby. Her bachelor's degree and 18 graduate credits are from a Pennsylvania college, and she taught three years in Pennsylvania before coming here in September 1977. Her primary responsibilities had to do with training and supervising aides to work directly with the special ed. students. She will probably not teach here next year. She did not want to continue the special ed. work because she wanted to work with children, not aides. She would like to have an elementary classroom in this school, but there are no openings at the elementary level. She lives in a two-room cabin with her boyfriend. They intend to remain in this community. She is sure she can find a job even if it isn't a teaching job. She is in her late 20's.

School C

Teacher C-l is a 22 year old, 1977 graduate of the University of Michigan. She is elementary certified. She was the 10th grade class sponsor and the advisor for the school yearbook. She taught six classes a day (social studies, home ec., and English) with no preparation period. She had a difficult time relating to other teachers, parents, and students. She resigned during the last week of school. Her given reasons were political strife in the district and being single. She will either attend graduate school or look for a teaching job in the lower 48.

Teacher C-2 is in his mid-50's. He is a retired Navy man with much of his experience in airplane repair. He was certified in math from a university in North Dakota. He was stationed in Kodiak prior to becoming certified. He has taught math and shop (voc. ed.) for three years in this village. His wife and his 27 year old son live with him in the village in one of the modern units complete with washer and dryer and wall to wall carpet (all teachers live in similar conditions). He is planning on working on his master's degree this summer and will return here next fall. He helps people on engine repair and carpentry work and is accepted by the village on these terms. He was the only teacher with a full preparation hour. He does a lot of maintenance advising for the school too.

Teacher C-3 is in his early 20's. He is a recent graduate of a small university in Minnesota. He teaches health as well as P.E. and is the wrestling and cross-country ski coach, lie enjoys life in the village. He and his wife both ski well and his wife is a teacher's aide in the school. C-3's efforts as a coach have been greatly appreciated by local residents. The couple seem to be planning on returning next year; however, they were disappointed with the district because of misconceptions of pay and housing.

Teacher C-4 is in his 30's. He has taught here for five years. During the first three years he and his wife lived in village housing. He has a B.S. in business with minors in English, science, and math. He was a VISTA volunteer in Alaska before becoming a teacher. He is married to a Native woman and they have three children. C-4 teaches mainly to the 7th and 8th graders. He is also 9th grade advisor which means he supervises the weekly movies and chaperones on the 9th grade trip to Anchorage. He will return next year and plans on remaining in the district as long as possible.

Teacher C-5 is the bilingual teacher. He is in his 30's and has lived in this village all his life. He is married and has two children. He and his wife have an older home but modern conveniences and furniture. His wife is also the local Avon lady and does a good business up at the school.

9th and 10th Grades Class Schedule. School C

School D

School D has a total of 89 students. There arc 29 students in ninth grade , 22 in tenth, 28 in eleventh, and 10 in the 12th grade. It t .It s taught by seven full-time secondary teachers. Each teacher has five classes and one preparation period. The school day is divided up into six periods of 50 minutes each. The students flow from one area to the next; no bells are rung. The school hours are from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. with 35 minutes off for lunch.

The Staff

Teacher D-1 is 26 years old and married to D-2. This is her fifth year of teaching, her second year in this village. She is secondary certified in math and music and has a master's degree in math. She has signed up for another year here.

Teacher D-2 is about 31 years old, married to D-1, and comes from New Mexico. This was his eighth year of teaching, his second in this village. D-2 is certified in social studies. lie has signed up for another year her.

Teacher D-3 is about 26 years old, married, and comes from Colorado. This was his second year in teaching, both years have been here. He has his secondary certificate in math (but he teaches science). He and his wife were offered teaching positions in a two-teacher school in another village for the coming year, but refused it and will return here next year.

Teacher D-4 is about 25 years old, married to D-5, and comes from California. This was his first year in teaching. D-4 is secondary certified in P.E. He will be returning here again next year.

Teacher D-5 is about 25 years old, married to D-4, and comes from Washington. This was her first year in teaching. She is secondary certified in business and P.E. She will be returning here again next year.

Teacher D-6 is 24 years old, married to D-7, and comes from California. She majored in dietetics, but does not have a teaching certificate. This was her first year teaching. She has been hired again next year, pending her enrollment in correspondence courses in education, and plans to return.

Teacher D-7 is 24 years old, married to D-6, and comes from California. This was his first year teaching. He is secondary certified in industrial arts. He will be returning here again next year.

There are others who work at the high school. Teacher D-8 is a Title I aide who works with math students. Teacher D-9, a Title I aide, works with the language arts and social studies classes. There are two bilingual instructors, each teach one high school class. One X-CED student taught two special ed. classes. Another faculty member taught special ed. second semester, and there was a student teacher in science.

Class Schedule for Fall Semester, 1977

Class Schedule for Spring Semester, 1977

(I do not have an accurate count of the number of students per class.)

School E

School E has 32 students, both resident and boarding, in grades 9-12. During the afternoon schedule, the high school teachers also provide classes for 12 junior high school students in grades 7 and 8. The high school program is conducted by four full-time teachers and two part-time teachers (the junior high teacher and the special ed. teacher). The school day is divided into six periods which last for 58 minutes each. This allows the regular high school program to accommodate a mini-course program because the longer classes make it possible to fulfill the Carnegie unit requirement in a lesser number of days. Students move from classroom to classroom without the aid of a bell or buzzer.

Staff

Teacher E-1 is married, has two children, and is in his 30's. He and his wife, who teaches in the elementary school, have been teaching in Alaska since 1969. E-1 holds a MA in microbiology and a secondary certificate in science. The year before, he was very popular with the students since he coached basketball. However, his popularity has declined this year since he refused to coach again. It is expected that he will return in the fall as he owns a lot here and calls it home. The CSC recommended that the district transfer E-1 and his wife but they weathered the storm. Some of the local residents rallied to their support and the recommendation was rescinded.

Teacher E-2 is in her 20's and soon to be married. This is her first year teaching. She is from Iowa via Arizona, and has a MA in anthropology and education. She holds a secondary certificate in social studies and has spent two years doing curriculum development and teaching ABE in the southwest. She will return in the fall for at least another year.

Teacher E-3 is married and has two grown children. She came here from Missouri two years ago. While she teaches secretarial courses and home ec., she has a type A secondary certification. She does a lot of career education with the high school students. It is highly likely that she will return in the fall.

Teacher E-4 has been in Alaska for quite awhile. He went through the old Rural School Project in Fairbanks. He has been here since 1969 or '70. While teaching in the high school, E-4 has an elementary certificate. This year his teaching assignment was changed from English and social studies to vocational ed. The CSC strongly recommended his transfer. He left the district at the end of the school year and is now looking for a new position.

Teacher E-5 is a first year teacher. She is in her 20's and single. While she holds a secondary certificate in math, she taught junior high for half a day and French for the high school students for one hour every afternoon. She will probably teach math, French, and possibly music next year. A resident of the area, she will be back in the fall.

Teacher E-6 has a master's and certificate in special ed. He taught in another community under SOS. He teaches one high school class a day--advance math. This class is individualized and can be anything from remedial math to computers. The CSC heartily endorsed his retention in any capacity he desired, especially math and hands-on science. It is highly unlikely that he will return in the fall. It all hinges on whether his girlfriend can get certified, which is unlikely.

Community E High School Spring Semester Classes and Approximate Student Enrollment**

Besides the regular class offerings, five students were involved in a work experience program at various hours of the day while other students were taking correspondence courses or independent study courses from the teachers at the high school.

**The only significant difference between the Fall semester and the Spring semester was in E-2's third hour class which was Land Claims. Everything else was the same.

School F

All teachers, elementary, junior high, and senior high, participate in the secondary curriculum.

The Staff

Teacher F-1 is married, has two children, and is 26 years old. She received a master's in education from Harvard. She is certified in English language arts. She teaches home ec., graphics, college English, and social studies as content with language arts emphasis. She has helped develop many programs such as Upward Bound, curriculum development, home ec., and graphics in this REAA. F-1 taught here four years. This was her last year as a classroom teacher, as she has taken a leave of absence and is pursuing an administrative position.

Teacher F-2 is married, has two children, and is 32 years old. He received a BS in math at the University of Washington, and MA of education at the University of Wisconsin, Teacher Corp (Milwaukee). Prior to this com- community, he taught four years in Syracuse, Inner City School. He taught four years in this community with half year as teacher/principal. His teaching assignment was 4-6, but also taught high school math. He, too, has taken a leave of absence from the district to pursue a different field of work.

Teacher F-3 is married to F-4, has two children, and is in his mid-30's. He has a BS in biology, MS in bio. chemistry, and a MA in counseling and administration. He has taught in rural Alaska three years. He has the position of math and science teacher. He plans on returning here for another year.

Teacher F-4 is married to F-3, has two children, and is in her 30's. She has a BA in elementary education and a minor in secretarial administration; therefore, she teaches business education at the secondary level. She got into education because of her husband's occupation. She taught one year in another village prior to coming here, and also plans on returning here for the 1978-79 year.

Teacher F-5 is single and in his early 30's. He has a BA in social studies. He is also a minister. He taught previously with one year in Fairbanks. This was his first year in rural Alaska. He teaches social studies, math, health, and P.E. He plans on returning next year.

Teacher F-6 is single, has one child, and is 28 years old. He has a BA and BS in education with emphasis in voc. ed., industrial education, and English education. He is certified in secondary education. He taught voc. ed., mostly shop, and language arts. Mid-year he transferred to Kotzebue, Central Office, as housing director.

Class Schedule