Linda HeidenrichSED 600Academies and Student AchievementCHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDWhat is a career academy? According to David Stern, a professor from UC Berkeley,career academies share three main ideas: students will have common teachers throughoutthe school day, students will be enrolled in a college prep curriculum, students will haveaccess to partnerships will potential future employers (Stern, 2001). Academies, or smalllearning communities, began in 1969 in Philadelphia (Stern, 2001) but developedwidespread integration into secondary schools during the 1980’s when publications werewritten indicating the United States is a “Nation at Risk” of graduating illiterate, ill-prepared students into the workforce after high school (Cleary & English, 2005).Researchers and policymakers evaluated this document and critically assessed theeffectiveness of the school structure for areas that could be improved and restructured tobe more effective. One restructuring solution led to the advent of academies, whichallow students to have a familial atmosphere with common teachers and a common focus(Cleary & English, 2005). As an attempt to encourage more widespread implementationof academies, Congress passed several bills in the 1980’s encouraging schools to createsmaller learning communities. The first of these, Assembly Bill 3104, was passed in1985 and offered $10,000 for initial planning and $50,000 for first year implementationto schools willing to create small learning communities. Three years later, Senate Bill605 was passed offering $15,000 for planning and $67,500 for implementation (Maxwell& Rubin, 2001). The success of early academies with respect to increased grades,increased attendance, increased enrollment in continuing education and decreased studentmisbehavior was recognized in 2001 with the No Child Left Behind Act. As a componentof this Act, the US Department of Education created a Small Learning CommunitiesGrant to help schools create smaller learning communities and increase the effectivenessof the secondary school experience (Cleary & English, 2005). Due to this nationalsupport, California has been able to implement more than 500 academies (Stern, Dayton& Raby, 2000) in its public schools and “fifteen years of California studies indicate thatacademy students outperform similar students in their schools on attendance, creditsearned, grades and graduation rates” (Stern, 2001, 1). Although the Law Academy atOxnard High School is in its inaugural year, I have noticed students in small learningcommunities have higher grades in their courses and I will research if their achievementin their academy courses is reflected in their performance on district-wide benchmarks.PURPOSEThe purpose of this paper was to study the Law Academy at Oxnard High School andcompare their test scores on district-wide benchmarks to my other college prep students. Iwill specifically ask 1) How do academies affect student achievement on district widebenchmarks? IMPORTANCEThis study will be conducted to demonstrate the need for small learning communities onmore campuses in our district. Our district currently has two academies and I would liketo present data to advocate for more by demonstrating the link between academies andstudent achievement.CHAPTER 2-LITERARY REVIEWAcademies had their inception in Philadelphia in 1969 with an electrical academy to aidin retention of students and vocational preparation. Academies have developed to benationwide and encourage students to attend postsecondary education as well as pursue aspecific vocation. California began to participate in the academy movement in 1981 with2 academies in the state: a computer academy and an electronics academy. NowCalifornia offers academies in more than 25 different fields (Stern, 2001). AlthoughCalifornia requires their state-funded academies to have 50% of the academy studentscategorized as at-risk, or disadvantaged, academy students still outperform their peers.This accomplishment was evident when, in 2000, David Stern, along with CharlesDayton and Marilyn Raby did a comprehensive analysis of all California academies.Their overall conclusion, career academies are the most “durable and best-testedcomponent of high school reform” (Stern, Dayton & Raby, 2000, 1) was reinforced witha summary of 23 different academies all of which showed some aspect of increasedattendance, grades and graduation rates and decreased misbehavior and apathy towardschool. Below is an in-depth discussion of two of these studies. MDRC STUDY A 10-site, random assignment study conducted in 1993 by MDRC (ManpowerDemonstration Research Cooperation) determined academy students, although half areclassified at-risk, had attendance, credits earned, and extracurricular activity participationthat surpassed their peers. These students also had crime rates much lower than theirpeers and their dropout rate was 11% less than the control group (Stern, 2001). Yet, theresearchers indicated an area of weakness for the academy students was the fact theyneglected to show significant gains on standardized tests. This indication prompted me toconduct further research on the connection between academies and standardized tests. CPRC STUDYAnother view of academies was also published in 2001. This analysis entitled “CareerAcademy Programs in California: Outcomes and Implementation” was publishedthrough CPRC (California Policy Research Center) at the University of California,Berkeley and reinforced several of Stern’s claims as well as discussed some of thelimitations and specific needs of an academy. Maxwell and Rubin (2001) in connectionwith CPRC published the results of a case study analysis of the academy programs at alarge, inner-city school district in California. The study took place over the span of nineyears and look at academies in each of the six comprehensive high schools. Theacademies ranged from inaugural programs the first year of the study to establishedprograms in place for five years. The research questions posed involved analysis ofacademies with regard to both high school academic performance and post-high