Snapshots of the Reform ModelsCreating a Sense of Belonging at SchoolHelping Freshmen with Weak Academic SkillsPreparing Students for Postsecondary SuccessImproving InstructionStimulating Change and Making It StickTakeaway LessonsEndnoteMay 2008 | Volume 65 | Number 8 Reshaping High Schools Pages 64-68 Lessons from Leading Models Janet QuintWhat can we learn from Talent Development, First Things First, and career academies?The expectations placed on U.S. high schools have never been greater. Society now rightly expects high schools to prepare all students for success in college or a workplace that requires anincreasingly high level of skills. Meeting these expectations is particularly daunting for high schools serving large numbers of low-income students—and the stakes are high.Ninth graders from economically disadvantaged backgrounds often start high school feeling unknown by teachers and peers and lacking essential literacy and numeracy skills. If their high schools do nothing to break through struggling 9th graders' isolation and academic weaknesses, students are likely to fall behind academically—and students who fail courses in 9th grade are at high risk of dropping out altogether. Low-performing high schools clearly need new models, not only to help all students graduate, but also to prepare them for life after graduation.High school administrators can find signs of hope, however, in successful, replicable strategies from three well-established reform initiatives that grapple with improving achievement in low-performing high schools—Talent Development, First Things First, and career academies. The nonprofit research organization MDRC, at which I am a senior researcher, conducted separate evaluations of these three models highlighting approaches that help low-performing high schoolsreshape themselves.Snapshots of the Reform ModelsThese three programs are among the most widely disseminated high school reform models to have emerged in recent decades. More than 2,500 high schools throughout the United States implement one of the three. Each of the models combines structural and instructional changes connected by an overarching theory of action, and they share some common features. Perhaps most noteworthy, all include small learning communities.Talent Development was initiated in 1994 through Johns Hopkins University's Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. High schools in 11 U.S. states now use themodel. It aims to transform urban schools facing high dropout rates and low achievement, emphasizing supports for academically struggling 9th graders. Freshmen have their own small learning community, the Ninth Grade Success Academy, in which they take math and language arts. The curriculum seeks to prepare all students for college-level work.First Things First, designed by the Institute for Research and Reform in Education, was initially implemented in Kansas City, Kansas, in 1998. By 2007, 27 high schools (as well as some middleand elementary schools) had adopted the model. First Things First's main components are communities of 200–300 students who take core classes together for all four years, a personalized student advisory system, and professional development for teachers aimed at instructional improvements.The career academy approach was first piloted in Philadelphia in 1969. The central features of this approach—a school-within-a-school structure, an integrated academic and occupational curriculum, and employee partnerships—have been adopted widely.MDRC initially evaluated each model separately to determine the effects of its package of services. I synthesized the findings of these three evaluations, identifying common elements shared across the models, as well as the components unique to each model that seem to account for positive effects.1 In five key areas, these initiatives provide lessons for schools seeking to better serve struggling students: creating a sense of belonging, helping freshmen with weak academic skills, preparing students for postsecondary success, improving instruction, and stimulating lasting change. The findings should help schools that seek to initiate reforms without adopting one of these models wholesale to implement aspects of the models that may be particularly effective for their situation.Creating a Sense of Belonging at SchoolAll three reform models involve the creation of small learning communities, groups of 120–350 students who share core classes and whose core teachers meet regularly to discuss their students' progress.A central feature of Talent Development schools is the Ninth Grade Success Academy, which occupies a separate space in the school building, fostering 9th graders' sense of identity and special status. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students in the Ninth Grade Success Academies feel close to their teachers and to one another. In 10th through 12th grade, Talent Development schools group students into self-contained career academies of 250–350 students each.Small learning communities in career academies and First Things First schools enroll students from all grades who share common occupational or other interests (for example, the arts or information technology). Strong evidence from surveys of career academies students and less conclusive findings from First Things First student surveys indicate that participating in smaller peer groups helped students feel known and cared about by their teachers.To further promote a sense of belonging, First Things First instituted the family advocate system.Teachers or other school adults serve as advisors—or family advocates—to 12–17 students in thesame small learning community. The advisors meet regularly with groups of their students and are responsible for conducting weekly individual check-ins with each student and meeting jointlywith students and their parents at least twice a year. The majority of First Things First students felt comfortable talking to their family advocates, and the majority of family advocates believed they had helped students succeed academically and in other ways.It is important to remember that implementing small learning communities is not easy: Scheduling classes that include only members of the same community is challenging, and facultyadvisors need training to support students effectively. I found that small learning communities donot, in and of themselves, boost either attendance or achievement. But they