Currently in my area, most of the public schools are getting broken up into multiple smaller schools.
What I would like to know is the reasoning behind this. If a school is not performing well, dividing the school building up into 2-3 schools will not fix the problem as it is still the same students and teachers.
All this seems to do is increase the burden on the taxpayers because in the single building, there will now be 2-3 highly paid school principals in the one building.
a school principal makes like around 150,000-200,000 a year while a teacher makes around 60,000-80,000 a year.
When I was in high school, on my second year, the school got broken up into 3 smaller schools and both students and teachers got moved around to different schools but in the same building. We then lost 2 class rooms which got remodeled into offices for the 2 additional principals that were added. The students and the teachers remained the same and everything looked the same other than the text on our new school ID's
a google search pretty much provides me with this understanding
Are the schools within the larger schools the same or are they specialized in some way? I can understand that, at least. Here in San Antonio a couple high schools were converted into specialized schools (without doing any new construction or remodeling), one focusing on health careers and the other focusing on media/arts. They allowed high school age students who already knew what career path they wanted to go on to attend those high schools, with a specialized/tailored class schedule (in addition to the State education requirements of course) focusing on coursework and mentorship in their chosen career path.
However, my example's a little different because the entire high school changed over to the new focus, rather than the specialized school becoming a "school within a school" of the existing high school campuses.
answered Aug 26 '10 at 19:34
Small learning communities is the latest fad in a seemingly endless progression of stupid and counterproductive fad after fad after fad. They are fads because they don't last. They are fads because they offer meaningless change. They are fads because educrats and teachers easily buy into them. The hula-hoop was once a fad. The difference between the hula-hoop fad and the SLC fad is that the former evokes fond memories of youth, while the latter will evoke anger at the memory of how utterly stupid the public school leadership has become.
answered Nov 16 '11 at 12:32