But the results have been mixed, national and local research shows. Students at small high schools were more likely to graduate, have positive relationships with their teachers, and feel safer. Still, they did no better on standardized tests than did their peers at big schools.
In Philadelphia, where 26 of the 32 small high schools have been opened or made smaller in the last seven years, some schools have thrived. Their presence has transformed the high school mix.
Among the district's current 63 high schools, the 32 small schools enroll roughly a quarter of the 48,000 total enrollment. The rest attend large neighborhood high schools.
Science Leadership Academy (SLA), a small magnet of 480 students in Center City, has drawn national attention for its innovation. A seat in its freshman class is becoming one of the most sought-after places in the city, and its graduates are heading to schools such as Princeton, Georgetown and Syracuse Universities.
Others struggle. High School of the Future was opened with great fanfare and international spotlight, a $63 million Parkside school of nearly 500 students that boasted a partnership with Microsoft Corp., a focus on project-based learning, and laptops for every student.
But only 7 percent of its pupils reached state standards in math last year and 23 percent in reading. There has been upheaval in leadership and curriculum, and some think the school overpromised and underdelivered.
Since her arrival in 2008, Philadelphia Schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman has been cautious about small schools, saying they are a useful but costly strategy. In Philadelphia, she says, the small schools were opened at the expense of neighborhood high schools.
The math is simple, Ackerman says: Smaller high schools cost more money per student than large, comprehensive high schools.
