Here's Noguera's column, where he mis-characterizes the report on NYC's small schools. In fact, the study concluded that they have been a big success – FAR more successful than the dropout factories that they replaced:

Something must be done about failing schools, but is closing them the best strategy? A 2009 study conducted by the University of Chicago found that when schools in that city were closed, "Most students who transferred out of closing schools reenrolled in schools that were academically weak."

A similar study conducted in the same year by the Center for New York City Affairs found that small high schools replacing bigger ones - the infamous "dropout factories" of urban lore - "are no panacea," with high teacher turnover and spotty records on attendance and graduation.

As my NYU colleague Diane Ravitch has written, "It is easy to close schools, disperse the students and claim victory. But no school is improved and no student is helped by closing schools." There is evidence that school choice policies have made it possible for many schools to avoid serving the most challenging students.

…Instead of shuffling underperforming students from one failing school to another, we must buckle down and apply interventions - high-quality preschool, extended class time, accelerated summer school, access to mentors and social workers, etc. - that have worked in other districts.

You gotta love the Ravitch quote – one of her stupidest ever (and that's saying something!): "But no school is improved and no student is helped by closing schools." I'm not arguing that closing schools is ALWAYS the right thing to do – I'm merely saying that it MUST be one of the options on the table when a school fails its students for year after year, decade after decade. Nor do I think that it's some sort of panacea – sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't – but it's hard for ANY new school to be worse than the schools being replaced!

-------------------

----------------------