The back-to-school makeover usually involves some minor tweaking--crisper jeans, a snazzier 'do or even just a new pencil case. But come next fall, Cambridge Rindge and Latin School (CRLS) may face a reconstruction considerably more drastic.

Pending a likely "yes" vote by the Cambridge School Committee, the radical redesign of Cambridge's only public high school will begin next fall.

The plan is meant to combat the discrepancies between CRLS's "houses"--that is, the five programs, based on different learning styles, which students are divided among.

The idea is to stop students from slipping through the cracks in the 1,900-plus student body.

By making teachers pay closer attention to their students, and by limiting students' course choices to within their school, the proposal hopes to make CRLS students successful across the board.

But the new "schools" proposal is flawed, students say, completely overhauling a system that could instead simply be tinkered with. If the proposal is adopted, students will miss their freedom to choose houses and classes, as well as the house reputations that have shaped student identity.

CRLS's five current "houses" are House A, Pilot, Academy, Leadership and Fundamental. Every student and teacher is affiliated with a house, and each house uses a trademark teaching style. (Please see accompanying sidebar.)

Current students selected their houses through a process of "controlled choice" that balances students' preferences and the houses' geographic and racial demographics.

But not all houses are created equal. Students in some houses succeed at higher rates than others. And while CRLS boasts a phenomenal range of resources, only certain students take advantage of them.

Those who don't usually fall through the cracks.

So CRLS Principal Paula Evans has proposed smaller, more autonomous schools that foster a sense of community among their students. Without being able to take classes in different houses, the students will be responsible to a core group of house teachers, who will also advise them.

Currently the students are assigned an adviser in ninth grade only.

According to Evans' plan, the schools must not only be more air-tight than the current house system, but they must also be more equal. The resources of the school are inequitably distributed, meaning students' educational experiences vary too widely. (Please see accompanying sidebar.)

The redesign is a step in the right direction, most CRLS affiliates say. However, CRLS' longtime emphasis on diversity and choice may be lost with this focus on uniform core education, they add.

Diversity

For many CRLS students and alumni, variety is the spice of life. The diverse teaching styles and personalities of the houses make their high school special. Students' major concern about the redesign is potential homogenization of the schools.

"Restructuring will lose the culture that CRLS teachers have worked hard to create," says Emily F. Gregory '00, a 1996 Pilot graduate. "What we liked about our school was how different it was."

The styles of teaching are distinct and obvious, students say.

"It takes something out of the education to make all of the houses the same. A class in Pilot is very different from a class in House A," says one senior in House A.

Moreover, CRLS' varied offerings appeal to the heterogeneous student body.

"Cambridge is so diverse that people are looking for different types of education," says Kaya R. Stone '00, a 1996 Leadership graduate. "That's why the house system works so well."

Yet the worry about homogenization may be a moot point: While the plan erases the personalities of each house, each school will eventually take on equally distinctive personalities.

"The houses will eventually develop identities," says Helen Jacobson, dean of the Pilot program and one of the many administrators who supports the plan.

While the old stereotypes of the houses may fade, the five schools will not stay the same--in stereotype or reality--for long.

"It's ridiculous to think that by rearranging you are going to get rid of stereotypes. By the end of first period there will be stereotypes already," says Judith Greifinger-Clausner, a first-year in Pilot.

And letting students choose houses is nice, but as Greifinger-Clausner points out, not all the choices are good ones.

"Certain choices aren't going to help anyone learn," she says.

Principal Evans points out the same.

"It's a big school and a fair number of kids wander through the school doing a minimal amount of work," she says. "They don't leave with the skills and the knowledge base that they should."

"The school works for people who can access its opportunities. There are definitely inequities," Evans adds.

Smaller houses and more personal attention, it is hoped, will combat these inequities.

The small size and attentive advising in Pilot are considered reasons for its students' successes.

"At Pilot, we're identified as a community," says Pilot Dean Jacobson. "We feel there are students for four years."

Now, the community is hoping to extend that sense to everyone.

"I think everyone should have what some of the better houses have to offer," says Alyssa Tingle, a junior in Pilot.

Choice

Choice, students say, is a key component of CRLS--both house choice and the freedom to take classes in different houses.

Yet as it stands, house affiliation often does not extend beyond a student's homeroom location, for students can take classes in every house. (Under the new plan, 11th and 12th graders will still be able to travel beyond their school for the more obscure offerings, but their core teachers should be keeping better track of them.)

"There is a great myth that if you're in a certain program you're going to succeed," but that's not the case, says Caroline Hunter, student government adviser.

Still, students believe that houses shape their identity.

"It's important to be able to choose your house because it reflects who you are," says Alexandra Osceola, a sophomore in Pilot.

Students consider choice a privilege. For some, it marks the passage from the rigidity of elementary school to the freedoms and greater responsibilities of high school.

"The whole point of high school is choosing your own house," says Erica Miranda, a first-year in Fundamental.

"High school is a bigger experience and we have to take responsibility," says Sheila Pepin, also a first-year in Fundamental.

Choice also means that student can elect to be in the same house as their friends from elementary school. Randomization of house assignments will only "make a hard transition harder," says Greifinger-Clausner.

"Kids will always be angry when they aren't in a house with their friends," says Kiril Johnson, a junior in Pilot.

Yet in effect, all this freedom means that house affiliation is negligible, despite students' claims that houses--and the differences among them--matter.

Moreover, the freedom of the choice of house is belied by the history of certain elementary schools shuttling students to certain houses; students select the house where other students from their elementary school have traditionally gone.

The problem is that self-selection isn't always equitable.

"It separates people by class and race and if they allow people to choose, it's pointless," Johnson says.

For example, Pilot's free-form education style "would not appeal to immigrants," says Tri M. Phuong '02, a 1998 Fundamental graduate.

And though students like having a choice, the new plan would make it immaterial.

"If the houses are equal the idea of choice isn't important," Phuong says.

Despite the diminished choices of school and courses of the redesign plan, some predict a rosy future.

"I think students will benefit from continuity and teachers knowing students. This will outweigh the costs the loss of choice," says Josie P. Patterson, whose son will enroll in CRLS next fall. "Having teachers for four years makes for a better teaching and learning experience."

And the students' contrasting of choice and randomization is not a fair one, some say.

"In the future there will be more of a matching process," Jacobson says.

Shift of Emphasis

CRLS alumni are particularly concerned that Evans' proposed structural changes will not solve Rindge's woes.

If the problem is students slipping through the cracks, then the solution should be better advising and higher-quality teaching, they say. And that can be addressed within the existing structure.

"Changing the house system is trying to solve problems that the guidance department and good teachers can address," Gregory says.

Still, the plan's shift of responsibility from students back onto teachers is positive, Gregory says.

But teachers' advocates say the plan could overburden teachers. With students more or less limited to the classes offered within their school, teachers will have to diversify their offerings and serve in new capacities.

Roger O'Sullivan, president of the Cambridge Teachers Association, is concerned about the fact that teachers will be required to teach outside of their certification areas. While in principle they are allowed to teach 20 percent of their teaching load outside of their specialization, the Board of Education opposes this.

"Students should be taught by certified teachers," he stresses.

And the fact that teachers will be asked to serve as guidance counselors, he says, is troubling.

Another problem comes for bilingual students. With the bilingual program apportioned among three houses, bilingual students will have to depend on deans who may not be adequately sensitized to their unique educational needs, according to bilingual program teacher Arnold Clayton.

But Clayton is optimistic that CRLS' creation of an International Student Center for bilingual students will help ease the transition.

Though students will bemoan the loss of choice, the Evans proposal recognizes that choice can lead to inequality.

"Choice doesn't work in Cambridge," says Jackie Roberts, whose son will enroll at the school next fall. "If choice really worked, that would be the best of all worlds."