The majority of the research, however, indicates that small schools are beneficial to all students.
What is Meant by "Large" and "Small" Schools
There is no clear agreement on the dividing line between small and large schools.—Davant T. Williams, 1990 "One might note that the term 'small school' has no concrete numerical limits," write Green and Stevens (1988, 11). One certainly might. In the first place, of the 69 key reports, only 27 mention any numbers at all in their analyses of large versus small schools. In the second place, the upward limit for a "small" school in those 27 documents ranges from 200 to 1,000 students; and the range for a "large" school is 300 to 5,000 students. Williams, however, writes that,
On average, the research indicates that an effective size for an elementary school is in the range of 300-400 students and that 400-800 students is appropriate for a secondary school (7-8). While many researchers argue that no school should be larger than 400 or 500 students, I use Williams's numbers in this report, since my own sense of the research is very similar to his.
If restructuring truly is an aim of school reform, then the scale of schooling is a major structural issue. —Craig Howley, 1994 Is it possible to get people to pay attention to the virtues of smallness as well as the virtues of scale? —Kent McGuire, 1989
Introduction There is a natural predilection in American education toward enormity, and it does not serve schools well. —William J. Fowler, Jr., 1992
Schools keep getting bigger and bigger. Between 1940 and 1990, the total number of elementary and secondary public schools declined 69 percent—from approximately 200,000 to 62,037—despite a 70 percent increase in the U.S. population (Walberg 1992; Howley 1994). Consequently, the average school enrollment rose more than five times—from 127 to 653. In today's urban and suburban settings, high school enrollments of 2,000 and 3,000 are commonplace, and New York City has many schools with enrollments nearing 5,000 (Henderson and Raywid 1994).
School districts, too, have decreased in number and increased in size during this time period. The 117,108 school districts that existed in 1940 have experienced dramatic consolidation; they have decreased by 87 percent—to 15,367 (Walberg 1992). Not surprisingly, the largest schools can generally be found within the largest districts (Williams 1990).
Smith and DeYoung (1988) identify several factors driving this long-term consolidation trend. One has been the desire of school administrators to "demonstrate their commitment to the forces of science, progress, and modernization" by seeking to make schooling "'efficient,' a notion importantly borrowed from the private sector" (3). Smith and DeYoung also cite the 1957 launching of the Soviet space satellite Sputnik and the contemporary belief that catching up with the Soviet Union required bigger schools that could produce more scientists. Furthermore, they note that compliance with the school desegregation and special entitlement programs originating in the 1960s have resulted in additional school mergers.
Smith and DeYoung and many others note that James Conant's 1959 book, The American High School Today, greatly accelerated the momentum of the school consolidation movement (Pittman and Haughwout 1987; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Walberg 1992; Williams 1990). Conant argued that, in order to be cost effective and to offer a sufficiently large and varied curriculum, a secondary school had to have at least 100 students in its graduating class. Conant claimed that the small high school was the number-one problem in education, and that its elimination should be a top priority (37-38).1
Cost-Effectiveness
Small high schools cost more money only if one tries to maintain the big-school infrastructure.... —Thomas B. Gregory, 1992 Some educators and legislators have also argued that large schools are more cost-effective. Again, a closer look reveals that this is not necessarily true. Researchers have found that the relationship between size and costs varies depending on individual school circumstances (Gregory 1992; Howley 1996; McKenzie 1983; Melnick, et al. 1986; Nachtigal 1992; Robertson 1995; Rogers 1987; Walberg 1992; Williams 1990). Many small schools are operated very economically, while many large ones have exorbitant per-pupil costs.
McKenzie (1983) argues that many analyses of the school size-cost relationship are simplistic and do not yield useful information. He then provides a mathematical depiction of that relationship, which shows that it is U-shaped; that is, average per-pupil costs do decline up to a point as enrollment increases, reach a minimum, and then rise with further school growth. Researchers (e.g., Gregory 1992, Robertson 1995) claim that the large staff needed to manage and control large numbers of students accounts for this upturn in costs as schools become larger and larger.
Following an examination of both the curriculum quality and cost-effectiveness issues, Gregory (1992) writes,
The perceived limitations in the program that small high schools can deliver and their presumed high cost regularly have been cited as justifications for our steady march toward giantism. The research convincingly stamps both of these views as misconceptions (10). Academic Achievement
Size-achievement relationship is not clear, though some research indicates smaller schools facilitate higher achievement. — Alan M. Burke, 1987
About half the student achievement research finds no difference between the achievement levels of students in large and small schools, including small alternative schools (Burke 1987; Caldas 1987; Edington and Gardner 1984; Fowler 1995; Gregory 1992; Haller, Monk, and Tien 1993; Howley 1996; Huang and Howley 1993; McGuire 1989; Melnick, et al. 1986; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Walberg 1992; Way 1985). The other half finds student achievement in small schools to be superior to that in large schools (Bates 1993; Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982; Eichenstein 1994; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Miller, Ellsworth, and Howell 1986; Robinson-Lewis 1991; Walberg 1992). None of the research finds large schools superior to small schools in their achievement effects. Consequently, we may safely say that student achievement in small schools is at least equal—and often superior—to student achievement in large schools. Achievement measures used in the research include school grades, test scores, honor roll membership, subject-area achievement, and assessment of higher-order thinking skills.
In reporting these conclusions, researchers are careful to point out that these results are found even when variables other than size—student attributes, staff characteristics, time-on-task, etc.—are held constant (Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982, 27; Fowler and Walberg 1992). Since many small schools are rural schools, investigators have also wondered if it might be the ruralness—rather than the smallness—of these schools that is beneficial to students; research shows that smallness is beneficial, regardless of the setting of the small school (Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Walberg 1992). Walberg writes,
...even discounting the positive effects of rural location, smaller high schools yielded greater achievement and years of attained education after high school. Thus, smaller schools showed long-range effects independent of rural advantages (10). Finally, whereas the research finds that small schools produce equal or superior achievement for students in general, the effects of small schools on the achievement of ethnic minority students and students of low socioeconomic status are the most positive of all (Berlin and Cienkus 1989; Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982; Fowler 1995; Friedkin and Necochea 1988; Howley 1994, 1995; Huang and Howley 1993; Jewell 1989; Miller, Ellsworth, and Howell 1986; Rutter 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992). To put this a little differently, these researchers have found that large schools have a more negative impact on minority and low-SES students than on students in general. I will return to this point in a later discussion about school size as an equity issue.
Student Attitudes
Students in a small high school experience...an increasingly more positive attitude toward school. — Thomas B. Gregory and Gerald R. Smith, 1987 Considerable research effort has been expended studying the relative effects of large and small schools on student attitudes toward school in general and toward particular school subjects. The research on student attitudes overwhelmingly favors small schools over large ones (Aptekar 1983; Bates 1993; Edington and Gardner 1984; Fowler 1995; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Gregory 1992; Gregory and Smith 1983, 1987; Howley 1994, 1996; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Miller, Ellsworth, and Howell 1986; Rutter 1988; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Smith, Gregory, and Pugh 1981; Walberg 1992). As with achievement, the research indicates that the attitudes of low-SES and minority students are especially sensitive to school size and benefit greatly from attending small schools.
Social Behavior
Behavior problems are so much greater in larger schools that any possible virtue of larger size is canceled out by the difficulties of maintaining an orderly learning environment. — Jean Stockard and Maralee Mayberry, 1992
The research linking school size to social behavior has investigated everything from truancy and classroom disruption to vandalism, aggressive behavior, theft, substance abuse, and gang participation. This research shows that small schools have lower incidences of negative social behavior, however measured, than do large schools (Burke 1987; Duke and Perry 1978; Gottfredson 1985; Gregory 1992; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Rutter 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992). The social behavior of ethnic minority and low-SES students is even more positively impacted by small schools than that of other students.
Extracurricular Participation
Small schools allow greater student participation in extracurricular activities. —James M. Kearney, 1994 As Barker and Gump first noted in their 1964 study, levels of extracurricular participation are significantly higher in small schools than in large ones (Burke 1987; Cawelti 1993; Foster and Martinez 1985; Fowler 1995; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Grabe 1981; Hamilton 1993; Holland and Andre 1991; Howley 1996; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Pittman and Haughwout 1987; Rogers 1987; Schoggen and Schoggen 1988; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Walberg 1992). These researchers have also found that students in small schools are involved in a greater variety of activities and that they derive more satisfaction from their participation than students in large schools. According to Hamilton's research,
Students in the large schools were more polarized, with a group of active participants at one end of the continuum and a large group of students who did not participate in any extracurricular activities at the other. In the small schools there were few students who did not participate in anything (70). In addition, at the conclusion of their large-scale 1988 study, Schoggen and Schoggen report that, although large schools offer more varied activities,
...the average large school student does not utilize these opportunities. Although the small school does not provide such a wealth of activities, the average student has a better experience as measured by the amount of involvement in the available activities (292). The greater and more varied participation in extracurricular activities by students in small schools is the single best-supported finding in the school size research. Like the findings in other areas, findings about participation hold true regardless of setting and are most applicable to minority and low-SES students. Because research has identified important relationships between extracurricular participation and other desirable outcomes, such as positive attitudes and social behavior, this finding is especially significant.
Attendance
The attendance rate of participating students was better than that of a comparison group. —Mary Lou McGanney, Dolores M. Mei, and Jan Rosenblum, 1989 The pattern of findings favoring small schools continues with the research on student attendance. Not only do students in smaller schools have higher attendance rates than those in large schools (Fowler 1995; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Gregory and Smith 1992; Howley 1994; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Walberg 1992), but students who change from large schools to small, alternative secondary schools generally exhibit improvements in attendance (Bates 1993; Duke and Perry 1978; McGanney, Mei, and Rosenblum 1989; Robinson-Lewis 1991; Rutter 1988). Again, the minority or low-SES student is the most profoundly affected.
Dropouts
Strictly from the perspective of avoiding high rates of dropouts, it may be that smaller is better. — Laurence A. Toenjes, 1989 Measured either as dropout rate or graduation rate, the holding power of small schools is considerably greater than that of large schools. Nine of the ten documents that address this topic reveal differences favoring or greatly favoring small schools (Fetler 1989; Gregory 1992; Jewell 1989; Pittman and Haughwout 1987; Rogers 1987; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Toenjes 1989; Walberg 1992), with the other document reporting mixed results. Toenjes concludes his study of the 21 largest school districts in Texas with this observation:
[I]t may be that...the relevant conditions that exist in the smaller high school are much more conducive to keeping students in school than are the conditions in the larger high schools. If this is true, it raises a new equity issue, based not on how many dollars per pupil are spent, but on the size of the school to which the pupils are assigned (15). In later sections of this report, I give further attention both to the "relevant conditions" for keeping students in school and to the matter of equity.
Belongingness/Alienation
Several studies suggest that students in small high schools...have a greater "sense of belonging" to the group than students in larger schools. — Jean Stockard and Maralee Mayberry, 1992 Concerned about the emotional effects of different kinds of school environments, some researchers have studied the degree to which students feel a sense of belonging in their schools. Given the foregoing findings about other student variables, it is not surprising that these investigators have found a much greater sense of belonging (sometimes expressed as a lower level of alienation) among students in small schools than in large ones (Burke 1987; Campbell, et al. 1981; Edington and Gardner 1984; Foster and Martinez 1985; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Gregory 1992; Gregory and Smith 1983, 1992, Howley 1994; Pittman and Haughwout 1987; Smith, Gregory, and Pugh 1981; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Stolp 1995; Walberg 1992).
Feeling alienated from one's school environment is both a negative thing in itself and is often found in connection with other undesirable outcomes. Foster and Martinez's review of previous research, plus their own study of student participation and attitudes, led them to conclude that,
Student alienation and student par-ticipation in cocurricular activities have been found to be negatively correlated... Unfortunately, alienation affects confidence, self-esteem, and responsibility for self-direction (57-58).
Self-Concept
Evidence of increases in social bonding to teachers and school, self-esteem, academic self-concept, locus of control and sociocentric reasoning suggest that [small alternative] programs can respond constructively to students' underlying needs. —Robert A. Rutter, 1988 Foster and Martinez's observations about students' perceptions of themselves is borne out by Grabe (1981), Rutter (1988), and Stockard and Mayberry (1992). These researchers have found that both personal and academic self-regard are more positive in smaller schools. Closely related to this are the findings on the quality of the interpersonal milieu in these environments.
Interpersonal Relations
Students perceive the most positive conditions of the alternative school to be the interpersonal relationships with faculty members, the supportive atmosphere of the school, and the opportunities provided by the school. — Cheryl A. Kershaw and MaryAnn Blank, 1993 Some researchers approach the matter of school size from a slightly different angle, querying students about the interpersonal climate in their schools. This research focuses on elements such as relations among students and between students and teachers, especially teacher attention and demonstrations of caring toward students. Positive correlations between small schools and favorable interpersonal relations have been found by Bates (1993); Burke (1987); Fowler and Walberg (1991); Gottfredson (1985); Gregory and Smith (1982, 1983); Smith, Gregory, and Pugh (1981); Kershaw and Blank (1993); Pittman and Haughwout (1987); Rutter (1988); Smith and DeYoung (1988); and Stockard and Mayberry (1992). None of the research consulted for this report found equal or superior interpersonal relations in large schools.
College Variables
[Students] did not differ in terms of grade-point averages or persistence in college, regardless of their school district's characteristics, including size of graduating class. — William J. Fowler, Jr., 1992 Some who have argued for large schools on grounds of curricular size and variety have also claimed that this alleged curricular superiority provides better preparation for college. Like the curriculum argument, the assertions about college readiness have been disproved by research. Six documents address the relative merits of large and small schools vis à vis college-related variables—entrance examination scores, acceptance rates, attendance, grade point average, and completion. Five found small schools equal (Rogers 1987; Fowler 1992; Jewell 1989) or superior (Burke 1987; Swanson 1988) to large ones in their capacity to prepare students for college entrance and success.
Teacher Attitudes
Large schools appear to promote negative teacher perceptions of school administration and low staff morale. —Denise C. Gottfredson, 1985 There is less research on school size in relation to teacher or administrator variables, but what there is favors smaller schools (Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982; Gottfredson 1985; Gregory 1992; Johnson 1990; Miller, Ellsworth, and Howell 1986; Stockard and Mayberry 1992). These researchers examined administrator attitudes toward their work, and teacher attitudes toward their work, their administration, and one another, as well as the incidence of cooperation/collaboration with their colleagues.
School-Within-A-School Plans
The major challenge to schools within schools has been obtaining sufficient separateness and autonomy to permit staff members to generate a distinctive environment and to carry out their own vision of schooling. —Mary Ann Raywid, 1985