ERIC Digest 113 July 1997
School SizeBy Karen Irmsher
There is a natural predeliction in American education toward
enormity," said William Fowler (1992), "and it does not serve
schools well."
During the last forty years, schools with thousands of students
have become common. Among these are countless consolidations of
small rural schools.
Many researchers trace the large-school trend back to a book
written in 1967 by James Bryant Conant, then president of Harvard.
In it, he concluded that larger schools (over 750 students) can
offer more comprehensive instructional programs of greater quality
at lower costs than smaller schools.
At that time, Craig Howley (1994) notes, middle-class students
predominated in large urban schools. Since then, residential
patterns have changed, overburdening large innercity schools with
impoverished students and all the dysfunction they bring.
For decades few educators questioned these notions, but now the
tide is turning. This Digest summarizes some recent research
findings related to school size.
Have Larger Schools Produced Greater Academic Success at a
Lower Cost?
In short, the answer is no, but with one qualification: Howley
(1994) reports evidence that students in high socioeconomic status
communities perform better in larger schools. Small size seems to
benefit minority and low-income students more than middle- and
upper-class students, say Valerie E. Lee and Julia B. Smith 1996.
Many of the nation's largest high schools are in urban areas having
high concentrations of disadvantaged students, who are ill served by
large school size.
Michael Klonsky (1995), Mary Anne Raywid (1995), and others
report that large school size hurts attendance and dampens
enthusiasm for involvement in school activities. Large schools have
lower grade averages and standardized-test scores coupled with
higher dropout rates and more problems with violence, security, and
drug abuse.
Lee and Smith (1996) found that savings projected by proponents
of school consolidation have not materialized. Instead of
long-assumed economies of scale, they discovered diseconomies, or
penalties of scale. Large schools need more layers of support and
administrative staff to handle the increased bureaucratic demands.
It is also important to consider how costs-per-student are
calculated. Standard operating costs are usually computed by
dividing the total amount spent by the number of students enrolled.
But when cost-effectiveness judgments are based instead on the
figure derived by dividing dollars spent by number of students
graduating, the results are entirely different.
Fowler and others found that although large schools offer greater
curricular variety, only a small percentage of students take
advantage of advanced and alternative classes.
Large schools offer more specialized programs for disadvantaged
and disabled youth, but students in these programs are more likely
to feel cut off from the school culture. In fact, in large schools
social stratification is the norm. Athletic and academic stars reap
the benefits of daily close contact with adults. However, the other
70 to 80 percent of students belong to social groups that include no
adults (Deborah Meier 1995).
Large schools function more like bureaucracies, small schools
more like communities. Klonsky concludes that large schools
generally "correlate with inefficiency, institutional bureaucracy,
and personal loneliness."
In What Respects Are Small Schools More Beneficial?
A higher percentage of students, across all socioeconomic levels,
are successful when they are part of smaller, more intimate learning
communities. Females, nonwhites, and special-needs students, whether
at risk, gifted, exceptional, or disadvantaged, are all better
served by small schools. Security improves and violence decreases,
as does student alcohol and drug abuse.
Small school size encourages teachers to innovate and students to
participate, resulting in greater commitment for both groups. More
positive attitudes and greater satisfaction are reflected in higher
grades and test scores, improved attendance rates, and lowered
dropout rates.
Deborah Meier (1996) cites seven reasons why schools of 300 to
400 students work best.
1. Governance. Communication is easier when the whole
staff can meet around one common table.
2. Respect. Students and teachers get to know each other
well.
3. Simplicity. Less bureacracy makes it easier to
individualize.
4. Safety. Strangers are easily spotted and teachers can
respond quickly to rudeness or frustration.
5. Parent involvement. Parents are more likely to form
alliances with teachers who know their child and care about his or
her progress.
6. Accountability. No one needs bureaucratic data to find
out how a student, a teacher, or the school is doing. Everyone
knows.
7. Belonging. Every student, not just the academic and
athletic stars, is part of a community that contains adults.
"Relationships are cross-disciplinary, cross-generational, and
cross everything else," notes Meier (1996). "Kids don't just know
the adults they naturally like, or the ones who naturally like them.
They may hate some grown-ups and love others, but they recognize
everyone as members of the same human club."
Does Size Alone Make a Major Difference?
Downsizing cannot, by itself, guarantee that school
transformation will unfold or that marvelous teacher and student
performance will occur. Change is always difficult, especially when
top-down mandates force teachers to make changes for which they are
not adequately prepared. Or when teachers are asked to work double
time, operating within their old system while creating a new one.
Meier, Raywid, and others agree that small schools have the best
chance at success when they are permitted to become separate,
autonomous, distinctive entities with a well-defined culture. Other
factors influencing success included curricula developed around a
theme or focus; tendency toward collaborative governance; voluntary
participation of teachers and students; and collaboration with
organizations and agencies outside the school.
"The benefits sought by downsizing efforts," states Raywid
(1995), "appear contingent upon the ability of the subunits or
subschools to establish a collective identity, projecting clear,
identifiable boundaries and displaying perceptible
differences-palpable to students-from whatever lies beyond those
boundaries."
Is There an Optimal School Size?
Despite widespread agreement that the scale of most schools is
too large, prescriptions for ideal size vary. Fowler, Howley, and
others consider the potential for curricular adequacy to be reached
at 400 students. Meier defines small schools as enrolling 300 to 400
students. Lee and Smith conclude that high school students learn
best when enrollment is between 600 and 900.
A joint policy statement issued by the Carnegie Foundation and
the National Associaton of Secondary School Principals recommended
that high schools break into units of no more than 600 students.
None recommend fewer than 300 or more than 900 students. Howley
(1996) suggests that "the most suitable size is likely to vary from
place to place," with a community's relative poverty or affluence
being a major factor. Small schools clearly provide an achievement
advantage for impoverished students, while affluent students may
fare better in larger schools.
How Can Districts Better Utilize Their Existing Large School
Buildings?
Putting several small schools into an existing large school
building can rejuvenate the school and enhance educational
possibilities. Raywid and Meier both reported that doing so has
typically resulted in great benefits for students, teachers,
parents, and the entire school community. Chicago, New York City,
Philadelphia, and many other cities have already instituted major
restructuring efforts aimed at housing small schools in existing
large buildings.
Many see schools-within-schools as a crucial first step in
restructuring, states Raywid. But, she notes, when creating new
schools it is important to resist grouping students by ability or
achievement. Divisiveness and conflicts are also minimized if all
the schools in the building are small schools, rather than one small
school sharing space with a mainstream large school.
Schools that transitioned most successfully have been based on
the principles of cohesion, autonomy, focus or theme, and a
constituency assembled on the basis of shared interests. While the
reasons for downsizing failures are still sketchy, reports usually
cite one of three shortcomings: insufficient faithfulness to the
small-school concept, insufficient autonomy and separateness, or
failure to couple changes in the school culture with the structural
changes.
RESOURCES
Fowler, William J., Jr. "What Do We Know About School Size? What
Should We Know?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 22,
1992. 21 pages. ED347
675.
Howley, Craig. The Academic Effectiveness of Small-Scale
Schooling (An Update). ERIC Digest. Charleston, West Virginia:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, June 1994.
ED372
897.
___________. Ongoing Dilemmas of School Size: A Short
Story. Charleston, West Virginia: ERIC Digest. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, December 1996.
ED401
089.
Klonsky, Michael. Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story. A
Review of the Research and Current Experiences. Chicago:
University of Illinois, College of Education, 1995. 24 pages. ED 386
517.
Lee, Valerie E., and Julie B. Smith. "High School Size: Which
Works Best, and for Whom?" Draft. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York,
April 1996. 51 pages. ED396
888.
Meier, Deborah W. "Small Schools, Big Results." The American
School Board Journal 182, 7 (July 1995): 37-40. EJ506
543.
__________. "The Big Benefits of Smallness." Educational
Leadership 54, 1 (September 1996): 12-15.
Raywid, Mary Anne. Taking Stock: The Movement to Create
Mini-Schools, Schools-Within-Schools, and Separate Small Schools.
Madison, Wisconsin: Center on Organization and Restructuring of
Schools, and New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, April
1996. 72 pages. ED393
958.
__________. "The Subschools/Small Schools Movement- Taking
Stock." Paper commissioned by the Center on Organization and
Restructuring of Schools. December 1995.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education,
under contract No. OERI RR93002006. The ideas and opinions expressed
in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies
of OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. This Digest is in the public
domain and may be freely reproduced.
Ordering
Information: Single paper copies of this ERIC Digest are
available from the Clearinghouse while supplies last. Although there
is no charge for the materials themselves, a postage/handling fee of
$3.00 is required to cover the Clearinghouse's expenses. This fee is
waived if (1) you enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope or (2)
you order other materials for which there is a charge. Send orders
for paper copies to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207.
Make checks payable to University of Oregon/ERIC.
| 
