School Size: Is Bigger Really Better?
Since the Progressive Era, education reformers have contended that big schools offer the best use of efficiency, specialization, and standardization.[1] This idea has dramatically transformed American education and resulted in several significant trends, including the virtual elimination of the one room schoolhouse, a de-emphasis of neighborhood schools, and the consolidation of rural school districts.
Many academics now question these old assumptions. Whatever cost advantage large schools gain through centralization, they argue, may be offset by negative incentives their impersonal structure breeds. University of Florida economist Dale Ballou has shown that adding 100 students to every district school diminishes the district budget by less than three-tenths of 1 percent, or about $14 per pupil.[2] Ballou concludes that urban districts “by and large exceed[ed]” their optimally efficient size.[3]
Extensive research demonstrates that students at large schools fare worse academically and socially than their small school peers. Psychologists Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn provide a strong theoretical foundation for their comparative failure: The hyper-specialization of a large organization discourages members from becoming anything but mere spectators.[4] As private and community schools are most often small, their accomplishments—established in studies ranging from affluent suburbs to improbable inner cities— may be attributed more to their responsive structure than the nature of their students.
Academically, the dropout rate is a good measure of success. Schools that do not graduate students but fail to retain them in the school system fall short of their educational mission. Analyzing data from 744 schools, education professors Robert Pittman and Perri Haoughwout found that every 400-student increase in school size corresponded with a 1 percent higher dropout rate.[5] Conversely, small school students are more likely to graduate and advance to post-secondary education.[6]
Short of dropping out, students at large schools are also less socially engaged than those at small schools. A study on Washington schools found that students at the state’s largest schools participated in an average of 2.2 activities, contrasted with 7.6 activities at its smallest schools.[7] The difference is crucial: increasing school activity participation may directly reduce dropout and delinquency rates and improve academic achievement and interpersonal skills.[8] Small schools do this best because formal bureaucracy is minimized while face-to-face communication is maximized. Their first-name environments provide a ‘heightened sense of belonging’ that encourages broader personal involvement.[9]
These small-school effects are amplified within ethnic minorities and low-income student populations. A four-state study of the effects of small schools found that they reduced the negative impact of poverty on student achievement by 50 percent.[10] Many researchers and education foundations believe school size is a critical component of urban school reformation, as it “is arguably more important than either racial makeup or class size…” on educational achievement.[11]
That large schools best promote academic efficiency is but a leftover relic from the Cold War. The latest research clearly indicates small schools are better suited to meeting educational achievement, especially within urban areas of greatest need. When it comes to the institutions that train Ohio’s children, downsizing their structure can only upsize student returns.
Notes
[1] Valerie E. Lee and Julia B. Smith, “Effects of High School Restructuring and Size on Early Gains in Achievement and Engagement,” Sociology of Education 68 (October 1995): 242.
[2] Dale Ballou, “The Condition of Urban School Finance: Efficient Resource Allocation in Urban Schools,” In Selected Papers in School Finance 1996, ed. William J. Fowler Jr. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1998): 70.
[3] Ballou, “The Condition of Urban School Finance,” 69.
[4] Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, (1966, 2nd edition, New York, NY: Wiley, 1978): 108.
[5] Robert B. Pittman and Perri Haoughwout, “Influence of High School Size on Dropout Rate,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9 (Winter 1987): 337-342.
[6] Barbara Lawrence, et al. Dollars and Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools (Cincinnati, OH: KnowledgeWorks Foundation, 2002), 8-9.
[7] David L. Morgan and Duane F. Alwin, “When Less Is More: School Size and Student Social Participation,” Social Psychology Quarterly 43, no. 2 (June 1980): 248.
[8] See, for, example, Steve Bradley and Jim Taylor, “The Effect of School Size on Exam Performance in Secondary Schools,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 60 (August 1998): 291-325; Mary Anne Rawid, “Downsizing Schools in Big Cities,” ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. EDO-UD-96-1. Available on-line at http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edoud961.htm.
[9] Ibid, 11.
[10] Craig B. Howley and Robert Bickel, School Size, Poverty, and Student Achievement (Washington, DC: Rural School and Community Trust, February 2000).
[11] Ibid, 10.
Danielle Mendola is a former research intern with The Buckeye Institute. Joshua C. Hall is a senior fellow with The Buckeye Institute.
