High Schools: Size Does Matter - The College of Education - The ...

Issue Brief
March 2004
Volume 1, Issue 1
Study of High
School
Restructuring
Inside This Issue
Findings on school size:
Achievement
Equity
Affiliation
Dropout
Postsecondary
preparation
Curriculum quality
Cost
Optimal Size
Effective Small Schools
The University of Texas
Dept. of Educational
Administration
1 University Station
D5400
Austin TX 78712
512-475-8569
www.edb.utexas.edu/hsns
High Schools:
Size Does Matter
by
Thu Suong Thi Nguyen
The University of Texas at Austin
Context
In the last 50 years the percentage of
schools enrolling more than 1,000 students
has grown from 7% to 25%. Between
1988–1989 and 1998–1999, the number of
high schools with more than 1,500
students doubled (Klonsky, 2002, as cited
in Lawrence et al., 2002). Additionally, the
number of schools in America has
decreased by 70%, and the average
school size has increased by 5 times
(Klonsky, 2000). In Texas, a report by the
Texas Education Agency (TEA, 1999)
indicated an increase in enrollment of
666,961 students between 1987and 1998.
Percentage
250.0%
200.0%
150.0%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
6.4% 11.7% 2.9%
0 to 500 501 to
1000
1001 to
1500
School Size
30.4%
1501 to
2000
Texas high schools with over 2,000
students enrolled increased by 35% from
1987–1988 to 1997–1998. At the time of
the report, very large schools made up
14% of all regular instructional high
schools. More recent data revealed that
the number of high schools in Texas with
an enrollment of over 1,500 grew by 44.8%
between 1994 and 2003. Further, there
was a 53% increase in schools enrolling
over 2000 students, and a 209% increase
in schools with over 3,000 students during
the same time period (see Figures 1 and
2).
35.1%
2001 to
3000
209.5%
Over
3000
Figure 1. Percentage increase in the number of students enrolled in Texas high
schools 1994–2003.

Small Schools Page 2 of 7
Issue Brief Vol. 1, Issue 1
Small schools have
fewer than 300 students;
large schools have more
than 1,000.
“There is considerable
evidence that large
schools can have
deleterious effects on
students’ social
development”
(Haller et al., 1990).
Percentage of Students
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
25.8%
22.0%
38.2%
Figure 2. Percentage of total number of students enrolled in schools of varying sizes
in 1994 and 2003.
Small Schools and the Findings
The research and literature on small
schools have revealed multiple variations
of small schools, including small learning
communities, autonomous small schools,
theme-based schools, historically small
schools, freestanding schools, alternative
schools, schools-within-a-school, schoolswithin-a-building,
house plans, career
academies, pathways or clusters, multi- or
scatterplexes, charter schools, pilot
schools, and magnet schools. These
school types are fundamentally
distinguished by their degree of autonomy
and separateness from their host schools.
In her summary of current literature on
small schools, Raywid (1998) contended
that a shift to smaller schools would better
Achievement and Equity
35.1%
Studies have shown that small schools
affect student achievement in positive
ways. Fowler and Walberg (1991)
summarized findings of studies conducted
between the 1960s and 1980s. These
studies showed the following:
1. There is a negative relationship
between achievement tests (math and
verbal ability tests) and school size.
36.0%
42.9%
0 to 1000 1001 to 2000 Over 2000
School Size
1994
2003
serve students. She wrote,
The small schools literature began with
the large-scale quantitative studies of the
late 1980s and early 1990s that firmly
established small schools as more
productive and effective than large ones.
These studies, involving large numbers of
students, schools, and districts,
confirmed that students learn more and
better in small schools (Lee & Smith,
1995). (p. 1)
Between 1966 and 2000, however, only 22
research reports defined school size,
socioeconomic status, and school-size
issues as important to the focus of
research investigations (Howley, Strange,
& Bickel, 2000).
2. Increase in size of school is
detrimental to test scores.
3. Smaller schools increased learning at
elementary and senior levels. African
American elementary students seem
particularly to benefit from being in
smaller schools, and low achievers
benefit from being in smaller senior
high schools.

Small Schools Page 3 of 7
Issue Brief Vol. 1, Issue 1
4. School size is negatively related to
third-grade reading and mathematics
achievement when controlling for
student socioeconomic status.
5. As school districts increased either the
number of schools in the district or the
size of the school, supervisory services
were being financed at the expense of
students’ instructional services.
Recent studies have corroborated the
aforementioned findings. In their 1997
study, Lee and Smith found that schools in
the 600–900 enrollment range have the
highest achievement gains in both low and
high socioeconomic schools and that
school size appears to matter more in
schools that enroll less-advantaged
students. The TEA’s report on school size
also cited recent studies that showed
greater gains on the SAT and ACT in
states with smaller schools as well as the
disruption of negative effects of
socioeconomic status on achievement.
Further, as can be inferred from the
findings related to poverty and
achievement in small schools, learning is
Affiliation, Participation, School Climate, and Dropout
Large schools appear also to have
negative effects on student identification
with schools and, thus, participation and
affiliation. Pittman and Haughwout (1987)
found that “larger student bodies appear to
produce a less positive social environment,
less social integration, and less identity
with the school. These may translate into
more premature school leavings” (p. 343).
School climates that are less alienating and
fearful for both students and teachers
contribute to the finding that “smaller
school size is consistently related to
stronger and safer school communities
(Franklin & Crone, 1992; Zane, 1994)”
(Wasley et al., 2000).
Preparation for Postsecondary Education
Findings on the relationship between
school size and student preparation for
postsecondary school were meager and
tenuous, likely owing to the fact that many
small school start-ups have not been in
more equitably distributed in smaller
learning environments.
The findings of the Matthew Project
(Howley et al., 2000), a series of replicated
studies, showed that although academic
“excellence” results varied by state, overall,
the influence of school size varied by
socioeconomic level.
A negative influence on achievement in
impoverished schools and a positive
influence in affluent schools were found. In
their analysis of Texas schools, this finding
translated into 57% of schools being too
big to maximize achievement at the 10 th -
grade level. The Matthew Project also
looked at academic equity effects and
determined that these effects were highly
consistent across states and that the
relationship between achievement and
socioeconomic status was far weaker in
smaller schools than in large schools. They
found that in Georgia, Ohio, and Texas,
smaller schools reduced the negative effect
of poverty on average student achievement
in every grade tested.
TEA reported that large schools, especially
in large cities, experience a higher rate of
dropout than do small schools in small
districts. Additionally, Lawrence et al.
(2002, citing Steifel et al., 1998) reported,
“Schools with fewer than 600 students had
a 5% dropout rate, while larger schools
averaged a 13% loss” (p. 11). The
researchers asserted that this finding is
particularly encouraging because the small
schools served a higher percentage of poor
students and part-time special education
students than did the larger schools.
existence long enough for such an
examination. However, Cotton (2001)
summarized the evidence of two studies
regarding college-going rates. A study by
Ancess and Ort (1999) described a number
Violence: Large vs.
Small Schools
Larger schools have:
825% more violent
crime;
270% more vandalism;
378% more theft and
larceny;
394% more physical
fights or attacks;
3,200% more robberies;
1,000% more weapons
incidents.
Source: Violence and Discipline
Problems in U.S. Public Schools
1996–97, by the U.S. Department
of Education (1998), Washington,
DC: National Center for
Educational Statistics.

Small Schools Page 4 of 7
Issue Brief Vol. 1, Issue 1
Cautions About Small
Schools:
Most of the researchers
cited in this issue brief
have agreed that the
effects of school size are
indirect and that school
size may only facilitate or
inhibit conditions that
promote student
achievement. Additionally,
they have warned that
small size cannot become
a “simply mechanistic
policy option” (Ayers,
2000, p. 6) as this may
open the door to elitist
small schools that do not
serve the goal of equitably
distributed learning.
of small schools in New York City, and
Wasley and her colleagues (2000) looked
at small schools in Chicago. Both studies
showed significantly more college-bound
students among the small-school
graduates than among demographically
similar graduates of larger schools. In
particular, Ancess and Ort found an 89%
college-going rate among the examined
New York City small-school graduates.
Curriculum Quality
Proponents of consolidation argue that
small schools cannot provide an adequate
curriculum to their students. They believe
that comprehensive high schools are better
able to offer a broad array of course
offerings. However, Monk and Haller
(1993, as cited by the TEA, 1999) found
that “although large schools often offer
more courses, many of the additional
courses are introductory or vocational in
nature rather than enrichment in areas
such as mathematics, science, or foreign
languages” (p. 6). Furthermore, the
research on small high schools has
reported that (a) small schools are able to
offer courses that are well aligned with
national goals, and (b) high schools
enrolling as few as 100 to 200 students are
able to offer base courses in core curricular
areas such as mathematics and science at
rates comparable to high schools enrolling
between 1,200 and 1,600 students
(Roelke, 1996).
Related to curricular quality, some studies
have examined tracking of students within
schools. Lee and Smith (1997), in
particular, addressed the tracking issue.
They cited Lee and Bryk as having found
that “increasing size promotes curriculum
specialization, resulting in differentiation of
students’ academic experiences and social
stratification of student outcomes” (p. 207).
In contrast, the curriculum in smaller
Cost
A study conducted by Stiefel and others in
New York City was the most frequently
cited study in the literature reviewed. The
study looked at 128 high schools using
Additionally, Wasley et al.wrote,
On average, students attending smaller
schools complete more years of higher
education (Sares, 1992), accumulate
more credit (Fine, 1994; Oxley, 1995),
and score slightly better on standardized
tests than students attending larger
schools (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Fine,
1994; Lee & Smith, 1996; Sares, 1992).
schools is more constrained, so nearly all
students follow the same course of study.
This results in higher average academic
achievement and achievement that is more
equitably distributed across student ability
and social background (Lee & Smith,
1997).
Although small school settings create
constraints on curriculum, Unks (1989)
contended that small schools offered
greater opportunities for learning than the
number and scope of course offerings
would suggest. He suggested that the
curriculum in small schools could be
modified more easily because of the lean
administrative structure, and that
scheduling was flexible and easily altered.
Because small schools tend to have lower
student-to-teacher ratios, learner-centered
atmospheres were also more viable. Unks
wrote, for example,
Schedules can be arranged in order to
allow for field trips and assembly
programs. Individualized instruction
suggests that many different topics will
be studied by individual students rather
than all students studying the same thing
in the large room in the large school.
Cross-age teaching and peer tutoring
also suggest that many topics—outside
the textbook—will be part of the
curriculum in the small school. (p. 184)
school-by-school budget information for
1995–1996. Schools with fewer than 600
students spent $7,628 per student
annually, an annual cost $1,410 more than

Small Schools Page 5 of 7
Issue Brief Vol. 1, Issue 1
that spent by schools with over 2,000
students. What is more, looking at cost per
graduate has been argued to be more
useful than the traditional cost per student
comparison. When looking at the cost per
graduate, the cost for small schools was
$49,553, compared to $49,578 at larger
schools.
Lawrence et al. (2002) and Wasley et al.
(2000) asserted that it is far more costly to
allow students to drop out than it is to
Optimal Size
Findings on what consititutes the optimally
small school have varied drastically from
one researcher to the next. Some have
recommended schools as small as 100
total enrollment to no more than 900
students. The most recent findings
reported numbers between 150 and 300
students, depending on the school level.
Lawrence et al. (2002) provided the
following guidelines for the ideal upper
limits of small size for schools with
Effective Small Schools
In her summary of the literature on small
schools, Cotton (2001) outlined a number
of elements necessary for the effectiveness
of small schools:
1. a high degree of autonomy
2. separate physical and psychological
boundaries between schools
3. distinctive attributes setting it apart
from schools in close proximity
4. a self-selected student body, faculty,
and staff
5. flexibility in scheduling
6. a self-created vision and mission
7. a thematic focus
8. an emphasis on academic press as
well as social support
9. clear, concrete, and detailed plans of
underpinnings and procedures
10. knowing students well
invest in students’ graduating. Social costs
of large schools examined in the Lawrence
et al. (2002) report include higher dropout
rates, lower graduation rates, high rates of
violence and vandalism, higher
absenteeism, and higher teacher
dissatisfaction. Lawrence et al. wrote, “This
report indicates that creating facilities for
small schools can be done cost effectively,
and that in fact, the cost of large schools is
higher considering their negative
outcomes” (p. 21).
conventionally wide grade spans:
• High schools (Grades 9–12): 75
students per grade level (300 total
enrollment);
• Middle schools (Grades 5–8): 50
students per grade level (200 total
enrollment); and
• Elementary schools (Grades 1–6): 25
students per grade level (150 total
enrollment) (Lawrence et al., 2000).
11. heterogeneity and nontracking
12. looping
13. consensus building
14. self-directed and conducted
professional development
15. integrated curriculum and teaching
teams
16. a large repertoire of instructional
strategies
17. multiple forms of assessment
18. authentic accountability and credibility
19. support of districts, boards, and
legislatures
20. networking with other small learning
communities for support, increased
accountability, and mutual learning
21. a thorough implementation of all small
school structures and practices in a
timely manner.
Optimal Number of
Students:
High Schools: 300
Middle Schools: 200
Elementary Schools: 150

Small Schools Page 6 of 7
Issue Brief Vol. 1, Issue 1
The work reported here
is an outgrowth of the
larger Houston A+
Challenge initiative.
Conclusion
Within the last several years, the renewed
small schools movement has been heading
towards breaking up large comprehensive
high schools into schools-within-schools
serving between 200 and 500 students
(Gregory, 2001). Dewees (1999) wrote,
“While considerable data exists on
outcomes associated with small schools,
there is much less evidence about
outcomes associated with school-within-aschool
programs (Cotton, 1996b)” (p. 1).
However, this model of small schools is
believed to be a cost-effective approach to
school reform in terms of start-up costs
and, in some cases, maintenance.
Additionally, Dewees cited evidence that
References
Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (1999). How the coalition
campus schools have re-imagined high school:
Seven years later. New York: National Center for
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching.
Ayers, W. (2000). Simple justice: Thinking about
teaching and learning, equity, and the fight for
small schools. In W. Ayers, M. Klonsky, & G.
Lyon (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of
small schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities:
Findings from recent literature. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A
blueprint for creating schools that work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dewees, S. (1999). The school-within-a-school
model (ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small
Schools.
Fowler, W., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School size,
characteristics, and outcomes. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189-202.
Gregory, T. (2001). Breaking up large high schools:
Five common (and understandable) errors of
execution. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Rural Education and Small Schools.
Haller, E. J., Monk, D. H., Spotted Bear, A., Griffith,
J., & Moss, P. (1990). School size and program
comprehensiveness: Evidence from High School
downsized school models can have a
positive social impact on students.
Some of the critiques of the school-withina-school
model, as cited in Dewees (1999),
include the creation of divisiveness in
schools due to organizational realignment;
conflicts concerning allegiances to the
larger school versus the smaller school
unit, thus creating rivalries (Muncey &
McQuillan, 1991; Raywid, 1996b, both as
cited in Dewees); inequitable tracking if
only one population is targeted for a
subschool (McMullan, Sipe, & Wolfe, 1994;
Raywid, 1996a, both as cited in Dewees);
and the model may negatively affect school
coherence and the role of the principal.
and Beyond. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 12(2), 109-120.
Howley, C., Strange, M., & Bickel, R. (2000).
Research about school size and school
performance in impoverished communities.
Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools.
Klonsky, M. (2000). Remembering Port Huron. In
W. Ayers, M. Klonsky, & G. Lyon (Eds.), A simple
justice: The challenge of small schools. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Lawrence, B. K., Bingler, S., Diamond, B. M., Hill,
B., Hoffman, J. L., Howley, C. B., Mitchell, S.,
Rudolph, D., & Washor, E. (2002). Dollars and
sense: The cost effectiveness of small schools.
Cincinnati, OH: Knowledge Works Foundation.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high
school restructuring and size on early gains in
achievement and engagement. Sociology of
Education, 68, 241-270.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1997). High school size:
Which works best and for whom? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205-227.
Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Influence
of high school size on dropout rate. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337-343.
Raywid, M. (1998). Current literature on small
schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Roelke, C. (1996). Curriculum adequacy and
quality in high schools enrolling fewer than 400
Pupils (9–12). Charleston, WV: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small
Schools.
Texas Education Agency. (1999, January). School
size and class size in Texas public schools. (TEA
report 12). Austin: Texas Education Agency
Policy Planning and Evaluation Division.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998, March).
Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public
schools 1996–97. (NCES No. 98030).
Washington, DC: National Center for Educational
Statistics.
About Our Organization…
The Houston A+ Challenge received funding from the Carnegie Corporation and the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation to support a 5-year initiative to work with 24 large high
schools in the Houston Independent School District engaged in a student-focused, wholeschool
change effort. The initiative, called Houston Schools for a New Society, redesigns
high schools into small, theme-based academies to produce graduates ready for the
demands of the 21st century.
The central goal of the challenge is to determine whether it is possible to develop and to
institutionalize high school reform nationally by investing in specific urban areas through
intensive intervention. The HA+C strategy undertakes work in four areas:
1. Restructure large comprehensive high schools into small learning communities.
2. Install a literacy framework across the core curriculum.
Unks, G. (1989). Differences in curriculum within a
school setting. Education and Urban Society,
21(2), 175-191.
Wallach, C. A., & Lear, R. (2003). An early report
on comprehensive high school conversions.
Seattle, WA: The Small Schools Project.
Wasley, P. A, Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N.
E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., & Powell, C. (2000).
Small schools: Great strides. A study of new
small schools in Chicago. Chicago: Bank Street
College of Education.
3. Create an adult advocacy program to mentor and to help each high school student.
4. Create new knowledge about the challenges and issues related to the restructuring of
high schools in urban areas.
We have designed an evaluation program to learn from the HA+C experience to promote
further high school improvement in Houston and other urban school districts across the
country.
Study of High
School
Restructuring
Principal Investigator:
Pedro Reyes, Ph.D.
Study of High
School
Restructuring
Project Manager:
Ed Fuller, Ph.D.
We’re on the Web!
www.edb.utexas.edu/hsns
Houston Schools for a New Society
Evaluation
The University of Texas
Dept. of Educational Administration
1 University Station D5400
Austin, TX 78712
512-475-8569
512-475-8580
© 2004 Study of High School
Restructuring, University of Texas
Edited and designed by
Jennifer E. Cook