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

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