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

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.