Big Plans for Small Schools
by Joe Nathan and Debra Hare,Center for School Change
Introduction
Policymakers now have an opportunity that only occurs once every
two to three generations. That's how policymakers at all levels
might want to think about the estimated $84 billion that are going
to be spent over the next several years in school building modification
and construction (Agron, 2001). Federal research shows that a large
proportion of school buildings are now in need of significant renovation
or replacement (Education Writers Association, 1989). The decisions
that are made about these buildings today will affect educational
opportunities for the next 50 years. As states and school districts
consider how to proceed, they need to consider recent research about
the value of small schools and shared facilities.
This research is compelling. ERIC published a federal examination of literally hundreds of studies, comparing what happened when similar groups of students attended large versus small schools. It found that students attending small schools generally had higher achievement, better discipline, and attendance, as well as higher graduation rates. Students, families, and teachers reported more satisfaction in small schools. Some of the research also shows that the students who benefit most from small schools are those most in need—for example, low income students (Howley, 2000). The closer relationship between adults and students in small schools benefits all kinds of students and teachers as well, but especially those students often overlooked in larger schools or those who need special help. Mary Ann Raywid (1994), author of the ERIC summary, concluded that the findings about small schools have been "confirmed with a clarity and a level of confidence rare in the annals of education research"
Equally important, small schools need not be more expensive. University of Chicago researcher Tony Bryk reports, "While school districts that are currently saddled with large physical plants might productively move toward schools-within-schools, there is little reason to continue to build more buildings like this. In light of the positive consequences for both adults and students associated with working in small schools, the reality is one of diseconomy of scale" (Bryk, 1994, p. 6-7). An important study in New York City found that when you look at the cost per graduate, small schools are actually less expensive (Stiefel, Latarola, & Fruchter, 1998).
It's also time for policymakers to listen to educators who say they can't deal with all of the issues and challenges students and families face by themselves. Sharing facilities with social service agencies, higher education institutions, or even businesses can provide better service to students and families and allow educators to concentrate on teaching. Joy Dryfoos, who has studied shared facilities, wrote that the impact of these programs, "include and go beyond the expectations of traditional education reform" (Dryfoos, 2000). Sharing facilities also can, as the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2000) concluded, "save taxpayers significant sums of money."
Despite the overwhelming evidence, most communities continue to build large isolated school buildings. Designing small schools or redesigning large school buildings into smaller distinct schools is a big change for many communities—a change that is unlikely to occur without leadership from policymakers. Latest industry estimates show that about $84 billion will be spent on school buildings over the next few years (Agron, 2001). For many communities, to rethink school buildings and community collaboration is a marvelous opportunity—one that comes once every 30 to 60 years. Unfortunately, without strong leadership this opportunity may well be lost.
