Legters, McDill, and McPartland (1993) describe the problems inherent within large schools and offer possible solutions:
"Extensive research evidence indicates that a supportive climate for learning can be severely damaged by the very large secondary schools that are typical of major urban and suburban districts where many students at risk are enrolled (Toch, 1991; Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1985; Bryk and Thum, 1989: Maeroff, 1992; Barker and Gump, 1964; Diprete, 1982; Garbarino, 1978, 1980; Morgan and Alwin, 1980). In contrast to small schools in which most teachers and students know each other and will recognize a problem when it arises, adult control and supervision and students' senses of belonging and responsibility are not developed as readily in large schools. For this reason, it is often argued that larger schools tend to have more discipline problems, lower percentages of students who actually participate in school clubs and activities, and more student feelings of estrangement and alienation.
There is no evidence that new, smaller schools are now being constructed for the middle and high school grades, but many smaller units are being created within larger schools. Some community school districts in New York City, for example, have developed schools-within-schools in which a single building may contain up to five smaller separate schools--including elementary, junior high, special education, and special programs for troubled youth. The separate schools share the building's gym, labs, and studios; older students from one unit may tutor younger students from another unit. Other examples include the 'house' system in Columbus, Ohio, in which groups of 250 high school students remain together in largely autonomous units for their high school careers, and self-contained 'academic units' within Philadelphia high schools that have a special vocational-academic focus (Toch, 1991). While these programs are promising, Maeroff (1992) notes that opportunities for sustained, close, positive contacts between students and teachers will only be achieved if such arrangements are more than administrative units that change each year for particular students and have no programs of adult guidance and support for individual students." (pp. 71-72)
