Save Tharwa School

Slate, R., & Jones, C. H. (n.d.) Effects of school size: A review of the literature with recommendations. (undated). University of Missouri, Kansas City Craig H. Jones Arkansas State University

The Slate & Jones review is the 2nd paper on school size & educational effects on the DET 2020 website . I find it hard to believe that the ACT governmentt is citing this literature as somehow supportive of its 2020 plan because my reading of it would suggest that its another lay down misere in favour of small schools. I really don’t think these ministers have read the literature or got their strategy right by putting this cannon fodder on their site (unless its a plant?). This US paper urges much caution with regard to the overly simple economic rationalist arguments for the supposed efficiencies of larger schools. Most of the evidence instead suggests that there are minimal or even negative efficiency gains for larger schools and that there are greater educational, community and satisfaction benefits of smaller schools, particularly for the younger grades. Smaller schools also have better attendence, fewer behavioural problems, greater parent involvement, and higher teacher morale.

To give you more of a feel, I’ve copied the major points below. - James

Proponents of school consolidation have based their recommendations on two major claims: greater economic efficiency and increased curricular offerings (Fox , 1981; Walberg, 1992). In spite of the face validity of school consolidation as a solution for educational problems, the research on school size indicates that the economic and curricular advantages of large schools are often exaggerated and that a variety of factors influence the relationship between school size and students’ academic achievement. Thus, educational decision-makers need to develop reform plans based upon a balanced consideration of all the important factors related to school size. In this paper, we provide an overview of the most important research on school size and a list of recommendations to help both researchers and local school officials in their consideration of this issue.

Creating large schools in rural areas with low population densities can greatly increase the cost of transporting students whereas such additional cost may not be incurred in urban areas.

Before consolidating schools with fewer than 500 students, educational decision-makers need to consider additional factors such as transportation costs in determining the likely cost effectiveness of this action.

Walberg and Walberg (1994) found that the course offerings available in small schools served the students well because almost all students took a strong core curriculum, and that small schools were less likely to continue ineffective programs than were large schools.

Although the number of students taking specialized courses varied somewhat across schools, no more than 12% of students at larger schools enrolled in courses that were not taught at the smallest schools.

Thus, the proposed curricular benefits of large schools may be more apparent than real.

Sergiovanni (1995) argued that, even if small schools do cost slightly more per student than do large schools, small schools could still be more efficient if they were more productive. Thus, he urged educational decision-makers to go beyond simple per student cost and consider the ratio of productivity to cost. Support for Sergiovani’s argument comes from research showing that increases in per student costs, not decreases, are generally associated with increased academic achievement…increased cost efficiency per se does not automatically translate into a better education for students. Cost efficient schools may simply be given less money to operate, or the actions that lower per student costs could actually undermine students’ achievement.

Ramirez (1992) conducted a review of the literature relating school size to student achievement and concluded that little difference in achievement was present between large and small schools. Cotton (1996) reviewed 31 studies of the relationship between school size and achievement and found them about evenly divided between studies favoring small schools and studies showing no differences in achievement based on school size. None of the studies reviewed by Cotton yielded results in favor of large schools. Greenwald, et al. (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 60 studies and found that student achievement was negatively related to school size. That is, achievement was better in small schools. Because many of the studies in this analysis had been conducted in the 1960s, Greenwald et al. preformed a second meta-analysis including only the 26 studies that had been conducted since 1970. The results of this internal analysis also showed greater achievement in smaller schools. A recent analysis of academic achievement in Texas high schools also found a lower academic achievement in larger schools (Texas Education Agency,1999).

Although the major literature reviews have found lower achievement in larger schools, or no difference, a number of individual studies have found lower achievement in smaller schools (Friedkin & Necochea, 1988; Harnisch, 1987; Huang & Howley, 1993).

Franklin and Crone (1992) and Kearney (1994) also found that large schools benefit affluent students whereas small schools benefit economically deprived students.

Thus, the literature supports the conclusion that students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to do better in small schools. As a result, Fowler and Walberg (1991) argued that school size must be addressed as a social equity issue. The relationship between school size and the academic achievement of middle and upper class students, however, remains unclear.

The other mediating variable that has attracted considerable attention from researchers is students grade level in school. Friedkin and Necochea (1988) studied students in the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 12th grades in all California schools. They found that large schools were associated with greater achievement for 12th grade students, but small schools were associated with greater achievement for students in the 3rd, 6th, and 8th grades.

Thus, students in the primary, intermediate, and middle grades are likely to benefit academically from smaller schools, whereas secondary school students may benefit from the advantages offered by large schools. That is, any potential benefits of large school size may be negated until students have acquired foundational academic skills, such as reading and arithmetic, and have become capable of independent learning. Until then, the smaller class sizes found in small school appear to be beneficial to students’ academic achievement.

Large schools appear to have a clear advantage in terms of teacher qualifications.

Small schools had lower dropout rates in nine of the ten studies with no difference found in the other study.

Researchers have consistently found that daily school attendance rates are higher in small schools than in large schools.

Major reviews of the school size literature have found that both teacher satisfaction and student satisfaction tend to be lower in large schools.

The lack of personal satisfaction and connectedness experienced by students and teachers in large schools has been a major component of the schools-within-schools movement.

Stockard and Mayberry (1992) reviewed the literature on school size and discipline problems and concluded that the increase in behavior problems in larger schools was sufficient to nullify any benefits that might accrue from having larger schools.

Gregory (1992) found that the control of student behavior becomes a primary concern of administrators in large schools. As a result, school policy tends to become restrictive and disciplinary actions highly punitive (Meier, 1996). These types of policies and practices have been associated with above average dropout rates (Damico & Roth, 1993). Thus, the higher dropout rates already noted for large schools is probably caused in part by the administrative efforts to maintain control over the expanded student population.

In their seminal study of school size, Barker and Gump (1964) found greater participation in small schools than in large schools. They argued that large schools were overmanned (sic) in that there are far too many students for the limited number of positions available. For example, athletic teams tend to be limited to a certain number of players regardless of school size and excess students are typically cut from the team. Thus, many students in large schools are reduced to spectator roles at best. Small schools, on the other hand, are undermanned (sic). That is, there are more positions than there are students to fill them so there is at least one place for every student who wants one. As a result, students in small schools are more likely to be involved in student activities, have a greater sense of belonging, and are less likely to drop out than are students in large schools. This effect of school size has been replicated a number of times.

Parental involvement in the schools is generally considered to increase the effectiveness of the educational process…Researchers have found that parental involvement tends to be greater in smaller schools than in larger schools. Walberg (1992) argued that small schools tend to have greater physical and psychological proximity to students’ homes than do larger schools, and that such proximity increases parental involvement because parents feel more comfortable approaching a smaller school. Meier (1996) took a similar approach arguing that a culture of respect between parents, students, and teachers was necessary for parental involvement. This culture comes from parents and teachers knowing each other personally, and is, therefore, more likely to develop in smaller schools. In support of this explanation, Green and Barnes (1993) reported that administrators in small schools relied more heavily on verbal communications and held more conferences with parents than administrators in large schools.

Optimal school size cannot be described by a magic number, but must be determined by the range in which increased school size has a beneficial effect on both expenditures and educational outcomes for a particular school.

In dealing with school size issues, educational decision-makers should avoid simplistic notions of economic efficiency based upon perceived economies of scale. Advocates of the economy of scale often perceive a linear relationship in which larger schools are automatically more efficient. Research does not support this view.

In making decisions about school size, educational decision-makers should keep the characteristics of their community and school in mind. As Monk and Haller (1993) noted, size affects different schools in different ways and one optimal school size does not exist.

The ability of a school to deliver an adequate curriculum in an effective manner should also be considered. For example, small schools often have fewer teachers with a master’s degree than do larger schools, fewer specialists to teach students with special needs, and more teachers teaching out of their certified fields (Pethel, 1978). Consolidation is more likely to be an effective option when such conditions exist than when the school already has adequate resources to provide appropriately trained teachers.

Educational decision-makers should also consider what benefits are likely to accrue to students as a result of increasing school size. If a very small school is unable to provide either the basic curriculum needed by all students, then the increase in curricular diversity that can be generated in a larger school is an advantage. On the other hand, a school that already provides a sound basic curriculum and a reasonable number of electives is unlikely to see a worthwhile increase in curricular diversity.

Educational decision-makers should use statistical models of school size with great caution, if at all. Johnston and Pennypacker (1993) noted that statistical decision models have a great deal of appeal because they are simple to apply and appear objective. They also note, however, that statistical models that are appropriate under some circumstances are not necessarily appropriate in other situations. Furthermore, Chambers and Parrish (1994) warned that quantification of every factor in the educational process is neither possible nor desirable.

Educational decision-makers should look for creative solutions to school size problems.

There has been an overemphasis on reducing expenditures rather than a focus on how school size affects the quality of students’ education.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 9th, 2006 at 7:30 am and is filed under Research on Small Schools. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.