As new schools get bigger, report argues smaller is better

Mpls (red)Star Tribune ^ | 9/10/01 | Allie Shah

[Valin]

Bigger may be better for many things, but not for schools, according to a report from the University of Minnesota.
As the nation prepares to spend $84 billion on school construction over the next two years, the report argues that we're moving in the wrong direction. Schools should be smaller, it says. Much smaller.
That flies in the face of the trend to supersize schools -- from building huge high schools in the suburbs to merging small elementary schools in cities and rural areas.
The Minneapolis School District is preparing to close six very small schools to save money.
But the arguments against big schools have strong support from the growing body of research on school size and from many educators, including the principals of some large Twin Cities schools.

Smaller schools generally offer a safer atmosphere, a more challenging environment, higher student achievement and graduation rates, and fewer discipline problems, according to the report, which analyzed existing research on school size and profiled 22 schools nationwide that have created small learning environments.
The report, which was released today, was created by the University's Center for School Change and co-auth ored by the center's director, Joe Nathan, an advocate for small schools.
'What we do now will either be praised or condemned for decades,' he said.
Although the research is widely recognized, there hasn't been a strong national movement toward building smaller schools, said Mary Fulton, a policy analyst with the Education Commission of the States, a think tank in Denver.
'I'm not sure how thoroughly people are thinking of this. A lot of folks just need to build buildings to take care of their kids,' she said.

Nevada, California and North Carolina are just a few states experiencing an enrollment boom. But there are signs of concern. In Florida, which has the largest schools in the nation, legislators passed a law to limit the size of new schools to 900 students in high school, 700 in middle school and 500 at the elementary level.
What is small is a matter of opinion. Generally, the ideal enrollment is said to be a maximum of 300 students for an elementary school, 500 for a middle school and 600 to 900 for a high school.

The cost factor

Schools have been growing much bigger in the past few decades. From 1940 to 1990, average enrollment in a public school grew from 127 to 653 students.
Larger schools were long thought to be superior because they offered more extracurricular opportunities and a broader selection of courses.
And cost has always been a major factor.
'We have big schools because they're monetarily more efficient to run. Basically that's the only reason we have big schools,' said David Brom, principal of Champlin Park High School, one of the state's largest high schools with 3,051 students last year.

Back in 1993, when St. Paul leaders were planning to create Arlington High School, another mammoth school, concerns were raised about its size, recalled Principal Bill Dunn.
The problem, he said, was that voters had authorized an extra tax to build one school only, and the district needed 2,000 seats.
'The criticism that these big schools really miss some kids is valid,' Dunn said.

Like many large high schools, Champlin Park tries to create intimacy through a 'house' system. The student body is divided alphabetically into four groups or houses, and a team of counselors and administrators is assigned to each group.
Originally, the school was supposed to be divided into mini-high schools, with teachers staying with a group of students, but that wasn't realistic, Brom said. 'We didn't have the space, and it was a scheduling nightmare,' he said.
Many school districts, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, are trying to break up their large high schools by dividing students into smaller communities. But such efforts are only successful when the 'schools within schools' are distinctive learning groups and not just separate houses, the university report states.

Nathan's report strongly questions the idea that larger schools are more cost-effective than smaller ones. He cites a 1997 study by New York University researchers showing that smaller schools may spend more per pupil but that they have higher graduation rates. That means those schools actually spend less per graduate than large schools.
Using examples from existing schools, including four in Minnesota, he also argues that districts can save money by sharing facilities and other resources with community organizations.

One school in the Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan district serves 400 students and is based at the Minnesota Zoo in Apple Valley. In Northfield, Minn., another school cuts administrative and utility costs by sharing space with a senior-citizens center.
School size is not the only factor in educational progress, but it is critical, Nathan said.
'We're not saying every large school is terrible and every small school is great,' he said. 'We're saying, overall, kids do better in smaller schools.'

-- The complete report is at http://www.edfacilities.org .
-- Allie Shah is at ashah@startribune.com .
© Copyright 2001 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.