Small Schools - Indeterminate Outcomes

Research articles that show no difference between large and small schools or that claim ambivalence in research findings

"Resisting the Urge To Merge: Does School Size Matter?" Phillip Roeder, 2002

Some previous research has found that smaller schools perform at higher levels than larger schools and reduce the negative effects of poverty on school performance. This paper analyzes the effects of school size on four measures of school performance in elementary schools in Fayette County, Kentucky; elementary schools in Fayette and Jefferson Counties (the two largest school districts in the state); and all schools in the two county districts. Multivariate models for elementary schools in the two districts find that size and size interacting with poverty have no effect on school performance; instead, poverty is the major determinant of performance. Looking at all schools in the two districts again finds that smaller school size does not reduce the negative effects of poverty on performance. Instead, poverty remains a substantial determinant of performance; performance varies significantly by school type (elementary, middle, or high school); and the interaction of poverty with elementary schools is significant for several measures of performance. The findings suggest that if policymakers wish to improve the performance of urban/suburban schools, focusing on school size does not appear to offer answers. Disputes over school mergers or consolidations may be costly diversions from the more important issues of disadvantage and equal opportunity in education. Policymakers in urban/suburban districts with many schools and diverse neighborhoods should consider drawing attendance boundaries to distribute poor children more equitably across schools, regardless of school size.

"Big Trouble for Small Schools II: An Analysis of the Effects of LB 806," Jon Bailey and Kim Preston, Center for Rural Affairs, NE

This report examines state aid to each school system in Nebraska, comparing funding in school year 1997-98 to proposed state aid in 2000-01. State aid received in 1997-98 was the last before passage of LB-806, which set the current school funding formula. This legislation has produced clear winners and losers, with the number of losers now numbering 111 school systems. Certain districts have been consistent losers; 38 districts have lost 10 percent or more in state aid in each year of the 3-year period. These districts have much in common. They are small, with a median K-12 enrollment of 212 students, and mostly rural. They are well-performing, with a median high school completion rate of 95 percent, compared to the statewide average of 85 percent. They are also efficient, with an average annual expenditure-per-graduate of $7,226. Many of these districts are on the verge of unification, consolidation, or dissolution, outcomes made more likely by Nebraska's limit on property taxes. It is clear that rural districts are being hurt by the school finance formula. The public policy bias appears to work against those small school systems located near other similar systems in areas of relatively denser population, and creates a powerful economic incentive for consolidation. Recommendations are offered for maintaining well-performing, efficient, community-based schools in Nebraska. The 111 "losing" school districts are listed with their enrollments and losses in state aid.

"Small Schools Under Siege: Evidence of Resource Inequality in Minnesota Public Schools. Policy Brief ," Gregory R Thorson; Nicholas J Maxwell, 2002, Center for Rural Policy and Development.

This policy brief summarizes the full report [ED468840], which describes a study that evaluated whether smaller school districts, as a result of their higher costs per pupil, experienced greater hardship in the areas of infrastructure, resources, and staffing. The policy brief reports on the results of a survey that was administered to the superintendents of Minnesota's 350 public school districts, who were asked to evaluate their district's infrastructure, programming, staff, curriculum, and funding via referenda. Survey found that smaller schools offer a narrower range of courses (such as language offerings) and extra-curricular opportunities. They also have fewer resources for libraries, computers, and science labs. Yet, study also found that much of this shortfall in small schools was because of funding through referenda: small schools with low levels of funding through referendum were more likely to have these problems.

"School Size as a Factor in Financing Small Rural Schools." Rural Educator v. 23 no1 (Fall 2001) p. 9-13, John Alspaugh

A study evaluated the effects of enrollment on the financing of small rural K-8 and K-12 districts. Data were obtained from 96 rural Missouri school districts. Results indicated that small rural high schools are more difficult to support financially than small rural elementary schools. Their low assessed valuation per student means that rural districts have limited ability to raise local revenue. In small high school districts, the low ratio of students per classroom teacher is associated with high expenditure per student, high operating levies, and low teacher salaries. Moreover, because the student-teacher ratio is lower for K-12 districts than for K-8 districts, the K-12 teachers are often paid less than their K-8 counterparts. No significant differences in student achievement were found between the districts.

"School Size: A Review of the Literature. Research Watch." Amy Overbay

2003

Many discussions of school size tend to concentrate on secondary sources, such as other literature reviews. Although this review does examine some secondary sources, it focuses on empirical research. Recent research suggests that smaller schools may be linked to improved attendance and participation in school activities. Some studies claim that smaller schools may also be associated with higher achievement, although other studies indicate that school size does not have a significant impact on student performance and cite other variables such as district and school affluence as more reliable predictors of achievement. Given the inconclusive nature of research, the author urges alternative reforms beyond consolidation.