Research Roundup 15, 2
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management
Print this page 
Research Roundup 15, 2 (Winter 1998-99)
School Size: Is Small Better?
by Larry Lashway
Fifty years ago, American children were being educated in about 117,000 school districts around the 
country, frequently in one-room schools. Today the number of districts has dropped below 16,000--
almost an 87 percent decline during the same period that U.S. population increased by nearly 70 percent. 
This consolidation, achieved at the cost of anguished protests by thousands of citizens served by small 
schools in small districts, was viewed by most professional educators as a triumph for enlightened 
schooling. Larger schools created economies of scale that drove per-student costs down, and at the same 
time gave students expanded access to specialized courses, adequate libraries, and extensive 
extracurricular programs. 
Ironically, just as the consolidation movement was basking in its achievement, research was beginning 
to suggest that the public's nostalgia for small schools was not misplaced. In the past three decades, 
steadily mounting evidence indicates that children and adolescents do best in schools with well under 
1,000 students, with some critics arguing that even 200 may be too many. 
The new research suggests that small schools are more likely to nurture a sense of belonging and 
community, engaging active student involvement through a positive, humane, and caring atmosphere. 
Even the supposed economies of scale for large schools are being reexamined; some analysts have 
suggested that computing the cost per graduate rather than the cost per student gives an economic 
advantage to small schools. 
For school leaders, this evidence raises some important policy questions and may provoke some serious 
thinking about the links between school organization and student success. Even when districts are not 
able to construct new buildings of the desired size, they may be able to repackage existing facilities to 
get some of the same results. 
The works reviewed here consider school size issue from a number of angles. 
Kathleen Cotton reviews the research evidence on school size, finding strong support for the advantages 
file:///D|/roundups/Winter_98-99.html (1 of 7)8/21/2006 9:26:00 AM
Research Roundup 15, 2
of small schools. 
Kenneth Stevenson and Leonard Pellicer review a number of studies and conclude that neither small nor 
large schools have a decisive advantage. 
Mary Ann Raywid examines different ways that small schools can be nurtured within large buildings. 
Deborah Meier draws on her experience as a small-school pioneer to describe the many benefits of 
small schools. 
Veronica Anderson tells how one elementary school in Chicago has transformed itself from a large 
school to a cluster of small schools in the same building. 
Cotton, Kathleen. School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance (School Improvement 
Research Series). Portland, Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1996. Available free at 
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html 
What are the benefits of small schools? Kathleen Cotton reviewed 103 studies that found some 
relationship between school size and some aspect of schooling; most found that small size had positive 
effects. 
Cotton begins with a crucial question: How many students can be in a school before it is no longer 
considered small? Definitions are flexible, to say the least; some researchers put the upper limit at 200, 
others as high as 1,000. Based on her review of the literature, Cotton estimates that elementary schools 
are "right-sized" when they have 300 to 400 students, and when high schools have 400 to 800. 
About half the studies reviewed by Cotton showed no significant differences in achievement between 
small and large schools. The other half found that achievement in small schools is superior. Cotton 
concludes that achievement in small schools is at least equal to, and possibly better than, achievement in 
large schools. 
Cotton goes on to note results in a number of other areas, such as student attitudes (the evidence 
"overwhelmingly favors small schools over large ones"); social behavior ("small schools have lower 
incidences of negative social behavior"); extracurricular participation ("significantly higher in small 
schools"); attendance ("smaller schools have higher attendance rates than large ones"); dropouts ("the 
holding power of smaller schools is considerably greater than that of large schools"); interpersonal 
relations (more positive in small schools); and self-concept ("both personal and academic self-concept 
are more positive in smaller schools"). 
file:///D|/roundups/Winter_98-99.html (2 of 7)8/21/2006 9:26:00 AM
Research Roundup 15, 2
Why is smaller better? Cotton found that researchers gave a number of answers: Students in small 
schools are necessarily more involved in school activities; people in small schools come to know and 
care about each other more easily; parent involvement is higher; staff and students generally have a 
stronger sense of personal efficacy. 
Stevenson, Kenneth R.; and Pellicer, Leonard O. "Is Bigger Really Better?" School Business Affairs 
64:1 (January 1998): 18-23. Reston, Va.: Association of School Business Officials International. 
Available from: Association of School Business Officials, 11401 North Shore Drive, Reston, VA 20190-
4231. 703-478-0405. $7.50 prepaid. 
When new ideas challenge orthodox views or stir up troublesome policy questions, American educators 
are in the habit of turning to research for guidance. Unfortunately, as Kenneth Stevenson and Leonard 
Pellicer note in their discussion of school size, research is sometimes slow to provide answers. With 
school size, "the one clear thing from the research is that nothing is clear." 
Both sides in the debate can find research support for their positions. Small schools usually lay claim to 
having a more intimate and caring climate, including more flexibility, individualized attention, and 
parental involvement. Large-school supporters can point to greater variety and depth in curricular and 
extracurricular experiences, as well as to the always-potent bottom line that shows lower per-student 
costs. 
However, when it comes to student achievement, the picture is much murkier. Some studies have found 
small schools to have a slight advantage, some have found no difference, and some have concluded that 
large schools have a slight advantage. Some of these discrepancies may be the result of different 
research methods; for example, achievement can be measured by performance on standardized tests, 
state recognition of school excellence (or dysfunction), grade point averages or college entrance-exam 
scores. The authors suggest that small schools are beneficial to a point, but when they become too small 
the loss in curricular opportunities may outweigh the benefits of positive climate. 
Given these uncertainties, Stevenson and Pellicer argue that we should be cautious about making broad 
policy decisions about school size. Until the evidence becomes clearer, we should continue to ask 
questions. What are the key indicators of school quality? Do certain categories of students do better in 
smaller schools or larger schools? How can large schools be made more personable and small schools 
more efficient? 
The authors conclude that there is no optimum size for schools. "The real issue is what happens inside a 
school, not the number of students that are served by a school." 
file:///D|/roundups/Winter_98-99.html (3 of 7)8/21/2006 9:26:00 AM
Research Roundup 15, 2
Raywid, Mary Ann. Taking Stock: The Movement to Create Mini-Schools, Schools-Within-Schools, 
and Separate Small Schools. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, April 1996. 72 
pages. ED 396 045. Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Teachers College, 
Columbia University, Main Hall, Room 303, Box 40, New York, NY 10027-6696. 800-601-4868. 
$10.00. Also available free at http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/monographs/uds108/ 
Knowing the benefits of small schools can be helpful when school officials meet with architects to plan 
the district's next school. But as Mary Ann Raywid points out, many districts are saddled with big 
buildings that will last well into the next century. In trying to make do with existing facilities, some of 
these districts have found that big spaces need not mean big schools. Instead, large buildings can be 
adapted to serve several schools under one roof. 
In this review, Raywid takes a look at the growing movement to create "schools within schools." 
Although terminology varies from one district to another, she identifies four types of small schools. 
A house plan assigns students and teachers to a smaller grouping within the larger school. Typically, 
students in each house take most of their courses together and share the same teachers. The house plan 
usually exists side by side with normal departmentalized structures, and curriculum is not affected. 
A minischool adds curricular and instructional changes to the house plan, attempting to create its own 
identity and gain at least some separation and autonomy within the larger school. However, minischools 
remain under the authority of the larger school and share the same resources. 
A school-within-a-school is officially recognized as a separate entity, running its own budget and 
planning its own programs. However, school safety and building operation remain vested with the 
principal of the larger school, and use of shared space (such as auditoriums) must be negotiated. 
A small school is a school-within-a-school where the staff has been brought in from elsewhere in the 
district rather than from the larger school. 
Raywid suggests that to fully live up to its promise, a small school must have three characteristics: 
separateness from the larger school (both physical and psychological), autonomy (ability to make its 
own decisions), and distinctiveness (something that sets it apart from other schools). 
Possible disadvantages of small schools include increased costs, staff relationship problems (especially 
between teachers in small schools and those remaining in larger schools), the temptation to perpetuate 
ability grouping, and the creation of ambiguity in the principal's role. 
In summary, Raywid concedes that small schools are not a magic bullet, but that school downsizing may 
be necessary so students can act as "engaged and committed agents in their own and others' education." 
file:///D|/roundups/Winter_98-99.html (4 of 7)8/21/2006 9:26:00 AM
Research Roundup 15, 2
Meier, Deborah W. "The Big Benefits of Smallness." Educational Leadership 54:1 (September 1996): 
12-15. Available free at http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9609/meier.html 
While many educators are willing to promote the cause of small schools, probably no one is better 
qualified to do so than Deborah Meier, founder and director of several small schools in New York City. 
Her work at East Harlem's Central Park East elementary and secondary schools established her not only 
as an advocate of small, autonomous schools, but as someone capable of bringing the vision to life 
through patient and skillful administration. 
In this article, Meier succinctly summarizes the benefits that she has found in small schools: 
1. Governance is simpler and more effective when the principal and faculty can meet around the same 
table. 
2. Mutual respect is the norm because people know one another well enough to understand their skills 
and values. 
3. Small schools allow teachers to simplify the organization rather than simplify the children. Instead of 
using a standardized approach to accommodate a complex bureaucracy, small schools can build 
organizational structures that recognize human individuality. 
4. Safety is enhanced. "Small schools offer what metal detectors and guards cannot: the safety and 
security of being where you are known well by people who care for you." 
5. Small schools are less likely to intimidate parents, who are then more likely to get involved. 
6. Accountability is simplified. No statistical graphs or computer printouts are needed to know how 
students and teachers are doing; a walk around the school will give the principal firsthand insights. 
7. In small schools, everyone belongs: "Every kid is known, every kid belongs to a community that 
includes adults." Those closely knit relationships allow teachers to pass on the "habits of heart and 
mind" that define an educated person, not just through lesson plans, but through the daily give-and-take 
of sustaining a community. 
Anderson, Veronica. "Smaller Is Better." Catalyst: Voices of Chicago School Reform, May 1998. 
Available from: Catalyst, 332 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60604, Attention: Ericka 
file:///D|/roundups/Winter_98-99.html (5 of 7)8/21/2006 9:26:00 AM
Research Roundup 15, 2
Moore. 312-427-4830, ext. 1314. $3.00 prepaid. Also available free at http://www.catalyst-chicago.
org/05-98/058wmm01.htm 
Much of the school-size debate has centered around high schools, which are typically larger and more 
anonymous than their elementary counterparts. But many elementary schools are also beginning to 
explore the advantages of smallness. In this issue of Catalyst, Veronica Anderson describes the practical 
realities of creating and operating a small elementary school in a large building. 
Anderson sets the stage by describing the small-schools movement in Chicago, where some 125 small 
schools have been formed in recent years. The four principles guiding these efforts have been a self-
selected faculty, complete or partial autonomy, a cohesive pedagogical approach, and an inclusive 
admissions policy. 
Leadership of small schools can be complicated. Many are teacher-led, but state law requires that 
certified principals be attached to each school, giving rise to such unique arrangements as the 
"scatterplex" (several small schools that operate in different buildings but share a principal). In the 
scatterplex, principals must contend with the ambiguities of dealing with several different school 
cultures simultaneously. 
Chicago small schools have followed different paths to achieve their goals. Anderson describes the 
transformation of Piccolo School from a traditional K-5 school with 49 teachers and 855 students to a 
cluster of a half-dozen small schools, each with its own special focus. The principal at Piccolo planted 
the seed for this change simply by asking teachers if they had ever wanted to start their own school. 
When several came forward with a well-crafted plan, the transformation was under way. 
While the change process at Piccolo has run into occasional obstacles, all but three classrooms now 
house smaller communities: Connections features cross-age activities and an extra hour of instruction 
every day; Bright Beginnings is a primary-age school with a focus on reading; Unity-Umoja-Unidos is a 
dual-language K-4 program; Generation Global is built around a technological and multicultural 
curriculum; Great Expectations is a small primary school that will keep students with the same teacher 
for two years; and Helping Hands uses fine arts and multiple-intelligence theory to serve special 
education students. 
Other schools have had rockier starts. Nia School, which uses an Afrocentric curriculum, began as a 
spinoff of a larger school, but eventually had to move to a separate location because its relations with the 
rest of the school became strained (mostly due to its recruiting of students). 
While Anderson's account suggests that new small schools are often fragile, it is also clear that they have 
added diversity and vibrancy to a previously monolithic environment. 
file:///D|/roundups/Winter_98-99.html (6 of 7)8/21/2006 9:26:00 AM
Research Roundup 15, 2
Larry Lashway is a research analyst and writer for the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational 
Management at the University of Oregon. 
The ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools assisted in the selection of publications 
reviewed in this issue. 
file:///D|/roundups/Winter_98-99.html (7 of 7)8/21/2006 9:26:00 AM