Small Schools: Research

Introduction

The Chicago Public Schools is committed to creating and sustaining small schools as a district-wide school improvement strategy. There is almost 40 years of existing research and literature on small schools which indicates that students in small schools have higher attendance and graduation rates, fewer drop-outs, equal or better levels of academic achievement (standardized test scores, course failure rates, grade point averages), higher levels of extra-curricular participation and parent involvement, and fewer incidences of discipline and violence. The summary of research below includes data and information from this body of research, highlighting several studies for each type of measure. These studies include results from research conducted in Chicago, as well as nationally. For detailed information on these studies, please refer to the list of references included at the end of the summary.

How the following information is organized:
The sections below focus on measures of small schools success. Each section begins with an excerpt from Kathleen Cotton's 1996 review of research to provide a summary of small schools findings prior to 1996. Following this excerpt are snapshots of research done since 1996, in chronological order from most recent to 1997.

Small Schools and Student Achievement: Significant Positive and No Negative Correlations

According to Kathleen Cotton's 1996 review of 31 studies which researched the relationship between small schools and academic achievement, students in small schools performed equal to or better than their larger schools counterparts.

"About half the student achievement research finds no difference between the achievement levels of students in large and small schools, including small alternative schools (Burke 1987; Caldas 1987; Edington and Gardner 1984; Fowler 1995; Gregory 1992; Haller, Monk, and Tien 1993; Howley 1996; Huang and Howley 1993; McGuire 1989; Melnick, et al. 1986; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Walberg 1992; Way 1985). The other half finds student achievement in small schools to be superior to that in large schools (Bates 1993; Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982; Eichenstein 1994; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Miller, Ellsworth, and Howell 1986; Robinson-Lewis 1991; Walberg 1992). None of the research finds large schools superior to small schools in their achievement effects. Consequently, we may safely say that student achievement in small schools is at least equal-and often superior-to student achievement in large schools. Achievement measures used in the research include school grades, test scores, honor roll membership, subject-area achievement, and assessment of higher-order thinking skills."

Raywid, 1998 (pg 3): In the spring of 1997, Nova, a small high school located in Seattle, Washington, took part in the citywide writing assessment program. The students had academic records that ranged from excellent to poor, and came from backgrounds that ranged from affluent to deprived. "The eleventh grade students were declared 62% proficient, that is 34% higher than the district's 28%." (Seattle Weekly 1997)

Cushman, 1999 (pg 4): A similar test was given to the students of San Francisco Community School. The students scored above the national average at almost every grade. "The passing rate for the district's writing assessment jumped among their seventh graders from 64 to 96 percent in just four years."

Hendrie, 1999 (pg 1): Standardized test scores were compared for the students enrolled in 80 of New York City Small Schools in 1996 and 1997. "The percentage of pupils in grades 3-8 reading at or above national norms climbed from 36 percent to 41 percent."

Wasley, et al (pg 26): The 2000 Bank Street College of Education study of Chicago small schools, Small Schools: Great Strides, compared the grade point averages of schools-within-a-school, their host schools, freestanding small schools and other CPS high schools that were not small and did not contain any SWSs. Their analysis showed that students in small schools had GPAs slightly higher than that of students attending the host schools or other large CPS high schools.

The Bank Street study also found that course failure rates for small schools students were reduced in schools-within-schools compared to their host schools, and similar to those of freestanding small schools and other CPS schools.

Center for Collaborative Education, 2001 (pg 22): "MCAS is a criterion referenced test administered by subject." It is the "assessment used by the state of Massachusetts to determine school probationary performance and student high school graduation." Comparison of small schools 10th grade results with all Boston Public Schools results showed small schools scoring slightly higher in language arts and slightly lower in math and science.

Lakhman, 1999 (pg 1): In 1988 New York City launched Project Achieve to help struggling schools by dividing them into houses. Between 1993 and 1998, DeWitt Clinton School, divided into 10 houses, had increased their enrollment in Advanced Placement courses from 131 to 553 students and the number of Regents exams that were passed rose from 1,311 to 3,228.

Kathleen Cotton's 1996 and 2001 reviews of small schools literature caution us on examining the correlation between school size and achievement.

"It is important to note that the effects of smallness and achievement are indirect. Achievement may not only be a result of smallness, but connected to other variables such as environment and attachment."
-Kathleen Cotton, 1996 (pg 16)

"Researchers observe that the effects of smallness on achievement are indirect, being mediated through other small-school features as quality of the social environment and students' sense of attachment to the school. Mitchell (2000) reminds us that in the studies conducted by Howley and others, school size had such a powerful positive effect on the achievement of poor students that it even trumped the beneficial effects of class size."
-Kathleen Cotton, 2001

Small Schools Improve High School Graduation Rates

"Measured either as dropout rate or graduation rate, the holding power of small schools is considerably greater than that of large schools. Nine of the ten documents that address this topic reveal differences favoring or greatly favoring small schools (Fetler 1989; Gregory 1992; Jewell 1989; Pittman and Haughwout 1987; Rogers 1987; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Toenjes 1989; Walberg 1992), with the other document reporting mixed results."
-Kathleen Cotton, 1996

Ancess & Wichterle, 2001 (pg 2,5): In 1992 and 1993, coalitions in New York City made attempts to phase out two of its lowest performing schools: Julia Richman HS and James Monroe HS which had graduation rates of 36.9% and 23% respectively. Eight years later, the schools which serve students "demographically comparable to those who attended the schools that were closed," had graduation rates higher than the NYC high school average (52.3% compared to 50%) and dropout rates substantially lower (10% compared to 18%). The study also found that small schools students are more likely to remain enrolled in school if they are unable to complete high school during a four year period (38% compared to 32% NYC average).

Wasley, et al, 2000: The Bank Street College of Education's study Small schools: Great strides‹A study of new small schools in Chicago, compared the drop-out rates of Chicago schools-within-schools, their host schools, freestanding small high schools and other CPS high schools. Small schools-within-schools performed significantly better than their host schools, while freestanding small schools had lower drop out rates than other CPS high schools and schools-within-schools.

Lakhman, 1999: Between 1988 and 1998, DeWitt Clinton high school developed 10 small schools. During that time, they reduced their dropout rate by 8.5% and increased their on-time graduation rate by almost 50%.

"In 1985, [Deborah] Meier [founded Central Park East Secondary School]Š with 550 students in grades seven through twelve. More than half of the students qualify for free lunches and the school has twice as many students with learning disabilities as the average New York public school. Despite these challenges, Central Park East has a graduation rate of 90 percent, compared to 55 percent citywide. Even more striking, between 85 and 95 percent of its graduates go on to college."
-Mitchell, 2000

Small Schools Improve Student Attendance

"The pattern of findings favoring small schools continues with the research on student attendance. Not only do students in smaller schools have higher attendance rates than those in large schools (Fowler 1995; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Gregory and Smith 1992; Howley 1994; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Walberg 1992), but students who change from large schools to small, alternative secondary schools generally exhibit improvements in attendance (Bates 1993; Duke and Perry 1978; McGanney, Mei, and Rosenblum 1989; Robinson-Lewis 1991; Rutter 1988). Again, the minority or low-SES student is the most profoundly affected."
- Kathleen Cotton, 1996

Center for Collaborative Education, 2001 (pg 11): Small schools in Boston attain a 93% attendance rate‹7% higher than other Boston Public Schools (BPSs) which only reach 86%.

Wasley, et al 2000 (pg 4): Small Schools increase student attendance across all types of small schools: schools-within-schools (SWS), freestanding small schools, and multi-school small schools.

Lakhman, 1999: DeWitt Clinton school raised their attendance by 17% and reduced their dropout rate by 8.5% by creating small schools.

A 1998 National Center for Education Statistics survey of elementary and secondary school Principals reported significantly better attendance among small schools than large schools.

Mobility
Mobility, a factor related to attendance, has also been shown to improve with the creation of small schools. Mobility measures the number of students who transfer from school to school. Although mobility can sometimes simply reflect family movement, it can also indicate dissatisfaction with a school.

Boston, 2000 (pg 16/17): The percentage of students who transfer within the same district from small schools in Boston is 3.3%. All other BPSs experience a rate of 10.5% (difference of 7.2%).

Small Schools Improve Preparation for, and Matriculation into, Post-Secondary Options

"Some who have argued for large schools on grounds of curricular size and variety have also claimed that this alleged curricular superiority provides better preparation for college. Like the curriculum argument, the assertions about college readiness have been disproved by research. Six documents address the relative merits of large and small schools vis ŕ vis college-related variables-entrance examination scores, acceptance rates, attendance, grade point average, and completion. Five found small schools equal (Rogers 1987; Fowler 1992; Jewell 1989) or superior (Burke 1987; Swanson 1988) to large ones in their capacity to prepare students for college entrance and success." Kathleen Cotton, 1996

Ancess & Wichterle, 2001(pg 5): Students in small schools attend college at a significantly higher rate of 74.5% than the NYC average of schools overall, 58.1%.

Boston, 2001 (pg 35/36): CHECK NUMBERS The number of graduates who...

Funk, 1999 (pg 3): In Nebraska, college enrollment was 73% for students who attended small high schools as opposed to 64% for those who attended large high schools

Small Schools Improve Social Behavior: Violence and Alcohol/Drug Use

"The research linking school size to social behavior has investigated everything from truancy and classroom disruption to vandalism, aggressive behavior, theft, substance abuse, and gang participation. This research shows that small schools have lower incidences of negative social behavior, however measured, than do large schools (Burke 1987; Duke and Perry 1978; Gottfredson 1985; Gregory 1992; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Rutter 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992). The social behavior of ethnic minority and low-SES students is even more positively impacted by small schools than that of other students." -Kathleen Cotton, 1996

Blum et al, 2002 (pg 4-5,11): In an analysis done by the Center for Adolescent Health and Development at University of Minnesota on results drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the researchers...

"learned that school connectedness is a powerful protective factor. Their research showed that students who feel connected to school:
• Are less likely to use alcohol and illegal drugs
• Are less likely to engage in violent or deviant behavior
• Are less likely to become pregnant
• Are less likely to experience emotional distress...

The optimal school size for increasing school connectedness is under 600 students. In small schools, teachers and school leaders can personally connect with most students, an impossible feat in a large school."

For specific data charts, please visit http://allaboutkids.umn.edu/kdwbvfc/fr_pub.htm.

Center for Collaborative Education, 2001 (pg 19): For the school year 2000-1, small schools in Boston had only .83% (8.3 out of 1,000) students who were suspended. All other BPSs had a 10.6% rate (10 out of 100) of students who were suspended.

Gregory, 2000 (pg 6): "In urban schools with less than 300 students, 3.9% of the schools reported serious violent incidents compared with 32.9% of schools over 1,000 students."

A 1998 National Center for Education Statistics survey of elementary and secondary school Principals reported significantly fewer incidents of violence in small schools than large schools. (pg 25)

As well, this survey reported significantly fewer incidents of alcohol and drug use in small schools than large schools.

"Not surprisingly, one of the immediate results of small-school restructuring is a reduction in violent or disruptive behavior on the part of students. Small schools teachers report a reduction in the number and seriousness of disciplinary infractions, which may be attributed to greater sense of ownership of school by children." -Michael and Susan Klonsky

Small Schools have Increased Parental Involvement

"The higher rates of parent involvement in smaller schools/units is frequently cited as a major positive influence on student achievement and attitudes (e.g., Berlin and Cienkus 1989; Burke 1987; Raze 1985; Walberg 1992)." -Kathleen Cotton, 1996

Cotton, 1996 (pg 17): Parents of small school students have a greater involvement than their counterparts in large schools. The parent-teacher communication process is much more meaningful when both are acquainted with the child. (as they are in small schools). "Parents feel more welcome in small schools than in less bureaucratic, large schools."

Extra-curricular Participation is Increased in Small schools

"As Barker and Gump first noted in their 1964 study, levels of extracurricular participation are significantly higher in small schools than in large ones (Burke 1987; Cawelti 1993; Foster and Martinez 1985; Fowler 1995; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Grabe 1981; Hamilton 1993; Holland and Andre 1991; Howley 1996; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Pittman and Haughwout 1987; Rogers 1987; Schoggen and Schoggen 1988; Smith and DeYoung 1988; Stockard and Mayberry 1992; Walberg 1992). These researchers have also found that students in small schools are involved in a greater variety of activities and that they derive more satisfaction from their participation than students in large schools." -Kathleen Cotton, 1996.

"In a school of 2,000 students, only the most talented will be recruited for the basketball team or the drama club. The result is that a small number of gifted students dominate the sports and activity rosters, while the vast majority are relegated to spectator status. In small schools, sports teams, musical groups and clubs depend on broader participation.

The number of extracurricular opportunities does increase with school size. But a twentyfold increase in population produces only a fivefold increase in opportunities. That is, as the school expands, an increasingly smaller percentage of students are needed to fill the available slots." Mitchell, 2000

REFERENCES

Ancess, J., and Wichterle, S.W., How the Coalition Campus Schools Have Reimagined High School: Seven Years Later. Executive Summary. New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1999.

Blum, R.W., The Untapped Power of Schools to Improve the Health of Teens. Minnesota: Center for Adolescent Health and Development, University of Minnesota, 2002

Center for Collaborative Education. How Are The Boston Schools Faring? An Analysis of Student Demographics, Engagement, and Performance. Boston, MA: Center for Collaborative Education, 2001. Available: http://www.ccebos.org/pubslinks.html

Cotton, K. New Small Learning Communities: Findings From Recent Literature. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2001. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/nslc.pdf

Cushman, K. How Small Schools Increase Student Learning (and What Large Schools Can Do About It)NAESP-Principal Magazine (November 1999). Available: http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=103

Duke, D.L., and Trautvetter, S. Reducing the Negative Effects of Large Schools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2001. Available: http://www.edfacilities.org/ir/ncefpubs/size.pdf

Funk, P. ; Bailey, J. Small Schools, Big Results: Nebraska High School Completion and Postsecondary Enrollment Rates by Size of School District Center for Rural Affairs (September 1999): Available: http://www.cfra.org/resources/Publications/small_schools_big_results.htm

Gregory, T. School Reform and the No-Man's Land of High School Size. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, December 2000. Available: http://www.smallschoolsproject.org/PDFS/gregory.pdf

Hendrie, C. Reading Scores Surge at Small N.Y.C Schools Report Roundup Education Week (March 24, 1999). Available: http://www.edweek.com/ew/1999/28report.h18

Klonsky, S. and Klonsky, M. "Countering Anonymity Through Small Schools." Educational Leadership 57/1, (September 1999): pp. 38-41

Lakhman, M. "Fs to As in the Bronx." New York Times, (March 14, 1999): p. 3

Mitchell, S. "Jack and the Giant School." The New Rules 2/1 (Summer 2000): 1-10. Available: http://www.newrules.org/journal/nrsum00schools.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1998. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98030.pdf

Raywid, M. Synthesis of Research Small Schools: A Reform That Works 55/4 (December 1997/ January 1998). Available: http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/199712/raywid.html

Texas Education Agency. School Size and Class Size in Texas Public Schools Policy Research Report Number 12. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency, Division of Policy Planning and Evaluation, 1999.

Viadero, D. Research: Smaller Is Better. Education Week (November 28, 2001,).

Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., & Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools: Great strides‹A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education. Available: http://www.bankstreet.edu/gems/publications/smallschools.pdf

Wasley, P.A., and Lear, R.J. "Small Schools, Real Gains." Educational Leadership58/6 (March 2001): 22-27. Available: http://www.smallschoolsproject.org/PDFS/realgains.pdf

"The framework for traditional high schools is pyramid-shaped with administrators on top, teachers somewhere down the list and children at the bottom. I see this school [Best Practice] as more square-shaped. Teachers and personnel support kids at the top. We're down here helping make decisions but there's a direct connection with the students. There's no different levels you have to go through. I think that helps."
- Arthur Griffin, teacher, Best Practice

All Content © 2003, Chicago Public Schools, OTS eSystems