Research Supports Small School Units
(Excerpts from US. Department of Education reports)

 

We have confirmed [the positive effects of small schools] with clarity and at a level of confidence rare in the annals of education research.

• Mary Anne Raywid, Current Literature on Small Schools.

Small Learning Communities' research has indicated some of the following outcomes:

• Students in small schools or groups of 500 or less achieve at higher levels than those in larger schools.
• Equitable academic achievement across ethnicity and socioeconomic background
• A sense of affiliation and belonging. Students and teachers come to know and care about one another in a way that is difficult to achieve in a larger school setting.
• Negative social behavior is less common in smaller learning communities.
• Student attendance and graduation rates increase.
• Students are more motivated when they see the connection between learning and earning.

Academic Outcomes:

Smaller schools support academic achievement.  Students’ academic achievement in small schools is equal to or higher than their achievement in larger schools.  The findings on academic achievement are equally divided; approximately half the studies show that students do equally as well in small schools as in larger ones; while the other half finds students in small schools do better on measures such as school grades, test scores, honor roll membership, subject-area achievement, and higher-order thinking skills assessments (Cotton, 1996).

Smaller schools promote academic equity.  Small schools help close the achievement gap between students from higher income, mostly white and Asian families and students from lower-income, mostly African American and Hispanic families (Klonsky, 1998).  For ethnic minority students and students of low socioeconomic status, the effects of small schools are especially positive, helping reduce the damaging effects of poverty on student achievement; conversely, large schools have an especially negative impact on those students relative to all students (Cotton, 1996; Howley and Bickel, 2000).

Smaller schools prepare students for the future.  Students from small high schools do as well or better on college-related variables—such as entrance examination scores, acceptance rates, attendance, grade point average, and completion—as students from large schools (Cotton 2000). Additionally, many smaller school structures focus on career-focused curricula.

The block scheduling that is increasingly used in schools-within-schools supports small learning communities, interdisciplinary teaming, and career-centered curricula because it enables teams to adjust schedules.  Recent studies have found that students in block-scheduled schools score higher on standardized subject tests than comparable students in non-block-scheduled schools, and that block scheduling helps increase on-time graduation rates, college attendance, and improved test scores.  Because block scheduling causes students to spend less time in the halls, it also contributes to reductions in discipline referrals and class tardiness (Legters, 1999).

Career academies are especially beneficial for students at high risk of failure, according to a study that examined the extent to which career academies affected students’ engagement, performance, achievement during high school, and the extent to which they prepared students for the transition to college and work.  

The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation’s career academies evaluation (Kemple and Snipes, 2000) confirms that career academies reduce dropout rates, increase credits earned toward graduation, and increase preparation for college among students with a high likelihood of dropping out of high school. The students considered at lower risk also benefit (although not as dramatically as high-risk students), with an increased likelihood of earning enough credits to graduate and completing more career-related courses and work-based learning activities without reducing their academic courses. Students at medium risk of school failure benefited from career academies when the school-within-a-school was most separate from the larger school and when they had access to large increases in interpersonal supports, suggesting that career academies’ small-school features may be as potent a factor as their career focus. 

Attendance is higher and dropout rates lower in smaller schools. Smaller schools have higher attendance rates than larger schools, and attendance improves for individual students who transfer from large to smaller schools. Small schools have a relatively greater effect on the attendance of minority and low socioeconomic status students and have lower dropout rates and higher graduation rates than large schools; states with the largest schools and school districts have the highest dropout rates (Cotton, 1996).

Smaller schools provide challenging curricula. The increased variety of courses that larger schools can support tends to include a broader range of introductory courses in non-core areas rather than higher-level courses in, for example, math or foreign languages.  Also, only a small percentage of students take advantage of the extra courses in large schools (Cotton, 1996).  A high school of 400 can offer a curriculum comparable in breadth and depth to that of a much larger school (Monk, 1987), especially when supplemented with distance learning and other technologies.

Affective Outcomes Contributing to Academic Achievement:

Student attitudes and behaviors are more positive in smaller schools, with minority and low socioeconomic status students most profoundly affected.  Multiple studies have associated small schools with students’ positive attitudes toward school, as well as with lower incidences of negative social behaviors such as truancy, classroom disruption, vandalism, aggressive behavior, theft, substance abuse, and gang participation (Cotton, 1996).

One study of high school violence concluded that the first step in reducing school violence is personalizing large schools by creating smaller communities to combat anonymity (Toby, 1993, as cited in Klonsky, 1998). Along the same lines, Cornell University Family Life Development Center’s director, James Garbarino, listed smaller high schools as his first recommendation for reducing violence among adolescents (Klonsky, 1998).

Extracurricular participation rates are higher in smaller schools.  Students in small schools participate in extracurricular activities to a greater extent and in a wider variety, than in large schools (Cotton, 1996). This is doubly significant because extracurricular participation is associated with other desirable outcomes, such as positive attitudes and positive social behavior. Students in small schools generally enjoy participating in extracurricular activities more than students in large schools because their participation is valued more when there is a smaller pool of potential participants.

Smaller schools reduce alienation.  Small schools foster a sense of belonging and minimize student alienation. This is especially important because students who feel alienated from their school environment tend to lack confidence, self-esteem, and responsibility for self-direction.  Alienated students also participate less in extracurricular activities (Cotton, 1996).

Smaller learning communities benefit students, teachers, and parents by making effective communication easier, offering opportunities for collaboration, and encouraging meaningful relationships between students and adults.  Research confirms that smaller schools are more productive and safer because they can address students’ needs more personally, reducing feelings of alienation, and connecting students with caring adults. All of these conditions create an environment that contributes to positive student outcomes: higher student achievement, improved attendance and graduation rates, and reduced violence and disruptive behavior.

Leading analysts who have reviewed the large body of quantitative research on small schools agree that there is an impressive degree of support for smallness (e.g., Cotton, 1996 and 2000; Raywid, 1996; 1999; Klonsky, 1998). Indeed, empirical support or justification for the large high school is rare, and those few studies that cite positive benefits of large schools for some students find those benefits outweighed by the disadvantages of large schools for many others (Raywid, 1999).

In her comprehensive review of literature relating school size to other factors, Cotton (1996) found that, for students of all achievement levels and in all kinds of settings, small schools have proven superior to large schools on most measures of student performance and school climate.  That same year, Raywid’s analysis (1996) yielded similar findings:

…Reducing the size of schools can increase student participation, reduce dropout rates, improve academic achievement, and enhance teacher efficacy…. Downsizing stimulates the move toward personalized “communal” schools, which result in independent benefits with respect to enhancing student engagement and achievement…. School downsizing efforts may be necessary to restore the conditions human beings need in order to thrive: to function as engaged and committed agents in their own and others’ education. Finally … downsizing may be necessary to schools’ ability to effectively initiate the changes essential to improvement.  While downsizing provides no guarantee that these other changes will follow, it may be a crucial step toward launching them.

Major impacts associated with small schools are divided into academic and affective outcomes and are summarized below.

Locally LAUSD has many examples of academies and magnets that have shown outstanding improvements in student achievement such as higher college going rates, lower drop out rates and overall better student motivation toward school (see exhibit titled (School-to-Career Works as one example).