Effects of Student Body Size on School Costs and Academic Performance in Mississippi High Schools

¶ … Student Body Size on School Costs and Academic Performance in Mississippi High Schools

One of the most heated point of contention within school districts currently is the variable effects of school size, school funding and student performance. There are costs and benefits associated with school size and especially class size and those issues effect school funding, as it is largely accepted that less schools, therefore larger schools equals less cost overall. Yet, the concern in any district is the trade off associated with increasing the size of the student body and therefore almost assuredly increasing the class size and the student to teacher ratio.

The decade of the 1980s saw a massive effort on the part of state governments to reform their educational systems. Although most efforts such as decreasing student-teacher ratios or increasing teacher salaries had little impact on student performance, three variables that are under the control of state education agencies are related to performance - compulsory education laws, school size, and long-term educational funding.

Smith and Meier)

The education system within the United States has been is driven by the economy as tax revenue is the major source of school funding. "To some degree the picture will be affected by the economy of the country. If it takes a serious downturn, school districts will increase class size, eliminate some subject areas, and hire fewer new teachers."

Maloy and Seidman 18) Additionally the education system has been in a constant state of flux, while educators and lawmakers alike attempt to improve upon a system that's image fluxuates almost as much as policy.

Ironically, at a time when job prospects seem to be the most positive they have been in two decades, teaching and teacher education, are under attack. In the 1950s the former Soviet Union's launching of Sputnik created a crisis in confidence in United States schooling. In 1983 the report entitled A Nation at Risk declared a crisis in American schools. In fact, for the entire twentieth century, the field of education has been in the throes of one reform or another.

(Maloy and Seidman 18)

Like most states Mississippi began an extensive reform movement within its school districts. With the 1985 legislation that implemented the Onward to Excellence school improvement process has come greater recognition of the needs of the schools in Mississippi. Through the implementation of the programs associated with the goals and the corporate partnerships offered by a few large local employers individual schools have had the opportunity to really look at just what needs to be done to improve outcomes for students. What has been realized is that by 1996 the success of the implementation of the OTE excellence program is marginal at best. (Kushman 1999)

Though this was clearly only a preliminary study designed to assess the continuing needs of schools to assist implementation, basically to see what worked and what did not marginal success was the best observation that could be made. (Kushman 1999) What the researchers found is that fundamental change is difficult and now with increasing pressures to implement even more change through mandated budget constraints the system is in even greater danger than it was just a few years ago. The development of these new mandates, though necessary part of the running of a school system go against the fundamentals of the OTE program.

State and district curricular mandates often drove school reform more than did the actions of OTE leadership teams. Whereas mandates are a reality in any state or district, they sometimes leave leadership teams little else to do except to figure out how to make the new changes fit. When this happens, the intent of OTE as a site-based decision-making process is lost. OTE becomes a way to manage change from the outside rather than a proactive process to develop goals and action plans through shared decision making. (Kushman 1999) frustrating reality of school change is that advances are often curbed by outside influences including changes in curricular standards and also funding and allocation allotments. Making the process of wide scale change seem like an exercise in two steps forward and one step back. "The last several decades have also witnessed a massive school district consolidation effort as small and rural school districts were merged to form larger districts (Meyer, Scott, and Strang, 1987; 189). As part of consolidation, schools often become larger. "

Smith and Meier) Smith and Meier go on to express that though school size is being increased smaller schools are at the same time being recognized for their advantages.

Although there probably are economies of scale in education, small schools have some distinct advantages over larger schools. As Chubb and Moe (1990) would argue, a smaller school is likely to serve a smaller, more homogeneous area. It should be more able to adjust teaching methods to the specific education problems that the school faces. Systems with smaller schools, therefore, should be positively related to student performance.(13)

(Smith and Meier)

The Mississippi schools are not alone in their quest to find an answer to this growing question. A review of current literature may assist educators in a greater understanding of the inherent problems and solutions offered for both increasing school size and decreasing or maintaining current status. Though it is also clear that a consensus has yet to be met and many researchers call for more information. (Andrews, Duncombe, Yinger, 2002) In 1965 a large regional survey assessed the major problems associated with southern high schools and their findings resulted in a major pull toward consolidation of high schools. (Vance et al. 1965) The results of that survey are as follows:

1) nearly all teachers in the South hold a bachelor's degree and 25% hold a master's degree or above; (2) more than 50% of all high school classes in each of the 11 states can be classified as either too small or too large; and (3) the majority of southern high school youth attend schools which offer an inadequate program of courses. A major conclusion is that the prevalence of small high schools constitutes the most serious obstacle to quality education and equal educational opportunity in southern secondary schools. (Vance et al. 1965)

The problem today lies in assessing the current conditions and determining if this trend that began in the 1960s went to far and if a new plan of action including the advancement of information and communication technology and better networking could provide better results in smaller schools. This analysis will assess the current state of information on the interrelated issues of student body size, school costs, and academic performance.

A short summary of the conclusive evident found within the literature that follows will show that there is a growing trend to determine just what the best size is for secondary schools. The overwhelming evidence is in favor of smaller schools that incorporate the use of many interdisciplinary tools and use careful coordination to ensure that diversity remains within the school curriculum.

Researchers from all over the spectrum are searching for ways to determine the best possible results for all students with the compulsory education system and the focal point could just be the very question we are asking today: How much does school size effect the cost and student success.

Review of the Literature

Within the literature today investigators are questioning the validity of the arguments for both increased student body size and the immediate financial savings that it can offer financially strained school systems. Through an analysis conducted in collaboration between Mississippi State University and the Mississippi State, Bureau of Educational Research a direct correlation between cost and actual measurable success was shown:

Using detailed cost breakdowns, this study attempts to determine the extent to which achievement of fourth- and eighth-grade students can be predicted from educational costs and school district size, and what combination of these variables and socioeconomic status best predicts student achievement (as measured by 1980-81 California Achievement Test scores in 152 school districts in a Southeastern state). (Amos & Moody 1982)

Through the use of the standardized testing tool of the California Achievement Test scores, offered at the fourth and eight grade levels the authors attempted to break down and separate all the factors associated with the interplay between student success and school financial output. "The findings indicate that costs of instruction are significantly related to student achievement. The authors conclude, however, that the cost of supporting a given level of achievement in low-income populations is quite high, and that mathematics concepts and applications scores are higher in large school districts due to greater teacher specialization in those districts." (Amos & Moody 1982) Though there has been a clear historical connection between cost, size and student achievement within districts and even individual schools the benefits ratio for older students has been neglected and is in need of much further study.

One way to determine the success of students in an older age range is correlating student success with the statistics that garner college enrolment within a given school or district. Where the more graduating seniors that enter college after graduation is a recognized factor of the success of both the individual student and the school from which he or she came. Though college attendance rates have long been a tool used to asses the success of programs supporting or dealing with large numbers of students at risk fro academic failure it is also a good indicator of the general success of a school. (Fashola, & Slavin 1998)

It was recognized twenty years ago that there is not enough evidence to suggest that consolidating schools is a good idea, "There is no strong empirical base to support the assumptions and assertions of school and district consolidation advocates. This article reviews and analyzes this body of evidence and discusses why consolidation has been so popular even in the absence of solid and reliable supporting evidence." (Sher & Tompkins 1977)

Through some rather simple detective work education administrators, state and local school boards, superintendents of schools and even voters can find the bottom line answers to the cost benefits of having one large high school as apposed to several smaller ones yet, what they also must do is understand the benefit vs. cost ratio for the students themselves. "Two basic reasons for concern over classroom size are the desire to optimize learning conditions and the tremendous impact of class size on school finances." (Varner 2003) "The discussion about the optimal size of high schools is often cast along these same lines: specialization vs. humanization. (Often too, a third consideration is introduced: the economies of scale. That is, one large school can operate more cheaply than can two smaller ones.)

Bracey 406)

The current trend in the United States has been surrounding the reduction of class size within elementary and middle school levels leaving the high schools to fend for themselves and even occasionally take the fall, or increase size and student teacher ratio based on the documented statistical need for lower class sizes in the lower grades. "[A] growing body of evidence relating small school size at elementary and middle grades to positive student outcomes. [Erb] Notes that positive outcomes associated with small size relate to teacher commitment and effectiveness as well as student attachment, persistence, and performance...smaller, more intimate schools are better schools." (Erb 2001) It is even clear through the analysis of recent literature that class size makes a difference not only among school aged children from five to eighteen but among students enrolled in college and post graduate work. (Toth and Montagna 2002)

Though some advocates do suggest that a reduction in school size is necessary even at the high school level they also make clear that the popular school within a school model has been the most prevalent but not necessarily the best model.

In the past 30 years, research has suggested the need for much smaller high schools. In response, some administrators have attempted to subdivide big high schools into smaller entities. This digest reviews recent research on the movement to break up large schools and discusses five types of error common to such attempts -- errors of autonomy, size, continuity, time, and control. Large high schools have frequently been broken up into schools within a school (SWAS) serving 200-500 students. (Gregory 2003)

Opponents of the school within a school model suggest many ways that this model is in err, "...this strategy attempts to personalize the familiar comprehensive high school, but characteristics built into the design of most breakup efforts make it impossible for the SWAS to develop a small-school culture. (Gregory 2003) Gregory goes on to detail the five most common mistakes made by districts when they attempt to break up larger schools into internalized smaller ones, with their own student body, activities, administration and work environment.

Five common errors bar many schools from crossing the big/small cultural divide: (1) longstanding big-school traditions and overarching functions undermine SWAS efforts to build their own identities; (2) SWAS are planned to be large enough to have individual principals, but this size ensures that the faculty will be too big to socially construct the vision of the new, small school; (3) specialized programs and experiences segregate younger students from older ones and create more transitions for student to accomplish; (4) traditional schedules prevent a personalized, spontaneous response to an unexpected learning opportunity; and (5) the big building that houses multiple SWAS continues the old control issues of the big school. (Gregory 2003)

Though the school within a school model has been tried on a large scale, and especially within urban school districts the reality of the experiment is still largely in question and the system needs much more work in order to meet the needs of the student population.

Another important argument in favor of reducing the overall number of high schools and increasing the student load is curricular diversity. In theory it is agreed that the larger a school is the more diverse it will be, in both student body and curriculum. Yet, new research is leading to the conclusion that this long held belief is but a myth and that larger schools may offer more curricular offerings but that smaller schools can and have been able to make up the difference and provide diverse programming.

One third of public U.S. high schools enroll fewer than 400 students. Small high schools are challenged to maintain a broad curriculum with diverse course offerings. However, this digest demonstrates that many small schools provide curricula and programs comparable in quality to those of larger schools. (Roellke 1996)

Owing to the number of smaller high schools that are in use in the United States the research is imperative as more and more districts opt for changes that effect school size and attempt to consolidate programs into centralized and often impersonal schools, for the simple goal of increasing fund allocation and decreasing school overhead. Using older statistical models these districts often sight findings that associate diversity with success. Newer research indicates however that success can and is being met in smaller schools with smaller student teacher ratios.

Research findings include: (1) core curricular offerings in small high schools are well aligned with national goals and comparable to those in large schools; (2) smaller high schools have lower availability of advanced courses, but large size guarantees neither such offerings nor high enrollments in them; (3) larger schools offer a broader array of courses in occupational and technical education, but smaller schools offer more favorable proportions of vocational offerings per student; (4) larger schools offer more special services to students with disabilities and special needs, although small schools may use shared programs and well focused curricula in this area; and (5) smaller schools have fewer extracurricular activities but higher participation rates. (Roellke 1996)

Though Roellke clearly assesses the validity of the argument in favor for larger high schools' abilities to offer expanded services he also makes clear that this is not the only determining factor to success and smaller schools are using very innovative ways to improve curricular offerings and largely succeeding. "Small high schools are meeting pressures to expand curriculum opportunities through integrated curriculum, block scheduling, interdistrict sharing, and distance education." (Roellke 1996) Of the three curricular success components that Roellke identifies within his studies smaller schools meet them all through ingenuity. "Three curricular components are identified as common to successfully restructured instructional programs: common academic curriculum, high academic standards and expectations, and authentic instruction involving sustained critical thought." (Roellke 1996) Another researcher sited by Roellke makes clear that the factors associated with greater school success that can be found within smaller high schools are as follows "Deborah Meier, director of the innovative Central Park East Secondary School in East Harlem, has identified six central service delivery benefits associated with small-scale schooling (Meier, 1995): (1) feasibility of democratic practices; (2) collective accountability of faculty performance; (3) personal and individualized attention to student needs; (4) safe, orderly learning environments; (5) parental access to school leadership; and (6) connections between adult and student cultures. These features promote the development of a curriculum that is attentive and responsive to community and student needs." (Roellke 1996)

It is interesting that within the majority of districts with either large or small student loads some form of restructuring of schools is underway. Those in larger urban districts with failing schools are opting for a restructuring that offers a smaller school environment and all its benefits. While those in smaller rural districts, assailed with financial concerns associated with school cutbacks and an unsteady economy are opting for shared services that larger schools offer. It would seem that through the literature that administrators, educators, parents and taxpayers could asses the validity of both and determine a compromise that could possibly work as a model for change.

Not only does Roellke suggest that smaller schools are just as effective as larger schools on the issue of curriculum and that there are possibilities that can be offered only by smaller schools he also contends that smaller schools are the best trying ground for curricular improvement efforts. "Lower enrollments allow for such engaging and meaningful instructional practices, suggesting that small schools are ideal sites for curriculum reform efforts." (Roellke 1996) Roellke also stresses that some of the ways in which smaller high schools offer greater curricular diversity than they might have in the past is through the implementation of greater collaborative efforts and also the use of technological advances. Roellke is one of many researchers making the connection between school size and curricular diversity a less important factor through further investigation

Underpinning the debate on the desirable size of secondary schools is the assumption that larger schools are able to offer a more diverse curriculum and thereby provide greater equality of educational opportunity and outcomes. A detailed study of curriculum provision at Year 12 in Victoria showed that the positive relationship between school size and the number of distinct subjects offered was generalisable across 'mainstream' schools and all curriculum fields. But many small schools were able to offer a broad range of subjects, and the increase in diversity with school size was uneven across fields. Furthermore, evidence that students actually enrolled in the additional subjects offered in the larger schools was equivocal. (Elsworth, 1998)

Elsworth finds that not only are larger schools offering diversity in curriculum, but that smaller schools compete in a variety of productive ways. Additionally Elsworth goes farther that Roellke in the observation that even when diverse curricular offerings are apart of the system the student body under utilizes them.

The urban schools in New York can offer substantial advise to other states through the large scale changes they have been forced to make based on low achievement and high drop out rates.

In 1993, New York City tried a different way of changing failing schools. A large failing high school was closed, and in its place were created four small high schools, a small elementary school, an infant and toddler program, a day care center for children of adolescent parents, and a medical clinic. Over a period of 3 or 4 years the building was emptied; the students who were there as first-year students stayed on until they graduated, but there were no new-entry students into that high school. The students who would have gone to that school went to the new schools. (Hodgetts 1999)

This successful experiment in school restructuring is an example of the success that can be afforded the proper implementation of a school within a school model.

Initially, the new schools were not located in the big building. In time the large building was redesigned to house all the new schools and programs. The schools within the building are totally autonomous: they have their own curriculum, student body, parent group, faculty, and mission. A building council decides how to share certain common resources and draw on some of the benefits of numbers without experiencing the disadvantages of large schools. (Hodgetts 1999)

Within the schools success has largely been reached through ingenuity as the large building is utilized and some services are shared but the reality of future education and the ingenious transitional situation have led to measurable successes.

Students are exposed to adult conversation, mixed-aged grouping is utilized, and teachers are allowed to figure out what works. Pedagogy relies on conversation and seminars instead of conventional lectures. Twice a year there are projects involving all staff and students, and on certain days, students visit universities. Students learn to research and analyze issues and write papers on any subject. Ninety-four percent of students go on to college. (Hodgetts 1999)

The credited success for this arrangement lies in the idea that the transition from one format another took place over time and the inception of each separate school took place in another location, affording each independent institution to become autonomous through their own routes.

This example is clearly not the only one offered to the researcher as several larger cities are becoming part of an ever increasing list of districts to offer smaller school alternatives to its students. "Several major cities -- New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, among them -- have a significant investment in school downsizing, through strong professional and reformer support, and through financial support from private foundations and partnerships with non-profit organizations which are convinced that small schools are essential to urban education improvement." (Raywid 1996) Though the movement is relatively new: "Over the last 30 years research and experience have suggested that students benefit in many different ways from attending small schools, as opposed to large ones.." (Raywid 1996) Even legal reformers are conscious of the proposed need for change yet, the actual physical trend of school building reflect population growth and consolidation rather than reduction in size. "Many existing schools, however, and even most under construction, can accommodate 2,000-4,000 students. While educators may disagree about the right school size, they recommend that the schools serve between 100 and 1,000 students." (Raywid 1996)

The failure of the school within the school offerings that were noted by Gregory above may in a large part be due to the difficulty of change from one structure to another drastically different one while still sharing the same location. The potential for falling back upon old models and support structures within the old network of the institution is greater in one location than it would be if given the separate identity from the start and then the challenge to integrate only space and a few services becomes the responsibility of each independent institution.

School reformers throughout most of this century have attempted to create larger and more efficient schools, likening the "laws" of school administration to the "laws" of efficient industrial and agricultural production. Thus metropolitan America and the metropolitan model of schooling attacked a fundamental assumption of rural schools: that they were valued as cultural centers of the community, not just as sites for teaching the young.

Deyoung and Lawrence)

Though rural schools are at a clear disadvantage for many reasons there are answers being offered. Rural districts may find value from this idea in that a consolidation of schools might not necessarily have to lead to one large school but could rather lead to a school with in a school model. Each school would maintain its own separate identity and most of the faculty while still sharing those foundational things that save the district time money and resources. Having the advantage of inception in a separate facility and the value of often years and years of cohesive history could offer these rural schools a distinct advantage in maintaining small school structure, with all its proven benefits while still saving the taxpayers money.

Some studies have shown that larger class size can be detrimental to the student body on several levels but mostly a social scale.

The high schools were designed to hold about 2,500 students comfortably, and one of them actually peaked at an enrollment of about 3,600. When I conducted follow-up surveys of the graduates of these schools, the number-one complaint they reported about their high school experiences was that they hated the anonymity of the large schools. Some said they felt "dehumanized."

Bracey 406)

Given the trend to continue to build high schools in this large scale many people are confused about the motivation of the school systems and would like to question just what their real bottom line is.