----

##  Research about School Size and School Performance in Impoverished               Communities. ERIC Digest.                                                    

Many panels and experts have endorsed small schools as educationally            effective, often adding the parenthetical remark that smaller size              is especially beneficial for impoverished students. A recent series             of studies, the "Matthew Project," substantially strengthens the                research base on school size and school performance in impoverished             communities, adding evidence to bolster these claims. This Digest               reviews recent thinking about small school size, describes the aim              of the Matthew Project studies, and summarizes findings. Discussion             concludes with a brief section on implications. REPORTED BENEFITS             OF SMALLER SCHOOL SIZESince the mid-1990s, there have been                  efforts to summarize key findings of recent research on school size.            In 1994, Howley focused on influences related to achievement and                attainment (e.g., high school dropout rates), and noted  evidence               that smaller size seemed to improve the performance of schools                  serving impoverished communities. He also noted that several                    structural features of schooling had been reported to bear on the               issue of size: grade-span configuration (the number of grades in a              building), educational level (elementary vs. secondary),                        sector (private vs. public), location (rural vs. urban), and                    curricular focus (comprehensive vs. special purpose) (1). 
Both                Irmsher's and Raywid's research reviews, by contrast, summarized the            influence on a wider range of outcomes, with each author concluding             that a preponderance of evidence favored smaller size nearly                    universally. Raywid's summary pays particular attention to the                  policy issue of how large "small" should be. In brief, the upper                limit of "small" had (as of 1997) been set at 350 for elementary                schools and 900 for high schools. 
Interestingly, Howley (1994)                pointed out that studies based on "outcomes" (e.g., achievement,                completion rates, attendance) recommend smaller size than those                 based on "inputs" (e.g., teacher salaries, instructional materials,             specialized staffing) and Raywid (1999) observes that studies based             on the value of "community" recommend sizes smaller than those based            on "outcomes." Thus, researchers and policy analysts who are most               concerned with "community" (Sergiovanni, 1994) will tend to                     recommend the smallest schools for nearly everyone; those concerned             with outcomes will advise small schools but only for a portion of               the population; and those most concerned with inputs will recommend             schools that are larger than those recommended by other                         researchers. THE MATTHEW PROJECTSchools grew dramatically                 larger during the course of the twentieth century, and a huge                   professional literature that addresses school size now exists. But a            surprisingly small proportion of this literature constitutes                    the "research" base on school size, and comparatively few studies               address the interaction of school size and poverty as a major                   concern. Only 22 research reports--during the whole period from 1966            to 2000--define school size, socioeconomic status (SES), and                    school-size issues as an important focus of investigation. Within               this literature, however, the studies related to the Matthew Project            are the only ones that pursue the issue systematically across                   multiple replications. In fact, the summaries of the literature                 cited above rely mostly on the early work in the Matthew Project in             making the judgement that smaller size is "especially" beneficial               for at-risk students. 
Lee and Smith's 1996 study of high school               size is frequently cited in reviews of the school-size literature,              and their findings are consistent with those reported in the Matthew            Project. Typically poverty exerts a strong negative influence on                achievement. In schools with fewer than 301 students, they found                that influence was sharply reduced. They also found that aggregate              achievement (with all else being equal) was highest in high schools             enrolling 601-900 students (grades 9-12). The Matthew Project                   studies take a somewhat different view of optimal size, concluding              instead that optimal size is contingent on community SES, following             the basic principle that the poorer the community, the smaller the              schools should be. 
The Matthew Project (2) was inspired by the                work of Noah Friedkin and Juan Necochea (1988). Their study, carried            out with California data describing school performance at four grade            levels, concluded that smaller school size benefitted school                    performance in impoverished communities, but that larger size                   benefitted school performance in affluent communities. Howley (1996)            conducted the first faithful replication of the 1988 study, using               West Virginia data, with results much like those obtained by                    Friedkin and Necochea. The Matthew Project subsequently conducted               four additional replications (Howley & Bickel, 1999). Together the              seven states in which related studies have been conducted (AK,(3)               CA, GA, OH, MT, TX, WV) reflect the range of schooling conditions in            the United States: ethnicity, locale, poverty, region, and school               district organization. 
This series of related studies is important            because replication is one time-honored method of validating                    research findings. Most studies in education, in fact, have dubious             validity because they are seldom replicated. For this reason, these             studies constitute an almost unique and particularly useful series              in the research literature on school size. It is the only series of             studies that focuses on the hypothesis that size mitigates the                  influence of poverty. MATTHEW PROJECT FINDINGSThe Matthew                 Project investigated the possible academic "excellence" and "equity"            effects of school size in Montana, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas at                  different levels of school socioeconomic status (Howley & Bickel,               1999). Achievement test scores analyzed for each state were those               required by the state education agency (SEA). The studies included              virtually every school in each state studied. 
Excellence was                  measured in terms of "effect size" at varying levels of school                  socioeconomic status. Effect size is simply the ratio of an existing            difference in terms of standard deviation units. An effect size                 of +0.5 is a substantial positive difference, meaning that larger               school size would be predicted to "increase" achievement. An effect             size of -0.5 is a substantial negative difference, meaning that                 larger school size would likely "decrease" achievement. 
Equity was            measured by dividing the schools in a given state into two                      groups--smaller schools vs. larger schools divided at the median of             size. Then, the researchers computed the correlations between                   achievement and socioeconomic status within the groups. In one                  study (Bickel & Howley, 2000), there were, however, four groups:                smaller schools within smaller districts, smaller schools within                larger districts, larger schools within smaller districts, and                  larger schools within larger districts. 
Excellence                            effects. 
Excellence effects of size varied substantially by state,            but like Friedkin and Necochea (1988) and Howley (1996), the Matthew            Project studies found that the influence of size varied by SES                  level, with size exerting a negative influence on achievement in                impoverished schools, but a positive influence on achievement in                affluent schools. That is, all else equal, larger school size                   benefits achievement in affluent communities, but it is detrimental             in impoverished communities. The practical import of the excellence             findings can be translated as follows (Howley & Bickel, 1999): 
In             Ohio: 
Between 41 and 90 percent of schools (depending on grade                level tested) would likely produce "lower" average scores if the                schools were larger, or (in these schools) higher scores if they                were smaller. At the ninth grade level, 90 percent of schools are               too big to maximize achievement. These schools serve 89 percent of              Ohio's ninth graders. 
In Texas: 
Between 26 and 57 percent of                schools (depending on grade level tested) would likely produce lower            average student scores if the schools were larger, or higher scores             if smaller. At the 10th grade level, 57 percent of the schools are              too big to maximize achievement. These schools serve almost half (46            percent) of Texas' 10th graders. 
In Georgia: 
Between 36 and 68              percent of the schools (depending on grade level tested) would                  likely produce lower scores if the schools were larger, or higher               scores if the schools were smaller. At the eighth grade level, 52               percent of the schools serving 48 percent of the students are too               big to maximize achievement. The percentage of schools "at risk" in             this way (i.e., too large to maximize achievement) is even greater              at the elementary level. 
In Montana: 
In Montana there is only               weak evidence that the effect of school size on the average academic            achievement of students depends on the level of poverty among the               students in the school. The effect was statistically significant                only in grade 4. Montana's unique results are probably due to the               fact that its schools are more uniformly small and income is more               evenly distributed than in any of the other three states. 
Equity              effects. 
While the excellence effects are substantial but varied              in strength, the "equity effects" are remarkably strong and                     consistent from state to state. They show that in smaller schools,              regardless of state, the relationship between achievement and SES is            substantially weaker in the smaller schools than in the larger                  schools. The dividing line between "smaller" and "larger" in these              studies varies from state to state, as median size varies by grade              level tested and by state. 
In all four states, smaller schools cut            the variance in achievement associated with SES by between 20 and 70            percent, and usually by 30-50 percent, depending on grade level. In             Georgia, Ohio, and Texas, smaller schools reduce the negative effect            of poverty on average student achievement in every grade tested. In             Montana, smaller schools significantly cut poverty's effect in two              of the three grades tested. POLICY IMPLICATIONSA great deal of            effort has been directed to breaking the bond between poverty and               school achievement since the late 1960s, but with depressingly                  little benefit. Yet, findings from the Matthew Project clearly imply            small schools help to thwart threats that poverty imposes on school             performance. Many state accountability systems, of course, monitor              school performance, though no SEAs have yet acknowledged that large             size further handicaps improvement efforts in impoverished                      communities. However, the Florida legislature recently imposed upper            limits on school size (to take effect two years hence), and in                  California, the Gates Family Foundation has sponsored a multimillion            dollar initiative to create new small schools. According to the                 Matthew Project findings, it would be important for such efforts to             focus on creating new small schools in impoverished                             communities 
People who assert that "all schools be small schools"             have other values in mind than merely improving achievement; and                providing smaller schools in very affluent communities could well               prove to be counterproductive in terms of achievement. Even in                  affluent communities, however, schools serving 1,500 or more                    students might have diseconomies of scale and bureaucratic operating            modes that are not educationally hospitable. Indeed, a wide                     consensus seems to have emerged (cf. Fulton, 1996) that schools                 larger than 1,000 are unwise choices for any community. The                     consensus clearly suggests that schools in impoverished communities             should be much, much smaller. 
(1) For instance, schools of                    differing grade-span configuration but the same enrollment are not              really the same size in terms of their impacts on students; the one             with fewer grades is larger. Elementary schools are generally                   smaller than high schools (with grade-span controlled), and private             schools are generally substantially smaller than public schools.                Comprehensive high schools are generally larger than special-purpose            schools. 
(2) Sponsored by the Rural School and Community Trust.               For details about findings and methodology consult                              http://www.ruraledu.org/matthew.html. 
(3) This includes a study by            Huang and Howley (1993). REFERENCESBickel, R., & Howley,                  C. (2000). The influence of scale on school performance: A                      multi-level extension of the Matthew principle. Education Policy                Analysis Archives, 8(22).                                                       http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n22/ 
Friedkin, N., & Necochea,                  J. (1988). School system size and performance: A contingency                    perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(3),                 237-49. 
Fulton, M. (1996). The ABC's of investing in student                  performance. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the                            States. 
Howley, C. (1996). Compounding disadvantage: The effects              of school and district size on student achievement in West Virginia.            Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12(1), 25-32. 
Howley,                 C. (1994). The academic effectiveness of small-scale schooling (an              update) (ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural              Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.            ED 372 897) 
Howley, C. B., & Bickel, R. (1999). The Matthew                   project: National report. Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge Policy                  Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 433                         174) 
Huang, G., & Howley, C. (1993). Mitigating disadvantage:                 Effects of small-scale schooling on student achievement in Alaska.              Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9(3), 137-49. 
Irmsher,                K. (1997). School Size (ERIC Digest). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse            on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.              ED 414 615) 
Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1996). High school size: Which              works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,            19(3), 205-27. 
Raywid, M. A. (1999). Current Literature on Small              Schools (ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural              Education and Small Schools, 1999. (ERIC Document Reproduction                  Service No. ED 425 049) 
Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Organizations or              communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational              Administration Quarterly, 30(2),214-26. 
----- 
Craig Howley                  directs the ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools             and is an adjunct professor at Ohio University, Athens,                         Ohio. 
Marty Strange directs the Policy Program of the Rural School            and Community Trust in Randolph, Vermont. 
Robert Bickel is a                  professor in the College of Education at Marshall University,                   Huntington, West Virginia. 
----- 
This publication was prepared              with funding from the Office of Educational Research and                        Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no.                   ED-99-CO-0027. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily                 reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department, or AEL.           **Title:** Research about School Size and School Performance in Impoverished               Communities. ERIC Digest.                                                    **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC/CRESS, P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325-1348. Tel:                      800-624-9120. Full text at Web site:                                            http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc0010.htm.                               **Descriptors:**  Academic Achievement,  Economically Disadvantaged,  Educational                Research, Effect Size, Elementary Secondary Education, Interaction,             Poverty,  School Size,  Small Schools,  Socioeconomic Influences             **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]