In a 1996 study, Ms. Cotton found that in smaller schools students are more likely to be involved in extracurricular activities and to hold positions of responsibility in those activities. Nor are larger schools more efficient. A 1996 study by Valerie Lee and Julie Smith reported that large schools are actually more expensive because their sheer size requires more administrative support. More important, additional bureaucracy translates into less flexibility and innovation. Taxpayers have a right to expect that their tax dollars are being invested in effective, research-based ways that maximize the benefit for children.
Research shows that economically advantaged students can achieve in large schools.
Paradoxically, it is underprivileged students who are likely to be concentrated in oversized schools. It was the most frequent response, ahead of higher standards, educational philosophy, greater parental involvement, and better teachers. It is also telling that urban parents, whose children are most likely to be in excessively large schools, are also the parents most likely to express dissatisfaction with their public schools. There isn't agreement about what school size is ideal, although the consensus of researchers is that no school should serve more than 1,000 students and that elementary schools should not exceed 300 to 400 students. As a policy matter, the federal government can't and shouldn't get involved in specific decisions about individual school design.