They made the argument that 420 students was the minimum size for a viable elementary school. This assumption was premised on the notion of differentiation and the amount of differentiation needed in order to have various features. However, as far as I can tell they cite no research to support their position.
A perusal of some of the research in a policy brief from WestEd, suggests a very different picture.
“No agreement exists on optimal school size, but research reviews suggest a maximum of 300-400 students for elementary schools…” A further note is that “researchers focusing on the interaction between poverty and enrollment size offer a rule of thumb: The poorer the school, the smaller its size should be.” We have to be a bit careful because Valley Oak is by no means an impoverished school.
The review of studies goes on to suggest several major benefits from small schools.
First–students learn well and often better in small rather than large schools. In fact, “no study found large-school achievement superior.”
Second–behavior problems diminish.
Third–attendance is higher.
Fourth–extracurricular participation increases.
Finally, poor and minority students benefit the most.
There are a number of key factors that suggest why smaller schools are better. First, smaller schools produce strong personal bonds to the school. Second, there is greater parental and community involvement in small versus large schools. In a large school individual parents would blend in to their surroundings more, while at smaller schools parents and teachers get to know each other and become allies in fostering student success. Third, it helps produce greater simplicity and focus which facilitates communication.
A big one that relates strong to the report offered by the task force is that “student achievement is influenced much more by caliber of instruction than by number of courses offered.” This important because it strikes at the heart of the differentiation argument put up by the Task Force.
It seems likely there is other research that suggests that large schools may be better in some settings. However, I think the most important point here is that there is likely competing literature and competing ideas on what is the best school size. The problem with the Task Force is that they did not provide the school board with those alternatives and instead picked the argument that best fit their conclusion rather than presenting competing arguments and then proceeding to a conclusion. The size of schools is but one example exactly that.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.