High School Size: Which Works Best and for Whom?

Abstract

The study described in this article investigates the relationship between high school size and student learning. We used three waves of data from NELS:88 and hierarchical linear modeling (HIM) methods to examine how students' achievement growth in two subjects (reading and mathematics) over the high school years is influenced by the size of the high school they attend. Three research questions guided the study: (a) Which size high school is most effective for students 'learning?, (b) In which size high school is learning most equitably distributed?, and (c) Are size effects consistent across high schools defined by their social compositions? Results suggest that the ideal high school, defined in terms of effectiveness (i.e., learning), enrolls between 600 and 900 students. In schools smaller than this, students learn less; those in large high schools (especially over 2,100) learn considerably less. Learning is more equitable in very small schools, with equity defined by the relationship between learning and student socioeconomic status (SES).An important finding from the study is that the influence of school size on learning is different in schools that enroll students of varying SES and in schools with differing proportions of minorities. En rollment size has a stronger effect on learning in schools with lower-SES students and also in schools with high concentrations of minority students. Implications for educational policy are discussed.

Individual and school factors affecting students’ participation and success in higher education

“…However, although Lee and Smith (1997) also did not find any significant effect of the proportion of minority students in the school on student outcomes using three waves of data from NELS 88, 4 they did suggest that the 'ideal' secondary school-defined in terms of effectiveness (i.e., learning)-should enrol between 600 and 900 students. This apparent contradiction could be an example of contextual difference as noted above (US versus NZ schools) or, more likely, is due to the different methods of analysis used in each study.…”

“…This apparent contradiction could be an example of contextual difference as noted above (US versus NZ schools) or, more likely, is due to the different methods of analysis used in each study. For example, Lee and Smith's (1997) finding of non-linear association between school size and achievements was echoed in the UK by Spielhofer et al (2004). Both studies though used linear regression models.…”

On Meeting NCLB School Improvement Mandate

“…The implication is as follows: Based on the preponderance of the literature revealing that small schools are more effective, NYCDOE may have converted its large failing high schools to house smaller new high schools. If the placement of new students in the smaller schools was oblivious to competing literature (e.g., Lee & Smith, 1997;Schneider et al, 2007) that such conversion was not a guarantor of success, or that of Kahlemberg's (2012) regarding the need for SI for urban schools to succeed, NYCDOE may have populated the new small high schools with disadvantaged (high poverty) "student of color," from the converted failing high schools. In the process, they concentrated poverty in the new and smaller high schools.…”

“…In addition, the findings were (a) in stark contrast to MDRC's (2013) report touting the success of NYC small schools and (b) in variance with the preponderance of the findings elevating the successes of small schools. Undeniably, large schools could offer better curriculum (Ravitch, 2005) and other motivational factors such as those outlined in Lee and Smith (1997 higher students' performance and, ultimately, higher performance of large NYC high schools, then a possible reason could be found in a key phrase cited in the literature review. The phrase, in MDRC's (2013) findings, is, "which serve mostly disadvantaged students of color."…”

“…However, there was no assurance that merely converting large schools to smaller ones automatically improved their achievement scores, or that small schools worked for all students (Lee & Smith, 1997;Schneider et al, 2007). Nonetheless, such a change was found to improve school climate (Goldkind & Farmer, 2013).…”