Size, Cost and Quality in Public Schools and School Districts

From Positive Directions for Schools and Communities, by Lisa Hinz

Are some Minnesota schools and school districts too small or too large to offer a quality education? What makes for a quality education and at what cost?

In an attempt to answer these questions this publication provides a review of the research on the relationship between school and school district size, cost, and quality. Information specific to Minnesota will be used to put the research into context. In addition, dominant policy positions will be examined. This publication explains more fully the issues facing schools and their communities and the options available.

Understanding Size, Cost, Quality

Size

How we define large and small makes a difference in understanding the relationships of size, cost, and quality. What is small in a densely-populated New England state may be large in mostly rural Northwestern Minnesota where transportation-time and costs are bigger factors. Distinctions between schools and school districts are also important. A large district could have many small schools; a small district could have one large school.

School size refers to student enrollment within an individual school, and to enrollment in any given grade, kindergarten through twelfth grade. In Minnesota these sizes vary from less than twenty students per grade to several thousand within a single school.

District size refers to an organization of schools from kindergarten through twelfth grade under a single school board and superintendent. In Minnesota, district enrollment size varies greatly. In 1990, the largest operating district, Minneapolis, enrolled 40,554 students while the smallest, Franconia, enrolled 18. Franconia is a nonoperating district whose students attend school in a neighboring district. The next smallest district is Pine Point, an experimental district enrolling 51 students (Minnesota Department of Education 1992, 52). Table 1 shows that more than half of the state's students are enrolled in the largest 10% of districts, while fewer than 1% are enrolled in the smallest 10% of districts. School and district sizes vary annually due to population changes and cooperative arrangements between districts.

Cost

Funds raised and spent in schools and districts vary greatly depending on factors such as financial conditions, local support for education, legislative mandates, and enrollment size.

Minnesota's school revenues have stayed at fairly constant percentages since 1983. The state contributes approximately 55%, local sources add 41%, and federal funds supply 4% (Minnesota Department of Education 1992, 8). These percentages are statewide averages and vary by district depending on property wealth, numbers of at-risk children, and use of referendum levies. The Adjusted Net Tax Capacity per pupil unit determines the real and personal property within a district that is subject to local property taxes. Variation among districts has been the source of funding equity lawsuits.

Expenditures differ greatly by district, with the highest per pupil expenditures in the smallest and largest districts as seen in Table 2. Operating expenditures include the costs of services and supplies for all elementary and secondary students except for community service, capital outlay, building construction, and debt service. Among smaller districts, expenditures tend to be higher because fixed costs such as administration, instructor salaries, and transportation are spread over smaller numbers of students and larger geographic areas than in larger enrollment districts. In larger districts, higher costs reflect spending for exceptional instruction, and district, instructional, and pupil support services for at-risk and gifted students (Minnesota Department of Education, 1992, 51).

Quality

Research about quality in education includes measures that can be categorized as inputs, throughputs, and outputs.

Inputs

Inputs are factors that make up what the school or district has to offer its students. They include money, books, materials, equipment, attributes of teachers and specialized staff, course offerings, and facilities.

Recent research clearly indicates that spending more money does not necessarily mean improved student achievement. Researcher Eric Hanushek (1981, 30) reviewed 130 studies and found that "higher school expenditures per pupil bear no visible relationship to higher student performance." This does not discount the fact that costs vary across the country and within states due to differences in the distances students travel to the school and related transportation costs. It does suggest factors other than money make a bigger difference in how well students learn.

A factor some authorities believe related to educational quality is the breadth and depth of course offerings available to students. Some researchers cite limited numbers and types of courses, particularly advanced courses, and few scheduling options as weaknesses of smaller schools, especially high schools of less than 100 per graduating class (Monk and Haller 1986, 59). In contrast, recent education research suggests that the quantity of course offerings and the quality of education are unrelated. This research indicates that students learn better in schools that "do a few things well" through a limited, focused curriculum (Sizer 1992; Gregory and Smith 1987; Goodlad 1984). Another recent study found that in high schools of more than 400 students, a greater variety of courses existed at the introductory level, not at the specialization level, and that less than 12% of students actually enrolled in courses that were not offered at smaller schools (Monk and Haller 1986, 59).

In Minnesota, a 1988 report on high schools by the Legislative Auditor found that districts of at least 25 students per grade in their high school(s) provided core academic courses in English, social studies, math, and science that met curriculum standards. Further, these students scored as well on standardized tests and in college coursework as their larger school colleagues. Additional advanced, vocational, and special education courses were offered in some of these small districts through interactive television and Educational Cooperative Service Units (Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota 1988, 138-146).

The credentials and variety of teachers and specialized staff are another quality factor frequently mentioned in the size, cost, quality debate. Years of experience, professional degrees earned, subject matter expertise, and salary level are among the factors measured. Although these quantifiable factors do reflect some aspects of teaching quality, research is showing that what teachers do, not just what degrees they have, makes a bigger difference in the quality of student learning. Techniques such as mastery learning, cooperative learning, parental involvement, and homework are among the practices increasingly seen as effective means to improving educational quality (Hanushek 1981, 30; Walberg and Fowler 1988, 16).

Throughputs

Throughputs refer to what the school or district does with inputs to improve student learning. Over the past decade, a number of researchers studied schools around the country to determine what makes a school an effective learning environment for students. The following list summarizes the ten factors most consistently found to contribute to effectiveness (Sher 1988, 17):

1. strong, positive leadership
   
   
2. high expectations of student and teacher achievement
   
   
3. respectful relationships among students, teachers, and administrators
   
   
4. individualized instruction and attention
   
   
5. emphasis on the academic basics
   
   
6. parental and community involvement and support
   
   
7. fair and frequent performance feedback to students and teachers emphasizing positive reinforcement of success and progress
   
   
8. friendly, but business-like classroom and school climate
   
   
9. healthy balance of activities fostering the intellectual, physical, emotional, and social development of students
   
   
10. tolerance for individual initiatives and for trying new approaches to learning
    
    

Although some factors, such as individualized attention and parent/community involvement actually favor smaller-sized schools, some researchers believed these qualities are not restricted to schools of a certain size (Gregory and Smith 1987; Sher 1988, 18).

Outputs

Outputs are the product of the school or district assumed to reflect student performance and thus, whether inputs and throughputs have been used well. The most common measures of output are attendance, standardized test scores, dropout rates, graduation rates, and college experience of graduates.

In Minnesota, 1990 and 1991 statistics showed that attendance and graduation rates are consistently high for all districts. They are over 94% in attendance and over 90% for graduation. This graduation rate is nearly 20% above the national average (Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development 1990, 69). In September 1992, the Minnesota Department of Education revealed an 84% graduation rate in Minnesota based on real longer-term data using a more sensitive measure than that used in annual data collection. It is expected that the national average will also drop as this measure is used in other states. Smetanka (1991, 10A), reports that on standardized tests, Minnesota students in districts of less than 1,000 "perform as well as the rest of the state in reading, writing, and math at grades 6 and 9."

According to a Legislative Auditor's report (1988, 138-146), Minnesota students' performance in core subjects from the Minnesota Department of Education's Assessment Program (MEAP) "show no relationship between test results and several other variables including total enrollment." Core subjects reviewed were English, social studies, math, and science. There were no controls for socioeconomic status and district spending. The same report, however, found greater variation in PSAT college entrance exam scores with "higher (scores) in districts with larger enrollments than in districts with relatively few students" (less than 100 high school students per district). In a sample of college performance of Minnesota freshmen, the Legislative Auditor (1988, 146) found grade-point averages to be strongly and independently related to students' high school rank, not size.

Sher (1988, 24) suggests that overall measures such as the PSAT should include the proportions of students taking these standardized tests. This is because small schools tend to have higher proportions of their students taking these tests, who are often less prepared than students from larger schools. This would likely result in raising the relative ratings of small schools.

Experts are now recognizing that school performance is significantly affected by what students face outside school. Socioeconomic status, in particular, has accounted for at least half of the variation in student achievement at the aggregate level (Hobbs 1989, 5). For schools and districts with a number of students from low income households, this finding means that test scores may reflect local poverty more than the school's size or teachers' abilities.

The Size, Cost, and Quality Debate

Debates about school and district size, cost, and quality are an enduring feature of education in the U.S. One the biggest conflicts began in the 1890s as the business sector was restructuring toward mass production. Using a similar line of reasoning, state governments and education experts called for more efficiency and expertise in education. These reformers advocated giving control of schools to education experts, removing it from communities and smaller local school boards. Bigger schools and districts were said to attract higher quality and more specialized staff while money would be saved as bigger units replaced smaller, more costly ones.

In many states this view translated into policies legislating consolidation. The effect, coupled with urbanization and improved transportation, was the consolidation of many smaller, mostly rural schools and school districts. The average number of students per district increased from about 200 in 1930 to nearly 3,000 in 1972, while the average number of constituents per school board member rose from 250 to more than 2,000 (Walberg and Fowler 1988,16). Minnesota's policy resulted in the merger of over 7,600 districts in 1945 into 411 in 1992 (Chambers 1989, 484; Minnesota Department of Education, 1992, 1993).

The Policy Spectrum

Concerns about school and district size have changed little since the early 1900s, especially in rural areas. Current debate, however, indicates much more doubt about the benefits of larger schools and districts. Research on achievement and school effectiveness and experience with consolidation has created a much broader context.

Policy positions range from a one best system view to a good schools come in all sizes view. Positions vary depending on the data used and the researcher's opinion of how to raise student achievement. What follows is a profile of these two policy positions which represent opposite ends of the spectrum. There are many positions which fall in the middle of this spectrum as well.

Advocates of the one best system contend that higher student achievement is gained through a broad, comprehensive array of courses and specialized teachers available only to schools of certain minimum sizes. They emphasize higher costs in the smallest and largest schools and districts, and promote moderate size schools as the most efficient and effective use of funds. Although prescriptions vary by researcher, commonly recommended sizes include: elementary schools (grades K-6) of 300–600 students; high schools (grades 7-12) of 400–1200 students; and districts of 300–2600 students (Monk and Haller 1986, 59; Fox 1980; Swanson 1988).

Among the weaknesses of this view is that savings from consolidation are often not realized. This is because consolidation in large geographic areas usually means increased expenses for transportation, salaries of new staff, and for new buildings. While many proponents acknowledge geographic isolation as a reason for necessarily existent schools of smaller sizes, few discuss the cost increases associated with consolidation.

A second concern is whether more courses actually improve offerings to students or whether they simply create a cafeteria-style menu of courses devoid of depth.

Proponents of the good schools come in all sizes view assert that higher student achievement is attained through a focused curriculum, direct participation by students, and close links between the school and community (Gregory and Smith 1987; Sher 1988; Sizer 1992). Supporters cite experience in small schools and larger, subdivided schools as evidence of success with many sizes. Gregory and Smith (1987) and Sizer (1992) concur that a workable size is 250 students or less in either a single high school or a subdivided group. Local control and strong community support is noted by others as a major contributor to school effectiveness in a high school and is most possible in smaller schools (Nachtigal 1986). Several researchers note an existing school can cost less than a new, consolidated school when costs of increased transportation, personnel, and facilities are included. This is particularly so if schools with excess space share their facilities with other agencies (Striefel, Foldesy and Holman 1991). Technologies, sharing among schools and districts, and restructuring into distinctive, focused programs are recommended for small, rural schools to overcome limited course offerings. Interactive television, computers, and inter-district sharing have been found to be valuable alternatives to mandatory consolidation (Monk and Haller 1986, 86-95).

A weakness of the good schools come in all sizes perspective is whether and how much students in small schools are limited by a curriculum focus and few teachers when few other choices exist within geographic reach. A second concern is the limits of instructional technologies as alternatives for expanded course offerings. The merits and weaknesses of these technologies need to be weighed to determine how they can best be used by any size school or district.

Minnesota Policy

Minnesota is entering a time of potential policy change. The commissioner of education has recommended consolidating most school districts to serve a minimum of 1,300 students each by 1995. This change would affect 311 districts according to 1990-91 figures (Minnesota Department of Education 1992, 23-43). The change is recommended to ensure students get larger, more comprehensive course offerings and to reduce teacher preparation (Smetanka 1991, 10A).

The Minnesota legislature has passed several laws to encourage, but not require, district consolidation. Construction funds have been made available to several districts that have agreed to consolidate their secondary schools. The cooperation and combination (C&C) program provides small districts with additional funds if they agree to study ways in which they can cooperate, and eventually combine. Districts can receive up to $600 per pupil unit over a four year period from state grants and local levies. If districts receiving C&C dollars do not consolidate, they must pay back the excess of funds received (Minnesota Rural Education Association 1992).

Summary

The debate about the measurement and importance of school and district size, cost, and quality continues. There are many policy positions which vary based upon the data used and the views of the researchers. While this publication offers no absolute answers, it gives schools, communities and policy-makers a basis for informed discussion and decision-making about the kind of education their schools and districts will provide.

Resources

Class Dismissed: Examining Nebraska's Rural Education Debate, 1988 , Jonathan Sher. Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association, 613 Nelson, PO Box 157, Hildreth, NE 68947, 308/938-3825. $4.95.

Critical Questions: An Outline of Major Perspectives on School and District Size, Cost, and Quality, 1992, Lisa Hinz and Joe Nathan. Center for School Change, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, 612/626-2834. $3.00.

Organizational Alternatives for Small Rural Schools: Final Report to the New York State Legislature, 1986, David Monk and Emil J. Haller. Department of Education, 427 Kennedy Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Free.

Public Policy Newsletters on Minnesota's K-12 Education System 1989-91, Carole B. Yoho. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 317 Classroom Office Building, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, 612/625-1941.

School District Profiles, Minnesota Department of Education. Minnesota's Bookstore, Print Communications Division, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55115, 612/297-3000 or 1-800-657-3757. Minnesota Department of Education, 612/296-2400. $7.00.

Seeds of Change, VHS Video, 26 minutes, 1992. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Project Future/Center for School Change. CR-VH-5755. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Extension Store, Room 20, Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. Purchase price: $45.00. Rental $8.00 in Minnesota, $10.00 out of state.

Size of Schools and Districts(in press), Educational Research Service. Educational Research Service, 1800 North Kent Street, Arlington, VA 22209, 703/243-2100.

References

Chambers, Clarke A. 1989. "Educating for the Future." In Minnesota in a Century of Change: The State and Its People Since 1900 . Edited by Clifford J. Clark Jr. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

Fox, William F. 1980. Relationships Between Size of Schools and School Districts and the Cost of Education. Washington DC: USDA Economic Research Service.

Goodlad, John. 1984. A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gregory, Thomas B. and Gerald R. Smith. 1987. High Schools as Communities: The Small School Reconsidered. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.

Hanushek, Eric A. 1981. "The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools." Journal of Economic Literature.

Hobbs, Daryl. 1989. Relationships Between School and District Size, Educational Costs, and Student Performance: A Review of the Literature. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis.

Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota. 1988. High School Education. St. Paul, MN: Program Evaluation Division.

MN Dept. of Ed. 1992. School District Profiles 1990-91. St. Paul: MN Dept. of Ed.

MN Dept. of Ed. 1993. School District Profiles 1991-92. St. Paul: MN Dept. of Ed.

MN Dept. of Trade and Econ. Dev. 1990. Compare Minnesota: An Economic and Statistical Fact Book 1990/1991. St. Paul: MN Dept. of Trade and Econ. Dev.

MN Rural Education Association. February 2, 1992. "C&C Developed to Encourage Reorganization via Financial Incentives." The Voice.

Monk, David and Emil J. Haller. 1986. Organizational Alternatives for Small Rural Schools: A Final Report to the New York State Legislature. Ithaca: Department of Education, Cornell University.

Nachtigal, Paul. 1986. School Reorganization: What Can We Learn From the Past to Guide the Future? unpublished.

Sher, Jonathan. 1988. Class Dismissed: Examining Nebraska's Rural Education Debate. Hildreth, NE: Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association.

Sizer, Theodore. 1992. Horace's School: Redesign of the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Smetanka, Mary Jane. March 3, 1991 "Bigger Isn't Always Better, Caution Critics of Move to Consolidate Schools." Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Striefel, James S., George Foldesy, and David M. Holman. 1991. "Financial Effects of Consolidation." Journal of Research in Rural Education.

Swanson, Austin. 1988. "The Matter of Size: A Review of the Research on Relationships between School and District Size, Pupil Achievement, and Cost." Research in Rural Education.

Walberg, Herbert J. and William J. Fowler Jr. Expenditure and School Efficiencies of Public School Districts. Chicago: The Heartland Institute.

Support for this publication was provided by the Minnesota Extension Service's Project Future in cooperation with the Center for School Change, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, and the Blandin Foundation.

Agriculture \ Community \ Environment \ Family \ Garden \ Youth
Home \ Search \ News \ Workshops \ Online Shopping
About Extension \ Extension Offices

Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota Extension office or the Extension Store at (800) 876-8636.

University of Minnesota Extension is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.