School Size and Academic Achievement - Coursework Example

School Size and Academic Achievement Stephen Major ID Psych 312 Catie Phillips November 20, School Size and Academic Achievement Introduction There has been a decrease in the number of public schools over time as more private schools are established. At the same time, the student enrolment has caused the average school size to grow by 400% since 1940 with 2004 statistics indicating that about 50% of all high schools had enrolments of over 1,500 with a majority of urban high schools having enrolments in excess of 5,000 (Werblow & Duesbery, 2009). It is this massive transformation that has ignited the need to identify the optimal school size. Thus, the last century has seen a fluctuation in this pursuit as the push between large and small schools continues being experienced. This is further compounded by the fact that minimal literature exists linking the size of school to the academic achievement of the involved students (Weiss, Carolan and Baker-Smith, 2010). Despite this lack of clarity, the developments in the educational sector have constantly favored smaller schools, with Jones and Ezeife (2011) giving examples of efforts geared towards promoting smaller schools by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in New York and Annenberg Foundation in Chicago. Thus, this paper reviews various literature sources, considering arguments for and against small schools, with the objective of supporting small schools sizes for greater academic achievement. Size is a structural characteristic defining schools. For a long time, this has elicited interest among numerous scholars with the dimension being used dependent on the schooling level. As noted by Weiss et al. (2010), studies on elementary schools mostly considered the classroom size as opposed to studies on high schools which majorly centered on the size of aggregate unit. Other studies have adopted the qualitative criteria, using the sense of community as the basis for defining the size of school. Such studies relate the size of the school to the ability of such schools to promote collaborative opportunities and chances of personalization. Considering the number of students, numerous studies have sought to determine the effective school size albeit such efforts have constantly yielded inconsistent results. Jones and Ezeife (2011) cite the 1996 study by Meier which advocated for an optimal enrolment of 300 to 400 students for simplicity, governance, respect, accountability, safety, belonging and parent involvement. Common among these studies has been their support for smaller schools, acknowledging the significance of school size on learning. Arguments for Small Schools The major theoretical support for the effectiveness of small schools is their ability to generate greater engagement levels, this being a critical link between the size of the school and student achievement. The review of previous studies by Weiss et al. (2010) establishes a positive correlation between school engagement and the outcome of students. Students that are more connected to their schooling aspects tend to post better academic performance and have minimal problem behaviors. In fact, seeking to establish the relationship between social capital and high school size and achievement from the 2002 Educational Longitudinal Study, ELS, Carolan (2012) observes that policy responses to the issue of class size focuses on the creation of smaller schooling units to enhance engagement among students, between students and teachers and among parents. Small schools have also been said to reduce disaffection among students and rates of dropout. Large schools could be harmful to students because of the increased dropout likelihood. In their study to explore the influence of school size on mathematics achievement and rate of dropout, Werblow and Duesbery (2009) review numerous literature sources which lead to the conclusion that smaller schools report lower dropout rates as opposed to larger schools. Their research study on a sample of 16,081 students in the 2002 Educational Longitudinal Study, ELS, to explore how school size impacts on student outcomes, further supports this evidence, attributing averagely 12% dropout rate to increase in school size. In a similar study that used a sample of 9,647 students from the 2002 ELS data, Carolan found out that small schools enhance “connectedness” among students, a fact linked to greater achievement, postsecondary likelihood attendance and graduation rates (2012, 583). The underlying assumption is that the connectedness provided by small schools facilitates communication, socio-emotional support and reinforcement of norms, collectively referred to as social capital, a great motivator towards improved performance. Weiss et al. (2010) further support this observation arguing that relations in smaller schools are more intimate and positive than they are in large schools, referring to this as the psychological dimension of engagement, encompassing factors such as interest, intensity and enthusiasm. There exists a positive correlation between these factors and student achievement. The social capital that these small schools offer makes students more comfortable in the small schools than the large ones, a fact that encourages them to complete school, thus reducing rates of dropout. Students in large schools face disproportionate education setting hence disadvantaging some students. Using the number of students as the measure for the size of school, Weiss et al. (2010) in their study observed the negative effect of sex when examining larger cohorts of students. The findings show females being advantaged more than males with regards to engagement. Supporting this argument from their studies of private and public schools, Dills and Mulholland (2010) cite the definition of disruption as borrowed from Lazear’s theory, this being the time lost when answering a question asked by a student which a majority of or all the other students know the answer. Such disruptions are more probable in large classes because of the fact that, keeping rules enforcement and student conduct constant, an increase in the number of students increases the chances of a student misbehaving. As a result, more time would be spent addressing the issues on disruption than learning, subsequently jeopardizing student achievement. Arguments against Small Schools The fact that a school is small does not necessarily benefit all students. Smaller schools particularly disadvantage those students seeking for anonymity which large schools offer. This search for anonymity could be triggered by their reputation or the reputation of their families following them at school (Weiss et al., 2010). While seeking to determine how school size influences mathematics achievement among students, Werblow and Duesbery (2009) observed that small student groups exacerbate the already existing disadvantages in adolescents, including their racial differences. This is because of the fact that it would be easier to spot individual differences in a small group that it would be in a large group. Even so, arguments have been put forth to have small schools, but with each of the small schools hosting students sharing their unique characteristics. This is clearly articulated by Dills and Mulholland (2010) in their study to test theories on determination of class size with a focus on the difference in performance of public and private schools. One of the factors that the study proposes for grouping students follows Lezear’s behavior theory which argues that even though students could be homogeneous in abilities, they could differ in self-control. With this regard, a student could interrupt the whole class by misbehaving or just asking questions not shared by the other students. This indicates the need for grouping such students separately so as to find an appropriate teacher and learning environment that would fit both sets of students differently. Indeed, class sizes are not assigned randomly but based on specific criteria. This approach ensures that there would be no differences among the students in the small school that could disadvantage a specific group of students. Consequently, all students would benefit equally. Secondly, smaller schools could fail to foster academic achievement through the creation of a communal climate. According to Carolan (2012), small schools promote communal environments which increase the engagement of the students with the school. However, this does not influence achievement in a way to match normative expectations. However, Weiss et al. (2011) observe the possibility of schools being successful in enhancing the sense of community but failing to raise the achievement of its students. The problem of scalability and issues of replication stand out as the critical determinants in this case. With schools being the innovation units, effective change lies in specific schools, each having unique student population and organizational character. Students sharing in such characters could thus be grouped in a smaller school to give the desired effect. This therefore means that a sense of community does not necessarily yield greater achievement in schools, hence the failure of the postulate of larger schools promoting greater achievement. Finally, large schools benefit from economies of scale, thus providing adequate resources to their students to foster achievement. In their literature review, Jones and Ezeife (2011) cite the President of Harvard University who argued that large schools narrowed the learning gap and provided the solution to space issue. The educator noted that small schools failed to allow for diversity in curriculum, noting that larger schools presented more comprehensive educational programs at lower costs. In their research which partly determines how school size influence math achievement, Werblow and Duesbery (2009), against their hypothesis, observe a curvilinear relationship between school size and math achievement. The greatest learning occurs in middle-sized schools. This observation aligns to findings from literature review that small schools do not substantially promote greater math learning than large schools. This could be attributed to the fact that large schools benefit from efficiencies which are not feasible in small schools. The greater economic efficiency in large schools propels them to greater curriculum diversity and higher level courses. In as much as this study presents useful findings, Weiss et al. (2011), having conducted a similar study, cite limitations that could compromise the validity of the findings thereof. The findings could be partially confounded should it be that a disproportionate number of the high school students surveyed take math for less than four years. In this case, those students who study math for a lesser period would learn less. Perhaps, using reading as a measure instead would have led to more valid deductions. Therefore, the validity of these findings that fail to link small schools to greater math achievement is subject to further scrutiny before it could be principally accepted that large schools enjoy economies of scale that foster their achievement. Future Study The study of how the size of school affects achievement seems to elicit much interest. The insights from the study are critical in ensuring that schooling produces the intended outcomes. However, a majority of studies seem not to put into consideration the difference in the structuring of the different schools when setting out to collect data. Of particular concern is the disregard to the fact that public schools are structured differently from private schools. Perhaps, Dills and Mulholland (2010) note this difference as they point out that whereas public schools would be principally funded with local and state tax revenues, private schools depend on tuition revenue. Importantly, while public school teachers require certification for their grade level to practice, teachers in private schools are not affected by such state licensure requirements. Furthermore, states recommend what methods public school teachers use to educate as opposed to the freedom of choice with private school teachers. As such, whereas public schools would have a uniform way of allocating the number of students to a teacher, private schools would mostly be compelled to allocate a given number of students to a teacher based on the qualifications and the experience of the teacher. Therefore, future studies on school size should factor in the difference in structuring and operation between public and private schools in determination of how achievement would be affected. The reviewed articles have been largely biased towards math achievement to measure student achievement. Carolan (2012) attributes this to the fact that achievement in math depends on numerous school-based factors critical for determining performance which include instruction quality and curriculum. Thus, it could be used to determine general achievement. However, Weiss et al. (2010) advocate for the use of reading as opposed to math achievement. This follows the fact that reading is undertaken by all students throughout their learning period as opposed to math which high school students could study for less than their four-year duration in school. As such, students who learn math for lesser years also learn less on the subject. Therefore, future studies should consider a wholesome outlook on student achievement as opposed to a focus on math only. In fact, with a majority of these studies reliant on data from ELS, it should be appreciated that the tool did not collect data on reading achievement from senior year students (Werblow & Duesbery, 2009. As such, a wholesome approach to collecting data on student achievement would provide more reliable findings. Conclusion The influence of school size on academic achievement has elicited immense research from scholars for a long time. This has further been propagated by the increased enrolment in schools. Fronting the opinion of small schools posting better achievement than large schools, this literature review borrows from various studies to support this argument. It was found out that small schools generate greater engagement and reduce disaffection and rate of dropout which foster academic achievement. Furthermore, students in large schools face disproportionate education setting which disadvantages some students, thus deterring achievement. Even so, it has been argued that not all students in small schools post greater achievement, especially those seeking anonymity, a fact that has been quashed by the fact that small schools seek to attract homogeneous students thus avoid inequalities that could deter greater achievement. The argument that small schools do not foster communal climate does not hold as this social aspect has no direct linkage to achievement. Finally, the studies that argued for large schools leveraging on economies of scale to boost achievement relied on math achievement, a measure that fails the validity of these studies. Therefore, even as future studies seek to correct for the difference in structuring of schools and the measures for achievement, it is anticipated that more effort would go towards the adoption of small schools for greater academic achievement. References Carolan, B. V. (2012). An examination of the relationship among high school size, social capital, and adolescents’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(3), 583 – 595. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00779.x Dills, A. K. & Mulholland, S. E. (2010). A comparative look at private and public schools’ class size determinants. Education Economics, 18(4), 435 – 454. doi: 10.1080/09645290903546397 Jones, K. R. & Ezeife, A. N. (2011). School size as a factor in the academic achievement of elementary school students. Scientific Research, 2(8), 859 – 868. doi: :10.4236/psych.2011.28131 Weiss, C. C., Carolan, B. V. & Baker-Smith, E. C. (2010). Big school, small school: (Re)Testing assumptions about high school size, school engagement and mathematics achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 163 – 176. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9402-3 Werblow, J. & Duesbery, L. (2009). The impact of high school size on math achievement and dropout rate. The High School Journal. 14 – 23. Read More