SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, HIGH SCHOOL SIZE

SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, HIGH SCHOOL SIZE, and NEUROBIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
David A. Kaiser PhD
Rochester Institute of Technology , Rochester, New York
Published online: 08 Sep 2008.

http://www.isnr-jnt.org/article/viewFile/16765/10726

To cite this article: David A. Kaiser PhD (2005) School Shootings, High School Size, and Neurobiological Considerations, Journal of Neurotherapy: Investigations in Neuromodulation, Neurofeedback and Applied Neuroscience, 9:3, 101-115
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J184v09n03_07

SUMMARY. In the last decade 17 multiple-injury student school shootings have occurred in the United States, 13 at high schools and 4 at middle schools. Research suggests that high schools function best academically as well as socially at enrollments around 600 (150 students per grade), the natural group size of humans. Eleven of 13 high school shootings occurred in schools with enrollments over 600 students, and many with over 1,000 students. Violent and antisocial behavior is associated with deficits in social information processing, which is necessarily exacerbated by complex social environments. School shootings may be in part a response to the unprecedented social complexity of large schools. Median public high school enrollment now stands at 1,200 in suburbs and 1,600 in cities despite the fact that smaller schools are superior to large schools on nearly all academic and social measures of success including graduation rate, student satisfaction, conduct infractions, athletic participation, absenteeism, and dropout rate. Educational institutions should adapt to the neurobiological limitations of children instead of forcing children to adapt to the unnatural requirements of such institutions.

Excerpt:
Reducing school size to within children’s neurobiological capabilities is a universal prevention, a proactive method of reducing violence and improving intellectual, emotional, and social development.

When groups are small enough for members to know one another, they are more apt and able to police themselves.

When natural group sizes are exceeded, formal institutions of behavioral control are necessary, which can be both expensive and ineffective.

Some communities have experimented with a schools-within-a-school approach, dividing large student bodies into smaller operational units with dedicated academic and administrative personnel. BUT common areas (gym, cafeteria, entrance) often remain shared by the entire student body, undermining group cohesion, and

students in physically large schools rarely possess the freedoms and responsibilities of students in smaller schools, regardless of administrative strategy.

We need to build smaller schools, more schools, and roll back the consolidation of the past half century.
(spacing and capitalization added)

My comment: 

The sad thing is that, despite being published 10 years ago, and much additional supporting research prior to that, nobody in authority has done anything with it except call for more gun control - which would have had no effect on any of the school shootings that have happened so far!

Why? Why have they done nothing to improve the situation with anything that has been shown to absolutely reduce violence? Where is the outcry, protests, etc., for this??

GUEST OPINION: LARGER SCHOOLS HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON STUDENTS

In the early 1960’s research was put forward that called for bigger high schools. These schools would provide more opportunities for less cost. It is important to note that this research called for increasing school size to 400-500 students, something we would today call very small!  What was a true conclusion then, for the size they were advocating, has today been taken to an extreme that has given us schools of 2,000 to as many as 5,000 students!

Many today still claim that the bigger we build our schools, the more opportunities we will have for students and for less cost. What has the research shown?  Karen Irmsher, in her compilation of the research titled “School Size” says, “Michael Klonsky (1995), Mary Anne Raywid (1995), and others report that large school size hurts attendance and dampens enthusiasm for involvement in school activities. Large schools have lower grade averages and standardized-test scores coupled with higher dropout rates and more problems with violence, security, and drug abuse.”  Considering the recent problems with suicides among students, it may be that large school sizes also contribute to the problem.

As for costs, Irmsher states, “Lee and Smith (1996) found that savings projected by proponents of school consolidation have not materialized. Instead of long-assumed economies of scale, they discovered diseconomies, or penalties of scale. Large schools need more layers of support and administrative staff to handle the increased bureaucratic demands.”  Another study entitled “Dollars and Sense II” stated, “a 2005 study of 25 different small schools across the nation found that, on average, small schools spent 17 percent less per student than comparable schools in their districts while achieving equivalent or better results.” I might add that so-called “small” schools should more appropriately be called moderately-sized schools, for we are not actually advocating for truly small schools, but rather for moderately-sized schools, the size that allow students to be somebody rather than a number.

A local person recently said to me, “Large schools only give a select handful of students a bigger school name for their resume. They most definitely don’t provide more opportunities for most of the students.”  There are only so many football players on a team. There are only so many parts in a play.  There are the same numbers of students that can participate in student government in a large or a small school. That means, in our shopping mall-sized schools, the chances of participating on a team, in a competition or extra-curricular program, or just being somebody in the school culture, are greatly diminished.

As for increased classes offered, with the advancements in technology of the past 20 years, students can take whatever classes they want regardless of the physical site they attend.

But what do large schools cost communities that are not normally considered? There are the intangible costs of lowered achievement, graduation rates, the increased violence, security, and drug abuse, etc., mentioned above. There are also transportation and traffic costs. Large regional schools mean more busing and individual cars driving greater distances, increasing congestion on our roads, with all the associated costs. With increased busing, bus schedules come to rule school schedules to the students’ detriment.

Having your home next to a school used to increase its value. Now patrons even protest having a school built near them. They don’t like all the traffic, for one thing. With fewer, larger schools communities must raise taxes for more parks and playing fields that used to be provided with schools.  More moderately-sized schools would provide this while spreading out and decreasing traffic.

Be aware that refusing to pass bonds for new schools will not keep taxes low. It will just move the control from the local district to the state, while increasing problems in the schools as it pushes them ever bigger, which, as Irmsher’s research points out require ever more programs to try to mitigate the problems of lowered performance, “coupled with higher dropout rates and more problems with violence, security, and drug abuse.”  It requires more taxes from the state to cover increased busing along with increased costs to parents transporting their children.

Bigger schools only appear cost effective on district yearly budget sheets that miss most of the real costs. They decrease opportunities for the vast majority of students and only give a few a big-name school on their resume. Let’s not short-change our children and our pocketbooks by cramming them into ever-bigger schools. More information is available at www.smallerschools.org.

David Cox is a career teacher, former Utah state legislator, and is currently teaching in China. He has spent years researching school size and its implications in student achievement. He is a Lehi native.

Lehi Free Press, March 1, 2018

RECENT ARTICLE ON THE SCHOOL SIZE ISSUE

The following article discusses the school size issue and attempts to do it in a "balanced, not-taking-a-side" way.  Unfortunately this allows unsupported statements to be put on an equal footing with supported statements in an attempt to "balance" the discussion.  In other cases it allows a clearer view of the approach that opposing proponents have as to better solutions for students.  For instance:

"Strengths of small schools: Students are less likely to “fall through the cracks” or feel cut off from the school culture. They are more likely to form strong relationships with peers and school staff."Strengths of large schools: Large schools have the capacity to offer more specialized programs for disadvantaged students and students with special needs. A wide variety of classes and activities make it possible for students to find their niche."

If you believe that "specialized programs" are the answer to improvement (those who want a job in the "specialized programs" will, of course, promote this), then you will want bigger schools.  If on the other hand you believe that a school culture where students form strong relationships with peers and school staff is the better answer to improvement (particularly those who don't want to pay more for every new program that is proposed by those seeking to run the program), you will want smaller schools.

You might notice another difference.  The small schools view, with the wording "...are less likely... are more likely..." show this position to be a supported statement, while "...have the capacity...make it possible..." show this position to be an unsupported opinion.

The article does bring out the claims of both sides and is worth examination.  I believe that the research available on my website shows a much stronger substantiation of claims for smaller (moderately-sized) schools than the claims of those promoting large schools.


How important is school size?

Which is better? Big or small? It all depends on what's a good fit for your child.
by: GreatSchools Staff | March 4, 2016

by: GreatSchools Staff | March 4, 2016

 Print article

What’s the right size?

When it comes to school size, there is no right size that works for every student. Some students thrive in a smaller environment where they get lots of attention, while others prefer the variety of activities and peer groups available in a larger school. Certainly, small and large schools each have their pros and cons.

Small schools, a growing trend

In the 1960s the general thinking was that larger schools offered more comprehensive instructional programs of greater quality at lower costs than small schools (generally defined as schools of less than 400 to 500 students at the high school level) did. But in recent years researchers have discovered that the cost savings provided by large schools have had a negative effect on student achievement and graduation rates. As schools get bigger, student achievement declines and larger schools have higher rates of absenteeism, dropouts and discipline problems. In addition, “Dollars and Sense II,” a 2005 study of 25 different small schools across the nation found that, on average, small schools spent 17 percent less per student than comparable schools in their districts while achieving equivalent or better results.

As a result, there has been a growing trend toward creating small schools, and schools within schools, (particularly in high schools) to better engage students and give them more attention. The federal government has issued more than $94 million a year in experimental grants for small learning communities or “SLCs.” School districts may use these grants to create smaller schools within schools. Since 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed more than $1.8 billion to creating 1,500 small high schools around the country, and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation has committed an additional $32 million to further their efforts, particularly in urban areas.

How have small schools fared?

The Gates Foundation sponsored a study of 24 small schools in 2005 to look at their effects. The study found that some students talked about their teachers as having higher expectations for them because teachers knew more about the students’ capabilities. The 2005 Gates report found that students in small learning communities increased their English test scores but showed a slight decline in math.

In the Newsweek 2007 list of top high schools in the U.S., 22 of the top 100 schools had fewer than 100 students in their graduating class; the number of small high schools on that list (which is based on the number of students taking college-level tests: Cambridge, International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement) has dramatically increased over the past 10 years.

However, overall research on the effect of school size on student achievement has been limited. Most recently, another Gates Foundation study looked at the first graduates of 14 of New York City’s new small high schools in 2006. The study shows that attendance was high, ninth-grade promotion rates were high and a majority of the students graduated. A significant number of those graduates were accepted by colleges and more than half of them were the first in their family to attend college.

But other Gates-funded small schools have run into trouble. In Denver, Colorado, the district used $1 million of Gates Foundation money to convert the 1,100-student Manual High School into small schools. In the process, electives, advanced placement and foreign language courses as well as popular activities like choir, debate and athletic teams were cut back. Many unhappy students left causing enrollment to plunge as well as graduation rates. Denver eventually closed the small schools. The Gates Foundation has realized that curriculum and instruction may be as important as school size.

Is small the answer?

“Small is not enough,” reports Diana Oxley of the University of Oregon in a report entitled “Small Learning Communities.” “Small size creates the conditions to carry out student work that is active and collaborative. However, small size is not an end in itself.” Common planning time, development for teachers and high-quality curriculum are all necessary to make small learning communities work.

It may not be possible to create small schools or small learning communities in every school district. “There’s not a sufficient number of school leaders and educators to scale up and sustain the small school movement once foundation funding dries up,” says David C. Bloomfield, professor and head of the educational leadership program at the Brooklyn campus of the City University of New York. He is concerned that these issues need to be addressed before the small school movement is expanded and says there are other issues that also demand attention.

“The small school movement is just nibbling around the edges,” he says. “Small schools, like charter schools, are beacons. But we need to address class size, union contracts and school infrastructure problems-such as inadequate aging science labs- in order to really make a difference.” The movement to create small high schools may succeed in lowering dropout rates but it’s not clear that the students who stay in school will be able to pass high-stakes high school exit exams. “The data is inconclusive as to whether kids will achieve more rather than just staying in school longer and not dropping out,” says Bloomfield.

Small and large schools: pros and cons

Curriculum

Strengths of small schools: Students are more likely to master curriculum in a smaller learning environment.
Strengths of large schools: Large schools typically provide a wide variety of classes and services to students.
Other considerations: No real correlation has been demonstrated between school size and curriculum quality.

Academic achievement

Strengths of small schools: Many believe smaller schools demonstrate greater levels of academic achievement across the board, and particularly for students of lower socioeconomic status.
Strengths of large schools: Some studies have shown that larger schools have a moderate benefit on achievement levels for affluent students.
Other considerations: Some studies have shown students from small and large high schools perform comparably on college-related criteria, such as grades, admission and graduation rates.

Attention to students

Strengths of small schools: Students are less likely to “fall through the cracks” or feel cut off from the school culture. They are more likely to form strong relationships with peers and school staff.
Strengths of large schools: Large schools have the capacity to offer more specialized programs for disadvantaged students and students with special needs. A wide variety of classes and activities make it possible for students to find their niche.

Community

Strengths of small schools: There is generally more parent involvement and a feeling of belonging.
Strengths of large schools: Large schools may provide more diversity and may make it easier for different types of students and families to find their niche.

Finance

Strengths of small schools: Fewer layers of bureaucracy are necessary.
Strengths of large schools: Large schools provide opportunities for cost savings through economies of scale.
Other considerations: If small schools graduate more students and have fewer dropouts, then the “ultimate cost” may not be higher than large schools.

Safety

Strengths of small schools: It’s easier to spot strangers at small schools; security and discipline are easier to maintain.

Conclusions

• It’s easier to develop more meaningful connections among staff, students and parents in small schools.
• Large schools may lack a sense of community, but small schools aren’t able to offer as wide a range of activities and a broad curriculum.
• Some studies have shown that small schools demonstrate higher achievement levels among students.
• The right size school for your child will depend on his or her needs for attention, curricular offerings and activities.
• Size is only one factor to look at in evaluating a school; the quality of the teachers and what they teach are important factors to consider, too.

Questions to ask:

If your child attends a small school:

• Does the school offer enough variety in the curriculum and extracurricular activities?
• Does the small size feel limiting?

If your child attends a large school

• Are students getting enough attention from staff?
• Is discipline a problem?
• Is there a way to create small learning communities within the large school so that students receive more attention?

No matter what size school your child attends:

• Does the school size seem right for your child?
• Are there factors in your community causing an increase or decrease in enrollment?
• Are parents actively involved in the school community and does the staff welcome parent involvement?
• Are the majority of students achieving at high levels?

Declaration of Educational Independence 2004

 PIONEER SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL 

When in the course of growing populations, it becomes necessary for one area to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of other local and similar governing bodies, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Human Nature and of the Governance of Humans entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of the citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain needs the people have which can best be provided for collectively, that among these is the education of our children. 

That to secure these needs, local political subdivisions were created as a vehicle to serve, and be subservient to, the citizens in providing them. 

That whenever any political subdivision becomes too large due to natural growth, it begins to take power unto itself and assumes the superior role of ruling the descendants of those who created it. 

That as that situation becomes apparent, it is the right and duty of the residents to create by division, additional subdivisions as will best involve those citizens in their own governance. 

And that in so doing the rising generation may, through their own experience, learn how to govern themselves, thus preserving government of, by, and for the people. 

Guiding this resolve has been evidence provided by research that community-sized school districts are more likely to build modest and appropriately sized schools where parents and teachers are more involved and where students are safer. Community based districts have been better able to respond to the needs of individual communities and are more likely to reflect local community values instead of current fads. 

Smaller school districts have produced significantly better student outcomes with lower per-pupil expenditures nationwide. They are more likely to unite local residents with their neighborhood schools. This improves the district, which raises community pride, and even real estate values. Citizens in community districts are more likely to support bond issues, etc., because they are for their own community. 

In smaller districts board members know the schools intimately through firsthand engagement rather than through printouts and manipulatable bureaucratic data. These conditions cause them to turn their eyes to their real constituencies rather than government and university micromanagers. 

Lower socio-economic areas benefit the most from smaller districts and the smaller schools these districts usually provide. Poverty is almost wiped-out as a negative influence on test scores when both smaller schools and smaller districts are the governing structure. 

Smaller districts provide an accountability that cannot be provided by government mandates and accountability schemes. This unshackles educators so they can provide a better product and answer to the parents instead of the state. 

Large districts are prone to mission creep, building support activities which rapidly lose any connection to the original goal of educating children and typically spend a smaller percentage of their budget on instruction. 

We therefore petition the Honorable Legislative Body of Utah County, based on this national and logical evidence, to conduct a study of the tax base, revenues, hypothetical budget, boundaries, and other issues and consequences of creating a Pioneer School District within the existing boundaries of Lehi High School as shown on the enclosed map. Upon completion of this study and consequent public input period, we ask you to consider placing the issue to a vote of the citizens residing within the current Alpine School District boundaries in the 2004 general election. 

-by Rep. David N. Cox 

Signed by over 1,200 residents in Lehi, Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, and Cedar Fort. 

District division actually makes a middle school drama program available in Jordan District

The principal at a middle school in Jordan School District (Utah) that was divided, told a job candidate (April 2017) that they now have a drama program, that before they could not have.  Part of the reason they could now have the program was because of the district division. It freed up the money to hire a drama teacher that was not possible before, because the bigger district kept the money for a district-wide program.  They are much happier to have the program at their school level!

Administrative Costs per Pupil Compared to District Size in Utah 2013-2014

These most recent statistics compiled from the Utah Taxpayers Association "School Spending Report: Fiscal Year 2013-2014," April 2015 verifies the conclusions of my previous study comparing administrative costs per student to size of district (with the possible change of the number from 1000 to 2000 in student population). This graph shows that while the smallest districts (under 2000) do have higher administrative costs, as stated on the original study: "Administrative costs bear little, if any, correlation to size of districts over 1,000 students".

Administrative costs, rather than a function of size, are a reflection of decisions made by local boards of education or administrators. Usually the more money they accept from federal government programs, the more they spend in administrative costs per pupil due to government requirements.

The main point is: the assumption that bigger is less expensive with administrative costs is simply not true unless comparing to a district that is very small (like below 2000 students). It is certainly not a reason to avoid dividing a big district into a few community-sized districts. Dividing would not, by itself, cause administrative costs to rise. If they rose it would be for other reasons, such as a community's desires for another program, etc.

To be more specific, Cache School District has the lowest costs and is about the size that a Lehi School District would be. Alpine (72,419) is 2nd, but Tooele (14,107), South Sanpete (3462), Logan (5987), and Iron (8685) all have less administrative costs per pupil than Jordan or Davis SD. Box Elder (11,131) and tiny Juab (2287) are lower than Granite, Salt Lake, and Nebo.

District	Student Population	Admin $/student
Cache	16038	$ 491.00
Alpine	72419	$ 521.00
Tooele	14107	$ 540.00
So. Sanpete	3462	$ 555.00
Logan	5987	$ 556.00
Iron	8685	$ 578.00
Jordan	52855	$ 594.00
Davis	68573	$ 595.00
Box Elder	11131	$ 596.00
Washington	27099	$ 614.00
Juab	2287	$ 619.00
Granite	68106	$ 623.00
Salt Lake	23965	$ 637.00
Morgan	2632	$ 652.00
Nebo	31230	$ 658.00
Weber	31028	$ 658.00
Sevier	4585	$ 676.00
Uintah	7591	$ 697.00
Murray	6435	$ 745.00
Duchesne	5021	$ 747.00
Wasatch	5786	$ 757.00
Ogden	12489	$ 759.00
Millard	2841	$ 799.00
Provo	14799	$ 813.00
Canyons	33674	$ 901.00
No. Summit	990	$ 972.00
So. Summit	1495	$ 979.00
Carbon	3369	$ 1,102.00
San Juan	3020	$ 1,106.00
Grand	1455	$ 1,128.00
Beaver	1579	$ 1,159.00
Park City	4630	$ 1,315.00
Kane	1212	$ 1,360.00
Emery	2310	$ 1,370.00
Wayne	501	$ 1,512.00
Garfield	930	$ 1,554.00
Tintic	250	$ 2,026.00
Rich	479	$ 2,325.00
Piute	304	$ 2,380.00
Daggett	194	$ 2,825.00

Small Schools Work in New York

More studies show how smaller schools can make a difference - especially in neighborhoods with higher minority demographics:

"New smaller high schools, typically in black or Hispanic neighborhoods, serve about 100 students per grade. More than 90 percent of the students attending these schools are black or Hispanic. Nearly 85 percent qualify for free or reduced price lunches. Three-fourths of them began their high school careers performing below grade level in reading or math."

Smaller schools also produce higher graduation and college rates...

"Students at small high schools have a graduation rate of 71.6 percent, compared with 62.2 percent for their peers in larger schools. The small-school students are also more likely to graduate in four years and go straight to college. The gains are especially impressive among young black men, 42.3 percent of whom enroll in college as opposed to 31 percent of their peers in the control group. Young black women and young Hispanic men and women also matriculated at higher rates than their large-school peers."

...and lower costs...

"The small high schools managed to achieve these gains at a lower cost per graduate than the traditional schools, partly because more students graduated on time and did not need a costly fifth year of education."

...yet people still oppose change!

"The teachers union supported the school closure strategy at first, even though it requires teachers to reapply for their jobs and, in many cases, move elsewhere. But it withdrew support when it decided that Mr. Bloomberg was unnecessarily ramming through closures."

Some people just want to hold on to the status quo - even if change is demonstrably better.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/opinion/small-schools-work-in-new-york.html?_r=0