Educational Equity and School Structure: School Size, Overcrowding, and Schools-Within-Schools

Consistent with the Williams v. California suit, our focus in this article is on educational equity, particularly the interface between equity and school organization. We concentrate on two structural issues, school size and school overcrowding, and one specific school structure, schools-within-schools. We organize the article as an interpretive summary of existing studies of these topics, concentrating on how these structural issues relate to social stratification in student outcomes, particularly academic achievement. Our evidence is drawn from both national studies and, when available and appropriate, from research that discusses the effects of school structure in California. We use this evidence to define which size high schools are best for all students (600900 students), which responses to school overcrowding are appropriate (building more schools rather than adding portable classrooms or multitrack year-round schooling), and how creating smaller learning communities in high schools can work well for everyone by reducing the potential for internal stratification. California policies, however, have not promoted these responses. In many cases they have actually exacerbated inequality in educational outcomes and assisted the transformation of the social differences students bring to school into academic differences. We advocate reforms that are associated with high achievement and achievement that is equitably distributed by race, ethnicity, class, or family origin. Reforms that raise achievement of children at the lower end of the distribution without damaging those at the top are ones toward which we believe our nation should strive. By offering empirical evidence of practices that lead toward this important goal, we hope to inform the important debates surrounding the Williams case.

[1]  L. Muraskin,et al.  Barriers, Benefits, and Costs of Using Private Schools To Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools. Final Report. , 1998 .

[2]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  The Long-Term Effects of Small Classes: A Five-Year Follow-Up of the Tennessee Class Size Experiment , 1999 .

[3]  Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution , 1996 .

[4]  J. Garbarino,et al.  Some thoughts on school size and its effects on adolescent development , 1980, Journal of youth and adolescence.

[5]  Bill Walker,et al.  Reading, Writing and Risk: Air Pollution Inside California's Portable Classrooms. , 1999 .

[6]  R. Barker,et al.  Big school, small school : high school size and student behavior , 1965 .

[7]  S. Michelson For the Plaintiffs- Equal School Resource Allocation , 1972 .

[8]  V. Lee,et al.  The Difficulty of Identifying Rare Samples to Study: The Case of High Schools Divided Into Schools-Within-Schools , 2001 .

[9]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  School System Size and Performance: A Contingency Perspective , 1988 .

[10]  Mary Anne Raywid The Subschools/Small Schools Movement--Taking Stock. , 1995 .

[11]  G. Bohrnstedt,et al.  Class size reduction in California : early evaluation findings, 1996-1998 , 1999 .

[12]  C. Mills,et al.  The Theory of Social and Economic Organization , 1948 .

[13]  D. Monk Secondary school size and curriculum comprehensiveness , 1987 .

[14]  Larry Cuban,et al.  Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. , 1996 .

[15]  R. Collins,et al.  Summer learning and the effects of schooling , 1978 .

[16]  V. Lee School Size and the Organization of Secondary Schools , 2000 .

[17]  Philip T. Krein,et al.  Smaller is better? [micromotors and electric drives] , 2003 .

[18]  Becky A. Smerdon,et al.  Inside Large and Small High Schools: Curriculum and Social Relations , 2000 .

[19]  J. Kasarda,et al.  School District Organization and Student Achievement. , 1975 .

[20]  Deborah Meier,et al.  The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem , 2002 .

[21]  A. Gamoran,et al.  Measuring Curriculum Differentiation , 1989, American Journal of Education.

[22]  V. Lee Educational Choice: The Stratifying Effects of Selecting Schools and Courses , 1993 .

[23]  M. Garet,et al.  Students, Courses, and Stratification. , 1988 .

[24]  M. Fine Framing Dropouts: Notes on the Politics of an Urban Public High School , 1991 .

[25]  Talcott Parsons,et al.  Max Weber, the theory of social and economic organization , 1948 .

[26]  Jeremy D. Finn,et al.  Tennessee's Class Size Study: Findings, Implications, Misconceptions , 1999 .

[27]  J. Dayton,et al.  Career Academies: Partnerships for Reconstructing American High Schools , 1992 .

[28]  L. Shulman,et al.  THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING. , 1909, Science.

[29]  F. Rivera-batiz,et al.  A School System at Risk: A Study of the Consequences of Overcrowding in New York City Public Schools. IUME Research Report No. 95-1. , 1995 .

[30]  James M. Mcpartland The Talent Development High School: Early Evidence of Impact on School Climate, Attendance, and Student Promotion. Report No. 2. , 1996 .

[31]  Patrick J. McQuillan,et al.  Reform and Resistance in Schools and Classrooms: An Ethnographic View of the Coalition of Essential Schools , 1996 .

[32]  Valerie E. Lee,et al.  High School Size: Which Works Best and for Whom? , 1996 .

[33]  Cynthia Parsons,et al.  The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers in the Educational Marketplace , 1985 .

[34]  David T. Burkam,et al.  Social-Class Differences in Summer Learning Between Kindergarten and First Grade: Model Specification and Estimation , 2004 .

[35]  J. Guthrie Organizational Scale and School Success , 1979 .

[36]  James B. Conant,et al.  The American High School Today , 1959 .

[37]  Francis L. Bacon,et al.  National Association of Secondary-School Principals , 1942 .

[38]  Valerie E. Lee,et al.  Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of Middle-Grade Students. , 1993 .

[39]  Becky A. Smerdon,et al.  Condition of America's Public School Facilities, 1999. Statistical Analysis Report. , 2000 .

[40]  A. Bryk,et al.  Curriculum Tracking as Mediating the Social Distribution of High School Achievement. , 1988 .

[41]  Susanna Loeb,et al.  School Size in Chicago Elementary Schools: Effects on Teachers' Attitudes and Students' Achievement , 2000 .

[42]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  A Multilevel Model of the Social Distribution of High School Achievement. , 1989 .

[43]  W. F. Fox,et al.  Reviewing Economies of Size in Education. , 1981 .

[44]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Do Low-Achieving Students Benefit More from Small Classes? Evidence from the Tennessee Class Size Experiment , 2002 .

[45]  Patricia C. Gándara,et al.  Year-Round Schooling as an Avenue to Major Structural Reform , 1994 .

[46]  L. Kenny,et al.  Economies of scale in schooling , 1982 .

[47]  M. Fine Chartering urban school reform : reflections on public high schools in the midst of change , 1994 .

[48]  David H. Monk,et al.  Predictors of High School Academic Course Offerings: The Role of School Size , 1993 .

[49]  V. Lee,et al.  Effects of High School Restructuring and Size on Early Gains in Achievement and Engagement , 1995 .

[50]  Ross E. Mitchell,et al.  Student Segregation and Achievement Tracking in Year-Round Schools , 2005, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[51]  S. Unger,et al.  Smaller is better , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[52]  J. Chambers An Analysis of School Size Under a Voucher System , 1972 .

[53]  J. Goodlad A Place Called School , 1984 .

[54]  J. Oakes,et al.  Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. , 1986 .