|
 School Size and Quality —What Does This Mean for the Future? Presented by Joe Nathan, PhD Research on schools has proven that smaller is better, said Joe Nathan; that means smaller student to teacher ratios and smaller schools. The Lee and Smith study, among others, has demonstrated that the notion of economies of scale that prompt so many communities to build enormous 3,000-student high schools is a fallacy. The benefits found in more personal and intimate learning environments far outweigh the limited efficiencies of megaschools. For starters, smaller facilities have less violence, higher standardized test scores, and higher rates of graduation. While school and classroom sizes are critical elements, they are only part of the puzzle. Community involvement is also important, and it is necessary to keep this idea in mind when designing schools. It is possible, said Nathan, to design effective small schools that are not outrageously expensive, that tie into the community, and that have long, productive afterlives. It is also possible to turn an existing facility into a very good school. In Buffalo, N.Y., the King Urban Life Center, which once was a church, is a school for pre-K through second grade. The space is flexible to house various student and community activities, and well-placed dropped light fixtures have given the interior a more intimate feel while leaving the former church’s soaring ceilings as a background note. In Minnesota, the Northfield Community Resource Center houses a variety of services: a school called the Area Learning Center, Head Start, a thrift store, and a senior center. The 58,000-square-foot building has 4 wings and 84 rooms, including an exercise room and 8 conference rooms. Examples such as these offer promising strategies for the future. If you are connected to the Web, you can view an
article by Joe Nathan about the Amsterdam conference by clicking on the link
below: |
