Are ‘regionalized’ schools better? Evidence says no

Since last fall, Maine schools and local municipalities have been urged to “regionalize” services. In some cases, the state is doing more than urging. Both the Maine Department of Education and the Maine Board of Education have made it clear to school systems such as SAD 31 in Howland, Millinocket, East Millinocket and SAD 40 in Dexter that they cannot expect state funding for new construction unless they seek “regional solutions.” What the state seems to mean in these cases is not “regionalization” but “school consolidation.”

Some Maine policy-makers clearly believe that small high schools are more expensive to run and of lower quality than bigger, regional schools. When making their case in Howland, the Millinockets, Dexter and elsewhere, they often emphasize the “expensive” part of this claim. The other part – that small high schools are “low quality” – is often not overtly expressed but is nevertheless present in conversations and written documents.

But where is the evidence for these claims? When will that evidence be made public so all can examine and discuss it?

The irony of this quiet policy initiative is that across the nation there is a growing belief that schools of 250 to 350 students have significantly better potential to educate all their students than do high schools of more than 500 students. Cities and foundations are investing significant money in “making large high schools smaller” in New York City, Providence, Oakland and the states of Washington and Oregon. Maine’s own Promising Futures high school reform movement (which, incidentally, is regarded as a model initiative in other parts of the country) seeks to “personalize” secondary education through “democratic practices” that are vastly easier to implement in small schools than in large. In this vein, the Gates Foundation-funded Great Maine Schools Project is funding a “make large schools smaller” initiative.

In the absence of a public explanation for the state’s under-the-radar consolidation initiative, permit me to share five research-based observations that should encourage Maine to retain its small schools:

1. Test scores for 11th-graders in many smaller high schools are, on average, a few points lower than in larger schools. Low achievement in U.S. schools, however, is highly correlated with low family income and parent education levels – conditions that are more prevalent in Maine’s rural communities than nearer large towns and cities. When we factor in income and parental education level, the slightly lower achievement scores of small school students disappear.

2. This suggests the quality of the school is not necessarily the “cause” of lower achievement. One could argue that more rather than fewer resources should be invested in educating our rural students since proportionally more of them begin school at a disadvantage.

3. Small high schools in Maine and elsewhere have on average higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates than do larger schools. Higher percentages of students in these schools participate in – and lead – student activities, as well, gaining important lessons in community and civic responsibility.

4. Expenditure levels for small high school students are not consistently greater than those for larger high school students. Per pupil costs for instruction are lower in many cases. Funding for professional development is often very limited.

5. Local tax bases for these schools are severely overburdened and, in general, weaker than those for larger schools. These schools are being required by state and federal mandates to do more with less.

These data suggest that Maine’s small, rural communities have a strong case when they question Augusta’s persistent push to “regionalize” their schools. Simply put, the evidence does not support the conclusion that these schools are worse than their larger counterparts. On the contrary, the community pride and involvement we often find in these schools are powerful contributors to a well-rounded education – and to the preservation of their communities themselves.

A small school, of course, can be as flawed as a large school. The Maine Small High School Coalition formed this spring to draw attention to the unique challenges our small, rural high schools face and to the advantages they offer to students and communities. Our research and our experience tell us that Maine’s small high schools are, by and large, not the problem that policy-makers are making them out to be.

I support the coalition’s view that, far from being the problem, many of Maine’s small high schools can show us a way to solutions to the disaffection, impersonality and mechanistic cultures of our high schools. If these schools were properly supported with state funding, professional development and comparable salaries, they might even have the same chance to shine that their larger neighbors have.

We call on those who advocate for “regionalization” to explain, first, what they mean by this term and, second, how it promises to educate Maine’s rural adolescents to a higher standard in all respects. So far, the preponderance of evidence does not support dismantling our community high schools.

Gordon Donaldson is a professor of education at the University of Maine.