2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL SIZE AND HIGH SCHOOL
COMPLETION: A WISCONSIN STUDY
David G. Buckman, Ph.D.
DePaul University
Henry Tran, Ph.D.
University of South Carolina
ABSTRACT
The potential benefits of school size on student outcomes have been debated for decades, but
research on the matter has been far from conclusive. This study seeks to contribute to school size
research by examining the relationship between high schools’ size (enrollment) and their student
on-time (i.e., graduates within four years) completion rates in public, non-charter high schools in
the state of Wisconsin. This outcome is unique in that it is relatively unexamined and captures
not only students who drop out but also those that are retained a grade. Results from our multiple
regression analysis (OLS) support the argument that school enrollment is negatively related to
high school on-time completion rates (b=-.0000146, p=.007), after controlling for a hosts of
student demographic and school environmental factors. We interpret this result through Barker
and Gump’s (1964) staffing theory to better understand the chain of the events that may have
resulted in our finding. To contribute to scholarly discussions concerning the “optimal school”
size for student outcomes, we found that a school with an enrollment size of 156.25 would yield
the highest completion rates based on the data within our sample.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 INTRODUCTION
The potential influence of school size on student outcomes have been debated for
decades. Some findings from past research has favored smaller schools as ideal for student
learning as it relates to student academic achievement (Kuziemko, 2004; Lamdin, 1996; Lee and
Smith, 1997), however, these results are far from conclusive (Michelson, 1972; Sanders, 1993).
This study seeks to contribute to the knowledge base by examining the relationship between the
size of high schools and their student completion rates, a relatively unexplored student success
metric.
Aligning with prior recommendations made by scholars of school size research (Bard,
Gardner, & Wieland, 2006), many school districts across the United States have consolidated
with one another to decrease per-pupil costs, taking advantage of economy of scale. Economy of
scale refers to the cost advantages that organizations obtain because of characteristics such as
size, output, or scale of operation, which as a result reduces cost per unit by distributing cost over
more units of output (Panzar & Willig, 1977). By reducing the cost per unit, the consolidation of
districts provide more resource opportunities for extra-curricular activities, increase student
interaction, and offer more diverse curriculum (Smith & DeYoung, 1988) than smaller schools.
While it is possible for school districts to merge without effecting high school size, often school
districts consolidated to increase equity and efficiency of high schools (Haller, 1992) by
increasing student enrollment. As a result of school district and school consolidation, school
enrollment is eight times larger than it was one hundred years ago and the numbers of school
districts have substantially decreased (Lowen, Haley, & Burnet, 2010). The consolidation of
schools and school districts often occur to accommodate a larger student body, decrease the
number of faculty, and increase variety of courses. This is because schools or school districts
with dwindling enrollment that are incapable of financially sustaining the learning environment
often consolidate to increase academic and financial stability through cumulative per-pupil
expenditure.
It is also important to note that declining enrollments of small schools and its associated
decline in per student state funding have caused severe financial problems for many of these
schools. Smaller schools with low enrollment may struggle to allocate funds necessary to support
not only extracurricular activities, but also for the quality maintenance of the learning
environment. Consequently, to maintain curricular quality (e.g., incorporation of technology,
surplus of academic programs, and facilities), some school districts consolidate voluntarily to
save programs and facilities (Bard, Gardener, & Wieland, 2006). Although school district
consolidation may be the answer to some district financial issues, researchers have noted that
large schools, as a result of district consolidation, have been associated with limited parental
involvement in student learning, increased discipline problems, and elevated teacher/student
conflicts (Dale & Allen, 1995).
At smaller schools, teachers and school level administrators typically have more job
responsibilities. Principals and teachers may find that due to the contextual complexity of small
schools their roles may not be as bounded as those of larger schools (Clarke & Wildly, 2004).
For example, teachers may be required to perform duties ideally performed by administrators and
school administrators may have teaching responsibilities.
School size and class size often increase concurrently (Alspaugh, 1994), therefore, to
accommodate for increases in school size, teacher’s instructional practices are affected by the
increased need to focus more time on classroom management and student discipline. Just as
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 teachers must accommodate to the increases in the student population, administrators at larger
schools can also be distracted by an increased need to address student discipline at the expense of
spending more time focusing on instructional leadership needs when compared to administrators
at smaller schools. In fact, larger schools often require more assistant principals, in which one of
the administrators may be responsible for discipline, while another for instructional leadership.
In addition to the aforementioned issues, school size is also important because of its
potential impact on student outcomes, such as high school completion. Student high school
completion matters because of its predictive power for increased levels of human capital and
success in adulthood for graduates (Lee & Burkam, 2003). Failing to complete high school has
been found to be associated with much lower future earnings (Rumberger, 1987), more arrest
(Thornberry, Moore, and Christianson, 1985), and increase tax payer costs (Bjerk, 2012). So
while school districts throughout the U.S. continue to increase school size by consolidating for
the purposes of cost efficiency and other district related benefits, we question what these mergers
may mean for students’ high school completions.
In the next section, we will review arguments that support the popularity of the espoused
advantages of larger schools. We proceed by citing prior evidence that counter these arguments
and highlight prior findings of the advantages of small schools. We then follow the review of
literature with a potential explanation of how school size impacts high school completion
through the theoretical perspective of the Staffing Theory (Barker & Gump, 1964).
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Popular Large School Arguments
Researchers argue that larger schools can increase savings by reducing redundancy and
strengthening purchasing power (Lee & Smith, 1997). Gilbert (1999) discusses the price
reduction benefit merchants offer consumers for purchasing items in large quantities. The
increased number of students in a school allows for bulk purchases, resulting in lower per-pupil
spending due to the reduced cost of supplies (Lee & Smith, 1997).
Lee and Smith (1997) also argue that larger schools have more potential to differentiate
instruction. For instance, at larger schools, teachers may be afforded more opportunities to
individualize a student’s education based on their learning abilities because of the increased
likelihood that there will be larger numbers of students with similar abilities. By having more
students with similar learning attributes, the teacher can create small learning groups that better
provide focused instruction.
Other than the aforementioned motives described by Lee and Smith (1997), Tanner and
West (2011) buttress the recommendation for larger schools by recognizing that larger schools
provide not only quality education for students with emphasis on increased opportunities for
academic success, but also provide a well-rounded education with possibilities for other forms of
scholastic involvement. Arguments for larger schools could be made to address the need for
more competitive sports teams, bands, and maintaining a cohesive relationship between the
school and the community (Tanner & West, 2011). If a successful program is defined by
“winning” performances, then ultimately, as the pool of candidates for a particular
extracurricular activity increases, the potential quality of that particular program increases
concurrently due to increased selective competition. Ideally, the more individuals available to
choose from in a candidate pool, the pool becomes more competitive and the probability of
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 selecting a highly skilled individual increases. Therefore it is not abnormal that “one of the most
frequently observed reasons for encouraging the construction of large high schools has been the
perceived need to have a winning football team (Tanner & West, p. 18, 2011).”
In a study conducted by Coladarci and Cobb (1996), they concluded that student
achievement (as defined by composite standardized math and reading scores) was unrelated to
school size, despite the fact that smaller schools have higher participation rates in extracurricular
activities. This contributes to the evidence that debunks the argument for an indirect effect of
school size on student achievement. Moreover, Friedkin and Necochea (1988) found positive
effects of increased school size on student achievement, however, only in areas with high
Socioeconomic Status (SES). Increased SES of the school can be associated to the increase in
school system size, which produces opportunities for improved school system performances
(Friedkin & Necochea, 1988). Their research also supports that these larger schools may not
thrive in low SES environments due to low operations performance and financial constraints.
Small School Rebuttal
Large schools are able to allocate more funds than smaller schools within the school
supplies area of their budget because of the savings associated with larger purchases, however,
Lindahl and Cain (2012) found that the per-pupil expenditures of large schools do not differ from
small schools. Conversely, their research found that large schools demand significantly more
local effort in the form of taxes than medium or small schools. In agreement with Lindahl and
Cain’s (2012) findings, Lee and Smith (1997) identify the costs of increased administrative staff,
higher cost in material distribution, and increased cost in student transportation associated with
large schools that collectively equipoise any savings.
One argument for larger schools is the claim that it facilitates the opportunity to provide
more diverse curriculum based on the increased potential for a large numbers of students with
similar interests and abilities. In theory, large schools create programs to address a larger number
of students’ individual needs, while small schools focus on core courses that may or may not
meet their academic needs (Buzacott, 1982). For example, larger schools may offer a more
diverse array of elective courses (e.g., forensic science, sculpting, advanced technology courses),
while smaller courses may provide more emphasis on the core courses (e.g., math, reading and
science).
While the curriculum may be narrower at smaller schools, Lee and Smith (1997) find that
they produce more positive social relationships among students and higher average achievement
than present at larger schools by limiting students to the same curriculum regardless of interests,
abilities, and social backgrounds. This can be seen as a positive attribute of small schooling
because of the increased learning opportunities that can be provided through equitable
distribution of students with different achievement levels within the same classes (Lee & Smith,
1997). Perhaps because of this, smaller schools have been found to be better suited to increase
achievement in poor performing, low income student populations (Friedkin & Necochea, 1988).
Optimal School Size
As it can be determined from the arguments presented for both large schools and small
schools, there is no consensus that one is more advantageous than the other. Although larger
schools provided opportunities for financial savings through discounts on larger purchases for
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 administration (Lee & Smith, 1997; Gilbert, 1999), they also encounter negative attributes in the
form of higher dropout rate, increased levels of school violence, and tardiness (Heaviside,
Rowand, Williams, & Farris, 1998). Smaller schools have been associated with better social
relationships, and increased levels of achievement in rural and impoverished areas (Lee & Smith,
1997; Raywid, 1997), however, smaller schools also lack variety and opportunities for student to
participate in many different extracurricular activities (Tanner & West, 2011).
Tanner and West (2011) recognized that smaller schools have fewer accounts of school
violence than larger schools. In addition, Heaviside et al. (1998) found that schools exceeding
1,000 students sustained more discipline issues pertaining to tardiness, physical conflict, as well
as alcohol and drug offenses. Smaller schools have been reported to have higher attendance rates,
lower dropout rates, higher grade point averages, and higher levels of participation in
extracurricular activities (Viadero, 2001). While larger schools are more capable of financially
sustaining a highly functional educational environment rich in academic and extracurricular
diversity (Tanner & West, 2011). To reap the benefits associated with both large and small
schools, school districts may benefit from building from an ideal size for operations.
The term “optimal school size” has been used often within school enrollment literature
pertaining to benefits associated with accountability, school consolidation, and district costs
(Lowen, Haley, & Burnett, 2010). Despite its common use, researchers have defined the term
differently because optimal size is often defined as the size that best links the main predictor to
the various outcomes studied within their research. In this study, we examine the issue of optimal
size, defined as the number of students enrolled in a school that supports the highest graduation
completion rate, controlling for a host of factors including student achievement (based off state
standardized test scores) and school environment.
Researchers have noted that high schools exceeding 1,000 students are at risk for issues
related to academic and disciplinary issues (Heaviside et al., 1998). While optimal high school
size has not been quantified often in school size literature, researchers have often referred to the
optimal school size of 400 as reported by Howley (1994). Specifically, Howley suggests that a
total student enrollment of 400 is the optimal school size capable of supporting student curricular
needs. Our work adds to the literature by reporting a data-based suggestion of the optimal school
size for high school completion rates.
High School Dropout
Lee and Burkam (2003) suggest that personal characteristics of individual students are
the most common explanation for why students drop out of high school. Explanatory variables
found in student dropout research often consist of (a) socioeconomic status, (b) inner city
residency, and (c) academic status (Lee & Burkam, 2003). By framing research in this manner,
Lee and Burkam (2003) allude that dropping out is identified as the result of a series of unwise
choices made by students, which are influenced by their backgrounds and behaviors.
Beyond the students’ personal backgrounds and behaviors, the structure of the school can
also be a predictor of student of drop out. School enrollment, sector, and urban status have all
been recognized as predictors associated with student dropout (Rumberg & Thomas, 2000).
Within their research, they found that dropout rates were much higher in large, public, urban
schools after controlling for school related demographics (i.e., resources, attendance, student
composition). The influence of school size on student dropouts is an area that warrants further
discussion.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 School Size and Dropout Findings
When reviewing school size research, researchers have provided evidence supporting
school size having a veritable effect on high school dropout. While similar, on-time (four years)
high school completion, which is the focus of our study, remains distinct because our focal group
of four-year cohorts recognizes those who have dropped out of school as well as those enrolled
but not completing on time. This expanded focal group has not been an area of emphasis by other
scholars, but their research is worth reviewing to provide a foundation for this study.
Cotton (1996) reviewed ten studies pertaining to school size and high school dropout
rates, finding that in nine of the ten studies, smaller schools produced lower levels of high school
dropout. Similarly, Gladden (1998) found higher levels of high school completion in smaller
schools compared to larger schools. Further research found by Pittman and Haughwout (1987)
report that schools with a graduating class of fewer than 667 students produced an average
dropout rate of 6.4%, while schools with a graduating class exceeding 2091 students produced an
average dropout rate of 12.1%.
In this study, Barker and Gumps’s (1964) Staffing Theory was used as a theoretical
framework to help us understand the relationship between high schools’ size and student
completion. This theory addresses school human resources issues pertaining to staffing and how
the environment or behavior setting based on staffing can impact student success. As such, our
study addresses the school environment for a four-year period and uses this theory to explain
how school related issues pertaining to school size can influence student outcomes (i.e., high
school completion).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Staffing Theory
Barker and Gump’s (1964) Staffing Theory recognizes the implications of a behavior
setting (e.g., school environment) being either overstaffed or understaffed. A behavior setting is
defined as an environment in which individuals can be seen as a unique and integral part of an
organization, or anonymous and replaceable (Barker & Gump, 1964). Understaffing is
recognized as a description of an environment whose organization is not equipped with the
adequate labor force to address the behavioral environments goals (e.g., well-rounded
education), while overstaffing occurs when there is a profusion of personnel available to promote
the behavioral environments goals. In this particular study, we identify an overstaffed
environment as a proxy for large schools given that larger schools are more likely to have a
“profusion of personnel available” relative to smaller schools, while an understaffed environment
serves as a proxy for small schools. However, the impact of each may have confounding effects
on its members.
Based on Barker & Gump’s (1964) theory, one could hypothesize that students at smaller
schools are more likely to display the following behavioral consequences in comparison to larger
high schools:
1) Greater effort. Greater individual effort can take the form of “harder” work or
longer hours. The greater effort is directed both toward the primary goals of
the setting and along the maintenance routes. When the assistant yearbook
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 editor leaves, with no one available for replacement, the editor proofreads all
the galleys instead of half of them.
2) Working with more difficult and important tasks. There is, in most settings, a
hierarchy of tasks with respect to difficulty and importance.The
inexperienced sophomore has to take the lead role in the play when the
experienced senior becomes ill. [Ultimately, these scenarios provide examples
of how at smaller schools, individuals who may not be typically given the
prospect to participate in certain experiences are provided opportunities to
expand their abilities and gain new skills because of the availability or lack of
participants]. (p. 24)
When interpreting the examples provided by the researchers, one may conclude that due
to the increased amount of work and responsibilities associated with an understaffed work force
(i.e., small schools), there is also an elevated amount of social pressure and additional
opportunities to become involved in the environmental setting. In smaller schools, individuals
are likely to have increased opportunities to participate in leadership roles, in addition, they are
likely to have less opportunity to remain anonymous in the crowd. This is true not only for the
employees, such as faculty, who have increased opportunities to get to know (and care for) the
students of the school on a more personal level, but also for students, who have increased
opportunities to be known.
This theory purports that as overstaffing in school system become potent (as a result of
school size), the amount of individual responsibility decrease concurrently. In this scenario,
employees, such as faculty, have less opportunity to get to know (and care for) the students and
the students have fewer opportunities to be known. Staffing Theory (Baker & Gump, 1964) and
the components associated to an understaffed school environment may be linked to support high
school completion rates. The small school environment supports higher levels of pressure to
succeed, greater involvement in the school setting, as well as more student responsibility. As
such, because of the scarcity of students enrolled in the school, each individual become an
essential and integral component of the student population. Also, with such high levels of
visibility, foreseen signs of student drop-out and class failure may be more noticeable by school
personnel who are already familiar with the students and preventive measures can be taken
promptly. Based on the latter statement concerning this theory, we explore the relationship
between school size and high school completion.
PURPOSE
As local and national government implement new school initiatives to expand school
consolidations, it is important to recognize issues affecting student outcomes at the micro level.
This study intends to offer current research in an area that warrants further investigation.
Specifically, this study offers an empirical examination of the relationship between high school
size and student success (e.g., on-time high school completion) in public, non-charter high
schools in the state of Wisconsin.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 ADVANCEMENTS
This study advances the body of research concerning high school dropout (Lee &
Burkam, 2003; Rumberg & Thomas, 2000) by first extending the outcome emphasis to high
school completion and then accounting for unique variables (i.e., minimal school performance,
percentage of drug arrest per county, principal retention, county wages, county educational
attainment) that may be related to student completion, as well as commonly used controls
frequently incorporated in prior student dropout research (i.e., SES, school performance, perpupil expenditure). The aforementioned studies both addressed predictors of student drop out,
however, their research differs by only addressing individual and school level factors with
emphasis on socioeconomic status (SES), minority concentration, and school achievement,
ignoring school size, community demographics that may influence dropout (i.e., percentage of
drug related arrest, community wages, community education level), or leadership stability (e.g.,
principal turnover) as potential predictors associated with high school completion.
Unlike other related studies that focus on student dropout as an outcome, our study
concerning student on-time high school completion utilizes the data of a four-year cohort from
non-charter, public high schools and accounts for not only dropout, but also individuals who
remain in school but not completing on-time. In doing so, we attempt to identify whether school
size predicts high school students’ completion rates. Ultimately this study intends to address the
following research question:
1) Is there a relationship between high schools’ enrollment (school size) and
student completion rates?
METHODOLOGY
The population of interest for this study is all traditional (non-charter) public high schools
in the states of Wisconsin (N=511), of which our sample contains 391. Patterns were examined
for missing schools, which revealed that they were either state schools (i.e., correctional schools,
school for the deaf/blind, and health services schools), extremely small schools (whereby
individual students could be identified) and/or new schools without four years of data. School
and district related variables were obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(WDPI), whereas county variables were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.
The dependent variable for this study is Wisconsin’s public high school “on-time”
completion rates for a four year cohort. “On-time” refers to students who graduated high school
within four years. Students who transferred to other schools were completely removed from the
cohort. Therefore, those who do not complete are comprised of students who were retained (or
held back) so are therefore still in the school or have dropped out.
Because of the aggregated nature of the completion rate variable by time, the main
predictor and all covariates were also averaged across four years. These variables included
school’s enrollment, combination status (i.e., whether a school was a high school or middle/high
school combination), percent of students scoring at minimal performance, percent of principals
retained (i.e., 100% if the same principal remained at the same school for four years), percent of
student suspensions, percent of students on free/reduced lunch, districts’ total per student
education costs, county percent of drug arrests, percent of adults whose highest education
attainment is less than a high school graduation, and total quarterly wage. Of the sample of
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 schools, 370 (94.63%) were non-combination high schools and 21 (5.37%) were combination
schools (middle/high school). Further descriptive statistics for the remaining variables are
provided in table 1.
Table 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
(n=391)
Variable
Mean
Std. Dev.
Min
Max
Completion Rate (School %)
.92
0.78
.29
1
School Enrollment
621.77
512.68
26.5
2260.75
Minimal Performance (School %)
.17
.08
.03
.68
Drug Arrest (County %)
.004
.002
.0004
.016
Districts’ Total Per Student Costs
2.74e+07
8.09e+07
10,493
5.51e+08
Principal Retention (County %)
.87
.15
.5
1
County Total Quarterly Wage
9.35e+08
1.62e+09
5,792,104
6.06e+09
Less than high school (County %)
.10
.03
.04
.18
Free/Reduced Lunch (School %)
.33
.15
0
.86
Suspension (School %)
.05
.05
0
.57
In order to examine the influence of school enrollment on high school completion rates, a
regression analysis was employed. The clustering of data by school, county and district naturally
suggests that a multilevel model may be appropriate. Consequently, we compared an ordinary
least squares model (OLS) to a multilevel model that accounts for groupings. Results from the
likelihood-ratio test suggests that accounting for clustering was not necessary, χ2 (df=2)
=.0.0, p=1. As a result, our analyses proceeded with an OLS regression model.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 RESULTS
To address our primary research question, our findings suggest that school enrollment is
negatively associated with high school “on-time” completion rates. Specifically we find that for
every 1,000 students that are enrolled in a school, the completion rate drops by about 1.46% (b=.0000146, p=.007). In addition, the county percentage of drug related arrests, districts’ per
student total education costs and schools’ percent of minimal performance were all found to be
negatively related to “on-time” completion rates. However, of all the variables examined,
standardized regression estimates indicate that the factor that has the largest relative association
with completion rates is student performance. Specifically, schools with a larger share of lower
performing students have lower completion rates. This finding is aligned with prior research
(Deming, 2009).
The second strongest predictor of high school completion was total education costs.
Specifically, the cost of education was found to be negatively related to high school completion.
This finding may be due to the fact that certain students who cost more to educate (e.g., students
identified as English Language Learners, in Special Education, coming from impoverished
backgrounds) also tend to have lower high school completion rates (Verstegen, 2011).
The full results of the regression are displayed in table 2. Coefficients are reported with
robust standard errors. These results are more conservative as the modified standard errors help
address issues concerning the violation of regression assumptions (e.g., normality,
heteroskedasticity).
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 Table 2
REGRESSION RESULTS FOR PREDICTORS OF HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION RATES
School Enrollment
Minimal Performance (School %)
Combination Schools
Drug Arrest (County %)
Total Education Cost
Principal Retention (School %)
County Total Quarterly Wages
Adults without high school degree (County %)
Students on Free/Reduced Lunch (School %)
Suspensions (School %)
Constant
r2
n
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05
Completion Rate
-1.46e-05***
(5.36e-06)
-0.464***
(0.0959)
-0.00376
(0.0107)
-2.063**
(0.979)
-3.26e-10**
(1.32e-10)
-0.0111
(0.0154)
0
(0)
0.0693
(0.0728)
-0.0414
(0.0263)
0.0369
(0.151)
1.038***
(0.0185)
β
-.096
-.490
-.011
-.064
-.336
-.021
.026
.026
-.079
.024
0.65
391
In an effort to contribute to the discussion concerning optimum school size, predicted
outcomes were examined relative to each school enrollment size as found between the range of
26.5 to 2260.75 in our sample. According to the results of our study, the optimum school size
found within the data set is 156.25 for non-combination (i.e., the majority) Wisconsin public
high schools, which yielded a 100% completion rate. A scatterplot comparing high school
enrollment to completion rates is displayed in figure 1, a trend line was superimposed onto the
figure to highlight the negative relationship found between enrollment and completion rates.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 High School Completion Rates
Figure 1
SCATTER PLOT OF SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ON HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION RATES
0.95 0.85 0.75 0.65 0.55 0.45 0.35 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 High School Enrollment
CONCLUSION
Our study found evidence to support the argument that school enrollment is negatively
related to high school “on-time” completion rates. Interpreting this finding through Barker and
Gump’s (1964) staffing theory suggests that students of smaller schools may benefit from the
increased attention they are likely to receive from education professionals such as teachers and
principals, given the difficulty for students to remain invisible at a smaller school relative to a
larger school. In addition, the theory suggests that students at smaller schools will likely face
increased pressure to be involved in the school community and succeed. While additional
research is needed to validate the mechanism (e.g., pressure, increased student responsibility) by
which school size is related to high school completion rates, this study does provide evidence to
suggest that the two variables are statistically related.
In addition to school enrollment, county of drug related arrests, districts’ per student total
education costs, and schools’ percent of minimal performance were all found to be negatively
related to “on-time” completion rates. According to our standardized regression estimates, of the
variables examined, the factor that mattered most for high school completion rates is student
performance. Specifically, a school with a larger percentage of low performers is more likely to
have lower completion rates.
The finding of the association between schools’ percentage of low performers relative to
their students’ completion rates may be due to several reasons. For instance, lower performers
may have less ability or confidence to meet completion requirements. Students who do not
perform well in school may feel that they are mismatched for education or that they are unlikely
able to finish. In addition, although student poverty and low education level of county residents
are accounted for in our model, there may be other unaccounted for variables (e.g., educational
aspiration of peer and family members) that may be related to both high schools with a large
number of low performers and their completion rates. Therefore, schools with a larger share of
low performing students may be more likely to drop out due to the influence of their peers that
also have not completed high school.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 LIMITATIONS
While it is preferable to have individual panel level data, such data were not available.
Consequently, we were not able to identify the exact number of students who dropped out as
compared to those who were retained. Future studies should seek to follow the educational
trajectory of individual students, controlling for factors that may impact the “on-time”
completion rates of those students. Further depth can also be added to our findings by examining
the same factors we explored on a five year completion cohort, which would capture those
students who were retained a year.
Furthermore, the data based optimum school size of 156.25 that was found in this study
must be interpreted with caution. This number is based on averages generated from statistics, and
does not account for specific contexts and circumstances for individual schools that may warrant
larger or smaller school sizes. School leaders and policymakers must take into consideration
many factors, including student population and financial implications when using the
modification of school size to improve student outcomes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our findings, further exploration concerning the impact of school size on
student performance is warranted. As previously noted, school size and student achievement has
been inconclusive when determining whether small schools or large schools have a greater
impact on student achievement (Coladarci & Cobb, 1996; Friedkin & Necochea, 1988; Lee &
Smith, 1997). Issues such as student demographics, student and school wealth (SES), as well as
participation in extracurricular activities have all been identified as issues noteworthy of
exploration when linking school size to student performance.
Because of the strength of the association between low performance and “on-time”
school completion rates, arguments and findings for the importance of early childhood
intervention and stronger academic preparation for students is supported (Deming, 2009). Past
studies have found that students who are underprepared face academic problems (e.g., they are
required to take remedial courses) at higher education institutions (Bettinger & Long, 2009). Our
findings suggests that the under preparation may be more serious than initially thought as
underprepared students may not even make it to college. This is likely true for both dropout
students and for those who are retained a grade, because past research has suggested that the
latter are more likely to become the former and both are less likely to enroll in post-secondary
institutions (Goldenring & Davis, 2003).
In sum, high school completion is important for many reasons. For instance, even from a
communal economics perspective, high school graduates are more likely to earn higher salaries
than non-graduates (Lee & Burkham, 2003) which results in higher taxes being contributed to
address societal needs. Graduates are also less likely to be arrested (Thornberry, Moore and
Christianson, 1985) which not only reduces taxpayer costs, but promotes a safer environment for
our citizens. From the individual perspective, the benefits of high school completion can range
from increased self-esteem to better life outcomes in general. The variables that we addressed in
this study help uncover more factors that contribute to high school student success. By better
understanding these, as well as other influential factors, we will be in a position to better help
students cross that high school finish line.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 REFERENCES
Alspaugh, J. W. (1994). The relationship between school size, student teacher ratio and school
efficiency. Education, 114(4), 593.
Bard, J., Gardener, C., & Wieland, R. (n.d.). Rural school consolidation: History, research
summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Rural Educator, 27(2), 40-48.
Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school, small school. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bjerk, D. (2012). Re-examining the impact of dropping out on criminal labor outcomes in early
adulthool. Economics of Education Review, 31, 110-122.
Buzacott, J. A. (1982). Scale in production systems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2004). Context Counts: Viewing small school leadership from the
inside out. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 555-572.
Coladarci, T., & Cobb, C. D. (1996). Extracurricular participation, school size, and achievement
and self-esteem among high school students: A national look. Journal of Research in
Rural Education, 12(2), 92-103.
Cotton, K. (1996). Affective and social benefits of small-scaled schooling. ERIC Digest.
Dale, A., & Allen, J. (1995). The School Reform Handbook: How to improve your school. United
States: Center of Education Reform.
Deming, D. (2009). Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill development: Evidence
from head start. American Economic Journal, 1(3), 111-134
Friedkin, N. E., & Necochea, J. (1988). School system size and performance: A contingency
perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(3), 237-249.
doi:10.3102/01623737010003237
Gilbert, S. (1999). Supply chain benefits from advanced customer commitments. Journal of
Operations Management, 18(1), 61-73. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(99)00012-1
Gladden, R. (1998). The small school movement: A review of the literature. In M. Fine & J. I.
Somerville (Authors), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public
(pp. 113-137). Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
Goldenring, J.F., & Davis, J.M. (2003). Grade retention and enrollment in post-secondary
education. Journal of School Psychology, 41(60), 401-411.
Haller, E.J. (1992). High school size and student indiscipline: Another aspect of the school
consolidation issue. Educatinal Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 145-156.
Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems
in US public schools: 1996-1997. US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of
Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC.
Howley, C. (1994). The academic effectiveness of small-scale schooling (an update). ERIC
Digest.
Kuziemko, I. (2006). Using shocks to school enrollment to estimate the effect of school size on
student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 25(1), 63-75.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.10.003
Lamdin, D. J. (1995). Testing for the effect of school size on student achievement within a
school district. Education Economics, 3(1), 33-42. doi:10.1080/09645299500000002
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school
organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 353-393.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom?
Educational
Evaluation
and
Policy
Analysis,
19(3),
205-227.
doi:10.3102/01623737019003205
Lindahl, R. A., & Cain, P. M., Sr. (2012). A study of school size among Alabama's public high
schools. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 7(1), 1-27.
Lowen, A., Haley, M. R., & Burnett, N. J. (2010). To Consolidate of not to consolidate, that is
the question: Optimal school size and teacher incentive contracts. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3), 1-14.
Michelson, S. (1972). Equal school resource allocation. Journal of Human Resources, 7, 283306.
Panzar, J.C., & Willig, R.D. (1977). Economies of scale in multi-output production. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 91, 481-493.
Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Influence of high school size on dropout rate.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337-343.
Raywid, M. A. (1997). Small Schools: A reform that works. Educational Leadership, 55(4), 3439.
Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates
among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73(1), 39-67.
Rumberger, R. W. (1987). The impact of surplus schooling on productivity and earnings. Journal
of Human Resources, 22(1), 24-50.
Sanders, W. (1993). Expenditures and student achievement in Illinois. Journal of Public
Economics, 52(3), 403-416. doi:10.1016/0047-2727(93)90043-S
Smith, D., & DeYoung, A. (1988). Big school vs. small school: Conceptual, empirical, and
political perspectives on the reemerging debate. Journal of Rural & Small Schools,
2(2), 2-11.
Tanner, C. K., & West, D. (2011). Does school size effect students' academic outcomes. The
ACEF Journal, 2(1), 17-40.
Thornberry, T. P., Moore, M., & Christenson, R. L. (1985). The effect of dropping out of high
school on subsequent criminal behavior. Criminology, 23(1), 3-18.
Verstegen, D. A. (2011). Public education finance systems in the United States and funding
policies for populations with special educational needs. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 19(21), 1-30.
Viadero, D. (2001). Smaller is better: Studies show benefits of intimate settings but schools
continue to grow. Education Week, 21(13), 28-29.
2015 JEPPA VOL.5, ISSUE 7 JEPPA
www.jeppa.org
The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of JEPPA’s Editorial Staff
or Advisory Board.
JEPPA is a free, open-access online journal.
Copyright ©2015 (ISSN 2152-2804)
Permission is hereby granted to copy any article provided that the Journal of Education
Policy, Planning and Administration is credited and copies are not sold.