In Section 3 of Act 46 our legislators said it was not their intent to close Vermont's small schools. But the cynics among us thought otherwise. Now, with promises of millions and millions of dollars in tax savings, small, rural elementary schools in towns across Vermont are starting to see their necks put on the chopping block. When these small schools close, it will have nothing to do with good academic outcomes or affordability. It will, in the end, be about votes. The biggest towns win. The students lose, and if we look to the experience of other states such as West Virginia and Maine, in the end, we all lose. Here is why:[1]
1. In the elementary grades small schools provide a better education
Despite all of the talk about increased programs at large schools, schools with enrollments of under 50 students keep pace with larger schools, in fact outperforming all categories in reading proficiency.
[2]
A study commissioned by the State of Vermont reported:
“Seventy four percent of the principals from small schools report that most of their students (80-100%) were adequately prepared to make the transition to middle or high school compared with only 58 percent of principals from larger schools.”
The same study concluded: “Small schools in Vermont cost more to operate than larger schools but they are worth the investment because of the value they add to student learning and community cohesion.”
[3]
2. Economically disadvantaged students are far better served in small schools
In four separate studies of seven states, researchers Craig Howley, of Ohio University and the Appalachia Educational Laboratory, and Robert Bickel, of Marshall University, repeatedly found that disadvantaged students do better if they attend a small school. In the most recent four-state study, the correlation between poverty and low achievement was ten times stronger in larger schools than in smaller ones in all four states.
[4]
The same report found that teachers expected more from their students because they knew them better and were more involved with their learning.
Teachers reported more collaboration with colleagues and more-regular professional development activities at their schools. They also had greater contact with parents and understood them as an important element in student success. Lack of parental involvement in schools is often a problem in less affluent communities, and the further the school is from the community the bigger the problem.
3. Young families with children don't move to small communities without a school
In one of the most comprehensive studies of what a school means to a community the results indicated:
*That for the smallest rural communities, housing values were considerably higher in small villages with schools.
*Towns with schools had more people employed in more favorable occupational categories and more engagement in civic affairs.
*Income inequality and welfare dependence was lower in villages with schools.
*Money that might be saved through school consolidation could be forfeited in lost taxes, declining property values, and lost business.
[5]
4. The savings touted by promoters of closing small schools tend to be illusory
West Virginia spent 10 years and over a billion dollars to build consolidated schools absorbing students from over 300 closed schools. Promises about improved curriculum never materialized. Costs did not decline. They increased. Administrator numbers did not decrease. They increased. None of that mattered until an investigative reporter from the Charleston Gazette started to look into the facts. He began with the first pupil, a kindergartener, to be picked up in the predawn darkness and get on the bus for a ride of more than an hour.
[6]
Despite all of the promises of savings, the research from early consolidations in Vermont
and ten years of experience with consolidations in Maine indicates, as a result of less transparency, less oversight and expanded administration, those savings are almost never achieved.
[7]
Most importantly, the digital revolution has changed small rural schools. Today small rural schools are positioned to be the model of 21st century schools with all the advantages of being embraced by a community, where people all know each other, and having almost instant access to programs and resources around the world.
[1] Most of the language below is a direct quote from the material that is cited.
[2] https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG05-05Hylden.pdf
[3] Report of the Vermont Commissioner of Education, Small Schools Study, pursuant to Section 93 of Act 60, January, 1998. See also Mara Casey Tieken,
Why Rural Schools Matter, University of North Carolina Press, 2014, p. 57 and 186-188.
[4] https://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues108.shtml; see
also
https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/Chapter03-Howley-Final.pdf
[5] https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED464777
[6] https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2274&context=greatplainsresearch; The investigative reporter referred to in this study is now the President of Vermont Public Radio,
[7] See pages 6 and 7 at
https://ed.psu.edu/crec/policy-brief; see also
https://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/28/tax-relief-scarce-in-school-consolidations/
"Why Small Schools Matter" was spotted on Save Our Schools-Addison Central School District. The piece was prepared by David Kelly, who lives in Greensboro with his wife. He attended a small rural elementary school in Pittsford, Vermont. He graduated from UVM and Georgetown Law School and has practiced law for 40 years. His primary clients have been ski areas. He was a co-founder of PH-International (one of the largest teacher and student exchange programs between the U.S. and Eastern Europe). He has also been a volunteer high school debate coach for 20 years and was formerly Chair of the Hazen Union Board.
