Before I get to the point of this column let me congratulate, Elinor Ostrom, who yesterday became the first woman ever to win a Nobel Prize in economics. Ms. Ostrom, a political scientist at Indiana University, was honored along with Oliver Williamson, an economist at UC Berkeley. This gets me to the topic of this week’s post. The economy and education are inextricably linked.
The 2008 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics was Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. Mr. Krugman’s New York Times column on Friday, Oct. 9, titled “The Uneducated American,” poignantly suggested that education is what made America great and now it is a “wasting asset.”
Krugman asserts that American youth are less likely than young people in other countries to graduate from college. For this column I tried to sort out the truth from fiction. I found that the facts and data are conflicting and difficult to ferret out. Here is what I learned: There is a projected consistent growth in U.S. college enrollment through 2016. The increase in college enrollment immediately after graduation from high school has increased from 49 percent in 1972 to a high of 69 percent in 1997.
Unfortunately, there is strong evidence that there are decreasing numbers of US high school graduates. James Heckman and Paul LaFontaine, two leading economists, wrote in February 2008 that the “official statistics for US high school graduation rates mask a growing educational divide. [The] research is showing that a record number of Americans are going to university—while an increasing number are dropping out of high school. This poses major social challenges for the United States.”
Even though college enrollment rates are projected to continue to increase, there is strong evidence that suggests college completion rates are trending down. In California only 24 percent of community college students complete a degree or certificate after six years of enrollment. When you account for high school dropouts and incarcerated youth only 49 percent of 18 and 19 year olds are enrolled in a two or four-year college. There is increasing evidence that the skill of the US workforce has flattened out at a time when a higher skilled workforce is essential to maintain our weakening global edge.
According to my review of the literature, official statistics from governmental agencies mask the truth. For instance, Heckman and LaFontaine strongly suggest that the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) statistcs showing a graduating rate of 88 percent of US students is misleading and inaccurate. Predicated on the sources used, they suggest, these data can show the US high school graduation rate to be anywhere from 66-88 percent. I wonder what the real number is for Santa Clara County?
Heckman and LaFontaine point out that the most significant source of bias in the studies on high school graduation rates is counting successful completers of the General Education Development (GED) Test as high school graduates. They cite that 20 percent of all new high school “credentials” given out each year are GEDs. Heckman and LaFontaine conclude based on scholarly work that the GED recipients perform at the level of high school dropouts in the US labor force. Therefore, they conclude that the GED program conceals major problems in American society.
However, I am optimistic about the future if we can learn from schools that have an effective culture and academic structure in place to meet the academic and social-emotional needs of underachieving students and replicate those models. One such school is Downtown College Prep (DCP), where the new “Three Rs” of Rigor, Relevance and Relationships are put into daily practice.
We already know smaller is better. Comprehensive highs schools of 1,200-4,000 students are factory models that do not work well, especially for underachieving students.
The economy and education are linked. The leaders in Sacramento and Washington D.C. must move with strong purpose to get the linkage right. We will all benefit.
At the Oct. 7 Santa Clara County Board of Education meeting we received an appeal to the denial of DCP’s charter. The DCP’s original petition was denied by the East Side Union High School District. They denied the application on a technical interpretation of the Education Code prohibiting a high school district from approving a charter with non-high school grades. DCP proposes to open in 2010 with 100 6th grade students and increasing each subsequent year by 100 students until a school of 6-12 grade contains a full enrollment of 700 students.
Next Tuesday I will post my column about what is working for DCP. The SCCOE Board of Trustees will vote on the appeal application at our Nov. 4 meeting.
The Trotsky Prize for Social Engineering has been awarded to Joseph DiSalvo for his work eliminating grades, team sports, lessons in American culture, and appreciation for core values. There will be a street in San Franciso named for DiSalvo and one gang in Oakland will change its name to the DiSalvos.
“Phil”
If you’re going to take a shot at someone, you should have the courage to post your first and last name. Otherwise, it’s just graffiti.
I agree. It is hurtful. Like a trust fund baby laughing at the word “paddy” when he is supposed to be a Human Rights Commissioner.
Is that you jim or dale, hiding behind someone’s skirt, or is there really a Sandra OMalley?
Gee, all the posts Dale Warner do, and even Rowen does, they sign their names to it as did I. Are you making a slanderous charge, Mr. Campbell?
You refer to me as a “trust fund baby,” and then pop off about slander?
Dear “Maoist Phil”;
I’m curious why you compare Joseph to Trotsky? Last time I read a history book, the situation in Russia under Trotsky was hellish compared to what’s going on in the U.S. today. And can you please elaborate on why you think Joseph’s article is “social engineering”? Why is “socialist” such a convenient word to throw around at people in the U.S.? I think it’s just a fear-mongering right wing tactic! Did you get these ideas off of Fox News?
I’m also curious about the reference to Mao?? What is this all about?
Kirk
“We already know smaller is better. Comprehensive highs schools of 1,200-4,000 students are factory models that do not work well, especially for underachieving students.”
Very good point, one that I never thought of that accounted for graduation rates. Since we have such diverse classrooms, it is essential to bring the teacher-student ratio down. Students need more one-on-one guidance & would benefit from building stronger, more trusting relationships with peers and staff.
1200-1400? That would be a small high school around here. Most I know are 2000 or larger.
In grammar school my smallest class was 40 students. Usually it was closer to 50. We weren’t all Einsteins, but we all learned. We had respect for our teachers,and our parents were very involved in our education. Both of those qualities are in shorter supply now than then. But we do have lots more administrators; superintendents, with their cadre of assistants and deputies; and an education code that makes Encyclopedia Britannica seem small by comparison. We were of all races, as well. But we had a common goal, despite our different backgrounds, our diversity was positive.
Now we celebrate diversity for its own sake and have no common goal. We go off in a zillion directions to appease every little splinter group. Anything goes. Everyone’s little psyche must be massaged, even if they can’t read, write, add, or subtract. Many teachers are more interested in pay and benefits and their “rights” than in educating our kids.
High School was 35-45 students/class; same general conditions as above in grammar school. Those who didn’t do the work were weeded out, not coddled or excused for their non-performance.
I will be gone before this once great country crumbles; but my son won’t be.
The increase in college enrollment coupled with a decrease in high school graduation rates will likely lead to an increasingly stratified and segregated society. To help prevent this, teachers need to reach ALL students in their classrooms. Many factors in the classroom affect how children learn: class size, environment, motivation, teacher encouragement, engaging and relevant lesson plans, etc. It is a lot to think about, but with hard work and appropriate support, I believe that teachers can effectively engage each student. Teachers should also work to instill a sense of self-efficacy among their students. Albert Bandura, a prominent psychologist in the 1960s, discovered that people with a strong sense of self-efficacy develop a deeper interest and sense of commitment to the activities in which they participate. In turn, people with a weak sense of self-efficacy believe that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their capabilities, tend to focus on personal failings and negative outcomes, and quickly lose confidence as a result of setbacks. In many cases, this notion of self-efficacy is likely linked to an individual’s motivation to graduate high school. If teachers work to strengthen self-efficacy, we might notice a substantial change in these statistics.
Is the economy really linked so strongly to education? I cannot imagine that high school and college graduation rates were much higher two years ago when our economy was doing well. However, I am not denying the fact that when schools receive less money during trying economic times, they suffer. Currently at the university level, fewer classes are being offered, teachers’ salaries have been cut, students are not being admitted and tuition has increased dramatically. Of course these circumstances affect the quality of education, but I think the problem goes deeper.
I will agree that the successful education of America’s population has to do with money, or the lack thereof. But it is nothing new that California does not give schools enough money. Our system must be rebuilt so that schools actually receive the money they need and that the wealth is evenly distributed. I do not claim to know the best way to do this, but I know that there are systems in other countries that work very well. It is unfortunate that education is not made a priority, because it is a means to a better life and a more educated population in general. I hope that the situation in which we now find ourselves will lead to a change in the way things are done in California. I truly believe that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a well-funded education system.
The article seems to take the tack that you’re a failure if you don’t go to college. It says that only 49% end up at a 2 or 4 year college, but says nothing about the other 51%. It’s as though no other career path is worth mention. I can’t sign on to that.
What’s wrong with the trades? The world needs plumbers, electricians, steel workers, machinists, and everyone else gets their hands dirty keeping the physical world working. For most of these jobs, the world is willing to pay a decent salary as well.
The solution isn’t to get 100% of kids into college. Not everyone wants a white collar office job, and the whole place would fall apart if that’s all we had.
What we need to do is improve the system for training kids to do non-college jobs, and afford some respect to those who perform them.
I agree with Greg Perry. College is not the only path. I think it would be wrong to tell students that they will not be successful if they do not go to college.
I must say that I agree with you, Greg. College isn’t for everyone and that is okay. However, high schools should set kids up to go somewhere. If kids aren’t going to college, they should be going to a trade school, getting an internship or apprenticeship, or they should be set up at an entry-level job with opportunity for growth. The larger problem here is that kids aren’t making it through high school. I think that high schools either try to prepare everyone for college (regardless of whether it is the right choice) or give up on all of their students and just try to keep them from killing each other or themselves before graduation. We need high schools that make sure that kids have the knowledge that they need to participate fully in society. The high school graduates can then choose what direction their life goes in by how they continue their education after graduation. Counselors should be trained to send students in the direction of their strengths. If all students had something to strive towards post-graduation, more of them might stay in school.
If I knew my job was going to be outsourced to India so some MBA executive with a spreadsheet can get a big bonus along with stock options, I would never have wasted my time getting a Computer Science degree.
It really is hypocritical for business to whine about the scarcity of college grads when they love to outsource these jobs.
I also agree smaller is better. As Melissa said, students need one-on-one guidance. I attended East Side Union School District, Does this district have high drop out rates? As teachers what can we do to prevent a student from dropping out? What are the factors leading to the drop out rates?
It is true smaller schools and classrooms are better. I think Comprehensive high-schools are not good for students and teachers. I agree with Melissa when she says we need to bring down the student-teacher ratio. Because if we dont we are making it hard on students to trust and form relationships with the teachers, school,and their peers.
Your point about the GED is an interesting one. Because if you think about it, a person who earns a GED shows that they are goal oriented, dedicated, resilient, and mature. These are all desirable characteristics in employees. It is unfortunate that there is a stigma attached to a GED.
I hope that the program encourages and mentors students to reach beyond the GED and apply to college because once you have a Bachelor’s Degree, no one asks about your high school diploma. The problem is that it is difficult to set goals that are far removed from your reality. In other words, if no one from your family or your community has ever gone to college, seeing yourself as a college graduate is a huge jump. I know because I was the first in my family to go to college. When I graduated, it was huge. I worked so hard to get to that goal that I never looked beyond it. While my friends went on to graduate school, medical school, law school, I was done. It never occurred to me to go on. I am sure that many people who earn their GED have a similar mind set. But if they could just push further and earn a Bachelor’s, they would not be haunted and restricted by the stigma.
I agree the post written by Grag regarding the need for blue collar jobs and the fact that college is not for everyone. What wasn’t addressed is the fact that a good amount of our blue collar workers are not high school graduates. Yes, many are, but the idea that someone can drop out of high school and enter into a trade that will ‘pay’ the bills shouldn’t be what our future generations strive for. Completing high school is about not giving up and pushing through difficult situations. Being a part of a schools social dynamics (whether you are popular or not) teachers kids a sense of who they are and who they want to be. Learning how to manage time, responsibilities, and work load is a skill supported throughout school.
With that, as many people have addressed prior, our schools aren’t funded the way they need to be to support all students- college bound or not. Life skills should be taught and valued on campus.
I agree as well that smaller is better. It is apparent when we look at, say, tutoring. Tutoring typically occurs in small groups, a one-on-one ratio or up to maybe 10 to 15 students to a teacher. Tutoring is not cheap either! The smaller the class size, the more undivided attention a student is able to receive from the instructor. Students have the advantage of lessons and instructions being adjusted to meet their needs.
Throwing students into large classrooms containing too many students for one single teacher is a recipe for slow success and minimal learning. Teacher’s attentions become divided among the thirty-some students, and classroom management becomes a little more difficult. And this is the reason why underachieving students remain, well, underachieving. They have difficulty understanding the material, end up falling behind, and then believe they are doomed to be unsuccessful and, thus, think to themselves there’s no point in putting in any more effort. It’s a self-fulling prophecy.
But if instead, these underachieving students were placed in a lower student to teacher ratio classroom, where their needs can be more readily met, they may be more inclined to learn and be successful students who eventually graduate high school and continue on to a 4-year-college. More attention would be directed at these students and they may see that their success is important to teachers. We care to see them succeed. We care to help them be successful learners, if only we just had the time and resources to tend to each and every one of them.
Coming from a big high school I saw a lot of students who decided to drop out. A lot of kids just “fall through the cracks,” which is a shame. Instead of recognizing that students are dropping out we need to recognize why they are dropping out. Smaller classrooms are a must. One on one development is a priority. We all know that this is mostly likely not going to be solved anytime soon. What a shame!
Effective culture.
Academic structure.
Meeting academic and social-emotional needs of underachieving students.
Rigor, Relevance and Relationships.
Its interesting to note that all of the positive aspects described by Mr. DiSalvo result from the effort of people, and are not generally outcomes that funding supplies. Certainly, morale is affected if schools are underfunded, but the real driving force behind a school’s success are the people who run it.
And if you ask educators, funding isn’t always what bothers them. Its the outside influence of failed policies that drives them nuts.
In my opinion, the problem linkage is the one in which schools become more dependent on state and federal funds tied to mandated programs that are unrealistic and unproductive. For schools to become innovative, nimble and pro-active, they need to be given the trust that they know what’d best for their constituency. You can hold schools accountable to standards without tying their hands with impractical, counter-intuitive ideas from out of touch think-tanks back in Washington. Let educators educate. Give them the freedom to teach without all the attached strings. You might see the rank and file enthused and inspired, instead of brooding and downtrodden.
Ratios are on everybody’s minds at the moment. Especially now that ratios are increased. I agree with many of you that one of the reasons for the high drop out rate in high school is the lack of relationships between students and teachers due to large class sizes. Students feel that they are not heard and that they are just a number.
On the other had in college I feel that the drop out rate is because of high fees. In the current economy students can’t afford to take time off from work to be full time students. There are only a privileged few that can do that.
I do think that college is not for everyone, and it is not necessary to be happy or successful. However, I also think that going to college can be a wonderful experience that will open up a world of opportunities not otherwise available—and it is an experience unique to each person. College is not like high school, where everyone basically takes the same classes you have the same routine everyday. You can pick a major. You can study, essentially—whatever you want! Perhaps if people (like teachers) painted a different picture of college, students would be more likely to make college an experience they will enjoy. Teachers tell students that rigorous tests, pointless quizzes, and 10 page book reports on a book you didn’t even like prepares you for college. But college is not always like this! And if it is, it is a minute part of the college experience. Kids pick colleges because of academic reputation, pick majors based on what will make them the most money—and they are dropping out! What is the point of choosing these things if you’re not going to go through with it and end up hating college/the way life has gone? I loved college, loved my major (which I chose because I LIKED the subject), and took classes on hinduism, geological catastrophes, spoken word, and tons of other exotic subjects I never would have dreamed i would be learning back when i was sitting in calculus (a class i hated but did well in so that i could go to college—and I have never looked at a traditional math book since). I am not saying college is easy, and that you won’t ever have to take a class you hate. But making kids believe college is high school 2.0, at least academically, can be misleading. Kids, even if you hate your high school classes, there are tons of other things in the world to learn, and college is a place where you can find them. I hear UCSD has a class on the history of the beatles, so hey! if you struggle through high school and think school isn’t for you, know there might be a light at the end of the high school tunnel.
“We already know smaller is better.”
This is a good point and it shuld have always been taken into consideration. Of course there is more success with the small ratio for more in depth learning, especially with the diverstiy that we are presented with in all classrooms. Teachers and students would be more successful.
Yes, we need a higher skilled workforce to make a footprint and gain “global edge.” With our current workforce exhibiting flattening skills as educators, our focus should be on advancing the middle performing and less proficient students by providing them with courses that will prepare them for the workforce or give them the edge to earn admission to a four year university. The AVID program which I have seen in action at Sunnyvale Middle School is a great program/elective course offered to middle performing students. The class teaches students academic “survival skills” and entry level college skills. It would be fantastic if every middle school could offer an AVID course or a course with a similar curriculum. Another great program is ROP which prepares high school students for more advanced career training and gives them the opportunity to gain work experience and on the job training. Programs such as AVID and ROP help prepare students for the world when they graduate high school and will undoubtedly provide us with a more skilled workforce.
I honestly have to say that the economy is not as linked to education as this blog is saying it is. The reason that our economy is doing horrible at the moment has nothing to do with education, well maybe the people in government did not pay attention in their economics classes, but it is not because there is a decrease in high school graduation. I would like to put this idea out there. If everyone went to college would we really have an advanced society. I think that it owuld just mean that in order to get the high paying jobs students will have to stay in school longer getting Masters and PHDs etc. The people that could afford to do this would advance and the people who could not would be getting the “blue collar” jobs even though they were going to college. There will always be a gap, there is no way around it. That is life. Yes teachers need to make an effort to close this gap, but some students just can not be reached for reasons that are outside of the teachers control. There are so many of us that went to high schools that had large class sizes, but we took the time to get to know our teachers and to study hard because it was important to us. I was like this because of my parents not because of my teachers. I am an example of someone influenced by outside factors in a way that benefited me. It is not black and white ever.
I agree, like many of you have already stated, smaller is better. Students will benefit so much more from an environment that gives them that individual attention. The more a teacher personally knows his/her student, the better he/she is able to teach to the needs of the student. Even just having more one on one face time with a teacher is already making a difference. Funding, however, is always the issue. Not enough money is put into providing that sort of education. It’s on the teachers to be the difference and make a change towards more personal student-teacher relationships.
I think that smaller numbers are crucial not only to the teacher-pupil relationship, but also in order to cultivate relationships amongst peers. We have been touting the positive attributes of group work and learning through discovery and creating, and this isn’t as feasible in a school of 4,000. Students are more apt to feel comfortable with themselves and sharing their ideas in a community atmosphere. If the population is so vast that individuals get lost in the pack, I can’t see how the same quality of learning is possible.
I agree as well that smaller is better. One-on-one time is very important for a student and can help that student feel better guided and that someone cares. It could help reduce dropout rates since there would be more individual attention paid to each student then just as a student in a class.
Education is the key to tomorrow. It is so important for at least a chance at going to college. Schools that have incredibly large amounts of students are probably not the best at giving each student their fair chance at education. A kid is so easily lost in large numbers like that. If they are lacking in any area, it most likely will go unnoticed and if it is noticed, the chances a teacher can help is small. Going to college is so good for the development of people. Not yet are you thrown into the big bad world, you are protected by the school. Being around your age group for a few more years is crucial. One isn’t developed until 25 and for most boys much later than that. To just stop school is so inhibitory of one’s growth. Of coarse school later might help with growth, but I think the college experience is important!
Coming from a high school that had 1000 students, I agree that smaller is better. I too noticed too many students falling through the cracks and dropping out. The priority should be smaller classes in early education although it would be beneficial K-12. Studies show that this is the period. Research also show that students in reduced classes have less behavioral problems and can concentrate longer that those in who are not. Not surprising due to the increase in individual attention a teacher could give each student in reduced classroom.
I’m wondering what economics has to do with class size. Reading through this article I was wondering when the connection was going to be made, and it didn’t happen. Or are we expected to bridge the gap with assumptions? Okay, smaller class size usually equates better economy, higher teacher to student ratio. Mr. DiSalvo never really spelled that out for me here.
Regardless, the two separate issues: economics and class size, and how one affects the other, are valid issues to be concerned about for education. Well, I’ll try a counter-intuitive idea; I’ll play the devil’s advocate with myself. What if we had larger class sizes that were well-funded, where students had plenty of resources? Would that work? Maybe throw in some teacher’s aids to help manage if money is no object. It could work if each student gets what they need to succeed.
I guess that’s not the world we live in right now, and being a substitute teacher and parent of a child in the San Jose Unified School District I’ve seen how barely manageable the larger class sizes are. I believe “smaller is better.”
As far as making graduation appeal to high school students goes, I can see why some might give up or have no hope for their own future if they don’t have the proper guidance: available, qualified help to show children options; more options meaning more choices which should equate to a higher quality of living. This seems like it might come with the smaller package.
Not only are there student drop outs, but there are also those students who fail one or two classes, so they cannot graduate, and then they never go take those classes to even get their GED. These are the students who 1.feel no matter how hard they work they may fail, so they do not want to try again, or 2.are lazy and do not have the work ethic for it. I know people in both categories, and I wish they had had the support of family and teachers when they were younger to tell them they could do it or show them how to work hard.
I have one friend from high school who did not graduate with our class because he did not pass econ. He took the class in the summer and got his degree later, and no one knows the difference. Students need encouragement, hope, and to be taught how to succeed. If they REALLY get these things in school, home, or both, then the percentage of those who graduate high school will increase.
Katie,
I agree with you. I feel that if support from home ans school are given to those students struggling, the drop-out rate may decrease. Many students in high school just don’t care. If something could be done about the attitudes of students and importance of education perhaps the graduation rate will increase.
This week’s article recognizes that many American youth are not entering programs of higher education nor are they graduating from these programs. Let me preface my remarks by reiterating my desire to strive to educate, motivate, and cultivate positive relationships with all of my future students.
While statistics, like the ones in this article, can often illustrate valid points, they can also be utilized by interest groups to strengthen their perspective. With that being said, the U.S. education system can obviously benefit from a multitude of improvements which include, among other areas, less bureaucracy in administration, higher funding for classrooms, and clauses for compensation for successful teachers and termination for unsuccessful teachers.
Many have suggested that lower student enrollment in universities will greatly hinder the U.S. economy and negatively affect the citizenry of the country. While I do not deny the value of education for all, I worry that as we attempt to promote university degrees for a greater number of citizens, we may be decreasing academic rigor for the sake of multiculturalism and supposed equity. Let me illustrate my point. I did much of my undergraduate work in foreign languages and TESOL at a CSU where I was able to befriend students from many different countries. As I noticed these students’ success with the academic program and the indication of boredom in their demeanor, I was able to inquire into their disappointment with the program. The students, a few from Cuba, Costa Rica, and others from Spain, pointed out that the university expectations were quite dismal when compared with the academic environment that they had experienced in their countries years before. It is also important to point out that while these students were experiencing great success, my other fellow American students were finding these same classes difficult and overly exerting. I have also witnessed this same vast disparity between university environments and academic rigor in some public and private universities within the U.S. It is my hope that we can promote education for all by increasing standards and expectations instead of permitting all to enter solely on the merit of supposed social justice.
Economics and higher tuition fees have also been mentioned as a catalyst for lower university enrollment. While fees are higher at this time, it behooves all to recognize the myriad tax-payer funded programs that provide students with the opportunity to obtain higher education. It is true that education is not free as it is in Europe, but one should be able to distinguish the positive effects that stem from personal responsibility related to education. Since I work and attend a university of higher education, it is necessary for me to use grant money to fund my education. This requires me to have purpose and a goal in my education. Conversely, I have known many ERASMUS (European study abroad) students who spent their entire academic study abroad experience squandering their opportunity for academic enrichment on skipping class, parties, and the best brand of local cerveza. All of this for free. I for one am thankful for my opportunity to receive some public funding for an education that I work for every day.
“Krugman asserts that American youth are less likely than young people in other countries to graduate from college.”
After reading this article I could not get this statement out of my head. I thought about my friends and high school graduates from Central California. Out of my really close friends less than a handful of us went on to college immediately after high school or even at all. Those who did not go on to college, eight years later, have still not made the decision to go back. After high school I choose to attend community college before transferring over to a State University. During my two years at a community college I met people from all walks of life, people from other states and countries from all different backgrounds. I met people who had spent the last seven years at this community college. This baffled my mind, how could they not want to move on to bigger and better and what was taking them so long to finish a two year degree. I’m sad about what I encountered in my experience and I hope that in my teaching career I can make a difference.
Obviously, smaller class size is better, but sometimes there is no way around it, especially in areas where there just isn’t the funding for it. I grew up in L.A and for a short while, went to the largest middle school in the U.S (at the time) that held 3,000 students on a multi-track schedule. Yes- it was ridiculously huge and overcrowded but I made the best of it and excelled in school, for the short time I was there. Smaller class size is ideal and is something all schools should strive for, although it is easier said than done (due to funding).
Smaller is a mixed bag. I came from an area with several smaller high schools. The kids and parents really knew each other.
But the smaller schools had very few courses. There was only one foreign language. There were only two science classes. It was that way for each department. For kids who wanted to reach in a specific direction, the really small schools couldn’t offer them much.
If you want to offer multiple science classes, metal shop, AP statistics, and a broad arts program, you can’t do it in a 300 student comprehensive high school.
Smaller schools are needed. I graduated in 2004 with class that started out with close to 1000 Freshmen and decreased by half by the time we were ready for graduation. It is important to provide students with inidividual attention, rather than allowing them to fall through the cracks.
I strongly believe that education and economy are linked. As students are given bare minimum education, they are lead the way to minimum wage occupations.