Good small schools make sense. Good small schools create supportive communities where students succeed, and both students and teachers thrive. Years of research and experience - not to mention common sense - support this notion. Yet legislators and other decision-makers continue to close small schools and build large ones because they think large schools are more cost effective to build, maintain, and operate. The first report, Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools, outlines the economic and social arguments in support of smaller schools and demonstrates that the true costs of large schools are enormous and the benefits dubious (D&SI, pp. 8 - 19).¹

Dollars & Sense II: Lessons from Good, Cost-Effective Small Schools strengthens the case for the cost effectiveness of small schools with new research and examples of what's working at 25 such schools² across the nation. It answers the question - "Can small schools actually be built and run at a cost per pupil that is comparable to that of large schools?" - with a resounding "yes."

First, the report offers an analysis of the budgets of 25 good small schools from across the nation with various styles of education and diverse student populations. On average, these schools spend less per student than do other schools in their districts. These 25 schools prove that good small schools are possible to build, maintain, and operate cost-effectively (D+S1, p. 20).

The central section of Dollars & Sense II offers specific, creative, cost-saving ideas that any school can use - from finding space in multiple buildings in a revitalized downtown to working math problems on desktops using erasable markers to save paper. These real-life ideas assembled from 25 small schools should inspire school board members, parents, teachers, students, school administrators, policy-makers, community members, and taxpayers to come up with their own techniques for creating and running good, cost-effective small schools. The report concludes with profiles of each of the small schools or small school complexes. The profiles offer brief insights into why these schools are "good," and set the context for the strategies they employ to run cost-effectively.

Appendix 2 provides an analysis of recent school construction projects. Like similar work highlighted in Dollars & Sense I (D&SI, pp.18-20), this research shows that small schools can be built as affordably as larger schools. Extremely large schools appear to be cheaper only because they provide less space per student. As demonstrated in the original Dollars & Sense report, the educational and social costs of such "mega-schools" are exorbitant (D&SI, pp.11-17). Appendices 1 and 3 offer detail on school budgets and test scores. Appendix 4 summarizes the strategies used by the schools on a single grid. The criteria for selecting study schools and the site visit guidelines are detailed in Appendix 5, and selected references are presented in Appendix 6.

While this report provides remarkably convincing evidence that small schools can operate cost-effectively, there are undeniably some inherent difficulties in doing so. Administrators, staffs, and communities supporting small schools must be creative and inventive to achieve these results. This "out of the box" thinking is hard work, but it can be done - these schools have done it.

Small schools also operate within systems and structures that are organized to support large schools, and sometimes must seek solutions outside normal bureaucratic procedures. The hard work of seeking creative solutions is worth it, though, and not just because of the benefits to the students. The opportunities for participation and community connection also make the effort worthwhile.

A key finding of this report is that smallness - something that research and experience prove is good for students - in itself opens doors on ways to stretch dollars strategically in support of high quality education. Small schools can be flexible and nimble, just because they are small. It is easier for them to use volunteers and form deep, lasting partnerships with other agencies because they are working at a smaller scale. In large schools, more bureaucratic and systematic solutions are necessary just because of the size of the enterprise. So while some of the cost-saving strategies highlighted in the report could certainly be employed in a large school, a main point of the report is to demonstrate that small schools have unique strategies for cost effectiveness.

Another key finding of this report, in addition to the conclusions on the affordability of small school construction, concerns the actual per-student costs of operating small schools. Here, too, the facts defy the common wisdom. Twenty of the 25 schools in this study spent less per student than the average expenditure in their districts.³ The four schools comprising The Met spent more than the district's per-pupil allocation, but this may be due in part to the fact that the Met has chosen to grow slowly, so that it does not yet serve its potential enrollment (even though it has a waiting list). At the time of the analysis, the school had 438 students, but by 2004-2005 it had six hundred.* Spending by the MATCH school exceeds the per-pupil expenditure for Boston, but the amount the district allocates per student has been steadily decreasing because of budget constraints. MATCH considers its tutoring program essential and found outside sources to fund it.

Because the way in which schools and districts determine budgets varies enormously, it is extremely difficult to compare costs. The team has made every effort to make accurate comparisons, which sometimes required adding or subtracting items that were or were not included in individual school and district budgets. These adjustments are noted in the budget summary and individual school budgets in the Appendices.

According to the estimates produced by this analysis, the schools in this study spent, on average, almost 17% less per student than the per-pupil expenditure for their districts. This finding shows that small schools in very different locations, serving different populations and grades, are operating efficiently. These schools prove that communities can have small schools that offer an excellent education and also are cost effective to maintain and operate.

The schools studied in this report were not selected randomly. The Dollars & Sense team identified more than one hundred schools throughout the country through discussion with other researchers and educators and through its own knowledge. The team then applied a series of screens to determine each school's suitability for a site visit and inclusion in the study. Schools had to meet size limitations recommended in Dollars & Sense I - four hundred or fewer students in a school at the time of selection, or no more than one hundred students per grade in high school, 75 per grade in a middle school, and 50 per grade in an elementary school. To maximize diversity in a small sample, the team looked at schools in urban, suburban, and rural communities in different regions of the nation (D+SI, pp. 7-8) and schools that serve diverse populations. Again, as a group, the schools needed to be governed differently, use different approaches to curriculum, and include different configurations of grades. The final requirement was that within the previous five years, each school had completed a facilities project such as new construction, addition, or renovation.

In addition, the team used specific criteria to assess the quality of schools selected:

• autonomy,
• good leadership,
• a defined mission,
• making choices,
• developing good working relationships within the school and between the school and community,
• equity,
• respect,
• a supportive culture, and
• a commitment to academic achievement.

For a more in-depth discussion of the criteria, please see Appendix 5.

These, in the team's estimation, are the most important elements of a good small school. The schools also had to agree to share information and provide the Dollars & Sense team the opportunity to talk with parents, students, teachers, and staff. The team also studied budgets to determine if a school was spending within the same allocation per pupil as other schools in its district.

Site teams visited the schools that appeared to meet the criteria. The purpose of the site visits was to confirm that the schools met the criteria and to gather information on the strategies they used to operate and to house themselves cost-effectively. Each site visit team included an architect, a budget analyst, a community engagement specialist, and the project director. Most of the team members were also experienced educators. During the site visits, the team observed classes; interviewed teachers, administrators, architects, custodians, and other staff members; and held focus groups with students and teachers. Each member of the site visit team submitted a report from which the project director wrote a group report. Finally, the entire team reviewed its findings and selected 25 schools as the focus of this report.

No single school is strong in all areas, and what constitutes a good small school is linked to local history, culture, and needs. These schools respect the needs and concerns of students, parents, and communities. These schools are agile and willing to adapt to changing and unexpected circumstances. They are entrepreneurial; they use resources effectively and thoughtfully and they are able to think creatively. Also, they have an identifiably good educational program supported by the facility. All schools have strengths - and weaknesses. The goal of this report is to highlight strengths that can be shared and emulated.

Small schools typically demonstrate greater agility and flexibility than large schools in meeting changing circumstances. Still, small schools can be fragile. Leadership, demographics, finances, facilities, curriculum - all of these may change, sometimes very quickly, and any of these changes can affect a small school significantly. It is important to point out, therefore, that the descriptions of the schools in this report are just snapshots of a particular moment.

Most of these schools have operated successfully for several years. Some have existed for decades, but many face continuing pressures from state legislatures, school boards, and school administrators who want to close small schools.

The selected schools offer a diverse sample of innovative small schools, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many good small schools across the country are operating cost-effectively and have wonderful ideas to offer. The schools in this report are simply ones that met the criteria for this report, both individually and as a group. As a result, these schools provide a wide array of strategies for building and running good small schools cost-effectively. Dollars & Sense II aims to start conversations that will continue on the website or in future publications. That said, each of these schools has an important story to tell and each is serving its students and community in ways that are worth observing closely.

²The 17 schools listed at the beginning of this document add up to 25 small schools, because there are four small schools at Morris High School, two at Camino Nuevo, two at H.S. Truman, and four at The Met.

³Note that the four small schools at Morris High School in the Bronx, the three academies at Todd Beamer High School, and two schools at H.S. Truman High School are each reported as one school for purposes of the budget summary.

*The Met actually has six schools, and for the purposes of the budget all six are included. However, the discussion and profile include only the four schools at Public Street because the team did not visit the other campus.