Peter E. Pflaum - Golden Globe - The Synergy Network
http://www.wiredbrain.net/  Pflaump@wiredbrain.com

  ONE-ROOM SCHOOLS
  AND
  AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL TRADITION
  
    Introduction
     When my husband Peter and I moved from the Virgin Islands
back to Florida in spring of 1982, our mode of transportation was
our 27-foot sloop Far Tortugas.  Our journey took two months. 
Lack of a working engine since Puerta Plata forced us to become
true sailors.
  
  In early June in the Bahamas, the wind dies.  Giving up final
hope for engine repair in Freeport, we set our sails for Cape
Canaveral.  That first evening we observed a Bahamian town full
of lights.  At two a.m. Peter woke me.  The lighted "island" was
a supertanker on autopilot, obviously and directly approaching
Far Tortugas.  We sent up all our flares; we blew our horn; we
called on the emergency channel; we tried to tack.  The tanker
kept coming.  There was no wind.
    The largest supertankers -- those in Freeport -- are about a
quarter of a mile long.  This was the size of the monster that
bore down upon us, apparently unaware of our existence.  Even
with awareness, the tanker on autopilot was powerless to stop or
turn.  Ten years later, I see similarities between this
frightening experience and our current educational system.  While
many schools do an excellent job, too many do not.  Part of the
problem is a system grown so large it cannot stop; it cannot
maneuver.
    Perhaps the most frightening characteristic of our present
dilemma is lack of recognition of the magnitude of our plight. 
As Peter and I failed to see the supertanker for what it really
was, how many of us sail along, blind to the reality of the
bureaucratic monster towering above us?  Peter and I initially
viewed the supertanker as just another Bahamian island.  When the
truth became obvious, we were dangerously close to collision. 
Because of skills and teamwork developed through experience, we
were able to find and use a saving breath of wind.
  
  Dewey writes of "evils in education" (Dewey, 1920, p. 197) when
discussing isolation of subject matter from experience.  Ethics
are central to his philosophy of democracy and education.  Is it
immoral and unethical -- perhaps evil -- to continue to employ
methods, subject matter, and organizational features we know are
not just ineffective but are in fact detrimental to students?
  
  The supertanker is on autopilot.  Is it powerless to stop or
turn?  Peter and I were saved from imminent demise by a breath of
wind, allowing us to tack just in time.  Before our educational
system can respond, we must have a system capable of change.  The
supertanker could not alter its course.  Can we?
  
     Review of the Literature

    Much educational writing, both current and past, addresses
reorganization for improvement of schools.  Literature describing
the one-room school and its multiage nongraded grouping offers a
logical, appropriate place to start.  Perhaps investigating some
of this literature will enlighten our search for a restructuring
path.   Historical Overview
    The Buildings.  America's little red schoolhouse often
pictured nostalgically is not without its critics.  Physical
conditions of rural public school buildings came under attack in
1930 by the U.S. Office of Education (USOE).  Poor lighting from
broken windows; inadequate heating from old open box stoves;
unsanitary conditions; nails used as coat hooks; lack of
workrooms, libraries, cupboards, and bookcases; defective floors,
ceilings, and walls are problems of some schools as noted by
authors of the USOE report.  In teacher training programs,
colleges failed to prepare eager young educators for crude and
demanding teaching conditions (Dressler & Pruett, 1930 in Muse,
Smith, & Barker, 1987).
  
  Thirty years after the USOE report, the National Education
Association (NEA) noted further physical problems with such
schools.  Through time, building maintenance became increasingly
difficult.  In 1960 most one-teacher school buildings were 43
years old; 20% were built prior to the turn of the century. 
Building materials often reflected local resources.  As recently
as 1934 a Nebraska community established a sod school for its
children.  Many earlier schools were built of logs or other wood
(84%), and destruction by fire was not uncommon.  By 1984 fewer
buildings were wood; 22% were brick or cement; 6% were trailers. 
Whatever their physical problems, one-room schools are considered
retrospectively as a foundation of the American elementary
educational system (Muse et al., 1987; Muse & Moore, 1988).
Decrease in Number
    The demise of the one-room school as a major force in
American education began following the close of World War I. 
Returning soldiers moved from farms to urban areas seeking better
paying factory work.  Twenty years later with scientific
development of agricultural methods, large farms grew larger at
the expense of many traditional small family farms.  Often small
farmers simply could not keep up financially and sold out to
organized cooperatives.  This trend continued and by 1954 farms
of over 260 acres were increasing while farms of 30 to 80 acres
were decreasing rapidly (Muse et al., 1987).
    Exodus to cities combined with changes in farms and farming
methods had dramatic effect on one-room schools.  Frequently
established to serve children of farmers, decrease in rural
population and number of farms impacted directly on American
educational needs.  Often school districts transported their few
remaining pupils to other districts.  Distance to the nearest
operating school sometimes prevented daily travel, so students
boarded or stayed with relatives in other communities.  Other
children in isolated areas lived at home and were educated by
correspondence.  Some small school districts were virtually
abandoned.
    As early as 1922 Cubberly noted the distressingly high ratio
of school board members to teachers in thousands of small school
districts.  District efficiency was questioned where 150 to 500
school officials supervised 50 to 175 teachers.  Poorly
maintained small rural schools with poorly prepared teachers were
viewed as unjustified educational means when compared to
attractive larger schools featuring well-qualified instructors.
The result is a collection of small schools, a horde of school
officials, short school terms, cheap teachers, poor buildings,
poor teaching equipment, schools behind the times, and a general
lack of interest on the part of the people in the schools
maintained (Cubberly, 1922 in Muse et al., 1987, p. 3).
     Decrease in population, remote location, and cost were often
cited as reasons for discontinuing education through the little
red schoolhouse.  Policy-makers increasingly recommended closing
of small rural schools rather than correction of their problems. 
The answer was consolidation (Muse et al., 1987). Number and
Location
    In 1900 approximately 200,000 one-room schools existed in
America (Gulliford, 1981 in Barker, 1986).  In 1917-18 there were
about 196,000 public one-room schools.  Found in all 48 states,
these schools made up 71% of all U.S. public schools and were
attended by 25% of school children (Gaumnitz & Blose, 1950 in
Muse et al., 1987).  By 1920 this number had dropped to 188,000
(Swanson, 1976 in Barker, 1986).
  
  In 1930 there were 128,000 districts and 238,000 public
elementary schools in 48 states.  Of these schools, 149,000 had
only one teacher (Muse et al., 1987); Muse & Moore, 1988).  With
the trend toward consolidation, number of school districts
decreased as did total number of public schools.  Numbers of
one-room schools dropped to 121,000 in 1938; 75,000 by 1948
(Lambert, 1960 in Barker, 1986).
    By 1950 amount of districts had dropped to 84,000 with
128,000 total public elementary schools.  Of these schools,
60,000 had one room.  Of 200,000 operating one-teacher schools in
1900, 140,000 had been closed in 50 years; about 30% remained.
    By 1980 this rapid decrease of districts and schools resulted
in slightly less than 16,000 total number of districts, slightly
more than 61,000 total public elementary schools.  In the 50
years since 1930, over 148,000 of these schools disappeared --
921 were left.  This total continued to drop with 837 reported in
1984 by Muse et al. (1987).  Gulliford (1985) reported
approximately 835 for the same year, down about 199,000 since the
turn of the century. Figure 1.1 NUMBER OF SCHOOLS 1930-1980 Page
8 Comparisons
    By comparing data of Muse et al. (1987) to Dewalt's (1987)
information regarding 674 operating public one-room schools, a
trend downward appears to remain.  This could be a statistical
aberration due to difficulty in locating accurate data or often
in finding any data at all.  Muse and Moore (1988), however,
estimate number of remaining public one-teacher schools has
stabilized.  This number is likely to be around 800.
    Dewalt (1989), in non-public as well as public counts, finds
growth in number of Amish and Old Order Mennonite schools helps
stabilize present total number of public and private one-teacher
schools.  Establishment of these religious schools increased
rapidly following the 1972 United States Supreme Court ruling in
Wisconsin v. Yoder, giving Old Order religious groups right to
end formal education after grade eight (Dewalt, 1989).
  
  Some sources for data listed by Muse et al. (1987) include a
National Education Association (NEA) Research Monograph (1960)
for 1958-59 counts, National Center on Education Statistics
(NCES) (1980) for 1980 counts, and original research by the
authors for 1984.  Dewalt's sources for public schools include
review of literature, state  departments of education
information, data from Freeman (1986), and some estimates from
the 1985 data for 1986 and 1987 numbers.  For Amish and Old Order
Mennonite numbers he used the December 1987 issue of The
Blackboard Bulletin (Dewalt, 1989).
  
  Comparison of Muse, Smith, & Barker's 1984 report with Dewalt's
of 1987 shows some states gained slightly in number of public
one-room schools.  According to the data, Colorado increased from
3 to 6; Illinois added 1; Montana added 11; Oregon added 2. 
State departments of education vary in information recorded and
accuracy of reporting data.  Due to research problems in finding
correct data, the possibility of inconsistencies between various
reports must be considered.
  
  One questions whether schools actually increased or if one
researcher found a school missed by others.  Small gain in
Colorado may be accurate and may be explained by the existence,
as listed in Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), of
Mountain Plains Library Association in Silt, Colorado -- the
Country School Legacy Project.  In 1985 the Denver Post applauded
one-teacher schools in an article headlined "One teacher, six
students:  that's quality education" (in Muse et al., 1987, p.
1).  Local belief in effectiveness of small schools could
conceivably cause increase.  Historically, it was not uncommon
for one- teacher public schools, especially in remote places, to
open and close as rise and fall in student population demanded. 
This could still be true today (Muse et al., 1987; Barker, 1986).
  
  As far back as 1958-59 Nebraska, with 2,812 of 23,695
nationwide, led in number of one-teacher schools.  This remained
true in 1984 with Muse et al. (1987) reporting 385 and Gulliford
(1985) reporting 360 in Nebraska for the same year.  Dewalt
(1989) reports 264 in 1987.  To gather information about
Nebraska's one-teacher schools Muse et al. (1987) surveyed all 93
county superintendents for 1984 numbers.  These researchers
actually verified 306 one-room schools.  The rest were estimated
using Nebraska State Department of Education information (Muse et
al., 1987).
  
  Dewalt used Freeman's 1986 information (Freeman, 1986 in
Dewalt, 1989), information from state departments of education,
and estimates from 1985 data.  Colorado and Connecticut
departments of education estimated their 1950 data as listed by
Dewalt.  Twenty-six states had no data to report in 1950; 2 had
no data in 1985.  In 1986 and 1987, 8 and 7 states respectively
listed no data, but for these years Dewalt estimated numbers for
Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, and Michigan using 1985 information
(Dewalt, 1989).
  
  Muse et al. (1987) list Florida as having 27 public one-teacher
schools in 1958-59 and only 1 in 1980 and 1984.  Dewalt lists
Florida as having no data for number of public one-room schools
in 1950, and he found 0 in 1985, 1986, and 1987.  In searching
for private one-room schools, Dewalt found none in Florida in
1987 (Dewalt, 1989).
    The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Southern Union Conference,
Small Schools (1990) reports 11 one-teacher schools in Florida
representing 35% of SDA small schools (one, two, and three-room) in Florida.  Ninety-one SDA one-
teacher schools operated in 1990 in 8 area districts comprising
the Southern Union.  These 91 schools make up almost 55% of SDA
Southern Union small schools.  The SDA North American Division --
Small Schools (omitting Canada), reports 461 total number of SDA
one-teacher schools across the United States (SDA, 1990).
  
  Gulliford (1985) reports Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Board for Parish Education had 36 one-room schools in 1983-84,
down just 3 schools 6 years.  According to a church official,
these Lutheran schools often begin as one-room schools and add
more rooms within a few years (Gulliford, 1985).  While Dewalt
(1989) reports private one-room schools for 1987 only, he notes
for Wisconsin 24 Amish, 3 Old Order Mennonite, and 0 other.  In
comparing data of SDA, Gulliford, and Dewalt, one notices
discrepancies.
  
    Summary:  Decline of The Little Red Schoolhouse
    Nostalgic recollection of one-room schools continues for many
Americans, despite criticisms.  Physical problems of the schools
coupled with historical events and trends impacted substantially
on their existence.  Poor conditions, ill-prepared teachers, and
exodus from rural to urban areas following World War I marked a
beginning of dramatic decline.  As returning soldiers sought
higher paying urban employment and numbers of small family farms
decreased, the appearance of rural America began to change. 
Country schools became less necessary and perhaps even more
importantly, less fashionable.
  
  Influence of one-room schools on American public education is
evidenced in part by enormous numbers of Americans educated in
these small rural schools.  Current data, although often
conflicting in exact amounts, shows an overall rapid decline
leaving today less than 1,000 of 200,000 public one-room schools
operating in 1900.  Numerous research problems include lack of
extensive historical data and variation in accuracy and
information recorded by states.  It is interesting now to examine
one-room educational practices and students and most importantly
to focus on a person instrumental to life in the little red
schoolhouse -- its one teacher.
  One-Room Educational Practices, Teachers, and Students
Yesterday
    In 1940 and 1959 Gaumnitz noted several reasons for original
establishment of one-teacher schools.  Equality of educational
opportunity was perceived as a vital ingredient during the early
struggle for democratic equality in America.  Providing education
to isolated pioneer families presented a problem different from
small towns or rural areas in Europe.  American pioneers required
low-cost educational institutions designed to serve a few
students and located within walking distance of their homes. 
"The one-teacher school and the local school district seem to
have been the logical answer to the demands of the day"
(Gaumnitz, 1940, p. 3; 1959, p. 1, 10).
    Since educational studies were not conducted in colonial
America, early one-room schools can be examined retrospectively
through such information as historical descriptions and period
novels.  Colonial schools were primarily religious institutions
offering learning through mediums such as the popular seventeenth
century textbook, Spiritual Milk for American Babes, Drawn out of
the Breasts of Both Testaments for Their Soul's Nourishment
(Cubberly, 1919 in Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975).  Basically the
teaching method during this period was independent study at the
student's desk followed by recitation at the teacher's desk. 
"School discipline was often harsh, with the teacher's rod a
frequent reminder that children should not be spoiled" (Muse &
Moore, 1988, p. 9).  Public education was most often a community
or district school supervised by local citizens (Cubberly, 1919
in Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975).
  
  Nineteenth century one-room schools consisted of students in
the first eight grades who spent most of the day sitting on log
benches.  Schools were often heated by potbellied stoves or
fireplaces; drinking water was provided by a communal bucket and
dipper; lunches were brought from home (Mead, 1963; Orr, 1962;
Rissler, 1966 in Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975).  The teacher was
often a young single woman who taught school until she married. 
Frequently, her own education had ended with high school
(academy) graduation or less.  Lack of data prohibits analysis of
the educational attainment of past one-room teachers.  Throughout
the literature, however, runs suggestion of numbers of marginally
prepared instructors in these small schools.  "Teachers were
poorly trained and not much older than the students that they
taught" (Muse & Moore, 1988, p. 9).
    Secularization of schools increased throughout the nineteenth
century.  In 1897 and again in 1960, the NEA cited unsatisfactory
conditions of many rural one-teacher schools.  Criticisms
included attendance problems (either too high or too low), lack
of equipment, and low pay for teachers (Devin-Sheehan & Allen,
1975; Muse & Moore, 1988).
    Perhaps the closest living example of colonial and nineteenth
century educational practices exists through examination of
one-room schools sponsored by religious groups resistant to
change.  It is interesting to examine a 1987-88 case study
conducted through observation of an Old Order Mennonite community
school in Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
  
  Educational Practices.  To preserve cultural values and ethnic
identity, it is often necessary for groups to avoid mainstream
acculturation.  Old Order Mennonites have been successful in this
goal through "[retention] of economic self-sufficiency,
residential independence, and complete control of their own
schools" (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989, p. 308).  Old Order Mennonite
one-teacher schools combined with other societal aspects and
institutions successfully socialize Mennonite children ethnically
and culturally.  Rejection of government school funding gives the
community a certain amount of autonomy in running its own
schools.  The Mennonite community described in this case study,
however, does comply with some government regulation such as
attendance and teaching of the English language (Dewalt &
Troxell, 1989).  Old Order Mennonites do not use electricity or
many other modern conveniences.
    Physical structure of the school is important in this
examination of educational practices.  The frame building with
its vestibule, classroom, and dirt cellar containing a wood
stove, resembles American public one-room schools around the turn
of the century.  Set amid pastures and fields, a dirt road ends
many yards from the school.  Outhouses and a shed for the
teacher's horse are behind the main building.
  
  Lunch boxes and outer clothing are stored in the vestibule; the
schoolroom contains rows of students' desks attached to the
floor.  The teacher's desk, blackboards, and bookshelves are in
front of the room; wooden benches for visitors are in back.  The
only light is from single pane windows on both sides of the room.
    The school year runs 180 days, September to May, with few
vacation days.  Grades one through eight are taught in one room
by one teacher.  The teacher works separately with each grade
according to schedule, but she divides and varies her time
according to need.
  
  Subjects taught are reading, arithmetic, spelling, geography,
English, German, penmanship, and some art and music.  A program
is given at the end of the school year.
  
  Textbooks are most often specially designed for Mennonite
children.  The school does accept from the public school system
some discarded older textbooks.  These books must meet Mennonite
standards for content.  All eight grades use the 1934 Practical
Mathematics series, Columbia University, reprinted by the
Gordonville Print Shop of Pennsylvania.  Researchers note, "These
books are predominately mathematical problems with no
illustrations and minimum explanation" (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989,
p. 315).
    Students work by grades with the teacher on math, spelling,
and reading.  During this time, other students work independently
at their desks.  For reading, the teacher calls each grade level. 
Students file to the front, face the class, and read individually
in predetermined order.  Students know how much to read, when to
stop and start.  No direction from the teacher is necessary.  The
teacher asks comprehension questions at the conclusion of the
story.  These questions are answered in turn by each child.  If
someone does not know an answer, the next pupil in line responds. 
The teacher also uses phonics flashcards.  Students return to
their desks, individually complete workbook comprehension
exercises, and read silently to prepare for the next day.
  
  Teacher.  The teacher, a single woman of 29 years, drives her
horse and buggy to school.  She stays with a married sister
during the week and on weekends travels ten miles to her home
where she lives with an unmarried sister.  The teacher dresses
conservatively according to Mennonite custom.  Because of its
necessity in mastering other subjects, she believes the most
important subject is reading.  She enjoys working with children,
reading, and writing in her diary.
  
  Innovation in methodology is discouraged by the Mennonite
community.  The teacher, therefore, teaches as she was taught. 
Pennsylvania has no certification requirements for Old Order
Mennonite teachers.  Researchers did not specifically mention
this particular teacher's educational attainment level.  Teachers
are selected by the community school board made up of parents
(Dewalt & Troxell, 1989).
    Students.  Researchers did not address class size but did
indicate 25 student desks in a schoolroom floor plan.  Students
spent 65% of their time working individually, 15% in groups with
the teacher, 9% listening to another group, and 6% reading
individually.  Off-task behavior was observed just 5% of the
time.  Researchers observed students out of their seats less than
0.01% of the time and never observed a student leaving to use the
outhouse, get a drink, or sharpen a pencil.  Students do not
leave their seats during class except by the teacher's
instruction.  After students listen to another group, they return
to their own individual work without direction.
  
  Researchers observed little time spent with the teacher
explaining procedure (5%).  Students know what to do at specific
times.  Students receive little praise or criticism from the
teacher (0.01% of the time).  Occasionally they do receive a
small reward such as a sticker for good work.  The students never
have a discussion but spend 48% of class time reading aloud,
reciting, and giving answers.  About 30% of class time is devoted
to lecturing and the teacher asking questions.  The classroom is
silent 16% of the time (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989).  Researchers
note in a typical classroom 65-75% of time is used for statements
by the teacher.  This is in sharp contrast to the 35% in this Old
Order Mennonite school (Flanders and Simon, 1969 in Dewalt &
Troxell, 1989).
    Student attendance rate is high (96.6% for September 1986 to
December 1987) reflecting community educational values.  Local
public schools have a similar attendance rate.  After completion
of grade eight, children no longer attend school but learn
homemaking and farming under the direction of their parents.
  
  Analysis of student interviews showed students were satisfied
with school and enjoyed parental school visits (about twice a
year).  Most children had given little thought to future
occupations realizing there was little choice.  Many said reading
was their favorite pastime (Dewalt & Troxell, 1989).
    Past educational practices, teachers, and students can, of
course, never be exactly reproduced.  However, from an unmarried
female teacher arriving at a one-room schoolhouse via horse and
buggy, to eight grade levels of disciplined children seated in
nailed-down desks, to a basic curriculum liberally interspersed
with religion, to local school control, this case study is a
remarkable reflection of customs and values of this religious
community.  With Old Order Mennonite resistance to change, it
appears to be as accurate a living picture of the past available
to us today. 1920's - 1960's
    Several common threads run through literature of these
twentieth century years.  Among them are energetic movement
toward consolidation.  Another is interest in the child- centered
approach to education, a progressive movement explored by (among
others) Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Rugg.
    Consolidation - 1920's.  Post World War I population movement
toward urban areas and away from rural communities combined with
improvement in roads and the widespread conviction that bigger is
better worked to eradicate one- room schools at the dramatic rate
described earlier.  In a 1928 Department of Interior, Department
of Education bulletin, Covert notes, "One hundred years ago
Horace Mann made a vigorous attack on one-room schools.  Since
then educators have continually bombarded them" (Covert, 1928, p.
1).  In this 1928 bulletin the author lists growing and
apparently prevalent attitudes of the day
    *  one teacher's inability to cover all grades as well
  
     as in a graded system;
    *  one-room teachers are often young and inadequately
  
  
  trained;
    *  percentage of attendance in one-teacher schools is
  
  
  much less than in graded schools;
    *  centralized schools offer advantages small isolated
  
     schools cannot, such as socialization and training
  
  
  for life (Covert, 1928, p. 1).
    The central purpose of Covert's report is gathering
information and disseminating results of educational testing
programs in two types of educational settings.  Through this
examination the author seeks to determine the more advantageous
learning environment -- small rural one-room or larger modern
consolidated ones.  This author feels scientific methods of the
times are dependable measures of achievement.  "Before the advent
of standardized tests, comparing schools in educational
achievement was practically impossible; with age grades and
achievement norms scientifically established, it becomes a simple
matter" (Covert, 1928, p. 1).  Such evidence can substantiate
elimination of one-teacher schools through consolidation.
    The NEA Department of Rural Education conducted a study
(1921-22) comparing academic achievement of one-teacher and
consolidated schools.  Never before had such an extensive study
been conducted in this area of research.  Approximately 11,000
pupils in 135 consolidated schools and 4,700 pupils in 370
one-teacher schools were tested in reading, arithmetic, language,
spelling, and handwriting.  Grades 3-8 were tested.  Testing
instruments used include Monroe Standardized Silent Reading
Tests, Woody-McCall Mixed Fundamentals of Arithmetic, Iowa
Spelling Scales, and the Ayers Handwriting Scale.
  
  Due to small print and age of the document, specific
comparative scores are difficult to decipher.  Overall findings,
however, indicate in each grade children in consolidated schools
obtained higher median reading scores than children in
one-teacher schools; handwriting indicated even or higher scores
for consolidated school pupils.  Generally the report shows
better academic achievement of students attending larger schools
(NEA Department of Rural Education, 1922 in Covert, 1928).
  
  Pointing to rapid increase in centralized schools (1000 per
year since the turn of the century) and more rapid decrease in
one-teacher schools (5 times that rate for the same period)
Covert continues:   There are few thoughtful people left who fail
to see the many social and administrative advantages of the
larger, better-equipped schools.  [Factors causing growth in
number of large schools include] great improvement in roads . . .
; the modern school bus, equipped with comfortable seats,
heaters, windows, and front and rear doors (Covert, 1928, p. 2).
     Problems of Smallness - 1950's.  About 30 years after
Covert's bulletin, U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare reported "Small Schools Are Growing Larger" (Gaumnitz,
1959).  This document concerns status and trends of size factors
in public education.  Problems with rural education were
frequently attributed to smallness -- "small administrative
districts, small school systems, small enrollments, small
instructional staffs, and small classes" (Gaumnitz, 1959, p.
iii).
    To properly evaluate smallness factors, one must examine the
overall picture.  Data of state and geographical areas showing
size in this 1959 report is more comprehensive than previous
information on size of school districts, systems, staffs, and
classes across the United States.  Special attention is given to
rural counties (Gaumnitz, 1959).
  
  Gaumnitz notes the role our pioneer heritage plays in
smallness.  Desire for local control resulted in many small
school districts, each with its own school board and school often
employing one or two teachers.  Often the district area was small
-- four or five square miles.  Life was simple.  Skills such as
reading, writing, and arithmetic made up the bulk of curriculum. 
Persons possessing these skills were deemed qualified to impart
these skills to others.  Thus one or two teachers were chosen by
local citizens for their community school.  As consolidation
spread, many communities valuing small schools reluctantly
relinquished local control.  Gaumnitz points to tradition in
American education as a major factor in such reluctance; to
economic, demographic, and production changes as reasons for
change in educational structure; to the remaining necessity of
smallness in remote undeveloped areas having inadequate roads.
  
  Gaumnitz cautions against one administrative system as the
solution to smallness problems.  Educational researchers
recommend urgent need for experimentation in development of
appropriate school programs.  "Rural life in America is
characterized by diversity, rather than homogeneity, and the
fitting of many patterns of rural life to one type of
administrative unit is highly questionable.  Research needs to
point the way to other solutions to this problem" (Monroe, 1950
in Gaumnitz 1959, p. 2).  In light of this recommendation, it is
interesting to briefly review growing interest in child-centered
and community-oriented education.
    Child-Centered and Community-Oriented Education
    Recollections of a One-Room Schoolhouse.  In a 1975
interview, Marian Brooks, Professor Emeritus, City University,
New York, recalls her initial teaching experience (1924-26) at
age 15 in a one-room school in rural New Hampshire.  Due to
shortage of certified teachers, high school graduates were
recruited, given a six-weeks course in methodology, and placed in
small communities needing instructional staff.
    In this fascinating account, Marian Brooks vividly describes
her eleven students (grades 1-8), their parents, and their
isolated Irish farming community of about 15 families (Dropkin,
1975).  Through her perceived inability to function effectively
within confines of prescribed strict time schedules, this
educator successfully ran her school in terms of the individual
child.  Using local resources (for example, mud to study dikes
and medieval villages; snow to study ice houses and Eskimo way of
life), Ms. Brooks often implemented a project-oriented and
integrated curriculum.   Nailed-down student desks were moved to
suit educational needs.  The platform for the teacher's desk
became a stage.
     Several years after leaving this one-room post, Ms. Brooks
was introduced to works of Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Rugg regarding
progressive education.  Later she studied and served as Professor
Harold Rugg's assistant at Teachers College (Dropkin, 1975).
    The Rural School Improvement Project.  Berea College of
Eastern Kentucky participated in the Rural School Improvement
Project (RSIP) of 1953-57.  With a longstanding philosophy
regarding commitment to needs of surrounding mountain
communities, this college reports remarkable improvement in
educational opportunities and services initiated through this
project.
    Here again, concern for individual children, parents, and
community is reflected in this description of rural education. 
Through teacher training and travel, Berea assisted in widening
the scope of student and parent awareness of life beyond their
mountains and in reducing the scope of racial prejudice.  Through
encouragement of community effort, poorly maintained schools were
improved.  Through initiation of a project-oriented integrated
curriculum, students and parents gained knowledge meaningful to
their own lives (Buckland, 1958).
    1956 Yearbook.  Teaching in the Small Community:  1956
Yearbook, a collection of essays documenting experiences in rural
America, further indicates growing interest in pupils, parents,
and communities as individuals.  Contributors to this yearbook
reflect on Gaumnitz's observation Defenders of small schools
insist . . . that many of the recognized advantages of largeness
are lost to the mechanization of child development.  They declare
that the intimate relationship of the teacher and the child in
the small school is the ideal way to develop children (Gaumnitz,
1959, p. 7).
     From a small desert community north of Phoenix, Arizona, to
a mountain community involved in the Rural School Improvement
Project of Eastern Kentucky, educators contributing to this
yearbook echo several common themes.  Learning is enhanced when
students perceive relevance to their own lives; learning is
enhanced when curriculum is integrated forming a comprehensive
whole; learning is enhanced when students, parents, and
communities work together for the common good (Fox, 1956). Today
    Rural Location.  Today many rural areas in America are
experiencing growth rather than decline.  Country life has long
been treated idyllically by lyricists and other artists. 
Throughout history man has sought simplicity in pastoral
existence.
    Departure from rural areas following World War I lasted for
about 50 years.  Decrease in number of farmers continues today. 
The 1970's and 80's, however, saw population increase in some
sparsely inhabited areas.  In 1981 the American Association of
School Administrators called this move from city to country a
"rural renaissance -- a [realization that] small can be
beautiful" (Muse et al., 1987, p. 7).
    Reasons for increased country population include improved
highway systems and relocation of business and industry in small
rural communities.  These two factors work synergistically,
increasing opportunities for country employment while allowing
city workers to more easily commute.  Additionally, there is a
growing perception of country living as much improved over
earlier years.  Shopping centers, government, and professional
services are common aspects of smaller communities while problems
of crowded streets and heavy traffic are not.  Characteristics
such as these contribute to return to a more relaxed rural
lifestyle (Muse et al., 1987; Gulliford, 1985).
  
  Teachers.  Muse et al. (1987) surveyed 402 one-room teachers in
1984.  Ninety-three percent of these teachers hold a bachelor's
degree or higher.  About 33% of the teachers were raised in
country settings, and 25% grew up in communities with populations
under 2,500.  Another one- fourth lived for much of their lives
in communities of over 25,000.
  
  When researchers surveyed reasons for teaching in small rural
schools, the most frequent response was desire to do so (72%). 
Other reasons given were "limited employment opportunities
elsewhere," "reasonable salary and benefits," "spouse works in
the area," "family and relatives in the area," and "recreational
area nearby" (Muse et al., 1987, p. 9-10).  According to the 1960
NEA study, rural teachers were paid much less than the national
average.  Salary schedules for rural teachers, however, have
risen in recent years (Gulliford, 1985).  Today these teachers
often have salaries commensurate with local cost of living (Muse
et al., 1987).  Wyoming supplements some teachers with isolation
pay or mileage allotments (Hobbs, 1979).
  
  The 1984 study often found spouses of rural teachers to be
farmers (almost one-third).  Other reported occupational areas
include management/self-employment, skilled/ semiskilled, and
professional/semiprofessional.  These 3 areas ranged from
13%-10%.  Homemaking was reported at slightly over 5% (Muse et
al., 1987).
    Isolation.  Slightly over half of the teachers surveyed in
1984 lived within the school district (54.2%).  Teacherages,
homes provided by the school district, were provided one-fourth
of the time.  In isolated places housing is often adjacent to the
school.  In one case in Wyoming, the teacher lives in one end of
the trailer; the school occupies the other (Gulliford, 1985).  In
remote areas in Wyoming, house trailers are frequently utilized. 
These mobile schools can be located on a ranch as required.  When
the school is no longer needed, it can be moved (Hobbs, 1979).
    While improved communication, roads, and transportation gives
some contact to the outside world, isolation continues as a major
problem of rural schools today.  Hazardous weather conditions in
Albany County, Wyoming, prompted a requirement for teachers to
take survival courses; all schools have emergency supplies of
food and water; schools without telephones have citizens band
radios.
    Distance to shopping and services such as health care and
government services varies according to the 1984 study. 
Twenty-five percent of teachers surveyed reported easy access
(within 4 miles) to shopping facilities; 25% reported shopping
facilities within 20 miles.  Teachers in more remote locations
reported distances of 50 miles or more.  The greatest distance
was almost 1000 miles for one teacher in Alaska (Muse et al.,
1987).
  
  Teachers working in isolated areas have special needs for
community support.  While some teachers do remain on the outside,
others become a vital part of community life.  In a rural school
there can be an obligation to conform to local values (Gulliford,
1985).
  
  Frequently one-room teachers provide a variety of extra
services.  From teaching all subjects, to performing janitorial
and maintenance duties, these teachers are among the most
resourceful in our nation (Muse et al., 1987).  Even though many
one-room teachers are versatile and hardy, need for peer
consultation can be a problem in rural areas.
  
  In recognition of teacher and student special needs due to
remote location, Wyoming often provides traveling teacher teams
as a supplement to small school instruction in areas such as art,
music, physical education, and reading.  These teams, however,
are not always available to the one-teacher schools.  In the 1984
study, Muse (et al., 1987) found traveling teachers providing
support in music (12.5%), in remedial reading (6.5%), and in
special education (7.7%) (Muse et al., 1987).  Some Wyoming
districts schedule breaks to "[bring] the teacher out" for
weekends at the Holiday Inn.  District supervisors and rural
coordinators commonly travel to remote schools on a regular basis
(Hobbs, 1979).
  
  Educational Practices.  The 1984 (Muse et al., 1987) study
found isolation frequently prevented field trips to urban areas
with 85% of teachers surveyed reporting no such outings.  When
questioned regarding use of television, computers, and guest
speakers for instructional purposes, teachers responded to
moderate use of television (40%); 36% used computers "often" or
"sometimes"; 75% reported using guest speakers "infrequently" or
never.
  
  Gulliford (1985) reports use of project-oriented curriculums
similar to those described by Marian Brooks (Dropkin, 1975), by
the Rural School Improvement Project (Buckland, 1958), and by
contributors to the 1956 Yearbook (Fox, 1956).  The teacher of
the Cozy Hollow School (Wyoming) feels remoteness is a blessing. 
Without others around to imitate or impress, children must "draw
upon themselves.  They have time to think, to use their own
imaginations" (Gulliford, 1985, p. 11).  Another Wyoming teacher,
besides teaching regular subjects, uses the lunch hour to
instruct children in fishing and preparing the fish for lunch,
starting fires on ice, skating, playing the piano, and ballet. 
Further descriptions of projects carry messages of teacher
creativity in using local resources as learning tools (Gulliford,
1985).
  
  Recommendations made by contributors to The Wisdom of Practice: 
Managing the Multigraded Classroom (Wolfe et al., 1990) mirror
those made by contributors to the 1956 Yearbook (Fox, 1956) and
other child-centered, project-oriented, integrated curriculum
proponents previously described.  Throughout this 1990 handbook,
master teachers of Alaska promote the importance of the
individual child, correlation of subject matter, and teacher
individuality in determination of class structure (Wolfe et al.,
1990).
  
  Instructional methods born and developed in the little red
schoolhouse, continue as mainstays of educational practice in
these schools today.  Devin-Sheehan and Allen (1975) reported 31%
of 110 one-teacher schools surveyed in Nebraska in 1973 had some
form of peer tutoring.  One-room teachers in the 1984 survey
reported widespread use of peer tutoring (70%) and individualized
instruction (95%) (Muse  et al.,1987).  In addition, there is
growing evidence of trends in consolidated schools toward use of
these teaching methodologies.  Educational emphasis on
consideration of each child's special needs is increasing beyond
the one-room school (Devin-Sheehan & Allen, 1975).
  
  Mario Fantini, dean of the University of Massachusetts School
of Education, supports one-room schools.  He believes number of
one-room schools may increase due to dissatisfaction with larger
more bureaucratic schools.  "The trend in education today is
toward smaller, more community based, more intergenerational
settings . . . .  [In many schools] students have lost their
sense of identity" (Gulliford, 1985, p. 11-12).  Without
significant change by larger consolidated schools, departure will
continue toward other kinds of nonpublic education -- the kind
that "takes on the characteristics of the one-room schoolhouse"
(Gulliford, 1985, p. 12).
  
  Further criticism of large schools was voiced in 1981 by Bruno
Bettelheim, University of Chicago.  He held little optimism for
improvement of most public schools today.  Pointing to the
necessity of peer tutoring in one-room schools, Bettelheim
stated, I've found that having some children help teach is the
best way for all children to learn.  The older child learns
material that can be mastered only by rote much better by
teaching it to a younger child.  The one-room school was the best
school we ever had (Gulliford, 1985, p. 10).
     Historian and Nebraska State Board of Education member
Dorothy Weyer Creigh adamantly disagrees writing in 1980 There
are unfortunately a number, an appalling number, of one-room
country schools still in existence in Nebraska, with outdoor
privies, incredibly slipshod teaching, with a criminal lack of
books and other teaching tools . . . .  I know the present-day
one-room country schools for the anachronisms they are, and am
eager to dispel the myth of the rural school now as the be-all
and end-all of educational excellence.  For their time they
served a purpose.  Their time is long past (Gulliford, 1985, p.
9).
     Students.  Little information exists regarding race of
one-room school students.  During the era of segregation in
America, black students attended their own one-room schools with
white one-room schools nearby (Buckland, 1958).  The literature
reflects a predominance of white students in these schools today. 
Currently there are hints in some rural areas of an increasing
appreciation of cultural pluralism (Muse et al., 1987).
  
  Since the 1960 NEA report, there is evidence of one- room
school improvement in physical condition, materials, and teacher
training.  Little quantitative study, however, has been conducted
regarding academic achievement and social adjustment of
one-teacher school graduates when they attend high school.  To
provide current information, researchers at Brigham Young
University investigated academic and social performance of 204
high school students who spent their elementary school years in
one-teacher rural schools.  Chosen for the study were Nebraska,
South Dakota, and Montana (Muse et al., 1985).
  
  School personnel and former one-room students were surveyed
using questionnaires designed to determine student attitude
toward small school experience, social adjustment in high school,
academic preparedness for high school, and educational plans
following high school graduation.  Additionally, socioeconomic
status (SES) of the entire high school student body was addressed
through questionnaires administered to school personnel. 
Questionnaires were not administered to graduates of larger
elementary schools.  Standardized test results were analyzed to
compare academic achievement of one-room elementary school
graduates with graduates of larger elementary schools.
    Results indicated small school students:
    * were similar academically to graduates of larger
  
  
    elementary schools;
    * tended to have some difficulty adjusting to the first
  
   year of high school but not to later years; (Note:
  
  
  Some faculty members felt this difficulty was due to
  
    boarding in town);
    * viewed their elementary years as worthwhile and no
  
  
  disadvantage;
    * would have liked more students in elementary school
  
     for increased participation in sports and other
  
  
     activities;
    * were not dropouts; were not disruptive;
    * were well-behaved and performed as well in school as
  
    other students (Muse et al., 1985).
    In conclusion researchers note problems in attempting to
measure school effectiveness.  Many factors besides school size
can temper a student's performance in school.  While it may be
possible to measure academic achievement with some amount of
standardization, it is certainly not a perfect measure (as
alluded to by Covert [1928] -- see Consolidation - 1920's
section), nor is it accepted in every instance.  Such tests
measure only a fraction of a student's school experience.
  
  According to these researchers, further study is needed. 
Participation of a greater number of schools and samples
representative of states having one-room schools are two
suggestions for improved research design.  While keeping in mind
study limitations and the large versus small controversies,
researchers remind the reader, "It is not a requirement that
rural schools be better than their city counterparts, only
hopefully that they be as good" (Muse et al., 1985, p. 17).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Summary
    Reasons for original establishment of one-room schools are
embedded in America's colonial way of life.  These schools worked
because of unique requirements of frontier existence.  Where
small communities or groups of families settled, one-teacher
schools were established to educate their children according to
American ideals of democracy in education.  Early ideas of
democracy impacted directly on the desire for local control of
local schools.  Numerous small school districts were formed;
their remnants often exist today.
  
  Some early American educational practices can be witnessed
through existing one-room schools of religious groups resistant
to change such as those of Old Order Mennonites.  Early methods
were often rigidly structured, but over the years several
one-room methods evolved such as peer tutoring and individualized
instruction applicable today in large as well as small schools.
  
  The 1950's saw increase in support of child-centered,
project-oriented, integrated curriculums explored earlier by
Brooks, Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Rugg.  Attention to dilapidated
school buildings, unprepared teachers, and isolation was given
during this decade through projects such as the RSIP in Eastern
Kentucky.  Further effort to assist teachers in isolated areas
through sharing of instructional ideas for multigrade classrooms
became recently available through The Wisdom of Practice (Wolfe
et al., 1990).  Improvement in rural roads throughout the
twentieth century reduced isolation while promoting
consolidation.
  
  There is very little evidence regarding social or academic
performance of one-room school students.  Researchers of Brigham
Young University conducted two studies in the 1980's.  After
identifying existing one-room public schools, Muse et al. (1985)
surveyed academic achievement and social adjustment of
one-teacher elementary school graduates who attended high school. 
While these former one-room students appear to perform as well
academically as high school students who attended larger
elementary schools, further study is indicated.  With data
showing one-room school students virtually do not drop out and
are not discipline problems in high school, important classroom
framework implications may exist.  These factors require further
study.
    There is lack of research regarding one-room students of
races other than white.  Current increase in appreciation of
cultural pluralism in rural areas is a mere hint in the
literature, suggesting more examination is needed.
    While public rural one-room schools greatly decreased in
number in the twentieth century, there is suggestion of increased
interest in nonpublic one-room schools.  This interest is
partially prompted by dissatisfaction with larger consolidated
schools.  Criticisms of these larger schools include inadequate
academic effectiveness and impersonal factory-like atmosphere. 
There is lack of study in this area.  Possible trends in
nonpublic one-room schools in communities of all sizes present a
challenging area for research.
    The battle of large versus small, one-room versus
consolidated continues.  Both types of schools, historically and
today, have advocates and opponents.  Only through more extensive
well-conducted research will answers regarding strengths and
weaknesses of these differing educational frameworks become more
apparent.
  
  
  
  
  
  
     CHAPTER 2
  
  
  
    SMALL SCHOOLS, EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS
  
  Teachers in one-room schoolhouses almost never lectured.  These
teachers knew that there wasn't much they could say
simultaneously to a roomful of kids of different ages and stages
of learning.  So teachers moved from one group of two or three
students to another.  Because they couldn't spend much time with
any group, they usually assigned some work to each, making sure
that the group had a pretty good idea of how to proceed. 
Periodically the teacher would return  to each group to make sure
the work was being done  correctly and to offer more help where
it was needed.  And teachers frequently asked students who'd
mastered a particular task to help those who were still
struggling to learn it.  What one-room teachers did out of
necessity -- avoid teacher talk and get kids to learn on their
own or in small groups -- is actually a superior way of getting
them to learn (Shanker in Fiske, 1991, p. 90).
     While evidence supports both sides of the large versus small
school issue, there is reason to believe it is easier for small
schools to be effective.  There are few small Florida public
schools.  This researcher, therefore, studied small Florida
nonpublic schools.  The American nonpublic school universe
consists of 26,712 schools.  Most of these schools enroll less
than 150 students (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 1992).  In Florida there are about 1300 nonpublic
schools.  Approximately 450 of these are elementary schools
enrolling 50 or fewer students; or are combined elementary and
high schools (K-12) enrolling 150 or fewer students (Florida
Department of Education [FDOE], 1991).   There are not enough
small nonpublic high schools in Florida to study.  Chapter 3
describes this researcher's survey of 138 of these 450 small
nonpublic Florida schools.
    To evaluate effectiveness of the 138 schools, information
from Hot Topics:  Usable Research,  Comprehensive School
Improvement (FDOE, 1990) was used.  The FDOE selected twelve
characteristics to frame Comprehensive School Improvement:
    1.  Clear Goals
    2.  School-Focused Improvement
    3.  Strong Leadership
    4.  High Expectations
    5.  Focused Program of Instruction
    6.  Collaborative Decision-Making
    7.  Individual & Organizational Development
    8.  Order & Discipline
    9.  Maximized Learning Time
   10.  Parent/Community Involvement
   11.  Incentives/Rewards for Academic Success
   12.  Careful and Continuous Evaluation (FDOE, 1990, p. v).
    School improvement is often associated with the effective
schools movement.  Restructuring refers to fundamental and
lasting changes.  Information provided by the FDOE seeks to
provide useable research to insightful educators so curriculum
and instruction design can address the needs of Florida's diverse
student population and thus enhance the education of all students
(FDOE, 1990).
  
  There are limitations to this research of 138 small nonpublic
Florida schools.  Personal visits to these schools would yield
more accurate information and a more comprehensive picture.  A
longer questionnaire surveying a  bigger sample would give fuller
representation.
    Small schools employ effective teaching practices, not
necessarily because of special training or theoretical
orientation, but simply because of physical make-up of the
organization.  The twelve characteristics identified by FDOE are
inherent in small school structure.  For example, in a class of
ten students of multiple ages and stages of progress (a frequent
educational situation in small schools), it is hard to lean on
one's shovel and not be noticed.  Conversely, in a traditional
graded lecture- oriented classroom of 30 students, as long as one
does not cause overt problems, unobserved shovel-leaning is more
feasible (conversations with S. McKee, 1992).  "It is not
impossible to have a good large school; it simply is more
difficult" (Goodlad, 1984, p. 309).
  
  
  
  
     Multiage Perspective  Foundations
     Before the founding of public school systems, much  formal
American education took place in settings such as Dame schools,
one room-schools, and homes with family hired tutors.  Multiage
grouping was inherent to these types of educational organization. 
Society, neighborhood, and family make-up typical of the times
naturally involved children in multiage groups.  Average American
nineteenth century families were much larger than those of today. 
Infant mortality frequently caused wide differences in ages of
siblings.  Extended families often lived in the same
neighborhoods or homes.  Commonly, children on the farm worked
cooperatively with adults and siblings (Pratt, 1983, p. 8).
    In the eighteenth century, foreshadowing of graded schools
can be seen through establishment in Boston of separate reading
and writing schools.  Both boys and girls attended these schools
but were segregated by gender (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
    Another step toward modern educational organization can be
seen through the monitorial system where a teacher taught older
students who then tutored younger groups.  Student "monitors"
also were responsible for discipline, record keeping,
examinations, and even promotion (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987;
Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988).
  
  After visiting Prussia in 1843 Horace Mann observed: The first
element of superiority in a Prussian school . . . consists in the
proper classification of the scholars.  In all places where the
numbers are sufficiently large to allow it [emphasis mine] the
children are divided according to ages and attainments, and a
single teacher has the charge only of a single class . . . . 
There is no obstacle whatever . . . to the introduction at once
of this mode of dividing and classifying scholars in all our
large towns (Mann, 1843, p. 84 in Pratt, 1983, p. 9).  It is
interesting to note, as emphasized above, the historical link
between largeness and gradedness.
  
  In 1848, five years after Mann's report of the Prussian method
of educational age grouping, Quincy Grammar School was
established in Boston (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Pratt, 1983). 
This institution is widely considered the first graded school in
the United States.  Support for gradedness grew, becoming the
"accepted wisdom" (Pratt, 1983, p. 9).
  
  During the nineteenth century, belief of education for all
increased.  There was pressure in the 1830's and 40's to enroll
and socialize a giant influx of immigrant children (Radner,
1991).  Establishment of normal schools helped unify educational
ideas and practices.  Growth in school attendance rates, teacher
training, and popularity of new textbooks enhanced favor of
gradedness.  Enthusiasm for The McGuffy Eclectic Readers (graded
and illustrated) impacted on production of these texts as well as
on production of numerous others.  Motivated book salesmen seized
opportunities to sell these materials to teachers who were often
unskilled in determining book quality (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
  
  The Lowell School Committee Report of 1852 compared logic of
age grouping to logic of division of labor in industry: The
principle of the division of labor holds good in schools, as in
mechanical industry.  One might as justly demand . . . all
operations of carding, spinning and weaving be carried out in the
same room, and by the same hands, as insist that children of
different ages and attainments should go to the same school and
be instructed by the same teacher (Lowell School Committee Report
of 1852 in Pratt, 1983, p. 9).  Here lies the logic for our
factory model of schooling.
    In 1837 Horace Mann became secretary of the state board of
Massachusetts; in 1843 Henry Barnard was assigned a similar
position in Connecticut.  John Dewey sees these two events as
marking the beginning of our American system of public schools.
Between 1837 and 1850 grew up all the most characteristic
features of the American public- school system:  from this time
date state normal schools, city training schools, county and
state institutes, teachers' associations, teachers' journals, the
institution of city superintendencies, supervisory officers, and
the development of state universities as the crown of the
public-school system of the commonwealth (Dewey, 1903, p. 228). 
Here one sees foundations of our bureaucratic system of
schooling.  Our modern classification system of elementary,
secondary, and post-secondary divisions of educational levels was
fairly well established by 1890.  Age of entry to school was
standardized through laws requiring school attendance (Pratt,
1983). Natural Grouping
    David Pratt (1983) presents a case for nongraded multiage
instruction by examining implications from anthropology, history,
and education.  In simple societies, Pratt found interaction
between ages common.  Heterogeneous groupings for a variety of
purposes appear to be the norm.  Such interaction often seems
essential for natural development of the young.
  
  Problems in implementing curriculum reform are increased by
certain structural characteristics of schools including
homogeneous age grouping.  A further obstacle is ability
classification, a practice intensified after the introduction of
standardized testing around 1920.
  
  An early attempt (1925) at instituting self-paced
individualized instructional programs is credited to Carleton
Washburne, Superintendent of Schools, Winnetka, Illinois. 
Washburne saw variation in time as a necessary ingredient for
success in learning.  To master the same material, some students
require more time than others.  In adapting Washburne's system,
however, many school boards resorted to "dividing the students in
each grade into sections of slow, average, and rapid learners on
the basis of group intelligence tests" (Cremin, 1961 in Pratt,
1983, p. 15).
  
  After World War II educational research began to address the
question of age grading.  In 1948 the first empirical examination
of age grading was completed by Arthur Foshay for a doctoral
thesis at Teachers College.  Classes combining three years were
compared with those using the conventional one-year approach. 
Nonrandomly selected children of lower IQ made up the
experimental group.  Findings showed less progress than projected
for these children in reading and arithmetic achievement. 
Age-graded children chose friends from within the same age group
81% of the time.  Children in the multiage group chose friends
from within the same age group just 46% of the time (Foshay, 1948
in Pratt, 1983; in Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
  
  In 1949 for a doctoral study at the University of Minnesota,
Dreier compared graduates from graded and nongraded elementary
schools in rural Minnesota.  No important differences were found
between the two groups (Dreier, 1949 in Pratt, 1983).
    In contrast to the two studies mentioned above, a 1956 study
conducted by Rehwoldt and Hamilton in Torrance, California,
showed significant advances both socially and academically by
pupils in multigrade classes (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
    Pratt located 27 experimental studies on age grading
conducted between 1948 and 1981.  Ten of the 27 were doctoral
dissertations.  Design is lacking in many of the studies. 
Problems include difficulty in differentiating between effects of
age heterogeneity and effects of individualization and intraclass
grouping.
    Regarding academic achievement, 3 studies favored
conventional grouping, 10 favored multiage grouping, 12 were
inconclusive.  In the doctoral studies 1 favored conventional
grouping, 2 favored multiage grouping, 5 were inconclusive.
    Regarding social/emotional development none of the 27 studies
favored conventional grouping, 9 favored multiage grouping, 6
were inconclusive.  No doctoral studies favored conventional
grouping, 3 favored multiage grouping, 4 were inconclusive
(Pratt, 1983).
  
  In surveying research studies conducted between 1968 and 1976
comparing graded and nongraded schools, Tamsen Banks Webb notes:
    * favor of nongradedness over gradedness using measurements
of standardized tests;
    * students in a nongraded structure may have improved chances
for good mental health and positive attitudes about school;
    * longitudinal studies suggest the longer students are in
nongraded programs, the more likely they are to have higher
academic achievement and positive attitudes about school;
    * mental health benefits for Blacks, boys, underachievers,
and students of lower SES appears to be enhanced by nongradedness
(Pavan, 1977 in Webb 1992).
    Recent work by James P. Comer (Fiske, 1991) emphasizes need
for a community atmosphere in schools serving disadvantaged
youth.  Miller (1990 in CRESS ERIC DIGEST, May 1991) reviewed 13
studies comparing academic achievement in single-grade and
multigrade classes.  Studies showed no significant differences
between the two types of groups.  Regarding student affect,
however, multigrade groupings appeared much stronger than
single-grade groupings.   Important Generalizations
    Major writing in the area of nongraded multiage grouping
became available in 1959 when John Goodlad and Robert Anderson
published The Nongraded Elementary School.  This book was revised
in 1963 and reissued in 1987.  Goodlad and Anderson criticized
Procrustean attempts to shape children to fit the system. Greek
mythology tells us of the cruel robber, Procrustes (the
stretcher).  When travelers sought his house for shelter, they
were tied onto an iron bedstead.  If the traveler was shorter
than the bed, Procrustes stretched him out until he was the same
length as the bed.  If he was longer, his limbs were chopped off
to make him fit.  Procrustes shaped both short and tall until
they were equally long and equally dead.
     Certain time-honored practices of pupil classification,
while perhaps not lethal, trap school-age travelers in much the
same fashion as Procrustes' bed trapped the unwary.  These
practices are concomitants of our graded system of school
organization (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987, p. 1).
     In support of nongraded organizations, Goodlad and Anderson
point to important generalizations such as:
    * children entering first grade range from three to four
years in readiness to benefit from a "graded minimum essentials"
approach to schooling;
    * this ability range increases through the years and is
almost double by the time a child finishes elementary school;
    * the achievement range of students reflects learning
readiness soon after first grade students receive normal school
instruction;
    * for the same children achievement varies depending on area
of learning (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
    A Place Called School:  Prospects for the Future (Goodlad,
1984) offers an in-depth examination of 38 elementary, junior
high, and high schools.  Goodlad and his associates determined
that these schools were representative of contemporary American
education.  The author details findings and offers restructuring
plans.  A major aspect of these plans is the multiage nongraded
approach.
  
  Many administrative and organizational problems exist in
implementing a nongraded educational structure.  Often these
problems stem from our history of gradedness.  With standardized
tests, textbooks, and other materials relying on the graded
educational structure, break with tradition becomes more
difficult.  In addition, educators and parents are familiar with
gradedness, most having been schooled that way themselves.
    Connel doubts customary age segregation in schools. 
"Segregating children by sex, race, ethnic, or socioeconomic
differences is against the law.  Is it right to segregate by
age?"  (Connel, 1987 in Webb, 1992, p. 90). Self-Esteem
    Research strongly indicates retention impacts negatively on
children's self-esteem and further achievement (Shepard & Smith,
1990 & Katz, 1988 in Webb, 1992; Goodlad & Anderson, 1987). 
Elimination of nonpromotion is indicated through much literature. 
Along this vein, Goodlad and Anderson suggest need to also
eliminate promotion (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).  Questions of
whether to promote or not to promote individual students can be
removed through an idea of continuous progress.  Each student
proceeds through material which is often the same; the difference
is time.  Nongradedness lends itself to this concept.
  
  Lack of readiness in kindergarten follows the child through
later school years.  Frustration because of lack of readiness to
master expectations of adults results in low self-esteem.  Fetzer
and Ponder see the system of designating a child's class
according to birth date alone as "antiquated" (Fetzer & Ponder,
1988, p. 192).
  
  A recent report published by the National Association of
Elementary School Principals identified 163 indicators of school
quality.  Suggestions include:  maximum class size of 20, or
fewer in the primary grades; grouping by needs, not by age and
grade only.  School effectiveness is enhanced by the idea that
all students can learn (Raze, 1985).  The idea also enhances
student self-esteem. Grouping
    Debate over grouping according to ability and achievement
measures has continued since 1920.  Sputnik (1957) heightened
interest in identifying and encouraging children of high aptitude
to enter scientific fields.  Ability grouping often results in
tracking where both students and teachers in low classes easily
can become discouraged.  Hall and Findley (1971) suggest one
defect of this system is the small percentage of teachers who
prefer to teach the low achieving groups.
  
  Goodlad (1984) views tracking as a repulsive practice that
often begins in primary school.  Evidence shows "higher-achieving
students do not do better when together, and lower-achieving
students do much worse when together.  Tracking clearly
discriminates and clearly perpetuates inequities among students .
. ."  (Glickman, 1991, p. 5).  Recommended alternatives are
groups of various sizes formed for special purposes and dissolved
when the specified purpose has been accomplished.  Goodlad
reminds us of how much we learn by teaching others.  Cooperative
learning, peer tutoring, and student leadership are just some
advantages of students helping each other.  Leadership can change
and rotate according to need.  These practices are inherent to
the structure of one-room and other small schools.
    Anton S. Makarenko devised such a plan in the Gorky Colony, a
multiage school for wayward youth established in the Ukraine in
the 1920's.  After much trial and error, Makarenko successfully
arranged a system of mixed detachments where all colonists except
"the most glaringly unsuitable" (Makarenko, 1973, p. 356) served
as leaders.  Depending on the project, mixed detachments were
scheduled and organized according to the job at hand.  Upon
completion of a task, the group was dissolved.  Mixed detachment
leaders were responsible for organization and quality control.  A
leader in one group served as a follower in others.  Each
colonist also belonged to a permanent detachment with a permanent
commander.  Permanent detachments formed a "nucleus for the
colony" (Makarenko, 1973, p. 355).   Standardized Testing Today
    In an opinion paper on reorganizing American education, Leona
Tyler sees inadequate attention to individual differences; an
excess of compulsion.  Age grouping "is perhaps the worst
possible strategy for maximizing the learning of individuals"
(Tyler, 1985, p. 1).  "A Proposal for Reorganizing American
Public Education" cautions against focusing on averages of
standardized test scores rather than on the spread of scores. 
This author criticizes reporters for lack of realization of a
naturally occurring situation. They continue to be shocked at the
finding that half of any group tested is below the average of the
group.  Human beings differ inherently in how much they learn and
how rapidly they learn it.  Yet we go on categorizing them by age
and treating them all alike.  What sense does it make to assign
the same tasks to all members of an age group and expect them all
to succeed equally well?  (Tyler, 1985, p. 2).
  
  
  
  
    Implications for Change
    Literature on nongraded multiage instruction is plentiful. 
Although empirical research is lacking in many specific areas,
review of writings on nongraded multiage grouping shows much
support by many well-respected educators.  Findings on academic
achievement of graded and nongraded classes are inconclusive. 
There does, however, seem to be evidence of positive social and
self-esteem advantages in a nongraded approach.
  
  Another thread running through much of the literature concerns
belief that all children can learn -- the varying factor is time. 
Some students require a longer period to master the same tasks. 
Multiage nongraded groupings can vary in size depending on
purposes.  Advantages of teaching as a method of enhancing one's
own learning is a device well known to educators.  Implications
exist here for peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and valuable
leadership and followship experiences.
  
  Teacher cycling, a common practice in small schools, is
mentioned in the literature.  Advantages of teaching the same
students for several years include greater opportunity to know
those students well; possibilities for determining and designing
effective individual learning programs can be increased.  Critics
of teacher cycling sometimes cite lack of exposure of students to
teachers of different talents.  Here supporters often suggest
team teaching where educators can draw on the strengths of each
other.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Discussion Total Quality
    In 1950 W. Edwards Deming, an industrial engineer, introduced
to Japan a method of statistical quality control.  Over the last
several decades Deming's approach has become well-known as
quality control circles.  An analysis of Deming shows there is a
basic misunderstanding of evaluation in manufacturing.  Similar
confusion is shown by belief that objective testing is likely to
improve educational quality.  A central point in this discussion
is the difference between standards and quality.  Multiage
grouping in schools can achieve quality when people of various
ages work together to achieve results of distinction.
    "The Total Quality Classroom" (Bonstingl, 1992) applies to
education Deming's 14 principles for Total Quality Management
(TQM).  John Jay Bonstingl sees relevant similarities of business
organizations and schools.  Alan M. Blankstein (1992) explains
how five of Deming's principles translate into school terms. 
Principals and superintendents are management or leadership;
teachers are employees, leaders, and managers; students are
employees; student knowledge is the product; parents and society
are customers; legislators are the board of directors.  Lewis A.
Rhodes explores TQM concepts concerning values.  He points to
importance of the totality of educational organizations.  Work
processes encompass a unified system. Synergy
    "In a school, everything important touches everything else of
importance," notes Theodore Sizer recognizing "the synergistic
character of a school" (Sizer, 1991, p. 32).  "No Pain, No Gain"
suggests restructuring often involves painful break with
tradition.  Effective change demands attention to all parts of a
school.
     "The Quality School" (Glasser, 1990) is an adaptation of the
book by the same name where psychiatrist William Glasser, M.D.,
examines educational application of TQM.  In analysis of control
theory, motivation theory, and non- coercive management employed
by "lead-managers," Glasser recognizes naturally resulting
high-quality educational outcomes.  Our system must encourage
lead-management in teachers and principals.  It must discourage
"boss- management," a scientific management approach employing
fear, coercion, and intimidation.  Because of district office
bureaucratic power struggles, Glasser feels lead- management
usually must be initiated at the building level.  He sees
teachers and principals as leaders who can make a real difference
in producing high quality American schools.  Quality Versus
Standards
    Can quality be defined, or is it more accurate to view
quality as a recognizable characteristic? Quality isn't something
you lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas
tree.  Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and
objects, the cone from which the tree must start.  To arrive at
this Quality requires a somewhat different procedure from . . . .
"Step 1, Step 2, Step 3" instructions . . . (Pirsig, 1974, p.
262).
    "Quality can be defined only in terms of the agent.  Who is
the judge of quality?"  (Deming, 1986, p. 168).  Deming sees
determination of quality as involving three agents, including
workers and managers as well as customers.
     Multiage nongraded grouping in American education offers a
framework where quality can be found through development of
uniquely appropriate strategies.  Quality is realizing the
potential within an environment. Choice in District 4
    Quality was the concern in Community School District 4, East
Harlem, New York.  Choice developed as a way to improve education
of inner-city students.  Almost all students are members of
minority groups.  There is a high poverty level.  Test scores of
District 4 in the early 1970's were lowest or almost the lowest
of all 32 school districts of New York City.  Superintendent
Anthony Alvarado gave teachers and administrators opportunities
and authority to improve education in their classes by devising
their own programs.  They then received resources to "turn their
ideas into little schools" (Fiske, 1991, p. 181).  Students and
parents who shared their vision could choose to attend a
particular school.
  
  In 1974 Deborah Meier with 100 children opened Central Park
East Elementary School.  The school served grades K-2 only. 
Children who attended came because their parents chose the
school.  Central Park East uses child-centered approaches to
learning and stresses content, thinking, experimenting,
discussion, research, and writing.  Dramatic success of the
school gave rise to two others, Central Park East II and River
East.  Central Park East Secondary School, part of Ted Sizer's
Coalition of Essential Schools, opened in 1985.  The 50 District
4 schools include alternative, bilingual, and theme schools.  All
began as small schools.  Rather than grow larger, popular schools
were copied in new locations.  "Less is Better" is the district
belief.  "Fewer students per school and classroom, less
bureaucracy, and less top-down management make up their reform
formula.  [Says Mrs. Meier,] `Small schools are not the answer,
but without them none of the proposed answers stands a chance'"
(Fiske, 1991, p. 184).
  Holweide Comprehensive School
     Located in Cologne, West Germany, Holweide Comprehensive
School is a contemporary example of quality education.  The
school began as an experiment in the mid- 1970's and serves the
equivalent of American grades 5 through 11.  Culturally diverse
students include children of foreign guest workers and children
from single-parent or poor German families.  Almost all pupils
are considered non- college bound.
    Teams of teachers remain with the same students for the
entire six years of Holweide schooling.  School administration is
composed of only one teaching principal and two assistants who
also teach.  Students are not tracked according to assessed
ability.  Teacher teams determine how to group students and how
to organize the school day.  Readjustments are made as needed.
  
  Because of this structure, authentic accountability is
possible.  Since teachers have the same students for six years,
former instructors cannot be blamed for pupil deficiencies. 
Teachers cannot pass problem students along to others.  Teacher
teamwork increases chances of defining appropriate ways to
improve schooling of individual pupils.  "Holweide's approach
thus turns the usual bureaucratic, assembly-line processing of
children into a teaching and learning enterprise, a moral
community" (Shanker, 1990, p. 351).  The School and Society
    In reading early twentieth century Dewey and in reading
Goodlad's recent book (Goodlad, 1984), one is struck by recurrent
themes and by apparent inability of the American educational
system to adapt to changing circumstances.  Schools are part of a
complex web of life.  The social change of which Dewey was an
early prophet continues to evolve.  The philosopher's concern
with the exigency of learning to learn permeates his 1920
thinking.  Dewey notes rapid progress of his times.  Advances in
industrialization, transportation, and communication dictated
need to adapt to a continuously and quickly changing environment. 
Experience and thinking involve connection of relationships. 
This connection is essential for reasoning to occur. While all
thinking results in knowledge, ultimately the value of knowledge
is subordinate to its use in thinking.  For we live not in a
settled and finished world, but in one which is going on, and
where our main task is prospective, and where retrospect -- and
all knowledge as distinct from thought is retrospect -- is of
value in the solidity, security and fertility it affords our
dealings with the future (Dewey, 1920, pp. 177-178). 
Implications of such thought exist today in our post- industrial
information age.
    The core of Dewey's educational theory was encouragement of
flexibility, creativity, and practicality in individual thinking. 
His argument suggests these qualities are required of a broadly
democratic society as he defined it.  Public schools were
originally designed for students who would settle well into
industrial discipline.  Waves of immigrants arriving in the
mid-nineteenth century were socialized to American ways through
the public schools.
     As a segment of society, early public schooling saw as part
of its role this preparation of factory workers.  Assembly lines
were largely staffed by immigrants from foreign countries and
rural America.  Factory-like compartmentalization was reflected
in physical traits of schools (rows of nailed down desks) as well
as in curriculum with its segmented structure.  Subjects were and
often are separated from other subjects and from life itself.
  
  Dewey is a prophet of contemporary critics of our educational
system.  The American school system is not working.  Goodlad
(1984) sees necessity for change even in our best schools.
  
  The system designed to produce factory workers is no longer
relevant.  Rather than factory mentality, we need reason --
reason derived from thinking and knowledge.  As technology rushes
forward, it is imperative for citizens to have learned how to
learn.  Dewey saw schools as small communities where students
grasp larger concepts through smaller concepts relevant to their
own worlds.  Individual discovery of findings established
centuries earlier, are new in the sense of unique interpretation. 
As a child uncovers wonders of nature, the individual's
revelation is as fresh as an initial discovery.  Goodlad (1984)
sees the role of schools as communities for changing society, not
as mere reflections.  Sadly, what we often see inside of our
schools is a mirror image of what is wrong outside.
    Dewey the philosopher and social theorist based much of his
thought on the social sciences and psychology.  He spoke of
organizations as the organic whole.  As industry changes from
production lines to cooperative work groups, X Theory becomes
Theory Z.
    Traditional schools espouse X Theory (individuals are
inherently unmotivated, needing coercion to work or learn). 
Dewey's school is based on Theory Z (learning occurs naturally
through relevance).  Organizational structure of small schools
lends itself to Type-Z application.
  
  The nongraded multiage approach is an attempt to break out of
the industrial mold and teach the child as an individual being,
rather than as a product to be processed.   Age segregation is as
unnatural as subject matter segregation.  Retention shatters
self-esteem into small bits.  Goodlad proposes teacher cycling,
schools within schools, and multiage nongraded grouping in an
effort to bring continuity to schooling.
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Summary
    Factors impacting on nineteenth century enthusiasm for
gradedness include teacher training through normal schools,
growing popularity of textbooks, population movement from rural
to urban areas, industrialization, and consolidation.  According
to Dewey, most features of our American educational system were
instituted between 1837 and 1850.  Gradedness is part of this
American tradition.
    Proponents of multiage grouping see it as a natural order of
society.  Studies of simple societies and early American history
reflect such grouping.  Small colonial schools featured
variations of multiage groupings.  These practices are seen today
in many small schools.  Demand for community and calm focus in
schools is particularly essential today because of deteriorating
family conditions.
    Many respected educators of the twentieth century vigorously
uphold concepts of multiage nongraded educational organization;
many suggest problems with implementation.   Benefits of multiage
grouping advanced by advocates include individualized self-paced
instruction, opportunity for increased self-esteem, leadership
and followship experiences, peer tutoring, and cooperative
learning.  Multiage nongraded schooling, an inherent aspect of
small school structure, lends itself to a child-centered learning
approach where creativity and individuality are respected and
enhanced.
  
  Organizational features of one-room and small schools make
multiage nongraded grouping natural.  The FDOE defines twelve
characteristics to be considered in improving schools.  General
areas for attention include goals, focus, leadership,
expectations, instruction, collaboration, development, order,
time, involvement, incentives, and evaluation (FDOE, 1990). 
Chapter 3 describes these areas as perceived by small nonpublic
schools in Florida.
  
  
  
  
  
  
    CHAPTER 3
  
  
  
  
     NONPUBLIC SCHOOL SURVEY
  
  
  
  
   Private Schools in America Numbers
    In 1987-88, there were more than 105,000 elementary,
secondary, or combined schools.  Of these schools, 78,600 were
public and 26,800 were private.  More than 45,100,000 students
attended these schools:  39,900,000 went to public schools, and
5,200,000 [11.5%] went to private schools.
     The average school had 428 students.  Public schools were
larger (averaging 508 students) than private schools (averaging
195 students).
     In 1987-88 there were just over 2,630,000 elementary and
secondary school teachers:  about 2,320,000 public school
teachers and 307,000 private school teachers.  There were more
than 103,000 school principals (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], July 1992, School and Staffing Survey (SASS),
1987-88, p. v).
     In public schools less than 1% of urban and suburban schools
enroll less than 150 students; 3.4% of rural schools enroll less
than 150 students.  In nonpublic schools, about 12% of urban and
suburban schools and 31% of rural/small city schools have less
than 150 students.  The average size of these small (150 students
or less) schools is 70 (NCES, July 1992, pp. 10-11).
  
  The sample of 63 Florida schools used in this study  averaged
62.9 students in size. Forty-five percent of the 138 schools in
the sample responded.  The 39 schools with enrollments below 64
were called "small" and 24 with enrollments above 64 called
"big".
     Nationally the Amish have the smallest nonpublic schools
followed by the Mennonites and the Seventh-day Adventists.  Roman
Catholics (average enrollment 291) tend to have larger schools. 
Average public elementary school enrollment is 550; secondary is
1,100; overall 650 (NCES, p. 10).
   Although one expects small schools to have a lower student to
teacher ratio (Figure 3.2), this is not always true.  Small
school size and small class size are not the same issues. 
Students in Roman Catholic schools make up about 64.6% of
nonpublic school students in the United States.  Figure 3.1 gives
number of schools and enrollments.  In Florida (Figure 3.3) Roman
Catholic school students make up 36% of nonpublic school
students.  Students attending Baptist schools in Florida comprise
12.7% of nonpublic school students compared to 6.8% nationally. 
Florida reports more "other" nonreligious schools (20.7%) than
the national average of 11.7%.
  
  Different methods of counting explain differences between
Florida figures and national figures.  The NCES (July 1992)
survey did not count hospital schools, daycare centers with
kindergarten only, or privately run special education and
juvenile detention centers.  A large number (1000) of
kindergartens in Florida are attached to daycare centers.  A
large number of these are not counted as schools by the NCES
(July 1992) survey.  First grade must be part of the school for
NCES to include them.  In Characteristics of Nonpublic  Schools
in Florida, 1990-91 (FDOE, 1991), Florida also counts some home
education centers where regular classes are not meeting four
hours per day.
  
  NCES (July 1992) eliminated home schools from the Schools and
Staffing Survey - 1987-88 (SASS).  In cooperation with the United
States Census Bureau, NCES used field representatives to check
telephone books, state department of education lists, and lists
from private school associations to make the SASS as accurate as
possible.  The state of Florida did not have such extensive
resources.  Therefore, the Florida list (FDOE, October 1991)
contains home schools, hospital schools, marine institutes,
juvenile treatment programs, and many private
daycare/kindergartens.
     In Florida nonpublic school students represent about 9.5%
(compared to about 11.5% nationally) of all elementary and
secondary school students (about 200,000 of the 2.2 million
school children).  About 70% of Florida nonpublic school students
attend elementary schools, as they do nationally (Figure 1.2).
     Nationally, 16% of elementary school students attend
nonpublic schools; and 7% of secondary school students attend
nonpublic schools. Teacher Perceptions
    Nonpublic school teachers are paid less than public school
teachers.  Many more nonpublic school teachers are part time
teachers than public school teachers.  NCES (July 1992, pp.
64-65) figures show $18,378 (nonpublic teacher annual salary
compared to $27,231 (public teacher annual salary).  However,
nonpublic school teachers are happier.  They feel they have more
influence and would take up teaching again (NCES, July 1992, pp.
98-99).  Even more interesting, teachers in smaller schools are
happier than teachers in larger schools.  Fifty percent of
nonpublic school teachers in schools enrolling less than 150
students certainly would be a teacher again, while only 30% of
public school teachers in schools enrolling over 750 students
would choose the same profession if given that option.  This is
true regardless of being urban, suburban, or rural small city. 
School size appears to be a factor of teacher satisfaction with
work and having a feeling of input into decision making. 
Sixty-two percent of nonpublic school teachers in schools of less
than 150 students feel they have a great deal of influence on
discipline policy compared to 22.5% of public school teachers in
schools of 750 students or more.
  
  Percentage of nonpublic and public school teachers who were
highly satisfied with various aspects of working conditions
(NCES, July 1992, p. 82-83): *  Overall view of working
conditions (highly satified):  Public 750 or more students -
25.6% of teachers Nonpublic less than 150 students - 52.6% of
teachers *  Administrative support/establish common goals: Public
750 or more students - 12% Nonpublic less than 150 students -
37.8% *  Buffering/enforcement of rules: Public 750 or more
students - 21.5% Nonpublic less than 150 students - 64.3% * 
Collaborative norms/teacher participation in decision making:
Public 750 or more students - 4.1% Nonpublic less than 150
students - 29.2% *  Adequacy of resources: Public 750 or more
students - 2.3% Nonpublic less than 150 - 1.7%
    The smaller the school (both public and nonpublic), the more
positively teachers view working conditions, administrative
buffering and enforcement of rules, and collaborative decision
making.  Nonpublic schools, however, are far ahead in all these
criteria except for resources where scores are universally low
(NCES, July 1992, pp. 82- 83).  Small School Survey
    Fifty-nine schools responded to the Small School Survey
(Appendix A, Survey Instrument).
   Question 1 - Most students are in multi-age classes.  The
average answer was 3.9 which is between undecided and agree.  The
sample was broken at the average size of respondents' schools
which was 65.5 students.  Those schools enrolling 65 or more
students are called "big," and schools enrolling less than 64
students are called "small."  The small schools answered an
average of 4.3 on Question 1. On Question 1 the larger schools
answered 3.2 (Figure 3.6).  The difference is 1.1 (Figure 3.5). 
The schools with less than 64 students tend to have multiage
classes (Figure 3.4).
    Question 2 - Teachers have groups of students with three or
more years difference in age.  The average answer was 3.7
(between undecided and agree).  Again the smaller schools are
more likely to have classes of students with three or more years
difference than the larger schools.
  
  Question 3 - Students spend more than one year with the same
teacher.  The average answer was 4.0 (agree) with the small
school answer being 4.6 (between agree and agree strongly). 
Small school students are more likely to spend more than one year
with the same teacher.
    Question 4 - Students learn to study on their own.  Students
in smaller schools are more likely to learn to study on their
own.  The average for all schools was 4 (agree) but the small
schools answered 4.5 (between agree and agree strongly).
  
  Question 5 - Teachers, parents, students, and administration
share a vision for the school.  The overall score was 4.5
(between agree and agree strongly).  There was a small
difference, but vision sharing may be slightly clearer for larger
schools.  No difference was reflected in religious and
nonreligious schools in any of the questions.  Clear goals is
identified as Goal 1 in What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? 
"Teachers and principals in effective schools express their
expectations clearly, so students and parents understand that
high academic standards have been established (Brookover, 1979;
Lee County, 1985).   Schools that reach board consensus on their
goals and expectations are more likely to be successful" (Purkey
& Smith, 1983 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 2).
    Question 6 - The principal is highly visible around the
school.  The average answer was 4.5 (between agree and agree
strongly).  No difference was evident between small and larger
schools.  Some teaching principals answered not applicable to
this question.
    Question 7 - There is clear and effective instructional
leadership from the school principal.  Schools report they have
good leadership (4.6).  Questions 6 and 7 relate to strong
leadership, Goal 3 of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common?  
Effective schools have effective principals.  It would be
difficult to overstate the importance of the principal's role in
any school improvement effort, for the principal occupies a
"strategic position in the school organizational structure for
developing and maintaining a school climate conducive to
learning" (Block, 1983).  As the chief officer of a school, the
principal must lead by visible example (FDOE, June 1990, p. 6).  
Question 8 - Teachers believe students can master basic skills. 
Teachers believe each child can master basic skills (4.7).
    Question 9 - Low-achieving students are called upon as often
as other students.  Most respondents answered they think so
(4.4).  Questions 8 and 9 relate to high expectations, Goal 4 of
What Do Effective Schools Have In Common?   Teachers and
administrators believe they can create a climate in which all
students can learn and improve.  Teachers let children know they
are capable of good work and that it will be expected of them. 
Students feel they can positively affect their futures . . . .
  
   The landmark 1968 study, Pygmalion in the Classroom, by
Rosenthal and Jacobsen, demonstrated that when teachers had low
expectations, even of high achieving children, those expectations
became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the students performed
poorly (FDOE, June 1990, p. 8).
     Question 10 - Subject objectives are coordinated and
monitored through all grades.  Yes -- 4.5, between agree and
strongly agree.  Goal 5 of What Do Effective Schools Have In
Common?  concerns having a focused instructional program.  
Instructional programs in effective schools focus on the
achievement of clearly defined and displayed objectives. 
Commonly stressed is student acquisition of basic skills,
particularly reading and math skills.  Effective schools
implement programs to help students with learning difficulties,
and adapt their curriculum and instructional strategies to
individual classroom needs (Levine & Stark 1981).  Once basic
skills are mastered, successful schools focus on higher
order/critical thinking skills.  The curriculum is well-planned
and designed to provide continuity across grades and subjects
(FDOE, June 1990, p. 10).
     Question 11 - Administrators, teachers, and parents
participate in school planning and decision-making processes. 
There is not universal agreement (3.9 between undecided and
agree).  There is no difference in school size or religious or
nonreligious.
    Question 12 - School coordination reflects democratic
decision-making.  As in Question 11 on participation, there is
some doubt about full democratic decision making (3.7).  Goal 6
of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common?  discusses
collaborative decision making. Comprehensive school improvement
involves the entire school structure, so principals, teachers,
advisory committees, teachers' unions, parents, and students
should participate to some degree in the planning and
decision-making process.  As Thomas Sergiovanni and John Moore
write in Schooling for Tomorrow (1989), "the model of an
individual who unilaterally `runs' a school no longer works very
well."  Schools wanting to improve recognize this and develop
many kinds of leadership among the school community.  Teachers,
for example, are the critical component in the delivery of
instruction in a school, so their input in decisions involving
curriculum is vital (FDOE, June 1990, p. 14).
     Question 13 - Generally, student discipline is not an issue
at the school.  Average answer was 3.9 (agree).  Goal 8 concerns
order and discipline. Edmonds (1979, 1982) reported that a school
must have an orderly, safe, clean, and otherwise pleasant
environment for effective learning to take place.  In effective
schools there is an orderly purposeful atmosphere which is free
from the threat of physical harm.  The climate is not oppressive
and is conducive to teaching and learning (Edmonds & Lezotte,
1982 in Smock, 1986).  Successful schools take stock of the
physical and disciplinary situations at their schools, and
faculty and staff work together to identify areas for
improvement.  A written code of conduct is produced based on this
collaboration, and is distributed and explained to students and
parents.  Rules are taught -- not merely announced (FDOE, June
1990, p. 20).
     Question 14 - Outside interruptions rarely interfere with
instructional time.  Average answer was 3.86.
    Question 15 - Classroom time is focused on content and
students are involved in active learning.  Large and small,
religious and nonreligious schools indicated an average of 4.6
(between agree and agree strongly).  Goal 9 is Maximized Learning
Time.  "How teachers manage available classroom time is more
important than the actual number of minutes allocated for
instruction" (Block, 1983 in FDOE, June 1990,  p. 23).
    Question 16 - There is an active parent group in the school
involving a majority of parents.  Surprisingly, a low score was
reflected on average (3.3 or undecided).  One would think in
small nonpublic schools parents would be very active.  Perhaps
working parents are not as active as respondents think they could
be.  This is also reflected in Question 17.
    Question 17 - Ninety to 100 percent of parents attend
scheduled parent-teacher conferences.  Average answer was 3.8
(between undecided and agree).  This may still be higher than in
many large schools.  Smaller nonpublic schools indicated a
greater parental attendance at conferences.  Goal 10 concerns
Parent/Community Involvement.   Schools which are successful in
improving achievement actively encourage and assist parents to
help their children master essential skills, particularly with
regard to homework.  Effective schools welcome parents and meet
with them often, providing parents with various options for
becoming involved in schooling -- especially in ways that support
the instructional program (Armour, 1976; Block, 1983; Brookover
et al., 1979; California SDE, 1977; Cotton, 1980; Edmonds &
Fredericksen, 1979; Fetters et al., 1968; Fisher et al., 1980;
Gigliotti & Brookover, 1975; Levine & Stark, 1981; New York SDE,
1974; Wilson, 1981 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 25).
     Question 18 - Assessments measure what students are expected
to learn.  Average answer was 4 (agree).
  
  Question 19 - Assessment information is used regularly to
improve curriculum and instruction.  Average answer was 4.3
(agree).  Goal 12 is Careful and Continuous Evaluation.  "Student
achievement and overall school improvement efforts are monitored
carefully and frequently.  Progress is noted and made public. 
Activities are modified and refined as necessary to improve
performance and the instructional program (Block, 1983; Edmonds,
1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Squires et al., 1983; Weber, 1971 in
FDOE, June 1990, p. 30).
    There is a high level of agreement among all of the schools
that students can master basic skills (Question 8); low achieving
students are called upon as often as other students (Question 9);
curriculum is coordinated (Question 10); and classroom time is
focused and students are active in their learning (Question 15).
    See Figure 3.4 for average responses to the 19 questions. 
See Figures 3.5 and 3.6 for the differences between smaller and
larger schools.  Figure 3.6 shows average scores of larger and
smaller schools.
  
  
  
  
  
    Conclusion
    Small schools seem to be happy schools.  They tend to have
high levels of participation, cooperation, and coordination. 
Students in small schools are likely to spend time on task, learn
good study habits, and become self- reliant.  Structure of the
school requires high levels of participation by all students. 
Standardized test scores appear to be at least equal to larger
schools, holding SES constant.  Small school structure offers
greater opportunity for educational quality.  Some reasons are
discussed below.  Quality in Education
    Deming's philosophy represents a conceptual shift in how we
view organizations.  Quality does not result from inspection. 
Inspection and standards reduce rather than promote excellence. 
Quotas, inspections, and slogans exhorting persons to work harder
and faster do not motivate.  They merely defeat the purpose.
  
  We must pay attention to process, but effective process cannot
be prescribed.  It is developed through attention to guiding
principles.  Process in any organization is unique.  Harmonious
relations should bloom spontaneously as flowers do.  It is a poor
workshop where operators and foremen are considered to be part of
the machinery and required to do a job specified by set
standards.  What constitutes a human being is the ability to
think.  A workshop [and a school] should become . . . place[s]
where people can think and use their wisdom (Ouchi, 1981, p.
228).
     Inspection of schooling through instruments such as
standardized tests does not improve quality.  Emphasis on
teamwork rather than on individual competition enhances
productivity.  Grades and similar assessment measures do not
promote excellence.  They defeat it. Some leaders forget an
important mathematical theorem that if 20 people are engaged on a
job, 2 will fall at the bottom 10 per cent, no matter what . . .
.  The important problem is not the bottom 10 per cent, but who
is statistically out of line and in need of help (Deming, 1986,
p. 56).
    Asking teachers and schools to rework mistakes following
years of system failure is not a feasible path to improved
educational outcomes.  Parents and communities must work with
teachers and administrators in developing and adapting a process
capable of yielding educated, skilled, value-driven youth.
    Adapting Deming to schools involves restructuring our
educational organizations as dramatically as the Japanese
restructured their business organizations.  Dewey's presence can
be seen in efforts to adapt Deming to education.   Thinking and
Doing
    Schools must, as Dewey advised, reconnect thinking and doing. 
Group and teamwork, projects, integrated curriculum, peer
tutoring, and teacher as facilitator reflect views of both Dewey
and Deming.  Multiage nongraded grouping is a logical framework
where such educational approaches can work.
  
  In education as in industry "defects are not free.  Somebody
makes them, and gets paid for making them" (Deming, 1986, p. 11). 
Rework of defective goods is not free; it is expensive.  The
product of schools is student knowledge.  When student knowledge
is defective, it must be reworked, compounding time and expense. 
Members of the educational community who define quality --
students, teachers,  administrators, and society must have input
into our system of education.
    As organizations mature and grow in size, they tend to become
more structured and bureaucratic.  Bureaucracy separates thinking
from doing (teacher-proof curriculum, textbooks, etc.).  Under
scientific management the doer merely follows instructions. 
Doers are often placed in difficult and unmotivating
circumstances.  There may be fool-proof systems, but often the
fools are too clever.  This results in more inspections, more
layers of management, more bureaucracy.
    Years after publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), American
Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker notes
implementation of numerous and various school reforms throughout
our country.  Largely, these attempts have not positively
affected student learning (Shanker, 1990).  Often in education
sound ideas are found "ineffective" following poor
implementation.  Sometimes implementors fail to follow guidelines
closely enough.   Consolidation of One-Room Schools
    Public schools grew up with the factory system.  Scientific
managerial practice suggested division of labor into separate
units; division of time marked by bells.  Rows of desks were
attached to floors.  Textbooks were divided into units. 
Teachers, standing before the class, covered material in
specified segments of time.  Students, seated in fixed desks, all
"learned" in standard fashion.
    The advent of school busses -- "with comfortable seats,
heaters, windows, and front and rear doors" (Covert, 1928, p. 2)
-- and paved roads encouraged consolidation of small schools into
larger factory-like buildings.  Scientific management encouraged
standardized testing as an accurate measure of educational
effectiveness.  Because of lack of documentation, we will never
know if or how effective one- room nongraded schools were. 
During the early part of the twentieth century a prejudice
evolved-- one-room schools lacked the latest in fashion and the
latest in facilities.  There was much local control of one-room
schools.  Consolidation reflected political power as well as
educational and managerial theory of the times.
    Education concerns character and thinking.  Many educators
have long been uncomfortable with the factory system of schooling
and its large impersonal bureaucratic organization.  Education is
personal and moral.  With the economy moving away from factories
into information processing, old style industry is disappearing. 
Eighty percent of employment today is in small business and
information processing.  Schooling has always followed the
leading economic institutions of the period.  Education now is
dealing with down-sizing, decentralizing, school-based
management, and other ideas currently fashionable in the
industrial world.
    As Dewey was the prophet of post-industrial management
styles, he was keenly aware of human and moral dimensions of
education.  The connection of thinking with doing, of learning
with practice is critical in modern information- processing
businesses.  It is equally critical in education.  Small is
beautiful.  Less is more. Fix the System
    American schooling faces a serious systems problem.  Deming
urges business and industrial management to fix the system, not
the blame.  Students must be viewed as workers, not products to
be processed.  "The traditional model of schooling is . . .
incompatible with the idea that students are workers, that
learning must be active, and that children learn in different
ways and at different rates" (Shanker, 1990, p. 350).  Too many
American schools today remain based on the factory model where
employees produce piecework and scientific managerial principles
are administrative guidelines.   Small Schools and Educational
Quality
    In a small school quality is easier to accomplish.  With
fewer students and fewer disruptions, teachers can focus on
children.  With teacher cycling and multiage nongraded grouping a
learning community evolves.  Students cannot merely lean on their
shovels.  They must be involved in their own learning.  Good or
great education can happen anywhere.
  
  Smaller school size is not the entire answer to America's
present educational dilemma, but it is a viable place to start. 
For size to help significantly, schools must become small enough
for people to know each other well.  Small schools offer
opportunities for development of stable, caring learning
communities.
  
  Today America has about 8500 small nonpublic schools and about
1000 one-room public schools.  Evidence suggests these schools
are interesting and worthy of further study.
  
  Small schools and small sailboats are reminders of our simpler
past.  Small schools involve a human connection of teachers and
children.  Small sailboats involve a spiritual connection of
sailors and surroundings.  Supertankers on autopilot involve a
disconnection of thinking and doing.
    Edward B. Fiske argues . . . the time for tinkering with the
current system of public education is over.  After a decade of
trying to make the system work better by such means as more
testing, higher salaries, and tighter curriculums, we must now
face up to the fact that anything short of fundamental structural
change is futile. . . . .  American public schools grew up around
an early industrial model that has outlived its usefulness in
education as well as in the industry that created it.  The
renewal of public education in this country requires nothing less
than a frontal assault on every aspect of schooling -- the way we
run districts, organize classrooms, use time, measure
achievement, assign students, relate schools to their
surroundings, and hold people accountable.  Trying to get more
learning out of the current system is like trying to get the Pony
Express to compete with the telegraph by breeding faster ponies
(Fiske, 1991, p. 14-15). A major helpful educational reform is
simply making schools smaller --
  
  
  
  
  
    MUCH   smaller.