| GoUpstate.com Quick Links GoUpstate.com requires users to complete a free, brief registration form before accessing articles • Register now |
|
||
|
||
|
Thursday, May 22, 2003 |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to the H-J | |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted on May 18, 2003 Trend of 'mega-schools' should end
Small neighborhood schools could be making a comeback in South Carolina if a bipartisan coalition of legislators, including several from the Upstate, has anything to do with it. Heralding the many benefits of small schools, they have introduced a new bill that will make it easier to build new schools in existing neighborhoods by eliminating existing acreage requirements. In addition, the bill places a cap on the number of students one school can serve, making it possible to return to the smaller, more personal schools of the past. The bill, however, has been criticized by some who contend that it is too expensive and usurps local control of public schools. I respectfully disagree with both assertions. Cost is regularly cited as the justification for school closure and consolidation and for the construction of mega-schools -- all too often built on remote sites or along interstates, far from any real community. The fact is that smaller, community-centered schools are a bargain for taxpayers. Dropout costs, transportation costs and service and infrastructure costs are just some of the factors that make this true. Several studies have found that dropout rates are higher at large schools. For example, a study of 128 New York high schools determined that schools with 600 or fewer students had a 5 percent dropout rate compared with 13 percent for larger schools. High school dropouts impose enormous costs on society. For example, 82 percent of the adults in American prisons are dropouts. And half of the heads of households receiving welfare did not finish high school. Cost comparisons often do not take into account the buses, bus drivers, fuel and maintenance necessary to transport students within the large geographic area served by a big school. Parents who drive their students to school and students who drive themselves bear the costs of their own transportation both in terms of mileage and in time. In 1995-96, Americans spent $1.4 billion transporting public school students, twice as much as was spent 25 years ago. Today, South Carolinians spend an average of 74 minutes in the car every day, many of which are spent chauffering children to and from school. The S.C. Department of Education currently has minimum acreage requirements for new school sites based on grade level and number of students served. For example, a 1,000-student elementary school (Greenville County's new prototype) requires at least 20 acres, and a high school with 1,500 students (approximately the size of Spartanburg High School and Anderson's T. L. Hanna High School) needs a minimum of 45 acres. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find enough undeveloped land in existing communities to meet these standards. Even where sufficient land is available, it can be prohibitively expensive. Thus, school districts are forced to build schools on large tracts of "cheap land" in the countryside. Soon another problem occurs. The school attracts sprawling development, which requires governmental services such as new or widened roads, water, sewer and police and fire protection. Dorman High School in Spartanburg County is an excellent example of this phenomenon. Relocated from an urban location to a rural site along I-26, the new school opened last year on a 292-acre site (twice the size of the Wofford campus). Costs to provide services to the surrounding area already are being incurred -- a 39-home subdivision is being developed close by on the site of a former peach orchard and grape vineyard. The developer was quoted in the Herald-Journal as saying he believed the new neighborhood would be a success "because of the growth spurt the area is going to experience because of the high school." Another nearby development with 375 homes, 180 apartments and 35 acres of commercial property also is under way. In numerous studies conducted nationwide, neighborhood schools have been proven to produce higher achievement rates, higher graduation rates, lower dropout rates, less violence and vandalism, greater teacher satisfaction and more parental and community involvement. Isn't that what education is all about? Regarding the local control issue, more than half of the state budget is devoted to public education. The state, therefore, clearly has the right to impose reasonable standards to ensure that these funds are spent as wisely and effectively as possible. It already has established an array of standards relating to building specifications, teacher certification and curricula, to name just a few. Surely the state has the right to place limits on the number of students allowed in a school, subject to a variance for extraordinary situations. Indeed, in view of the higher costs associated with larger schools, a strong case can be made that the state has the obligation to do so. The small schools initiative actually would give local school districts more power in the choice and size of school sites because it would totally eliminate the minimum acreage requirements. Not only would this enable local districts to build more neighborhood schools, it also would save taxpayer dollars by not requiring extensive infrastructure and services at remote locations. The basic principles of the small schools initiative are incorporated in a bill known as the South Carolina Neighborhood and Community Schools Act, H. 3608, which is sponsored by several Upstate legislators. This bill is a "win-win" for taxpayers and students and would bring neighborhood schools back to South Carolina. Diane Eldridge is director of education and advocacy for Upstate Forever. She can be reached at (864) 250-0500 or by email at deldridge@upstateforever.org. Upstate Forever's Web site address is www.upstateforever.org. |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
All material ©2003 Spartanburg Herald-Journal | |
|
| |||