Translation PaperNumber EightMarch 2002

© Copyright 2002 by the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Education and Smart Growth: Reversing School Sprawl for Better Schools and CommunitiesThis paper was written by Sam Passmore of Charles Stewart MottFoundation* in collaboration with the Funders’ Network for Smart Growthand Livable Communities. It is the eighth in a series of translationpapers published by the Funders’ Network to translate the impact of sub-urban sprawl and urban disinvestment on issues of importance toAmerica’s communities and to suggest opportunities for progress thatwould be created by smarter growth policies and practices. Other issuesaddressed in the series of translation papers include social equity, work-force development, parks and open space, civic engagement, agriculture,transportation, aging, children and families, health, housing and the envi-ronment, arts, and community organizing.

The Funders' Network forSmart Growth and LivableCommunities works to informand strengthen philanthropicfunders' individual and collec-tive abilities to support andconnect organizations workingto advance social equity, createbetter economies, build livablecommunities, and protect andpreserve natural resources. Formore information, visitwww.fundersnetwork.org.

*The Charles Stewart MottFoundation supports efforts topromote a just, equitable andsustainable society. To learnmore, visit www.mott.org.When Mr. Passmore beganthis paper, he worked at theSouth Carolina CoastalConservation League, whichworks to protect the threatenedresources of the South Caro-lina coastal plain – its naturallandscapes, abundant wildlife,clean water and traditionalcommunities – by workingwith citizens and governmentson proactive, comprehensivesolutions to environmentalchallenges. To learn more,visit www.scccl.org.

AbstractThis paper describes how the trendtoward building new schools on largesites far from existing developmentcenters, called "school sprawl" or"school giantism," can have far-reach-ing impacts on school children, schooldistricts and the larger community.

Educators and parents express concernthat large schools reduce educationaloutcomes, particularly for at-risk youth.Schools that are more distant candiminish student participation in extra-curricular activities, parental involve-ment and taxpayer support. Studentsare walking and cycling to school less,which contributes to alarming rates ofchildhood obesity. Many suggest thatthe growing physical disconnectbetween schools and community helpscreate a level of student anonymity andsocial alienation that sets the stage fortragic events like Columbine.

Smart growth groups, which traditional-ly have not weighed in on educationalmatters, are now questioning the sametrend. Rather than build shopping mallschools at the edge of town, smartgrowth advocates encourage the contin-ued use of existing schools and theconstruction of new schools on infillsites within existing neighborhoods.

Smart growth advocates’ interest inneighborhood schools dovetails witheducation reformers’ interest in smallschools, presenting an importantopportunity for collaboration. Scatteredefforts are underway across the countryaddressing the shared interests of edu-cators and smart growth advocates.Much remains to be done, and fundersand leaders from all sectors have animportant role to play.

Page 2

From Neighborhood Cornerstone to Engine of Sprawl

When "National Walk Our Children toSchool Day" rolls around this fall, howmany children do you know who canhike the distance? Of those who liveclose to school, can they safely andeasily get there by walking or biking?What was once considered a rite ofchildhood – the walk or bike ride toschool – is fast becoming a distantmemory, as more mega-schools arebuilt on the edges of town, far fromwhere we live and work. Is this aproblem, or are we merely being nos-talgic when we yearn for the dayswhen children took their first big stepinto the world by independently navi-gating their way to school?

The planners, architects, developersand builders involved in the smartgrowth movement say it is much morethan sentimentality. They emphasizethe role civic buildings, and schools inparticular, can play in the life of aneighborhood. Schools can be beauti-ful buildings that instill pride and set ahigh architectural standard for theentire community. They can be gather-ing places for people of all ages, overthe course of many generations, pro-viding a community anchor that con-nects residents to the past and thefuture. When schools and the associ-ated grounds are embedded in aneighborhood, students can walk orbike to school, giving many children animportant taste of independence whilefreeing up many parents from beingtheir children’s chauffeurs. Amongsmart growth advocates, therefore,there is a great deal of excitementabout how neighborhood schools canbe a cornerstone around which olderneighborhoods are resettled and new,more livable neighborhoods areestablished.

By the same token, schools can con-tribute mightily to the problem.Because smart growth advocates wantto contain sprawl, they seek to containthe spread of growth-inducing infra-structure – like roads, sewer lines andnew schools – beyond the immediateedge of an urban area. The fact thatsites for new schools, on average, aregetting larger and located further fromtown is therefore worrisome. Onerecent study of South Carolina’scoastal counties, for instance, foundthat school site size has increased inevery decade since the 1950s andschool sites built in the last 20 yearsare 41 percent larger than those builtpreviously.1 Since most new schoolsare on such large sites, importantdesign opportunities are lost to usethe school as a cornerstone for a newneighborhood.

Of equal concern, a new school on adistant site can act as a growth mag-net, helping draw people out of olderurban neighborhoods and into newsubdivisions on the metropolitanfringe. It is well understood thatschool quality determines where manyfamilies will choose to locate within aregion. If new schools are being builton the edge of town and they are per-ceived to be superior, as new schoolsoften are, then families who can affordthe move will often relocate. Similarly,under performing schools in olderneighborhoods can push families toleave. Even families without schoolage children are impacted as schoolquality has a significant influence onresidential property values. Thus,school quality can influence popula-tion shifts within a region from theurban core to the periphery, preciselythe pattern of urban disinvestment

When "NationalWalk Our Childrento School Day" rollsaround this fall, howmany children doyou know who canhike the distance?

Page 3

The Smart Growth Response

Until this recent focus on schoolsprawl, smart growth policies have notmade much of a distinction betweenschools and other public infrastruc-ture. Still, some growth managementprograms have had considerable influ-ence over school facility planning.Such measures generally strengthenthe connection between communityplanning activities and capital invest-ment decisions, including new schoolconstruction. As early as 1971, forinstance, Maryland established astate-level committee, involving theSecretary of Planning and the StateSuperintendent of Schools, to approveall school sites. Other states withrobust growth management programs,like Florida and Oregon, also exertconsiderable influence over the loca-tion and size of school sites, stirringsome controversy. Last year inOregon, for instance, a bill was intro-duced to permit urban schools onprime farmland immediately outsidethe state’s urban growth boundaries.1000 Friends of Oregon and othersmart growth advocates helped defeatthe bill.4

In addition to fighting such rear-guardactions, smart growth groups now

have gone on the offensive againstschool sprawl. Such efforts coalescearound three related, but separateissues: minimum site size require-ments; funding formulas favoring newconstruction over rehabilitation; andwalkable schools. Each is discussedbelow.

Site SizeAll states have regulations pertainingto the siting, design and constructionof new schools, as well as the rehabil-itation of existing schools. Most stateregulations include minimum site sizerequirements, patterned after guid-ance established in the 1970s by theArizona-based Council of EducationalFacility Planners International (CEFPI).Under the model rules, an elementaryschool for 500 students would requireat least 15 acres and a high schoolfor 2,000 would require at least 50acres. Citing such huge acreage stan-dards at the top of the list of "publicpolicy culprits," the National Trustexplains in Why Johnny Can’t Walk:"Older schools typically occupy onlytwo to eight acres. To satisfy the stan-dards, school districts must oftendestroy nearby homes, parks andneighborhoods, or they must move to

and suburban expansion that troublessmart growth advocates the most.2

Discussions about the connectionbetween schools and communitydesign are not new within smartgrowth circles, but they certainly havebecome more focused recently, withthe publication of a National Trust forHistoric Preservation report, "HistoricNeighborhood Schools in the Age of

Sprawl: Why Johnny Can’t Walk toSchool." The report serves as a clari-on call to smart growth advocatesacross the country, stating: "Despitethe clamor for smaller, community-cen-tered schools, ‘mega-school sprawl’ –giant schools on the outskirts of townwith tenuous physical connections tothe communities they serve – contin-ues to spread across the country." 3

... school quality caninfluence populationshifts within a regionfrom the urban coreto the periphery, pre-cisely the pattern ofurban disinvestmentand suburban expan-sion that troublessmart growth advo-cates the most.

Page 4

‘sprawl locations’ in outlying areas."5

CEFPI is currently reevaluating theidea of the site size requirement, duelargely to the recent pressure, andsome states have different site stan-dards without the help of nationalguidance. Florida’s requirements aresmaller than the national average.Maryland has no such requirement,and Maine has turned CEFPI’s mini-mum requirements into maximums –undergirding that state’s effort toreturn to small, neighborhood schoolsthat do not inadvertently inducesprawl.

Unless a state is willing to followMaine’s lead, simply moderating theminimum site size requirement will notbe enough to reverse the trend towardlarger, more distant school sites.South Carolina, for instance, uses theCEFPI standards, yet schools con-structed since 1971 in that state’scoastal counties are 47 percent largerthan the requirement.6 This is a clearreminder that most school facility deci-sions get made at the district level,suggesting that community-based edu-cation and discussion -- among educa-tors, parents and other concerned citi-zens -- is as necessary as regulatorychanges at the state level. MakingCurrent Trends in School DesignFeasible, a recent North CarolinaDepartment of Public Instruction publi-cation, is a good example of whatstates can do to encourage such localdialogue. Without taking a position onthe matter, the report advises localschool officials on how to best inte-grate smart growth and related con-cerns into their school facility plan-ning. Even Maine’s State Office ofPlanning, despite the benefit of a sitesize maximum, has prepared andwidely distributed an informativebrochure on the basic subject, aptly

entitled The ABC’s of School SiteSelection.

Funding Formulas

The mix of state and local funding forschool construction varies consider-ably across the county, as do the rulesthat govern school district’s use ofstate dollars. The so-called "60 per-cent rule" is of special concern tosmart growth advocates, particularlywhere state monies represent a largepiece of the overall funding pie.Though the actual percentages varyfrom state to state, the basic rule dic-tates that the local district cannotreceive state funding to fix up aschool if the rehabilitation costexceeds 60 percent of the schoolreplacement cost. This type of formu-la inevitably leads to the abandon-ment of older neighborhood schools,when a more complete cost account-ing might favor rehabilitation over newconstruction. Finding a neighborhoodsite for the replacement school, large-ly because of the minimum site sizerequirement, can be extremely diffi-cult. As a result, houses and otherbuildings in the neighborhood must beraised to make room for the newschool -- or, more often, the newschool gets built on a vacant site atthe edge of town.

Progress is being made to modifyfunding formulas so that they nolonger favor new construction. Historicpreservationists in Pennsylvaniarecently won an important victory byeliminating that state’s 60 percentrule. Under Governor Glendening,nationally recognized as a smartgrowth leader, Maryland now explicitlyfavors the construction of new in-townschools, or the renovation of existingones, over building new schools onremote sites. This fiscal year, eighty

... most school facilitydecisions get made atthe district level, sug-gesting that commu-nity-based educationand discussion --among educators,parents and otherconcerned citizens --is as necessary as reg-ulatory changes atthe state level.

Page 5

percent of Maryland’s school dollarswill go toward renovation, compared toabout 25% in the mid-1990s.8

Walkable Schools

Across the nation, medical expertswarn that decreased physical exerciseamong school-age children is leadingto unprecedented levels of obesity.More than a third of young people ingrades 9-12 are not active enough,and one-fourth of those aged 6-17 areoverweight.9 Based on the SouthCarolina study cited earlier, studentsare four times more likely to walk toschools that were built before 1983than those built after 1983, since thenewer schools are built far from com-munity centers with busing or drivingconceived as the sole means of trans-portation.10 Thus, school sprawldeprives children of an important andtraditional outlet for daily physicalactivity, particularly when the interven-ing roadways are unsafe for cyclistsand pedestrians. Even students wholive close to school often cannot walkbecause of hazards like multi-lanehighways, ditches and a lack of side-walks. Such safety concerns canaffect urban and suburban school chil-dren and parents alike.

Such concern has prompted theCenters for Disease Control and otherpublic health organizations to sponsora National Walk Our Children toSchool Day every fall. First organizedby the Partnership for a WalkableAmerica in 1997, the walk has grown

to involve hundreds of thousands ofschool children and addresses a widearray of community concerns includingthe need to build new neighborhoodsthat are pedestrian friendly and retrofitsuburban neighborhoods so that chil-dren can walk to school safely. Takingthis interest one step further, the CDCnow actively promotes "ActiveCommunity Environments," which areno different than the mixed-use,pedestrian-scale neighborhoods thatmany smart growth advocatespraise.11

The Surface Transportation PolicyProject (STPP), a national group, hasalso taken a direct interest in pedes-trian safety around schools, success-fully leading an effort to pass theCalifornia Safe Routes To School Act.Under this new law, one-third of thefederal transportation funds that arereserved for safety improvementsmust be spent in and around schoolson bike paths, sidewalks and the like.In California, this translates to $20million per year. Similar legislation isnow under development in otherstates. STPP and other smart growthadvocates are enthusiastic about SafeRoutes To School legislation, first,because it leads to tangible improve-ments in the transportation system.Second, by highlighting how most newcommunities are auto-dependent, itpresents an opportunity to make com-mon cause with new allies and uncom-mon partners.12

... school sprawldeprives children ofan important andtraditional outlet fordaily physical activity,particularly when theintervening roadwaysare unsafe for cyclistsand pedestrians.

Page 6

Small school advocates cite many rea-sons why the trend toward largeschools is a profound mistake thatshould be corrected.

Student Performance

According to conventional wisdom,larger schools yield better educationaloutcomes because a more compre-hensive curriculum can be offered asbudgets and enrollment rise. To thecontrary, growing evidence concludesthat small is better when it comes tostudent performance. Students attend-ing smaller schools, on average, havelower dropout rates and score betteron standardized tests, and children inpoverty appear to benefit the most. Arecent four-state study found thatsmaller schools reduce poverty’s

affect on test scores by 20 to 70 per-cent.14 Researchers conclude thatthe intimate environment of smallschools encourages learning becauseteachers know their students well andcan hold them accountable to higherstandards. Concerns about the cost-effectiveness of smaller schools,because they do not have a largeschool’s economies of scale, are qui-eted by small schools’ high graduationrates. A New York University study, forinstance, found that smaller schoolsin New York City spent slightly lessper graduate than their large schoolcounterparts.15

Extracurricular Activities

Just as they can offer a wide array ofcourses, large schools can support

Given ... competingdemands for theirattention, educatorsare more likely torespond to the prob-lem of school sprawlwhen it becomesdirectly relevant totheir core concern --the student experienceand educationalattainment.

Why Small Schools Succeed

An Intersection of Interests

The deliberate effort of STPP to speakdirectly to the interests of school admi-nistrators, teachers and parents pointsin an important direction. For the mostpart, educators make the decisionsabout school facilities, not planners orsmart growth advocates, and schoolofficials already have a wide variety offactors to consider: funding con-straints, anti-discrimination rules, build-ing safety, and classroom technologyto name just a handful. Given thesecompeting demands for their attention,educators are more likely to respondto the problem of school sprawl whenit becomes directly relevant to theircore concern -- the student experienceand educational attainment. Thus, theinterests of smart growth advocatesand education refor-mers converge ona simple, but powerful, idea: the smallneighborhood school.

Many mark the beginning of the mod-ern smart growth movement in theearly 1970s, when the State ofOregon set up its much-debated sys-tem of regional growth boundaries. Atabout the same time, a seeminglyunrelated effort was gathering steamon the East Coast: the urban smallschools movement. In 1974, DeborahMeier started Central Park East, thefirst of many small schools that wouldopen in New York City over the comingdecades. The movement soon spreadto other large cities, like Philadelphiaand Chicago. Major foundation sup-port, including headline-grabbing pro-grams funded by the AnnenbergFoundation, Gates Foundation, PewCharitable Trusts and CarnegieCorporation have aided the fightagainst school giantism. 13

Page 7

many extracurricular choices. Studiesindicate, however, that the percentageof students participating in after-school activities actually drops asschool size rises.16 The reasons arenot hard to discern. Take sports forexample. Students with limited naturalability are less likely to make the teamin a large school when they would bewelcome on a small school team forwhich fielding a full complement ofplayers can be a genuine challenge. Inlarger schools, then, fewer young peo-ple have the chance to learn valuablelessons in leadership and other lifeskills outside the classroom. Volunteeropportunities outside school are fur-ther reduced when the school is locat-ed on a large distant site, simplybecause the physical separationmakes it difficult to connect the life ofthe school to the civic life of the largercommunity.

School Security

The tragic shootings at Columbinefocused considerable attention on theconnection between school safety andschool size. A panel of school securityexperts subsequently convened by for-mer Secretary of Education Dick Rileyrecommended, first and foremost, thatthe nation reduce the size of itsschools. A large school, particularlywhen it is located outside the range ofa neighborhood’s watchful eyes, canbreed feelings of anonymity and alien-ation that can lead to violence. Theavailable data bears out the point.According to a recent U.S. Departmentof Education report, schools with1,000 or more students have 825 per-cent more violent crime and 270 per-cent more vandalism than schools withfewer than 300 students.17

Teacher Satisfaction

The sense of community and strongpersonal relationships that can devel-op in small schools benefits teachersas much as students. A recent studyof small schools in Chicago found:"Teachers in small schools are morelikely to report a strong professionalcommunity and greater job satisfac-tion....Teachers in small schools alsoare more likely to report that they feelcreative, reinvigorated and recommit-ted to teaching..."18 The fact thatteachers do well in a small schoolsurely translates into their studentsdoing well.

Parental and Community Involvement

Schools that are large and physicallydistant are as uninviting to parents asto their children. In contrast, studieshave shown that parents are moreinvolved in small schools, and that par-ent-teacher relationships arestronger.19 This lack of involvement inlarge schools is even more pro-nounced among adults, like empty-nesters and senior citizens, who donot have school-age children. Out ofsight, and therefore very much out ofmind, such schools draw from ashrinking pool of adult role modelsand volunteers. Important opportuni-ties to open the school to multiplecommunity uses, like shared playingfields and libraries, can also be lost.Of course, connecting the life of theschool to the life of the community, soeasily accomplished in a small neigh-borhood school, comes back to benefitthe school system itself. Voters whoknow the schools will be more likely tosupport the schools on election day –an increasing concern as larger per-centages of the voting populationmove out of their child-rearing years.

Schools that are largeand physically distantare as uninviting toparents as to theirchildren.

Page 8

Though far from declaring victory, thesmall schools movement has enjoyedconsiderable success. For example,150 small elementary and highschools were created in Chicago dur-ing the 1990s, primarily in low-income,minority neighborhoods.20 Given theopportunity, voters in rural states willvote against consolidation of smallschools and small districts, as recent-ly demonstrated in Maine andColorado.21 The U.S. Department ofEducation has established a grant pro-gram to support the creation of smallschools, and the State of Floridarecently passed a law that bans largeschools as of 2003.22 The main-stream press has taken up the cause.Writing for Newsweek, for instance,Anna Quindlen has linked school vio-lence and school giantism.23 For themost part, these measures and otherslike them have been adopted strictlyfor their perceived educational bene-fits. The fact that the push for small-er schools helps smart growth islargely an unintended benefit.24 Todate, efforts that deliberately link thesmall schools and smart growth agen-das are scattered, but they are grow-ing in number, geographic scope andpromise.

One concept emerging out of the edu-cation field, "schools as centers ofcommunity," provides a framework forcollaboration. Former Secretary ofEducation Richard Riley recognized asmuch in an October 1999 address tothe American Institute of Architects, akey constituency within the smartgrowth movement. Riley endorsed theidea of small neighborhood schoolsstating: "Let’s build new schools sothat they serve the entire communityby encouraging multipurpose use.

Rather than isolate the school fromthe community – which often has beenour habit in the past – let’s buildschools as the anchor and center ofour communities. Public schools arejust that – public."25 Riley went on torecognize that the schools as centersof community concept has room forthe smart growth agenda: "By buildingsmaller schools close to where peoplelive, we can encourage the develop-ment of smart growth policies thatlead to better neighborhoods andmore livable communities."26 Thisdirection is very compatible with theaims of the C.S. Mott Foundation,which has been active in the area ofcommunity schools for many years.

Steven Bingler, a New Orleans archi-tect at the forefront of the discussion,emphasizes the importance of citizenengagement. If all segments of thecommunity are involved in the develop-ment of a new school facility, heargues, it becomes easier to engagethe community in the life of the schoolonce it is built. This public designprocess, outlined in a U.S. Depart-ment of Education document, Schoolsas Centers of Community, has beenapplied in communities as different asLos Angeles and Littleton, New Hamp-shire. Support from the New Hamp-shire Charitable Foundation helpedmake the work in Littleton possible.

The Los Angeles program, "NewSchools/Better Neighborhoods," isoperated by the Metropolitan ForumProject and sponsored by The JamesIrvine Foundation. In this case, theschool district anticipates building 51new schools to accommodate nearly80,000 new students by 2008. Sincemuch of this student growth is expect-

Three CautionsMany factors could scuttlethe collaborative effortsof smart growth and smallschool advocates. Threerise to the top: desegre-gation; schools-within-schools; and administra-tor concerns. Each is dis-cussed briefly below.

DesegregationInterest in school equity,particularly across raciallines, has contributed toschool consolidation andthe formation of largeschools serving geograph-ically dispersed, raciallydiverse populations.SinceAmerican settlement pat-terns are generally dividedalong racial lines, thepush for small neighbor-hood schools can runcounter to such desegre-gation efforts. School sys-tems operating undercourt orders to desegre-gate will have a particular-ly difficult time returningto a system of smallneighborhood schools.Interestingly, many smallschool advocates workingin urban African Americancommunities find that thebenefits of small schoolsoutweigh the resultinglack of racial diversity.34

Schools-within-SchoolsEducators who appreciatethe benefits of smallschools are seeking waysto break up existing largeschools into smaller func-tional units housed underthe same roof – hence,the term "schools-within-schools." In many cases,this is a commendable ef-fort to make the best useof over-sized facilities.The trend to build newschools along these lines,on the theory that such ahybrid combines the bestof small and large, pres-ents an interesting chal-lenge. Clearly, the schools-

Models of Reform

Page 9

ed in existing urban areas, the subur-ban model of large schools on largesites will not work, according to NewSchools/Better Neighborhoods.Instead, "smart schools" are the rightsolution -- small schools that serve asanchors to vibrant urban neighborhoodsby providing a full range of social serv-ices like day care, health care, recre-ation and libraries during all times ofday and every day of the week. Begin-ning with the term, "smart schools,"New Schools/Better Neighborhoodsemphasizes how small neighborhoodschools and smart growth policies canreinforce one another, advancing thisview through publications, symposiaand community planning exercises.

A similar effort is currently underwayin Chattanooga, partially funded bythat city’s Lyndhurst Foundation. Un-like Los Angeles, however, the Chatta-nooga school district is not anticipat-ing significant increases in studentpopulation, particularly in the urbancore. Rather, the construction of twonew downtown elementary schools ispart of a larger strategy to resettle thecity’s older urban neighborhoods andput the brakes on suburban develop-ment outside town. To improve thechances that this experiment will work,the two schools are small academicmagnets with permissive enrollmentpolicies, allowing suburban children toattend as long as their parents workdowntown. As the downtown popula-tion rises, induced partly by the high-performance elementary schools, dis-trict officials and civic leaders expectto gradually limit enrollment to fami-lies who live in the neighborhood.27 Inthis way, those working to revitalizedowntown Chattanooga have taken apage out of the suburban developer’splaybook – siting a school in the neigh-borhood to entice families to relocate.

The push to save a historic schoolfrom demolition plans, and thereforestabilize an entire urban neighbor-hood, often brings together the samecoalition of parents, educators andsmart growth advocates, but in a morespontaneous way. In Why JohnnyCan’t Walk, the National Trust pres-ents many case studies that provethis point, including the story of theMcMillan School, Detroit’s oldest,which Principal Wes Ganson describesas a "lighthouse" for this blightedcommunity.28 On a similar track, ruralcommunities for years have been fight-ing to save their small communityschools from consolidation, a causetaken up the Rural School andCommunity Trust.

The private sector can also play areform role. In St. Louis, for example,developer Richard Baron has deliber-ately linked his efforts to revitalize a40-block downtown area with the re-opening and restoration of a neighbor-hood school.29 Out in the suburbs,developers who have embraced smartgrowth design principles also are work-ing to integrate neighborhood schoolsinto new development projects. Theyare having some trouble with localschool officials, however. For quitelegitimate reasons, school leadersresist the idea of building a new pub-lic school to serve students primarilyfrom a single, and often exclusive, pri-vate development project. While thisissue can be addressed through thedrawing of attendance zones, it is moredifficult to resolve disputes about sitesize. In keeping with the standard sub-urban model and often to conform withvarious state mandates, school offi-cials may insist upon a site that thedeveloper considers exceedingly large.The land cost can be significant, butthe developer is usually more con-

within-schools approachruns counter to the urbandesign interests of smartgrowth advocates. Per-spec-tives among educa-tion leaders are less uni-form, suggesting thatresearch to compare theperformance of smallschools against schools-within-schools would behelpful.

Administrator ConcernsAdministrators and otherofficials, even those whovalue small schools, typi-cally face some very realconstraints, including: thecost of renovating oldschools, though some-times inflated, can still behigh; most administratorsare persuaded that theper-pupil cost of operatinga large school is lower dueto so-called "economies ofscale," though smallschool advocates will dis-pute the point; many par-ents, elected officials anddesign professionals pos-sess unexamined biasesthat favor new and big overold and small; and newschools, even small ones,need to be bigger thantheir historical counter-parts because of contem-porary requirements likeexpanded technology, sci-ence and athletic facilities.Many of these obstaclescan be overcome with addi-tional or redirected funds,suggesting that advocatesfor small neighborhoodschools need to be asversed in school financeas in urban design orclassroom instruction.

In conclusion, it is impor-tant to note that educationreformers generally aremore familiar with suchissues. Smart growth advo-cates should look to theircolleagues in the educationfield for leadership onthese and similar matters.

cerned about the design problem ofconnecting the school to the rest ofthe neighborhood if it is sitting on alarge, imposing site. As a consequence,

many such developers abandon theneighborhood school idea, or seek outa private school or charter school will-ing to locate on a small parcel.30

Page 10

Accounting for futureenrollment growth, theNational EducationAssociation estimatedthe nation’s overallschool constructionand rehabilitationneeds at a sobering$322 billion.

In June 2000, the National Center forEducation Statistics estimated thatthe nation needs to spend $127 bil-lion to repair, renovate and modernizeits public schools – and this numberdoes not include the need to accom-modate growing enrollments. Fifty-three million children went to elemen-tary and secondary schools in the U.S.in 2001, an eight million increase overthe preceding 15 years. Enrollmentsare expected to rise throughout therest of the Century, as the grandchil-dren of the Baby Boo-mers and thechildren of recent immigrants to theU.S. reach school age. In recentyears, this has been as much anurban phenomenon as it has been asuburban one, a pattern that is expect-ed to continue.31 Accounting forfuture enrollment growth, the NationalEducation Association estimated thenation’s overall school constructionand rehabilitation needs at a sobering$322 billion. 32

With these kinds of current and futureneeds, states and school districts invirtually every corner of the nation willbe building new schools and rebuildingold ones for decades to come. Chan-neling that school construction activityin ways that support and celebrate thesmall, neighborhood school will be agreat challenge. The prospects arebetter if small school reformers andsmart growth advocates work together,and funders can facilitate such link-ages through a number of means.

Coalition Building

Leaders of the smart growth move-ment and the small schools move-ment have much in common and muchto learn from one another. From theseconversations could come sharedstate and local strategies to promotesmall neighborhood schools.

Research and Communications

There is a continuing need to refineour understanding of how school size,school quality, neighborhood vitalityand regional growth patterns interre-late. Since local decision makers tendto distrust information gathered in dis-tant places, it is also necessary toreplicate informative researchapproaches in different geographicand political settings. As important,what is learned from new research, aswell as what is already known, mustbe communicated successfully toschool officials, planning officials andothers at the local level.

Model Projects

Specific, place-based experiments –as in Chattanooga – provide impor-tant working examples of small neigh-borhood schools. Documenting thebenefits these schools provide, as wellas the barriers overcome to put themin place, will ease the way for moresmall neighborhood schools in thefuture.

Opportunities for Funders

In March 2001, Business Week’scover story described a seven-partagenda to "fix American’s schools":pay teachers for performance; holdeducators accountable; offer morevariety; provide adequate funding;increase time in school; use technolo-gy effectively; and make schoolssmaller.33 While it may be possible toargue with aspects of this particularset of proposed items, the smallneighborhood school jumps out as the

main point of intersection betweeneducation reformers and smart growthadvocates. The fact that a sharedinterest exists doesn’t automaticallymean that it will exploited. To makethe most of this important opportunityfor collaboration, the key stakeholderswill need to work over time to developa common agenda that benefitsschool children, their parents, educa-tors and the community at large.

Coalition of Essential Schoolswww.essentialschools.orgNational Clearinghouse for EducationalFacilities www.edfacilities.orgNational Trust for Historic Preservationwww.nationaltrust.org

New Schools/Better Neighborhoodswww.nsbn.orgThe Rural School and Community Trustwww.ruraledu.org21st Century School Fundwww.21csf.org

Page 11

Just as the advocatesfor school reform andsmart growth wouldbenefit from collabo-ration, funders ... maybe able to extend theirdollars further byidentifying joint proj-ects and areas of com-mon interest.

Conclusion

Resources

What Works

When considering the transition tosmall neighborhood schools, local offi-cials need to be reassured that theyare not reinventing the wheel. Thus, acompendium of success stories thataddresses all of the possible ques-tions and pitfalls would be very help-ful. Such a data base should also in-clude examples of policy and statutorychanges that have proven helpful indeveloping small neighborhood schools.

Change the Rules

Finally, federal, state and local laws thatfavor school sprawl over small neigh-borhood schools need to be reworked.For instance, the site size requirementis an obvious target around which a

sustained discussion about smallneighborhood schools can be initiated.

The Foundation Center reports that theeducation sector receives the largestshare of all philanthropy dollars – near-ly $2 billion in 1997 out of a total ofabout $8 billion spent by foundationsand other private grant makers. Ofthat, an undetermined, though surelymodest, fraction went to the cause ofsmall schools. Smart growth, though ahot topic nationally, also receives sup-port from a very limited pool of fun-ders. Just as the advocates for schoolreform and smart growth would benefitfrom collaboration, funders in the twoareas may be able to extend their dol-lars further by identifying joint projectsand areas of common interest.

1. Chris Kouri, "Wait for the Bus: How Lowcountry School Site Selection and Design Deter Walking to School and Contribute to Suburban Sprawl," a report for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, November 1999, p. iv.

2. See, for instance, Mark Curnutte, "Strong Schools, Strong Cities: Excellent Education Draws People, Failure Drives Them Away," Cincinnati Enquirer, June 3, 2001, p. 1A.

3. Constance Beaumont with Elizabeth Pianca, "Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl: Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School," a report by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, November 2000, p. 12.

4. Email Correspondence with Evan Manvel, 1000 Friends of Oregon, July 5, 2001.5. Beaumont, op. cit., Executive Summary, p. 3. 6. Kouri, op. cit., p. v.7. U.S. General Accounting Office, "School Facilities: Construction Expenditures Have Grown Significantly in Recent Years,"

March 2000, p. 20.8. Daniel LeDuc, "Prince George’s Montgomery Schools get $91 Million," Washington Post, May 8, 2001, p. B3.9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Active Community Environments," June 2000, p. 1 @ www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/

dnpa/aces.htm.10. Kouri, op. cit., p. i.11. CDC, op. cit.12. See www.transact.org/.13. See for example, Catherine Gewertz, "The Breakup: Suburbs Try Smaller High Schools," Business Week, May 2, 2001, p. 2

@ www.edweek.org/ew/.14. Craig Howley, et. al., "Research About School Size and School Performance in Impoverished Communities," ERIC Digest,

December 2000 @ www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc0010.htm/.15. Stacy Mitchell, "Jack and the Giant School," The New Rules, Summer 2000, p. 16.16. See for example www.smallschoolsworkshop.org/.17. Stacy Mitchell, op. cit., p. 13.18. Patricia A. Wasley, et. al., "Small Schools: Great Strides," a study by the Bank Street College of Education, 2000, Executive

Summary.19. Ibid., pp. 39-40.20. Ibid., p. 1.21. Rural Policy Matters, a newsletter of Rural School and Community Action, December 1999, p. 3.22. For more information on the federal program, go to www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP/overview.html; for more information on

the Florida statute, go to www.leg.state.fl.us and search for Title XVI, Chapter 235, Section 2157.23. Anna Quindlen, "The Problem of the Megaschool," Newsweek, March 26, 2001, p. 68.24. Phone interview with David Ferrero, Gates Foundation, June 25, 2001. 25. Richard Riley, "Schools as Center of Community,” remarks delivered to the American Institute of Architects, October 13,

1999, p. 6 @ www.ruraledu.org/rileyaia/html/.26. Ibid., p. 5.27. Phone conversation with Jack Murrah, Lyndhurst Foundation, December 5, 2000.28. Constance Beaumont, op. cit., p. 5.29. "St. Louis Developer Rebuilds Communities Through Revitalizing Neighborhood Schools," NSBN Summer 2001 Newsletter

@ www.nsbn.org/summer2001/develolperrebuilds.html/.30. See for example, Michael Garber, et. al., "Scale and Care: Charter Schools and New Urbanism,” April 1998.31. U.S. Department of Education, Growing Pains: The Challenge of Overcrowded Schools is Here to Stay, pp. 3-7.32. "Modernizing our Schools: What Will It Cost?" a report by the National Education Association, 2000, p. 1.33. William C. Symonds, et. al., How to Fix America’s Schools, BusinessWeek online, March 19, 2001, p. 6 @www.business

weekmagazine/contents/01_12/b3724001.htm/.34. See, for instance, Patricia A. Walsey, et. al., op. cit.

Endnotes

Hooper Brooks, Chair L. Benjamin Starrett, Executive Director

Working to strengthen funders’ individual and collective abilities to support organizations promoting smartgrowth and creating livable communities

Collins Center for Public Policy, Inc. 150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 709 Miami, Florida 33131Phone: 305-377-4484, ext. 15Fax: 305-377-4485Email: bstarrett@collinscenter.orgwww.fundersnetwork.org