What do we know about small schools?

Mike Carter

2003

NationalCollege for School Leadership

Introduction

This review of the literature and research, seeks to give a background to what is known and has been written about small primary schools, but with a greater focus on clustering and on leadership. Drawing on a report written for Shropshire LEA in 1993 and on the materials of the National Small Schools' Forum, (NSSF) it also provides some pertinent questions, several of which have not been answered, usually because there has been little recent research outlining the impact of national innovations on education in small schools. These issues are bolded. The definition of a small school varies significantly by location and by organisation. For example, OFSTED categorises schools as small when they have less than 100 pupils and when there are less than 50 pupils they are deemed very small schools. (HMCI, 1999) Largely speaking this is the definition used by many writers and researchers and, correspondingly, in this review. However, for the purposes of eligibility for the Grant 33 (a DfES grant for small school collaboration) a small school had up to 200 pupils. (DfES website) The Audit Commission deemed schools with less than 90 pupils as ‘small’ since below that figure the unit costs began to rise more sharply. (Audit Commission, 1990) However, for the purpose of studying small schools, the critical issues may also concern factors such as; the number of teachers; the degree of mixed-age teaching; the amount of teaching by the headteacher; and the nature of communications and relationships. However, across England’s 2,508 primary schools with less than 100 pupils, there are few universal distinctive characteristics, although the small number of pupils may be more likely to promote particular features of their education. While the large majority of these schools are situated in rural contexts, a small number work within town or urban situations, where they often have a strong sense of isolation. (McPake J. 1998)

The body of funded research into small primary school issues is small (Phillips E. 1999) but in recent years there has been more interest nationally, leading to a better number of articles and particularly local education authority reports. There are very few main published texts covering a range of issues for small schools. One of the earliest, (Bell and Sigsworth, 1987) is well respected but was written just before the Education Reform Act of 1988 and so does not take into account the impact of the National Curriculum and the sweeping changes that ensued for primary education. It does, however, outline the polarised of views about small rural primary schools and their costs and benefits. Another (Forward, W. 1988), from the same period, considers their internal organisation and opportunities for effective teaching and learning. Drawing heavily on the large research project called "PRISMS", a third book analyses the varied quality of curriculum provision in small primary schools soon after the introduction of the National Curriculum and the Local Management of Schools. (Galton et al., 1990) A more recent volume (Walters et al., 1999) relates how the curriculum has been successfully organised and co-ordinated in three small schools. There are some smaller books such as (Arnold R. 1998) which focus on the role that rural schools play in their communities. By far the largest body of writing is in the form of research articles, booklets and LEA reports and guidance papers. This review identifies what is known about common small school features within questions about standards, educational advantages, management and leadership.

A. How are small schools characterised?

Many writers have portrayed small schools in glowing terms such as ‘idyllic havens’ but they are equally often portrayed as quaint, expensive anachronisms in a modern education system. This diversity is represented in the views of many, academic and non-academic writers alike, including those who work in them. (Tuer A, 2002) However, there is evidence to suggest that this diversity rests less in the differing views than in the quality of education offered in different small schools. OFSTED's evaluations indicated that, while a much higher proportion of small schools were very successful there was also a high proportion that fails to offer a good enough education, although the proportion of small schools that require special measures has fallen significantly in the second round of inspections. (Key T. 2002) A Cumbrian Review of 1992 (Cumbria Education Service 1992) revealed that, while the results of medium and large schools generally fell into a bell-shaped curve of normal distribution, those with under 100 pupils showed a higher proportion with very good results but also a higher proportion with low results, almost to the extent of an inversion of the distribution pattern. This is echoed in the current higher proportion of small schools with various accolades from DfES, OFSTED and others, (eg E. Sussex 2002) but also the previously higher proportion of small schools that had weak inspection results.

Bell and Sigsworth suggest that small schools offer some of the very best and some of the worst education in the country. (op cit.)

"Because of the small size of their staff they (small schools) become highly sensitive to the personal and professional qualities of their teachers, more so than larger schools. Some of the best and some of the worst primary education in developed countries is probably to be found small schools in rural areas." Bell and Sigsworth 1987

"The problem is no LEA wants to admit how good a lot of these small schools really are, because they cost too much to run. It'es much easier for LEAs to argue that village schools can't delived a full curriculum and close them down, than it is to accept the truth that they are mostly doing very well indeed".

Professor Maurice Galton in Times Educational Supplement. p.10, 20.02.98

"It is as wrong to assume that a small school cannot meet the full range of requirements of the National Curriculum as it is to assume that a large school can, but the balance of probability tends that way."

(Alexander, R., Rose, J. and Woodhead, C. 1992 DES)

"It is well within the capacity of small schools to teach the full range of the National Curriculum. Many do it well, making good use of their environment and community…….most small schools are achieving standards and providing a quality of education at least as good as those achieved in larger establishments." (HMCI 1999).

"…in my first post as the headteacher of a small, rural, primary school I remarked, 'I'm as happy as a sandboy'. (Some years later,) I began to doubt my own abilities as a practitioner and the killer guilt crept in. This was intertwined with my other role as head and almost completely concerned with time. I resigned and …… now teach on a supply basis. I am really enjoying just teaching and need never have doubted my teaching abilities." (Tuer, A. 2002)

The over-riding opinion about small schools is now very positive but they are often still seen as a problem. (Brogden, M. 2002) Earlier anxieties (Alexander et al., 1992) about the capability of small schools to teach the whole of the National Curriculum have been disproved (HMCI 1999) and they are often recognised as contributing well to each LEA’s overall performance, despite their somewhat higher costs and often having a high level of surplus places. However, the factors that make for their success, or lack of it, are not yet clearly identified and further research is needed. Several LEAs have investigated the common weaknesses found in their small school's inspection reports. (eg Weston, P., 2002, Leicestershire.) Southworth has identified some of the factors associated with effective headship in small schools. Put simply these are not dissimilar to the general quest in the last part of the 90s to identify effective leadership qualities:

  • hard work;
  • determination;
  • positiveness;
  • approachability;
  • team-building;
  • improvement orientation;
  • conscious leadership as well as good management;
  • professional development and learning for all; and
  • maximising internal and external relationships.

(Southworth, G., 1999)

The similarity of these findings with those for larger schools reflects the universal nature of the role of headship and effectiveness.

There is anecdotal evidence concerning unsuccessful small schools’ and this is often, but not always, associated with heads who have been in post for a long period. Further research is needed to identify common features of less successful small schools but these may include:

  • an insufficiently differentiated curriculum (especially in mixed Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1 classes, very small schools and for the most able pupils);
  • the proportional impact of one weak member of staff;
  • when relationships ‘go wrong’;
  • a lack of willingness by the head or governors to ‘rock the boat’ to make improvements;
  • when heads become ‘overwhelmed’ by the job or fail to prioritise sufficiently; and
  • where the head’s own good teaching example becomes undermined.

These points are echoed in OFSTED’s four-year review (HMCI 1999) and reviews such as those in NSSF Newsletter Issue 6.

B. What are standards like in small schools?

Small schools' performance is varied but overall slightly more positive than the national picture:

  • Results from the National Curriculum tests place small schools better than average overall, but this advantage is largely eliminated when socio-economic factors are taken into account. (HMCI, 1999)
  • 4% more Year 6 pupils attained Level 4 in English in 2001 in cohorts of less than 10. The equivalent advantage for mathematics is 3% and for science it is 6%. (2001 results)
  • For Year 2 the Level 2 performance in reading was 5% higher in cohorts of less than 10. It was 4% higher in writing and mathematics. (2001 results)
  • However, 60% of schools with under 100 pupils have less than 8% free school meals, whereas 37% of larger schools do. Other socio-economic factors also indicate that the average small schools' socio-economic circumstances are better than the average larger school. Small schools also have smaller proportions of pupils with EAL and slightly smaller proportions with SEN. ( Key, T. 2002)
  • For several years, there have been significantly more small schools than could be expected, in the top scoring primary schools in the country. (HMCI, 1999)
  • The standards achieved by small schools are very variable and include greater relative proportions of very good and of very weak standards. This reflects with the views of Bell and Sigsworth (1987) and with the results of Cumbrian Survey 1994.
  • Small schools have increasing difficulty in accountability because national performance indicators are mainly couched in terms of NC test results, which may not be published and are highly variable due to small numbers. (Richards, 1999)
  • The more recent inclusion of value added data (attainment by prior attainment) in PANDA reports is a more helpful statistic, but these too have difficulties for small cohorts. (Carter, M.,2003) (See NSSF Newsletter no 14 for an argument about the publishing consultation.)

The comparative situation for small rural schools has changed significantly since World War II.

"Enquiries into the measured attainment of children in rural and urban schools have tended to show lower mean attainment for country children than for urban children….." (CACE, 1967 The Plowden Report.)

Throughout the latter half of the 20th century the rural population was changing. Agriculture needed fewer and fewer workers and the growth in car ownership meant that more could live in the countryside and work in distant cities or towns. These often tended to be middle class and aspiring parents. Into the current century, one may surmise that as travel becomes more congested, electronic communications will still enable this trend to continue. Even in 1997, the Plowden report suggested that:

"…when socio-economic class is taken into account, the differences between town

and country children disappear." (op. cit.)

There are indications that the achievement of the most able pupils in small schools may be falling slightly behind that of their counterparts in large schools. (Key, T. 2002), (Weston, P. 2002) This is because Key Stage 2 results for small schools in higher socio-economic areas are not quite as good as those for larger schools in higher socio-economic areas. (eg Weston op cit.) In his overview of small school management Galton (Galton 1993) stated that:

"it can be stated with some confidence that in general small primary schools do no worse than larger schools" (Galton, M., 1993)

But this comment was moderated by the warning that small school performance may fall behind, if measures, such as subject co-ordination and monitoring, become effective in larger schools. The national models for such strategies are not as helpful for small schools since there are too few teachers to implement them. Could it be that the point has now been reached where larger schools are using the national strategies more effectively to improve their performance than small schools? Certainly, national test results have risen well although they are currently stalling at Key Stage 2.

Testaments concerning other aspects of the provision made by small schools generally are frequently very positive. Small schools usually have a strong ethos and promote their pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development well and with a more positive impact on their personal development than the average larger school. (HMCI 1999) Richards argues that small schools have not only adopted the National Curriculum confidently but adapt its detail. (Richards, C. 1999) They are well placed to make more major modifications in order to provide a rich and locally relevant curriculum.

In his study of pupils' attitudes, Francis found that Year 6 pupils in small schools were more positive about school and consequently happier than their counterparts in larger schools. (Francis,L.J., 1992) The role that small schools can play in their local community is often highly regarded and valued well by the community, but relationships are not automatically positive and are built up where the head or teachers have good communication skills. (Arnold, R. 1994) With good initiatives (often initiated by the headteacher) small schools can make a significant contribution to learning and living in the area. ( Bell and Sigsworth, 1992)

However, there is anecdotal evidence that when issues involving relationships go wrong there can be far reaching repercussions. The example of a headteacher in such a situation is cited by Galton et al (Galton et al 1990, Chapter 7). Could/should the cluster intervene to support staff and avoid such situations? Many headteachers of small schools are very aware of the potential dangers and sometimes subjugate educational priorities to maintain good relationships. Such situations need clear identification and a strategy to help influence.

Many recognise the powerful contribution that small schools can make to the pupils' emotional and spiritual, moral, social and personal development (and that there may be academic advantages) in a small school environment. For example, New York's approach to failing schools has been to split them into smaller units. (TEN, 1999).

However, while in most cases these assumptions have good justification (HMCI 1999), there are cases where they need confronting. Some Canadian research suggests that it is dangerous to assume that small schools promote good attitudes and personal development, are fully inclusive or have a good climate and ethos. (Leonard et al. 2001)

The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Report about the delivery of education in rural areas appreciated the significance of small rural schools to their local communities and called for their support to be retained. However, they did not….

"..believe there is any substantiated evidence that small rural schools necessarily offer either a better or a worse standard of education than larger urban ones. Generalisations about the relative performance of small and large schools should therefore be avoided." (DFRA, 2003)

What are the small schools' advantages and disadvantages:

C. for pupils' learning:

Small schools have some considerable advantages for pupils' learning. Advantageous factors identified include:

  1. Time. Small school children spend some 7% more school time on task. There is less preparation, moving around and setting up time spent by children. (Hargreaves, in Galton & Patrick, 1990)
  1. Implementing curriculum change. This is easier with a smaller staff. (Waugh, 1991) (Webb and Vulliami, 1996)
  1. Class size. The Shropshire Survey schools' average class size was 18.3 children. Hargreaves reports a greater degree of individual attention in small schools. (Hargreaves op. sit.)
  1. Assessment. Both assessment for learning and SATs and summative tests are easier to do and to use with a smaller number of children who are well known to the teacher. But with mixed-age classes, recording is time-consuming and may lead teachers to rely too heavily on their memories of what each child knows and can do. Is there a manageable yet effective compromise? (See NSSF Paper on Differentiation at
  1. Home/School relationships. Often these are less formal, more productive and more capable of enabling "real learning". (Hughes, 2001)
  1. Parental partnership and support is often strong. (Hopkins and Ellis 1991)
  1. Mixed age classes. (ZPD). Younger children can often gain from others. The able can be stimulated by their elders while weaker children can gain by working with the younger children. But what about older, more able pupils? How can the internet or the cluster help?
  1. The small school multi-subject co-ordinator often has the opportunity of much subject training and can plan from first-hand knowledge. (But it is time-consuming and demanding.) (Dunning, 1993)
  1. Attitudes. Children usually have good attitudes to work and responsibility. (Francis, 1992)
  1. Long-term planning. This is easier to devise, own and implement with a small staff (Walters 1999) but may be hard at first in accounting for the needs of each age group and allowing for changes in the age mixes of classes. Considerable guidance in now available on the web. (eg NSSF Papers)
  1. Small schools are better placed to help pupils gain conceptual and meta-cognative knowledge. (Galton, M. in NSSF News 5 1999)
  1. Long-term close relationships between pupils and teachers allow for closer match of the learning to the child and for greater commitment by both the child and the teacher to each other. This in turn helps with closely focussed revisiting.
  1. Curriculum innovation takes effect faster in small schools. (Waugh 1992)
  1. Teachers are often experienced in a range of teaching situations. (Patrick 1991)
  1. Transitions to and between schools (Galton, Gray & Rudduck, 1999) and between classes are "human scale" and avoid the typical dip in learning.

Richards identifies a set: