One debate is over. High school students with alternative learning styles do better in small schools. A substantial body of research, dating back to the mid-1960s, has established the power of smaller high schools to produce higher achievement among students who come from low-income families, minority backgrounds, or who otherwise do not learn well in the social complexity of large schools.

Over the last five years, eight major studies have examined the link between school size, family income and student achievement. Each one concludes that students from low-income and minority backgrounds perform better in smaller schools. On the other hand, school size is not related to student achievement in more affluent communities. Clearly, at the secondary level “one size does not fit all.”

What, then, of elementary schools? Does size make a difference? In that elementary schools have often been rather small in both urban and rural areas, we do not have 40 years of research on how school size affects student performance. We do know, however, that, since the late 1960s, we have built bigger and bigger elementary schools, based on the belief that students could be better served at lower cost in large facilities.

We have now tested the “large is good” hypothesis, and there is little support for it. In fact, researchers are finding the same negative results in large elementary schools as they did in large high schools.

Analyzing data from 264 urban elementary schools, Valerie Lee and Susanna Loeb, with extensive experience in examining the effects of school practices on student outcomes, conclude that smaller school size positively affects student achievement, both directly and indirectly, by improving collective teacher responsibility for student care. In small schools, “everybody knows your name.”

Moreover, veteran education scholar Mary Anne Raywid concludes that the bonds created between students and their small schools continue to influence these students long after they have moved on. She contends that small schools succeed because they operate more like communities than bureaucracies.

The positive effects of smaller schools have led the Lexington, Ky., school board to adopt a policy that limits enrollment in elementary schools with large numbers of low-income students. Lexington Herald-Leader education reporter Lisa Deffendall writes, “because low-income students often come to school less prepared to learn, the Overcrowding Solutions Committee advocates limits on elementary school size based on the percentage of children who receive free or reduced price lunches. … The approach is being praised for its uniqueness and promise for helping pupils.”

Ms. Deffendall continues: “National education research has shown that students from smaller schools have better attendance, fewer discipline problems and higher achievement than students at large schools. But studies also suggest that low-income and minority students benefit the most from smaller learning settings.”

Even though low-income and minority students across the K-12 continuum have better attendance, fewer discipline problems, and better academic performance in smaller schools, is the price of promoting better educational results for all our children simply too much to bear?

One cannot determine the true cost of an educational program by knowing the “cost per square foot” of supplying learning space to a student. There are social and hidden costs that can prove to be far higher to a community than the annual cost per pupil.

The social cost of closing schools can be incalculable. Schools are central to the viability of neighborhoods and communities. As “Dollars & Sense” puts it: “Schools anchor and unify communities by bringing residents of all ages and backgrounds together for a variety of activities and services. … Perhaps more than any other institution, schools are responsible for a sense of community and collective identity. Local schools educate generations of friends, family and neighbors, providing shared experience and continuity from one generation to the next.”

If Lawrence did not already have small elementary schools at Riverside, East Heights, and Centennial, it might face the same.

Lawrence already has small schools in our low-income and minority neighborhoods. We do not even have to bear the start-up costs. Two- or three-section elementary schools may serve some learners well, but they are not the solution for all students or all neighborhoods. What makes the most educational and economic sense is to provide the best possible learning environments for all our students. That means small schools where the instructional challenges are the greatest.

— Tom Erb is a professor of education at Kansas University.