To the editor:

I’m sure I’m not the only one puzzled and dismayed by the use of the research data on school size as an argument for one-section facilities. Unfortunately, if one examines the necessary definitions that accompany this “evidence,” it would be clear that the data doesn’t support the argument.

Valerie Lee and Susanna Loeb, who have been cited as extolling the benefits of small schools, consider any elementary school with fewer than 400 students a “small school.” Cordley and New York will have fewer than 250 students after consolidation, and, therefore, the argument for small schools applies as much to Cordley and New York after consolidation as it does to Centennial and East Heights before.

M.A. Raywid, who has also been cited in this newspaper, defines a small school as a school with fewer than 350 students, which also does not prove the imperative for undercrowded, 120-student schools. Even the Lexington, Ky., program, which stipulates a range of sizes based on low-income population, sets the “small school” limit at 375 students, over a hundred more children than will attend Cordley or New York after consolidation.

Can someone explain why it would not be better to keep this precious small-school setting and also avoid the many academic problems associated with one-section facilities. I’m voting “yes” for the bond.

John R. Rathbun

Lawrence