Transportation is “the canary in the mine field" of scattered, low-density and unbalanced development. Typically, traffic gridlock is the first symptom of profoundly dysfunctional land use. Education is a close second as an indicator. Few factors affect the quality of education more than the size and location of school facilities, both of which influence, and are influenced by, prevailing land use patterns.

In our last column, we explored a root cause of deteriorating traffic conditions: The failure to evolve Balanced Communities and, without balance, the need to rely on "commuting" to connect housing with jobs and services. (See “The Commuting Problem,” Jan. 17,  2004.) Likewise, the failure to evolve Balanced Communities disconnects households from their local schools, as witnessed by children learning at a tender age the joys of lengthy "commutes" to school via school bus and later by driving a car. (See "Dying Young in Traffic," Nov. 1, 2004).

The solution to many of the problems with contemporary education is for regions and communities to create school systems that reflect the size and location of viable components of Balanced Communities.

Educational professionals are a big part of the problem. They make size, location and funding decisions concerning school facilities that make human settlement patterns--and the schools themselves--ever more dysfunctional. Sharing the Private Vehicle Mobility Myth and the Big Yard Myth that are prevalent among citizens and elected officials (see “From Myth to Law,” 29 November 2004), school administrators act as if there were no alternative to building huge, institutional-sized schools on big, "cheap" lots in the middle of nowhere.

Whether used for houses or schools, land is "cheap" only when it is not well located. (See “Affordable, But No Bargain,” Feb. 17, 2003, and “The Housing Dilemma,” July 14, 2003.)

Admittedly, well-located school sites probably will be more expensive. But remember, building smaller schools on well-located site makes an overwhelming difference in the education and socialization of children. Schools form the cornerstones of Balanced Communities that are in harmony with the values of parents and citizens.

The size and location of educational facilities at all levels--from dooryard infant care to community-serving “junior colleges”--are two of the most important criteria in determining the total quality of education. (See End Note One.) Class size, teacher training and parental involvement, all of which are effected by the prevailing settlement patterns, are among the most important predictors of success in education.

The Bigger-the-Better Myth

Identifying the optimal size of schools is a complex issue. A large body of data suggests that school size, along with class size, is key to student progress and achievement. Size matters for those not in the 90th percentile of ability because a more intimate learning environment enables them to keep up with their peers. Size matters also to those in the 90th percentile because it provides greater challenge and excitement. 

The primary arguments for big schools includes the following:  

• Big schools are cheaper, per student, to operate.

• A smaller percentage of overcapacity in any one school (aka, overcrowding) adsorbs more students.

• It is faster to build capacity for growth with big schools.

The greater the pressure for new schools, the greater the tendency for these arguments to be accepted. It's no surprise, then, that Loudoun County and other fast growing jurisdictions are running headlong to build bigger schools. 

Many citizens see the advantages of smaller schools. But by the time a local government faces the need for expanded school capacity, parents--especially recent, Come-Here parents told by their real estate agents that the schools in their jurisdiction were highly rated--are desperate. They aren't willing to wait for the payoff from a more intelligent strategy.  

If citizens prefer smaller schools, why are so many built too big? For budgetary reasons. Bricks-and-mortar costs are readily calculated, and administrators think that larger schools yield a lower capital cost per student. And any scheme that makes education "cheaper" per pupil will help preserve administrators' jobs. One flaw in this reasoning is that there alternative strategies to lower capital costs, such as recycling old buildings or sharing co-op space. A larger problem is that "cheaper" rarely equates to "better" when it comes to education.

Another argument is that big schools can offer a greater diversity of programs, including classes for the gifted as well as the educationally challenged. But what makes more sense: to have four or five students in a special class with a qualified part-time instructor from the village, or 40 students in a cookie cutter AP or special education class? Which makes more sense: Having a teacher move from small school to small school, or busing children to a remote, central location where there is enough land to build a big school and a place to park all the cars and buses?

Educators also contend that big schools provide more extracurricular activities, such as music and sports. Big schools can support high-powered athletic programs. But that logic has little appeal to parents who value the education that schools impart. If parents want Johnny to compete in a Class AAAA program he has a shot at getting a university athletic scholarship and going on to “play at the next level,” they need to factor that into their decision about where to raise Johnny. There are schools with the right coaches and the right programs for them, but not everyone thrives in a “Friday Night Lights” atmosphere.

On the other hand, distributing children between a greater number of schools allows them a greater chance to participate in the life of the school. In a school system with three high schools rather than one, there are three class presidents, not one; three starting quarterbacks, not one; three lead baritones in the chorus, not one; and so on. This is borne out by the research cited in End Note One.

While larger schools may enjoy theoretical "economies of scale", educators overlook the impact on student performance. They soothe parents with responses like this: "Our (big school) plan is less expensive. You don't want your taxes to go up even more do you?” Parents need to look beyond such reasoning to ask, "But will your plan do a better job of educating my child?"

Is "Small" Enough to Make a School Beautiful?

Before moving to the location issue, let us make clear that making schools smaller is not enough, by itself, to make them better. Making the same errors in smaller buildings will not improve education. 

It is important to match the scale of the school with the scale of the Balanced Community component it is designed to serve. (See End Note Two). Building on the African adage, “It takes a village to raise a child”, schools should be reconfigured so there is:  

• Formal and informal day care available in every dooryard.

• School programs for preschool, kindergarten and grades 1&2 in every cluster.

• Grades 3 to 6 or 7 facilities in every neighborhood.

• Grades 7 or 8 to 12 facilities in every village

• Vocational training and college preparation (grades 13-14) and continuing education in every community

Having three levels of schools to cover pre-kindergarten through 12th grade makes no more sense in 2005 than having only three levels of governance in New Urban Regions when there are seven scales of organic structure in contemporary human settlement patterns at and below the regional scale.

It will require Fundamental Change to align schools, like transportation facilities and governance structure, with the populations they serve. This new paradigm of education will cost money. We will address that issue after we take a closer look at school location. (See End Note Three.)

In the Middle of Nowhere

Governing magazine ran a cover story in March 2004 entitled, “Edge-ucation: The Compulsion to Build Schools in the Middle of Nowhere.” The article spells out in detail why school districts and municipal governments continue to build schools in dysfunctional locations. Anyone interested in or involved in school site selection or school size should carefully read this comprehensive article written for governance practitioners. It addresses both the cause and effect of school size and location issues.

Building schools in the middle of nowhere is a nationwide problem, not just a Virginia problem. Debates over the location of schools are occurring in school districts across the Commonwealth.

A few years ago S/PI contributed to a national study  summarized in the report, “Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl”, cited in End Note One. The study is widely quoted by the subtitle: “Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School.”  Here are a couple of examples that we shared with the director of the study:

The next time your plane takes off to the south from Washington Dulles, check out the unfortunately named “Rachel Carson” Middle School on the left. This Fairfax County school was built on low-value industrial land within within the airport noise-impact area. This school, located at the far edge of school’s service area, was constructed on land that held for years by amateur speculators and was available cheap.

If you are on the right side of the airplane, check out the remote location of the relocated Arcola Elementary School in Loudoun County. As often happens, in the years since the Arcola school was relocated, the vacant land around it has become more attractive for scattered subdivisions.

It is not a fluke to see two examples from a single runway. The next time you fly, check the settlement patterns of any region on approach or take-off and see how many examples of schools in the middle of nowhere (aka, locational dysfunction) you can locate. Clue: Look for big parking lots and lines of yellow buses.

School locations such as these lead, among other things, to “Lord of the Flies” school bus experiences. We have argued that children have more constructive lessons erased by spending from 45 minutes-two hours on a school bus every day than they learn in six hours in school. (See End Note Four.) These locations exacerbate the teen deaths as noted in “Dying Young in Traffic” (Nov. 1, 2004).

The Issue of Money

Yes, smaller schools in better locations will cost more money.  We address some potential revenue sources to support better education below. But first, a word about the cost of education in general:  

Providing an acceptable, much less superior, education for children in the face of the counterproductive forces of contemporary culture costs money--lots of money. 

Some of our friends have expressed the wan hope that if schools stop spending money for the wrong things, they will have sufficient money for the right things like rational sites and smaller classes. Sorry, that is not the case.

Patrick Welch, an English teacher at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, frequently writes insightful articles on educational issues in The Washington Post. In a Dec. 5, 2004, op-ed entitled, “It’s No Contest: Boys Will Be Men, and They’ll Still Choose Video Games,” Welch describes the impact of the latest generation of video games. In the process, he eloquently makes the case for investing major resources in the creation of more effective educational materials and environments.

Good education is hugely expensive, and it will get more expensive for the reasons that Welch and others point out. As society becomes more complex, so does the cost of bringing all the students to a level of understanding where they can compete socially and economically.

Society spends trillions of dollars on entertainment and the advertising of entertainment. Educational materials and educational processes must be improved to compete with the impact of Sponge Bob Square Pants, “music videos” and the “blow-the-living-snot-out-of-it” video games (e.g. “Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction”) that consume billions of dollars and trillions of hours.

Why Education Needs More Money and Transportation Does Not

There is a profound difference between the need for money for education and the need for money to create mobility and access. With Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns there may not be a need for much new money for transport. Whatever the cost of mobility, there is a silver bullet: Charge motorists the full cost of location-variable goods and services and the cost of providing mobility choices. (See "New Years Resolutions", Jan. 4, 2004, and the items cited there, and for some immediate action items, “The Road to Righteousness” Jan. 4, 2004, by Jim Bacon). The fair allocation of cost will, by definition, provide whatever sum is needed for mobility and access.

The education establishment may well be squandering resources on the wrong things. That needs to change. But when schools start spending the money on the right things, it still will cost far more than they are spending now.

It is not just a case of getting the priorities straight: It is a case of overcoming the roadblocks set up by contemporary culture: Beavis and Butt-Head, Sponge Bob Square Pants, South Park, music videos, ipods, video games, cell phones, instant messaging, chat rooms, blogging, complex electronic and mechanical technology, etc.

A New Metric of Education Costs

Before addressing ways to fund Fundamental Change in education it may be useful to understand why education costs so much and why it will cost far more in the future.

In 1805, 95 percent of the extended families/households in the United States were engaged in agrarian activities and in agrarian support crafts and services. For these families children were part of the economic equation, and raising and educating children was an integral part of the families full time job. Extended families and master/apprentice relationships carried out much of the education. The later stages of the Industrial Revolution restructured the workplace, agriculture and the family. These changes required that education for more than an elite few be outsourced to “schools.”  

Perhaps the economic equivalent of paying the full cost of location-dependent costs for mobility can be calculated in education. We suggest that it is something like this: Each parent of a child between conception and 25 years of age must spend one half of his or her total productive time (aka, waking hours) preparing for, caring for, educating and civilizing that child. For a couple with three children, that means one and one half person days every day on child education.

Home schooling has had mixed reviews but there is enough evidence to establish that dedicated parents can, via home schooling, prepare children for higher education if they devote time of this magnitude. Our drivers ed contact tells us that his best prepared students do not come from public schools or exclusive private schools but from home schooled teenagers.

Of course, not all parents are willing, or capable, of home schooling their children. If an institution (aka, school) is to take over a major part of that role (the current practice) it will cost a lot of money. Members of what Richard Florida calls the "creative class" set ever higher expectations for school performance. And it will require ever greater effort and creativity to produce materials and processes that make "education" as interesting as the anti-education that makes gamers, toy manufactures and the "entertainment industry" billions in profit.

Sources of Funds

Creating educational facilities, materials and processes at the right scale and in the right location will require resources far beyond that now devoted to education. Where will resources for creative education come? 

Some will come from existing resources that are redirected to constructive programs. There will be an expanded roll for volunteer efforts, especially in the facilities and services provided at the dooryard, cluster and neighborhood scales. When real progress is shown, private philanthropy, a major supporter of higher education, will filter down to smaller scales and earlier years of education.

This still will leave a big gap in resources. This gap should not be filled by new or expanded taxes on property, income or consumption. These sources of revenue are already spoken for.

Citizens must explore new sources for funds to support governance and services at the dooryard, cluster, neighborhood and village scales where, at this point, there is no functional governance structure. Education will be the most important of these functions.

We suggest that the activities of product and service testing, product and service endorsements, communication and data collection could support dooryard, cluster, neighborhood and village scale governance and education. These actions are now profit centers for advertising agencies, media outlets and data mining conglomerates, or on the other hand are cost centers for municipal, state and federal government. These activities could generate billions in revenue by replacing the failed system of trying to induce citizens to spend and consume or find information which the dooryard, cluster, and neighborhood could control and provide for a fee. [See End Note Five.]

Where to From Here

The first step is for individuals to become involved in the school-siting, school-size and boundary-adjustment process in their jurisdiction. They should bring along the resources cited in this column and build a coalition of like interests. 

The next step will be to break up all big school districts and reform them along community lines. Consolidation appears to save money only because there is not yet an economic model to evaluate the cost of failing to provide a quality education. The best long-term test of educational quality would be a profound decline in economic competitiveness. A decent into 2nd world status would serve as a "wake up call." We cannot afford to wait for that. Citizens need to move ahead on what is already known to be a better model: effective schools in Balanced Communities.  

-- January 31, 2005

End Notes

1. Starting with research funded by the Ford Foundation on the optimum design for neighborhood schools in Planned New Communities during the 60s, there is now a mountain of information of the value of small, well designed schools. For a recent survey of resources see the materials cited in Beaumont, Constance E., Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl: Why Johnny Can't Walk to School. The National Trust for Historic Preservation Washington, D.C. 2000. For an avalanche of information just Google “small high schools.” 

2. Chapter 9, Box 3, from The Shape of the Future examines the notion of “it takes a village "in the context of contemporary civilization. Also see discussion of school organization in Chapter 29 of The Shape of the Future.

3. As we point out in The Shape of the Future, size and location of schools in Planned New Communities have morphed over time to become just as bad as those in the region in general.  This is true even when the communities were established to provide a close fit between neighborhoods and villages and the schools to serve them. 

4. New books such as Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs and Other Parent Substitutes by Mary Eberstadt provide current data on the accelerating use of behavioral drugs by children and other impacts of absent parents. As Judith Warner author of Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety points out, the value of Eberstadt’s data is diminished by her rants concerning working mothers and use of day care under any circumstances. This underscores the impact of the contemporary “Mommy (and Daddy) Wars.” Many mothers and fathers, including researchers who are providing “objective” evaluation of these issues, believe they can “do it all” in spite of dysfunctional human settlement patterns. We deal with this issue in Chapters 9 and 10 of The Shape of the Future.

5. The details of this source of funding are beyond the scope of the this column. The easiest source of revenue to understand is introduced by this question: Why should producers of goods and services spend trillions on product testing and advertising when most citizens do not believe it anyway?

Once the safety of a product or service is established who better to test, endorse and communicate the value of the product than the good citizens of Lakeside Cluster? “Our cluster is a lot like your cluster and after a year of evaluation and use our citizens find ___________.  We recommend you try these six brands of ___________ and believe you will agree that they satisfy the spectrum of taste (or needs) for __________.”  A future column will address the pitfalls of excess consumption driven by current myth-driven advertising.