Editorial: Cut the size of schools?

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 | 9:02 a.m.

Is there a surefire way to improve the primary and secondary educations received by Nevada's students? It would be nice if there were. As a group, they perennially rank near the bottom of the heap in national tests of academic achievement. While there is no guaranteed path to better grades, state Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, believes the best chance for Nevada's students to alter course lies in smaller schools.

Schneider is certainly not alone in such a belief, but he is alone in daring to introduce a bill in support of it. He has introduced Senate Bill 166, which would require the state's 17 school districts to cut their school sizes by more than half. He believes that students today are getting lost in the big elementary schools, bigger middle schools and gigantic high schools. Students in smaller schools would receive more personalized attention, both in academics and extracurricular activities, he reasons. This is no doubt true.

Joyce Haldeman, representing the Clark County School District this week before a Senate education committee, said smaller schools are "better for the students." She quickly added, however, that, "As much as we would like to have them, I don't think that we can afford them." Schneider is willing to challenge this response, which is automatic with nearly everyone who hears the price tag. Over the years, as Nevada's population has risen dramatically, the natural belief has been that we must build larger schools. The larger the school, the smaller the per-pupil cost of construction. It's a formula based on cost, not on what's best for students.

Currently, elementary schools are designed for 720 students, middle schools for 1,700 and high schools for 2,700. Schneider's bill would reduce elementary schools to 300 students, middle schools to 600 and high schools to 900. For the Clark County School District, the bill would triple the cost of school construction. The district now is planning to ask voters in 2008 to approve a $3.1 billion bond issue to build 72 more schools by 2014. Schneider's bill, if passed, would mean that the school district would have to ask voters for $9.9 billion in order to build 219 new schools.

Schneider says he believes voters would pass such a bond issue if the benefits of smaller, neighborhood schools were explained properly. The senator is performing a public service by challenging the state's conventional thinking on education. We're uncomfortable with a state law at this time, however. Taxpayers might be shocked at tripled costs and reject the bond issue. A judge then might order the districts to build the smaller schools anyway, in accordance with state law. The ensuing controversy would detract from education. We would rather see the voters simply offered a choice -- 72 schools or 219? $3.1 billion or $9.9 billion? Campaigns would be centered around both choices. In time, it's highly possible that voters would favor the smaller schools on their own, without any attendant resentment toward the state and courts.