Could I get some opinions please.

Apparently our state has offered school districts money to improve/upgrade or build new schools.

We're in a rural school district with 5 buildings, 3 very old elementaries located in small towns and one MS and one HS on the same campus. The BOE is considering various options, but seem to be set on tearing down all the buildings..yes all 5. They want to build one huge school housing all the students.

My first reaction is to be against it, largely due to having small children in the same building with the older students as well as being in the parking lot with teenaged drivers etc. I also have to question what it will do to class size/amount of teachers etc. We have many wonderful teachers and I'd hate to lose them due to what seems to be IMO a consolidation.

I'm wondering if any educators here have worked in or are familiar with that type of school. What are the pros/cons?

The cons are all on the student/education side.
Want to bet which side wins?

The high school (4 years) were upstairs, 6th-8th were at one end of the first floor and the elementary was at the other end. We had no problems, but that was years ago. However, we have surrounding areas with schools that are totally contained in one building and there aren't any problems.

I think it helps when the older kids are expected to watch out for the younger children...help with reading, math, etc.

Perhaps they can make it big enough and spread out enough that there won't be any problems. Parking lots at both ends would help with the traffic problem.

Good luck!

I think big schools take from the community experience. In Elementary and Middle school all the teachers knew the students. Now the teachers don't know the students from Adam. Large schools also necessitate more security as there more students to have conflicts with.

No loss there. I'm with you, though, in feeling that 6-year-olds and 16-year-olds don't belong on the same campus. Adjoining campus, perhaps, because that would allow teen-agers to work with elementary school kids in reading and basic skill practice, but not sharing the same building.

I would be far more concerned about what is motivating this "generosity" and who stands to benefit - what is the REAL cost to your community?

While I agree with the other concerns, I disagree that there is any need or reason to keep the children from different age groups separated. The older kids could be a highly valuable resource in helping to teach and tutor the younger kids and those who would take advantage of the situation to tease and bully need to be taught a harsh lesson early, lest they grow up to become Republicans. Zero tolerance for bullshit, and everyone benefits from the ongoing lessons in respect for others.

Once the district decides on a definite plan, it will have to be brought to the voters for considerable additional money. I don't think their plan will go over well with voters, we're still paying for improvements previously done that they now want to demolish.

\\\ I disagree that there is any need or reason to keep the children from different age groups separated. \\\

I went to a K-12 school in Europe, but it was nowhere near the size of a typical US school. Our graduating class was 50 people. There was some tutoring and teaching, but bullying outweighed it. Still, teachers knew everyone on the first name basis. American school is a town of its own, a completely different situation.

One of my friends has been zeroing in on this as a way to judge whether a community can actually function as a community.

"Dunbar's number has been popularized as the supposed cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable social relationships: the kind of relationships that go with knowing who each person is and how each person relates socially to every other person. Proponents assert that group sizes larger than this generally require more restricted rules, laws, and enforced policies and regulations to maintain a stable cohesion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

Mega-schools seems to be a trend these days, but I've never seen a project to put together all age groups, ES, MS and HS.

I imagine the pros they would give you are the increased ability to offer higher-level courses, after-school and enrichment activities to students, especially gifted ones. Their real reason IMO is the economy of scale.

I only see cons. Less individual attention, bureaucracy, disciplinary and safety issues, space that is both cramped and difficult to navigate, transportation nightmare.

Yours is a smaller town, so it may not be so bad, but I would fight it tooth and nail.

I currently work in a school complex with a High School, Middle School, and Elementary School, another Elementary school is about 5 miles away. They work very hard at keeping the three schools separate, even keeping doors closed between the different "buildings". The main problem in our district in regards to this is that the other Elementary School, though built at the same time and the exact same floor plan as the elementary section of the complex, feels left out.

I have worked in another similar situation where the primary school was a separate building, and I worked in one school that was the entire district in one building (beautiful WPA building, well maintained with an addition.)

I have also worked in districts with separate facilities.

Really the intermingling is minimal in all situations. I don't see a problem with losing numbers of teachers, but administrators and support staff would suffer, and IMO, the teacher's union should possibly voice support for those...good luck, Mary

I prefer a broader mix of ages. It's more like a real community, instead of an army of same-age range students with adult guards.

It's the size that is the issue. It is easy to lose the community environment, the connections and relationships between adults and students, when there are just too many of everybody. I wouldn't want to work there.

I do know that some old buildings are not cost effective to refurbish. We have one in my district. If our bond passes this spring, we'll build a new school and move those kids out. The building is in such bad shape that we can build a brand new school for very little more than the renovations needed to modernize the existing building.

Is the state money tied to building bigger schools?

I wish my state would build some schools without passing more local bonds!

It appears the state money is tied somewhat to larger buildings. That's why the money can't be used to refurbish our individual elementary schools, the student population of each school does not meet their guidelines. They would minimum have to combine 2 ES's in order to meet requirements. Plus, if the cost of refurbishing is more than 2/3 the cost of building new, new construction is required. All 3 ES fall into that category.

The state will supply about 1/2 of funding. The residents will have to pay the rest.

The district actually has several plans, the one they feel is best is the one large combination school.

and school modernization? I'd look into that before bowing to bribery and pressure to consolidate smaller schools to large.

Yes, large schools are more cost effective. They aren't as effective at many things that make a positive educational environment, though.