Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior
Barker and Gump argue that school size affects student behavior through the mechanism of 'undermanning'—settings with fewer people than optimal roles require. In small schools, students must fill multiple positions, leading to more responsible, varied, and engaged participation. In large schools, settings are overmanned, students become redundant, and participation declines. The book tests behavior-setting theory against data from thirteen Kansas high schools, concluding that a negative relationship exists between institutional size and individual participation, and that schools should be small enough that all students are needed.
Key Details
Related Books
View AllSimilar books from the same category, ranked by shared topics and reader engagement.
Key Insights — Read in 10 Minutes
What is 'undermanning,' and how does it explain the book's central finding?
Undermanning describes a behavior setting with fewer people than the optimal number needed to fill its essential roles. Barker and Gump argue that small schools are persistently undermanned: with fewer students available, each must take on more varied and responsible positions to keep settings functioning . In overmanned large schools, by contrast, students become 'superfluous, redundant'—their individual contributions are not vital, and they choose passive roles . The Citation Classic retrospective notes that undermanning produces 'more varied and responsible actions and reactions' than overmanning . This mechanism, not size itself, is the variable Barker and Gump identify as responsible for the behavioral differences observed .
What specific empirical findings support the book's conclusions about school size?
The study compared thirteen Kansas high schools ranging from 18 to 2,287 students, with the most crucial comparisons between four small schools (83–151 students) and one large school (2,287 students) . Small-school students participated in a wider variety of activities, held more responsible positions, and reported more satisfactions related to developing competence . A replication by Baird (1969) confirmed that small-school students engaged in a broader range of extracurricular activities. The authors concluded that 'not only the present research, but all other research known to us, indicates that the negative relationship between institutional size and individual participation is deeply based and difficult, if not impossible to avoid' .
How did reviewers assess the book's dual purpose as theory-testing and educational policy argument?
A School Review essay identified an unresolved tension: the book could be read as testing behavior-setting theory (with schools merely a convenient setting) or as investigating school size directly (with theory as a guiding vehicle). The reviewer noted the publisher's jacket emphasized the school-size question as 'the principal aim' while the first two chapters carefully explicate theory, leaving readers to choose their interpretation . An American Sociological Review critique found the book's clarity lacking, noting that 'at many points the specialized psychological jargon makes reading tedious' . These reviews reflect the book's dual identity as both theoretical contribution and policy intervention.
What methodological criticism did reviewers raise about the comparison between small and large schools?
The American Sociological Review raised a fundamental confound: the small high schools were located in small towns while the large high school was in a city of approximately 100,000 people. The researchers assumed all schools 'conformed to the mores of the same culture,' but the reviewer found this assumption 'questionable' because town size, not just school size, differed systematically . The same review noted the study investigated only students' non-classroom activities, leaving academic learning unexamined. These limitations mean the findings on participation and responsibility are robust, but attributing them solely to school size rather than community context remains contested.
How has the book's argument held up in subsequent research and policy debates?
The book's citation history—over 275 citations by 1988—indicates sustained influence . Gump's retrospective notes that Barker and his associates were consulted on school-size issues in state legislature hearings, school board meetings, and courtrooms, and that the earlier consensus favoring consolidation ('bigger is better') had faded by the 1980s. However, later research produced more mixed findings: some studies found medium-sized schools (600–900 students) produced the greatest mathematics achievement gains . Boyer's 1983 synthesis concluded that small schools provide greater participation and emotional support while large schools offer curricular depth, recommending 'schools within schools' as a compromise .
What did reviewers identify as the book's structural or organizational weaknesses?
A PsycCRITIQUES review noted that about one-third of the empirical portion reports behavior-setting studies unrelated to school size—including differences in student participation between consolidated and non-consolidated schools, adolescent employment in small and large towns, and participation in different realms of small-town life. The inclusion of these studies 'lends a schizophrenic character to the book' . The School Review essay similarly found the book's dual focus unresolved, and the American Sociological Review criticized the authors' tendency to relate findings to 'assumptions about educational values' without clear logical justification for interpreting greater participation as inherently positive .
Show 2 more insights
How does this book apply Barker's earlier behavior-setting theory developed at the Midwest Psychological Field Station?
Big School, Small School applies the behavior-setting framework Barker developed through field research in Oskaloosa, Kansas, beginning in 1947. The Sage Encyclopedia entry on Barker explains that behavior settings are 'naturally occurring, dynamic, ecological structures generated from collective actions of individuals in a physical milieu' that reciprocally constrain individual actions . The key property explored in Big School, Small School is staffing level: settings have an optimal number of participants, and departures from that optimum—undermanning or overmanning—produce predictable behavioral effects . The book thus translates Barker's abstract theory into a testable hypothesis about a concrete policy question: what happens when schools get too large?
What does the book conclude about the relationship between facilities, resources, and student experience?
Barker and Gump explicitly reject the common-sense assumption that larger schools' greater facilities and resources automatically produce better experiences. They write: 'Good facilities provide good experiences only if they are used' . The study found that despite the illusion of greater opportunity in large schools, 'the real situations were nearly reversed'—small schools provided more actual participation and responsible action . The authors note that 'the educational process is a subtle and delicate one... but surely it thrives on participation, enthusiasm, and responsibility,' and their findings indicate that large schools systematically undermine these conditions by making students redundant .
Wealthy Psyche is an intellectual archive. We do not host, distribute, or sell book copies — physical or digital. We provide structured knowledge to help you think better, faster.