Smaller and distributed instead of big and centrally controlled are usually better for a lot of reasons: freedom, choice, scalability, security. Historically, concentrations of people and power are not always beneficial and are often very difficult to break up.

This is one Roane Countian not discussing making all the towns of the county into one big entity.

Both the consolidation of the towns and the consolidation of the schools have been discussed here at RoaneViews, and the issues are not unrelated.

"Small is beautiful" applies to our schools, too.

There is ample evidence in many studies showing that larger schools are likely to be worse for economically disadvantaged students, and even for all students in schools with disadvantaged students. I have seen nothing that says otherwise. There are studies showing that larger schools can be better--for the upper crust.

If we wanted a consolidated school to save money, we would be better off instead buying each child one of those one-laptop-per-child computers and paying even out-of-state tuition for each child at an accredited distance-education primary or secondary school; it costs a lot less than one would think.

We could use some of the considerable per-student savings for intensive phonics tutoring to get students' reading levels up to that needed for the text-based portions of web-based distance education, and some of the rest for running a reduced number of physical classrooms for those students so bad off they could not benefit from the many advantages of web-based education or for those students so young they still need in-person supervision for reasons of safety.

There would still be plenty left over for enhanced sports and enrichment and tutoring programs--even for a huge marching band!--all without mortgaging our county's future by buying a big mistake of a consolidated school.

[And web-based instruction does not discriminate on the basis of physical appearance. It is a meeting of minds, not of bodies, and can be very freeing for those students who are not fortunate enough to look like rich upper-class models.]

To minimize change for current high school students, we could phase the new program in one year at a time, starting with the freshmen. Even getting most of the freshmen out of the physical schools would eliminate the high school overcrowding problem in the very first year.

Parents could monitor their children's actual activities on a minute-by-minute, even keystroke-by-keystroke basis if they wanted, keeping tabs far more closely than they can in the current way of doing things.

Eventually we could even make our own accredited online school or schools, so that the jobs would be kept here. I taught for years online and have developed online classes; the technological hurdles are not great.

If folks want a bigger rated football team let's make a county-wide team, but we don't need to run education into the ground in addition.

As in soccer leagues, football teams do not have to be tied to a school. We could make football something separate, outside of the school system, so that the emotional issues of competitive male prowess and civic battle pride would no longer cloud our important school decisions.

Or we could do as MIT does and forget about football. Somehow they manage OK. :)

I don't think people really would implement these ideas here--although they just might improve things and save money too--but write them now in hopes more folks will be inspired to "think outside the box."

-- OneTahiti