Anonymous wrote:If they were smaller they would be easier to maintain and adjust to the
needs of the public. Why they have to be such a gigantic factories?
Anonymous wrote:I went to a small (public) HS in a small town in MA, where schools are organized by town rather than county. Even in that kind of system there are a lot of big HS -- and they happen to be some of the best in the state. Newton North, Newton South, Brookline. Size is not an inherent problem, OP, and as some of the PPs have noted there are some distinct advantages to larger high schools.

Anonymous wrote:Let's ask people from different countries, how do you feel about big High Schools as opposed to
smaller ones? Do they exist in your country and were they run efficiently with good results?
If you got a great education at your school in your country do tell us about that experience.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because mcps gets more bang for its buck with a larger school. They don't have to staff two schools, two sets of principals two sets of Building Services two sets of teachers, versus one larger staff. It's much cheaper.
If that was the only way to do things, then one central school for 50 000 kids would be even less expensive
to run, having one principal and one set of staff, one building but is this what it is all about?
At the end of the day the best things are not the least expensive. It is about quality education so maybe
it needs to cost more? Smaller communities can be run more effectively and they are more kids friendly.
More schools would mean less buses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because mcps gets more bang for its buck with a larger school. They don't have to staff two schools, two sets of principals two sets of Building Services two sets of teachers, versus one larger staff. It's much cheaper.
If that was the only way to do things, then one central school for 50 000 kids would be even less expensive
to run, having one principal and one set of staff, one building but is this what it is all about?
At the end of the day the best things are not the least expensive. It is about quality education so maybe
it needs to cost more? Smaller communities can be run more effectively and they are more kids friendly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because mcps gets more bang for its buck with a larger school. They don't have to staff two schools, two sets of principals two sets of Building Services two sets of teachers, versus one larger staff. It's much cheaper.
If that was the only way to do things, then one central school for 50 000 kids would be even less expensive
to run, having one principal and one set of staff, one building but is this what it is all about?
At the end of the day the best things are not the least expensive. It is about quality education so maybe
it needs to cost more? Smaller communities can be run more effectively and they are more kids friendly.
Anonymous wrote:Because mcps gets more bang for its buck with a larger school. They don't have to staff two schools, two sets of principals two sets of Building Services two sets of teachers, versus one larger staff. It's much cheaper.
Anonymous wrote:Because mcps gets more bang for its buck with a larger school. They don't have to staff two schools, two sets of principals two sets of Building Services two sets of teachers, versus one larger staff. It's much cheaper.
Anonymous wrote:If they were smaller they would be easier to maintain and adjust to the
needs of the public. Why they have to be such a gigantic factories?