The murders and woundings at high schools in Colorado and Georgia this spring have sent politicians in Washington scurrying for new ways to stem violence in schools. Proposals range from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms to beefing up the federal Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, which researchers and state and local officials say accomplishes neither of its stated goals.

Lost in the din was a thoughtful idea from Vice President Al Gore that didn't seek to lay blame for school violence and didn't make promises Washington couldn't keep. Instead, Gore quietly called attention to the connection between school size and school safety.

"We've done some things wrong in education, and here's one of them: herding all students ... into over-crowded, factory-style high schools," Gore said. "When teachers and principals must practice crowd control, it becomes impossible to spot the early warning signs of violence, depression, or academic failure-- and it becomes even harder to do something about it." He pointed out that Washington could play a role by helping localities make their schools smaller, more personal, and more community-oriented.

Gore's idea didn't materialize out of thin air: A growing body of research suggests that smaller schools work better. Gore is the first national politician to recognize that in addition to yielding academic benefits, smaller schools might be one of the best ways to deal with disaffected young people.

When Bigger Isn't Better

"Bigger is better" has been a defining slogan of the American Century, and schools have been part of the trend. Since the end of World War II, the number of schools nationwide has declined 70 percent while average enrollment in schools has grown fivefold. Today more than 25 percent of American secondary schools enroll more than 1,000 students, and enrollments of 2,000 and 3,000 are common. New York City has nine schools with more than 4,000 students. JFK High School in the Bronx enrolls 5,300.

The thinking was that due to economies of scale, large schools would offer more extracurricular opportunities, more diverse curricula, and generally more resources to students. Intuitively, this makes sense. But research shows, and the public seems to understand, that when it comes to school size, smaller is better.

According to researchers, oversized schools are a detriment to student achievement, especially for poor children. Such schools may be more economically efficient and may offer students more of everything, but those factors haven't translated into more successful students. In fact, the research is fairly clear on this point: Smaller schools promote learning. And contrary to prevailing wisdom, research shows that small schools can offer a strong core curriculum and, except in extremely small schools, a level of academically advanced courses comparable to large schools.

Other research shows that students from smaller schools have better attendance records and that when students transfer from large schools to smaller ones their attendance improves. Smaller schools also have lower dropout rates and fewer discipline problems. A 1992 study by researchers Jean Stockard and Maralee Mayberry stated that "behavior problems are so much greater in larger schools that any possible virtue of larger size is canceled out by the difficulties of maintaining an orderly learning environment."

In a 1996 study, researcher Kathleen Cotton discovered that students in large schools do not participate in extracurricular activities at a greater rate than students in small schools. In fact, Cotton found that students in smaller schools were more likely than large-school students to be involved in extracurricular activities and to hold positions of responsibility in these activities. Nor are larger schools necessarily more efficient. A 1996 study by Valerie Lee and Julie Smith found that large schools are actually more expensive because their sheer size requires more administrative support. Those added layers of bureaucracy, in turn, translate into less flexibility and innovation.

Second Thoughts in Suburbia

Other research suggests that economically advantaged students can thrive in large schools. The problem is, economically disadvantaged students are the ones most likely to be concentrated in oversized schools. In any event, the shootings at Columbine High School in suburban Denver and Heritage High School in suburban Atlanta are giving suburban parents second thoughts about large local schools, no matter what research says about their children's prospects in them.

One suburban parent with a daughter in a large school recently told me she would readily trade some extracurricular activities for smaller school size if the change meant that "teachers and counselors have more daily contact with the kids."

Her response shouldn't come as a surprise. A 1997 study of charter schools by the Hudson Institute asked parents why they chose such schools for their children over traditional public schools. Fifty-three percent cited the schools' small size. It was the most common response, ranking ahead of higher standards, educational philosophy, greater parental involvement, and better teachers. It is also telling that urban parents, whose children are those most likely to attend excessively large schools, are also the parents most likely to express dissatisfaction with their public schools.

While researchers don't agree on the ideal size, the general consensus is that the top limit is between 300 and 400 students for elementary schools and 1,000 students for secondary schools. Most researchers also agree that any school with enrollment above 2,000 is much too large.

The Proper Federal Role

In his State of the Union address, President Clinton again called on Congress to pass school construction legislation. Rising enrollment, aging buildings, federal mandates, and deferred maintenance have combined to create an infrastructure crisis in school districts. Clinton proposes to use interest-free school bonds, subsidized by federal tax credits, to stimulate school construction and repair. After bitterly opposing Clinton on this score for several years, congressional Republicans have indicated they will offer a competing proposal.

School construction is an important issue that demands national attention. But before Democrats and Republicans rush to outspend each other on bricks and mortar, they should heed Gore's sound advice and use a school-construction bill to address the issue of school size.

Washington shouldn't micro-manage local decisions about individual school design. On the other hand, tax-payers have a right to expect that their tax dollars are being spent in ways that help children. The sensible approach is to include broad guidelines in school-construction legislation that encourage building designs that maximize benefits for kids. And as Gore proposes, school districts that plan to build smaller schools or subdivide large schools into smaller units should be first in line for funding. Finally, Washington should collect more data and sponsor more research on the effects of school size.

Every aspect of our education system should be designed to facilitate high academic performance. School buildings are no exception. In the coming century, schools should be smaller, more autonomous, more flexible, more accountable for results-- and above all, safer. Gore's proposal points us in the right direction.

Andrew Rotherham is director of the Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project.