The issue of what to do with the current high schools - whether to continue the two high school concept or replace it with one school - is a major concern for Meriden. The current Board of Education members voted to maintain the two school concept which was consistent with the votes of previous Boards of Education.

My personal experience of attending a large high school - Meriden High - and then teaching at one of the two high schools in Meriden reinforces my belief that students sometimes "get lost" in a large school. The interaction between teacher and student tends to be more formal and less individualized in a large school. A smaller school allows the teacher, the students and the parents to get to know each other quicker and in a more relaxed manner. Also, in large high schools the hallways get very crowded during passing time and there is a concern about people being jostled and hurt during passing. It is a concern that parents have expressed especially during the years that Platt and Maloney had over many more students in each of them.

However, while a person's beliefs are important they should not be taken as "gospel" and hence there must be some data that backs up the concepts for smaller high schools. Over the past years, report after report indicates that smaller high schools seem to work well for students. One of those reports entitled "School Size and the Influence of Socioeconomic States on Student Achievement" indicates that high schools ranging between 300 and 1200 students worked well to narrow the achievement inequity among minority students and non-minority students - a major goal of No Child Left Behind and the State Board of Education's goals. High schools larger than 1,500 students substantially increase achievement inequity. Further, the achievement gaps between minority students (Black and Hispanic) narrowed the most in schools enrolling 300-600 students. Schools with enrollment over 2,100 students showed the smallest gains and the most inequity. Many other reports done by independent agencies came to the same conclusion.

Further, other reports indicate that students and staff in smaller schools feel more positive about: the school environment; the interaction among staff members, students and their parents; and among students themselves. When a student feels positive about his/her school and feels that he/she is personally known by the staff, fewer discipline problems occur and more learning takes place.

The only issue that has been brought up about building one school is that it would save money. However, the City Manager pointed out that the cost of acquiring land to build one school would outweigh any savings on the construction of the school. (The City Manager indicated that the costs of obtaining 35-50 acres of land would be enormous since the city did not own that many acres and would have to acquire much of the land and buildings on that land.)

Those who believe that one high school would save the cost of one principal do not understand that there would be no savings since that cost would be transferred, in my opinion, to the hiring of extra security for a large school and the additional cost for transporting students.

The larger schools built in Connecticut have been reorganizing themselves into "academy" type structures in which each of the four classes have their own administration, guidance and teachers. If this were the way the one high school concept for Meriden were to be organized no savings would be realized.

In summary, the national reports conclude that maintaining two smaller high schools rather than building one high school in Meriden is in the best interest for the community, the students, the parents and the staff of the schools.

(If anyone would like to receive the web link to the report mentioned in the article and other reports please send your e-mail address to: tom.bruenn@hotmail.com or write to him at the Board of Education located at 22 Liberty Street, Meriden, CT 06450.)

Thomas Bruenn is a member of Meriden's Board of Education.