I believe there are a large number of committed WPians (probably not a majority, though) who value school articles. I believe that they have reasonable arguments to support their position. I also believe that they are of sufficient strength (at least ~35% of voting editors) such that consensus to delete a school article will never properly be reached. In such a circumstance, with WP operating as a consensus forum, I believe any attempt to delete real high schools is less than useful. It doesn't mean anyone is wrong to so nominate; it doesn't mean their arguments are wrong either. But, in a consensus forum, when a static position of "Let's-agree-to-disagree" is reached, the default is (and should be) to keep. I believe we have reached such a stasis, and I will continue to vote, by type, a default keep on real high schools as a method of conveying my belief in this stasis and the relatively low utility of further dispute.
Some cannot see any reasonable argument for keeping schools. As I understand the arguments, school supporters suggest that schools are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their formative years. They are generally fixed in location, and often have long histories. They are likely each to attract substantial communities of interest to WP. I don't firmly agree with these points, but I see some value. My high school, for example, was founded in 1970, with an average class size of 1,000 people. It serves a city of 70,000, each citizen likely to know it. It is known across the entire US state, and well-known by adjacent towns, such that I estimate at least 350,000 people know of it and have reason to search for it. In my state, my school is (or was) average (ie. I looked up class size and campus size when enrolled there, and it was in the middle.) 350,000 potential searchers is good enough, arguably. I am not completely persuaded by these arguments, but I do find them reasonable.
Since I acknowledge that there are reasonable arguments for keeping schools, I find that some simplistic arguments of some school opponents (that schools are like people, or factories, or boxes, or walls) are ill-thought. Generally, most students have at least some interest in their school (if only because they are stuck there in young life when they would rather be outside), and I know most parents have an interest in their children's school. The aggregate community attachment to these places, in my experience, far exceeds community concern for other "buildings," as schools are called here in dimunition by some.
Some object that voting on schools without examining the particular article at issue is faulty. I agree that it is true that my argument above is an argument by type. However, for school-supporters, schools are like real towns (which have become notable ipso facto based on an argument by type.) I know that this is controversial, and I don't even know whether or not I agree with it. However, it is, in my view, a reasonable argument to make. I don't believe it is proper to discount an argument by type in these school cases when it is accepted in other arguably comparable cases. Also, I understand that bickering over whether a suburban high school in Maryland is more or less notable than another suburban high school in California is a discussion for which Wikipedia is ill-equipped. In general, a policy by type for real high schools seems appropriate to me to avoid constant squabbling over minutiae. Left only to my own opinions, I might well exclude them all; however, in a rule-by-consensus, where a committed minority insists on the value of such articles, I yield to their right by default.
Some argue that such yielding is dangerous, and could lead, through a slippery slope, to the inclusion to individual buildings or businesses.
I agree that, if one found a body of ~30%+ of committed WPian editors (after extended debate like we've had on schools for a long time) willing to agree in general that every building is notable, or that Xoloz' nosehair is notable, it would be worthy of inclusion here under my argument (notwithstanding even my own assessment of my nosehair as useless). To me, this is positive and noble aspect of Wikipedia: WPians decide what belongs in WP, and the system exists with a (admirable, in my view) bias such that anything with substantial support stays. That is a consequence of the non-majoritarian nature of the process.
Finally, some argue that the schools included are often short, poor quality stubs, and that their addition here hurts Wikipedia more than helps. It is, however, a general guideline not to delete, but to expand when an article on an otherwise noteworthy topic is poorly written. I see no reason this guideline is inapplicable to schools, although they be numerous. It is also, I think, unknown whether a poor stub or a blank page is more like to motivate a visitor to write a quality article (and this is the end-goal of everyone.) Some less experienced WPians simply have a "page-creation phobia," but are not afraid to cleanup and expand; I know I was once one of these newbies.
I do not pretend that this explication is exhaustive, but it presents my views as fully as I have yet elaborated them. This is, for now, my complete rationale for my continued keep votes on this subject. Anyone may discuss this issue with me at anytime, as I am the talkative sort.