Teachers and Teaching - Smaller Class Sizes And The Consequences

The chart compares average class sizes in public and private schools. How many students are there in a class, on average? That is the question.

In response to results from a few controlled studies in various states showing that smaller class size improves student achievement, Congress incorporated the Class Size Reduction Program into the Title II Teacher Quality block grant. These, in turn, became part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This initiative gave school districts $1.6 billion to recruit, hire, and train 30,000 new teachers for the 2001-02 school year in order to reduce class sizes. According to the Class Size Reduction Program's web site, some school districts supplement the funding and hire even more teachers. As a result, class sizes continue to decrease. Class sizes have been decreasing since the 1993-1994 school year. But, will class size reduction boost student achievement? In countries that tested in the top 5 in mathematics proficiency on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1994-1995 (TIMSS), average mathematics class sizes were equal to or higher than the U.S. average for that year. In Korea (ranked 3rd), the average math class had more than 41 students. The average U.S. math class had 21-30 students.¹⁶

Class size reduction programs in Tennessee and California have yielded mixed results. Tennessee's Project STAR¹⁷ included 79 schools, more than 300 classrooms, and 7,000 students. The project followed students for four years. A follow-up study was done in 1989 after the students had returned to larger classes. The study found that students in the smaller classes "substantially outperformed"¹⁸ students in the larger classes on standardized and curriculum-based tests. They were less likely to be held back a grade. The higher achievement persisted (although at increasingly lower levels) until the 8th grade. Low income and minority students experienced gains twice as high as those of other students did. An added benefit: 4th grade students who had been in smaller classes from kindergarten through 3rd grade were better behaved than those from the larger classes were.

California's Class Size Reduction initiative (CSR) involves all schools in the state (voluntarily) and nearly 1.9 million students in kindergarten through 3rd grade (K-3) in the 2000-2001 school year. CSR, a part of S.B. 1777, passed in 1995. It mandated that there should be no more than 20 students per K-3 classroom. Although the program is voluntary, the school district receives $850 for each student in a reduced-sized classroom. By the 2000-2001 school year, about 95% of K-3 classrooms had implemented this program. With what results? Behavior problems decreased. Student test scores rose. From the 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 school years, standardized test scores¹⁹ rose 13.4 points for the 2nd grade cohort, 12.1 points for the 3rd grade cohort. Test scores rose for those in 4th through 6th grades also: 8.7, 5.1, and 4.9 points, respectively. The positive effect of lower class sizes seems to carry over when students return to larger classes. (The Tennessee study had similar results.) But, can this be attributed to CSR? During the years of CSR's implementation, many other educational reforms were taking place in California. Reading initiatives and the Standardized Testing and Reporting System (STAR) were both implemented the same year. "Evidence from other states indicates that test scores rise as teachers and students become more familiar with the test. An increase equivalent to 2-5 points on the SAT-9 (Stanford Achievement Test — 9) scale has been observed in other states that have implemented the test under conditions where stakes were lower than they are in California. The gains in SAT-9 scores in California are well within the range that might be associated with 'normal' score inflation" (Stecher).

Tennessee's Project STAR program was a controlled study with adequate space for small class sizes. Qualified teachers were on hand to implement the experiment. California school districts lack these two ingredients. So do many districts in the country. Before the implementation of CSR (1995-1996), nearly 30% of California schools reported taking space from Special Education to make room for K-3 classrooms. After CSR, in the 1999-2000 school year, nearly 45% of schools reported raiding Special Education; nearly 40% of schools reported taking space from music and art classrooms to make room for smaller K-3 classes. Before CSR (1995-1996), 1.8% of K-3 teachers were not fully certified. By 2000-2001, the fifth year of the CSR, the percentage of K-3 teachers without full certification had soared to 13.3%.

Overcrowding and more underqualified teachers? Is this the real consequence of lower class sizes? Some California principals and superintendents seem to think so. In a survey conducted by the CSR Research Consortium in Spring 2000, principals and superintendents in California were asked whether they would prefer "none," "some," or "a lot" of the $1.5 billion now spent for CSR to be channeled into other programs. Over 50% of principals and close to 40% of superintendents supported having "some" or "a lot" of the CSR funds used to "hire more reading and math specialists" and to "upgrade teacher training" (Stecher). What do California teachers think about CSR? Eighty-three and one-half percent of teachers in reduced-size 3rd grade classrooms say that they would like to give more individualized attention to their students — but they don't have the time to do it. And 69.8% of teachers in reduced-size 3rd grade classrooms find it difficult to meet the instructional needs of their students²⁰. Two of the arguments in favor of smaller class sizes are that smaller classes will allow teachers to provide more individualized instruction and that the needs of students will be met better than in larger classrooms. According to the teachers surveyed, smaller class sizes are an improvement (6.5% and 22.0% more K-3 students are benefiting, respectively). But is this enough?

The next panel discusses the most serious problems in schools according to teachers.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education, 1997 and 2002 editions and Digest of Education Statistics, 2000 and 2001 editions. Stecher, Brian M. and George W. Bohrnstedt. Class Size Reduction in California: Findings from 1999-00 and 2000-01, February 2002. Charles M. Achilles. "The Difference between Class Size and Pupil/Teacher Ratio." Online. Available: http://www.heros-inc.org/pupil-teacher%20ratio.pdf. June 5, 2002. Pritchard, Ivor. National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum and Assessment. U.S. Department of Education. Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know? March 1999. "Class Size Reduction Program." Online. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/. April 26, 2002.