Myth 1: Reductions in class size have very little impact on student achievement.
Reality: Studies have consistently identified a positive relationship between reduced class size and improved student performance.
Results from the Tennessee Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) study have continually demonstrated that reducing class sizes in grades K-3 to 13-17 students substantially increases children's reading and mathematics scores. These gains are particularly significant among minority and economically disadvantaged students. The Project STAR results have been confirmed by many other researchers, including those studying Wisconsin's SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education) Program, and in the CSR Research Consortium's early analysis of the California class-size reduction effort. As in Project STAR, students participating in the SAGE and California class-size reduction programs outperformed their counterparts in larger classrooms on standardized tests. In both the Tennessee and Wisconsin efforts, these benefits were strongest among African-American students who had larger gains than their white counterparts, again suggesting that reduced class sizes are a highly effective method of closing the "achievement gap" between black and white students.
The Administration's proposal to reauthorize ESEA and the Class-Size Reduction Program represents an effort to expand the success of these programs in schools across the country. The proposal would focus class-size reduction on the early grades, 1-3, particularly in high-poverty communities that are most in need of support and where the research shows that dollars can have the greatest impact on student performance.
Myth 2: The effects of class-size reduction can only be seen at the kindergarten level and the impact is short-lived.
Reality: The benefits of class-size reduction are seen in kindergarten and through grades 1-3, and the effects are long lasting.
Analyses of the STAR results confirm statistically significant differences in achievement among students who attended small classes for one, two, three or four years. Although one year in smaller classes resulted in increased achievement, the benefits of smaller class sizes in the early grades increased as children spent more years in the smaller classes. In addition to initial benefits, there are long lasting effects on student achievement that result from reducing class sizes. Recent findings from Tennessee's Project STAR study demonstrate that students attending small classes in grades K-3 outperformed their counterparts on standardized tests in grades 4, 6 and 8; continued to outperform classmates at the high school level; took more advanced classes; were less likely to be retained a grade or drop out of high school; and were more likely to prepare for college by taking college entrance exams. Additionally, black students who attended smaller classes in the early grades were more likely to take the ACT or SAT, raising their prospects of attending college and cutting the black-white gap in numbers of students taking college entrance exams in half.
However, researchers have found that in order to optimize the carryover benefits of small classes in the early grades through the later grades, it is necessary for students to spend at least three years in small classes. The advantages of attending a small class for the four years encompassing kindergarten through third grade are equivalent to receiving an additional six months to fourteen months of schooling.
Myth 3: The explanations and conclusions of the STAR findings are flawed.
Reality: A variety of studies confirm the findings of the STAR study.
Since the introduction of the Tennessee class-size reduction effort in 1985, the original STAR database has been analyzed time and again by numerous and diverse researchers through a variety of approaches, methodological perspectives, and statistical applications. Despite these differences, the findings have been consistent--students who participated in smaller classes in grades K-3 performed at higher levels than their peers in larger classes, and these effects continued through the end of high school. In addition, SAGE data and early findings from the California effort confirm STAR 's findings on the positive effects of class-size reduction.
Myth 4: There are hundreds of separate studies of the effect of "pupil-teacher ratios" on student achievement; only a handful suggests a positive relationship between reductions in class size and improvements in student performance.
Reality: There is an important distinction between class size, which is the number of students for whom a teacher is primarily responsible, and pupil-teacher ratio, which is the number of students per adults in a school (administrators, counselors, etc.). As a result, many studies have not accurately addressed the effect of reduced class sizes.
Data on pupil-teacher ratios reflect the total number of teachers and students at any time, not how they are used or impact the classroom. As a result, pupil-teacher ratios are often skewed by specialized instruction (as in special education), teachers in supervisory and administrative roles, librarians, music, art, and physical education teachers. As a result, these analyses often attempt to draw relationships in situations that do not reflect actual class size.
To be useful, studies of the effect of class-size reduction on student achievement require the surveying of individual districts about their assignment practices. Both Tennessee's STAR and Wisconsin's SAGE have surveyed individual districts and grades within those districts for class size differences and found significant differences in achievement for students in smaller classes.
Myth 5: While existing studies do show that variations in class size can influence performance, no one has been able to identify the overall circumstances that lead to the positive effects; it is premature to develop federal policy in the absence of this information.
Reality: The Project STAR study was scientifically designed so that the only variable altered was the size of the classes, and was hence able to conclude that smaller class sizes alone do have a positive impact on student achievement. However, to maximize these benefits, effective teaching strategies are needed. Effective teacher research suggests that certain teaching strategies and skills, particularly those that actively engage students in the learning process, lead to improved student learning when combined with smaller classes.
Among these characteristics of good teaching is the ability to communicate challenging content; involving students in hands-on experiences; providing clear and immediate feedback; and supporting family involvement. As evidenced in the research base and as seen in existing class-size reduction programs in many states, smaller classes afford more opportunity to implement all of these activities. In addition, the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program allows local school districts to reserve up to 15% of their funds to support professional development that can help all teachers better meet the needs of every student.
Myth 6: The implementation of California's class-size reduction initiative demonstrates the negative impact of such efforts.
Reality: Findings from year one of an ongoing evaluation of the California initiative show positive achievement gains, despite challenges with respect to "overnight" implementation, teacher quality and supply, space constraints, and funds for new classrooms.
In July 1996, California passed legislation to reduce class size in the early grades. The state rapidly invested $1 billion (followed by $1.5 billion annually) in incentives to improve student achievement by reducing its kindergarten through third grade class sizes to 20 students. As a result, despite problems of limited space and too few qualified teachers, many schools reduced class size at least at one grade level in the six weeks between the passage of the legislation and the start of the school year. By the program's second year, almost all first and second grade class sizes had been reduced, along with two-thirds of third grades and kindergartens.
After just one year in smaller classes, third grade students showed a small, but statistically significant, gain in academic achievement, and this benefit was seen in all students across the board. Teachers reported being able to spend more time working individually with students. Furthermore, parents of students in smaller classes became more involved in their children's education as they were able to have more contact with teachers. Parents also expressed greater satisfaction with their children's education.
California's race to implement smaller classes in such a tight timeframe had a negative impact on teacher quality, as demonstrated by declines in the average education, experience, and credentials of K-3 teachers. In two years, the K-3 teacher workforce increased by 38%, and the already weaker qualifications of teachers in schools with poor and minority students became worse. As a result, the state is considering a number of mid-course adjustments. These include addressing the increased need for space; increasing the focus on teacher quality, particularly in schools that serve high numbers of low-income and minority students; and targeting funds to high-poverty schools to offset the departure of teachers from poorer districts to higher income areas.
The Class-Size Reduction Program already targets funding to high-poverty communities to address the difficulty that schools in minority and high-poverty communities have in hiring and keeping the best teachers. California's effort did not target special resources to these communities. The Administration's program requires participating districts to hire certified teachers and allows them to use up to 15% of their federal class-size reduction funds to improve teacher quality. In addition, the program is flexible and will be phased in over seven years to allow schools and districts the planning time that is crucial to recruit, hire, and train large numbers of new staff.
Myth 7: Class-size reduction proposals do not address teacher quality, which is one of the most important factors in student achievement.
Reality: The Class-Size Reduction Program recognizes that both class-size reduction and improvements in teacher quality are necessary to achieve the most meaningful, lasting gains in student achievement and to close the achievement gap.
Though reducing class size in the early grades can improve instruction, efforts to reduce class size cannot be bought at the expense of placing students in classrooms with unqualified teachers. Even if classrooms are filled with fewer students, we cannot expect that students will achieve to their full potential if they are taught by unqualified teachers or by teachers who do not have professional development opportunities to learn the skills needed to teach to challenging standards. Early research on Project STAR confirms that, when combined with small classes, supporting teachers' knowledge and skills improves student learning and allows teachers to expand time spent focused on academics.
The Class-Size Reduction Program addresses these concerns and ensures teacher quality by: (1) requiring that Class-Size Reduction funds be used to hire only certified teachers; (2) targeting resources to the districts most in need of smaller classes and qualified teachers; (3) allowing districts to use up to 15% of their allocation to support teacher development; (4) gradually phasing in the implementation of smaller classes; (5) allowing districts to use the funds to recruit teachers creatively in a competitive market; (6) allowing flexibility at the local level for the placement of new teachers where they are most needed.
In addition, studies have shown that reducing class sizes can provide increased opportunities for teachers to teach better. Teachers participating in Wisconsin's SAGE program report having more time to spend actively teaching, spending less time on classroom management and student discipline, and being able to provide students with more individual attention. The recent study of California's efforts found that teachers spent less time on distractions such as discipline, and more time one-on-one with students and attending to their individual concerns.
Myth 8: Class-size reduction efforts in the early grades are expensive in both the short and long term.
Reality: The cost of implementing smaller class sizes in the early elementary grades can be offset by the resulting decrease in within-grade retention's, reduced high school dropout rates, a diminished need for remedial instruction and long-term special education services, and increased teacher satisfaction and retention.
Some districts have experienced cost savings through implementing carefully structured class-size reduction programs. In addition, the latest reports from Project STAR estimate millions of dollars in savings from the reduced high school dropout and within-grade retention rates that resulted from smaller classes in the early grades.
For more information, please reference the following documents:
Available via the SAGE homepage: http://dpi.wi.gov/sage/
Available via the CSR Research Consortium homepage: www.classize.org
Available via the federal Class-Size Reduction homepage: www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/
Return to Class Size Reduction Archived Information
This page archived October 29, 2002 (sbw)