User:Zwitterpated/Class Size Reduction

As an education reform, the primary goal of reducing class size is to increase the number of individualized student-teacher interactions with hopes of providing each child a more engaging and long lasting learning experience. Thus, on a theoretical level, this type of reform has shown great appeal to many constituencies throughout the past century including parents, teachers, students, administrators, and policy makers (hattie), and may therefore have been the most studied educational reform on record. (Berliner and Biddle)

On the practical level, class size reduction is also a very resource intensive reform leading to a highly political discussion of its efficacy. Indeed, using alternative definitions for class size, interpretations of early studies were often seen as linked directly to one's political leanings with groups such as the American Federation of Teachers in favor of the reform and The Hoover Institute as the primary voice in opposition.

Beginning in the late 1980's, in an effort to obtain a large scale evidence based understanding of the perceived benefits of class size reduction in the earliest grades (K-3), Tennessee began Project STAR. Results showed that standardized test scores increased across the board with participating students months ahead of their peers in knowledge after each year. Additionally, the effects for minority students were almost double and class size reduction began to also be seen as a route toward closing the achievement gap. Follow up studies determined that, even when reintroduced to larger class-sizes later in their educational career, the positive foundation for learning had made participating students more likely later in life to take advanced course classes and attend college. In Wisconsin, Project SAGE, a similar state-wide initiative focused in ever more on low-income students. Similar results were seen, the sister studies helping shift the modern debate over class size toward a place where the potential benefits are no longer questioned, rather whether other factors (such as teacher quality) may be more important and/or monetarily efficient.

In the words of Elizabeth Graue, primarily researcher on Project SAGE “There are indeed significant effects on student achievement related to reduced class sizes, but the effort itself does not guarantee success without additional attention to teacher quality, increased funding, availability of necessary facilities, and community/district belief in the power of the reform."

Benefits
The benefits of class size reduction as an educational reform have been shown to include: A) more positive teacher-student interactions leading to less time spent on discipline, B) the increased use of balanced instructional methods including higher degrees of individualization, C) closer personal relationships for teachers with students and families, D) a decrease in the effects of economic and social inequalities, E) increase student achievement, F) and lead to the establishment of a stronger foundation for lifelong learning beginning in the primary grades.

Projects STAR (Tennessee) and SAGE (Wisconsin)are generally understood to have validated the benefits listed above, especially the ability of CSR to narrow the achievement gap for minorities.

At present, more than 30 states have enacted class size reduction (CSR) legislation as a way to “lessen the effects of economic and social inequities, to increase academic achievement, and to strengthen the foundational social skills students develop in primary grades” (Achilles, Finn, & Bain, 1997; Biddle and Berliner, 2002; Molnar and Zmrazek, 1994).

Definition of class size
An early complication in measuring the efficacy of class size reduction was the tendency for different ideological camps to use different definitions of class size in the literature.

As a direct measure of the number of students in each class, group size is currently understood by the educational community to be the best measure of a teacher's "true opportunity to build direct relationships with each student."

A more malleable definition and one now held in dubious regard (garue**), pupil to teacher ratio, would declare a situation in which one teacher leads a class while another does paperwork in the back but does not interact with students as being half as large as its group size.

In the past, depending on which measure was used, researchers tended toward far different interpretations of the benefits of class size reduction leading to far different recommendations for implementation.

In 2002, Margaret Spellings, secretary of education under President George Bush, pointed out the need for a standardized definition of what is meant by class size. (Department of Ed website).

Project Prime Time
In 1986 the state of Indiana initiated Project Prime Time. (Bain and Achilles, 1986)

(1) Students in smaller class sizes scored higher on standardized tests (2) Smaller classes had fewer behavioral issues (3) Teachers of smaller class sizes reported themselves as more productive and efficient

Project Star
Aware of both the preliminary results of Project Prime Time in Indiana and the potential large scale costs of additional classrooms and teachers, in 1985, under then Governor Lamar Alexander, Tennessee began a three-phase project to determine the effects of reduced class sizes on short and long term pupil performance in the earliest grades.

The first phase, termed Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement ratio), randomly assigned teachers and students to three groups, “small” (13 to 17), “regular” (22 to 25) classes with a paid aide, and “regular” (22 to 25) classes with no aide. In total some 6,500 students in about 330 classrooms at approximately 80 schools participated.

Using both standardized and curriculum based testing, the initial study concluded that small classes produced “substantial improvement in early learning and cognitive studies” with the effect about double for minority students. As this is considered the seminal study (in an area that has received much political attention) there have been many attempts to reinterpret the data.

Dubbed the Lasting Benefits Study, the second phase began in 1989 and sought to determine whether the benefits of CSR persisted into upper grades when all students entered standard size classes. Observations confirmed that children originally enrolled in smaller classes continued to outperform their peers when they returned to regular-sized classrooms. These results were deemed true for all types of classes and all types of cities (rural, suburban, and metropolitan).

Under the third phase, Project Challenge, the 17 economically poorest school districts were adequately funded to provide smaller class sizes for their K-3 students. These districts improved their end-of-year- standing (among 139 districts) in mathematics and reading from below average to above average.

Perhaps confirming the belief that smaller class sizes can help create a climate of learning at the beginning of the educational experience for students, follow up studies demonstrate that students who attended smaller size classrooms during their K-3 years benefit throughout their educational experiences enjoying better grades, a lower drop-out rate and/or need to repeat a year. Upon reaching high school, more small class students opted to learn foreign languages, study advanced courses, take the ACT and SAT entrance examinations, and more graduated from high school in the top 25 percent of their classes. In each case, these gains were greatest among student populations most often traditionally disadvantaged in education.

Lessons from Project STAR
Despite protests from several of the originating legislators, teacher training consisted solely of a three day course. Given that most teachers are trained to teach in large classrooms, subsequent studies have also highlighted the importance of personal development to successful implementation of CSR (Stecher, Bohrnstedt, Kirst, McRobbie, & Williams, 2001).

With few citizens of Latino or Asian decent, the population of Tennessee may not be representative of America as a whole and thus the results may not be directly translatable.

Although a large mix of socio-economic students and school districts were represented it should be noted that some of lowest income schools couldn’t participate in the study because they lacked funds to comply with the class size requirement.

Project SAGE
In 2002 the state of Wisconsin began its own investigations into “the wisdom of class size reduction." In all, nine low income schools were studied, their locations spanning urban, semi-urban, and rural geographies. Evaluation included site visits, standardized assessments, collection of curriculum, and interviews with teachers, principals, and students.

The guiding assumptions of the study were:

1)Class size implementation alone is insufficient to promote student achievement. Changes in teaching methods that take full advantage of smaller class sizes will also be needed. 2)Class size reduction may have unintended consequences. 3)Generalization requires careful adaptation. Every classroom has a unique and specific context.

One primary difficulty encountered by the SAGE project was the availability of funds for teachers but not space. Each district was then left to this potential problem in their own unique way. In schools constrained by space this often involved tag-team teaching rather than increased individualized instruction (lowering of PTR but not class size).

Results from the study demonstrated increased teacher satisfaction with job, increased communication with parents, and (as with Project STAR) long term increases in student graduation rates and admission into college. Although no significant differences were observed in the gains of both male and female students, improved outcomes were again larger amongst minority and disadvantaged students.

Lessons from Project Sage
Teacher training was still not an integrated/funded component of the reform, thus it was noticed that in districts which lacked the space for more classrooms and thus employed team teaching, the tendency was to fall back onto a one teacher at a time model which only reduced PTR and not group size. Thus, Garue, the lead researcher noted that "although there was more space for them to do these things, the error was in assuming that teachers know how to navigate that space.” And noting the need for further systemic changes,"class-size to them became one cog toward greater student achievement, but if the whole machine did not change in conjunction, then the cog was inconsequential." (Garue)

Difficulties of CLR implementation in California
In California, implementation of CLR (and the increased need for classroom space and staff) has on the whole been seen as unsuccessful. Underfunded as a program, classroom space was taken from programs like special Ed and art as well as computer labs and libraries to meet the mandates of the reform. Schools serving the most low-income, English language learners, and students of color were thus often hit hardest, often forced to install portables at higher costs than reimbursed by the state (only $650/student in California when Wisconsin had invested $2000/student under SAGE). Additionally teaching staffs suddenly increased by %38, which caused many to call into question the availability of sufficient quality teachers.

Supporters of class size reduction point out that, despite these criticisms and given that class sizes in California shrank from only 40 to 30 students per class (where the maximum was 24 under Project STAR and SAGE), "test scores did increase throughout the state and throughout all socio-economic levels--something no other reform has yet to accomplish." (Jepsin, Rivkin)

Teacher Training
“Smaller classes provide opportunities for teachers to engage in practices that improve student achievement. Some teachers take advantage of these opportunities; other do not. When teachers take advantage of these opportunities, the likelihood of increasing student achievement is greater.” (Anderson)

Researchers have argued that teachers new to reform efforts tend to use the same strategies (primarily lecturing) with both larger and smaller groups (Cahen, Filby, McCutcheon, &Kyle, 1983; Rice, 1999; Slavin, 1989; Stasz, 2002).

The need for teacher training to unlock the full potential of reduced class sizes was one of the main findings of Project SAGE.

“SAGE, in particular, and class size reduction in general, allows teachers the space to create meaningful learning opportunities for students. Giving teachers support to develop new strategies for teaching smaller groups makes it more likely. The presumption that change will naturally occur in teacher practice was not borne out in our observations and interviews. It would be a shame to reduce the power of this reform by not helping teachers and administrators to develop new practices matched to smaller groups. This is a step towards different kinds of teaching, one that requires guidance, reflection, and innovation.” (Graue, 2006, UWISC)

Measuring the effects of reduced class sizes
In both seminal studies standardized tests have shown improvement due to smaller class sizes.

Yet, noting the increased longevity student interest in education after being in smaller classrooms at a young age, some have wondered if the effects go beyond standardized test scores and if these types of test truly measure and encourage the best use by teachers of the potential value of smaller classes.

While others recognize that the culture of the school implementing the reform and how it is implemented (elimination of arts and other programs at the same time) play key roles as well in the success of the reform.

Because of these concerns, many (Blatchford, ***, ***) have begun to argue that perhaps standardized tests may not be the best method to measure the success of small class reduction.

Others, primarily those who once repeatedly stated that there "are no benefits to reducing class size" and that "reduced class sizes should not be studied" disagree as according to Dr. Eric Hanushek “yes, whenever I say "teacher quality," it's synonymous with the rate of achievement scores of kids in classrooms.”

Thus, while all agree that teacher quality is important, political sides have split on both how to determine the quality of a teacher and whether class size reduction helps or hinders efforts to best recruit, support, and utilize quality teachers.

The equity componant of smaller class sizes would seem to fit well with the stated goals of the Obama adminstrations goals illustrated in the Race to the Top initiative.

Disagreements over how to measure teacher quality have grown even more heated in today’s economic and political culture with teacher layoffs increasing and a larger number of schools now being deemed “failing” by NCLB standards.

Economics of smaller classrooms
Given the current uncertainty of national financial markets, some commentators have encouraged policymakers to consider whether implementing or broadening class-size-reduction policies is feasible in a time of major budget cuts. (Quality counts 2008 EPE)

In contrast, teacher magazine polls show that greater than %70 of current teachers cite lack of time for personal development, NCLB, and too large of classes as their primary barriers to both job satisfaction and their ability to teach. This has led proponents of class size reduction to note that low teacher retention rates lead to higher retraining costs and contribute to the current lack of qualified teachers. When faced with a constant flux of new teachers, student achievement has also been shown to suffer.

Some successes of the current charter school movement has been attributed to their generally smaller class sizes.

Benefits of CLR in the UK
In a British study, students were closely observed by teams of researchers who recorded their “moment to moment” behaviors in blocks of 10-second intervals. The researchers found that adding five students to a class decreased the odds of students’ being on task by nearly a quarter. In classes of 30, low-attaining students were nearly twice as likely to be disengaged as they were in classes of 15.

Contrary to some class-size studies conducted in the United States, the British researchers found no “threshold effect” in their study. In other words, classes did not have to be reduced to 15 or 20 students before the behavioral benefits started to kick in. Reducing class size at any end of the class-size spectrum seemed to help.