Class Size

Renée Ingiosi
Curriculum Development
Dr. Jay Dugan
April 14, 2010


As budget cuts are being made throughout all districts in our state, administrators, teachers, and parents project what the educational impact will have on our classrooms: Our class sizes will increase. How much should we be concerned? The debate over class size examines quantity versus quality. Theorists seem to be arguing not so much over how many students are in the class; but, more importantly how much direct instruction and interaction each student has with an instructor. Small class size advocates state that lowering classrooms to 12-17 students in kindergarten through third grade provides positive and lasting educational results. Small class critics debate that economic impact should be considered when restructuring class sizes. There have been many studies that have closely examined this debate. It is very interesting to examine the most up to date comprehensive studies.

Theorists and Studies on the Pro Side

In 1985 Dr. Charles Achilles spearheaded project STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio) which is considered to be the most comprehensive study of class size to date. In this study Dr. Achilles shows a link between smaller class size and increased student achievement. Project STAR collected data for four years and studied the achievement and development of about 7,000 students in 79 schools from Kindergarten through third grade. Kindergarten students were randomly assigned to a small class size (12-17 students) or a regular class size (22-26 students). Teachers were also randomly assigned and no interventions were used. The conclusion of the STAR study found four advantages. The first was positive results for small classes in all subject areas and all school locales. These locales included inner cities, urban, suburban and rural areas. The second advantage was that there were similar results for both girls and boys. The third was that minority students showed greater academic benefits. This was often about twice as great. The fourth advantage was that there continues to be beneficial and lasting results beyond the K-third grade experience. This was true even though all students were returned to regular-size classes in fourth grade (HEROS, 2009).

STAR expanded into the Lasting Benefits Study, Project Challenge, the Enduring Effects Study, and STAR Follow-up Studies to track students through the grades. In 1998 students in the study group graduated high school and further data analysis continues to emerge including college admission test results. Students in small classes are more likely to pursue college, particularly in minorities. According to Princeton University economist Dr. Alan B. Krueger, “Attendance in small classes appears to have cut the black-white gap in the probability of taking a college entrance exam by more than half.” (Star News, 2009).

Dr. Achilles’ study has had a strong impact on the educational community. Some states have begun to implement his practices and have started their own longitudinal study. Wisconsin began SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education) primarily in urban areas in 1996. Like STAR, SAGE began in kindergarten and continued phasing in small classes. The SAGE results found three advantages. The first was that smaller class sizes achieved higher test scores and better behavior. The second advantage was that minority and difficult-to-teach students received greater benefits than other students. The third was that economically disadvantaged students in high cost areas had the greatest achievement (Class Size Matters, n.d.).


Theorists and Studies on the Con Side

Small class critics believe that the statistics collected to date have not focused on the real issue and “pupil-teacher ratios are not the same as class sizes.” Eric Hanushek leads this debate. He argues that simply lowing class sizes does not inherently strengthen learning outcome and student achievement. Hanushek’s work calls attention to the “consistent and dramatic decline in pupil-teacher ratio over most of the twentieth century.” He explains that in the United States during 1950-1994 this ratio fell 35 percent. He further professes that class size research (including project STAR) tends to “ignore the concentration of results in the earliest grades, to generalize to class sizes outside the experiment, and to neglect any consideration of costs relative to potential gains.” (Mayer,1999) Hanushek and his followers believe that lowering class sizes does not make economical sense. He believes that putting money toward other areas like hiring qualified teachers, providing professional development and creating stronger curriculum would achieve a stronger educational impact.

There are many challenges to lowering class size. The first consideration is that class size does not equal pupil-teacher ratio. The viewpoint here is that quality instruction is most important. The second challenge is cost. Educational leaders must plan with consideration of expenses relative to potential gains. More studies need to be analyzed here. The third challenge is that schools must commit to long-term changes to see achievement. Studies have shown that lowering class sizes temporarily (for instance, one grade level) or not enough (from 28 to 25) does not provide a positive educational impact.

The debate over class size will continue to be a hot topic for years to come. It will be interesting to analyze the aforementioned studies with future data that focus on pupil-teacher ratios. One thing is clear. Schools will need to find creative ways to meet the needs of diverse learners as funding decreases.

Resources
www.classsizematters.org

www.heros-inc.org

Mayer, Susan E., Peterson, Paul E. (1999). Earning and Learning. Washington D.C.: Brookings International Press.