Class Size

In reviewing some of the literature and research over the past decade, the issue of class size has continued to draw much interest, research, and controversy. The problem persists because of the powerful assumption that students who are taught in classes with less pupils will invariably out-perform those students educated in larger groups. Given this assumption, much of the research, although not all well controlled, has substantiated the obvious. However, the findings have led to notable caveats and nuances. Moreover, the leaders in education are looking for direction which might assist in striking a balance between the initiatives to lower class size and yet permit policymakers and school districts to work within reasonable budgetary constraints.

Interestingly, there have been several major studies initiated by various states to exam the benefits of smaller class size. From 1985 to 1989, Tennesse was prompted to complete a large scale, randomized experiment called the Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) (www.aera.net). The experiment included a substantial 11,600 kindergarten through third grade students with 1,300 teachers in 76 schools from 42 districts, wherein comparisons were made between classes of 13 to 17 students and classes of 22 to 26 students. The results were touted as the most credible scientific evidence due to its large scale effort. It was found that small class size led to significant long term improvement in reading and math, with the greatest benefits noted for those students who started very early in their school career. Another study in Wisconsin (1996-1997) called Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) reinforced STAR’s results but extended the goal to focus on the achievement of children living in poverty. It was found that the impact is greatest for low-income minority students and those attending inner-city schools. Wisconsin continues to offer renewable 5-year contracts designed to promote academic achievement through lower class sizes in the primary grades. Schools receive state aid up to $2,250 for each low-income K-3 child (www.dpi.state.wi.us/sage).

Other reviews of research, i.e. Indiana’s PRIME TIME (1984) wherein the state funded an initiative to reduce class size over three years in 1^st through 3^rd grades, found positive outcomes for small classes on such factors as time on task, individualized attention and instruction, improved student behavior, and teacher satisfaction. However, the research was not well controlled and did not follow rigorous procedures, resulting in criticisms that the results were neither confirmatory nor refutable of previous findings. Another notable follow-up study, again by Tennessee, was called the Lasting Benefits Study (LBS) (1995-1996) and it involved tracking students who were in the original study, the majority who were in 10^th grade at that time. They concluded that for students who had been in smaller classes, the benefits included: lasting student motivation, student inclination to expend more effort in school, tendency to assume greater initiative in their learning, less disruptive, and less inattentive behaviors. Both the STAR and LBS studies were touted as providing compelling evidence that smaller classes in the primary grades are academically superior to classes of larger size (www.nber.org).

Continuing in this arena, other studies have focused on related issues such as student on/off task behaviors, pupil achievement levels, socioeconomic status, age effects, minority students, class size thresholds, teacher strategies and methodologies, amount of teacher-pupil interactions, teacher to pupil ratios (defined differently than “class size”), and classroom management (www.classsizematters.org).

In California and Florida, there were statewide efforts to move in the direction of smaller class size but the results have been inconclusive and costly due to the fact that other initiatives were launched simultaneously and it was difficult to tease out the long term effects on student achievement (www.2.ed.gov/pubs/).

In summary, the literature is fraught with assumptions and some evidence regarding class size effects, none of which are conclusive. Policymakers will need to carefully examine and weigh the pros and cons of such issues as: costs related to creating new facilities for classroom space, recruitment of highly qualified teachers, implementation of rigorous curriculum, teaching methodologies, considering the timing of implementation, determining threshold of class sizes, and the years of student exposure to small class size, all seemingly related and necessary to effect improvement in long term student achievement. This being a daunting undertaking, other options toward improving student achievement will also need scrutiny to include teaching reform, test-based accountability, teacher incentives, professional development, staff-evaluation practices, school choice, to name a few, as quite possibly more cost effective means to achieve the same end which is irrefutably labor-market success.

References

1. American Educational Research Association: www.aera.net

2. Links to research on the benefits of smaller class size: www.classsizematters.org

3. National Bureau of Economic Research: www.nber.org

4. Research on the Academic Effects of Small Class Size: www.2.ed.gov/pubs/

5. Konstantopoulus, S. & Chum, V. (2009). “What are the Long-Term Effects of Small Classes on the Achievement Gap? Evidence from the Lasting Benefits Study”. American Journal of Education.

6. Wisconsin Department of Public Education: www.dpi.state.wi.us/sage/index.html