Running Head: CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

Class Size Reduction Emily Testani Oakland University

CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

The current focus on school reform has educators and policymakers looking for answers through a multitude of avenues. Class size reduction (CSR) seems to be the most popular educational reform strategy. Throughout the 1990s and continuing today, the American education establishment has pressed for smaller class sizes in public schools promising achievement gains (Wilson, 2010, p. 127). Reforming class size is a way to make tangible and immediate change. In spite of this, the effect class size has on student achievement is a highly debated issue in education (Maasoumi, Millimet, & Rangaprasad, 2005). This leaves educators, economist, and policymakers inquiring whether the benefits of such reform justify the cost. The debate around CSR is much attributed to the inconclusiveness of research in this area. Methodological issues and generalizations in many studies make the findings less convincing and meaningful (Buckingham, 2003). For example, some schools made changes concurrently with the implementation of CSR, which made individual effects impossible to examine. Additionally, research was not applicable to various contexts because the results could not be generalized to produce the same effects in other circumstances (Buckingham, 2003). Research demonstrated further issues when average per-pupil ratios were utilized instead of actual class size data, student achievement was focused on mean test data, and interactions between class size and other education outputs were missed (Maasoumi, Millimet, and Rangaprasad 2005). Little consistency and no relationship between class size and student outcomes could be established. As Maasoumi, Millimet, and Rangaprasad (2005) demonstrate, out of 112 studies, 23 demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between class size and achievement while 14 found a negative relationship and nine indicated a positive relationship. The absence of convincing findings creates doubt around the impact of class size reduction.

CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

Many well-known studies on CSR demonstrate the issues described above. Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio) indicated that students in small classes (13-17 students) performed higher than students in regular classes. This study did not separate the individual effect of classroom practices and how they differed between small and large classes (Buckingham, 2003). The Hawthorne Effect also is thought to have an effect on Project STAR. Caroline Hoxby studied the effects of smaller classes apart from other factors, revealing no statistically significant effect of class size on student achievement (Buckingham, 2003 & Wilson, 2010). Results from Californias CSR Initiative concluded that no strong relationship between class size and achievement was evident. In abiding by CSR legislation, Californias schools hired a large number of teachers, which led to the decline of teacher quality (Buckingham, 2003). As demonstrated yet again, an outside factor had the possibility of impacting a study and its variables. The concerns exposed in these studies can also be seen in many other studies regarding CSR. Maasoumi, Millimet, and Rangaprasad (2005) attempted research that avoided the downfalls of other CSR studies. Their study looked at test score distribution across students in varying class sizes. The results inferred that there was little effect on achievement within a range of 20 students or more. Achievement was affected for low-performing and high-performing students in differing class sizes. The researchers determined that performance improves if highperforming students are in larger classes and low-performing students are placed in small classes. Further conclusions, express that class sizes over 20 students should only be reduced if taken to below 20. Despite the conscious effort to reduce methodological problems in this study, issue could present in the disaggregated data. Selected data were broken into two types of small classes, those with 16-19 students and 10-15 students. Buckingham (2003) claims, that

CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

disaggregation can result in an overrepresentation of insignificant or negative estimates which are less powerful due to the smaller sample sizes. The issues Buckingham suggests were not specifically noted in reference to this study, however due to disaggregation the results could potentially be found inconclusive. Due to the contradictory nature of the research involving CSR, it can be difficult to make informed decisions. Many opinions surrounding this topic either tout a benefit or drawback of CSR. As a teacher, I have held strong opinions that lower class sizes are beneficial due to the fact that fewer students equal more individualized attention. However, Buckingham (2003) discredits this through simple math. Of the average five hours per day students spend in the classroom, half of that time is spent on instruction and the other half is spent on individual attention. In a classroom of 25 students this equates to 6 minutes per student, while in a classroom of 20 students would receive 7.5 minutes of individual attention. It could require up to an additional $1,150 per student to for an extra 1.5 minutes a day of individual attention. When broken down in this manner, individual attention no longer seems to be a strong argument for CSR. Aside from individual attention for students, smaller classes are thought to reduce the amount of disruptions and discipline problems. However, it is thought that class size is not an issue if teachers know how to manage students (Wilson, 2010). If teachers are effectively controlling their classroom, discipline and disruption should not be a problem regardless of class size. In response to this, do teachers simply want to manage students or truly educate them? Though, many are capable of managing children, can teachers effectively educate the same number of students they can successfully manage. Consequently, there is more to this argument than the simple solution of the employment of effective managers.

CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

Cost is the most evident objection to CSR. The expense of class sizes can result in the need for many new teachers and new classrooms that must be built, equipped or maintained (Wilson, 2010). Further costs can be incurred through professional development. Teachers of small classes are thought to rarely change their teaching and class management styles. In order to change these things, professional development is required which is an additional cost due to CSR (Buckingham, 2003). One aspect of smaller classes may justify the increased cost of CSR. Buckingham (2003) claims that spending can be offset by the decreased cost of teacher attrition, stress and sick leave associated with smaller class sizes. The ambiguity surrounding CSR makes it evident that there has to be a different focus for school reform. In the arguments for and against CSR, one aspect continually resurfaces. It seems that good teaching proves to be imperative. Educators and policymakers agree that it is far more important to have a great teacher educating many students instead of a mediocre teacher instructing a few. As Buckingham (2003) states, Research tells us that effective teaching is much more important than the number of children in the classroom. It is, therefore, much wiser to invest in the quality of teachers rather than the quantity (p. 72). Defining what makes quality teachers and investing in creating a workforce containing these teachers should be a primary focus of school reform. Wilson (2010) explains that it is far better to allocate our limited resources to employing more capable teachers rather than reducing class sizes. Energy would be far better spent creating, hiring, and retaining effective teachers than fighting over the number of students placed in classrooms. Investigating CSR proves there are still some lingering questions and concerns. Abundant research has been devoted to studying small class sizes and the point at which student achievement increases. However, I was unable to find much research addressing the breaking

CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

point at which student achievement falls apart. Many students demonstrated no difference in performance in classes of 20 versus 25. However, how many student can be placed in a classroom performance begins to disintegrate? Even though little difference is seen in student achievement between 21 and 27 students, would there be a significant difference between 24 and 34 students? I feel more research is still needed before we start packing classrooms with 32 or more students, especially at the elementary level. Another concern revolves around the constant influx of new legislation for teachers. It was stated that above all else, good teaching matters most. However, how is a profession that is continually taking hits from policymakers going to be able to attract and retain effective, quality teachers? Clearly, this issue should be addressed alongside the many other school reform initiatives. Ultimately, the issue of class size seems best left to schools. Individual districts can then assess their population, teaching staff, financial standing, and student needs to make decisions around class size. As Buckingham (2003) asserts, Mandatory maximum class sizes set at an arbitrary figure are yet another unnecessary restriction on schools ability to use their resources in ways that best meet the needs of their students (p.85). Educators need to assure that the use of resources is driven by what is best for students not solely what is best for teachers, budgets, and the government.

CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

References Buckingham, J. (2003). Class size and teacher quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2, 71-86. Krueger, A. B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F34-F63. Maasoumi, E., Millimet, D. L. & Rangaprasad, V. (2005). Class size and educational policy: Who benefits from small classes? Econometric Reviews, 24(4), 333-368. Wilson, S.F. (2010). The Efficient use of Teachers. In F. M. Hess & E. Osberg (Eds.), Stretching the school dollar: How schools and districts can save money while serving students best (pp. 125-153). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press