Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
217662650
label
[Does Class Size Make a Difference?] [Report]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
217662650
contentType
document
title
[Does Class Size Make a Difference?] [Report]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Andrew Rotherham's Education Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
217662650
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
7763333-20110103S-002-007-2013
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a25f6ccdb9f0a5b0
ocrText
Does
Class Size
Make a
Difference ?
Recent Findings from State
and District Initiatives
1996
By
Paula Egelson, Patrick Harman, and C.M. Achilles
SERVE
South Eastern Regional Vision for Education
Associated with the School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
SERVE
SouthBustern Regional Vision for Education
Edited by
Jim Bleyer. Production Manager
LucyAnn Walker-Fraser. Research and Dissemination Specialist
Designed by
Kelly Killman Drvden. Senior Design Specialist
SERVE Publication's Quality Assurance Team
Charles Ahearn. Director of Publications
Jim Bleyer: Production Manager
Kelly Killman Dryden, Senior Design Specialist
Lisa Gray, Distribution Specialist
Christa Karantinos, Design Specialist
Nikki Lewis. Information Communications Specialist
LucyAnn Walker-Fraser, Research and Dissemination Specialist
The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies
of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. U.S. Department of
Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or
organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
This document was produced with funding from the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement: U.S. Department of Education. under contract no. RJ96006701.
2
Contents
List of Tables and Figures
4
Author's Note
4
About the SERVE Organization
5
Acknowledgments
8
Overview
9
A History of Reduced Class-size Research
10
Introduction
10
Tennessee's STAR Initiative
11
Project Challenge
13
Lasting Benefits Study
15
Current State-Level Initiatives
15
Spotlight on Burke County, North Carolina
18
Introduction
18
Burke County Schools and Community
18
Program Planning and Implementation
19
Facets of the Burke County Reduced Class-size Initiative
19
Burke County Project Evaluation
22
Perceived Benefits
22
Student Achievement Comparisons
25
Other Reduced Class-size Plans
27
Conclusions
28
References and Bibliography
29
Endnotes
34
Ordering Information
35
3
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Progression of Students in the STAR Experiment by School Year and Grade
11
Table 1
A Comparison of First Grade Reading Mean Scale Score Differences by Ethnicity
and Treatment
13
Table 2
Grade 2 Average Ranking of Challenge Systems, TN: 1989-90 through 1992-93
(of 138 Systems)
14
Author's Note
I
[ is important to preface any discussion about class size by making a distinction
between two terms which seem synonymous but are. in fact, quite different.
These terms are student-teacher ratio and average class size which is the focus of
this report. A student-teacher ratio is calculated by dividing the number of
students in a school by the number of certified personnel at that school. Certified
personnel include not only regular classroom teachers but also music, art, physical
education. and special education teachers. Average class size is calculated by
dividing the number of students in a school by the number of regular classroom
reachers. For example. a recent study of the Boston Public Schools (Miles, 1995)
found that the student-teacher ratio for the district was 13:1 but the average class
size was 23. thus. a more accurate representation of the typical classroom setting.
4
About the SERVE
Organization
S
ERVE, the South Eastern Regional Vision for Education, is a consortium of
educational organizations whose mission is to promote and support the
continuous improvement of educational opportunities for all learners in the
Southeast. Formed by a coalition of business leaders. governors, policymakers, and
educators seeking systemic. lasting improvement in education. the organization is
governed and guided by a Board of Directors that includes the chief state school
officers, governors, and legislative representatives from Alabama, Florida, Georgia.
Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Committed to creating a shared
vision of the future of education in the Southeast. the consortium impacts
educational change by addressing critical educational issues in the region, acting as
a catalyst for positive change. and serving as a resource to individuals and groups
striving for comprehensive school improvement.
SERVE's core component is a regional educational laboratory funded since 1990 by
the Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI). Building from this
core. SERVE has developed a system of programs and initiatives that provides a
spectrum of resources. services, and products for responding effectively to national,
regional. state and local needs. SERVE is a dynamic force. transforming national
education reform strategies into progressive policies and viable initiatives at all
levels. SERVE Laboratory programs and key activities are centered around:
Applying research and development related to improving teaching. learning
and organizational management
Serving the educational needs of young children and their families more
effectively
Providing field and information services to promote and assist local
implementation of research-based practices and programs
Offering policy services, information, and assistance to decision makers
concerned with developing progressive educational policy
Connecting educators to a regional computerized communication system, so
that they may search for and share information, and network
Developing and disseminating publications and products designed to give
educators practical information and the latest research on common issues and
problems
The Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Consortium at SERVE is part of the
national rastructure for the improvement of mathematics and science educa-
5
tion sponsored inv CERL The consortium coordinates resources, disseminates
exemplary instructional materials. and provides technical assistance for imple-
menting teaching methods and assessment tools.
The South and Islands Regional Technology in Education Consortium
(SEIRTEC) serves 1-states and territories. A seven-member partnership led by
SERVE. the consertium offers a varietv of services to foster the infusion of
technology into K-12 classrooms. The Region IV Comprehensive Assistance Center
provides a coordinated. comprehensive approach to technical assistance through
its partnership with SERVE.
A set of special purpose institutes completes the system of SERVE resources. These
institutes provide education stakeholders extended site-based access to high
quality professional development programs: evaluation and assessment services:
training and policy development to improve school safety: and subject area or
project-specific planning and implementation assistance to support clients' school
improvement goals.
Following the distributive approach to responding and providing services to its
customers. SERV E has ten offices in the region. The North Carolina office at the
University of North Carolina at Greensboro is headquarters for the Laboratory's
executive services and operations. Policy offices are located in the departments of
education in Alabama Georgia. Mississippi, North Carolina. South Carolina, and in
the Florida office in Tallahassee.
SERVE-Alabama
Clearinghouse
800-352-3747
Policy
E-mail 800-487-7605
50 North Ripley Street
5106 Gorden Persons Suilding
Math Science Consortium
Montgomerv. 35104
904-671-6033
334-242-9755
800-854-0476
Fax 334-242-9705
Fax 904-671-6010
SERVE-Florida
SERVE-Georgia
345 South Magnolia Drive
Suite D-23
Technology, Field Services
Tallahassee. FL 32501
41 Marietta Street, NW
Suite 1000
Early Childhood.
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-577-7737
Publications. Policy
800-659-3204
904-671-6000
SERVE-Line (modem only)
800-352-6001
800-487-7605
Fax 904-671-6020
Fax 404-577-7812
6
Policy
SERVE-South Carolina
State Department of Education
2054 Twin Towers East
Policy
Atlanta, GA 30334
1429 Senate Street
404-657-0148
1005 Rutledge Building
Fax 404-657-0501
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-4110
Fax 803-734-3389
SERVE-Mississippi
Delta Project
SERVE, Inc.
Delta State University
P.O. Box 3183
North Carolina
Cleveland, MS 38733
601-846-4384
Operations
800-326-4548
P.O. Box 5406
Fax 601-846-4402
Greensboro. NC 27435
910-378-0456
Fax 910-378-0747
Policy
State Department of Education
The SouthEast and Islands
P.O. Box 771
Jackson, MS 39201
Regional Technology in
601-359-3512
Education Consortium
Fax 601-359-3242
800-377-5011
Fax 910-272-5880
SERVE-North Carolina
Comprehensive Assistance
Center
Executive Services, Evaluation,
910-272-5878
Research and Development,
SERVE-Line (Modem Only)
Operations
800-487-7605
P.O. Box 5367
Greensboro. NC 27435-5367
Evaluation and Assessment
910-334-3211
Services
800-755-3277
800-755-3277
Fax 910-334-3268
Southeastern Professional
Policy
Department of Public Instruction
Development Institute
404-577-7737
Education Building
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Southeastern Regional Safe
919-715-1244
Schools Institute
Fax 919-715-0764
910-378-0011
Special Projects Institute
910-378-0456
7
Acknowledgments
W
e wish to thank the many Burke Countv Schools (NC) educators we
consulted, interviewed. or observed over a two-year period. Always
gracious and cooperative. they provided the valuable information
needed to evaluate their reduced class size initiative and write this document.
We are grateful to the following individuals who reviewed this document and
provided us with helpful feedback. They include:
Beckv Arndt-Brown, Homebound Instructor and parent. Burke County Schools.
Morganton. NC
Ann Berlam. NC Legislative Director. State Board of Education. Raleigh, NC
Gina Burkhardt. SERVE Executive Services Manager, Greensboro. NC
Randall Brackett. Assistant Superintendent. Instructional Services and Finance.
Burke County Schools, Morganton, NC
Brian Curry. SERVE Senior Policy Analyst. Tallahassee. FL
JoLane Hall. Teacher. Richland School District Two, Columbia, SC
Joel Hastings. Exceptional Children Program Director, Burke County Schools,
Morganton. NC
Marla Holbrook. SERVE Senior Policy Analyst, Montgomery. AL
Wavne Honevcutt. Former Director of Elementary Education. (Retired), Burke
Countv Schools, Morganton. NC
Sally Hutchings. Assistant Principal, Dade County Schools, Miami, FL
Nancy Livesay, SERVE Project Coordinator, SERVEing Young Children, Tallahassee,
FL
Wendv McColskey, SERVE Research and Development Manager, Greensboro, NC
Linda McCulloch, Senior Associate, NC Governor's Education Office, Raleigh. NC
Steve Ricks. 1995 Alabama State Teacher of the Year. Childersburg, AL
8
Overview
M
any variables fect how well students do in school. Although educators
have little control over some variables. thev do have control over many
of the variables associated with student learning. In 1991. Wang and
Walberg conducted a synthesis. using information from research and expert
opinion. of variables considered important to learning. Through this synthesis.
228 variables were identified as having an luence on student learning. These
variables were then classified into six broad categories such as Student variables and
School-Level variables.
A survey. administered to a cross-section of educator groups. validated the list of
variables and categories. These educators, including teachers, principals. state
directors, and researchers. were asked to rate the importance of each variable.
Under the Program Design category (i.e., curriculum design and instructional
variables). size of the instructional group was one of nine variables rated as "highly
important". Based on this research. educators view class size as a factor in improv-
ing student learning.
Educators seem to know intuitively that youngsters work and learn well in small
groups and that it is more productive to teach smaller groups of children than the
typical range of 24-32 found in elementary classrooms in America today. For
example. educators who develop both remedial and advanced programs typically
use small classes and even tutorials to deliver their programs.¹ Special education
and compensatory education efforts provide participants "extra" help in groups
that seldom exceed 10-15 participants. Successful remedial programs such as Success
for All may start with small classes of about 15 and then add extras such as tutors
or home and school counselors (Slavin, Karweit and Wasik, 1993; Slavin and
Madden. 1995). Other programs. such as Reading Recovery, may use highly-skilled
teachers as tutors (Pinnell, DeFord and Lvons. 1988: Dyer. 1992).
Most class-size research uses comparisons of test-score differences between class-
size conditions. Equally important, however, are attempts to discern what actually
happens in the smaller size classrooms that may help explain and account for some
or the test-score differences that may be obtained. Understanding why differences
occur is as important as understanding the raw data on achievement.
Educators, policymakers, parents. and community leaders need to understand and
be knowledgeable of current research on class size issues. SER offers this report
on some recent class-size initiatives as an update to educators. The purposes of this
document are to 1) highlight results from Tennessee's reduced class-size experiment
of the 1980s. 2) summarize the efforts and results from other recent state-level
initiatives, 3) focus on the efforts and results of a reduced class-size initiative in
Burke County Schools, North Carolina, 4) discuss the findings from and applica-
tions of these class-size initiatives, and 5) provide an extensive reference section to
enable educators to further explore issues surrounding class-size initiatives.
9
A History of Reduced
Class-Size Research
Introduction
By the 1970s. the general consensus regarding the efficacy of reducing class size to
improve educational outcomes was, at best. that the research was inconclusive (see,
for example, Ryan and Greenfield. 1975 and Porwoll, 1978). However, in September
of 1978. Glass and Smith published a meta-analvsis² of reduced class-size studies in
which thev considered the results to have "established clearly that reduced class-
size can be expected to produce increased academic achievement (p. iv)" with the
major benefits being accrued when class size is reduced below 20 students. In 1979,
Glass and Smith published a second reduced class-size meta-analysis examining
affective measures in which they found that reducing class size results in increases
in student interest and teacher morale as well as changes in teacher practices.
Rather than settling the class size issue. however. these studies set off a debate with
other researchers. These researchers (Educational
Research Service, 1980a,b; Simpson. 1980; and Cacha,
Reducing class size to
1982) criticized the meta-analytic studies' methodol-
fewer than 20 students
ogy, the reliance on few studies. interpretations which
they viewed as contradictory. and conclusions they
resulted in the greatest
felt were overgeneralized. As a result, they cautioned
benefit in terms of
against the use of these findings in developing
educational policy.
achievement gains.
The Glass and Smith studies did have an impact on
educational policy. though. In 1981. Indiana initiated a
reduced class-size demonstration project called Prime
The average effect of
Time to test the feasibility of reducing classes
statewide in grades 1-3. Spurred by increases in
reduced class-size was
student achievement, fewer discipline problems, and
greater in well-
increased teacher productivity in smaller classes
(Indiana State Department of Public Instruction,
controlled studies than
1983). the Indiana Legislature reduced first grade
in poorly-controlled
classes to 18 students in 1984 and expanded the effort
to include third grade or. if a district chose, kindergar-
studies.
ten in 1986. While no systematic statewide evaluation
was conducted (Gilman, Swan, and Stone, 1988),
results of the Prime Time initiative on student
achievement and af fective measures were considered
The duration of the
positive. This led Mueller, Chase, and Walden (1988) to
state, "The Prime Time findings make a strong case for
study impacted the
reducing class size in the primary grades."
findings.
10
Amid all the controversies over the findings of the Glass and Smith meta-analvses.
three important results or the achievement meta-analysis stood out. The first was
that reducing class size to fewer than 20 students resulted in the greatest benefit in
terms of achievement gains.
The second was that the average effect of reduced class-size was greater in well-
controlled studies than in poorly-controlled studies (Glass and Smith. 1978). Studies
that were "true" experiments with students randomly assigned to reduced or
regular class-sizes showed more gain in achievement for reduced class-size students
than did studies that did not use random assignment. any type of matching to
equate students in regular and reduced classes, or "repeated measures" designs in
which the same students were in both regular and reduced-size classes. That is, the
stronger the experimental design, the stronger the achievement gain.
The third result was the realization that the duration of the study impacted the
findings. In a svnthesis of their research on class size. Glass. Cahen. Smith. and Filby
(1982) demonstrated that the well-controlled studies exceeding 100 hours resulted
in greater effects on student achievement for reduced-size classes. These three
important features of well-designed reduced class-size studies were incorporated
into Tennessee's statewide reduced class-size experiment.
Tennessee's STAR Initiative
In 1985, researchers in Tennessee initiated Project STAR (Student Teacher Achieve-
ment Ratio), a centerpiece of Governor Lamar Alexander's major education reform.
Designed as a true educational experiment. Project STAR employed random
Figure 1
Progression of Students in the STAR
Experiment by School Year and Grade
School Year
Grade
K
1
2
3
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
11
assignment of more than 7,000 students and teachers at 79 sites to different class
size conditions. used outside testing monitors at school sites. and three class-size
treatments for pupils who entered kindergarten (K) in 1985 (or grade 1 in 1986)
and who progressed through grade 3. Figure 1 shows the progression of students in
the STAR experiment from K through third grade.
Students were randomly assigned to one or three class-size conditions: 1) a small (S)
class of about 15 students. 2) a regular (R) class of about 25 students. or 3) a regular
class with a full-time teacher aide (RA). There were over 100 classes of each of the
three types each year until the experiment ended at the conclusion of the 1988-89
school year. Thus. students had experienced one of the following "treatments" for a
minimum of three years:
S = A small class with approximately 15 students
R = A regular class with approximately 25 students
RA = A regular class with approximately 25 students and a teacher aide
In 1989-1990, STAR pupils returned in grade 4 to "regular" classes. Student
achievement was measured by the Stanford Achievement Test in grades K-3 and
STAR's Basic Skills Criterion Tests in grades 1-3.
Findings rom the STAR study showed that:
At the end of the 1985/86 school year. kindergartners in small classes (S) had
educationally and statistically significantly greater achievement than
kindergartners in regular classes (R) or in regular classes with a teacher aide
(RA) on the reading and math sections of the Stanford Achievement Test and
the STAR Basic Skills Criterion Tests.
At the end of the 1986/87 school year, first grade students in small classes
(S) continued to significantly outperform students in regular classes (R) as well
as regular classes with a teacher aide (RA) on reading and math sections of the
Stanford Achievement Test and the STAR Basic Skills Criterion Tests.
The pattern of students in smaller classes (S) significantly outperforming
students in regular classes (R) and regular classes with a teacher aide (RA)
continued in second (1987/88 school year) and third grades (1988/89) on the
reading and math portions of the Stanford Achievement Test and the STAR
Basic Skills Criterion Tests.
Longitudinal results for a subsample of students in the same class size
condition for three years (K-2) showed that the achievement advantage gained
in kindergarten was maintained in grades 1 and 2.
12
Table 1
A Comparison of First Grade Reading Mean
Scale Score Differences by Ethnicity and
Treatment
Ethnicity
Treatment
1st Grade Stanford
Mean Difference
Achievement Test
from Small Class-Size
Reading Mean Scale Score
Small
530
-
White
Regular
518
-12
Aide
525
- 5
Small
507
-
Minority
Regular
489
-18
Aide
492
-15
There was no consistent positive effect of the teacher aide in regular classes
(RA) condition versus the regular classes with no teacher aide (R) condition in
grades K-3. That is, there were no differences in test scores between regular size
classes that had teacher aides and those that did not.
In grades K-3, minority pupils in small classes benefited more than non-
minority pupils, particularly in reading. The mean difference between
minoritv students in S classes and minority students in R and RA classes was
greater than the mean difference between non-minority students in S and
non-minority students in R and RA classes. An example of this finding in first
grade is shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the mean scale score difference
between white students in S and those in R was 12 scale score points (530
versus 518) while for minority students it was 18 scale score points (507 versus
489).
Inner-city (predominantly minority) students in smaller classes had
significantly higher self-concept scores in grades 1 and 2 than inner-city
students in R or RA classes, and in grade 3 they also had significantly higher
motivation scores than inner-citv students in R or RA classes.
(Word et al.. 1990; Finn and Achilles. 1990)
13
Table 2
Grade 2 Average Ranking of Challenge
Systems, TN: 1989-90 through 1992-93
(of 138 systems)
89-90
90-91
91-92
92-93
Math
85
79
59
57
Reading
99
94
87
78
* A ranking of 1 being high; a ranking of 138 being low.
Project Chailenge
When Project STAR ended, state leaders used state and Chapter I funds to initiate
Project Challenge, a broad-scale policy application of STAR's results in 17 (ulti-
mately 16) of the state's poorest counties. The goal of the project was to improve
the academic performance of these "at-risk" students by enabling teachers, through
reduced class sizes of approximately 15 students. to use more fective classroom
practices. In these districts, class sizes were reduced in all K-2 classrooms in 1989.
Part of the project's evaluation (Achilles. Nve, Zaharias and Fulton, 1995) simply
examined changes in the average state rank of these school systems using grade 2
results. The results are shown in Table 2.
In interpreting these results consider that Tennessee had 138 systems. A ranking of
69 would be average; a ranking of 90 would be below average and a ranking of 50
would be above average. It should be noted that in 1989-90 pupils in grade 2 had
only one year of smaller classes. In 1990-91 the pupils had two years in smaller
classes and beginning in 1991-92. students had smaller classes for three years (K-2).
The continuing movement upward in the rankings suggests that the reduction in
class size was helping to increase students' scores on the state tests. In math, the 16
districts had actually exceeded the average state ranking of 69 by 1992. By 1993,
these districts had moved from an average ranking of 85 to 57 in math (an average
gain of 28 ranks). The gain in reading was from 99 to 78 or an average of 21 ranks.
14
Lasting Benefits Study
Since there was concern about the lasting benefit of reduced-size classes. legislators
provided funding for researchers to follow STAR students after they had returned
to "regular" classes. This project. called the Lasting Benefits Study (LBS). has
followed students through grade 9 (as of 1995). Evaluations of LBS show that the
positive effect of small classes in early primary remains after students return to
their "regular" classes. although the differences between pupils in small and in
regular classes diminish slightly over time (Nye, et al., 1994, 1993. 1992: Finn. Fulton.
Zaharias and Nve. 1989).
Researchers hope to track students until they leave the education system after
grade 12. Their "development" using such things as discipline, attendance. and
participation will be analyzed along with the continuation of the achievement
differences related to the class condition of the students' early primary schooling.
Over 4,500 students are in the LBS database.
Conclusion
In Tennessee. these evaluations have had significant luence in generating
support for K-3 reduced class size. Legislators in Tennessee were farsighted in
providing funding for a comprehensive evaluation study of the state's reduced
class-size initiatives. The state has legislated a class size of 20 in all K-3 classrooms
since the end of STAR. Initiated in 1989. Project Challenge continues to provide
resources for 16 districts within the state to have a class size of 15 in grades K-2.
Current State-Level Initiatives
Initiated in the 1980s. Indiana's Prime Time program and STAR in Tennessee are
examples of pioneer state reduced class-size efforts. Other-states. luenced by the
two programs and local reforms. have legislated reduced class size. Some states have
lowered the number of students in a class to the low twenties; other initiatives
have been more in keeping with the research that recommends one teacher to
everv 15 students. In collecting information on current state-level initiatives,
differences were found in how reduced class size was defined. The definition of
"small" appears to be critical in studying evaluation findings because research has
generally been unclear about effects when there are over 20 students in a class-
room. When reports conclude that class size efforts have been unsuccessfu
readers should look carefully at how "small class size" was defined. The following
section highlights several initiatives of states that have accepted the challenge of
reducing class size to 20 or fewer in the early grades.
Florida
In 1979. the Florida Legislature created the Primary Education Program (PREP) to
provide individualized instruction for each student in kindergarten through
third grade and to increase the number of teachers and other instructional
personnel in primary classrooms. + The Legislature appropriated categorical funds
for the PREP program from 1979-80 through 1990-91. The funds paid for a primary
15
specialist in each school and for extra instructional personnel. Today, some Florida
districts maintain elements of the PREP program such as screening students at
kindergarten entry. assigning individual instructional strategies, and maintaining
low class size. Since 1995, several bills before the Legislature proposed to reduce
class size in primary grades to 20 students for every teacher.
In the 1995-96 General Appropriations Act. $40 million was set aside for school
districts to begin reducing the size of first through third grade classes to a class size
of 20. Since many of the districts do not have the space to meet the goal. they were
allowed to meet the goal by adding a teacher assistant for every 10 students above
20. The Department of Education is compiling a report for the Legislature about
how districts used their 1995-96 class-size reduction money. Several class-size
reduction bills were filed for the 1996 session.
Nevada
The Nevada Class Size Reduction Act was passed during the 1989 legislative session.
Implementation began in fall 1990 and full implementation is expected to be
completed bv fall 1996. In the first year. a 15:1 student-teacher ratio was imple-
mented in selected kindergarten classes and all first grades and, in 1991-92. second
grades were added. A 15:1 ratio has been maintained through continued state
funding in first and second grade Nevada classrooms. In the fall of 1996 there will
be more funds available to reduce class size in the third grade. It is important to
note that not all primary classrooms had a class size of 15. Because of space
limitations in many schools. districts used alternative class configurations - two
teachers and 30 children sharing a classroom. multi-grade classrooms, pull-out
instruction. flexible grouping. developmental classes - to meet the reduced
teacher-student ratio. Approximately 30 percent of first and second grade
classrooms utilized alternative configurations. Thus, Nevada's Class Size Reduction
Act is not strictly a reduced class-size initiative but also a reduced student-teacher
ratio initiative.
The Nevada State Department of Education evaluation of the reduced class-size
program (Snow. 1993) concluded:
teachers and principals. as assessed by surveys, were very positive in their
attitudes toward class-size reduction and believed it contributed to an
improved learning environment
school districts reported fewer special education referrals and less teacher
absenteeism
although achievement data results were mixed, African-American students
performed better in reading and math in the smaller classes
achievement comparisons between self-contained (1 teacher and 15 students)
and alternative classroom configurations suggested that African-American
and English as a Second Language students performed better in self-contained
16
classrooms than in alternatively configured classrooms.
A 1995 evaluation or the Nevada Class Size Reduction Act bv the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratorv concluded that reduced class size had a small but
significant effect on student performance as measured by 1993-94 second grade
student test scores in mathematics and reading when compared to class sizes of
more than 15 (Pollard and Yap, 1995).
Virginia
In 1995. the General Assembly established a long-term goal of reducing class sizes in
grades K-3 in those schools with high or moderate concentrations of at-risk
students. At-risk is defined as those students being at-risk for dropping out of
school because of academic problems. high absenteeism, and/or behavior problems.
Beginning in July 1996, there will be state funds available for localities to reduce
class size voluntarily in K-3 classrooms. Local school systems will have to provide
matching funds for class-size reductions based on a composite index of local ability
to pay.
Wisconsin
Legislation passed in 1995 will phase in reduced-size classes of 15 students on the
primary level in low-wealth schools. Low-wealth is defined as a high percentage of
students on free and reduced lunch. Only one low wealth school per system is
eligible to participate because of limited funding. For 1996-97. participating
schools will have a class size of 15 in kindergarten and grade one. for 1997-98 a class
size of 15 in kindergarten through second grade. and for 1998 through 2001 a class
size of 15 in grades kindergarten through third.
The legislation also provides for comprehensive staff development for teachers and
an accountability component by which participating teachers submit professional
development plans that describe how they will improve pupil achievement with
an accompanying evaluation of their student outcomes.
17
Spotlight on Burke County,
North Carolina - A District
Level Class-Size Initiative
Introduction
For the past 15 years, class-size initiatives have frequently been debated and
initiated on the state level via legislation. Thile states continue to be interested in
reducing class size in the primary grades. the initial state-wide costs associated with
such efforts are high. Some districts consider class size to be such a critical
component for improving student outcomes that they use local funds to initiate
such a program. A local initiative in Burke County Schools (Morganton, North
Carolina) shows how districts can impact class size. Educators in Burke County
requested SERVE's assistance in evaluating the impact of this program.
Burke County Schools and Community
With 13.000 students, the Burke County school system is the 25th largest of North
Carolina's 119 school systems. The system employs approximately 900 classroom
teachers and operates 14 elementary schools. four middle schools, two high schools
and one alternative school. Although several furniture. textile, and other
industries are located there, the county remains essentially rural with isolated
urban areas. The largest employer is state government with two prisons, two
mental institutions. and otherstate facilities.
Over the past several vears there has been a dramatic increase in the number of
English as a Second Language (ESL) students entering Burke County Schools. For
the 1995-96 school year, the system was 87% Caucasian, 8% African American, and
5% other minorities including approximately 1.000 Hmong, Hispanic. Laotian,
Taglog, Guatemalan. and Chinese students. In comparison, for the 1994-95 school
year there were 667 ESL students enrolled.
In Burke County, 40 percent of the adults have less than a high school education.
Yet, most citizens hold education in high esteem. evidenced by the local effort to
retain the reduced-size classes. The school board of Burke County allocated more
than $1.3 million during the 1994-1995 school vear for the reduced class-size project
(grades 1-2 in all elementary schools and grades 1-3 in four schools). A similar
amount was included in the 1995-1996 school budget.
18
Program Planning and Implementation
In 1990, Burke County Superintendent Carlos Hicks decided to pilot a reduced
class-size program at the elementary level in order to increase student achievement
in reading and mathematics. A feasibility committee. comprised of educators.
parents. and community members, was asked to evaluate the practicality of a
reduced class-size initiative. The committee was charged with four tasks: 1) the
examination of current research of class-size and student achievement. 2) the
evaluation of elementary school facilities as it related to classroom space. 3) a study
of personnel requirements. and 4) a study of staff development needs.
In order to select the schools which would participate in the pilot. the feasibility
committee developed an application process for each of the 14 elementary schools.
The application required the interested school representative to: 1) write an
education plan of what teachers would do differently in the reduced size classes. 2)
discuss how they would physically accommodate the additional number of
teachers and classes. and 3) demonstrate the staff's interest in pursuing the project.
Seven elementary schools applied and three were accepted based on the selection
criteria. One additional school became part of the project by using Chapter 1 funds
to reduce class size in the primary grades. An evaluation of this first-year pilot
effort was designed with future expansion dependent on the results.³
First year evaluation results (1991-92) of the reduced class-size initiative of first
grade classes in four elementary schools were positive.6 The project was expanded
in the second year to include the first grades in all 14 elementary schools and the
second grades in the four original pilot schools. The second project-year evaluation
(1992-93) again showed positive results and the project was expanded in 1993-94 to
include all first grades. second grade in seven schools, and third grades in the four
pilot schools. In 1994-95. the initiative was expanded to include all second grade
classes. For the 1995-96 school year, the project was expanded to include the third
grades at two additional elementary schools. Student enrollment for the reduced
class size initiative for the 1995-96 school year was 2.860 with 1.193 first graders. 1.125
second graders. and 542 third graders.
Facets of the Burke County Reduced
Class-Size Initiative
The reduced class-size project in Burke County is a multi-faceted school improve-
ment initiative with financial, facility, personnel, staff development, and teacher
adaptability issues to consider. Actions taken in these areas are described below.
Funding
The initial $180.000 cost of the first grade class-size reductions at the four pilot
schools in 1991-92 was paid from contingency funds from the current operating
budget. In 1992-93 local support for the project jumped to $274,000 with expan-
sion to first grade in the 14 elementary schools and second grade in the four pilot
schools.
19
In 1993. the cost of the program increased to $1,225,000 with full implementation
in grade one. seven schools in grade two. and the four pilot schools in grade three.
In 1994. 11 mobile units at $23,000 each were purchased for $253,000; the total cost
of the program was $1,478,000. For the 1995-96 school year, there was a class size of
15 in all first and second grade classrooms in Burke Countv's 14 elementary schools.
Six elementary schools also have reduced class sizes in their third grades. The
budget (1995-1996) was $1,219,000 with the purchase of 10 additional mobile
classroom units at a cost of $230.000. Based on financial resources and space, the
ultimate plan is to have a class size of 15 students in every first, second and third
grade classroom in Burke Countv.
Space
Prior to the beginning of the 1991 project. the system went from a K-6 elementary.
7-9 junior high school, 10-12 high school configuration to a K-5.6-8, and 9-12
scheme. This change made previous sixth grade classrooms in elementary schools
available for primary classroom space. In elementary schools where space was
limited. mobile units were added. If the reduced classes are expanded to the
remaining third-grade classrooms. additional mobile units will be purchased or
permanent space built. School personnel have made the mobile sites attractive by
connecting the building and the mobile units with ramps and decks. Because
parents strongly support the reduced class-size project. using mobile units for
additional classroom space has not been an issue.
Personnel
Since the 1980s. the state of North Carolina has funded teacher assistants in all
primary classrooms (K-3). With the reduced class-size initiative, Burke County
officials made the decision not to use assistants in the smaller-sized classrooms.
Since officials were prohibited from using assistant position money for teaching
positions, displaced assistants were trained to work in a one-to-one tutoring
program or were moved to work in the upper grades of their assigned schools.
Some assistants who quit or retired were not replaced. The elimination of teacher
assistants in K-3 has been the most controversial aspect of the initiative because
support for the assistants is strong in the community and their reassignment/
removal has been questioned: (In 1995. the North Carolina Legislature passed a law
that gave Burke County and Mecklenburg County unrestricted authority to
convert assistant dollars to teacher dollars.)
Staff Development
When the reduced class-size program was implemented in Burke County, a
comprehensive staff development program for reduced class-size teachers at the
four pilot schools was developed. The system's director of elementary education
facilitated bi-monthly support meetings for teachers at various locations where
they could receive inservice for professional growth and development. As schools
were added, the meetings evolved into grade-level team meetings at the school site.
Ideas and concerns were presented and shared.
With the smaller class sizes, district personnel realized that assessing student
progress could be made more personal and ongoing. School officials formed a
study group of teachers to work with a consultant to design a primary student
20
writing and reading portfolio. Administrators and teachers believed that the
portrolios. which consisted of a reading log and monthly student writing samples.
were a more individualized and authentic assessment or student work on the
primary level than standardized tests and a more effective communication tool in
discussing student progress.
Besides three comprehensive individual student-teacher conferences to assess
reading and writing, teachers were encouraged to hold three teacher-parent
conferences focusing on the portfolio. Ninety-percent of the parents participated.
Influenced by a revised Standard Course or Study in North Carolina. the
primary-level curriculum programs in mathematics. science. and reading changed
at the same time the reduced class-size initiative in Burke county was started. The
state math curriculum went to an exploratory approach. The science curriculum
was designed around thematic units which included a "hands on component.
Reading books were literature-based. During the first three years or the program.
staff development was intensive and consultants conducted a series of workshops
in the different curriculum areas. A staff development program continues with
new primary teachers to the system receiving inservice programs in reading and
math.
21
Burke County Project
Evaluation
E
valuation results are critical in order for educators to make informed
decisions about the ffectiveness of a program and needed changes for
future success. This realization is flected in the planning and implemen
tation of the project as well as in its annual evaluation reports. In the following
sections. evaluation results are discussed in the areas of perceived benefits and
comparisons of achievement between students in reduced classes and those in
regular classes.
Perceived Benefits
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Burke County reduced class-size
initiative? How have participating primary teachers in Burke County accepted
and responded to the reduced class-size program? What about parent approval
and administrator support?
Since the onset of the program, teachers, administrators, and parents have
completed surveys, been interviewed, and testified. Some participating teachers
have been observed. Specifically these evaluation activities have included the
following:
At the end of the 1991-92 school year, 28 reduced class-size first grade teachers
responded to a questionnaire designed to assess frequency of use of effective
early childhood educational practices.
At the conclusion of the 1993-94 school year, 112 first. second, and third grade
reduced class-size teachers completed a survey comprised of open-ended
questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the plan.
In spring 1995, two trained observers observed reduced and regular-sized (about
25 students) third grade classrooms in four Burke County elementary
schools. The viewers used the Personal-Instructional-Task instrument (PIT)
developed by French and Galloway in 1970. The focus was on teacher-student
communication events as related to instructional time and frequency of
discipline incidents.
Several participating teachers, principals, and parents were interviewed for a
story on reduced class size that appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer
newspaper on January 22, 1995.
Since 1992, parents have testified at school board meetings in support of the
reduced class sizes.
22
In all cases. the results of the surveys, interviews. and
observations have strongly favored the reduced class-
Janice McMahan,
size initiative.⁷ Responses to the surveys, interviews.
testimonies. and observations were analyzed and fell
principal at Drexel
into five categories: expanded classroom space,
Elementary School
improved classroom management, a stronger
instructional and assessment program. enhanced
noted, "If you aren't
student self-concept and relationships with peers. and
working harder, you
stronger teacher-parent communication. These
categories are interrelated and complement each
probably aren't doing it
other.
right. You now have 15,
In the following section, each category is detailed
not one big class. If all
using background information and supporting
you are going to do is
evidence gleaned from teachers, administrators, and
parents.
pass out work sheets, go
back to a bigger class."
Expanded Classroom Space
Teachers reported that there are unanticipated
benefits to using regular-sized classrooms (approximately 600 square feet) for
smaller classes. With fewer students in relatively large rooms. a more varied and
active instructional program can be presented such as learning and activity
centers, project-based instruction, and experiments. This complements a develop-
mentally appropriate primary program. As one teacher observed. "More classroom
space allows for better movement control. classroom centers, and large group
activities."
Improved Classroom Management
Teachers said there were fewer discipline problems in their reduced class-size
classrooms as compared to larger size classes. With fewer students, participating
teachers said that they are able to know their students better and the atmosphere
in their classrooms is more collaborative. The results of the PIT classroom
observation instrument showed that in reduced class-size classrooms, 86% of
classroom time was spent on instruction and 14% on institutional events like
discipline. as opposed to 80% instructional time and 20% institutional events in
regular-sized classrooms.
Enhanced Instruction and Assessment
This is a critical area in the implementation of a reduced class-size program.
Reduced class size requires a change in traditional teaching methods from whole-
group instruction and use of textbooks to small-group and individualized
instruction using teacher-made materials and "hands activities. Janice
McMahan, principal at Drexel Elementary School noted. "If you aren't working
harder, you probably aren't doing it right. You now have 15, not one big class. If all
you are going to do is pass out work sheets, go back to a bigger class."
In 1992, when 28 participating first grade teachers were asked about instructional
practices, the majority reported that they employed child-centered practices in
their classrooms. They believed that it was important for students to make choices
23
within their learning environments - whether selecting a center or choosing a
partner for an activity. The teachers considered it beneficial to have large and
small-group activities for children in a noncompetitive atmosphere. Work shee
were discouraged as a method of instruction with active exploration regarded a
crucial. The types of activities incorporated into classrooms on a daily basis
included reading stories to children as well as using centers for small group wori
and manipulatives to teach mathematics. Other instructional activities include
gross motor exercises. music. dramatic play, and educational games.
Reduced class-size teachers reported having more time to work with and assess
individual students. Teachers covered more material and at greater depth than it
previous years. These teachers also reported that students were able to contribute
more in class than in past years. Some of their observations:
"In larger groups it took twice as long to do anything - like going to the
lunchroom or rest room, returning papers, or taking attendance. In smaller
classes. I have quality time with the students. There is quicker transition time
"Students have more opportunities to contribute in class and receive more
individual attention."
"1 am more aware of individual progress and have a better feel for individual
needs than 1 had before. 1 have had a chance to assess each child's strengths anc
weaknesses."
The greatest difference is that children learn more in a class size of 15. I cover
more material and at greater depth."
"It is so much easier to get to know the kids. I know more about them by
November than I might learn in a whole year with a bigger class. You are much
more likelv to reach a child who you really know."
Enhanced Student Self-Concept and Relationships with Peers
School system and state officials are motivated to move to reduced-size classes
primarily to improve student achievement. Another positive payoff of a reduced
class-size initiative, which is rarely discussed, is the social/emotional impact on
students. Teachers and parents commented that students in reduced classes
develop strong friendships with peers and work together well in teams. Students
appeared more confident in the smaller classes. Teachers and parents reported:
"Students develop closer friendships among themselves. They support,
encourage, and respect each other."
"They get to know each other really well. really think they want to help each
other succeed."
"Children in reduced-sized classes feel more comfortable with school and are, in
general. more confident."
24
Teacher-Parent Communication
On surveys, teachers reported that they had better and
"I am more aware of
more frequent communication with parents than in
individual progress and
previous years with larger classes. There were three
parent-teacher conferences throughout the year and two
have a better feel for
night meetings for parents focusing on how to help their
individual needs than I
children in reading and math. Parents noted that in the
reduced-class size schools. thev could talk with teachers
had before. I have had a
almost daily.
chance to assess each
Concerns Related to Reduced Class Size
child's strengths and
Concerns were raised by the teachers related to the lack
weaknesses.'
of assistants in their classrooms. Many felt they needed
an "extra set of hands" to handle paperwork and to be
available to assist with rest room breaks and emergencies.
Some mentioned frustration over the additional
"Children in reduced-
paperwork associated with student portfolios. A few
teachers reported that they felt that students in reduced-
sized classes feel more
size classes were more dependent on teachers and that
this dependence carried over into the intermediate
comfortable with school
grades. Overall, no single. dominant concern emerged in
and are, in general,
response to the reduced class-size initiative.
more confident."
Student Achievement Comparisons
In fall 1991. personnel in Burke County designed the student achievement
component of the class-size reduction initiative evaluation. In 1993-1994, the
Burke County "pilot" pupils were in third grade and the svstem personnel sought
outside evaluation assistance. In keeping with SERVE's mission to promote and
support the continuous improvement of educational opportunities for all learners
in the Southeast. the staff seeks opportunities to collaborate with educators on
reform efforts - particularly those reforms such as the reduced class-size initiative
which can affect the entire region. SERVE Research and Development staff
provided assistance in designing and conducting statistical analyses. Presented
below are the evaluation design and a summary of results from the first three years
of the project.
In the 1991-1992 school year. the reduced class-size initiative began in first grade
with four schools selected to have class sizes of 15. The remaining 10 elementarv
schools had class sizes of approximately 25 and were available as "control" schools.
Students in the "experimental" condition were matched as closely as possible to
students from the control schools.
Two different matched groups of students were selected to serve as comparisons to
the "experimental" condition: one group was selected for reading achievement and
a second group was selected for math achievement. The criteria on which students
25
for the control group were selected were matches to gender. free-lunch status,
teacher experience, and the D.C. Heath reading and state math pre-test scores of
students in reduced-sized classes.
At the end of first grade, reduced class students significantly outperformed
the control students (class size of 25) on both the state math test and the D.C.
Heath reading test (Burke County, 1992). Since there were only six months
between the pre- and post-tests, estimates of the program's impact were likely
underestimated.
At the end of the 1992/1993 school year, with students from the experimental first
grade classes moving into second grade, two additional control groups (reading
and math) were selected based on the first grade D.C. Heath reading and state math
post-tests and free lunch status. This re-matching provided information on the
effect of reduced class-size for the second grade perience only.
At the end of second grade, after two years of smaller classes, reduced class
students significantly outperformed the control students at the end of second
grade on the D.C. Heath reading test and the state math test (Burke County,
1993). Thus, reduced class size at the second grade produced achievement
gains in reading and math when compared to control groups over and above
gains produced in the first year.
At the end of the 1993/1994 school year, comparisons were made using the North
Carolina 3rd Grade End-of-Grade (EOG) test. A unique feature of the EOG test is
the developmental scale score that provides an indication of a student's growth
from year to year. For example, the average third-grade developmental reading
scale score is approximately 143. The average fourth-grade reading scale score is 147.
One would, therefore, expect an average growth in reading proficiency to be four
developmental scale score points.
At the end of third grade⁸, after three years in smaller classes, reduced class-
size students were compared to the control students selected at the beginning
of first grade. Reduced-class students significantly outperformed regular-
class students by approximately a year in reading and math as measured by
the North Carolina End-of-Grade test developmental scale scores.
Conclusion
The evidence convinced Burke County educators of the value of reducing class
sizes. There were struggles and issues to resolve which included cost, allocation of
classroom space. and the loss of teaching assistants in primary grades. The process
was not easy but support remains strong from the Burke County Board of
Education. Burke County Superintendent Tony Stewart. teachers and administra-
tors, community members. and parents. Burke County has demonstrated that
school district officials can take the lead in reducing class sizes given sufficient
political will and educator commitment.
26
Other Reduced Class-size
Plans
P
reviously, state and district level reduced class-size initiatives were high
lighted. With the implementation of site-based management and decentral-
ized decision making in many districts. decisions about allocation of
resources and, ultimately, class size may fall to the school level. Although no
comprehensive research review of initiatives at this level was attempted. leadership
at Oak Hill Elementary School in High Point. North Carolina.
confirmed that educators at the school level can also be proactive in
the real issue
reducing class sizes.
is not the
Educators at Oak Hill. a designated Chapter 1 school, made the
number of
decision in 1992 to reduce class sizes on the primary level based on
research and problem diagnosis. From 1992 to 1994. K-2 classes at Oak
students per
Hill had approximately 15 students. The advantages of the initiative
classroom but
included spacious classrooms appropriate for a variety of activities.
more individual time devoted to each student. a reduction in
how instruction
discipline problems. and a sense of community within individual
is organized and
classrooms (Achilles. Kiser-Kling, Owen and Aust, 1994).
how many
Many school system of ficials want to reduce the number of students
students are
in classrooms but lack the resources to hire additional teachers and
locate extra space. Two ways of reducing class size without addi-
grouped together
tional expense include parallel block scheduling and the Oak Park
for particular
Plan. These two plans shift the concept of class size to the notion of
instructional
instructional group size suggesting the real issue is not the number
of students per classroom but how instruction is organized and how
programs
many students are grouped together for particular instructional
programs (Mitchell. Carson. and Badarak. 1989). Both of these
(Mitchell,
methods have been successfully implemented on the elementary
Carson, and
level.
Badarak, 1989).
Parallel block scheduling (Canady, 1990) decreases class size for part of
the school day. Regular-sized classes are split in two during reading and math
instruction. Half of the class remains with the teacher for reading and math
instruction while the other half attends specialty classes such as music, art, or
computer lab. The two groups then trade places. The second strategy, the Oak
Park Plan (Mueller. 1985), requires that all teachers in a school - including
specialists - teach 15 students in core academic areas (reading, math, language arts)
for three hours a day. For the remaining 2.5 hours of the school day, the other
subjects are taught in regular class sizes of approximately 25 students. and
specialists provide service opportunities and consultative services. Both of these
plans emerged because educators believed that pull-out and ability classes for
students on either end of the spectrum were not entirely effective. If class size
could be reduced in core academic areas, then students' instructional needs could
be individualized.
27
Conclusions
T
he results of reduced class-size studies found in this document are positive
and add an important replication to class-size research studies. The
consistency in the findings of these studies may be attributed. in part. to
the duration of these studies. the numbers of pupils in the studies. and the fact that
the studies are implemented in the early primary grades - the first years of
schooling for the pupils in the studies. Reduced class size gives a good early start in
school. which is important for student achievement and later success. Smaller class
sizes make sense for all children but appear to especially benefit minority children
as evidenced in the Tennessee study, the results in Nevada, and the reduced class-
size plan in Wisconsin.
These findings should give education leaders added confidence in the results of
class-size research. Attention to smaller class sizes in early elementary grades holds
promise for the improvement of educational outcomes. As evidenced in the Burke
County plan. the outcomes of a reduced class-size initiative included increased
student achievement. a more focused instructional and assessment program in
primary grades with an emphasis on the individual learner. more time devoted to
instruction and less on classroom discipline, better teacher-parent communica-
tion. and improved student self-concept and peer relationships.
Any effort to improve educational outcomes must include development of a
comprehensive plan addressing needed changes in curriculum. instruction and
assessment. staff development and support. and cultivation of a broad base of
understanding and support. The process should also include an evaluation
component that studies implementation. allows for needed adjustments, provides
teacher input and planning time. and evaluates results. The uniqueness of the
Tennessee STAR and Burke County programs is their demonstrated long-term
attention to collecting data on their forts that. in turn. lead to better decisions.
Finally, the determination of class size is an aspect of ongoing decision making
about how best to allocate available resources. With increased decentralization.
these kinds of decisions are being made more frequently at district and school
levels. The research suggests that for states, districts. and even schools. class size is a
very basic and significant variable to consider in improving educational outcomes.
28
References and
Bibliography
(This section contains references cited in the text as well as additional entries on
class-size research and literature.)
Achilles. C. M., Harman. P. and Egelson. P. (1995a). A local districts commitment to use
research results. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association of School Administrators annual convention. New Orleans. LA.
Achilles. C.M., Harman, P. and Egelson. P. (1995b). Using research results on class size
to improve pupil achievement outcomes. Research in the Schools. 2. 23-30.
Achilles, C. M., Kiser-Kling, K., Owen. J., & Aust. A. (1994). Success Starts Small: Life in a
small class. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Final
Report. Small-grant School-based Research.
Achilles. C.M. & Moore. C. (1986. December). Some comments on class size: A review of
major issues. Working paper prepared for Project STAR. Contact Center for
Excellence for Research on Basic Skills. TN State University at Nashville.
(Drart).
Achilles. C.M., Nye, B.A. and Bain. H.P. (1993-94). The test-score "value" of
kindergarten for pupils in three class conditions at grades 1, 2. and 3. National
Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 12(1). 3-15.
Achilles. C. M., Nye, B.A., Boyd-Zaharias. J., & Fulton. D.B. (1993, November).
Creating successf schools for all children: A proven step. Journal of School
Leadership. 3(6), 606-621.
Achilles, C.M., Nye, B.A., Zaharias, J.B., & Fulton. B.D. (1993, January). The Lasting
Benefits Study (LBS) in Grades 4 and 5:A legacy from Tennessee's four-vear (K-
3) class-size study (1985-1989), Project STAR. Paper presented at the meeting of the
North Carolina Association for Research in Education (NCARE). Greensboro.
NC.
Achilles, C.M., Nye, B.A., Zaharias, J.B., & Fulton. B.D. (1995. April). Policy use of
research results: Tennessee's Project Challenge. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. CA.
Bain. H.P., Achilles, C.M. & Witherspoon-Parks. M. (1988, November). Three-vear
longitudinal study of small class size: The Metro-Nashville Public Schools
Study. 1984-1987. Paper presented at Annual Conference of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association (MSERA), New Orleans. LA.
Bain, H.P., Achilles. C.M., Zaharias, J.B. & McKenna, B. (1992, November). Class size
does make a difference. Phi Delta Kappan. 74(3), 253-256.
Bingham. S. (1994). White-minority achievement-gap reduction and small class size: A
research and literature review. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State University, Center
of Excellence for Research in Basic Skills.
Bingham, S.* (1993, December). An examination of small class as a "gap reduction"
strategy for achievement differences in groups of students, K-3. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
Bloom. B.S. (1984a. June/July). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of
group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher,
13(6). 4-16.
29
Bloom. B.S. (1984b. May). The search for methods of group instruction as effectiv
as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher. +. (8), 4-17.
Boyd-Zaharias. J., Achilles, C.M.: Nve, B.A., & Cain. V.A. (1994). Random class
assignment and student achievement: A Project STAR ancillary study. In E.
Chance (Ed.), The quality school. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.
Burke Countv (NC) Public Schools. (1993). Reduced class size: Grades 1 and 2.
Morganton. NC: Author.
Burke County (NC) Public Schools (1992, July). Reduced class size: Pilot project.
Morganton. NC: Author.
Cacha. F.B. (1982). The class size and achievement controversy: Contemporary
Education, 54. 13-16.
Cahen. L.S., Filby, N., McCutcheon. G., & Kyle, D.W. (1983): Class size and instruction
New York: Longman.
Calhoun, J.B. (1962, February). Population density and social pathology. Scientific
American. 206(2).
Canady, R.L. (1990. January). Parallel block scheduling: A better way to organize a
school. Principal, 69:3.
Chase, C.I., Mueller, D.J. & Walden. J.D. (1986. December). PRIME TIME: Its impact on
instruction and achievement. Final report, Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department
of Education.
Cooley, W.W. (1993, May). The difficulty of the educational task. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania Educational Policy Studies. Paper #16.
Cypher. T.W. (1995). School size and the quality of education. In E. Chance (ed.),
Creating the quality school (pp. 384-387). Madison. WI: Magna Publishers.
Dver. P.C. (1992. Winter) Reading Recoverv: A'cost-effectiveness and educational-
outcomes analysis. ERS Spectrum, 10(1), 10-19.
Educational Research Service. (1978). Class size: A summary of research. Arlington,
VA: Author.
Educational Research Service. (1980a). Class size research: A critique of recent meta-
analyses. Arlington, VA: Author.
Educational Research Service. (1980b). Class size research: A critique of recent meta-
analvses. Phi Delta Kappan, 62. 239-241.
Ellis. T.I. (1984). Class size. A digest prepared for ERIC-CEM. Eugene, OR: ERIC-CEM.
ERIC - CEM. (1994) Value search. Class Size. Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse for
Educational Management.
Evertson. C.M. & Folger, J.K. (1989. March) Small class. large class: What do teachers do
differently? Paper at American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA. (Draft).
Finn. J: D. (1989, Summer). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research,
59(5), 117-142.
Finn, J.D. (1993, August) School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
(NCES 93-470).
Finn, J.D., & Achilles, C.M. (1990, Fall). Answers and questions about class size: A
statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557-577.
Finn. J.D., Achilles, C.M., Bain, H.P., Folger, J. Johnston, J., Lintz, M.N., Word, E. (1990).
Three vears in a small class. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 127-136.
Finn. J.D., & Cox. D. (1992, Spring). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-
grade pupils. American Educational Research Journal. 29(1), 141-162.
These studies and dissertations are extending the STAR. LBS and Challenge data
as a way to try to understand the impact of either a small class or a full-time
30
teacher aide on the conditions being studied.
Finn. J.D., Fulton, D., Zaharias, J. & Nye, B. (1989, Fall). Carry-over effects or small
classes. Peabody Journal of Education. 67(1), 75-84.
Finn. J.D. & Voelkl. K.E. (1992. February). Class size: An overview of research. Buffalo.
NY: State University of New York at Buffalo. Occasional Paper 92-1.
Flaxman, E., Burnett. G. & Ascher. C. (1995). The unfulfilled mission of federal
compensatory education. In Flaxman & Passow (Eds). Changing populations:
Changing schools. 102-123. NSSE. Part II. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Florida Primary Education Program. Section 230.2312, Florida Statues, Tallahassee. FL:
author. 1819-1822.
Folger, J. (Ed). (1989, Fall). Project STAR and class size policy. Issue devoted to class-
size research. Peabody Journal of Education. 67(1). (Issue published in 1992).
Fowler, W.J. Jr. & Walberg. H.J. (1991, Summer). School, size, characteristics. and
outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 13(2), 189-202.
French, R.L., & Galloway, C.M., (nd). Communication events: A new look at classroom
interactions. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. (About 1970).
Gilman, D.A., Swan. E., & Stone, W. (1988). The educational effects of a state
supported reduced class size program. Contemporary Education, 59, 112-116.
Glass. G.V., Cahen. L.S., Smith. M.L., & Filby, N.N. (1982). School class size. Research and
policy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Glass. G.V., & Smith. M.L. (1978). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class
size and achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development.
Glass. G.V., & Smith. M.L. (1979). Relationship of class size to classroom processes. teacher
satisfaction, and pupil affect: A Meta-analysis. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory
for Educational Research and Development.
Hamburg, D.A. (1992). Todav's Children. New York: Time Books, Random House.
Harvey. B.* (1993, December). An analysis of grade retention for pupils in K-3.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
Harvey, B. (1994). Retention: A narrative review of one hundred years of practice. What are
the alternatives? Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research in Basic Skills.
TN State University
Heritage Foundation (1993. November). For-profit public school management
spreads. Business/Education Insider. 34. (Author)
Hibbs. B.F.* (In Process). Relationships among discipline factors and early student
placement in small (1:15), regular (1:25) and regular-with aide classes.
Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform VS. reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 37(1), 8-16.
Hodgkinson, H. (1992). A Demographic Look at Tomorrow. Washington, DC: Institute
for Educational Leadership.
Indiana State Department of Public Instruction (1983). Project Primetime: 1982-83
report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 239 765)
Kagan, S.L. (1995). Normalizing preschool education: The elusive imperative.
In Flaxman & Passow (eds). Changing populations: Changing schools, NSSE. Part 11
(pp. 84-101). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kiser-Kling, K. (1995). A comparative study of life in first-grade classrooms of 1:14 and 1:23
teacher pupil ratios. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of North
Carolina, Greensboro.
Lindsay, P. (1984, Spring). High school size, participation in activities. and young
adult social participation: Some enduring effects of schooling. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(1), 73-83.
31
Lindsay, P. (1982. Spring). The effect of high school size on student participatio
satisfaction, and attendance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 4(1).
57-65.
Madden. N.A., Slavin. R.E., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L.J., & Wasik, B.A. (1993, Spring)
Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-c
elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1). 123-148.
Miles, K.H. (1995). Freeing résources for improving schools: A case study of teach
allocation in Boston Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analy.
17(4), 476-493.
Mitchell. D., Carson, C., & Badarak, G. (1989). How changing class size affects classroo
and students. Riverside. CA: California Educational Research Cooperative.
Mosteller. F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. Cambric
MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Initiatives for Children. (136
Irving Street, 02138).
Mueller. D.J., Chase, C.I., & Walden, J.D. (1988). Effects of reduced class sizes in
primary classes. Educational Leadership, 45. 48-50.
Mueller, E., (1985, March). The Oak Park Plan: The fourth R, Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association of School Administrators
(AASA) Dallas, TX.
National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) (1995). Ninety-fourth Yearboc
of the NSSE. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Part I, Creating New
Educational Communities: Part II, Changing Populations, Changing Schools.
Nve, B. A.. Achilles, C. M., Boyd-Zaharias. J., & Fulton. B. D. (1994). Project Challenge:
Fourth-year Summary Report. Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research
in Basic Skills, Tennessee State University. (Also 1993, 1992, and 1991 for third,
second. and first-year reports).
Nye, B. A., Achilles, C. M., Boyd-Zaharias, J., Fulton, B. D., & Wallenhorst, M. (1994).
Small is far better. Research in the Schools, 1(1), 9-20.
Nve. B.A., Achilles, C.M., Zaharias, J.B., Fulton, B.D., & Wallenhorst, M.P. (1993,
Winter). Tennessee's bold experiment: Using research to inform policy and
practice. Tennessee Education, 22(3), 10-17.
Nve. B. A., Boyd-Zaharias, J., Fulton, B. D., Achilles, C. M., & Pate-Bain, H. (1994). The
Lasting Benefits Study: Fourth-year report. Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for
Research in Basic Skills, Tennessee State University. (Also 1993, 1992, and 1991
for third. second. and first- year reports).
Nve, K.* (1995). Do small classes help ameliorate the generally negative effects of large
schools on pupils achievement, K-3? Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Pallas. A.M., Natriello. G.& McDill, E.L. (1995). Changing students/changing needs.
In Flaxman & Passow (eds). Changing Populations: Changing Schools, NSSE (Part 11,
pp. 30-58). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pinnell, G.S., DeFord, D.E., & Lyons, C.A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early Intervention
for At-Risk First Graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Pollard, J. & Yap, K. (1995). The Nevada class size reduction evaluation study 1995. Carson
City, NV: Nevada State Department of Education.
Porwoll, P.J. (1978). Classize: A summary of research. Arlington, VA: Educational
Research Service.
Robinson. G.E. (1990, May). Synthesis of research on the effects of class size.
Educational Leadership, 47(7), 80-90.
32
Ross. S.M., Smith. L.J., Casev, J. and Slavin. R.E. (1995). Increasing the academic success
of disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention
programs. American Educational Research Journal. 32. 773-800.
Rvan. D.W. and Greenfield, T.B. (1975). The class size question. Toronto. Ontario.
Sarason. S.B. (1992). Letters to a serious education president. Newbury Park. CA: Corwin.
Shapson. S.M.. Wright. E.N., Eason, G., & Fitzgerald. J. (1980). An experimental study
of the effects of class size. American Educational Research Journal. 17. 141-152.
Simpson, S.N. (1980). Comment on "Meta-analvsis of research on class size and
achievement". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2. 81-83.
Slavin. R.E., Karweit. N.L. & Wasik. B.A. (1993). Preventing early school failure: What
works? Boston. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin. R.E. & Madden. N.A. (1995). Success for all: Creating schools and classrooms
where all children can read. In Oakes & Quartz (eds). Creating New Educational
Communities. NSSE (Part 1, pp. 70-86). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Slavin. R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.J., Livermon, B.J., & Dolan, L. (1990, Summer).
Success for all: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming
urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 255-278.
Snow. M.B. (1993). The 1993 Class size reduction evaluation study. Nevada Department
of Education: Carson City, NV.
Tomlinson. T.M. (1988). Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas. Washington.
DC: US Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Tomlinson, T.M. (1990. Fall). Class size and public policy: The plot thickens.
Contemporary Education. LXII(1), 17-23.
Wang. M.C. and Walberg, H.J. (1991). Teaching and Educational Effectiveness:
Research Synthesis and Consensus from the Field. In Effective Teaching: Current
Research. Waxman. H. and Walberg, H. (Eds.). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
Publishing.
Weikart. D.P. (1989, June). Quality preschool programs: A long-term social investment.
Occasional paper #5. Ford Foundation Project on School Welfare and the
American Future. New York: The Ford Foundation (28 pp.).
Whittington. E.H., Bain. H.P. & Achilles. C.M. (1985. Fall). Effects of class size on first-
grade students. ERS SPECTRUM, 3(4), 33-39.
Word, E., Johnston. J., Bain. H., Fulton. D.B., Boyd-Zaharias, J., Lintz, M. N., Achilles. C.
M., Folger, J., and Breda, C. (1990). Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR):
Tennessee's K-3 Class-size Study. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of
Education.
Zaharias, J.B.* (1993, December). The effects of random class assignment on elementary
students' reading and mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Tennessee State University, Nashville.
Zaharias, J.B., Achilles. C.M., Bain, H.P., Nye, B.A., and Fulton, B.D. (1995). Quality
Schools build on a quality start. In E. Chance (ed.) Creating the Quality School.
Madison, WI: Magna Publishers.
Zaharias. J.B., Achilles, C.M:, Nye, B.A., and Cain, V.A. (1995). Random class assignment
and student achievement: A Project STAR ancillary study. In E. Chance (ed.).
Creating the Quality School (pp. 367-379). Madison, WI: Magna Publishers.
33
Endnotes
i
for examples, see Ross, Smith, Casey, and Slavin, 1995
2
Meta-analysis is a set of quantitative procedures designed to compare and
combine results of studies which addressed the same research question
(Rosenthal, 1984).
3
In 1985, kindergarten was not mandatory in Tennessee. Consequently, there
were approximately ten percent more students enrolled in first grade than in
kindergarten.
4
Section 230.2312 Florida Statutes
5
allotted additional funding from the federal government because of the large
number of students on free and reduced lunch.
Evaluation results are discussed in the next section.
:
Some teachers have expressed concerns about the initiative and those concerns
are reviewed in the latter portion of this section.
8
For more information on 3rd grade results. please see Achilles. Harman, and
Egelson (1995b)
34