Research supports class size reduction

It is the ultimate irony: Research proves that California's schools are showing dramatic improvement as a result of class size reduction in early grades. But instead of expanding the program to upper grades, the Legislature is considering bills to allow districts to increase the number of students per class in grades K-3.

Class size reduction is definitely worth fighting for, say researchers who have analyzed or conducted studies.

"The evidence shows that in California, class size reduction in the early grades has led to dramatic improvement in student test scores, parental involvement, teacher retention and narrowing the achievement gap," says Leonie Haimson, a research analyst for the New York-based organization Class Size Matters. "These gains are especially impressive if one takes into account that there is a rapidly rising number of English language learners in California, which would otherwise bring test scores down substantially."

Haimson recently analyzed several studies of class size reduction in California and arrived at the following conclusions:

• Students in all groups show significant gains in test scores as a result of smaller class size.
• Poor and minority students are making greater gains than other students, thereby narrowing the achievement gap.
• Parents are more involved in schools where class size reduction has been implemented, and are more apt to volunteer in the classroom.
• Teachers are finding that students in reduced size classes are less disruptive and more often "on task."
• Smaller classes can reduce the rate of teacher attrition.

In Los Angeles, several controlled studies showed substantial gains from smaller classes. A report from Vital Research found that smaller classes there increased reading scores on the SAT-9 exams by 9.5 percent, math scores by 13.9 percent and language scores by 14.5 percent with approximately double those gains for "high need students." During the time period covered by the studies, no other major changes that could account for the gains had taken place in either curriculum or instruction.

"Moreover, the schools in Los Angeles have now seen four years in a row of rapidly rising test scores, especially in the elementary grades, beginning just at the time one might expect the benefits of smaller classes to kick in," observes Haimson. In one 2002 survey of California schools, she notes, officials were asked what reform had had the greatest impact on the learning environment of English language learners - the number one response was class size reduction.

The Class Size Reduction Research Consortium reported in June 2002 that the number of third-graders who scored above the national median in California was 1 to 4 percent higher in schools that had implemented class size reduction than in schools that had not.

Since the state's class size reduction program began, five of the state's largest school districts - Fresno, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego and San Francisco - have reported significant test score gains, according to a study released in June 2002 by the Public Policy Institute of California. In schools with mostly low-income students, it found third-grade test scores increased 14 percent in math and 9 percent in reading.

While a couple of researchers say changes in curriculum standards, student assessments, bilingual education and retention cloud the issue of attributing gains to class size reduction alone, others say there is no doubt in their minds that class size reduction has been a success in California.

"The good news is - it worked in California," says Bruce Biddle, a Missouri University-based research analyst and author of the report, "Class Size and its Effects."

"Not only was it immediately popular among parents, kids and teachers, but the achievement of kids in smaller classes was measurably higher than those of kids who weren't exposed to small classes in the early grades."

"There were problems, of course," says Biddle. "The California program was set up in a way that was ridiculous." By implementing the program all at once, it forced schools to cannibalize lunchrooms and classrooms and buy portables. In addition, it added to the teacher shortage. "In a number of ways, the state screwed up. But despite these horrors, it is working."

If the 15 studies that have now been completed in California are looked at together, Biddle says, the conclusion has to be that "kids do better who have been exposed to small classes."

"Test scores in California are happily going up," says Dr. Charles Achilles, a professor at Seton Hall University who has studied class size reduction for decades. "All groups of students have gone up, which has been consistent with all class size reduction programs. Even though it hasn't been given enough time, the results are looking really good. Now if California would just follow through with the program it has implemented, you'd see even more consistency of the results you are now getting - and even more improvements in minority test scores."

The findings of class size reduction studies in California mirror studies of similar programs in other states. For example:

• A Princeton class size reduction study from 2001 reports that smaller classes benefit all students, but have a stronger impact on African American students. Scores increased by 7 to 10 percent among African American students and 3 to 4 percent among white students. In addition, the achievement gap for African American students in smaller classes closed by nearly 40 percent.
• The official evaluation for Wisconsin's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program in 2001 found that smaller classes help narrow the achievement gap between African American students and white students. In addition, the African American students outscored their counterparts in larger classes in language, reading and math.
• A four-year examination of Project STAR, Tennessee's class size reduction program, found that smaller classes are more effective academically than larger classes for students in primary grades. In some cases, test scores jumped more than 10 percentage points. Among the students in the smaller classes, far fewer had to be retained, according to the 1990 evaluation. Researchers found a "carryover" effect for students in smaller classes: Students in smaller classes in grades K-3 graduated on schedule at a higher rate than students from regular classes, completed school with honors at a higher rate, and attended college in higher numbers. There was also a decrease in teen pregnancy rates.
• Alan Krueger of Princeton University, author of The Class Size Debate, has concluded that smaller classes improve academic performance and future job earnings for millions of students.

"The evidence - showing that reducing class size in kindergarten through third grade increases student achievement - is some of the most powerful evidence for any education innovation in history," says Alex Molnar, who was the principal investigator for Wisconsin's SAGE program. "Anyone who says otherwise is simply misinformed or dishonest."

Why it works

Class size reduction beginning in kindergarten lays the foundation for future success, says Achilles. One of the four principal investigators in Tennessee's Project STAR, he was also involved in the Wisconsin SAGE project and other studies in North Carolina and South Carolina.

"When little kids start school, they don't know what school is. They don't know what's expected. Small classes give them a chance to learn about school, and the first few years can establish whether or not they are going to be successful. Here's a metaphor: If you hired someone to work for you for 13 years, you would take time to train that person in what you need him or her to do. You wouldn't do that in groups of 30 - especially if they were 5 years old. And some 5-year-olds can't speak English or go to the bathroom by themselves."

Among the top reasons class size reduction increases learning are:

The size of a group influences human behavior. "In large groups, some people don't participate. They think, 'Someone else can do it; I don't have to bother,'" says Achilles. "In a small group, kids can't get away. They have to participate. Because they can't hide in a corner, they are a part of what's going on - and if they are a part of what's going on, they are learning."

There is less noise and distraction. Children can concentrate and focus.

Behavior is better. Teachers have more time to teach because they have fewer discipline problems.

"We know it works," says Achilles. "The question is: Why aren't people paying attention to the fact that it works? Maybe some people don't want class size reduction to succeed. Maybe we need a source of cheap labor?"

"Long-term benefits are being sacrificed due to periodic budget crises," says Molnar, who notes that the Wisconsin program is also being threatened with cutbacks due to a funding shortage. "So they are ignoring the benefits, such as students staying in school, being more actively involved in their learning, not being retained, and attending college at a higher rate than students in larger-size classes."

"When the program is cut back, it's a savings in the most superficial and backward sense of the word. It's a little bit like financing a house with a credit card. You can do it, but it will end up costing you a lot more."

"Beware of the cry for administrative flexibility," Molnar adds, "because superintendents, school boards and legislators are tempted to use flexibility as a way of plugging temporary budget shortfalls rather than protecting important educational programs for the long term.

"And if administrators say they can't figure out a way to organize small classes, it's really a confession of a lack of administration creativity and competence on their behalf."