THE RUSH TO SMALLER CLASS SIZES: A COST / BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE An in-depth investigation of the trend toward lowering class sizes, its costs, and its effect on student performance. By Ralph Wilbur 27 Marbleridge Road North Andover, MA 01845 978-683-2766 November 2002 THE RUSH TO SMALLER CLASS SIZES: A COST / BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE CONTENTS About the Author.............................................1 Introduction.................................................2 The STAR Project Study.......................................3 Leading STAR Project Advocate Confirms Limitations on Class Size Effect...................................4 STAR Critics Speak Out.......................................5 An Overall View in the Aggregate.............................7 Teacher Compensation Share Drops Relative to Education Spending Growth.............................11 The Union Plays Its Card....................................12 Telling Admissions from a Study Supporting Class Size Reduction..................................14 Thinking It Through.........................................16 The Cost of Class Size Reduction............................17 Should We Leave It to the Education Experts?................20 Alternatives to Class Size Reduction........................23 Conclusion..................................................23 Postscript..................................................24 THE RUSH TO SMALLER CLASS SIZES: A COST / BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE Page 1 About the Author Ralph Wilbur is a seven-year resident of North Andover whose early education, K-10, was in the blue-collar community of Medford, Massachusetts. Class sizes he attended ranged from 30 to 40 students. His family moved to Winchester, where he spent his last two years of secondary education at Winchester High School. There, class sizes were not much different. He graduated from high school during the third month of his 17th year, having applied to Bowdoin College and M.I.T. He was accepted at both schools, choosing to attend M.I.T., where he earned his Bachelor's Degree in Business and Engineering Administration. After graduation, he entered the family printing business which he presently owns and operates in Lawrence. Prior to living in North Andover, Mr. Wilbur resided in Andover for 28 years. In that community, he became actively involved in education matters as he perceived declining achievement of Andover students on college boards and national standardized tests resulting from the introduction of untested programs, open classrooms, and a weak curriculum. Mr. Wilbur became interested in the class-size question as he observed class populations decreasing and school costs escalating without corresponding improvements in student achievement. He found that much of the disproportionate education cost increases nationwide over the past three decades are a result of over-stressing the value and importance of small class sizes to the sacrifice of alternative, more effective methods of delivering quality education. The results of his extensive research on this topic have confirmed his original concerns. Page 2 Introduction One of the most potent forces, if not the most formidable influence, driving school budgets today is the pervasive belief that smaller class sizes ensure better student academic achievement. Parents simply take for granted that smaller class sizes mean better education. Educators encourage moves to shrink classroom populations. Teachers' unions get more members. Administrators get more staff. It's all just wonderful. Who dares throw a wet blanket on this scenario? But there is one thing terribly wrong. There is little credible evidence supporting the view that reduction in class size results in better pupil achievement. Over the past 50 years, the class-size question has been one of the most studied education issues, but the greatest body of evidence shows that class size is not a significant parameter in the learning process compared to other factors, such as teacher quality, curriculum, expectations, incentives, etc. This is not a new revelation. Study after study has shown that the only noticeable effect of policies to reduce class size is a dramatic increase in the cost of schooling, without significant achievement gains. This is something known, but largely ignored, in education circles. And not only do reduced class sizes result in burgeoning costs for hiring additional teachers, but they bring about a need for more classrooms, more school buildings, portables, and all the subsidiary costs for maintenance that such capital expenditures demand - a "double whammy" consuming budgetary resources and threatening the affordability of alternative education improvement strategies. The current fiscal plight, experienced by North Andover and other local school systems, can be directly linked to the gradual reduction of class sizes that has occurred over the past 3 or 4 decades. It is reported that over the last 10 years, North Andover has added one new staff member for each approximately five new pupil enrollments. Over the past five years, we have added one new staff member for each approximately three new pupil enrollments. Last year, there were 21 new hires. The student population increased by only 17 students. That's an increase of more than one staff member for every additional student. If the recent 4 million dollar override had succeeded, the school department had planned to hire 28 more staff this year. It had already been decided prior to the override vote. This staff inflation trend is increasing the cost of education in local communities by millions of dollars, and nationwide by billions of dollars. Nationally, class size reductions have boosted that portion of per pupil education costs attributed to instructional staff salaries at a dramatic rate, reaching 85% between 1970-1990, even though the school age population actually declined from the mid-1970's to the mid-1980's. (Hanushek and Rivken, 1997.) Salaries comprise the bulk of per-pupil cost expenditures. The costs for construction of new school buildings to house the greater number of classrooms required by lowering class sizes are in addition to these staffing costs. Page 3 Since 1986, the goal of the National Education Association (NEA), our most powerful teachers' union, has been to reduce class sizes to 15 students. Most teachers' colleges and education professionals, along with their respective organizations, support this move regardless of its cost or efficiency. The financial impact on limited public resources that such policies entail is seldom considered. That there may be more effective methods to achieve excellence in our public schools is swept aside in the rush to lower class sizes. Today, across the nation, local school systems and taxpayers are reaping a whirlwind of burgeoning costs resulting from these policy undertakings. 1.1 The STAR Project Study The major impetus for the popular movement toward reducing class sizes is provided by the 1986 STAR report. The STAR Project is the study that most supporters of reducing class size use to advance their claims. In 1985, on the urging of Dr. Helen Pate-Bain, a former professor of Educational Administration, HB 544, the Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio Study - now known as the STAR Project, was passed by the Tennessee legislature. Dr. Pate-Bain, initiator of the project, was a past president of the National Education Association (NEA). (The NEA and AFT teachers' unions together represent three million public school teachers, with 1.3 billion dollars in revenue from dues, and 6,000 full-time staff members.) While education policy makers frequently use the STAR Project to support calls across the nation for reduction in class size, analysis of the actual results of the STAR Project provide no such support, with the exception of kindergarteners and students with special needs. Stanford University's Eric Hanushek states that, "None of the STAR data support wholesale reduction of class sizes across grades in schools." He adds that, "Many questions about STAR's design, procedures, and methodology remain unanswered because data from the experiment has not been made generally available to other researchers for their analysis and interpretation." Critics of the STAR Project point out that the only discernable impact on student achievement from reducing class size occurs in kindergarten. However, the STAR Project is cited by educators and small class-size advocates as justification for any sort of reduction in class size, at any grade in school, even though the study only dealt with K-3. Such a conclusion is brought about by the use of smoke and mirrors. By graphically plotting STAR test scores in grades 1-3, on the same graph for both small and regular size classes, it can be shown that kindergarten test scores for smaller classes plot higher than the large class control group. (See Findings, 1999 Hanushek.) Page 4 For each grade increment, the plot shows that the original kindergarten test score differential between small and regular class sizes is sustained through grades 1-3. Looking at this graph, the casual observer can be misled to believe that reducing class sizes shows increased student achievement from grade 1 through grade 3. This plot, whether it is in graphical or table format, is the key "evidence" being used by the small class-size advocates to justify state and federal incentive programs to reduce class sizes across the board, K through 12. But this common misinterpretation ignores the fact that if small class sizes were consistently responsible for improved student achievement, one would expect the performance differences between the respective small and large class sizes (K through 3) to broaden from grade to grade after kindergarten. They do not. The plots are parallel curves. The slope of the smaller class-size plot at any point is nearly identical to that of the regular class-size curve. These plots do show the positive effects of smaller class sizes achieved at kindergarten, but no cumulative improvement is recorded thereafter. The STAR data is clear. The so-called small class advantage does not extend beyond kindergarten or, at best, the first grade. If the STAR Project proves anything at all, it demonstrates the importance of kindergarten. It fails to produce substantive evidence to counter the hundreds of studies demonstrating that wholesale reduction of class sizes across all grades, K-12, does not significantly impact student performance. With the powerful lobbying resources of the teachers' unions, the small class-size activists have been markedly successful in promoting their ideas to leaders in government and the public. But leaders in government, and the public at large, are not invited to read the ambiguous and contradictory language from the SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS on page 17 of the STAR Report itself, which states, "Small class effects diminish after first grade. The small class effect is concentrated in kindergarten and grade 1. This finding suggests that class-size reduction should be concentrated in kindergarten and grade 1 where effects will be greatest. This also indicates that there is no additional class-size effect after grade 1." 1.2 Leading STAR Project Advocate Confirms Limitations on Class Size Effect On April 25, 2002, a symposium was held at Harvard University involving several nationally eminent economists. The topic of discussion embraced Roles for Human Capital Policies, and included a segment on class size. The STAR Project was cited. The main speakers were Alan B. Krueger, Blenheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs from Princeton University, and James Heckman, Year 2000 Nobel Laureate in Economics from the University of Chicago. Lawrence H. Summers, President Page 5 of Harvard University, spoke in his capacity as Professor of Economics. Eric Hanushek from Stanford, among others, also spoke. Those commenting on the STAR Project agreed it was a useful experiment, but there was general consensus that the study raised more questions than it answered. Its value was in learning about the problems and kinds of variables encountered in running an experiment of this scope. During the question period, I asked Professor Krueger, "At what level does class size reduction cross the point of diminishing returns from an economics perspective?" (i.e., student performance outcome vs. cost of reducing class size). He was unable to identify such a point, but answered definitively that the STAR Project showed no outcome that would warrant a wholesale policy of small class-size reduction in upper primary levels or in secondary school classes, and admitted that the STAR Project only showed performance gains from small class sizes in kindergarten, possibly the first grade, and for minority or economically deprived children in the lower primary grades. Supporting this verbal declaration, one can find corroborating statements in Dr. Krueger's paper, "Understanding the Magnitude and Effects of Class Size and Student Achievement", "The effect sizes found in the STAR experiment and much of the literature are greater for minority and disadvantaged students than for other students. Although the critical effect size differs across groups with different average earnings, economic considerations suggest that resources would be optimally allocated if they were targeted toward those who would benefit the most from smaller classes." Dr. Krueger's comments and writings do not advocate unlimited extension of the smaller class concept across all grades. His views are particularly important in light of the fact that he was a major participant in organizing and promoting the STAR Project. While no support for reduction in later grades is found in the STAR results, the STAR Project has taken on a life of its own, and is used by the small class advocates and teachers' unions as a justification for wholesale class-size reductions across all grades, K-12. And these proponents generally argue that the only relevant evidence on the subject is that from Project STAR. Unfortunately, the defining nature of that evidence has been obscured in the public dialogue. Were such claims being advanced in the field of medicine, in order to induce the use of some drug or medical practice, the FDA would have long since shut them down. 1.3 STAR Critics Speak Out Dr. Eric Hanushek is a leading expert on educational policy, specializing in the economics and financing of schools. He is the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, as well as a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has authored nine books and published numerous articles in professional journals. Page 6 He previously held academic appointments at the University of Rochester, Yale, and the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he earned his Bachelor of Science degree. He completed his Ph.D. in Economics at M.I.T. Government service includes posts as the Deputy Directory of the Congressional Budget Office, Senior Staff Economist for the Council of Economic Advisors, and Senior Economist for the Cost of Living Council. Dr. Hanushek makes the following observations on Project STAR, "First, a number of design and implementation issues affect the inferences that can be drawn (from Project STAR) making it clear that this is not the decisive evidence some have claimed it to be. Second, above the gains from an initial exposure to small classes, small classes do not lead to any further improvements in performance. Third, a substantial proportion of the schools in the experiment show student performance in small classes that is worse than performance in larger classes, undoubtedly reflecting variations in teacher quality that are more important than any class size effects. And fourth, the costs of broad class-size reduction are seldom, if ever, put into the context of other potential uses of funds." "The bulk of evidence about class-size reductions comes from analysis of non-experimental data generated by the normal operation of schools. While acknowledging the uncertainties inherent in the analysis of non-experimental data, THE STRIKING ASPECT OF THE COMBINED EVIDENCE ON CLASS SIZE IS THE CONSISTENCY WITH WHICH IT POINTS TO NO SYSTEMATIC EFFECTS OF CLASS SIZE REDUCTIONS." (Emphasis added.) Dr. Hanushek's reference to analysis of non-experimental data refers to the examination of student achievement results vs. class size under normal school operating conditions. Under these parameters, no costly experiment such as STAR is undertaken. Data is collected and analyzed after the fact. Critics protest that under such conditions, various factors affecting student performance, other than class size, are at work, and tend to skew the results one way or the other. But this is true under both experimental and non-experimental conditions. However, such factors become more significant the smaller the student population being examined, and experiments like the STAR Study generally involve small populations. Many influences cannot be factored out, even under stringent experimental conditions. One of the advantages of non-experimental analysis is that larger student populations can be examined, and when that happens, other factors impacting school performance take on a lesser significance, as they average out over the larger population. On the other hand, experiments tend to be small, mainly due to high costs, and they introduce new, perverse incentives of their own, also tending to skew results. Dr.Caroline M. Hoxby of Harvard specifically mentions the STAR Project in this regard, stating that its participants (teachers) were "aware of being evaluated" and "mindful of the rewards being contingent on the outcome". Page 7 The experimental STAR Project examined 6,000 students and purported to support class-size reduction, but only in kindergarten and grade 1. In contrast, the non-experimental Class Size Impact on Student Achievement in New Hampshire Public Schools, undertaken by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, in conjunction with the University of New Hampshire, examined over 16,000 third grade students. Their results found that these students showed very little difference in achievement among varying class sizes from 15-to-30 students. (See further details on Page 10.) Caroline M. Hoxby, Ph.D., is professor of Economics at Harvard University and Director of the Economics of Education Program for the National Bureau of Economic Research. Dr. Hoxby's research has received numerous awards, including a Carnegie Fellowship, a John Olin Fellowship, and a major grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Development. She earned her masters degree for the University of Oxford, which she attended on a Rhodes Scholarship. Her doctorate was earned at M.I.T. In 1990, Dr. Hoxby ran a non-experimental study to identify the effects of class size on student achievement. The student population included each grade of 649 Connecticut elementary schools - 330,900 students. She found that reduction in class size within a range of 15-to-30 students had no effect on student achievement. 1.4 An Overall View in the Aggregate The conventional wisdom to reduce class size is emotion-based and while seeming to make intuitive sense, the fact is, that class sizes across the nation have been falling for years, as have test scores. Educators are well aware of this. If class size were as pivotal as we are led to believe, we would expect the opposite result. The greatest body of evidence shows that, while class size may have some effect in isolated circumstances, it is not a significant factor in the learning process of most students. There are many more important factors determining success in education. An analysis of the literature by Hanushek reveals that, out of 277 published statistical estimates referencing class size against student achievement, only 15% showed that smaller class sizes helped, 13% showed that smaller class sizes actually hurt, and the remaining 72% showed no statistically significant changes either way. This evidence does not even come close to supporting the idea that decreasing class sizes will improve student performance. No matter how reasonable it may seem, it just doesn't happen. Alarm bells for education began sounding in 1983 with the report, "A Nation at Risk", commissioned by the Reagan administration warning that "a rising tide of mediocrity [in our schools] threatens our very future as a nation". Then in 1999, President George W. Bush held the first ever Education Summit with the nation's governors. As class sizes continued to fall, there was little progress toward the sweeping goals set at this summit. Business Week reported in March 1999 that "less than half of America's school children read proficiently at their grade level. Page 8 U.S. 12th graders still scored well below teenagers in almost every other developed country on mathematics and science tests." The growing need for remedial courses in four-year colleges further testifies to the failure of local schools to educate, even as class sizes have been shrinking. More and more colleges today must offer incoming freshmen courses in basic skills to better equip them to handle college level work. Protests are heard about "double billing" - paying a second time to teach students what they should have learned in high school. In 1997, a report was issued claiming that nearly a quarter of Massachusetts high school graduates who went on to college needed remedial math and English courses. A plan was floated, but never enacted, to charge local high schools for the remedial education their students required once they got into public colleges. (This begs the question, why are they accepted into public colleges?) On the average, UMass Amherst spent $1,186 per student in remedial classes. Other campuses spent more or less, depending on their admissions standards. The problem is national. Urged on by then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the New York State Board of Regents raised admissions standards and cut remedial education at its 11 four-year senior colleges. Such moves hopefully send a message to administrators of underperforming high schools that they should focus more on quality teachers in their classrooms, and substance in their curriculum, than lower class sizes. One has only to look at the aggregate picture on both an international and a national level, and apply a modicum of common sense, to perceive that overall class-size reductions are unlikely to lead to improvements in student performance. A 1999 Pennsylvania State University study concluded that the effect of class size on achievement is very small. It compared ten industrialized nations with the U.S., and found that students in Australia, Belgium and France did significantly better in larger math classes. Class size had no effect in Canada, Germany, Iceland, South Korea and Singapore. And students who consistently outscore U.S. students in math and science, attend math classes of 40 or more students. The study concluded that a good teacher can make a difference in a class, despite its size or make up, as can a good curriculum. Performance of U.S. Students is near the bottom ranking of the 21 nations participating in the Third International Math and Science Study. Asian countries that routinely outperform the U.S. generally have class sizes of 30 to 40 or more students The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) lists 1999 Math and Science eighth grade achievement comparisons between 12 countries. The U.S. scored ninth in Math, behind Korea and Japan, which scored first and second with average class sizes of over 40 students. In Science achievement, the U.S. scored tenth, again behind countries with larger class sizes. Page 9 A generation ago, the eminent sociologist James C. Coleman concluded that class size, by itself, was unimportant - a conclusion Senator Daniel Moynihan noted was consistent with findings over the previous 40 years. Jaime Escalante, renowned as the "best teacher in America" (see the movie, Stand and Deliver), packed his classroom with over 35, and sometimes over 50, "disadvantaged" teenagers and consistently produced scholars who passed Advanced Placement Calculus exams. Unfortunately, such teaching is not the norm in U.S. schools, and simply adding more teachers to the rolls won't cause it to be. Over the last half-century, average student/teacher ratios have fallen 35% (U.S. Dept. of Education), yet the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicates that 17 year-olds were performing roughly the same in 1996 as they were in 1970. A 35% change in student/teacher ratios in a town the size of North Andover, over the same period, would increase education costs in excess of three million dollars annually at today's pay scales and costs for benefits. This does not include the millions necessary to build more schools to house 69 additionally needed classrooms. The need for more classrooms automatically follows class size reductions. In 1998, the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, in association with the University of New Hampshire, conducted a study of what third grade test results suggest about the impact of class size on student achievement in New Hampshire public schools. This study can be downloaded at http://www.unh.edu/ipssr/nhcpps/clsize/clsize.html. The study examined four class sizes: 15-to-21, 22-to-24, 25-to-27, and 28-to-30. 16,419 New Hampshire third graders participated. The study demonstrated that third grade students show very little difference in average achievement among class sizes ranging from 15-to-30 students. The results were defined in terms of proficiency levels and response to multiple-choice questions. In Language Arts, there was only a slight and inconsistent variation in proficiency levels among class sizes from 15-to-30 students. The multiple-choice component showed .2 of a percentage point improvement by students in the larger class sizes (25-to-30) over students in the smaller class sizes (15-to-24). Proficiency levels of students in mathematics were somewhat greater in larger class sizes. In the multiple-choice component, students also exhibited slightly higher scores in the larger classes. (See Table 1.) Page 10 1.4.1 Table 1 ----------------------------------------------- | % of Mathematics Multiple-Choice Questions | | Answered Correctly | |---------------------------------------------| |Class Size | Girls | Boys | All Students | |--------------|-------|-------|--------------| | 15-20 | 71.5% | 72.3% | 71.9% | | 21-24 | 72.0% | 73.8% | 72.9% | | 25-27 | 72.3% | 74.3% | 73.3% | | 28-30 | 73.8% | 75.8% | 74.8% | | All Students | 72.0% | 73.5% | 72.7% | ----------------------------------------------- This typical table shows that the large classes of 28-to-30 students perform within 2.9% as well as the smaller class sizes of 15-to-20 students, with the larger classes showing the better result. But in a community like North Andover (school population 4,300), the per pupil cost of teaching the smaller group would be 71% higher than the largest group. Where is the payoff for this extra cost? As part of the Language Arts test, there was a writing requirement. The variation in writing scores among class sizes of 15-to-30 students was insignificant. Douglas E. Hall, author of the study, advises that a new 2001 study, yet to be released, arrives at substantially the same conclusions regarding the relationship between class size and student performance. Data from the 1998 National Assessment of Education Progress reading examination analyzed class size impact on academic achievement and concluded that class size parameters had little or no effect on academic achievement. Kirk Johnson, Ph.D., author of the study, stated that, "Class size as a variable pales in comparison with the effects of many other factors such as teacher quality, teaching methods, strong curriculum and high standards." A 1989 Johns Hopkins report reviewing 14 different studies found that when class sizes were cut to 15 students, academic improvement was insignificant. Page 11 1.5 Teacher Compensation Share Drops Relative to Education Spending Growth Since 1965, the Federal government has spent 200 billion dollars on education and recent legislation signed by President Bush is adding another $26.3 billion. It is interesting to note that while class sizes across the country have been decreasing over this period, as more and more teachers have been hired, and overall spending has boomed, individual teacher's salaries have not kept pace. In fact, teachers' pay, indexed to per pupil spending, has declined. According to a staff member of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, a public interest research foundation, if teacher pay had kept pace with the spending boom in education, the average teacher salary today would be $65,000.00. Such average salaries will never be attainable as class sizes shrink and communities opt for more teachers, rather than better, more qualified teachers. This is a grievous mistake. Education's most valuable primary resource is the direction, skill and knowledge of teachers. Fiscal resources that could otherwise be used to attract and retain good teachers are simply dissipated through over-hiring. Higher salaries attract better-qualified teachers and make teaching a competitive career choice. A fraction of the savings derived by maintaining reasonably substantial class sizes could be used to increase base salaries and initiate merit pay for outstanding teachers. Incentives like this, coupled with teacher accountability in the classroom, will do more to elevate student performance than acting on the blind supposition, or hunch, that enrolling more teachers to reduce class sizes will somehow improve learning. Simply adding teachers invites its own set of problems. California's K through 3 class size reduction initiative passed in 1996 called for reducing class sizes to 20. Passage of this initiative created an unexpected teacher shortage and unforeseen problems having long term implications. A study to examine the results of this effort revealed that teachers in the smaller classes were less experienced and less qualified than their district counterparts. So, while the intent was to improve student performance, the results put poorer teachers into the classroom. Gene Glass, the Associate Dean for Research at Arizona State University, concluded that the President's (Clinton) proposal to reduce class size to 18 students could be expected to have only marginal effect on achievement, at a very high cost. He went on to say, "The achievement gain for students wouldn't be anything significant, but the workload reduction for teachers would be appreciable." It is unusual for a faculty member from a college of education to speak with such candor. His message is doubly significant. Page 12 1.6 The Union Plays Its Card A North Andover supporter of reducing class sizes recently stated, "Given that billions of dollars have been spent on class size reduction since Project STAR, it is difficult to believe that policymakers have been uniformly hoodwinked by the NEA into an investment of that magnitude." "Hoodwinked" puts it mildly. That is exactly what has happened and is happening. As much as it is difficult to believe, class-size reduction, touted as a means to improve student achievement across the board in all grades, is a gigantic, multi-billion dollar waste that has succeeded, not on the merits of the argument, but on the power and financial strength of its union advocates. There is an overpowering incentive to turn the NEA's goal of 15 students per class into a reality. It is not a far reach to conclude that this has nothing to do with student performance, but everything to do with jobs and the expansion of union power. In 1979, the AFT Teachers' Union passed the following resolutions: RESOLVED, that the American Federation of Teachers lobby to obtain federal monies to decrease class size; and RESOLVED, that the American Federation of Teachers encourage local unions to lobby their state legislatures for monies to decrease class size; and RESOLVED, that the American Federation of Teachers urge local unions to bargain for class size limitations (including penalties for violations) in their contracts with Boards of Education; and the following resolution in 1983: RESOLVED, that the American Federation of Teachers and its local affiliates work actively to incorporate into legislative proposals educational provisions designed to mandate significant reductions in class size/case load; and in 1984: RESOLVED, the AFT Executive Council be urged to expend funds in the promotion of public information campaigns on behalf of the merits of smaller classes. Their efforts to promote class-size reduction across America are intense and pervasive in local school districts, in state legislatures and the halls of Congress. Their message is carried on radio and television. Page 13 The teachers' unions were not always of such a mind. Their current small class claims contradict their earlier publications. From "Handbook of Research on Teaching", published by NEA 1963, page 1132: "Large lecture classes are not generally inferior to smaller lecture classes if one uses traditional achievement tests as criterion." And from "Encyclopedia of Education Research", published by NEA 1960, page 427: "..popular belief to the contrary, most of the dozens of class size studies completed over the years show little evidence that mere size has a major effect on the academic efficiency of the classroom." How does one rationalize this stark 180 reversal of union thinking? Was it a revelation from heaven? Or could the contemplation of adding tens of thousands of new dues-paying members have changed their perspective? As class sizes shrink, union dues grow in direct proportion to the number of teachers hired. Union efforts paid off in California. It worked so well for the union that it created a teacher shortage, but the students ended up with less-qualified teachers in the classrooms, and no measurable achievement gain. Today, anyone interested in learning more about class-size reduction will receive a packet of 96 documents from the AFT union, all carefully crafted to extol the virtues of smaller classes. The inquiring parent, news editor, or legislator will be deluged with a vast body of information that is highly leveraged and exaggerated from what relatively meager evidence there is to support the union's class-size reduction claims. Those holding an opposing position have less of an individual stake in the outcome of this issue. While having the largest body of evidence to support their views, they have neither the power nor resources to counter the flood of misleading and inaccurate information being circulated by the unions. We all know the saying, "might does not make right", but in this instance, "might gets its own way", and literally billions of dollars are being spent to satisfy the union call for 15 students per class nationwide. In the process, those independent researchers, sounding the alarm, are labeled biased and anti-education. The hypocrisy is blatant. While independent researchers are pilloried for their findings, no taint of bias is ever levied concerning the STAR Project, which was organized and run by Dr. Pate-Bain, a long-time teachers' union member, former NEA Union president, and life-long small class-size activist. No closer vested interest affiliation to any study can be imagined. The question is fairly raised as to how much trust should be placed in such a study. Page 14 Dr. Pate-Bain is now chairperson of HEROS, Inc., a pro-"small class-size" think-tank she formed with a fellow administrator of the STAR Project. HEROS was initially funded by the NEA and AFT unions, and they initiated a follow up study of the STAR data. According to their web page, Dr. Pate-Bain owns and operates REDUCE CLASS SIZE NOW, an organization which functions under the umbrella of HEROS. A link on this organization's web page warns readers to "Beware of misleading research". There you can find two pages criticizing other research opposed to the small class-size solution. This is followed by a warning: "BEWARE OF THESE CONSERVATIVE PUBLICATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND THINK TANKS". Nowhere in my research on any topic have I found similar directives to avoid other views as in the literature of those pushing for smaller class sizes. Their strategy has been effective. Coming directly from the higher echelons of the "Reduce Class-Size" movement, such prejudiced dictates impact the rank and file. One North Andover woman, writing in a local newspaper, describes an expert whose research didn't agree with her views as, "an economist who has aligned himself with fiscally conservative political movements." Instead of rebutting the expert's arguments, she goes on to challenge his credibility and motives. That conservative groups find commonality with the conclusions of anyone's research on class size is not a reason to impugn the objectivity or motives of the researcher. It is this level of politicism displayed by the small class-size proponents that blurs the legitimate issues. 1.7 Telling Admissions from a Study Supporting Class Size Reduction Several of the studies and reports promoting the "reduced class size" solution make interesting comments and observations which seem to fly in the face of their own arguments in support of smaller classes. CERIS Theme is a Canadian think tank which has accepted the concept of projecting the alleged small class advantage on through higher grades. They say: "It is important to remark what these and other studies have told us about what doesn't work in altering class size and/or student-adult ratio. First, classes must be small, not just 'smaller'. Lowering class size from 35 to 21, for example, while it might vastly improve the lives of teachers and students, does not make a documentable difference in student achievement. . Thus, measures such as lowering class size by two or three pupils, to result in classes which are still over 20, or providing aides to teachers in the primary grades, are quite expensive in themselves and do not affect measurable student achievement." Page 15 "The important questions that remain regarding class size in the primary grades are: 1) whether the gains made justify the cost; and 2) whether the gains made by creating small classes could be made instead with larger classes taught by teachers who were trained to teach more effectively" "In fact, these two questions are best treated as one. It has often been suggested that changing how teachers teach is potentially more effective than altering class size, and very much less costly. In fact, most experiments in altering class size, including Tennessee's Project STAR, have included no teacher training component. Yet, researchers who have investigated teacher behaviours in small classes typically find that, although teachers sometimes report they have altered their methods, observers can find no evidence of change." "While the cost of such training, while not inconsiderable, would presumably pale beside the cost of lowering classes to 17 or fewer students, the fact is that it has been proven to be very difficult to change teacher classroom behaviours. Arguments are made that it is better to invest in changing how teachers teach than in how many students they teach." (Emphasis added.) "Decisions continue to be made at the local and even higher levels to lower class sizes to twenty or more students. While this may please teachers and parents, there is no reason to think it will impact on student achievement. From that point of view, it is a poor investment of public dollars." (Emphasis added.) "A further narrowing of the target group for small classes could justifiably concentrate on children from disadvantaged populations, in schools designated 'inner city' or where a high proportion of children or families qualify for public benefits such as subsidized housing, free lunches, and the like. As noted above, in the most powerful study of class size reduction to date [Project STAR], the strong effect of small classes on learning was very significantly higher for students from a disadvantaged minority group." They argue that there is no point in class size reduction unless you go all the way under 20 students. They raise the practical cost aspects of such a move, and question what benefit in student achievement is likely to be derived, concluding that perhaps it may be better to invest in changing how teachers teach, rather than in how many students they teach. This is a remarkable admission from a group that supports the "reduced class size" concept. Page 16 1.8 Thinking It Through Teachers frequently boast that smaller classes improve teacher/student relationships and one-on-one instruction. This, in turn, is credited with improvement in academic performance (though not buttressed by convincing evidence). But researchers have found little to support this across all grades. When the average parent or educator is asked why they think small classes are better, part of their answer usually includes the comment, "It's obvious." But most of the world's population once believed the world was flat. When asked, they too likely replied, "It's obvious." And it certainly was. At first blush, the small-class theories sound reasonable, but a little thought about the mechanics of implementation raises questions and invites serious doubts. The instruction of 15 to 20 students, as opposed to 25 to 30 students, does not lend itself to significantly long attention shifts toward any one or more students to earn the valuable one-on-one characterization. Should the teacher change her technique from group instruction to tutoring a smaller sub-group or single individual within the class, the rest of the students are being left on their own in small, isolated activities, or in doing unsupervised seatwork. The caliber of work and learning then going on with these remaining students becomes difficult for the teacher to either monitor or assess. Making any class smaller becomes not only extremely expensive, but even in theory, may barely produce marginal results, or even, in some instances, result in poorer student achievement. Studies have shown that teachers seldom change their instructional styles to conform to class size, but for those who do, the increase in attention that each child receives is not nearly enough to cause any significant gain in academic achievement. And while the teacher's attention is focused on that one child, to the exclusion of the remainder of the class, the learning process of the other children stalls. There are those who say teaching has changed today. But the practice of teaching had evolved into a rather stable art since before the days of Plato and Socrates. Variations have run their course of trial and error, with little evidence of any striking effect on student achievement. There has been time enough, over the course of centuries, to discover the value of small class sizes, if that were a major consideration or powerful stimulus to student success. There has been ample time to put that value into perspective with all other factors contributing to progress in education. The 20th century has brought no new startling insights. But what we have learned is that there is no substitute for education's primary resource, a resource that has passed the test of ages, the direction, skill and knowledge of the dedicated classroom teacher. Funds should be focused on the improvement of this resource and the assurance that top-notch educators are placed in every classroom, irrespective of its size. There is much that can be done to achieve that goal, both nationally, and locally in North Andover. Page 17 The Cost of Class-Size Reduction There are few studies delving into the cost aspects of Class Size Reduction (CSR). One comprehensive investigation (perhaps the only one) dealing with this aspect is the year 2000 Rand Study titled, "Cost of Class Size Reduction Advice for Policy Makers". It is best described as a "how-to" manual for those educators subscribing to the CSR solution. While the report is 157 pages long, here are some interesting comments along the way: Page 4: "The one area of relative agreement among CSR researchers is that there is a lack of theoretical understanding of how class size affects student performance." Page 13: "This relatively weak evidence from Ventura County (CA) illustrates the paucity of evidence on the relationship between class size, teacher training, and student performance. Clearly, more effort is needed in understanding the skills a teacher should learn in CSR focused training." Page 14: "California's CSR experiences fits well into the mixed literature about costs, student achievement, and teacher behaviors. The achievement gains attributed to CSR are very small, with an effect size of about 0.1. This is at the bottom end of the STAR findings." Page 17: "Despite lack of agreement on achievement outcomes from CSR, there is agreement in the literature regarding the lack of theoretical base that can explain why and how smaller classes are (or are not) important to student learning. At the same time, while it is well understood that CSR is expensive, that factors that affect cost at the school level and the relative magnitude of these effects are not documented. The implementation of CSR in California raised important equity concerns related to teacher quality and simply the ability, or even the space, to implement the program." Page 25: "The addition of classrooms and teachers implements CSR but the link between smaller class sizes and an impact on student performance is not clearly made." Page 37: "As discussed in the first chapter, class size is not clearly linked to student performance and thus is not the optimal parameter to be specified in a performance management context." Page 18 Page 137: "This evidence clearly supports the hypothesis that California's CSR implementation had a teacher qualifications cost in terms of the number and distribution of qualified elementary teachers." Page 138: "A final recommendation is to first fill new classrooms created by CSR with new teachers. That is, reserve the less-demanding small classrooms for the newer teachers who are the least likely to be well qualified. This should give new teachers an easier environment to learn their trades. It will also expose fewer students to the under-qualified teachers, lessening the number of students who suffer any of the consequences that may come from having new, or under-qualified, teachers. Reserving the new rooms for new teachers will also reduce the drain of teachers out of higher elementary grades, creating fewer vacancies in these grades." Page 139: "Class size reduction is a popular, if expensive, reform. It has great intuitive appeal to parents, who can easily verify that efforts are being made to improve their children's education. Teachers' unions also support CSR, in part because it results in smaller teacher workloads." These insights make it clear to the reader that if improved student performance is the desired outcome, reducing class sizes is an unlikely means to that end. Any responsible educator considering implementing such a costly policy as class-size reduction must first consider the cost/benefit implications of such a move. Obviously, if some increase in student achievement is anticipated, some measure of that improvement must be weighed against the costs necessary to achieve it. Though many studies have examined the effects of small-class sizes on student achievement, few have looked at what costs such improvement, if any, entail. Educators do not seem to question the economic aspect of this equation, and consequently, the "rate of return" on investment by adopting smaller class policies, as opposed to other means of improving performance, is not considered. It is an accepted fact that the amount of money spent per pupil is not the decisive factor - or even the primary factor - determining student success. A recent 10 million dollar study commissioned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was just released by Standard & Poor's School Evaluation Services. They came to the conclusion that, "spending does not automatically determine results; instead, many different factors affect student achievement levels. Local and state strategies for educational improvement need to focus on increasing the rate of return, not simply the amount of money spent." The Page 19 Pennsylvania study found that "rate of return" was an important indicator of education effectiveness. "Rate of return" is a measure of productivity. You cannot speak about "rate of return" in this context without confronting the issue of class size. Productivity in the classroom can be expressed as a function of the number of students taught in a classroom by one teacher, as it relates to the quality of learning achievement experienced by those students. Reducing class size is the most costly single policy measure that school administrators can take to impact a school budget. For example, dropping the average class size from 28 to 22 in a community the size of North Andover raises the annual school budget by nearly 2 million dollars, not to mention the additional schools having to be built to house extra classrooms. There is no evidence that undertaking such measures will improve classroom instruction. There is no rational way, by reducing the number of students in a classroom, that the quality of instruction can improve enough to offset such increases in costs. In North Andover, to reach the NEA's 15 student per classroom goal would increase our annual school budget by approximately 4.6 million dollars. This does not take into consideration the millions of dollars needed to construct approximately 100 more classrooms. As Eric Hanushek's study reveals, the effects of class size have been studied more intensively than any other aspect of schools. Extensive research done by those with no "ax to grind" or agenda to pursue, simply does not offer support for the types of smaller class policies that have been proposed. Broadly reducing class size is extraordinarily expensive and, based on years of research and experience, very ineffective. Commonplace class size reductions from 32-to-21 students have occurred in schools across the country over the past 15 years, increasing teaching costs by 52%. This doesn't include the costs for building additional schools or the purchase of portable classrooms to accommodate smaller class sizes. Similarly, in the same size system, an increase of two, in average class size, would reduce the school teaching budget by 8.7%. Decreasing the average class size by two would raise the budget by 10.2%. These percentages represent millions of school budget dollars either saved or wasted, with no corresponding effect on student achievement. "In 1985, a federal judge directed the school district [of Kansas City, Missouri] to devise a 'money-is-no-object' educational plan to improve the achievement of black students and encourage desegregation. As a result, Kansas City taxpayers ended up spending more money per pupil annually than taxpayers in any of the country's 280 largest school districts. They paid for 15 new schools, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a robotics lab, filed trips to Mexico and Senegal, and higher teacher salaries. The student-to-teacher ratio was the lowest of any major school district in the nation at 13-to-1. Page 20 By the time the experiment ended in 1997, cost had mounted to nearly $2 billion. Yet test scores did not rise, and there was even less student integration than before the spending spree. In May 2000, the Missouri Board of Education finally removed accreditation status from the district for failing to meet even one of 11 performance standards!" - " A New Direction for Education Reform", Lawrence Reed, President - Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Midland, Michigan. The only thing that can honestly be said by those who tout class size reduction as the panacea for education improvement is that studies on this topic are inconclusive at best - and that's leaving a wide margin to "the benefit of a doubt". Should taxpayers commit scarce resources to fund class size reduction based on inconclusive evidence? If a review of 277 published estimates can't substantiate meaningful education improvement from smaller classes, can this trendy practice be worth its immense cost? Should we "bet the farm" on a hunch, or should resources instead be committed to identifiable and proven methods to improve student achievement? 1.9 Should We Leave It to the Education Experts? There are those who validate the concept of lowering class sizes by directing our attention to the education hierarchy's recommendations. Need we be reminded that Departments of Education, and the upper echelons of the education establishment nationally, have been active participants in the decline of academic achievement nationwide over the past several decades? They are largely responsible for the implementation of class size reduction policies, as well. The steady erosion of academic standards and levels of achievement have sparked urgent calls for education reform. This groundswell of public concern did not emanate from the "educators". It developed over time as our populace began to realize that the educators themselves were not getting the job done. Now they have been taken to task by legislative demands for accountability in our public schools. Those officiaries involved in public school policy-making usually carry degrees in education (heavy in psychology courses), and are, for the most part, fiscally illiterate. They have no idea how to determine the cost/benefit of any spending proposal, nor do they see the need for any such analysis. They function under the strong influence of teachers unions and their own professional education societies, all of which advocate the smaller class size solution. None of them, however, take the trouble to detail the tremendous costs in personnel and school space that the smaller class size solution dictates. They are clueless as to whether such expenditures result in improved classroom learning. To them, smaller class sizes across the board, K through 12, are an article of faith unsupported by rigorous evidence. That there may be better, more cost effective ways to achieve excellence in our public schools, seldom crosses the threshold of their imagination. Page 21 The argument is advanced that we should rely on the education "experts". The truth is, they are part of the problem, and I would answer that ordinary citizens have definite responsibilities toward public education, not only in providing funds, but also in establishing values and goals, and in judging results. To the extent that education proposes to set definitions of an educated man or woman, every parent with some degree of personal education has a right to critically appraise its program for his children. There are competing needs for funding services in every city and town. There are limited resources to provide such funding. It is the duty of those who would direct close to 67% of a community's tax revenues to ensure that moneys expended are going to achieve the goals promised. Leaving this all to the educator's "efforts" is not such a good idea. We need only to reflect that it was the recommendation of leading educators that resulted in construction of North Andover's existing "open concept" high school - a design, since discredited, that we all now agree has hampered the education of our students for the past three decades. Because of this educator-driven mistake, we now tear down a building before its time, and North Andover taxpayers face a multimillion-dollar bill to replace it. In 1998, the continuing malaise in education inspired Massachusetts to require that prospective public school teachers be tested in basic skills. The test was geared to 8th grade level. 59% of the candidates failed. Education Commissioner Haydu's response was to suggest the passing grade be lowered. The State Board of Education agreed - a majority voting to lower the standards. Some members objected, one of whom called the test results "frightening". Governor Paul Cellucci publicly condemned the Board of Education's position and urged it to reconsider. As to be expected, critics blamed the test for poor results, claiming that it had not been validated (it had), that is was racially biased (though score variations between the races were minimal), and that no study guide was provided (though the test was developed around basic material that prospective teachers should reasonably be expected to already know.) In a New York Times editorial, Boston University Chancellor John Silber charged that, "Grade inflation has reached the point where even outstanding students accepted at the best law schools are often deficient in writing skills and need remedial courses." He stated that standards are lowest in schools of education which discourage the more qualified student from entering, and further noted that, "We would be justified in demanding that schools of education either raise their standards or shut their doors." Eventually, the Board of Education backed down from its decision to lower the passing score. It upheld the nearly 60% failure of the state's prospective teachers to achieve certification. Page 22 But what about the competency of teachers already certified? Questions were soon raised about the quality and abilities of practicing teachers across the Commonwealth. Calls went out for testing all public school teachers. This idea was quickly quashed by the teachers' unions, providing further evidence that their true concerns do not center on the quality of teaching in our public schools. And then there was the "new math" and the "look say" method of teaching reading which inspired Rudolf Flesch's best-seller "Why Johnny Can't Read". The list goes on, with educator-inspired methods purporting to bring American education to world leadership. All failures! All backward steps in education - national in scope. Courses in history and geography have for the past three decades fallen victim to the academician's idea that such studies bear little relevance to modern-day living experiences. Consequently, these disciplines have been relegated to positions of minor importance in public school curriculums. The results are now' surfacing. MCAS scores in history for North Andover and surrounding communities are deplorable. Our heritage, the legacy of our founding fathers, the principles and values underlying our democratic republic, our constitution and the important arguments that brought it to life, are in jeopardy of being lost to future generations by default, on the excuse of "relevance". A sorry report card in History for the nation's 12th graders was released in 2001 by the federal government. The National Assessment on Education Progress (NAEP) U.S. History Exam is graded Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Results showed no progress since 1994 with only 11% of test takers meeting NAEP's Proficiency goals. The average student (57%) performed Below Basic. American students appear to be in a haze about their nation's history just as they are preparing to graduate from high school and become registered voters. This condition bodes ill for the future of our republic. Speaking before the Massachusetts Council For History Educators at the JFK Library, Will Fitzhugh (The Concord Review) noted the poor NAEP results and posed the question, "Why is our culture, particularly when it comes to high school education, as inattentive to serious academic work as it is?" Today, young people know the words to all of the latest rap music by heart. How many school principals insist that their students set aside the time to memorize the Gettysburg Address? The ignorance of the average American about history, geography and current events has now become a feature of comedy television. Jay Leno, who grew up in neighboring Andover, occasionally interviews people on the street during his late night show from Los Angeles. He usually queries those between the ages of 17 and 40. He receives ludicrous answers or dumb stares to basic questions most people with even a little education should know. Showing off the ignorance of our populace has now become entertainment on national television! Page 23 A teacher's Letter to the Editor, Newsweek October 14, 2002, sums it up nicely: "I am an educator who has been working for more than 35 years in public school, and believe there is no shortcut to learning. While we continue to try new methods and fads, students continue to complete school without being able to read, write and do math at acceptable levels. Why can't Americans face the obvious? Hard work by students is what is required, not another experiment based on some catchy theme. We need our teachers in front of students, leading them in traditional, time-proven methods of learning." Chris Greene, High Point, NC 1.10 Alternatives to Class-Size Reduction There are many more independent studies undertaken over the past 50 years that disagree with the "reduced class-size" concept than support it. These studies reveal that causal factors of much greater significance than class size impact student achievement. Improving the instructional competence of teachers, for example, would lighten their workload by helping them perform more effectively. Students would benefit from expanding summer and after school programs[1], hiring special instructors to assist with weak students, adding tutoring programs, providing scholastic incentives, bolstering school administration support for classroom teachers on disciplinary matters, improving teacher quality, insuring teacher mastery and proficiency in the subjects they teach, providing merit pay for outstanding classroom performance, elevating scholastic standards and expectations, closer monitoring of the student workload, stimulating parental involvement and participation in their children's education process, and developing a strong, focused curriculum. All would be less costly and hold more promise for success than simply adding more teachers and building more classrooms to meet some arbitrary ratio. But the independent studies that say this are not backed or propagated in the media, in state legislatures or the halls of Congress, by the millions of dollars that flow out from the teachers unions and their lobbies. The efforts of these special interest groups have been so successful that candidates from both major parties use the small class "gimmick" in their campaigns to garner parental votes. Conclusion There is much evidence indicating that the change needed to improve education in our public schools is de-emphasis on reducing class size and re-emphasis on ensuring placement of quality teachers in every classroom. It was Hanushek's conclusion also that too much importance has been put on reducing class size, and insufficient attention paid to improving teacher quality. He adds, "Improving the quality of education is unquestionably a highly desirable goal. But putting all our efforts into lowering class size may not provide voters with the payoff they hoped for." Page 24 In the present environment of education reform and shrinking tax revenues, school boards must be encouraged to establish priorities that reflect public concerns for financial and educational accountability. School boards must challenge education administrators to be resourceful. This requires a certain amount of courage on the part of education decision-makers because there are aggressive vested interests having an economic stake in perpetuating current trends. One of the sad discoveries, however, that evolves from the class size debate is that educators themselves, who by their very stature in the community, are expected to be forthright and candid, turn a blind eye to the reality of the fraud being perpetrated on the taxpaying public by those of their peers, their professional groups and unions whose primary goal is to expand the power and membership rolls of their respective organizations. Parents cannot be expected to, nor should they have to, do the tedious research necessary to uncover the weakness of the education establishment's self-serving pronouncements regarding class-size effects. Simple honesty demands that school administrators at least admit that their theories on this topic are hotly contested and/or inconclusive. But no, the inquisitive parent will be told only the establishment position or be referred to the regional department of education, or directly to the exaggerated pronouncements emanating from the STAR Project and/or other union propaganda.[2] This is fraud, plain and simple, costing the taxpayers of North Andover, and communities across the nation, literally billions of dollars to keep teacher enrollment high on the false promise that smaller classes will deliver a better education to our young people. If our school administrators and board of education could shake loose from this "small class-size" mind set that saps up school resources like a wet sponge, and if even a part of the funds dedicated to this fruitless exercise were to be diverted to improving teacher quality, and adopting meaningful and proven methods of advancing the academic skills of our students, North Andover could be at the top of the education ladder in this state, without repeated calls for overrides. 1.11 Postscript Driven by the impetus of a reform movement, the education cycle is about to come full circle. From low expectations, non-grading, watered down courses, and the philosophy of allowing students to do their own thing, the trend is shifting to performance-based accountability in the classroom, teachers with proven skills, and motivation for students to achieve benchmark goals of knowledge throughout their education experience. Students will and do respond to higher standards. Low scores are simply a means to an end. They set goals for improvement. Page 25 However, there is yet far to go, and hurdles to surmount, as the essential tools to accomplish these goals are challenged in the courts. Should these challenges result in easier tests and the lowering of standards, the students themselves will lose, and the effort to reform will falter. As Winston Churchill might have said, It is not the beginning of the end. It is not even the end of the beginning. It is simply the start of a beginning to lift education in America from mediocrity to excellence. Page 26 1.12.1.1 Ralph Wilbur November 2002 [1] The neighboring town of Methuen has undertaken a trial program that provides a "homework center" where students can go after school and in the evening to do their homework. There are professionals (teachers) and volunteers in attendance to assist. [2] A fair response to the inquiring parent might be, "Class sizes have been decreasing across the nation over the past 30 years. Today, 37% of our 4th grade students have either failed (6%) or show a need for improvement (31%) in English. 47% of our 6th grade students have either failed (20%) or show a need for improvement (27%) in math. 50% of our 8th grade students have either failed (17%) or show a need for improvement (33%) in math. 83% of our 8th grade students have either failed (23%) or show a need for improvement (60%) in history. So now we are going to focus on some different, more cost effective ideas to raise our students test results to the top 20% of statewide MCAS scores." (Statistics compiled from Lawrence Eagle Tribune data published September 20, 2002.)