Small Classes, Big Possibilities.

A researcher laments the lack of action on the class-size issue despite documented results

The Los Angeles Times recently asked in a front-page headline: "$1 Billion Question: Do Smaller Classes Work?"

While the newspaper's prime interest is in California where Gov. Wilson is trying to reduce the student load in kindergarten through 3rd-grade classrooms, the answer ought to be strikingly clear everywhere, based on nearly two decades of validating research, on common sense and on similarities throughout education. As the National Education Association implored in an Education Week advertisement: "We need a little class."

Indeed, if public education is to be a class act and U.S. schools are to become world class, improvement should start at the class level.

A Domino Effect

Size matters, and small class size matters a great deal for the schooling of young children. The debate over class size still rages--less so on the merits, more so on economics, lack of clarity and terminology--in spite of the compelling evidence.

Perhaps the idea of small classes for students in the early grades is so commonsensical today that educators don't consider it a challenge. Yet education's leaders must look beyond the surface variables to understand the systemic, domino-effect possibilities of class-size changes.

What other education reform attracts the unbridled support of parents, teachers, researchers, policymakers and even students? One also would expect that business and government leaders, especially those who believe in the concept of span of control, would rush to support a teacher-to-pupil ratio of about one teacher to 15 students.

The span-of-control notion that undergirds many bureaucratic structures is that one manager can efficiently and effectively work with about seven or eight subordinates--presumably, subordinates who can read, write, feed themselves and find their way to the bathroom. In his ongoing plan to reinvent government, Vice President Al Gore urges federal agencies to reduce the span of control from about 1:7 to about 1:15. Surely, our youngest students deserve the same 1:15 consideration. A class-size reduction to 1:15 is one way in K-3 education to address the politically popular conundrum, "less is more."

Documented Results

Conclusive research has show the benefits of class sizes of 1:15, especially in the primary grades. Since the early 1980s, a large-scale project in Indiana, a major experiment in Tennessee, numerous smaller studies and evaluations of projects that use low adult-to-student ratios have found that youngsters in small classes (1:15 or so) as compared to youngsters in larger classes:

* obtain higher test scores;

* participate more in school;

* demonstrate improved behavior; and

* retain many benefits of early class-size reductions in their later years of schooling.

These results should not surprise anyone familiar with young children and the schooling process. Perhaps only the skeptics of educational research may be surprised that, at least in the class-size arena, studies support common sense and some consensually validated best practices. What charter school or exclusive private school attracts students by promising large classes? Does home schooling use big classes?

Consider, in addition, the other education efforts that also benefit from the small-class effect: tutorials, apprenticeships, special education, remediation projects such as Success for All, mentoring, peer tutoring, Advanced Placement.

Wouldn't an adjustment to smaller classes, especially in the early primary grades, make an exciting platform for the systemic reforms for which most district reformers clamor?

Major Implications

Early information on the impact of class size, such as the 1978 meta-analysis linking class size to student achievement by Gene Glass and Mary Lee Smith, as well as Educational Research Service reports in 1978 and 1980, showed that small classes bolster student learning. Glen Robinson's synthesis of class-size research in the May 1990 issue of Educational Leadership, work by Robert Slavin and others at Johns Hopkins University, Tennessee's Project STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio) experiment, and Harold Wenglinsky's 1997 Education Testing Service study titled "When Money Matters" have shown that all students can benefit from early instruction in small classes or small groupings and that benefits are differentially distributed. Minority students and youngsters of low socioeconomic status get substantially larger benefits from beginning their schooling in small classes than do other youngsters.

Wenglinsky said it well: "4th graders in smaller-than-average classes are about half a year ahead of 4th graders in larger than-average classes" and "'The largest effects seem to be for poor students in high-cost areas." The benefits of small classes in early grades have major policy implications for massive redirection of education resources.

Some critics say that the probable costs of small classes do not justify the demonstrated benefits. A reasonable question for them is, "How do you know?" Class-size benefits seldom have been evaluated carefully because small classes are not widely used in public education except for special-needs youngsters. (Aren't all youngsters special?) The full benefits of 1:15 in early primary grades can't be known until classes of such size are used and evaluated and until the students reach later grades. This is not a quick-fix remedy.

Other critics argue that something else might work better, but they don't provide worthy research-based evidence for their alternative, whether it be charter schooling or vouchers. And if they do offer backup support, their alternatives are usually small-class derivatives, such as tutorials or more special projects.

Teaching Benefits

Having an appropriately sized class allows teachers to employ important teaching strategies that help youngsters learn. Smaller classes also let teachers work closely with the adults at home to improve school-community involvement strategies. Teacher morale improves.

Teachers in small classes can devote more time to individualized attention, engage in more time-on-task instruction and identify precisely an d early those student learning problems that can be remediated before a student falls too far behind. A small class can a family. Student behavior and achievement benefit from improved classroom environments.

In separate critiques of Project STAR, the largest experiment in classsize research, both Frederick Mosteller, an emeritus professor at Harvard, and Donald Orlich of Washington State University identified major positive results that emerge from smaller student-teacher ratios. In the April 1991 issue of Kappan, Orlich wrote, "In my opinion [STAR] is the most significant educational research done in the U.S. during the past 25 years.

In his review of the Tennessee classsize project in the Summer/Fall 1995 issue of the Future of Children, Mosteller suggested that policymakers and school leaders ought to pay heed to the empirical evidence when they decide how to organize students within schools and how to support student learning. He described STAR as "a controlled experiment, which is one of the most important educational investigations ever carried out and illustrates the kind and magnitude of research needed in ... education to strengthen schools."

A Slow Response

Developing appropriately sized classes for early student learning should be the first giant step in moving American education to world-class status. The firm foundation provided by a bold move of this nature can serve as the starting point for systemic improvements to K-12 schools. The paradox here is that the critical politicians and business people who often ask educators to bring about dramatic changes in student outcomes typically proffer ideas that have no research base and never have been tested or evaluated in education. These critics ask for systemic change while serving up a platter containing only special projects and "Band-Aids." Systemic change demands an interconnectedness between one change and others.

A reasonably sized class in the early primary grades is a base for systemic change. The benefits of 1:15 or so in the early grades will trigger changes throughout the entire system and influence legislation and policy in ways that will spawn supportive education practices.

Youngsters who start school o1 in classes of 15 or fewer students need less remediation later. Special education problems are identified early and, once corrected, the youngsters don't spend endless years in the special education spiral. Youngsters in smaller classes seldom are retained in grade. Discipline improves. These benefits will cut costs.

Research shows that the largest impact on student outcomes is achieved when the student enters schooling in the small-class setting. Thus, a preferred strategy for implementing the 1:15 goal is to have the class-size reduction effort begin at kindergarten or even pre-kindergarten and then ripple through the grades, one grade at a time, through about grade 3.

In addition, the STAR research has called into question one popular and expensive remedy: the use of teacher aides. In large classes teachers may send to their aides those students who are disruptive--the very students whom the teacher should be serving on a one-to-one basis. When sent to an aide, these students lose the benefits of the teacher's professional knowledge and skill. They may be given meaningless and repetitive tasks good for little more than keeping them quiet, rather than having their learning difficulties diagnosed and addressed by the classroom professional best trained to deal with them. What systemic changes might these and other adjustments, stemming from a 1:15 ratio, generate throughout schools?

Major Challenges

No one suggests that moving to significantly smaller classes can be accomplished easily. Starting youngsters off in smaller classes offers a severe test of a school district leader's creativity and management skill.

The most significant challenges include: finding classroom space and qualified teachers, redefining the use of teacher assistants, adjusting class sizes with minimum added expenditures and helping teachers with larger classes understand that student learning needs to be the base for school reform. Fortunately, innovative leaders who implement the solid research findings serve examples to lead the way.

Today, the question is not "What should we do?" Rather, one should ask, "How can we use these substantial research results?" Here, then, is the real professional challenge: Stop debating what to do, or redirect he debate until better options than appropriately sized classes are available and tested. Instead get serious with the task of using the demonstrated class size results to improve education for all children.

Charles Achilles is a professor of educational administration at Eastern Michigan University, 127 Pittman Hall, Ypsilanti, Mich. 48197. He was a principal investigator of Tennesse's STAR study. E-mail: [e-mail]

Exploring Class-Size Research Issues

The understanding and use of research seldom are straightforward or without interpretation and compromise.

Certainly this is the case when applying research to the continuing struggle to find the most appropriate size for classes in elementary education--within the political, fiscal and ideological frameworks that constrain school leaders.

Two Decades of Research

Class-size research has improved greatly over the years. The results of class-size studies now are supported by increasing knowledge about early learning, brain functioning, neuroscience and child development.

Early class-size research often was not well designed. It suffered from too short duration, too few students or too few classes. The 1978 meta-analysis by Gene Glass and Mary Lee Smith to detect a class-size effect opened new interest in class-size issues. In the early 1980s, Indiana's Prime Time uncovered some class-size effects, but it was designed as a project, not as an experiment. Prime Time was implemented unevenly, classroom aides were included in the small-class condition and the class-size reduction began in grade 1 rather than in kindergarten. While the results were positive, they were not compelling.

By 1985 Tennessee's legislature asked for a longitudinal education experiment, known as Project STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio) to learn about the effects of small classes (1:15 versus 1:25 teacher-student ratios) on student outcomes in grades K-3. Strict experimental controls and protocols were applied. The findings clearly favored the 1:15 ratios.

Because of its size and complexity, the STAR database has been the basis of studies of class size and retention, school size, random versus non-random pupil assignment, participation in school, student discipline, the use of full-time aides in classes of 25 students and other topics.

STAR spawned two major studies: the Lasting Benefits Study, which tracks students to assess the extent and duration of early benefits of a 1:15 ratio, and Project Challenge, a policy application of 1:15 in Tennessee's poorest counties. Both studies provide positive support for early 1:15 schooling.

A 1987-88 teacher-observation study in classes of 15 and 25 students and a 1991-97 longitudinal 1:15 initiative in Burke County, N.C., provide positive results similar to those found in STAR.

Evaluating Research

Educational leaders need to be careful when reviewing a study on class size and should be aware of what to look for in research findings. Not all studies deserve the same attention.

Although statistical significance explains the probability that some findings would be a chance event, the "effect size" describes how much of a standard deviation the means of the groups are apart. The effect size can estimate the "educational significance" of some statistically significant research finding. An effect size of .35 or so is worth considering, especially if it is cumulative. Classes with a 1:15 teacher-student ratio and projects based on small classes typically get an effect size .3 to .7 or so when compared to larger grouping.

With newer evaluation and research designs, more sensitive outcome measures and better analytic models, current class-size studies are producing small-class effect sizes similar to those found in STAR. These results should warrant attention from practitioners and policymakers. Their consistency across sites is one type of replication: Similar studies get similar results.

To determine if class-size research outcomes should influence decisions, the educational leader should consider the strength of the design, the duration of the study, how pupils and teachers were assigned to classes, what measurement instruments were used and the results of multiple measurements. Variables other than class size should not cloud the results. The study limitations should be clearly stated.

Ask these questions: How do the study results match up with controlled class-size studies) such as STAR? Do the findings make sense? Do they square with common sense and with other relevant knowledge? Does the research seem impartial? Has it been conducted by persons with special interests? (Education research should benefit students, not vendors.)

Clarifying Confusion

Class-size research already is helping to answer the critics) who over the years have contended that a change in the pupil-teacher ratio has little positive influence on student outcomes. To the contrary, class-size research has shown that small classes influence student outcomes positively.

Is it possible both can be correct? Actually, it is because pupil-teacher ratios and class size are not the same.

Class size refers to the number of students in a teacher's class. The pupil-teacher ratio usually results from dividing the enrollment by the assigned professional staff. Low-performing students tend to be in schools with larger classes and smaller pupil-teacher ratios. Serious reading and analysis of class-size research will help sort out the complex issues in the class-size debate.

Applying Research

The STAR results became available at a time when federal education policy was on another path, so they received little attention from policymakers. One federal official at the time suggested that STAR probably would not be replicated due to its cost, size and complexity. But the federal policy debate today may now be shifting. The U.S. Department of Education's 1997 report, "Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners," states that "studies such as reducing class size in the primary grades, have proved to help children get a good start in school." The more closely an initiative with a 1:15 ratio follows the STAR design, the more likely that both results will be similar. Other designs of 1:15 will provide new knowledge and probably different results.

The finding of a class-size effect on student achievement and development is research. The use of these findings is politics. Once various implementations of 1:15 and evaluations of them exist, a new round of research will determine the refinements of practice that can yield even more benefits from appropriate-sized classes for early-primary youngsters.

FURTHER READING ON CLASS SIZE

Readers who want to examine research and commentary on the subject of class size should consider the following studies and articles.

Research studies:

* "Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of Class Size and Student Achievement," by Gene Glass and Mary Lee Smith, 1978. Available from WestEd, 730 Harrison St., San Francisco, Calif. 94107-1242, or by calling 415-565-3000.

* "How Changing Class Size Affects Classrooms and Students," by Douglas F. Mitchell and Sara Ann Beach, Far West Laboratory, 1990. Available from WestEd.

* "Class Size: A Summary of Research," by Glen Robinson, Educational Research Service, 1978. Available from ERS, 2000 Clarendon Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209, or by calling 703-243-2100.

* "Summary of Recent Class-size Research with an Emphasis on Tennessee's Project STAR and its Derivative Studies," by C.M. Achilles, 1996. Available from Center of Excellence for Research and Policy in Basic Skills, Tennessee State University, 330 Tenth Ave. North, Nashville, Tenn. 37203-3401, or by calling 615-963-7231.

* "Answers and Questions About Class Size," by Jeremy Finn and C.M. Achilles, American Educational Research Journal, Fall 1990. Available from American Educational Research Association, 1230 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-3078, or by calling 202-223-9485.

* "Using Research Results on Class Size to Improve Pupil Achievement Outcomes," by CM. Achilles, Pat Harmon and Paula Egelson, Research in the Schools, Fall 1995. Available from SouthEast Regional Vision for Education (SERVE), P.O. Box 5367, Greensboro, N.C. 27435, or by calling 800-755-3277.

* "Does Class Size Make a Difference? Recent Findings from State and District Initiatives," by Paula Egelson, Patrick Harman and C. M. Achilles, SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education, 1996. Available from SERVE.

* "When Money Matters: How Educational Expenditures Improve Student Performance and How They Don't," by Harold Wenglinsky, Educational Testing Service, 1997. Available from ETS, Mail Stop 04-R, Rosedale Rood, Princeton, N.J. 08541-0001, or by calling 609-734-5694.

Articles:

* "Synthesis of Research on the Effects of Class Size," by Glen Robinson, Educational Leadership, May 1990. Available from Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt St., Va. 22314-1453, or by calling 800-933-ASCD.

* "The Numbers Game Yields Simplistic Answers on the Link between Spending and Outcomes," by Michael Sadowski, Harvard Education Letter, March/April 1993. Available from Harvard Education Letter, 6 Appian Way, Cambridge, Moss. 02138, or by calling 800-513-0763.

* "The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," by Frederick Mosteller, The Future of Children, Summer/Fall 1995. Available from Packard Foundation, 300 Second St., Suite 102, Los Altos, Calif. 94022, or by calling 415-948-3696.

Resource site:

* WestEd, a federal research lab, operates a web site (http://www.WestEd.org) that tracks the class-size reduction effort in California and provides on array of information on class size.