student teacher ratios « Coffins Education Center

Archive for the ‘student teacher ratios’ Category

How Smaller Class Size Affects Student Achievement: A Literature Review of the STAR project and other studies

Monday, December 20th, 2010

Introduction

Research concentrating on class size is important because the findings have largely concluded that smaller class size leads to increases in student achievement, helps to close the minority-majority achievement gap, and has several other long lasting benefits. This paper reviews the literature concerning the research into three major experiments concentrating on the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement. The review explores not only the methodology of different approaches to class size reduction as well as the benefits of smaller class sizes but also the range of conclusions drawn on the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement including those that are supportive as well as critical plus the need for additional research. The three major class size reduction initiatives are:

Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project
Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) project
California Class Size Reduction Program (CSRP)

The literature concerning the different approaches used to evaluate the impact of smaller class size on student achievement in each of the three class size reduction initiatives is reviewed including STAR’s use of a randomized, longitudinal experiment, SAGE’s targeting of students in low income or poverty level school districts, and California’s statewide implementation. The design, findings, and limitations of each of these studies are evaluated as discussed in the literature.

Although this review focuses on the three major class size reduction initiatives, the landmark STAR project not only set the standard against which other studies have been evaluated but also caused other class size reduction initiatives to be undertaken including Wisconsin’s SAGE project and California’s CSRP to try to replicate its results. The landmark STAR project is the leading longitudinal class size reduction experiment conducted over ten years in Tennessee to determine not only the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement but also the long term effects. Tennessee’s STAR project, Wisconsin’s SAGE project, and California CSRP’s are the largest class size reduction initiatives making their conclusions some of the most credible.

Although a majority of the body of research on the effectiveness of class size has found that smaller class size improves student achievement including Finn and Achilles (1999), Konstantopoulos (2009), and Schanzenbach (2007) and many small class size advocates promote a nationwide application, this conclusion has its critics. Critics such as Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald (1994), Hoxby (2000), Prais (1996), Hanushek (1989), and Hanushek (1996) contend that class size reduction programs are either too expensive, create certified teacher shortages, create classroom shortages, or have flaws in their methodology and, therefore, different and more cost effective ways of improving student achievement should be considered. The research that shares this perspective of class size reduction programs is reviewed. The paper concludes with a review of the literature that provides insights into the possible underlying reasons as to why small class improves student achievement.

A large portion of the class size reduction research has not only demonstrated that when qualified teachers teach students in smaller class sizes the students in the smaller classes learn more and according to Finn, Fulton, Nye, and Zaharias (1992), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), and Finn and Achilles (1999) these students retain this advantage over other students who attend larger classes but also shown how smaller class sizes help to significantly close the achievement gap among minority and majority students. According to Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2000a), Konstantopoulos (2009), and Schanzenbach (2007) smaller class size seems not only to increase achievement for all students but also to benefit most those students who are minorities, eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, or attend urban schools in low income districts.

Krueger and Whitmore (2001) identified a number of other small class size benefits for at-risk students including how small class sizes narrow the achievement gap, reduce grade retention, decrease behavioral problems, reduce truancy, and increase graduation rates. While Fletcher (2009) found evidence of increased participation in high school sports, extracurricular activities, honors, and advanced placement courses among students who attended smaller class sizes during kindergarten through third grade, he did not find evidence of higher rates of attending college.

In terms of this literature review, however, it is important to understand two essential elements of the STAR, SAGE, and California CSRP class size reduction initiatives. First, these three major initiatives were not specifically designed to determine how smaller class size improved student achievement but rather to determine whether smaller class size improved student achievement. Second, it is important to distinguish between what is meant by class size and a student-teacher ratio. Class size is the number of students a teacher instructs in a classroom at a point in time. A student-teacher ratio is different because it is a school’s total student enrollment divided by the number of its full time teachers.

Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project

The leading experiment is the landmark longitudinal class size reduction initiative conducted over ten years in Tennessee to determine not only the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement but also the long term effects called the STAR project. The STAR project focused on the impact of smaller class size in kindergarten through third grade. Along with Wisconsin’s SAGE project and California’s CSRP, the STAR project is one of the few very large scale class size experiments making its data some of the most widely studied.

Glass and Smith (1979) performed a meta-analysis of the major class size reduction experiments to determine the relationship between class size and student achievement which helped to establish the foundation for the STAR project. Glass and Smith (1979) focused primarily on comparisons of student performance in class sizes of less than 15 versus classes with more than 20 students and concluded that smaller class size tended to improve student achievement significantly. Although Slavin (1989) found a less significant relationship between class size and student achievement when he analyzed Glass and Smith’s study, many evaluations of the STAR project’s findings were consistent with those of Glass and Smith. Also, Slavin (1989) argued that class size reduction projects such as STAR are too expensive relative to the degree of improvement in student achievement and that less expensive methods of improving student achievement should be considered. In another meta-analysis, Hedges et al. (1994) concluded that the larger is the scale of the class size reduction experiment the greater is the expense.

Three Phases

The STAR project was conducted in three phases. The first phase, following a similar two year initiative conducted on a much smaller scale in which class sizes were reduced from 25 to 18 in grades kindergarten through second grade in a small number of Indiana schools called Project Prime Time, was performed over four years. In Project Prime Time, Finn and Achilles (1990) found that students in smaller classes scored higher on standardized tests, had fewer behavioral problems, and performed at higher levels in mathematics and reading than those in larger classes. Because Project Prime Time did not randomly assign students to treatment groups, it was criticized for a lack of internal validity by many researchers including Blatchford, Goldstein, and Mortimore (1998), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), and Grissmer (1999). Project Prime Time’s lack of randomization highlighted the need for a large scale randomized experiment to evaluate the impact of small class size on student achievement which led ultimately to the STAR project. Konstantopoulos (2009) and Finn and Achilles (1990) found that the STAR project showed students in smaller class sizes from kindergarten through third grade demonstrated significantly improved achievement as compared to those in larger classes after four years of the experiment. Konstantopoulos (2009), however, focused more on the impact of the teacher particularly on poverty level, minority, and female students in the STAR project and found that the teacher had the most impact on improving the achievement of students coming from poverty level homes with minimal effects on minority and female students.

STAR’s second phase, a three year observational study called the Lasting Benefits Study, found that the benefits of smaller class sizes continued into the later grades. In terms of the Lasting Benefits Study, Achilles, Nye, Zaharias, and Fulton (1993), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), Finn et al. (1992), Finn and Achilles (1999), Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2001a), and Konstantopoulos (2009) concluded that even after the students returned to larger classes in the fourth through eighth grades those students who had attended smaller class sizes for their first three or four years maintained an advantage over students who had attended the larger classes from kindergarten through third grade. Finn, Gerber, Achilles, and Boyd-Zaharias (2001) found that the benefits of smaller class sizes from kindergarten through third grade were significant and lasted throughout high school.

Although Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009) found evidence that the duration of the benefits was a function of the number of years a student attended smaller classes and that the benefits lasted beyond eighth grade, Fletcher (2009) found that the benefits of smaller class size diminished with time. Still, Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2001b) found that the duration of the benefits of smaller classes lasted beyond ninth grade. The students who attended smaller class sizes in kindergarten through third grade, therefore, continued to outperform those who had attended larger classes according to most researchers. Major assessments of the Lasting Benefits Study including those conducted by Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2000b), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), and Finn and Achilles (1999) supported STAR’s earlier findings that minority students benefited the most from having smaller class sizes.

The STAR project’s third phase, called Project Challenge, was conducted over three years and placed all of the kindergarten through third grade students of Tennessee’s 17 most economically challenged school districts into small classes. Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (1999) assessed Project Challenge and found improvements in student achievement similar to those of the STAR project’s first phase. As a result of having smaller class sizes, Nye, Achilles, Zaharias, and Fulton (1993) concluded that the students in these 17 districts had raised their performance levels for reading and mathematics.

But unlike Project Prime Time which was attacked because the students were not randomly assigned, Krueger (1999) and Schanzenbach (2007) explained how the STAR project was a randomized experiment of kindergarten through third grade class size conducted in Tennessee. In the STAR project, the researchers used random assignment of the students and teachers to control the treatment. The researchers compared the students’ performance on the post treatment status on the dependent variable using statistical analyses of student test results. Because the researchers used random assignment, the statistically significant differences that they found enabled them to conclude that the effect of having students in smaller class sizes was the cause of the higher achievement levels which assured them that the effect was real. That is, researchers such as Finn and Achilles (1990) and Finn and Achilles (1999) were able to conclude that the treatment caused the differences in effect and that the results were internally valid because the project’s use of random assignment had eliminated other possible explanations for experiment’s outcomes.

Finn et al. (2001), Finn and Achilles (1990), Finn and Achilles (1999), and Schanzenbach (2007) explained how the STAR project’s use of randomization was likely to lead to internally valid results because it only manipulated class size and excluded other factors from influencing the selection and assignment of students into treatment and control groups. Thus, any significant differences in performance among the different groups would be a function of the difference in class size. Both standardized and curriculum based tests including the Stanford Achievement Test and the Tennessee Basic Skills First Test were employed to determine the performance of approximately 11,600 students in inner city, suburban, urban, and rural school districts in STAR’s three phases. The tests assessed the students’ reading, mathematics, and basic study skills.

Public schools statewide were invited to volunteer for the project based on their ability and willingness to follow the experiment’s protocol according to Finn et al. (2001), Schanzenbach (2007), Finn and Achilles (1990), and Finn and Achilles (1999). The 76 schools that were selected to participate represented all areas of the state as well as all of the state’s ethnic and racial groups. While teachers were randomly assigned by grade to classes of one of three different sizes so that they were not able to choose their classrooms, the students were randomly assigned to either the treatment group or one of two control groups, a no treatment group or an alternative treatment group, so that each class was composed of a roughly equivalent student population according to Krueger (1999) and Nye et al. (1993).

Schanzenbach (2007), Nye et al. 1993), Finn and Achilles (1990), and Finn and Achilles (1999) explained how students were randomly assigned by grade to classes of one of three different sizes:

Treatment group: Class size of 13 to 17 students
Control groups:
- No treatment group: Regular class size of 22 to 25 students
- Alternative treatment group: Regular class size of 22 to 25 students plus a teacher’s aid

Each year students were assessed and their performance was compared to the performance of students in the other groups according to their grade level, school district location, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, gender, and number of years of participation in the experiment.

Findings

Most researchers seem to share the view advanced by Konstantopoulos (2009), Finn and Achilles (1990), Nye et al. (1999), Schanzenbach (2007), and Word, Johnston, Bain, and Fulton (1994) that the STAR project found that as class size was reduced student achievement improved. These researchers found the STAR project demonstrated that students, who were enrolled in small classes beginning with kindergarten and continuing through third grade, were significantly more likely than their counterparts who attended larger classes, to:

Demonstrate better reading and mathematics skills
Complete more advanced mathematics, science, and English courses
Complete high school
Graduate high school on time
Graduate high school with honors
Reduce truancy
Reduce grade retention
Decrease behavioral problems

Also, teachers of the smaller classes in grades kindergarten through third grade reported that they spent more time teaching, provided more individualized or differentiated instruction, had more interactions per child, and were better able to minimize disruptive student behavior as reported by Addonizio and Phelps (2000), Achilles et al. (1993), and Cooper (1989).

Finn and Achilles (1990) summarized the STAR project’s findings as to how the treatment group, the group with a class size of 13 to 17 students, had higher levels of performance than the students in either of the controls groups who attended larger classes of 22 to 25 students. Finn and Achilles (1999) found statistically significant improvements in student achievement not only among those students who attended smaller classes from kindergarten through third grade but also among those who attended smaller classes for less than four years even if the student had a smaller class size for only one or two years. While Finn and Achilles (1990) found long lasting benefits of smaller classes, Krueger and Whitmore (2001) compared ninth grade students who had had at least one year of smaller class sizes from kindergarten through third grade with their ninth grade counterparts who had attended larger class sizes and found that those ninth grade students who had attended small classes performed better in mathematics. Also, Finn and Achilles (1999) stated that based on their assessment of the STAR project the treatment group improved at almost twice the rate as that which was extrapolated from Glass and Smith’s (1979) meta-analysis.

Nye et al. (2000b) and Nye et al. (2001a) further explained that the improvements in student achievement for those students in the treatment group were significant throughout the kindergarten through third grades but the most significant differences in performance versus the control groups were identified during the first two years of school. That is, the more years a student attended smaller classes the greater was his/her improvement in performance. Hanushek (1999a) and Hanushek (1999b), however, found less significant findings in his evaluations of the STAR project which led him to question the project’s implementation methodology including whether the STAR project used random assignment throughout the entire experiment due to the impact of attrition and how new students were introduced to the experiment. The lack of research into how attrition reduced the experiment’s random assignment and, therefore, affected the findings of the STAR project is reflected by a corresponding gap in the literature.

Research on the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement has demonstrated how smaller class sizes help to significantly close the achievement gap among minority and majority students. Although Word et al. (1994) found that the students in the treatment group outperformed the corresponding students in the control groups, minority students gained more than other students. Achilles et al. (1993), Konstantopoulos (2009), Nye et al. (1993), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), and Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2004) echo the findings of Word et al. (1994) that smaller class size not only increased achievement for all students but also benefited most those students who are minorities, eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, or attend urban schools in low income districts. Krueger and Whitmore (2001), however, were more specific in concluding that for these at-risk students, small class sizes narrowed the achievement gap, reduced grade retention, decreased behavioral problems, reduced truancy, and increased graduation rates. But Fletcher (2009) did not find the same level of significance for Krueger and Whitmore’s (2001) results.

Word et al. (1994) found that minority, low income, and urban students achieved their most significant improvements during the first two years of having smaller class size rather than building cumulatively every year for four years. But Konstantopoulos (2009), Nye et al. (2001b), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), and Nye et al. (2004) found the most significant improvements for students spending four years in the experiment. Finn et al. (2001), however, found significant short term as well as intermediate term gains that continued through high school especially for minority students which seemed to combine the conclusions of Word et al. (1994) with those of Konstantopoulos (2009), Nye et al. (2001b), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), and Nye et al. (2004).

Among the researchers discussing the long term impact of smaller class size on student achievement, Achilles et al. (1993), Finn and Achilles (1999), Nye et al. (2001b), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), Nye et al. (2001a), and Nye et al. (1999) are at the forefront of those concluding that students in the smaller class sizes retained their advantage over other students who attended larger classes when students returned to larger classes beginning in fourth grade. Moreover, these researchers found that the advantages of smaller class size continued generally throughout high school. Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009) found that all students who attended smaller classes continued to outperform those students who had attended larger classes in mathematics, language arts, and science tests through eighth grade. Echoing Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), Nye et al. (2001b) found that students who attended smaller classes continued to outperform those students who had attended larger classes in mathematics, language arts, and science tests through ninth grade. Nye et al. (2000a), Word et al. (1994), Nye et al. (2004), and Nye et al. (1999) also found that while minority, low income, and urban students who attended smaller classes achieved more significant gains than their majority student counterparts during the STAR experiment, these differences in achievement continued throughout high school although the differences narrowed over time.

Limitations

The STAR project was the longest longitudinal randomized experiment concentrating on the impact of smaller class size on student achievement and many researchers agreed with its conclusion of a significant internally valid relationship. A number of researchers, however, including Hanushek and Raymond (2005), Hanushek (1999a), Hanushek (1999b), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), Hoxby (2000), Prais (1996), and Mitchell, Beach, and Baduruk (1991) raised questions or challenged certain aspects of the project.

Although Hoxby (2000), Prais (1996), Hanushek and Raymond (2005), Hanushek (1999a), Hanushek (1999b), and Mitchell et al. (1991) acknowledged that students and teachers were randomly assigned to the treatment groups’ classrooms, they faulted the experiment for its lack of information concerning the actual process through which the STAR project assigned teachers to classrooms and whether the STAR project tried to control for any differences in teacher quality. These researchers criticized the STAR project’s random assignment because of the ways in which teacher attitudes and behaviors as well as student expectations for achievement may have been influenced by their assignment to treatment groups. That is, these researchers argued that because the teachers and students understood the class size to which they were assigned, their attitudes and expectations based on their assignment may have influenced the outcome of the experiment.

Hanushek and Raymond (2005), Hanushek’s (1999a), and Hanushek’s (1999b) challenges concerning whether the STAR project actually proved a direct and causal relationship between smaller class size and corresponding increases in student achievement, however, seems to have been based on an inappropriate comparison. That is, Hanushek seems to have confused the definitions of class size and student-teacher ratio. The STAR project concentrated on determining a causal effect between reductions in class sizes and corresponding increases in student achievement based on class size which is defined as the number of students a teacher instructs in a classroom at a point in time. Hanushek based his analysis on student-teacher ratios instead of class sizes and a student-teacher ratio differs significantly from what is meant by class size because it is a school’s total student enrollment divided by the number of its full time teachers. Hanushek’s use of student-teacher ratios seems to have undermined his argument.

Schanzenbach (2007), Word et al. (1994), Finn and Achilles (1990), and Finn and Achilles (1999) reported how teachers and students were randomly assigned by grade level to classes of one of three different sizes including the treatment group of 13 to 17 students, a no treatment group of 22 to 25 students, and alternative treatment group of 22 to 25 students plus a teacher’s aid. But critics including Hoxby (2000), Prais (1996), Hanushek and Raymond (2005), Hanushek (1999a), Hanushek (1999b), and Mitchell et al. (1991) concluded that if the STAR project had been more of a parametric experiment then the project could have used many more and different class sizes instead of such a small number of groups which would have most likely led to the discovery of key break points. The importance of a parametric experiment is that it facilitates the identification of those specific class sizes or break points at which the marginal benefit of adding one more student equals the marginal cost of adding the incremental student and where if one more student were to be added then the marginal cost would exceed the marginal benefit. That is, it identifies the specific number of students in a class for which student achievement is maximized and if an incremental student were to be added then the incremental gain in student achievement would not be as significant. Using a parametric experimental design, therefore, could have enabled the STAR project to possibly determine the optimal class size for maximizing student achievement according to some of the experiment’s critics.

Although researchers such as Hanushek and Raymond (2005), Hanushek (1999a), Hanushek (1999b), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), Hoxby (2000), Prais (1996), and Mitchell et al. (1991) concluded that the STAR project’s findings are difficult to generalize because of its use of just one treatment group and two control groups when using more and different treatment and control groups would have better, these critics raised additional questions concerning whether the experiment’s findings are internally valid. Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), Hanushek (1999a), Hanushek (1999b), and Hanushek and Raymond (2005) in particular criticized the STAR project because of the attrition it experienced. These critics questioned the experiment’s validity because they reported that only 48% of all students remained in the experiment for four years who entered the experiment starting in kindergarten and how the new students that replaced those who dropped out were selected and assigned was unknown. The STAR project’s validity is challenged by these critics because its randomization was reduced during the experiment.

Hanushek and Raymond (2005), Hanushek (1999a), Hanushek (1999b), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), Hoxby (2000), Prais (1996), and Mitchell et al. (1991) enlarged their critique by determining that the replacement students were not assessed properly for such factors as preexisting differences in academic achievement upon entering the experiment. They also determined that test scores were lower among the dropouts than for those students who remained in study. In addition, certain students were shifted among the control groups in the second year of the study to balance the control group classes for racial and gender differences which led these critics to conclude that the STAR project’s results may be less significant. Hanushek and Raymond (2005), Hanushek (1999a), Hanushek (1999b), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), Hoxby (2000), Prais (1996), and Mitchell et al. (1991) generally concluded that selection bias might have been a factor as a result of the attrition from the treatment and control groups as well as the movement of students among the control groups.

Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) project

Wisconsin’s SAGE project attempted to replicate the findings of the STAR project. But in contrast to STAR, the SAGE project implemented a statewide class size reduction initiative to determine the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement as well as the long term effects of smaller classes that targeted students from disadvantaged homes. Molnar, Smith, Zahorik, Palmer, Halbach, and Ehrle (1999) reported that SAGE was a five year class size reduction experiment begun in the 1996-1997 school year to improve student achievement among students in low income or poverty level school districts by reducing class size in these schools to no more than 15. The SAGE program was phased in over three years with kindergarten and first grade in the first year, second grade in the second year, and third grade in the third year. Although only low income school districts were included initially in the experiment, by 2000 all other school districts could apply to the program.

Molnar, Smith, and Zahorik (2000) and Molnar et al. (1999) reported that the SAGE project reduced kindergarten through third grade class sizes only in schools referred to as SAGE schools in one of the following ways depending on the configuration of the classroom:

A single classroom with a class size of 15
A shared space classroom with a temporary wall dividing the classroom into two classrooms or sections with each classroom or section having 15 students
A dual teacher classroom in which two teachers taught 30 students
A “floating teacher” classroom of 16 to 20 students except during reading, language arts, and mathematics classes when a second teacher was added

Non-SAGE schools maintained existing larger class sizes.

Although non-SAGE comparison schools were not paired or linked with SAGE schools, the non-SAGE comparison schools were located within the same school district. Although the non-SAGE comparison schools had larger or what were considered to be more traditional class sizes for the respective school district, the non-SAGE comparison schools were similar in terms of their grade levels, enrollment, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, and gender. But Blatchford et al. (1998), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), and Grissmer (1999) challenged the validity of the comparisons among class sizes of 15 in SAGE schools with class sizes in non-SAGE schools that varied greatly in contrast to the STAR project that limited its comparison of a treatment group class size of 13 to 17 students with a control group class size of 22 to 25 students.

Blatchford et al. (1998), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), and Grissmer (1999) criticized how the four different configurations of a class size of 15 within the SAGE schools were incorrectly considered to be the same for comparison purposes with class sizes in non-SAGE schools. The lack of research into how the four different configurations of class size used within the SAGE schools not only were significantly different from one another but also affected the outcomes of the SAGE project is reflected by a corresponding gap in the literature.

Although reducing class sizes to 15 was the major component of SAGE, the project had three other features. Molnar et al. (1999) reported that a second component was the implementation of a rigorous curriculum that met state standards in every SAGE school. The third component of SAGE was the implementation of an educator and staff professional development program. The fourth component of SAGE was the implementation of what was called the lighted schoolhouse program. Molnar et al. (1999) and Graue and Oen (2009) explained that the lighted schoolhouse program included before and after school programs. But Blatchford et al. (1998), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), and Grissmer (1999) criticized how the simultaneous implementation of three other components besides class size reduction might have affected SAGE’s outcomes. The lack of research into how the implementation of these four components might have affected the outcomes of the SAGE project is reflected by a corresponding gap in the literature.

Molnar et al. (1999) reported that SAGE used a quasi-experimental design with a treatment group and a control group that were pretested and posttested. SAGE used pretest scores to try to determine and reduce selection bias. Also, Webb, Meyer, Gamoran, and Jianbin (2004) reported that comparisons of kindergarten through third graders’ test scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) in SAGE and non-SAGE schools were controlled for family income, racial composition, and ethnicity.

Findings

The results of the SAGE project largely confirmed the findings of the STAR project. Molnar et al. (1999) concluded that students who attended small classes beginning with kindergarten and continuing through third grade significantly improved their academic achievement and that the benefits were greater for students from low income or poverty level families in the SAGE project. Students scored higher on the CTBS in reading, language arts, and mathematics tests as well as the overall CTBS results in SAGE schools than the students in their non-SAGE schools counterparts. Webb et al. reported that the favorable outcome based on socioeconomic status was significant because the SAGE project was designed to target students in low income school districts.

The increases in achievement for minority students were also greater than those of their majority counterparts which were among the findings that the SAGE project shared with the STAR project. While Molnar et al. (2000), Graue and Oen (2009), and Molnar et al. (1999) found improvements in student achievement during each of the four years, Blatchford et al. (1998), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), and Grissmer (1999) differed in finding that first graders in SAGE schools had lower pretest but higher posttest scores than their non-SAGE counterparts and that the most significant increases in achievement were made in the first year even though Grissmer (1999) reported that the gains continued beyond third grade.

Cooper (1989), Molnar et al. (2000), Graue and Oen (2009), and Molnar et al. (1999) found increased student attention and teacher concentration on individual students as a result of smaller class size similar to the STAR project’s results as reported by Schanzenbach (2007), Finn and Achilles (1990), Finn and Achilles (1999), and Addonizio and Phelps (2000). These researches reported that teachers of the smaller classes in grades kindergarten through third grade reported that they spent more time educating, provided more differentiated instruction, had more interactions per child, and were better able to minimize disruptive student behavior. But Graue, Raucher, and Sherfinski (2009) concluded that the increases in student achievement were largely due to the combination of students having smaller class sizes with increased student attention and teacher concentration on individual students.

Limitations

Blatchford et al. (1998), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), and Grissmer (1999) criticized the SAGE project primarily because SAGE used a quasi-experimental design in which the teachers and students were not randomly assigned. These researchers criticized SAGE for not employing matched pair SAGE and non-SAGE comparison schools. Also, classroom composition changed annually in both the SAGE and non-SAGE schools. These critics concluded that the SAGE project suffered from potential selection bias which reduced its internal validity because how school districts decided whether a school would be a SAGE school was unknown and the method of selecting students for smaller class sizes within SAGE schools was unknown. Blatchford et al. (1998) and Goldstein and Blatchford (1998) concluded that SAGE schools might have had favorable predisposition for treatment and that SAGE schools’ possible favorable predisposition might have biased outcomes so that the treatment seemed more effective. The SAGE project, unlike STAR, performed no long term evaluation beyond fourth grade of the effect of class size reduction.

Blatchford et al. (1998), Goldstein and Blatchford (1998), and Grissmer (1999) criticized the SAGE project because the three other components besides class size reduction of the SAGE project, including the rigorous curriculum that met state standards, professional development program, and lighted schoolhouse program, were not uniformly implemented. The extent to which these three factors may have contributed to study’s outcomes is unknown which makes it unclear if class size reduction by itself caused the outcomes.

California Class Size Reduction Program (CSRP)

The California CSRP attempted to replicate the findings of the STAR project through what remains as the largest class size reduction initiative. But in contrast to the STAR project, the California CSRP implemented a statewide class size reduction initiative to determine the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement which was phased in over four years but was not longitudinal. Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) and Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) reported that the California CSRP used a quasi-experimental design to study the impact of smaller class sizes on student achievement using two nonrandomized comparison groups but no control group. The first nonrandomized comparison group or what was considered to be the smaller or reduced class used a class size of not more than 20 students while the second or larger class used a class size of more than 20 students. Student achievement was measured using the Stanford Achievement Tests for reading, language arts, and mathematics.

Findings

Although the results of the California CSRP were largely consistent with the findings of the STAR project, the impact of smaller class size on student achievement across all groups and especially in terms of closing the minority-majority achievement gap was considered to be not as significant. While Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) found some increases in student achievement, they faulted the initiative’s quasi-experimental design which used two treatment groups but no control group for preventing significant conclusions from being drawn on the relationship of smaller class size and student achievement. Also, Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) could not determine how a class size of 20 was determined to be the pivot point.

When Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) assessed the California CSRP, they controlled for a student’s family income, gender, racial composition, and ethnicity. Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) concluded that there were small but significant increases in student achievement across different groups once they controlled for these factors. Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) also concluded that they could not rule out the possibility that other factors in addition to smaller class size could have led to the increases in student achievement which echoed the findings of Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000).

The findings of the STAR and SAGE projects were echoed by Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000), Mitchell and Mitchell (1999), Jepsen and Rivkin (2009), and Funkhouser (2009) in their assessment of the California CSRP when they found increased student attention and teacher concentration on individual students as a result of smaller class size. These researches reported that teachers of the smaller classes in grades kindergarten through third grade reported that they spent more time teaching, provided more differentiated instruction especially for mathematics and language arts, had more interactions per child, and were better able to minimize disruptive student behavior.

But Jepsen and Rivkin (2009) found that the large scale of the California CSRP led to a shortage of certified teachers statewide that was most acute in low income school districts. Many schools serving at-risk and low income students, therefore, had a disproportionate number of teachers who were not certified, lacked previous teaching experience, or had an emergency teacher certification. This degradation of teacher qualifications may have offset some of the increases in student achievement that would otherwise have occurred especially in low income schools according to Jepsen and Rivkin (2009). Also, Funkhouser (2009) concluded that the increases in student achievement might have been not only more significant but also more readily attributed to smaller class sizes if it were not for other programs such as a revised statewide curriculum, more standardized testing, and new statewide student grade advancement standards that were implemented simultaneously.

Limitations

Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) and Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) found that the California CSRP differed from the STAR project. The California CSRP differed from the STAR project because its large scale caused the initiative to become extremely expensive particularly in terms of increased aggregate school spending for more teachers and additional classroom facilities. Although Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) and Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) concluded that the relatively small increases in student achievement were due at least in part to the reduction of class size, they faulted the California CSRP’s quasi-experimental design primarily because it employed two nonrandomized comparison groups but no control group, did not define why having class sizes of either less or more than twenty students was the basis for the treatment groups, and performed no pretesting. Also, Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) and Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) faulted the California CSRP for not explaining how students were assigned to the treatment groups. This led critics to conclude that the California CSRP suffered from a history threat to internal validity.

Mitchell and Mitchell (1999) and Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) found that California schools typically had class sizes of approximately 30 students before the implementation of the California CSRP. Because there was no pretest, these critics reported that it can not be determined if student performance improved with the posttest because no comparison could be made. This led them to conclude that the initiative’s use of treatment groups that were either below or above 20 students resulted in classes that were closer in size to the larger classes of the STAR project which might have caused smaller increases in student achievement than were found in the STAR project. In conclusion, Mitchell and Mitchell (1999), Jepsen and Rivkin (2009), and Stecher and Borhnstedt (2000) could not determine if the smaller increases in student achievement than those that were found in the STAR project were a function of using larger treatment groups than those of the STAR project or other factors such as the program’s quasi-experimental design, shortage of certified teachers, and the simultaneous implementation of other statewide educational programs. The California CSRP, therefore, did not replicate the STAR project which was a controlled randomized longitudinal experiment.

Questions for Future Research

Although the majority of the class size research, including Tennessee’s STAR project, Wisconsin’s SAGE project, and California’s CSRP, has largely concluded that smaller class size leads to increases in student achievement, helps to close the minority-majority achievement gap, and has several other long lasting benefits, it not only demonstrates the need for more and different kinds of research but also raises questions. How long should a student remain in a reduced class size before returning to a class of regular size? One question is whether the increases in student achievement resulting from class size reduction initiatives are maximized in the earlier grades such as kindergarten through third grade or whether class size reductions in subsequent grades perhaps through high school would generate similar gains. If it could be proven that incremental increases in student achievement resulted from reducing class sizes from kindergarten through high school, would school districts be able to raise the necessary funds to pay for the additional teachers, support personnel, classrooms, and other facilities?

Do the benefits of smaller classes persist or diminish over time? Future studies could investigate the extent to which increases in student achievement continue into later grades, whether the gains diminish over time, and the points at which the increases in achievement begin to diminish. If the research proved that the increases in student achievement are maximized from kindergarten through third grade but begin to decline significantly thereafter, then the benefits of smaller classes might be not generalizable to higher grade levels and implementing class size reductions from fourth grade through high school might not be as cost effective.

What is the optimal class size for maximizing student achievement? The smaller class sizes in the STAR project were 13 to 17 students while the larger class sizes were 22 to 25 students. While the SAGE project used smaller class sizes of 15 or less and a variety of larger ones, the California CSRP used class sizes of less than 20 as well as various class sizes of more than 20. Although smaller class size has been found to result in increases in student achievement, the optimal class size is not well defined. Also, future research could focus on whether smaller class size affects different groups differently. Future research could investigate the extent to which different groups such as students who are poor performers, come from low income families, members of a minority group, or English language learners might require different class sizes to maximize their achievement.

Although studies, including the STAR project, SAGE project, and California CSRP, have determined that class size reduction initiatives led to increases in student achievement, more research is needed to determine what other factors might contribute to increases in student achievement besides smaller class size. Research could be performed to determine the impact of having highly qualified teachers teach students in smaller classes. This factor may have influenced the outcomes of the California CSRP in which the lack of certified teachers may have significantly offset the benefits of smaller class size. Additional research could be conducted to determine the impact that different state teacher education, training, and certification requirements have on the ability of teachers in different states to influence student achievement. It would be helpful to learn through future research what unique teaching methods are best suited for small as well as large class sizes and how to train teachers to use these methods effectively in the classroom.

This review reveals that certain essential elements of smaller class sizes merit more research including the nature of small class sizes and whether the small class size effect is a start-up or one-time phenomenon. In terms of the nature of class size, a number of questions were raised by this review. Are there inherent advantages of smallness or having a smaller size for student achievement? That is, research could try to determine if smaller class sizes have certain contextual advantages over larger class sizes.

Another subject for future research is to determine the extent to which the small class size effect is a one-time or start-up phenomenon. Class size initiatives have concentrated primarily on evaluating the possible linkage to how students perform in kindergarten through third grade. Research is needed to determine whether smaller class sizes may work best because students are young and have just entered school. Researchers, therefore, must account for the fact that the smaller class size effect can not be separated from a student’s age. Also, it is possible that class size reductions realize the most significant increases in student achievement during the early grades because students are just beginning the school socialization process. One way to assess the possible start-up phenomenon would be to conduct class size reduction initiatives in the fourth through twelfth grades and compare the results to those from class size reduction initiatives from kindergarten through third grade.

Conclusion

The review of the literature concerning the research into three major experiments that concentrated on the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement, STAR project, SAGE project, and California CSRP, demonstrates that having a smaller class size not only increases student achievement but also helps to significantly minimize the achievement gap among different groups of students and has several other long lasting benefits. While the apparent advantages of smallness or small class size in improving student achievement may not be surprising to educators, administrators, students, and parents as well as to the many researchers who share this view, this literature review finds support for more research to address the challenges raised by the critics of the major experiments of the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement.

Having fewer students in the classroom enables the teacher to dedicate more time to each child. Consequently, students pay more attention to class work and participate more in academics. Because the students are more involved with their studies they learn more and behave better. The literature, therefore, is consistent with the conclusion that test scores are significantly higher for students who attend small classes. Based primarily upon the findings of the STAR project as well as the SAGE project and California CSRP, the overall conclusion in the literature that having a smaller class size increases student achievement seems to outweigh the doubts that students taught in small classes enjoy significant and lasting educational advantages especially minority and low income students.

The review of the literature concerning the research into three major experiments of the relationship between smaller class sizes and student achievement suggests that the social context of smaller class size may have a favorable influence on student performance. That is, there may be inherent advantages of smallness that foster a greater of sense of community than is possible in larger class sizes. Smaller class sizes, therefore, may generate what Fischel (2002, p. 5) defines as classroom based “community specific social capital” which contributes to improving student performance. Fischel (2002, p. 2) cites Boozer and Rouse’s (2001) assessment of how “bigger classes (more student-consumers) do detract, at plausible margins, from the education of others” in his assessment of the adverse impact of larger class sizes on student performance. Small class sizes, therefore, seem to generate increases in student achievement that are inversely related to their size.

Smaller class size may improve student achievement because of its social ecology. The provision of education through small class sizes in which the students and teachers are able to get to know and understand one another better may facilitate increases in student achievement while according to Fischel (2002, p. 1) it “reduces the transaction costs of the provision of true local public goods such as education” by increasing graduation rates and reducing truancy. The communal capital of smaller class sizes, therefore, generates more frequent and meaningful face-to-face student-teacher interactions. These more frequent one-on-one student-teacher interactions may create an improved learning process in which student performance improves as a result of smaller class size. Increases in student achievement, therefore, may be a function of the social ecology of smaller class size.

References

Achilles, C. M., Nye, B. A., Zaharias, J. B., & Fulton, B. D. (1993). The Lasting Benefits Study (LBS) in grades 4 and 5 (1990-1991): A legacy from Tennessee’s four-year (K-3) class-size study (1985-1989), Project Star. Greensboro, North Carolina: North Carolina Association for Research in Education.

Addonizio, M. F. & Phelps, J. L. (2000). Class size and student performance: A framework for policy analysis. Journal of Education Finance, 26(2), 135-156.

Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., & Mortimore, P. (1998). Research on class size effects: A critique of methods and a way forward. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 691-710.

Boozer, M. A. & Rouse, C. (2001). Intraschool variation in class size: Patterns and implications. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(1), 163-189.

Cooper, H. M. (1989). Does reducing student-to-teacher ratios affect achievement? Educational Psychologist, 24(1), 79-98.

Finn, J. D. & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557-577.

Finn, J. D. & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-109.

Finn, J. D., Fulton, B. D., Nye, B. A., & Zaharias, J. B. (1992). Carry-over effects of small classes. Peabody Education Journal, 67, 75-84.

Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring effects of small classes. Teachers College Record, 103, 145-183.

Fischel, W. A. (2002). An Economic Case against Vouchers: Why Local Public Schools Are a Local Public Good, (Dartmouth Economics Department Working Paper 02-01). Dartmouth College: Dartmouth College Economics Department.

Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Is identification with school the key component in the “black box” of educational outcomes? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Economics of Education Review, 28(6), 662-671.

Funkhouser, E. (2009). The effect of kindergarten classroom size reduction on second grade achievement: Evidence from California. Economics of Education Review, 28(3), 403-414.

Glass, G. & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 2-16.

Goldstein, H. & Blatchford, P. (1998). Class size and educational achievement: A review of methodology with particular reference to study design. British Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 255-268.

Graue, M. E. & Oen, D. (2009). You just feed them with a long-handled spoon: Families evaluate their experiences in a class size reduction reform. Educational Policy, 23(5), 685-713.

Graue, M. E., Raucher, E., & Sherfinski, M. (2009). The synergy of class size reduction and classroom quality. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 178-201.

Grissmer, D. (1999). Class size effects: Assessing the evidence, its policy implications, and future research agendas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 231-248.

Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential school expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 45-65.

Hanushek, E. A. (1996). A more complete picture of school resource policies. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 397-409.

Hanushek, E. A. (1999a). The evidence on class size. In Mayer, S. E. & Peterson, P. E. (Eds.), Earning and Learning: How Schools Matter (pp. 131-168). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Hanushek, E. A. (1999b). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 143-163.

Hanushek, E. A. & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327.

Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money Matter? A meta-analysis of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5-14.

Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 1239-1285.

Jepsen, C. & Rivkin, S. (2009). Class size reduction and student achievement: The potential tradeoff between teacher quality and class size. Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 223-250.

Konstantopoulos, S. (2009). Effects of teachers on minority and disadvantaged students’ achievement in the early grades. Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 92-113.

Konstantopoulos, S. & Chung, V. (2009). What are long-term effects of smaller classes on the achievement gap? Evidence from the Lasting Benefits Study. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 125-154.

Krueger, A. B. (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 497-532.

Krueger, A. B. & Whitmore, D. M. (2001). Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement Gap? Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Mitchell, D. E., Beach, S. A., & Baduruk, G. (1991). Modelling the Relationship between Achievement and Class Size: A Re-analysis of the Tennessee Project STAR Data. Riverside, CA: University of California, California Educational Research Cooperative.

Mitchell, D. E. and Mitchell, R. E. (1999). The impact of California’s Class Size Reduction initiative on student achievement: Detailed findings from eight school districts. Riverside, CA: University of California, California Educational Research Cooperative.

Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K. (1999). Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 167-177.

Molnar, A., Smith, P., & Zahorik, J. (2000). 1999-2000 Evaluation Results of the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, University of Wisconsin.

Nye, B. A., Achilles, C. M., Zaharias, J. B., & Fulton, B. D. (1993). Project Challenge third-year summary report: An initial evaluation of the Tennessee Department of Education “At Risk” Student/Teacher Ratio Reduction Project in seventeen counties 1989-90 through 1991-92. Nashville: Center of Excellence for Research in Basic Skills, College of Education, Tennessee State University, Tennessee State University Press.

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (1999). The long-term effects of small classes: A five-year follow-up of the Tennessee class size experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 127-142.

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000a). Do minorities and the disadvantaged benefit more from small classes? Evidence from the Tennessee class size experiment. American Journal of Education, 109, 1-26.

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000b). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 123-151.

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2001a). Are effects of small classes cumulative? Evidence from a Tennessee experiment. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 336-345.

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2001b). The long-term effects of small classes in early grades: Lasting benefits of mathematics achievement at grade 9. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 245-257.

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2004). Do minorities experience larger lasting benefits from small classes? Journal of Educational Research, 98, 94-100.

Prais, S. J. (1996). Class size and learning: The Tennessee experiment – what follows? Oxford Review of Education, 22(4), 399-414.

Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). What have we learned from Project STAR? Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 205-228.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Class size and student achievement: Small effects of small classes. Educational Psychologist, 24, 99-110.

Stecher, B. M. & Borhnstedt, G. W. (2000). Class size reductions in California: The 1998-99 evaluation findings. Sacramento, California: California Department of Education.

Webb, N. L., Meyer, R. H., Gamoran, A., & Jianbin, F. (2004). Participation in the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program and performance on state assessments at grade 3 and grade 4 for three cohorts of students. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Center for Education and Research.

Word, E. R., Johnston, J., Bain, H. P., & Fulton, B. D. (1994). The State of Tennessee’s Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Technical Report 1985-1990. Nashville, Tennessee: Tennessee State Department of Education.

Tags:California Class Size Reduction Project, class size, Fischel, Hanushek, increasing student achievement, Indiana Project Prime Time, SAGE, small class sizes, STAR, Tennessee STAR, Wisconsin SAGE
Posted in academic performance, Achivement Gap, Advanced Placement (AP), Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), California, California Class Size reduction program, class size, Community Specific Social Capital, differentiated instruction, ELL, English language learners, enrollment, graduation, Hanushek, high school graduation, higher graduation rates, Honors courses, increasing student achievement, Indiana Project Prime Time, Lasting Benefits Study, minority students, Minority-Majority Achievement Gap, public education, public finance, Registered teachers, SAGE, school finance, school governance, school performance, school reform, small is beautiful, smaller class sizes, STAR, Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, Student Teacher Achievement Ratio, student teacher ratios, teaching methodology for small classes, Tennessee STAR, truancy, William Fischel, Wisconsin | No Comments »

TELs take their Toll on Education

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

Tax and Expenditure Limits (TEL)

The major question confronting New Jersey’s educational system is most likely whether the state should implement a 2.5% cap on local public school districts’ annual operating budgets which is otherwise known as a tax and expenditure limit (TEL.) This question seems to arise from the most compelling issue facing public office holders, legislators, and policy makers as well as taxpayers statewide which is how to limit the amount and growth rate of New Jersey’s taxes especially its property taxes. Governor Christie’s answer is to implement a 2.5% TEL on local property taxes and expenditures similar to Massachusetts’ Proposition 2.5 or California’s Proposition 13.

Why should taxpayers allow the passage of legislation that would enable the state of New Jersey to limit a local school district’s ability to determine the amount of property taxes it levies as well as its level of expenditures? Voters currently have more control over their local school district’s property taxes than they have over any other form of taxation whether the tax is levied by their municipal, county, state or federal government. Why then should the state be able to set an arbitrary one-size-fits-all limit on the amount of property taxes local school districts can levy when property taxes are set according to local needs and priorities? Such a one-size-fits-all cap will fit no district because districts are unique.

Taxpayers can vote on their local school district budgets in all but a handful of towns but no taxpayer is able to vote on the budget of his/her municipal or county government despite the fact that these two levels of government are funded almost entirely by local property taxes. Because taxpayers can vote on school budgets, they can hold their school systems accountable but without a corresponding vote on municipal and particularly county government budgets taxpayers can not hold these levels of government accountable. This is one of the chief reasons why county government costs New Jersey’s taxpayers more than $6.1 billion annually!

All Local School District Property Taxes are Invested in the Host Municipality

All of a local school district’s property taxes remain and are invested in the schools of the host municipality so that the taxpayers benefit fully from the property taxes levied. County property taxes differ sharply from those levied to fund our public schools because they are redistributed to support an unaccountable, wasteful, and duplicative layer of government. This leads many researchers, most notably O’Sullivan, Sexton, and Sheffrin (2007,) to conclude that “local governments” and public school districts “must have access to a revenue source that they can adjust to meet varying demands.”

Funding our public schools through local property taxes is essential because county government siphons away crucial local property taxes and state governmental financial aid is unreliable. O’Sullivan, Sexton, and Sheffrin (2007) demonstrate that “the property tax can be administered by local government” and public school districts “with relatively little fear of its tax base migrating to other jurisdictions, thus providing local governments with the needed fiscal autonomy. The property tax has been the source of economic independence of local units of government” and local public school districts for generations.

Unfunded State and Federal Mandates Cause TELs to Cut Regular Education

There are only two kinds of programs and services offered by our public schools: those that are mandate protected and those that are non-mandate protected. Because school districts are forced by the state and federal governments to fully fund the unfunded portion of their mandates, public school districts must choose between cutting non-mandate protected programs and services or raising property taxes. School districts have no control over many of their major cost drivers such as the costs resulting from increases in unfunded mandates, enrollment, utilities, transportation, health insurance, legal actions, and the number as well as the mix of special education students. When a school district that is limited by a 2.5% TEL experiences increases in these uncontrollable expenses, it must cut expenses in other areas to stay within the cap.

One major fallacy in the cap advocacy argument is that local school districts are required to fund the unfunded portion of all state and federal mandates over which local school districts have no control. State and federal mandates drive the overwhelming majority of local school district expenditures and, hence, property tax levies. Property taxes could be slashed nationwide especially those funding our public schools and there would be no need for TELs, if the state and federal governments would just fully fund all of their mandates!

A TEL may force a typical school district to increase class sizes so as to minimize its expenditures for teachers and aides. But this will lead to lower test scores and likely No Child Left Behind (NCLB) operational and financial penalties. A TEL, therefore, gives a school district only one course of action: hold property tax increases within the state imposed percentage point limit while simultaneously cutting non-mandate protected programs and services but fully funding the unfunded portion of all mandates. That is, cutting regular education.

There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch

Governor Christie along with the proponents of TELs purport that school districts will be become more financially responsible because of the state imposed limit on their expenditures and tax levies. TEL proponents argue that if school districts are left to their own devices, they would continue to spend and tax at ever increasing rates while the TEL’s implementation will force school districts to hold down expenditures and property taxes. TEL proponents seem to expect units of local government and our public schools to provide the same level of public goods and services if not a higher quality of education but at a lower price.

TEL proponents and policy makers disaffected by the seemingly ever increasing size and cost of public education assert that the TEL will lower property taxes and, therefore, make the provision of public education more efficient rather than cutting essential educational programs and services. Although most people realize there is no such thing as a “free lunch,” TEL advocates claim that school systems could provide at least the same quantity of education without lowering the quality of education because the TEL would compel districts to eliminate waste. But no TEL can guarantee that any school district will not cut non-mandate protected programs and services or regular education before eliminating any waste or inefficiency.

The passage of the major TEL’s, Proposition 2.5 in 1980 in Massachusetts and Proposition 13 in 1978 in California, shows how voters frustrated with state governmental inefficiency, waste, and overspending resorted to a cap which they perceived as the only means available to remedy their situation. Voters in both states believed prior to the vote that the imposition of the TEL would substantially eliminate inefficiency, waste, and overspending but it would do so without lowering the quality or quantity of public goods and services such as education. But once the TELs were imposed in Massachusetts and California, however, taxpayers acted “consistent with the (O’Sullivan, 2001) regret theory of tax limits” or buyers’ remorse.

The history of TELs, budgetary caps or even the wage and price controls imposed under former President Nixon demonstrates that placing arbitrary limits on revenues and expenditures results in a corresponding reduction in the quantity and quality of the public programs and services such as education provided by the TEL affected entity. Indeed, Downes and Figlio (2008) describe the TEL proponents who assert that “constitutional constraints like Proposition 13 could reduce the size of local governments and, at the same time, have little or no effect on the quality of public services provided” as seeking a “free lunch.”

Apples versus Oranges: Massachusetts’ Proposition 2.5 versus Governor Christie’s 2.5% Cap

Contrary to Governor Christie’s 2.5% cap proposal, Massachusetts imposed its 2.5% TEL during an economic boom and provided significant amounts of incremental state aid to school districts to make up for the loss of local property tax revenue. But New Jersey is mired in a deep recession with seemingly ever increasing state budget deficits which have already resulted in severe cuts to state educational aid. Because state aid is declining and no additional state financial aid is forthcoming to offset lost property tax revenues, school districts would be forced to cut non-mandate protected educational programs and services much more deeply than was experienced in Massachusetts.

State aid is unreliable. Massachusetts educational aid fluctuates while California has not complied with Proposition 98’s constitutional guarantees to provide state aid to local school districts to make up for the property tax revenues lost under Proposition 13. As a result of Proposition 13, California’s per pupil spending fell precipitously to an average of approximately $7,500 per pupil as compared to an average of $47,000 per inmate at its state penal institutions while its average class sizes became the second highest in the nation. Also, Massachusetts imposed its 2.5% cap during a period of declining student enrollment while New Jersey’s enrollment levels continue to increase. Hence, Massachusetts’ lower school district expenditures were largely offset by a much lower level of student enrollment which helped to greatly minimize the cuts to educational programs and services which would not be the case in New Jersey.

Taxpayers’ Expectations for TELs

New Jersey taxpayers generally seem to believe that much greater accountability, efficiency, and transparency at all levels of government will lead to lower spending and, hence, lower taxes. But voters do not want fewer public goods and services; just a much lower price for the public goods and services that they enjoy today. Government at all levels tends to overtax, taxpayers contend, because governments waste financial resources and are inefficient. Governor Christie’s 2.5% TEL, therefore, seems to be a tempting way to accomplish these goals.

In addition, Governor Christie’s 2.5% TEL lacks the flexibility for state and local governments as well as our public schools to respond appropriately to unforeseen circumstances or a declining economy. For instance, public schools tend to experience an increase of students transferring from private schools when the economy declines and parents are more challenged to find ways to pay for tuition in addition to property taxes. Governor Christie’s 2.5% cap proposal, therefore, can not guarantee that any level of government will operate at peak efficiency before cutting the public goods and services including education that they provide.

Governor Christie’s 2.5% cap proposal would enable the state to determine the budgetary and property tax policies of local governments and school districts through its state imposed limitations. If enacted, the 2.5% cap would lead, therefore, to increased centralization of educational funding along with its concomitant increased control over local school districts’ operations. The 2.5% TEL would lead to limitations on local school district expenditures and property tax levies which in turn would lower the quality of public education.

TELs’ Impact on Education and Student Achievement

TELs not only limit the amount of property tax revenue available to school districts but also and more importantly adversely impact how a typical school district provides educational programs and services. Downes and Figlio’s (1999a) findings explain how “the imposition of tax and expenditure limits results in the long-run reductions in the performance of public school students.” Students attending schools in TEL affected districts (Figlio, 1997; Downes, Dye, & McGuire, 1998; Downes & Figlio, 1999b) not only experienced much larger class sizes but also scored significantly lower on mathematics, language arts, and social studies standardized tests. When it comes to education, therefore, TELs lead to a reduction in the quantity as well as the quality of education, an increase in class sizes, and a leveling down of student achievement.

TELs seem to adversely impact student achievement disproportionately to the amount of property tax revenues lost or expenditures cut. Downes and Figlio (2008) conclude that TELs “lead to reductions in student outcomes that are far larger than might be expected given the changes in spending.” Possible explanations for this result include disproportionate cuts in instructional rather than administrative expenditures, higher student-teacher ratios, and a shift especially of the more talented students to private K to 12 schools. Because teacher salaries and benefits generally account for more than approximately 70% of a typical school district’s budget, it stands to reason that these expenses would be cut more severely. Reductions of teachers under the constraints of a TEL often lead to larger class sizes which when combined with the loss of regular educational programs and services tends to result in the transfer of many students especially the more gifted ones to private schools (Downes & Figlio, 2008.)

Conclusion

While Governor Christie aims to limit local public school districts’ property tax revenues and expenditures to no more than a 2.5% annual increase, this cap will most likely lead to a leveling-down of the quality of public education. Indeed, our nation’s two major TELs, California’s Proposition 13 and particularly Massachusetts’ Proposition 2.5 on which Governor Christie’s proposal is modeled, demonstrate the downside of such caps. These TELs (Fishel, 2001) destroyed the connection among local control, property taxes, school district budgets, educational quality, and taxpayer support because taxpayers essentially lost their ability to hold local school districts accountable to their goal of maximizing their property values.

The fundamental problem with trying to hold all of New Jersey’s public school districts’ property tax revenues and expenditures to annual increases not exceeding 2.5% is that it leads to a one-size-fits-all approach for education but one that fits no district. Baker, Green and Richards (2008) explain, “The local property tax empowers local voters to express what they want for their local public schools.” But when the artificial budgetary constraints of a TEL are imposed by the state, as Baker, Green and Richards (2008) conclude, “the political advantages of empowering local citizens and promoting competition and sorting among jurisdictions is lost.” Thus, the TEL leads to school district budgets that are incongruous with the needs and priorities of local school districts.

Governor Christie’s proposed reduction in local school district control over the levying of property taxes and determining the operating budget decreases local school district accountability and adversely affects public school quality. Because reductions of property tax revenues through the 2.5% TEL will reduce the level of local investment in the school district; the stake held by local taxpayers is similarly reduced. Fischel (2001) explains this using the motives of taxpayers without children in the public schools, “At the local level, they are willing to support, or at least not oppose, high levels of spending because better schools add to the value of their homes.” Through the imposition of a TEL, “At the state level, voters without children do not perceive such an offsetting benefit to their taxes.” Having a lowered sense of ownership in their schools, taxpayers become more complacent without local control over their school district’s property taxes. This causes a corresponding reduction in the level of accountability required by the stakeholders and, therefore, the quality of their public schools’ education declines.

Taxpayers choose the local public school district that best meets their needs and one that will contribute to their property values by exercising true Tieboutian choice (Tiebout, 1956) and voting with their feet. But taxpayers vote not only with their feet but also on school district operating budgets, capital projects, and board of education members. Through the exercise of these votes, taxpayers control the quality of education provided by their local schools as well as the level of property taxes levied. Their collective decisions lead to a Pareto efficient allocation of local public education.

But a TEL, such as Governor Christie’s 2.5% cap proposal, would destroy the Tieboutian equilibrium (Tiebout, 1956) enjoyed by local public school districts. It would do so by artificially limiting budgets below the levels congruent with the needs and priorities of local school districts. Because the quality of a taxpayer’s local public schools as well as his/her property taxes are capitalized in the value of their home, the consequence of Governor Christie’s 2.5% TEL would be to lower educational quality and, therefore, property values.

References

Baker, B. D., Green, P., & Richards, C. E., (2008). Financing Education Systems, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Downes, T. A. & Figlio, D. N., (1999a). Do Tax and Expenditure Limits Provide a Free Lunch? Evidence on the Link Between Limits and Public Sector Service Quality. National Tax Journal, 52, 113-128.

Downes, T. A. & Figlio, D. N., (1999b). Economic Inequality and the Provision of Schooling, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Economic Policy Review, 5, 99-110.

Downes, T. A. & Figlio, D. N., (2008). Tax and Expenditure Limits, School Finance and School Quality in The Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy, Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B., (Editors) (373-388). New York, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Downes, T. A., Dye, R. F., & McGuire, T. J., (1998). Do Limits Matter? Evidence on the Effects of Tax Limitations on Student Performance, The Journal of Urban Economics, 43, 401-417.

Figlio, D. N., (1997). Did the “Tax Revolt” Reduce School Performance?, The Journal of Public Economics, 65, 245-269.

Fischel, W., (2001). The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

O’Sullivan, A., (2001). Limits on Local Property Taxation: The United States Experience in Property Taxation and Local Government Finance, Oates, W. E., (Editor) (177-200). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

O’Sullivan, A., Sexton, T. A., & Sheffrin, S. M., (2007). Property Taxes and Tax Revolts: The Legacy of Proposition 13. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.

Tiebout, C. M., (1956). A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, The Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.

Tags:Blog, budgets, California, Caps, centralization of funding, education, home rule, local control, locality, mandates, Massachusetts Proposition 2.5, Property Tax Levy, property taxes, property taxes blog, property values, Proposition 13, Proposition 98, public school districts, School Finance Blog, school reform and restructuring, state control, student performance, tax and expenditure limit blog, tax cap blog, TEL blog, TELs, unfunded state and federal mandates
Posted in academic performance, accountability, autonomy of schools, bigger is not better, board of education, Capitalization of property taxes, Capitalization of school district quality, Charles Tiebout, class size, county government, County Property taxes, decision making, education, Eliminate County Government, enrollment, home rule, home values, homeownership, leveling down, Local Education Authority (LEA), local property taxes, local schools, mandates, New Jersey, New Jersey Property taxes, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, No Child Left Behind Act, non-mandate protected programs, per pupil spending, property taxes, property values, public education, public finance, school finance, school funding, school governance, school performance, state financial aid, state mandates, student performance, student teacher ratios, Wallace Oates, William Fischel | No Comments »

The Charter School Advantage: Operating as a Deregulated Autonomous Public School

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

The proponents of charter schools (Newman, 1998) purport that charter schools are the answer to what ails our public school system. The rationale supporting how charter schools can provide an education that is superior in quality to that offered by conventional public schools is that they are deregulated autonomous public schools that are granted extreme freedom in how they choose to innovate, experiment, manage operations, “respond to their customers”, govern themselves and enroll as well as educate their students (Sugarman, 2002). “In return for this autonomy, charter schools usually are asked to demonstrate academic outcome results for their children, but that too is supposed to be measured without too much interference with the school’s independence” (Kemerer, 1999, cited in Sugarman, 2002). The core elements of a charter school’s success are its ability to function with autonomy and deregulation, both of which are regularly denied to conventional public schools. The solution to what ails our public school system, therefore, is to enable our traditional public schools to operate with the same degree of autonomy and deregulation as that granted to charter schools.

Charter schools are public schools that are funded primarily by local property taxes but are granted freedom from many state and federal mandates and restrictions so that they can provide innovative and cutting-edge teaching and learning. As a result, charter schools function independently from their host district’s board of education under a charter granted by the state (New Jersey Department of Education, 2001). According to the New Jersey Department of Education, as soon as the charter is approved by the Commissioner of Education, the school is governed by a board of trustees authorized by the State Board of Education and the charter school is thereby granted all the necessary powers to execute and implement its charter.

By agreeing to the contract with the state, a charter school receives public funding with significantly less regulation but it is also expected to provide a quality of education that exceeds that of a conventional public school. But despite their public school charter and property tax funding, charter schools operate independently of their local taxpayers’ input, feedback and control. “While charter schools emphasize that they are a new form of public schools, they are increasingly appearing and behaving like private schools” (Horn and Miron, 2000, cited in Bracey, 2002).

According to the New Jersey Department of Education, however, a charter school “must outline how the school will meet the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards” and “Cross-Content Workplace Readiness Skills” plus all “teachers, administrators, and professional staff must have New Jersey State certification” (New Jersey Department of Education, 2005, cited in Bredehoft, 2005). While charter schools operate independently, the local board of education “must also provide transportation for charter school students residing in its district under the same terms and conditions for district students attending public schools” (Bredehoft, 2005). Also, “a charter school may operate within a ‘region of residence’, comprised of a district or multiple districts identified in the charter school’s application, and must have a physical residence in one of those districts” (New Jersey Department of Education, 2005, cited in Bredehoft, 2005).

A charter school is funded based on its enrollment primarily by the revenues it receives through its local board of education. According to the New Jersey Department of Education, the host district’s board of education must pay the charter school ninety percent of its average per pupil share of the annual operating budget for the specific grade level of each student (Bredehoft, 2005). Although charter schools can not charge tuition, they are eligible to receive federal and state funds. As a result, it seems as if funding is siphoned from the host public school district to the charter school without the direct or indirect approval of local taxpayers.

Because local property taxes as well as state and federal financial aid abide by a zero-sum process, all funds transferred from a conventional public school to a charter school result in a cut in funding that can not be recouped. A conventional public school must cut non-mandate protected programs and services such as regular education in order to make up for the lost revenues. In addition, because state and federal governments either under fund or do not fund their mandates, conventional public schools are forced to pay for these shortfalls while charter schools are often not subject to the same regulations or to the same extent as their host district.

Charter schools enjoy many other advantages over their conventional counterparts. Charter schools can limit their enrollment which enables them to have lower student-teacher ratios and forces conventional public schools to educate the majority of students in comparatively larger class sizes. Charter schools do not have to enroll students after the beginning of the school year which enables them to have much more stable enrollments than conventional public schools. The scarcity of unions and tenure in charter schools also represents another set of cost advantages.

The extent to which charter schools can limit the number of students who qualify for special education, are from low-income or poverty level families, or are English language learners (Levay, 2009) would force traditional public schools to educate a disproportionate number of these needy and at-risk students who are much more expensive to educate. Such a practice would minimize costs for the charter school in the district while it would correspondingly increase the public school district’s expenses. In discussing his study of Michigan’s charter schools Bracey (2002) concludes “And, perhaps most significant, the student bodies look more and more like private schools: Fewer minority and special needs students are enrolled.”

Unlike charter schools that can cap or otherwise more effectively limit their enrollment and, thereby, limit the cost of their raw materials, traditional public schools have to enroll all of the students in the district who wish to attend and, therefore, can not control the cost of their raw materials. This cost advantage in favor of charter schools is highlighted below in the “blueberry epiphany” (Cuban, 2004) experienced by former CEO, Mr. Jamie Vollmer, because as the woman from the audience responds to Mr. Vollmer “… we can never send back our blueberries. We take them all!” and, thus, traditional public schools can not control the quality of their raw materials.

“If I ran my business the way you people operate your schools, I wouldn’t be in business very long!” I stood before an audience filled with outraged teachers who were becoming angrier by the minute. My speech had entirely consumed their precious 90 minutes of in-service training. Their initial icy glares had turned to restless agitation. You could cut the hostility with a knife.

I represented a group of business people dedicated to improving public schools. I was an executive at an ice cream company that became famous in the 1980’s when People magazine chose its blueberry flavor as the “Best Ice Cream in America.”

I was convinced of two things. First, public schools needed to change; they were archaic selecting and sorting mechanisms designed for the Industrial Age and out of step with the needs of our emerging “knowledge society.” Second, educators were a major part of the problem: they resisted change, hunkered down in their feathered nests, protected by tenure and shielded by a bureaucratic monopoly. They needed to look to business. We knew how to produce quality. Zero defects! Total quality management! Continuous improvement!

In retrospect, the speech was perfectly balanced—equal parts ignorance and arrogance. As soon as I finished, a woman’s hand shot up … She began quietly. “We are told sir, that you manage a company that makes good ice cream.” I smugly replied, “Best ice cream in America, ma’am.” “How nice,” she said. “Is it rich and smooth?” “Sixteen percent butterfat,” I crowed. “Premium ingredients?” she inquired. “Super premium! Nothing but triple-A.” I was on a roll. I never saw the next line coming.

“Mr. Vollmer,” she said, leaning forward with a wicked eyebrow raised to the sky, “when you are standing on your receiving dock and you see an inferior shipment of blueberries arrive, what do you do?” In the silence of that room, I could hear the trap snap. I knew I was dead meat, but I wasn’t going to lie. “I send them back.”

“That’s right!” she barked, “and we can never send back our blueberries. We take them big, small, rich, poor, gifted, exceptional, abused, frightened, confident, homeless, rude, and brilliant. We take them with attention deficit disorder, junior rheumatoid arthritis, and English as their second language. We take them all! Every one! And that, Mr. Vollmer, is why it’s not a business, it’s a school!” In an explosion, all 290 teachers, principals, bus drivers, aids, custodians, and secretaries jumped to their feet and yelled, “Yeah! Blueberries! Blueberries!”

And so began my long transformation. Since then, I have learned that a school is not a business. Schools are unable to control the quality of their raw material, they are dependent upon the vagaries of politics for a reliable revenue stream, and they are constantly mauled by a howling horde of disparate, completing customer groups that would send the best CEO screaming into the night” (pp. 3-4).

Charter schools enroll students who would otherwise attend the local public schools thereby forcing traditional public school districts to cut educational programs and services correspondingly. But if a traditional school district lost a disproportionate number of students and terminated a proportionate number of teachers and aids, it would not be able to make up many of the operating expenses associated with those students who left to attend the local charter school. Charter schools, therefore, may seem to provide a higher quality of education than conventional public schools but only as a result of the revenue and cost advantages built into their charters.

Because the majority of state and federal financial aid is in some way related to enrollment levels, a public school district would stand to lose aid in direct proportion to the reduction in its enrollment caused by charter schools. This would force cuts to non-mandate protected programs such as regular education. The double whammy of reduced state and federal financial aid as well as forced cuts to regular education would be especially distressful for public school districts. Therefore, having local property taxes finance charter schools siphons away crucial revenues from traditional public schools.

The proponents of charter schools espouse their competition with traditional public schools as helping to improve the quality of public education. But charter schools serve only a fraction of the school community while diverting scarce funds from their host local school districts that educate the overwhelming majority of students. This unequal playing field levels down the quality of public education.

To date, the general public largely seems to have not fully understood that charter schools are neither traditional public schools nor the extent to which charter schools are publicly funded but without local taxpayer control. While such a misunderstanding might have resulted from the lack of resonance of charter schools on the general public’s radar screen, surely it will evaporate rapidly as President Obama and U. S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, actively promote the development and expansion of charter schools nationwide (Maxwell, 2009). Once the public becomes more aware of the real definition of charter schools and the extent to which they are funded with local property taxes, there will most likely be many questions raised.

________________________

References

Bracey, G. W. (2002). The War Against America’s Public Schools: Privatizing Schools, Commercializing Education, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bredehoft, J. M. (2005). New Jersey Charter Schools: History and Information, New Jersey Community Capital, 1(1), Retrieved from http://www.newjerseycommunitycapital.org.

Cuban, L. (2004). The Blackboard and the Bottom Line: Why Schools Can’t Be Businesses, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.

Horn, J. and Miron, G. (2000). An Evaluation of the Michigan Charter School Initiative: Performance, Accountability, and Impact, Kalamazoo: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.

Kemerer, F. R. (1999) School Choice Accountability in School Choice and Social Controversy, Sugarman, S. D. and Kemerer, F. R. (Editors), (174-211). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Levay, W. J. (2009). Put the Public Back in “Public Charter School”, Edwise, Retrieved from http://www.edwize.org.

Maxwell, L. A. (2009). Obama’s Team Advocacy Boosts Charter Movement, Education Week, 28(35), 1, 24-25.

New Jersey Department of Education (2001). Charter School Evaluation Report, Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us.

New Jersey Department of Education (2005). New Jersey Charter School Application 2005, Retrieved from http://www.nj.gov.

Newman, M. (1998). New Jersey Rejects Challenge to Charter School Program, The New York Times, April 2, 1998.

Sugarman, S. D. (2002). Charter School Funding Issues, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(34). Retrieved from http://www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n34.

Posted in academic outcomes, academic performance, Arne Duncan, at-risk students, autonomy of schools, board of education, cap on enrollment, charter, charter school application, charter schools, class size, contract, deregulation of schools, double whammy, education, educational leadership, ELL, English language learners, enrollment, experimentation, federal financial aid, IDEA, innovation, local property taxes, local schools, mandates, Michigan, minority students, needy students, New Jersey, New Jersey Commissioner of Education, New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS), New Jersey Department of Education, New Jersey State certification, non-mandate protected programs, per pupil budget, per pupil spending, President Obama, property taxes, public finance, region of residence, regular education, school finance, school funding, school governance, school law, school performance, school reform, special education, State Board of Education, state financial aid, state mandates, student performance, student teacher ratios, tenure, tuition, U. S. Secretary of Education, unequal playing field, unions | No Comments »

Smaller is Better when it comes to Running Our Schools

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

Since the publication of A Nation at Risk, there have been numerous efforts to try to find the right mixture of ways to improve student achievement while lowering the cost of education involving five major policy making levels (i.e., federal, state, district, school and classroom/student.) Many of these efforts have looked at the decision making process and how politics impacts that process in terms of the educational policies that result. Using test scores as a measure of student achievement and local property taxes as a measure of the cost of education, a number of states as well as the federal government have advocated through various means for larger class sizes as well as for school consolidations. Federal and many state governments have also advocated for the centralization of policy making at their respective levels as ways in which not only to improve student achievement but also to lower the cost of providing education.

These federal and state level stakeholders whose motto might conceivably be described as “bigger is better” seem to base their belief on presumed economies-of-scale that will lead to lower operating costs and thereby lower property taxes as well as to perhaps improving test scores through the application of nationally determined standards at the state level. One of their arguments seems to be based on the belief that having larger class sizes requires fewer teachers which in turn lowers operating costs. In addition, larger class sizes mean fewer class rooms would be used thereby minimizing the demand for new or expanded school facilities. Another argument advocates for school district consolidation as a way in which to achieve improved operating efficiency primarily through presumed lower administrative costs.

National standards such as those imposed by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with its mandated tests are also seen as a way in which to drive the formulation of educational policy at the federal and state levels while the federal level includes an aggregation of state data. Such national educational policy is believed to help “raise the bar” for student performance. While NCLB is mandated by the federal government, the states force their school districts to comply with its regulations. The NCLB test scores are used to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) for students, schools and districts alike.

But the combination of federally-determined educational policy implemented through state governments and departments of education has often resulted in decisions seemingly made more in favor of special interest groups than local schools as well as in higher costs. Consolidating local school districts into countywide or extremely large regional districts removes decision making authority from those levels most affected by educational policy decisions: the individual student, school and district. It also concentrates policy formulation and decision making at centralized levels where special interests have greater leverage on the policy makers and, as a result, greater control of the policy outcomes. Moreover, consolidation of local school districts into county level districts while fewer in number with supposedly less combined administrative expense has often resulted in higher state-wide total administrative costs due to the lack of accountability, excessive political patronage hiring at the county level and reduced local taxpayer input.

Because the federal and state levels are too distant from where education actually takes place and are more easily influenced by special interest groups, accountability declines at these levels where it is needed most. Consolidation of local school districts into county level districts also tends to result in more of a traditional military-type command-and-control decision making model. In this Theory X model the federal level develops the strategy for policy implementation, the state governments and their departments of education translate the strategy into tactics for deployment, and the school districts are responsible for making sure that the federal and state mandates are implemented accordingly at the individual school and student level.

Because countywide or regional school district consolidations lead to increased education costs, lower student achievement especially as measured by test scores and less accountability such combinations should be prevented. Eliminating units of consolidation such as county level departments of education will not only remove an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cut administrative costs but also improve accountability particularly to local taxpayers as well as to parents. Moreover, without county level departments of education or large regionalized school districts overburdening our educational systems, our schools will be better able to provide quality instruction.

The majority of research on class size has demonstrated that when qualified teachers teach students in smaller class sizes, the students not only learn more but also these students retain this advantage over other students who attend larger classes. One leading study is the longitudinal class size reduction initiative conducted over a number of years in Tennessee called the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project. The STAR project demonstrated that students, who were enrolled in small classes beginning with kindergarten and continuing through third grade, were significantly more likely than their counterparts who attended larger classes, to:

Demonstrate better reading and mathematics skills
Complete more advanced mathematics, science and English courses
Complete high school
Graduate high school on time
Graduate with honors.

The STAR project also found that even after the students returned to larger classes in the fourth through eighth grades those students who attended smaller class sizes for their first three or four years maintained an advantage over students who had attended the larger classes from kindergarten through third grade. The findings of the STAR project are echoed by other projects such as Wisconsin’s Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) project, which was a statewide initiative in Wisconsin that increased student achievement, and Indiana’s Project Prime Time. In addition, the research demonstrates that having a smaller class size not only increases student achievement but also helps to minimize the achievement gap among different groups of students particularly among majority and minority students.

“Smaller is better” and it should not be surprising that research supports this. Having fewer students in the classroom enables the teacher to dedicate more time to each child. Consequently, students pay more attention to class work and participate more in academics. Because the students are more involved with their studies they learn more and behave better. Is it any wonder then that test scores are significantly higher for students who attend small classes? Based upon the findings of the STAR project and other studies there seems to be little doubt that students taught in small classes enjoy significant and lasting educational advantages.

The greater is the shift to larger class sizes nationwide, the more teachers will probably be let go. However, larger class sizes often lead to lower test scores and make it more difficult for students, schools and districts to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP) as required by NCLB. As a result, school districts are likely to be subjected to many of the more stringent penalties of NCLB. This will further reduce the financial resources available to support quality education and contribute to a downward spiral of education nationwide.

Concentrating decision making at the district level rather than at the county, state or federal level will increase accountability not only by focusing more resources on those most affected by education policy, the students, but also by enabling those who are the most intimately involved in providing education, the school districts, to provide improved instruction. It is the districts that not only are closest to the school systems and students but also have the necessary expertise to most effectively decide how best to provide a quality education.

But the greatest reduction of our state’s property tax burden would be to eliminate the unnecessary and overly expensive layer of county government (i.e., Freeholders) as the majority of states have already done. For example, Connecticut had a system similar to the one in New Jersey in which Connecticut not only had the Freeholder level of government but also had the counties involved in the running of local schools as New Jersey does through such legislation as A4S which created the Office of the Executive County Superintendent. Because those associated with both levels of county government, Freeholder government as well as the County Department of Education, were not only too far removed from local taxpayers but also too expensive, Connecticut’s solution to cutting property taxes while improving the resources available for education was to eliminate county government.

However, there is perhaps an even greater irony within debate over how best to improve student achievement while minimizing property taxes. The dilemma facing our schools is that while districts must comply with the requirements of unfunded and under funded county, state and federal mandates, too many school districts are forced to spend much more to meet these requirements than they receive in combined financial aid from all county, state and federal governmental sources.

Tags:A Nation at Risk, Annual Yearly Progress, AYP, class, class size, county government, economies of scale, educational policies, Freeholder government, lowering property taxes, NCLB, property taaxes, SAGE, school consolidations, standards, STAR, student achievement, student teacher ratios, test scores
Posted in class size, county government, education, executive county superintendent, home rule, IDEA, independent schools, mandates, New Jersey, No Child Left Behind Act, property taxes, ratables, SAGE, SAT, school finance, school funding, school governance, school law, school reform, special education, STAR, state mandates, student teacher ratios, tax base | No Comments »

Coffins Education Center

Archive for the ‘student teacher ratios’ Category

TELs take their Toll on Education

The Charter School Advantage: Operating as a Deregulated Autonomous Public School

Smaller is Better when it comes to Running Our Schools

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Google Ads

April 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30