This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

If you haven’t read the last two posts, you might want to read them first as this continues the discussion on smaller class sizes and refers to some of the information in those posts.

After misrepresenting Project STAR, Greene goes on to criticize California’s Class-Size Reduction (CSR).

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 34
The class size myth (continued)

In California, the state appropriated $1 billion in 1996 to reduce elementary school class sizes. When California’s test scores rose, advocates of smaller classes held up their program as a model. The reality, however, wasn’t so clear. A RAND Corporation study concluded that California students who attended larger elementary school classes improved at about the same rate as students in smaller classes. Though California’s overall educational performance went up, it did not seem to be due to smaller classes. (The state had also undertaken a number of other major education reforms at the same time it was reducing class sizes.)

Leave it to Greene to select an example that was poorly executed and criticized by small class proponents. Very few will argue that the California mandated Class-Size Reduction (CSR) was not a fiasco. It’s a great example of how not to implement smaller classes. Throwing money at a problem without careful planning is simply stupid, and that’s what happened.

Among other problems, it resulted in overcrowded schools, under qualified people teaching classes, and the flight of veteran teachers to affluent schools due to the vacancies created by the program. By making it a blanket program, instead of focusing on disadvantaged schools, it stretched the under-funded program beyond its limits. In short, California legislators made a big blunder, and the results cannot be used to discredit the advantages of smaller classes. [1] The problem was in the implementation of the program, not the idea of smaller classes.

Like any change, moving to smaller classes must be done with thought and expertise. Simply mandating smaller classes, as California did, can cause problems. Jeremy D. Finn, external evaluator of Project STAR, has written that smaller classes are not the solution to all education problems and they must be implemented with care so that they can have a maximum effect on learning. [2]

There is other research besides project STAR that found smaller classes benefited learning. Such studies as:

• Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE)
  Wisconson (1996): Phasing in reduction in grades K-3 that serve high poverty students.
• Rouse Study
  Milwaukee (1992): A comparison of voucher students, regular students, and magnet school students.
• Wenglinsky Study
  National (1992): Comparison of 4th through 8th grade NAEP math results based on class size as well as other policy initiatives. [3]

All of the above studies found significant, positive results. One area where smaller class size is a great benefit is in disadvantaged areas. For example, the Wenglinsky Study found that inner city fourth graders were three-fourths a year ahead of their peers who were in larger classes. [3] It is difficult to understand why Greene keeps claiming that learning gains are modest when the evidence suggests otherwise.

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 35 &36
The class size myth (continued)

Even if class size reduction does improve performance under optimal conditions in a small, controlled experiment like the STAR project, labor pool problems may prevent this from being reproduced on a large scale. Replicating the benchmarks of the STAR project would entail hiring almost 40 percent more teachers nationwide. Digging that deeply into the teacher labor pool would require accepting a lower quality of hire, likely bringing disappointing results.

And the financial costs of reducing class sizes on that scale would be exceptionally high–$2,306 per pupil according to calculations by Caroline Hoxby of Harvard University. There is only a finite amount of money available, so every dollar spent on class size reduction is a dollar that will not be available for salary increases, books, equipment, or the implementation of other reform policies. This will be true no matter how much money a school system has. Given that other reform strategies are more promising and less costly, the modest benefits of class size reduction simply can’t justify the very large sacrifices that would have to be made.

First, as I wrote earlier, Poject STAR was not a small experiment, and the affects were not modest. I am not going to repeat the details again. Please see the last two posts for the scope and importance of this research.

Second, Greene just pulled a bit of slight of hand – it is irrelevant if there are not enough teachers to staff classrooms, and it is irrelevant if a community decides there is not enough money to invest in more teachers. The question is not: Can we afford smaller class sizes? Nor is it: Are there enough teachers? The issue is: Do smaller classes help learning? Green claims this is a myth. I believe over the last 5 posts I have shown the answer to be: Unequivocally, yes, smaller class sizes help learning and the affects carry on to later academic years. Smaller classrooms offer significant benefits to our children. If it’s about the money, then Greene should say it’s about the money instead of trying to discredit a well researched conclusion: Smaller class sizes can reap large benefits if enacted properly.

Notes & References:

1. Staff. AFT – Hot Topics – Class Size – Supporting Research, American Federation of Teachers, website, N.W., Washington, DC. (3 page summary of the research sited).
2. Finn, Jeremy D. March 202. “Small Classes in American Schools: Research, Practice, And Politics,” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 82, No. 7, March 2002, pp. 551-560. This article is also available on PDK’s website, but there is fee to retrieve it for non-members.
3. Ibid. (#1 above)