By Lawrence O. Picus
The research shows that reducing class size can, and probably does, lead to improved student performance. It is, however, a very expensive option: In addition to hiring more teachers, schools need additional classroom space. Before embarking on a substantial CSR program, policymakers may want to consider whether more cost-effective alternatives exist. Current research suggests that such alternatives are available and should be considered, either instead of–or in addition to–class-size reduction. One range of options deals with teacher knowledge and skills, while others relate to the structure of the education program offered at individual schools.
Teacher Knowledge and Skills
Reducing class size gives students greater access to teacher resources. There is evidence this will help students learn. However, what the teacher knows and is able to do is at least as important in helping students learn.
Darling-Hammond (1998) argues that "teacher expertise is one of the most important factors in determining student achievement." She quotes Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine’s work (1996), which demonstrated the relative impact of spending $500 more per pupil on increased teacher education, increased teacher experience, and increased teacher salaries. All three of these appear to have a greater impact on student test scores than does lowering the pupil-teacher ratio. For an expenditure of $500, the greatest gains in student test scores (measured in standard deviation units from a range of tests in 60 studies) were achieved through increasing teacher education. Lowering the "pupil-teacher ratio was the least cost effective of the four methods. Increasing teacher salaries and experience fell between lower pupil-teacher ratios and teacher education in terms of cost effectiveness."
Ferguson (1991) found that the effects of teacher expertise in Texas were so great that after controlling for socioeconomic status, disparities in achievement between black and white students were virtually entirely explained by differences in teacher qualifications. He found that teacher qualifications explained 43 percent of the variation among the factors affecting math score test gains, whereas small classes and schools only accounted for 8 percent of the gain. Home and family factors were identified as explaining the remaining 49 percent of the variance.
Darling-Hammond (1998) summarizes these findings by stating that "teachers who know a lot about teaching and learning and who work in settings that allow them to know their students well are the critical elements of successful learning." Smaller classes are clearly desirable in her view, but given limited funds to invest, her work suggests policymakers should at least take a close look at improving access to high-quality professional development first.
Professional development is frequently poorly funded in school districts and often the first item to be cut when finances become tight. Darling-Hammond’s research suggests this may be a mistake, and in fact, more resources should be put into professional development. Even if class size is reduced, professional development still may be essential to help teachers maximize their skills and capitalize on the benefits of having a reduced number of children for whom they are responsible. Certainly investments in professional development would be complementary to class-size-reduction programs.
Reducing class size and providing greater training opportunities for teachers are not the only options available for improving student learning. There are many things school board members and site leaders themselves can do to restructure their schools for improved learning. Several of these are briefly discussed below.
Reorganizing Schools
Many of today’s educational reforms are restructuring how educational resources are used. A number of the reform designs supported by the New American Schools (NAS), for example, rely on using teaching resources differently, rather than purchasing more. While seven designs supported by NAS require some investment on the part of a school or school district, most are less expensive than dramatic reductions in class size or pupil-teacher ratios. Most also come with substantial teacher-training components.
Odden and Busch (1998) found substantial gains in student performance, often as high as one-third of a standard deviation, at NAS design schools. These schools reach these performance levels with relatively little additional expenditures, generally averaging around $50,000 to $250,000 a year for a school of 500 students (an extra $100 to $500 per pupil each year). Odden and Busch argue that any school can reorganize itself into one of the NAS designs by looking closely at its current allocation of teachers and aides and reassigning them as needed to meet the design specifications. In many instances this calls for eliminating aides in favor of more teachers. Results of the Tennessee STAR project show that spending for teacher aides may not be productive anyway.
Another option schools can consider is restructuring the use of time. The National Commission on Time and Learning (1994) reported on a number of successful schools and school districts that had improved student performance through different ways of organizing the school day to give students more access to, and time with, teachers. Models that provide more access to learning resources, particularly teachers, may also be substantially more cost-effective than class-size reduction.
In conclusion, class-size reduction is currently one of the most popular–and most expensive–educational reforms today. At least 21 states have enacted mandatory or voluntary policies aimed at reducing class size in the primary grades, and one (California) has even created an incentive to reduce the number of students in ninth-grade English and math classes.
The question facing state policymakers is whether substantial investments in smaller classes should be made. The research shows that such investments will lead to improved student outcomes. However, the research also shows that attention to teacher training and expertise may have a bigger payoff per dollar spent. Moreover, as California’s experience shows, states that jump into a major CSR program quickly may find they have a shortage of qualified teachers. Given the importance of high-quality teaching to student learning, investment in the quality of the teaching force first might be a better way to maximize the potential of the dollars that are used to reduce class size.
In short, few people appear to oppose class-size reduction. However, there are a number of things states and school districts can do to ensure that the substantial investment made in teachers and classrooms pays off to the maximum extent possible. Virtually all of them revolve around ensuring that the state has the highest quality teaching force possible.
Dr. Picus is Professor and Chair, Division of Administration and Policy, Rossier School of Education, and Director, Center for Research in Education Finance, University of Southern California. This article is excerpted from a forthcoming book on resource allocation to be published by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
