The Echo

We know that all students can learn when educators have the time, tools and support required to educate each of them in a way that lets them grow and flower. But that takes focus, determination and tough decision-making about what is most important. Having the funds to do this work, and a plan to make it happen, are simply not enough. Courage and will are required to achieve different, life-changing results for Delaware students.
 -Marvin Schoenals,Chairman Vision 2015, Chairman WSFS
 http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20109190323

Thanks, Skip, for the pep talk.  I really needed it.  With all these crack-pot ed reformers out there singing the praises of unproven and/or failed reforms and talking as if dipping into the trough might solve the all the worlds' problems, my own courage and will was starting to take a beating.  But, you've inspired me to dig in and continue to carry the banner for what is data and research proven - like smaller class sizes in K (or pre-K) through second to third grade. 

Let me introduce you to a rather thorough report: Class Size and Students At Risk: What is Known?...What is Next? - April 1998

Research on the Academic Effects of Small Class Size
The question "Are smaller classes better than larger classes?" continues to be debated among teachers (and their unions), administrators, and parents as well as in the research community. The issue persists because of the powerful common-sense appeal of small classes to alleviate problems indigenous to our classrooms. Small classes are an integral component of nationally subsidized programs including special education classes for disruptive or learning-disabled students and Title I interventions for children living in poverty. Small classes or small groups working with one teacher or tutor also are a key element of programs targeted most often at students at risk, for example, Success for All (Slavin, et al., 1990; Slavin & Madden, 1995) and Reading Recovery (Pinnell, deFord, & Lyons, 1988).

The issue persists because of the tension between the research findings and the cost of implementation. A great deal of empirical data have been collected. However, they have so far been less than convincing and not consistent enough to justify the expense of the additional classrooms and teachers that would be required. Targeted remedial programs are generally less costly and easier to deploy. They tend to be adopted for a portion of the school day to address learning problems in one or a small number of subject areas. In contrast, maintaining small classes throughout a grade level or school requires pervasive organizational changes. Of course, proponents would argue that the benefits are also pervasive--being realized throughout the school day and affecting the entire range of school subjects--unlike the band-aid approach of experimenting with one targeted program after another.
 

I hope you don't mind, I've underlined some key points above.  And here's some supporting findings:

Without doubt the most widely cited review is the classic Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement (Glass & Smith, 1978). The authors collected and summarized nearly 80 studies of the relationship of class size with academic performance that yielded over 700 class-size comparisons on data from nearly 900,000 pupils. The two primary conclusions drawn from this material are:

• reduced class size can be expected to produce increased academic achievement (p. iv); and
• [t]he major benefits from reduced class size are obtained as the size is reduced below 20 pupils (p. v).

Although the extensiveness of the Glass-Smith meta-analysis was commendable, the selection of studies to include was subject to justifiable criticism. A number of studies were of short duration; many compared normal-sized classes to one-on-one tutoring; other studies did not include "realistic" class sizes as their comparison groups; and at least one study related to instruction in non-academic subjects (i.e., tennis). In spite of these deficiencies, however, the two conclusions drawn by Glass and Smith have endured and have received further support.


A compilation of studies examined by Educational Research Service (Robinson & Wittebols, 1986; Robinson, 1990) is noteworthy because of its extensiveness--more than 100 separate studies were reviewed. Robinson's (1990) conclusions added an important set of qualifications to the findings of Glass and Smith:

• [R]esearch does not support the expectation that smaller classes will of themselves result in greater academic gains for students. The effects of class size on student learning varies (sic) by grade level, pupil characteristics, subject areas, teaching methods, and other learning interventions. (p. 90)

In particular, the review concludes that small classes are most beneficial in reading and mathematics in the early primary grades and that: "[t]he research rather consistently finds that students who are economically disadvantaged or from some ethnic minorities perform better academically in smaller classes" (p. 85). Unfortunately, the wide-ranging review failed to distinguish even the best designed studies from those using the poorest methodology, and thus the conclusions must be viewed as tentative.

Let me introduce you to STAR:

Tennessee's Project STAR. Project STAR, the only large-scale, controlled study of the effects of reduced class size, was conducted in 79 elementary schools in the state of Tennessee from 1985 to 1989. The design drew heavily upon previous research findings, namely, that any benefits of small classes are likely to be realized in the primary grades, that there may be different outcomes for students based on race or economic disadvantage, and that only substantial reductions in class size are likely to have noteworthy impact.


Within each participating school, children entering kindergarten were assigned at random to one of three class types: small (S) with an enrollment range of 13 to 17 pupils; regular (R) with an enrollment range of 22 to 26 pupils; or regular with a full-time teacher aide (RA) with 22 to 26 pupils. Teachers also were assigned at random to the class groups. Teachers in the STAR classrooms received no special instructions of any sort, and the duties of teacher aides were not prescribed but were left to the teacher's discretion.4

Classes remained the same type (S, R, or RA) for 4 years, until the pupils were in grade 3. A new teacher was assigned at random to the class each year. Standardized achievement tests (Stanford Achievement Tests, or SATs) were administered to all participating students at the end of each school year. Also, curriculum-based tests (Basic Skills First, or BSF) reflecting the state's instructional objectives in reading and mathematics were administered at the end of grades 1, 2, and 3. Finally, a measure of motivation and self-concept intended for young children also was administered to each pupil (Milchus, Farrah, & Reitz, 1968). In all, about 7,500 pupils in more than 300 classrooms participated in the 4-year longitudinal study.

Four primary results were reported consistently across the 4 years of analysis:

• Differences among the three class types were highly statistically significant for all sets of achievement measures and for every measure individually. In every case, the significance was attributable to the superior performance of children in small classes, and not to classes with full-time teacher aides.
• With only minor exception, there was no significant interaction with school location 6 or sex of the pupil. A significant small-class advantage was found in inner-city, urban, suburban, and rural schools alike and the advantage of small classes was found both for males and females.
• In each year of the study, some of the benefits of small classes were found to be greater for minority students than for nonminorities, or greater for students attending inner-city schools.
• No differences were found among class types on the motivational scales.7

Did I mention that Tennessee was the other Round One winner of the RTTT competition?

In sum, due to the magnitude of the Project STAR longitudinal experiment, the design, and the care with which it was executed, the results are clear:

• This research leaves no doubt that small classes have an advantage over larger classes in student performance in the early primary grades.

Here comes North Carolina:

Two smaller studies of class size were conducted in North Carolina pursuant to STAR. In 1991 educators, citizens, and the school board in Burke County, North Carolina began a project to reduce the class size to 15 in grade 1, followed by grades 2 and 3 in subsequent years (Achilles, Harman, & Egelson, 1995; Egelson, Harman, & Achilles, 1996). And in a related effort, the principal of the Oak Hill elementary school in the Guilford County, North Carolina system restructured classes in grades kindergarten through 3 into a small-class format (15 students). The initiative was termed Success Starts Small (Achilles,et al. 1994; Kiser-Kling, 1995). Oak Hill school was fully Chapter 1 eligible, with 78 percent of its students in the subsidized lunch program. Matched comparison groups were used in both studies.


The results of both projects favored small classes in academic achievement small-class effect sizes were in the range 0.4 to 0.6 (Achilles,et al. 1994; Achilles, Harman, & Egelson, 1995) 0. Significantly, Success Starts Small included systematic comparisons of teaching behavior in small and regular classes:

• Teachers of small classes spent significantly more time on task and significantly less time on discipline or organizational matters compared with teachers of regular-size classes.14

Well, Skip, you can follow the link above to see the sythesis of the data that draws the conclusions that smaller class sizes improve student achievement.  Or you can pretty much google "Small Class Size" and "Research" to find evidence that it's the best way to go.  You'll also probably learn that the studies that invalidate small class size as the best reform failed to control conditions like restructuring classroom schedules, or a lack of a universal standardized test to fairly compare test scores.  Yet, those studies that did not result in universal performance validation did in fact validate many other finding of the more stringent tests, such as isolated increases for students of poverty.

The fact is that the research on class size is out there.  It's been validated by even its detractors - whose main complaint is the cost of implementation.  As you have so eloquently written, " what these low-performing schools need is radical change, and by that I mean real change. Now with the opportunity to bring on strengthened leadership, the best possible teachers, and enough money from Race to the Top to pay for extra time or mentoring -- or whatever else it takes to enable students to learn -- these schools have the potential to be among the best in the state. To get there, these schools must focus on what works for students, beginning with a culture of high expectations."
 
So right, so let's get this thing moving.  Let's put an end to talk about performance pay - the research that the federal government just boo-hoo'd says performance pay doesn't do much of everything - and let's spur a culture of high expectations, starting with revamping our funding formulas, eliminating the class-size cap waiver, beating back the Sept. 30 unit count, and let's get to work.  We can't wait for the feds to get on board with the research.  Their insane idea of education reform is sure to set us back four years at least.  And our kids need us now to stand up for what's right for their education, to start the culture change that supports learning!

I can't wait for the WSFS-Vision Grant that will allow my district to move boldly forward without a request for cap-size waivers.

Nope, you are right, WE CAN'T WAIT ANOTHER DAY!


Sincerely,

Elizabeth Scheinberg
Parent of two school-aged children