Class-size reduction

Last updated

Correlation between class size and reading performance from the results of the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress reading tests given in 2005 to 4th and 8th graders US correlation between class size and reading performance.png
Correlation between class size and reading performance from the results of the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress reading tests given in 2005 to 4th and 8th graders

As an educational reform goal, class size reduction (CSR) aims to increase the number of individualized student-teacher interactions intended to improve student learning. A reform long holding theoretical attraction to many constituencies, [1] some have claimed CSR as the most studied educational reform of the last century. [2] Until recently, interpretations of these studies have often been contentious. Some educational groups like the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association are in favor of reducing class sizes. Others argue that class size reduction has little effect on student achievement. Many are concerned about the costs of reducing class sizes. [3]

Contents

The two most prominent CSR studies are Project STAR, which was conducted in the mid- to late-80s in Tennessee and Project SAGE, conducted in the early 2000s in Wisconsin. Studies following the work of Project STAR and SAGE found that, even when reintroduced to larger class-sizes later in their educational career, the positive foundation for learning caused students to later in life to be more likely to take advanced classes, graduate from high school, attend college, and major in a STEM field. [2] [4]

Subsequent research on the effects of class size reduction has linked small class sizes with a variety of cognitive and non-cognitive benefits for students and teachers, both short and long-term, especially when class sizes are reduced in the early grades (K-3). Its benefits are particularly pronounced for lower-income students and children of color, who experience two to three times the gains from smaller classes, leading CSR to be one of only a few education reforms proven to reduce the achievement gap. Smaller classes have also been found to have a positive impact on school climate, student socio-emotional growth, safety and suspension rates, parent engagement, and teacher attrition, especially in schools with large numbers of disadvantaged children.

Definition of class size

An early complication in measuring the efficacy of class size reduction was the tendency for different ideological camps to use different definitions of class size in the literature. As a direct measure of the number of students in each class, group size is currently understood by the educational community to be the best measure of a teacher's "true opportunity to build direct relationships with each student." A more malleable definition and one now held in dubious regard, [5] pupil to teacher ratio, would declare a situation in which one teacher leads a class while another does paperwork in the back but does not interact with students as being half as large as its group size. [6]

In the past, depending on which measure was used, researchers tended toward far different interpretations of the benefits of class size reduction leading to far different recommendations for implementation. In 2002, Margaret Spellings, secretary of education under President George W. Bush, pointed out the need for a standardized definition of what is meant by class size.

To differentiate student-teacher ratio and class size, it is important to know several key distinctions. Class size, generally speaking, refers to the average class size in a given grade level of a given school. Student-teacher ratios, normally, are calculated by taking the total number of teachers at a given school divided by the complete enrollment of that school. This distinction is significant, because the ratio will not always match up with the class size figure (or vice versa). For example, a student-teacher ratio may be small but a class size may be larger than what the student-teacher ratio leads one to believe. [7]

Project STAR and Project SAGE

Project STAR

Aware of both the preliminary results of a CSR program in Indiana called Project Prime Time and the potential large scale costs of additional classrooms and teachers, in 1985, under then Governor Lamar Alexander, Tennessee began a three-phase project to determine the effects of reduced class sizes on short and long term pupil performance in the earliest grades.

The first phase, termed Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio), [8] randomly assigned teachers and students to three groups, “small” (13 to 17), “regular” (22 to 25) classes with a paid aide, and “regular” (22 to 25) classes with no aide. In total some 6,500 students in about 330 classrooms at approximately 80 schools participated.

Using both standardized and curriculum based testing, the initial study concluded that small classes produced “substantial improvement in early learning and cognitive studies” with the effect about double for minority students. As this is considered the seminal study (in an area that has received much political attention) there have been many attempts to reinterpret the data.

Dubbed the Lasting Benefits Study, the second phase began in 1989 and sought to determine whether the benefits of CSR persisted into upper grades when all students entered standard size classes. Observations confirmed that children originally enrolled in smaller classes continued to outperform their peers when they returned to regular-sized classrooms. These results were deemed true for all types of classes and all types of cities (rural, suburban, and metropolitan).

Under the third phase, Project Challenge, the 17 economically poorest school districts were adequately funded to provide smaller class sizes for their K-3 students. These districts improved their end-of-year- standing (among 139 districts) in mathematics and reading from below average to above average.

Dr. Eric Hanushek has called into question the validity of the study on Project STAR, arguing that the bulk of scientific research on small-class sizes shows no or statistically insignificant effects and that there must be another explanation, like flawed random assignment, that produced the result rather than small class size. [9] However, subsequent research has questioned Hanushek's claim that "there is no strong or consistent relationship between school inputs and student performance". [10] Dr. Alan Krueger reanalyzed the data on which Hanushek based this claim and found that Hanushek "places a disproportionate share of weight on a small number of studies that frequently used small samples and estimated misspecified models." When this is corrected, the literature actually reveals a strong correlation between reduced class size and academic performance and suggests that the internal rate of return from reducing class size from 22 to 15 students is around 6 percent. [11] In more recent years, Hanushek has defended his work in his book "Money Might Matter Somewhere", in which he argues that the amount of money spent per pupil is not as important a factor towards student achievement inasmuch as how the money is spent. [12] In other words, Hanushek argues that giving a student $10,000 worth of pens and pencils would not impact their overall student achievement as much as, say, a $10,000 investment into training and development for that student's teacher.

Project SAGE

In 2002 the state of Wisconsin began its own investigations into “the wisdom of class size reduction," [13] by initiating Project SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education). In all, nine low income schools were studied, their locations spanning urban, semi-urban, and rural geographies. Evaluation included site visits, standardized assessments, collection of curriculum, and interviews with teachers, principals, and students.

The guiding assumptions of the study were:

(1) Class size implementation alone is insufficient to promote student achievement. Changes in teaching methods that take full advantage of smaller class sizes will also be needed.

(2) Class size reduction may have unintended consequences.

(3) Generalization requires careful adaptation. Every classroom has a unique and specific context.

One primary difficulty encountered by the SAGE project was the availability of funds for teachers but not space. Each district was then left to this potential problem in their own unique way. In schools constrained by space this often involved tag-team teaching rather than increased individualized instruction (lowering of PTR but not class size).

Results from the study demonstrated increased teacher satisfaction with job, increased communication with parents, and (as with Project STAR) long term increases in student graduation rates and admission into college. Although no significant differences were observed in the gains of both male and female students, improved outcomes were again larger amongst minority and disadvantaged students.

Other CSR Studies

Project PRIME TIME

Project PRIME TIME was proposed in 1981 by former Indiana Governor Robert D. Orr. The intent was to upgrade the quality of early school experiences by reducing class sizes. The Indiana General Assembly appropriated $300,000 for the 1981–82 and 1982-82 school years to pilot PRIME TIME in nine schools, grades K-3, across Indiana. In 1983, the General Assembly increased PRIME TIME's funding for 1983-84 and 1984–85 to $2 million. This increased funding allowed for PRIME TIME's expansion in first grade. The program was expanded to second grade in 1985 and by the fall of 1987, it covered kindergarten through third grade. [14]

Results from the study showed: [14]

  1. PRIME TIME students made improvements in reading and math standardized tests in kindergarten, first and second grades.
  2. Students in PRIME TIME classes had fewer behavioral issues, better self-esteem and responsibility, greater time on task, and were less likely to be held back a grade.
  3. Teachers of smaller class sizes reported themselves as more productive and efficient, had improved morale and better communication with parents, and were able to increase individualized attention to students.

Benefits in the UK

In a British study[ citation needed ], students were closely observed by teams of researchers who recorded their “moment to moment” behaviors in blocks of 10-second intervals. The researchers found that adding five students to a class decreased the odds of students’ being on task by nearly a quarter. In classes of 30, low-attaining students were nearly twice as likely to be disengaged as they were in classes of 15.

Contrary to some class-size studies conducted in the United States, the British researchers found no “threshold effect” in their study. In other words, classes did not have to be reduced to 15 or 20 students before the behavioral benefits started to kick in. Reducing class size at any end of the class-size spectrum seemed to help.

California K-3 CSR Program

The California K–3 CSR Program was established in 1996 to improve education, especially in reading and mathematics, by reducing class sizes in kindergarten through grade three. The K–3 CSR Program [15] provided funds to public and charter schools that reduced their class sizes to 20 pupils per certified teacher, rewarding each school with $850 per student that was in one of these smaller classes. As a result, the program was consuming 6% of the state's general education budget by 2001 and had, thus far, cost a total of $22 billion.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the program, with some critics arguing it had disappointing or null results. [16] Because nearly all elementary schools in the state reduced class size at once, especially in grades K-2, it was difficult for researchers to find a control group with which to compare outcomes. The state exam was also new, making it difficult to compare achievement gains to past trends. [17] Additionally, some researchers have noted that the program lacked adequate funding to be properly implemented. [16] One serious drawback of this program is that it was much tougher for schools in lower-income communities to benefit as they were already struggling to retain high-quality teachers and maintain a sufficient quantity of classrooms. Thus, schools in higher-income communities, that already had average class sizes around 20 students, most benefited from this program—increasing inequality within the education system. [15]

Despite these limitations and concerns, controlled studies of the effects of California's CSR program showed significant achievement gains from smaller classes, [18] [19] [20] even among third graders who were only in the program for one year. [21] Researchers found, for example, that students who were in reduced classes in grades K-3 had slightly higher scores on NAEP math exams in 4th grade than students from larger classes. [22] The most significant result of this program was that class sizes, across the state, were, on average, reduced. [15] Some other significant effects of the program were that teacher quality had decreased and the use of combination classes had increased. Teacher quality worsened because schools had to dig deeper down in the barrel to find teachers, who were typically less educated and less experienced. The percent of teachers not fully certified, yet teaching, in high-poverty schools increased from 6% in 1995 to 20% by 2001 and 1% to 6% in low-poverty schools. [15] As to why achievement gains were greater for high-poverty minority students, the Coleman Report has a lot to say. [23]

The Coleman Report

The Coleman Report, published in 1966, concluded that family background matters significantly more to a student's academic achievement than any resources a school can offer. [23] The exact factors defining "family background" that this report focused on were "parents' educational attainment, parents' income, parents’ criminal history, and family structure". The report goes on to explain that it is equally important, if not more so, for public policy to focus on improving resources of the family rather than those of the school. This could suggest that policies attempting to reduce class size might not have as significant effects on a student's educational achievement as would a policy that reduces a student's level of poverty.

Effects of CSR

Research on the effects of class size reduction has linked small class sizes with a variety of cognitive and non-cognitive benefits for students and teachers, both short and long-term, especially when class sizes are reduced in the early grades. In fact, class size reduction is one of only a handful of K12 reforms cited by the Institute of Education Sciences (2003) as proven to increase student achievement through rigorous evidence.

Reducing class size is among an even smaller number of education reforms that have been shown to narrow the achievement gap. Its benefits are particularly pronounced for lower-income students and children of color, who experience two to three times the gains from smaller classes.

Smaller classes have also been found to have a positive impact on school climate, student socio-emotional growth, safety and suspension rates, parent engagement, and teacher attrition, especially in schools with large numbers of disadvantaged children.

Academic Achievement

Achievement Gaps

Safety, Attendance and Disciplinary Issues

School Climate and Non-Cognitive or Socio-Emotional Factors

Parent Engagement

Teacher Attrition

Teacher training

Smaller classes provide opportunities for teachers to engage in practices that improve student achievement. However, some researchers worry whether teachers will take full advantage of these opportunities, arguing that they tend to use the same strategies (primarily lecturing) with both large and small groups. [51] [52] [53] [54] This concern has led some to advocate for teacher training to unlock the full potential of reduced class sizes. [16]

Though teacher training may improve CSR outcomes, research has demonstrated the benefits of CSR even without any instructional changes. A book reviewing evidence and perspectives on class size from around the world concludes that "Project STAR produced gains without any changes in the curriculum or any focused teacher training. Small classes in and of themselves produced benefits," as was also the case in Wisconsin and California. [55]

Economics of smaller classrooms

Given the current uncertainty of national financial markets, some commentators have encouraged policymakers to consider whether implementing or broadening class-size-reduction policies is feasible in a time of major budget cuts. [56]

However, teacher magazine polls show that greater than 70% of current teachers cite large class sizes as one of their primary barriers to both job satisfaction and their ability to teach. [57] This has led proponents of class size reduction argue that CSR is in fact highly cost effective. They note that low teacher retention rates lead to higher retraining costs and contribute to the current lack of qualified teachers. When faced with a constant flux of new teachers, student achievement has also been shown to suffer.

Students who go on to finish their education also bring more value to their communities causing some economists to suggest that smaller class sizes may pay for themselves internally, [58] although other economists question this. An analysis of the Tennessee STAR study demonstrated that the economic benefits from higher achievement alone would be expected to yield twice the cost of reducing class size. [11] A meta-analysis of CSR literature revealed that the benefits of smaller class size outweighed the cost in all but three of the 112 peer-reviewed studies. [29] However, one prominent study [59] looking at the program's effect on long-term average wage earnings of students who participated in STAR by linking the data from the experiment to IRS tax records 26 years later disagrees. One of the main findings of this study [59] was that class size does not have a significant effect on earnings by age 27. However, the authors themselves do not consider their evidence to be conclusive and should thus be discounted. One valid finding, though, was that students who had teachers with greater education training and work experience were more likely to achieve higher earnings later in life. Additional findings were that students who were put into smaller classes were more likely to graduate high school and to, later, attend college.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No Child Left Behind Act</span> 2002 United States education reform law; repealed 2015

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a U.S. Act of Congress that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; it included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It supported standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. The Act required states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states had to give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Samuel Coleman</span> American sociologist, theorist, and empirical researcher

James Samuel Coleman was an American sociologist, theorist, and empirical researcher, based chiefly at the University of Chicago.

Achievement gaps in the United States are observed, persistent disparities in measures of educational performance among subgroups of U.S. students, especially groups defined by socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity and gender. The achievement gap can be observed through a variety of measures, including standardized test scores, grade point average, dropout rates, college enrollment, and college completion rates. The gap in achievement between lower income students and higher income students exists in all nations and it has been studied extensively in the U.S. and other countries, including the U.K. Various other gaps between groups exist around the globe as well.

Student–teacher ratio or student–faculty ratio is the number of students who attend a school or university divided by the number of teachers in the institution. For example, a student–teacher ratio of 10:1 indicates that there are 10 students for every one teacher. The term can also be reversed to create a teacher–student ratio.

An exit examination is a test that students must pass to receive a diploma and graduate from school. Such examinations have been used in a variety of countries; this article focuses on their use within the United States. These are usually criterion-referenced tests which were implemented as part of a comprehensive standards-based education reform program which sets into place new standards intended to increase the learning of all students.

Geoffrey D. Borman is an American quantitative methodologist and policy analyst. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1997 and is currently the Alice Wiley Snell Endowed Professor at Arizona State University, Director of the Arizona State University Education Sciences Graduate Program, and Editor of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tracking (education)</span> Separation of students by ability

Tracking is separating students by academic ability into groups for all subjects or certain classes and curriculum within a school. It may be referred to as streaming or phasing in some schools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eric Hanushek</span> American economist

Eric Alan Hanushek is an economist who has written prolifically on public policy with a special emphasis on the economics of education. Since 2000, he has been a Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an American public policy think tank located at Stanford University in California. He was awarded the Yidan Prize for Education Research in 2021.

Education economics or the economics of education is the study of economic issues relating to education, including the demand for education, the financing and provision of education, and the comparative efficiency of various educational programs and policies. From early works on the relationship between schooling and labor market outcomes for individuals, the field of the economics of education has grown rapidly to cover virtually all areas with linkages to education.

Educational inequality is the unequal distribution of academic resources, including but not limited to school funding, qualified and experienced teachers, books, and technologies, to socially excluded communities. These communities tend to be historically disadvantaged and oppressed. Individuals belonging to these marginalized groups are often denied access to schools with adequate resources. Inequality leads to major differences in the educational success or efficiency of these individuals and ultimately suppresses social and economic mobility. Inequality in education is broken down in different types: regional inequality, inequality by sex, inequality by social stratification, inequality by parental income, inequality by parent occupation, and many more.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence-based education</span> Paradigm of the education field

Evidence-based education (EBE) is the principle that education practices should be based on the best available scientific evidence, rather than tradition, personal judgement, or other influences. Evidence-based education is related to evidence-based teaching, evidence-based learning, and school effectiveness research. For example, research has shown that spaced repetition "leads to more robust memory formation than massed training does, which involves short or no intervals".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Class size</span> Number of students in a class

Class size refers to the number of students a teacher faces during a given period of instruction.

Value-added modeling is a method of teacher evaluation that measures the teacher's contribution in a given year by comparing the current test scores of their students to the scores of those same students in previous school years, as well as to the scores of other students in the same grade. In this manner, value-added modeling seeks to isolate the contribution, or value added, that each teacher provides in a given year, which can be compared to the performance measures of other teachers. VAMs are considered to be fairer than simply comparing student achievement scores or gain scores without considering potentially confounding context variables like past performance or income. It is also possible to use this approach to estimate the value added by the school principal or the school as a whole.

The racial achievement gap in the United States refers to disparities in educational achievement between differing ethnic/racial groups. It manifests itself in a variety of ways: African-American and Hispanic students are more likely to receive lower grades, score lower on standardized tests, drop out of high school, and they are less likely to enter and complete college than whites, while whites score lower than Asian Americans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Educational inequality in the United States</span>

Unequal access to education in the United States results in unequal outcomes for students. Disparities in academic access among students in the United States are the result of several factors including: government policies, school choice, family wealth, parenting style, implicit bias towards the race or ethnicity of the student, and the resources available to the student and their school. Educational inequality contributes to a number of broader problems in the United States, including income inequality and increasing prison populations. Educational inequalities in the United States are wide-ranging, and many potential solutions have been proposed to mitigate their impacts on students.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ludger Wößmann</span> German economist

Ludger Wößmann is a German economist and professor of economics at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU). Moreover, being one of the world's foremost education economists, he is the director of the ifo Center for the Economics of Education at the ifo Institute. Beyond the economics of education, his research interests also include economic growth and economic history. In 2014, Wößmann's empirical research on the effects of education and his corresponding contribution to public debate were awarded the Gossen Prize, followed by the Gustav Stolper Prize in 2017.

Victor Chaim Lavy is an Israeli economist and professor at the University of Warwick and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests include labour economics, the economics of education, and development economics. Lavy belongs to the most prominent education economists in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susanna Loeb</span> American economist

Susanna Loeb is an American education economist and director of the Annenberg Institute at Brown University. She was previously the Barnett Family Professor of Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, where she also served as founding director of the Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA). Moreover, she directs Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). Her research interests include the economics of education and the relationship between schools and educational policies, in particular school finance and teacher labor markets.

Brian Aaron Jacob is an American economist and a professor of public policy, economics and education at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy of the University of Michigan. There, he also currently serves as co-director of the Education Policy Initiative and of the Youth Policy Lab. In 2008, Jacob's research on education policy was awarded the David N. Kershaw Award, which is given by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management and honours persons who have made a distinguished contribution to the field of public policy analysis and management before the age of 40. His doctoral advisor at the University of Chicago was Freakonomics author Steven Levitt.

Elizabeth Dhuey is a Canadian economist specializing in the economics of education. She is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto Scarborough and Chairwoman of the Canadian Women Economists Committee through the Canadian Economics Association.

References

  1. ↑ Hattie, J. (2005, August), What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning? Keynote address presented at the 2005 Research Conference, Lumina Grand Hyatt Hotel, Melbourne, 7–9 August 2005.
  2. 1 2 Biddle, Bruce J.; Berliner, David C. (2002). "Small class size and its effects". Educational Leadership. 59 (5): 12–23.
  3. ↑ Eric Hanushek (1999) “The Evidence on Class Size,” in Earning and learning: How schools matter, edited by Susan E. Mayer and Paul E. Peterson (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution): 131-168
  4. 1 2 3 Dynarski, Susan, Joshua Hyman, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. 2013. “Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Childhood Investments on Postsecondary Attainment and Degree Completion.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(4): 692-717.
  5. ↑ Graue, M. E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class size reduction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 670-700.
  6. ↑ Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science and the Public Interest, 2(1), 1-30.
  7. ↑ "How important is class size?".
  8. ↑ Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children, 5, 113-127.
  9. ↑ "Some Findings from an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and from Other Investigations of Class Size Effects | Eric A. Hanushek".
  10. ↑ Hanushek, E. A. (1997). ‘Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: an update’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 19(2), pp. 141–64.
  11. 1 2 3 Krueger, Alan B. 2003. “Economic Considerations and Class Size.” The Economic Journal 113 (February): F34-F63.
  12. ↑ Hanushek, Eric (May 1994). "Money Might Matter Somewhere: A Response to Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald". Hoover Institution. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  13. ↑ Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K. & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size reduction.American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 670-700.
  14. 1 2 Weis, Trish (Fall 1990). "Indiana's PRIME TIME". Contemporary Education. Terre Haute. 62 (1): 31. ProQuest   1291783890.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Bohrnstedt and Stecher (1999). "Crowding Out: Small Classes Teach a Lesson in Unintended Consequences". RAND Corporation. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  16. 1 2 3 Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K. & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 670-700.
  17. ↑ "The Evidence from California". June 12, 2013. Retrieved September 27, 2016.
  18. ↑ Harold Urman, “The Effects of Class Size Reduction on Students’ Achievement, English Proficiency Designation, Retention in Grade, and Attendance,” Vital Research, July 2000.
  19. ↑ Penny Fidler, "The Impact of Class Size Reduction on Student Achievement," Los Angeles Unified School District, Publication No. 109, September 7, 2001.
  20. ↑ Penny Fidler. "The Relationship Between Teacher Instructional Techniques and Characteristics and Student Achievement in Reduced Size Classes," Los Angeles Unified School District, Publication No. 120, March 2002.
  21. ↑ Brian Stecher and George Borhnstedt eds., “Class Size Reduction in California: Findings from 1999–00 and 2000–01,” 2002, p. 72.
  22. ↑ Fatih Unlu, “California Class Size Reduction Reform: New Findings from the NAEP,” Princeton University, Nov. 2005
  23. 1 2 Egalite, Anna (Spring 2016). "How Family Background Influences Student Achievement". Education Next. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  24. ↑ "Meta-Analysis of Research on Class Size and Achievement". September 13, 2016. Retrieved September 26, 2016.
  25. ↑ McLaughlin, Donald, Gili Drori, and Michael Ross. 2000. “School-level Correlates of Academic Achievement: Student Assessment Scores in SASS Public Schools.” U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC.
  26. 1 2 Wilson, Valerie. 2002. Does Small Really Make a Difference? University of Glasgow: The Scottish Council for Research in Education.
  27. 1 2 Finn, Jeremy D., and Susan B. Gerber and Jayne Boyd-Zaharias. 2005. “Small Classes in the Early Grades, Academic Achievement, and Graduating from High School,”Journal of Educational Psychology.
  28. ↑ Fredriksson, Peter; Öckert, Björn; Oosterbeek, Hessel (February 1, 2013). "Long-Term Effects of Class Size". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 128 (1): 249–285. doi:10.1093/qje/qjs048.
  29. 1 2 3 Zyngier, David (March 2014). "Class size and academic results, with a focus on children from culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised communities". Evidence Base: A Journal of Evidence Reviews in Key Policy Areas (1): 1–24.
  30. ↑ Leuven, Edwin; Løkken, Sturla A. (2020). "Long-Term Impacts of Class Size in Compulsory School". Journal of Human Resources. 55 (1): 309–348. doi:10.3368/jhr.55.2.0217.8574R2. hdl: 11250/2477813 . S2CID   44201428.
  31. ↑ Filges, Trine; Sonne‐Schmidt, Christoffer Scavenius; Viinholt Nielsen, Bjørn Christian (October 11, 2018). "Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools: a systematic review". Campbell Systematic Reviews. 14 (1): 1–107. doi: 10.4073/csr.2018.10 . PMC   8428040 . PMID   37131395.
  32. 1 2 Krueger, Alan B., & Whitmore, D. M. 2002. "Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement Gap?" Bridging the Achievement Gap. Brookings Institution Press.
  33. ↑ Dee, Thomas S. 2004. “Teachers, Race, and Student Achievement in a Randomized Experiment.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): 195-210.
  34. ↑ Konstantopoulos, Spyros and Vicki Chung. 2009. “What are the Long-term Effects of Small Classes on the Achievement Gap? Evidence from the Lasting Benefits Study.” American Journal of Education 116: 125-154.
  35. ↑ Heilig, Julian Vasquez, Amy Williams, and Su Jin Jez. 2010. “Inputs and Student Achievement: An Analysis of Latina/o-Serving Urban Elementary Schools.” Association of Mexican American Educators Journal 48-58.
  36. ↑ Wilde E.T., J. Finn, G. Johnson, P. Muennig. 2011. “The effect of class size in grades K-3 on adult earnings, employment, and disability status: evidence from a multi-center randomized controlled trial.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 22(4):1424-35.
  37. ↑ Shin, Yongyun. 2012. “Do Black Children Benefit More from Small Classes? Multivariate Instrumental Variable Estimators with Ignorable Missing Data.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37(4).
  38. ↑ Achilles, Charles M. 2012. Class-size Policy: The Star Experiment and Related Class-size Studies. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration.
  39. ↑ Schanzenbach, Diane W. 2014. Does Class Size Matter? National Education Policy Center and University of Colorado Boulder. Boulder, CO.
  40. ↑ Mathis, William J. 2016. The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction. National Education Policy Center and University of Colorado Boulder. Boulder, CO.
  41. 1 2 Finn, Jeremy D., Gina M. Pannozzo, and Charles M. Achilles. 2003. “The Why's of Small Class Size: Student Behavior in Small Classes.” Journal of Educational Psychology 97(2): 214-223
  42. ↑ Babcock, Philip and Julian R. Betts. 2009. “Reduced-class distinctions: Effort, ability, and the education production function.” Journal of Urban Economics 65: 314-322.
  43. 1 2 Bascia, Nina. 2010. Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know? Canadian Education Association. Toronto, ON.
  44. ↑ Dee, Thomas S. and Martin R. West. 2011. “The Non-Cognitive Returns to Class Size.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33(1): 23-46.
  45. ↑ Bohrnstedt, George W. and Brian M. Stecher. 1999. Class Size Reduction in California 1996-1998: Early Findings Signal Promise and Concerns. CSR Research Consortium.
  46. ↑ NYC Council Investigation Division. 2004. Report on Teacher Attrition and Retention.
  47. ↑ Loeb, Susanna, Linda Darling-Hammond, and John Luczak. 2005. “How Teaching Conditions Predict Teacher Turnover in California Schools.” Peabody Journal of Education 80(3):44-70.
  48. ↑ Pennsylvania State Education Association. 2008. Class Size Reduction: PSEA Promising Practices to Close Student Achievement Gaps.
  49. ↑ Pas Isenberg, Emily. 2010. “The Effect of Class Size on Teacher Attrition: Evidence from Class Size Reduction Policies in New York State.” U.S. Bureau of the Census Center for Economic Studies. Washington, DC.
  50. ↑ Ingersoll, Richard M. 2015. “Why Schools Have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers.” Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
  51. ↑ Cahen, L. S., Filby, N., McCutcheon, G., & Kyle, D. W. (1983). Class size and instruction: A field study. New York: Longman.
  52. ↑ Rice, J. K. (1999). The impact of class size on instructional strategies and the use of time in high school mathematics and science courses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 399-414.
  53. ↑ Slavin, R. (1989). Achievement effects of substantial reductions to class size. In R. Slavin (Ed.), School and classroom organization (pp. 247-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
  54. ↑ Stasz, C., & Stecher, B. M. (2002). Before and after class size reduction. In J. D. Finn & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Taking small classes one step further (pp. 19-50). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  55. ↑ Blatchford, Peter; Chan, Kam Wing; Galton, Maurice; Lai, Kwok Chan; Lee, John Chi Kin (April 28, 2016). Class Size: Eastern and Western perspectives. Routledge. ISBN   9781317643470.
  56. ↑ "Quality Counts" (PDF). Retrieved January 1, 2012.
  57. ↑ "Teacher Magazine: Reader Polls". Education Week. Edweek.org. September 10, 2008. Retrieved January 1, 2012.
  58. ↑ Krueger, Alan B. (February 1, 2003). "Economic Considerations and Class Size" (PDF). The Economic Journal. 113 (485): F34–F63. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00098.
  59. 1 2 Chetty et al. (March 2011). "How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings?" (PDF). http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/star_paper.pdf . Retrieved November 28, 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.