| These thirteen states
have class-size-reduction initiatives. Thanks to the Oregon Legislative Policy and
Research Office, we are able to show some costs and impacts nationwide. |
|
| [Alabama] [California] [Hawaii] [Indiana] [Kentucky] [Michigan/Flint SD] [Minnesota]
[Nevada] [New York]
[Oklahoma] [Tennessee]
[Texas] |
|
|
| Alabama [Top] |
Effort: |
 |
In 1997, Board of Education voted
to limit class sizes for K-3 to 18 students, grades 4-6 to 26 students, grades 7-12 to 29
students. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Legislature approved $127 million
to pay for up to 900 new teachers to help reduce class size. |
|
|
Estimated enrollment: 729,600. |
Impact: |
|
Not provided. |
|
| California [Top] |
Effort: |
|
In 1996, incentive provided for
schools to reduce grades K-3 to 20 students. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
1997, schools receive $800 per
pupil in reduced size classroom up from $650 in 1996. |
|
|
$1.4 billion allocated in 1997
and $971 million in 1996. |
|
|
Estimated enrollment: 5,976,300. |
Impact: |
|
18,000 teachers hired last year
and 15,300 expected to be hired this year. Nearly 2/3 of new hires have little or no
teaching experience. 24% lack credentials. Legislation allows interns to be hired as
teachers if supervised. Also allows teachers who retired prior to 7-1-96 to return at full
salary without losing retirement benefits for up to 3 years. |
|
|
No statewide uniform test or
standard for evaluation. Each district evaluates differently. Governor’s office says
that it may begin assessing in 2000. No pre-test of students was conducted. Dept of Ed has
started a foundation to raise money for evaluation. Dept plans to write regulations to
ensure uniform data collection. |
|
|
San Francisco S.D. has seen
significantly higher reading and math scores for grades 1-3. |
|
|
Fewer discipline problems. |
|
|
Improved relationship between
teacher and student, and parent and school. |
|
|
Students are moving through
curriculum faster. |
|
|
Less transition time between
subjects. |
|
|
Earlier detection and referral of
vulnerable kids. |
|
|
Improved teacher morale. |
|
|
Lack of space for classrooms
means some schools gave up their science labs, libraries, preschool, and parenting
education classrooms. |
|
| Hawaii [Top] |
Effort: |
|
K-2 grades are limited to 21. In
1997, legislature raised maximum from 20 students to save $3 million. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Estimated enrollment: 191,633. |
Impact: |
|
Not provided. |
|
| Indiana [Top] |
Effort: |
|
In 1981, PRIME TIME was adopted
statewide to reduce K-3 grades. Pilot from 1981-83 reduced classes to 14 students. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Legislature appropriated $19
million in 1984 to reduce sizes, but the appropriation resulted only in a reduction to 18
students. |
Impact: |
|
Improved behavior. |
|
|
Higher test scores. |
|
|
More efficient classrooms. |
|
|
1987 evaluation showed a very
weak, but consistent, affect on academic achievement. |
|
|
Small classes resulted in higher
achievement scores for 2nd graders. |
|
| Kentucky [Top] |
Effort: |
|
Legislation requires class size
not exceed 24 for grades K-3, 28 for grade 4, 29 for grades 5-6, and 31 for grades 7-12.
Excludes music and P.E. classes. Excludes schools that have implemented school-based
decision making. Allows school council to modify by formal action. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Not provided. |
Impact: |
|
The Kentucky Legislature has
discussed class size reductions for years, but they have determined that the cost is too
high to reduce to the level that researchers say is necessary to make a significant
improvement in achievement. |
|
| Michigan [Top] |
Effort: |
|
Categorical program for 1998-99
provides $19.7 million for grants. Schools must have large low-income population and must
reduce K-3 classes to an average of 17 and maximum of 19. Intended to be a four year
program. Requires matching funds from district. Allocated $250,000 to evaluate. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Not provided. |
Impact: |
|
Not provided. |
|
|
|
Michigan, Flint S.D. |
|
|
Effort: |
|
In 1994, all students in grades
K-3 are in classes with no more than 17 students. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Not provided. |
Impact: |
|
Comparing 1995 MEAP scores with
1996 scores, there was a 44% increase for reading and 18% increase for math. But 20% of
the tested 4th graders had not been in small classes and another 31% were in small classes
for only one year. Remaining 49% were in small classes for 2 years. |
|
|
Fewer discipline problems. |
|
|
More parental involvement. |
|
|
More teaching and assessment
time. |
|
| Minnesota [Top] |
Effort: |
|
Law sets goal to reduce K-6 class
size to 17. Districts receive additional money for each elementary student and must use
the money for class size reduction. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Not provided. |
Impact: |
|
Not provided. |
|
| Nevada [Top] |
Effort: |
|
In 1989, legislature passed plan
to limit grades 1-3 to 15 students, grades 4-6 to 22 students, and grades 7-12 to 25
students. |
|
|
Currently, selected kindergarten
and 3rd grade classes and all 1st and 2nd grade classes have a pupil-teacher ratio of
16:1. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
To date, the state spent $254
million for reduced class size, not counting local capital expenditures. |
|
|
An additional $66 million was
appropriated for 1997-98 and $81.4 million for 1998-99. |
|
|
In the 1996-97 fiscal year, $56
million was spent to fund 1,342 teachers for small classes. Class size reduction cost $800
to $900 per student. |
|
|
Original legislation funded
teacher training, but no funding in 1991, 1993, and 1995. |
|
|
No money was allocated for
evaluation, although monitoring is required. |
|
|
Estimated state enrollment:
289,321. |
Impact: |
|
A 1996 study demonstrated that
1st grade students in small classes had significantly higher reading and math scores in
the 2nd grade than students who weren’t in small classes in the 1st grade. The same
was found for 2nd graders in small classes when they were assessed in the 3rd grade. |
|
|
Achievement results differed
across student subpopulations, but overall the improvements have been small but
significant as measured by reading and math assessments in the 2nd grade. |
|
|
Fewer special education referrals
for students in small classes (2.9 in 1991 to 2.05 in 1996). |
|
|
Reduced teacher absenteeism. |
|
|
Facility problems are a major
obstacle. Two teachers are frequently assigned to a classroom to reduce the pupil-teacher
ratio since there is a shortage of classrooms. |
|
| New York [Top] |
Effort: |
|
1997 legislation provided funds
to lower class sizes in grades K-3 to start in 1999-2000. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
$75 million appropriated in 1997.
Appropriation increases to $225 million by 2001-02. |
|
|
Estimated enrollment: 2.8
million. |
Impact: |
|
Not provided. |
|
|
|
|
| Oklahoma [Top] |
Effort: |
|
Statute sets maximum class sizes
for grades K-6 at 20. Teachers of grades 7-12 are limited at 140 students per day. Limits
exclude music and P.E. classes and classes with a teacher’s assistant. Penalty is a
loss in state-appropriated funds for each child in excess of the maximum. Allows exception
for school districts who lack classroom space and who have satisfied other criteria. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Not provided. |
Impact: |
|
State had a grant program for
targeting oversized classes, but this was found to be cumbersome. As a result they set a
5-year schedule for reducing class size. |
|
| Tennessee [Top] |
Effort: |
|
Legislation in 1992 set average
and maximum class sizes: K-3 (20, 25), 4-6 (25, 30), 7-12 (30, 35), and vocational (20,
25). |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
No separate appropriation for
class size reductions; however, state spending increased $600 million between 1991-92 and
1995-96. Money for class size reduction is addressed through the number of teachers funded
through the state funding formula in relation to average daily membership. |
Impact: |
|
The 4-year, $13 million STAR
study was completed in 1990. Results are as follows: |
|
|
|
|
| Texas [Top] |
Effort: |
|
Statute requires a ratio of 22:1
for K-4 and a cap of 15:1 for pre-k. |
Costs/Enrollment: |
|
Not provided. |
Impact: |
|
Some Texans believe that the
class size reduction program is the single most significant contributing factor in
Texas’ top ranking by a Rand study on increased achievement among educationally
disadvantaged students. |
