(From American Teacher, April 1998)

Something unusual is happening in Wisconsin. Instead of charging ahead with a new state program and wondering later if the money was well spent, the state is implementing an ambitious educational initiative that includes money from the start for a comprehensive evaluation of the results. While that sensible approach to new programs is rare enough, the initiative bears watching for another reason: It focuses on reducing class sizes, probably the hottest school reform topic going.

The early bottom line from Wisconsin: Class size does matter. First-year results from the state's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) project--an initiative to reduce student-teacher ratios for low-income students in grades K-3 to 15 to 1--show the first graders in SAGE schools scored significantly higher in reading, language arts and math than students in comparison schools. (The program is being phased in one grade at a time.) African-American males, in particular, appear to benefit from the smaller classes, as their scores rose 40 percent more than those of black males in the control schools.

Teachers and parents have long believed in the merits of smaller classes. It just makes sense that students will do better in a class where 30 or 35 of them aren't clamoring for the attention of one teacher. While some studies have backed up those gut feelings, other researchers have built entire careers on arguing that "money doesn't matter" and that smaller class sizes are an expensive luxury we can't afford.

Now, the Wisconsin results and other recent studies are confirming that teachers and parents were right all along. "There is no longer any argument about whether or not reducing class size in the primary grades increases student achievement," notes Alex Molnar of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, one of the researchers evaluating SAGE. "The evidence is quite clear: It does."

Sue Westbrook doesn't need a researcher to tell her that small classes are better. Last fall, as a result of California's class-size reduction initiative, she went from teaching 30 fourth graders to teaching 20 second graders at Laguna Vista Elementary School in Ventura County. "Professionally, I feel better about my job, and I feel I'm being more successful with my students," says Westbrook, who is also president of the Ocean View Federation of Teachers. "It has made a significant difference in how teachers feel and how we think our students are doing."

A national movement

There's no more popular educational initiative across the country right now than cutting class size. In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton proposed a seven-year, $12 billion initiative to reduce class sizes in grades 1-3 to a nationwide average of 18 by hiring 100,000 new teachers. At the state level, some 20 governors of both parties--flush with budget surpluses--already have or are proposing reduced class sizes, and the idea also is attracting attention in many local school districts.

To make the biggest difference in student achievement, the research indicates, these efforts should focus on the earliest grades and on low-achieving, low-income students. While the SAGE study provides some of the most recent evidence, evaluation of a long-standing Tennessee project remains the "gold standard" of class-size research. Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project looked at the results of randomly assigning K-3 students to small classes (13-17 students) and regular classes (22-25 students). The results: Students in the smaller classes did much better in reading and math than students in regular classes. As in Wisconsin, low-income minority students gained the most from the smaller classes. What's more, follow-up studies of Tennessee students have shown that the benefits of small classes last at least through eighth grade.

Ironically, the Tennessee project was started in 1985 by then-governor Lamar Alexander, who seems to have rejected the compelling evidence from his own state. Instead, as a presidential candidate in 1992, Alexander jumped on the private school voucher bandwagon, embracing an approach supported by no comparable evidence. Perhaps the former secretary of education should take another look at the Tennessee study, which remains such a landmark of education research that noted Harvard economist Frederick Mosteller calls it "one of the most important educational investigations ever carried out."

One other recent study also merits attention. Researcher Harold Wenglinsky of the Educational Testing Service analyzed school district spending patterns and math achievement of fourth and eighth graders on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. His 1997 study found that increased teacher-student ratios (smaller class size) raised achievement at both grades. Fourth graders in smaller-than-average classes, for example, were about half a year ahead of their counterparts in larger-than-average classes. In a subgroup of urban schools, the advantage for students in smaller classes increased to about three-quarters of a year.

Why smaller is better

There's nothing magical about class size, although there does seem to be a threshold--somewhere around 15 to 17 students--below which researchers have found the most impressive academic gains for students. So what makes small classes so great? Here again, the research really confirms common sense. The benefits boil down to better discipline, more individual attention for students and opportunities for teachers to use more varied types of instruction that engage students.

The SAGE evaluation provides some of the best data here because the researchers are not only looking at test scores, but they're also observing classes and having teachers keep classroom logs and complete questionnaires. "There's much less time devoted to discipline and classroom management," says John Zahorik, one of the SAGE researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. With more time freed up for instruction, he says, teachers find they are completing the year's required curriculum by April, giving them time to move on to more advanced material or return to topics in more depth.

"I can't think of any downside" to the smaller classes, Zahorik says. "The end-of-the-year comments we have from teachers are just glowing. They think it's a terrific thing."

California teacher Westbrook echoes the Wisconsin findings. "When you have 30 students, you don't get to know them as well because there are so many demands on your time," she says. "With 20, you get to understand their strengths and weaknesses better."

The California story

While the Wisconsin evaluation is overwhelmingly positive, large-scale efforts to reduce class sizes are not without their perils. California's experience highlights some of them. Beginning in the 1996-97 school year, the state used a budget surplus to hire thousands of teachers, reducing class sizes statewide from an average of 29 down to 20 in grades 1-3. While smaller districts like Westbrook's managed the transition relatively smoothly, bigger challenges came in places like Los Angeles, which was scrambling to find enough classroom space and enough qualified teachers before the class-size reduction initiative. Almost half of the teachers hired last year in Los Angeles to lower class sizes lacked regular teaching permits.

Obviously, staffing smaller classes with unqualified teachers can dilute the expected benefits. As AFT president Sandra Feldman noted in response to President Clinton's class-size initiative, "We must make sure that these newly recruited teachers are well prepared for the classroom. We won't be doing our students any favors if we rush to fill classrooms with just any warm body who wants to work with kids. We need high standards for teachers, just as we do for students."

Unfortunately, although California mandated an evaluation of the class-size reduction effort, money for the evaluation was never provided, so there's no good data on its impact. In addition, political battles have delayed the development of a statewide testing program. A consortium of research groups is working on an evaluation, but it will lack the sort of up-front data needed to make good before-and-after comparisons.

Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence from California indicates that Westbrook's positive experience is common. The Santa Barbara County school district surveyed teachers and parents, and both groups strongly praised small classes. Among teachers, for example, 47 percent said class-size reduction had caused a "great increase" in their students' academic achievement in basic subjects, and another 47 percent said they had seen "some increase." Parents were almost as positive: 44 percent said there had been a great increase in their child's achievement and 36 percent said some increase.

What's more, the class-size reduction initiative seems to have sparked renewed confidence in the state's public schools. Various reports confirm a sort of man-bites-dog story: Students are leaving private schools and returning to the public schools in great numbers, in large part because parents like the new smaller classes. Westbrook says her district has had to build new facilities to help accommodate the influx of private school students.

The president's initiative includes some elements designed to head off some of the problems that arose in California. Participating states, for example, would be required to implement basic-skills testing for new teachers, and they could hire only certified teachers or those making satisfactory progress toward certification. In addition, states could use up to 10 percent of the funds for efforts such as training in proven practices for teaching reading in small classes, mentors for newly hired teachers and incentives to recruit qualified teachers to high-poverty schools. To help school systems deal with the issue of adequate facilities, as the AFT has reported elsewhere, the initiative also includes money to build and renovate school facilities.

The new evidence should end the debate on whether class size matters. Clearly it does have a powerful impact on improving student achievement. But just as clearly, reducing class size alone is not the most effective way to improve schools. As a new AFT policy brief on the topic puts it, class size is only one piece of an overall strategy. "High academic standards and a challenging curriculum, safe and orderly classrooms, and qualified teachers are no less significant in the arsenal of solid research-proven reforms. And, in fact, when smaller class size is pursued in conjunction with these standards-based reforms, the combined impact on student achievement is far greater than either strategy alone." The AFT policy brief (No. 3), "Recent Research Demonstrates Major Benefits of Small Class Size," is posted here on our Web site.

--By Daniel Gursky