IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUITY, PRACTICE & IMPLEMENTATION
  EFFECT ON SPECIAL POPULATIONS Language Development Programs and Students Educators are optimistic that LEP students are benefiting from smaller class size. Most teachers report spending more time working with these students individually, and say it is easier to identify each child’s particular strengths and weaknesses. Difficulties remain, however: at the time of our interviews, only three of 76 teachers reported having earned a BCLAD or CLAD credential; most teachers do not speak these students’ native languages; many have not received appropriate training to work with this population; uncredentialed teachers are disproportionately represented in schools with large percentages of LEP students; there is a shortage and redistribution of teacher aides; and the 20:1 cap has made it difficult to assign LEP students to appropriate language development classrooms. While most of these challenges existed prior to CSR, the initiative has reportedly made matters worse. Improved Classroom Climate Most sampled educators report that CSR is having a positive effect on LEP students, largely due to increased one-to-one interaction between students and teachers. As many bilingual coordinators explained, teachers can get to know each child, his or her particular needs, then apply more appropriate teaching strategies. Nearly all teachers agreed that smaller classes create more nurturing learning environments, where children seem more patient with one another and more willing to share space and materials. Several report that LEP students, sometimes too intimidated to speak English, are now more willing to try and have more opportunities to practice. About half of coordinators also report achievement gains, maintaining that students’ oral proficiency and reading skills are improving at faster rates than in previous years. Of course, a more careful evaluation, involving independent evidence on actual achievement, is required to verify this claim. Shortages of Credentialed Teachers While bilingual coordinators expect that more individualized instruction will allow LEP students to make faster, smoother transitions to English, nearly 25 percent report disadvantages associated with CSR. Problems generally stem from state-wide shortages of fully trained-teachers—a pre-existing situation that has been worsened by the initiative. In 1996-97, California schools served over one million Spanish speaking LEP students, plus more than 250,000 other students whose native language was not English. 22 Yet there is only one fully-qualified bilingual teacher for every 98 LEP students. 23 Data taken from the California Department of Education’s Language Census Data, indicates that California needs approximately 28,000 additional teachers to meet existing needs. 24 According to the Commission on Teacher Preparation and Licensing, between January 1996 and February 1997, the number of emergency permits more than doubled to 8,319; and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (1997) reports that 30 percent of CSR-hired teachers are not credentialed. Our findings reflect these statewide trends. Principals were surveyed about the number and credentials of teachers they hired. According to data collected from principal respondents, on average, 40 percent of newly-hired teachers are working only with emergency credentials. (Figure 5 shows the percentage of teachers with and without credentials for each district.) More than half of new hires are not certified to teach LEP students. Among schools we sampled in the urban district that serves more LEP students than any other district in the nation, only one in every six hires had earned "LEP credentials," i.e., BCLAD,CLAD. 25 Figure 6 shows the percentages of teachers working with and without credentials for serving LEP students. We highlight only urban districts because the smaller districts serve few, if any, LEP students. We also queried teachers about the numbers of LEP students they serve and their qualifications for working with them. Three-fourths of all teachers report teaching LEP students - eight LEP students per class, on average. At the time of the survey, only three of the 76 teachers stated they had earned CLAD or BCLAD credentials. Sixty percent of teachers are not bilingual, and more than 40 percent received no training to provide English-language-development support to LEP students. When teachers were asked to rate themselves on preparation for teaching these students, 88 percent said they were "qualified," while the remaining 20 percent maintained they were either "developing the skills" or "in need of more support." Reconciling teachers’ optimism about their qualifications with their lack of training is complex. Certainly, a credential does not guarantee that a teacher is qualified or competent. Conversely, a teacher with an emergency credential may very well be qualified. Future research will need to determine whether student performance is influenced by teachers’ experience, credentials and other factors. | |||
   | |||
Distribution of Credentialed Teachers In three urban districts, the distribution of qualified—and unqualified—teachers disproportionately affects LEP populations. We found that schools serving greater percentages of LEP students are, in fact, hiring a smaller percentage of teachers qualified to provide LEP services than schools serving smaller percentages of these children. As figure 7 shows, particularly in Districts 2, 3, and 5, schools serving percentages of LEP students below the district median are, on average, hiring a greater percentage of credentialed teachers. In contrast, smaller schools with fewer LEP students report having less trouble attracting credentialed teachers — some principals boasted that they actually had "too many" qualified teachers applying. Nevertheless, much of the instruction of LEP students is in the hands of teachers without adequate training. We also found that districts with flexible hiring and transfer policies saw shifts in their distribution of qualified teachers within districts, creating shortages of qualified staff for certain schools. In one district, for example, administrators report that credentialed teachers in year-round, multi-track schools are electing to transfer to new openings in other schools with traditional, September to June calendars. The problem is that LEP students are concentrated in the more rural part of the district, where schools tend to follow year-round, multi-track schedules. With so many openings in kindergarten through second grade, and an open transfer policy in the district, some teachers elected to transfer to schools with more desirable traditional schedules. As a consequence, schools with the most LEP students were losing large numbers of more qualified teachers. A district coordinator said that one school reportedly lost 17 teachers to schools with traditional calendars. Reflecting a similar shift, an administrator in another district remarked, ". . . Seasoned teachers went to openings in the ‘good schools’ so there are ever larger proportions of poorly trained teachers clustered in the ‘undesirable’ schools." Given the reshuffling of experienced and credentialed teachers, bilingual coordinators expressed concerns about the shortages of qualified teachers assigned to LEP students. In particular, they report difficulty in finding bilingual teachers who speak Vietnamese, Chinese, Laotian, Hmong, Russian, or Persian. One coordinator mentioned that their school was "literally hiring people off the street," while another said her principal traveled to Mexico and recruited from Chicano/Latino conferences across the state. When bilingual teachers did apply, a few principals mentioned that applicants lacked adequate writing skills in both languages. | |||
26  | |||
Shortage of Aides In addition to teacher quality, some principals and coordinators cite a shortage of teacher aides: nearly two-thirds of principals in the study’s sample report being unable to hire any additional aides whatsoever. The stringency of the 20:1 cap has forced some schools to re-organize classrooms in ways they do not consider optimal for the instruction of LEP students. As some bilingual coordinators explained, this shortage resulted in aides being redistributed from lower to upper grades to assist teachers working with more than twenty students, leaving early-primary-grade teachers with little in-class support. One principal explained, "Our school has no bilingual teachers at all, and although aides are used to assist LEP children in their primary language, students are [now] spread out across many different classes, making it nearly impossible to work with students during class hours." As a consequence, some schools report relying more heavily on "pull-out" programs and "clustering" LEP students according to their native language - strategies which permit teachers with bilingual qualifications to serve more students at one time. Nearly half of bilingual coordinators interviewed acknowledge that most LEP students are not receiving any instruction in their primary language. Some expressed concern that clustering practices leave LEP students isolated and tracked, limiting their opportunities to learn from native-English-speaking students. Inflexibility of 20:1 Cap By contrast, several principals and district administrators complained that the inflexibility of the 20:1 cap interfered with clustering practices. For example, if a school were to have 23 Spanish speakers, 20 would be grouped together and three would have to be placed elsewhere. So some class placement apparently depends on the 20:1 limit rather than on what is most appropriate for a particular child. District administrators attribute problems either to shortages of appropriately qualified staff or to the rigid guidelines related to the 20:1 ratio. As one district administrator explained: The strict guidelines on the 20:1 student-teacher ratio are very restrictive. LEP students don’t come in nice little 20-kid packages. What do you do about the five "spill-over" kids?... One response is to hire more bilingual instructional aides to follow the kids where they are placed. Another response is to transport students but we can’t really move kids from school to school because we don’t have the dollars to do that. We have also tried some (combination) K-1, 1-2 groupings, but that has meant that grade 3, 4, and 5 classes are definitely bigger.Not surprisingly, how districts created new classes for such overflow students was mentioned as a serious or very serious problem by nearly all district respondents. While some smaller districts report that CSR has no specific effect on the way LEP students are served, others speak of mixed impact, citing one or more of the difficulties described above. In our sample, the problems are worse in our urban districts. In these districts, however, shortages of credentialed and bilingual teachers have long been a problem, so rather than dwelling on teacher shortages, many district administrators voiced optimism that smaller class sizes would translate into more individualized attention and, eventually, improved outcomes for LEP students. Special Education Programs and Students Although CSR is not targeted to address the delivery of special education services, we interviewed resource specialists and district administrators to better understand how CSR is affecting special education students. The smaller districts in our sample, however, often reported no effect, or the questions did not apply due to their small population of special education students; so personnel from the urban schools and districts were our primary respondents. The majority of special education resource specialists are optimistic that special education students will ultimately benefit from CSR. One school resource specialist suggested that "CSR is one of the most beneficial policies ever." Another described smaller classes as "more developmentally appropriate settings for instruction and learning." Some specialists claim that teachers in reduced classes seem more interested than those with larger classes in the methods of identifying and instructing students with special needs. As a consequence, a few specialists report that their role has shifted from one of teacher of special education students to consultant supporting other teachers whose classrooms include mainstreamed special education students. Every specialist we interviewed responded that, with fewer children per class, it is "easier" to mainstream special-needs children into general classrooms and provide a more "inclusive education." District administrators responsible for special education also shared that view. While many cite benefits such as these, resource specialists, primarily in larger schools, were upset that the initiative does not address students who are "pulled out" of the regular classroom and spend part of their day in larger-sized special education classes. As one specialist from an urban district said, "For general education teachers, districts have gone out of their way...for special education, there’s nothing." Space Constraints Due to a shortage of space, overcrowded special education classrooms have accompanied the implementation of CSR. A few schools found it necessary to combine or eliminate some special education classes. Others made space. For example, one specialist who lost her resource room to general education reports teaching in a storage facility; another is in a closet. Even cafeterias, auditorium stages, and, in one case, a hallway have served as classrooms for special education students. A few resource specialists admit teaching classes with numbers of special education students that reach–or even exceed–the legal limit. Displacement and lack of adequate facilities was also a clear concern for special education district administrators. In some places, the need for K-3 classroom space created by CSR has meant moving special education centers along with a number of upper-grade classes to smaller locations. Other administrators report that some schools now hold special education classes on a rotating schedule, or in the cafeteria for one period a day. At one school, a counseling service office was moved to a less appealing location across campus, away from the students it serves. Transfers Create Shortage of Resource Specialists Like language development programs, special education has trouble finding enough credentialed teachers. But in urban districts special education is also losing teachers to general education, according to several district advisors and about 10 principals. This "opting out" is particularly problematic because many urban districts already had shortages of credentialed special education teachers prior to CSR. One district temporarily prevented special education teachers from transferring to general education by arguing that the deadline for such transfers had already passed. However, the expectation is that they will simply transfer the following year or as soon as they can. Special Education Referrals We asked resource specialists if CSR had affected the number of children referred for special education services. Approximately 80 percent report no change in referrals thus far. Specialists were divided, however, about whether referrals will increase or decrease in the future. Those who predict increases explained that teachers in smaller classes may be better able to identify student problems. Others, predicting decreases, note that teachers are now more able and willing to focus attention on special needs students, making over-referring less likely. More research is needed to evaluate the accuracy of these predictions. Like school resource specialists, some district administrators report no change in the number of referrals. Others report both increases and decreases in referrals. As one administrator described the situation in her district, "Teachers in reduced classes know more about their students because there are fewer students in their classes. In some cases that means they are more ready to refer students to special education, though the idea was that with 20 students and more time spent per student, fewer students would need to be referred." STAFF DEVELOPMENT Recognizing that CSR may fail to boost student achievement unless teachers are appropriately trained, California’s legislation requires that districts offer staff development on: 1) individualized instruction; 2) effective teaching, including classroom management, in smaller classes; 3) identifying and responding to needs of individual students; and 4) opportunities to build on the individual strengths of pupils. 27 This study suggests that the accelerating recruitment of uncredentialed teachers threatens to lower average teacher quality. Effective inservice training could help offset such a negative effect. According to 70 percent of teachers interviewed, their district and school professional development programs cover many CSR requirements. The remaining 30 percent indicated that such programs neither mention class size explicitly, nor address skills specific to working with fewer students. For some schools, it was difficult for teachers to attend training sessions. A lack of funds to hire substitutes and depleted substitute pools meant these schools had problems finding staff to fill in while teachers were away for professional development. In a few cases, students spent part of the day crowded in other classes. One principal noted, "Parents were complaining that teachers were out too frequently." District Professional Development Complements CSR District administrators reported that the CSR requirements dovetail well with their district professional development efforts - particularly around early literacy. CSR’s broad scope allowed many district-wide professional development efforts to unite under one umbrella and, thus, "do it right, from the start." In some districts, administrators report combining language-development and special education programs to provide a more comprehensive literacy program than anticipated. One district reports having several literacy programs that include CSR training. Another district is videotaping exemplary K-2 classrooms, and will include the videos as part of a multimedia, tool package for beginning teachers. According to the district administrator, this project "grew out of a need to reach a large number of teachers quickly and most effectively - so in many ways it is a result of the pressures exerted by CSR." Asked whether teachers participate in professional-development programs tailored for smaller classes, most administrators answered yes. However, when we examined workshop outlines, training agendas and other materials which several district administrators provided, we rarely found references to effective classroom management techniques or instruction in smaller class sizes - though there were references to literacy topics, as mandated. Clearly, the influx of inexperienced teachers resulting from CSR makes improved professional development programs and beginning teacher support all the more essential. As one administrator notes, "when there is such a large number of new teachers at one time, weaknesses come through much more strikingly." CLASSROOM PRACTICES Many teachers appear to have rethought their teaching methods due to CSR. A majority report providing more small group instruction, covering material at a faster pace, and improving assessment techniques. Others report changing very little: several teachers are still relying heavily on whole-class instruction and many have not changed their classroom management approach. Increases in Existing Practices While nearly two-thirds of teachers responded "yes," when asked if their instructional approach had changed since CSR, they were much more likely to describe their practices in terms of improvement rather than altering their behavior. Interviews with these teachers reveal that rather than adopting different approaches, they now more frequently incorporate practices that they know work well–and they feel they are now implementing them more effectively. Meanwhile, one-third of teachers report no changes in their instructional approach. From their perspective, the key advantage of smaller classes is that it reduces paperwork burdens and discipline problems. Teachers with fewer than 15 years’ experience were more likely to report changing their instructional and classroom management strategies than were their more experienced counterparts (see figure 8).  Grouping Practices Changes in grouping practices was another focus of inquiry. Specifically, we asked teachers whether, in the past, they used mixed- or similar-ability groupings. Then, we asked whether CSR altered these practices. More than 80 percent report grouping students of similar ability for some activities, and over 70 percent report not changing grouping practices since CSR. The effectiveness of grouping students by ability level is a controversial issue, which our evidence does not address. 28 But this finding does suggest that CSR has a limited effect on encouraging mixed-ability grouping arrangements. Although most of our sampled teachers have not altered their grouping strategies as a result of CSR, more than two-thirds maintain that smaller class size allows them to spend additional time in small group instruction. Having fewer students, teachers report, frees up additional space to set up learning centers in the classroom. While some children work cooperatively at these centers, teachers can then provide direct instruction to small groups. They also explained that having fewer children enabled them to work with each group more than once, and spend extra time with children who need it the most. One teacher explained, "Group sizes are smaller so each child can express himself [or herself] freely, so I can really understand what they are feeling and I can then structure class more appropriately." Another teacher responded, "I don’t have to rush the kids from group to group; I can [now] learn the kids’ hobbies and use [this information] to provide better reinforcers and motivators." According to some teachers, students are consequently moving more frequently from lower to higher-track groups, and the achievement gap between tracks has lessened. Sixty-three percent of teachers report spending "more" or the "same" amount of time in whole-class instruction as well. From their perspective, whole-group instruction is more effective because it is easier to manage and facilitate discussion with a class of 20 students. Whether time in small groups is really changing, therefore, remains an empirical question. These results beg the question, once again, of whether CSR is intensifying pre-existing forms of pedagogy or significantly improving the structure of classrooms? Assessment Two-thirds of teachers report that their assessment strategies have changed. Discussions again indicate, however, that their techniques may have been facilitated, rather than changed by CSR. Nearly 95 percent of teachers report having more opportunities to give students feedback. And while many report using the same assessment strategies such as portfolios to evaluate students’ work, teachers described such assessments as being more comprehensive since CSR. With fewer children, they responded, it is easier to log students’ reading progress, update portfolios, and include more samples of students’ work. One teacher explained, "Student records are now much richer, accurate, complete and up-to-date for parent conferences." This suggests that assessment techniques may be more effective in smaller class sizes. | |||
| |||
Discipline and Classroom Management Nearly all teachers cite improved classroom climate as a primary advantage of smaller classes. Three of every four respondents report fewer student disruptions; many maintained they spend less time managing and disciplining - and more time instructing. As one teacher explained, "Since CSR, I am less a policewoman and more like a teacher." With fewer children, some teachers report that well-behaved students are more likely to discourage disruptive children from inappropriate behavior. The improved classroom environment seems particularly beneficial for "at-risk" students; one teacher mentioned she is "now able to work more closely with [these] children so they don’t fall through the cracks." Whether teachers are in fact changing their practices is impossible to assess from self-reported data. It is often difficult for teachers to articulate what they do in detail. While their perceptions are valuable in and of themselves, only through observations can a determination be made about CSR’s influence on teachers’ work. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Many educators believe that parental involvement will improve children’s educational success. Certainly, the available research supports the belief that parental participation matters. At the elementary school level, research has demonstrated an association between parental involvement and fewer behavioral problems, 29 lower dropout rates, higher student achievement, 30 and children’s perceived level of competence. 31 Some proponents of CSR expect the initiative to have a positive effect on parental involvement, although the mechanisms that would facilitate such an effect are far from clear. It might be that parents of children in smaller classes view their schools as being more effective. Hence, they may feel their support is less essential. On the other hand, parents may feel less intimidated about "bothering" a teacher who has fewer students, believing that she will have more time for them and their concerns. In fact, teachers may actually have more time for parents, and may more actively seek their involvement at both the classroom and school levels. Discussions with district administrators suggest that many districts have tried to involve, as well as inform, parents about the CSR initiative. In most districts, administrators report that parents were informed about the program and the possible implications for their children through various school site councils, PTA or specially designed district meetings. A few districts tried a more collaborative approach by encouraging parents to join advisory committees and work with school governance teams. Despite such efforts, we found that parental participation in schools has reportedly not changed since class size reduction: Over 80 percent of teachers responded that parents do not spend more time in the classroom (see figure 10); and three of every four report no change in the frequency with which parents attend parent-teacher conferences (see figure 11). A handful of coordinators, one in every six, acknowledge that parents have expressed concern regarding qualifications of teachers and students being re-assigned mid-year. While there is no movement in parental involvement, the majority of parents are excited about CSR: seventy percent of teachers report that parents are "enthusiastic," the other 30 percent, "supportive." | |||
