IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUITY, PRACTICE & IMPLEMENTATION
  This study raises many important issues about how CSR policy is unfolding and impacting programs and classrooms, as seen by district administrators and school educators. While the data presented above cannot be considered conclusive, as outlined below, each of the four areas of inquiry for this study point to issues policy makers may want to consider, and where researchers may want to probe more deeply in the future. WHAT ARE THE TRADE-OFFS POSED BY CSR IN SERVING LEP STUDENTS? In our sample, most teachers and bilingual coordinators report that CSR has already had some clear benefits. Teachers report an increase in oral and reading proficiency skills, though there is no hard data to support this. These positive effects are generally attributed to the increase in one-to-one interaction and more nurturing, learning environments. However, CSR has exacerbated the already unequal distribution and short supply of credentialed teachers. Other primary concerns include the redistribution of aides and the stringent 20:1 cap. Assessing English Proficiency and Mastery of Academic Content In order to confirm the positive perceptions reported by school level staff and to determine whether changes to programs for LEP students are necessary, systematic performance data need to be collected. Ideally, future research should examine how LEP student performance ultimately compares on standardized, language-appropriate measures. 33 While some teachers claim that LEP students are reaching English proficiency quicker, data on transition rates need to be systematically collected. In addition, the question of how well students are learning academic content needs to be addressed. Whether LEP students in smaller classrooms are learning content, as prescribed by the state’s new standards, is an empirical question for which no evidence is yet available. 34 Flexibility in the Assignment of Students and Teachers Findings from this study seem to support other policy recommendations, which propose flexibility in the 20:1 cap. 35 Given the shortage of credentialed LEP teachers and the 20:1 cap, districts and schools are struggling to provide language-appropriate settings for all LEP students. Some respondents echoed the recommendations of the LAO report (1997), arguing that if the 20:1 ratio could be maintained on average within schools, they could provide greater language support to LEP students. Still, making the cap flexible is not without risks. Special provisions need to be in place ensuring that LEP students are not the only children in classrooms that exceed 20 students. And even if provisions included a maximum class size for LEP classrooms, some students may still fall outside the cut-off. Therefore, adjusting the 20:1 cap must be done cautiously. With the addition of new classrooms, shortages of teacher aides have also been a problem. In some instances aides are now split among several classrooms or have been transferred altogether to upper-grades with more students. The shortage of credentialed teachers and teacher aides has resulted in districts pursuing a greater mix of approaches (combination, pull-outs, in-class support, and bilingual classrooms) and modifications in how language development services are provided. The distribution of aides between lower and upper primary grades should be considered alongside teacher qualification and assignment issues. Given such variability in approaches for LEP students, an analysis of their performance must consider differences in language-acquisition strategies and programs used among classrooms and schools: Are there differences between LEP students who are being pulled-out of CSR classrooms to receive specialized language support and those who remain in classrooms with teachers trained in language-acquisition strategies? Are LEP students better served in a smaller, English immersion classroom than in a larger, bilingual classroom, or a larger classroom with a teacher’s aide who speaks the students’ native language? Ideally, such analysis would also include classrooms with reduced- and non-reduced class sizes (e.g., in a district where class-size reduction is not fully implemented at one grade level, allowing for a control group). Again, answers to questions about which language programs work best are complicated, even without the added considerations of class size. 36 The language development model used, and how class size reduction is implemented are likely to be confounded. Disentangling the two will be a challenge for any future research. The influence of teacher-assignment criteria and policies, some predetermined by collective bargaining agreements, may also need to be tracked. An area for future research is how such policies affect the quality of teachers placed in schools and classrooms with LEP students. WHAT ARE THE TRADE-OFFS POSED BY CSR IN SERVING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES? Resource specialists serving students with disabilities, like their LEP counterparts, generally consider CSR as having a positive affect on their students. Many believe that mainstreaming has been facilitated by 20:1 classrooms and that teachers are now much more willing and able to identify and provide additional support for these students. While problems reported by those providing services to special education students are less extensive than those serving LEP populations, several policy issues with research implications were raised. First, space normally reserved for special education classrooms has been turned into additional primary grade classrooms. This displacement has led to combining special education classrooms and holding such classes in unusual or less-than-desirable locations (e.g., cafeterias, auditorium stages and hallways). Since it is not certain how pervasive doubling-up and relocation have become, further research is required to determine what, if any, effects these changes may have had on the quality of special education services. A second issue concerns the exodus of special education resource teachers who have chosen to transfer to general education to fill new positions opened up by CSR, leaving some districts with no qualified special education teachers. Again, the magnitude and the types of inequities occurring among general and special education should probably be monitored, especially by larger, urban districts. Finally, both school- and district-level respondents report mixed perceptions about the rate at which students were referred to, or identified for special education. Whether the decline or increase in referrals varies, given some other contextual factor (e.g., teacher’s experience or grade level taught), is unknown. Since no analysis of the actual rates of referral, identification and assessment is available, this remains an area for future research. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE TEACHERS’ PRACTICES DIFFERENT IN SMALLER CLASSES? Whether teachers of smaller classes are actually doing things differently than before was one area we focused on when interviewing teachers. Responses were mixed. Pace of instruction and classroom climate were two areas where most teachers report substantial changes. Nearly two-thirds also report working more regularly with small groups of children and changing their instructional approach. But when we asked about the nature of their specific classroom practices, they were more likely to characterize such differences in terms of increasing - not improving, per se. In general, these findings suggest that smaller class size simply enhances instructional strategies already employed by teachers, rather than facilitating fundamental change in classroom practice. Others simply report not changing at all. Clearly, more research, particularly classroom observations, is needed to clarify what changes are occurring in smaller classrooms and why. Our evidence does raise an interesting question: Is CSR more of an organizational reform than an instructional intervention? Obviously, reducing class size alone may not change instructional practices, but it may allow teachers to do more of what they know works. Staff development programs may be needed to train or re-train teachers to work differently with students in smaller classes. CSR funds afford districts an opportunity to enhance and leverage their pre-existing professional development activities. Districts report that professional development is tailored to the needs of teachers in smaller classrooms, with an emphasis on individualized literacy instruction. But very little of the content we reviewed was CSR-specific. Whether there are different resources or instructional approaches better suited for teachers in smaller classes is a question for future research. Systematic observation of classroom practices may also shed light on whether teachers are actually implementing new strategies as a result of professional development. WHAT CHANGES IN PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT SHOULD BE EXPECTED AND WHY? Our findings on parental involvement provide little guidance about how best to proceed in tracking its impact on CSR implementation and student outcomes. While this study confirms anecdotal evidence indicating parental support for CSR, the degree to which that enthusiasm actually translates into something tangible, such as more involvement or interaction with schools, remains unknown. Although teachers have fewer parents to contact since class size was reduced, our findings suggest that teachers and parents are not communicating more frequently. Approximately 75 percent of teachers report that parents do not spend more time in the classroom or more regularly attend parent-teacher conferences. This issue warrants closer attention, considering the large percentage of teachers who do not speak their students’ native language, which is likely to make involving parents more difficult. The extent to which parents have compelled districts to pursue one direction over another when implementing class size reduction (e.g., given space constraints, deciding whether to go year-round or reduce classes in only two or three grade levels), and the mechanisms which made parent influence possible, is another area for future research. |