|
Thrust For Educational Leadership |
Class Size Reduction: Is it working? |
"Thrust for Educational Leadership" is the magazine of the Association of California School Administrators Association. This article is from the September 1997 issue, reproduced with the permission of the magazine. EdSource contributed information and review.
Table of Contents:
- Revival of Confidence
- Confronting the Unknown
- Evaluating Class Size Reduction
- Teaching Supply & Teaching Quality: 1996-97
- Teacher Supply/Teaching Quality: 1997-98 and Beyond
- Facilities: 1996-97
- Facilities: 1997-98 and Beyond
- What the Law Says
- Teacher and Parent Responses
- Equity Issues
- Other Critical Issues
- Survey Finds Overwhelming Support for Class Size Reduction
- Where to Find Out More About Class Size Reduction
The first-year frenzy may be over, but the campaign for smaller classes continues -- and the push to improve early learning, especially in reading and math, only seems to gain urgency.
This summer's expansion to include all four K-3 grades raised the bar for school districts faced with often painful tradeoffs and competing priorities.
The state's nearly $1 billion expenditure last year, followed by this year's $1.5 billion allocation, makes CSR one of the biggest education reform investments in U.S. history.
Exactly how history will judge the results is an open question. But surveys and press reports indicate enormous public support, especially among parents and primary-grade teachers. That response, coupled with the state's robust economic outlook, makes continuing expansion of the program look possible for at least four or five more years.
By nearly all anecdotal accounts -- the only kind available so far -- smaller classes mean a better quality of life for primary grade teachers and young students.
Teachers report that they are covering more material faster, have fewer discipline problems, and have more time to give individual attention to students.
Parents of those students say it's a no-brainer: in smaller classes, their children are happier and learn more.Revival of confidence
On a larger scale, class size reduction is a change so tangible and so in keeping with public priorities that it seems to have sparked a revival of confidence in the state's public schools. In one highly visible stroke, it's challenged those who said the system was incapable of change.
Flush with money and the popularity of CSR, the governor and Legislature expanded the program and raised the amount per pupil from $650 to $800. Districts are welcoming the extra cash; the average cost per student last year of $740 to $770 meant that in many districts, money was sucked out of the general fund that otherwise might have paid for another program, an upper-grade need or teacher raises.
But expansion has its problems. The devil is in the details. Schools and districts continue to struggle with the complex instructional and logistical dilemmas that CSR has brought with it.
The heart of the problem is infrastructure. Facilities and personnel -- last year's big stumbling blocks for most schools -- are now even harder to come by, and many of last year's temporary solutions -- classroom space created on assembly stages; teachers hired on emergency permits -- now require change or additional support.
Without breathing room, and with the "easy" space and teacher recruitment solutions used up, many schools must either call a moratorium (difficult, given the climate of enthusiasm), opt for more expensive solutions (portables) or consider undesirable alternatives (unqualified teachers, classrooms in the space behind the stage).
