ABOUT WCER NEWS Events Cover Stories Research News International Research Press WHAT'S THE RESEARCH ON...? PROJECTS All Active Projects All Completed Projects PUBLICATIONS LECTURE SERIES PEOPLE Staff Directory Project Leaders ERG - EVALUATION RESOURCES GROUP RESOURCES Conference Rooms Equipment GRANT SERVICES GRADUATE TRAINING SERVICE UNITS Director's Office Business Office Technical Services Printing & Mail EMPLOYMENT CONTACT INFO MyWCER WORKSPACE LOGIN

Beth Graue

November 2009

People have been discussing the benefits of class size reduction programs for many years.

Such programs are credited with improving the achievement of students in the early grades and in particular those considered to be at risk.

Unfortunately, people often mean different things when they use the term class size reduction. Some define it as a reduction in the average number of students per teacher school wide. Others say it means a reduction in the number of students in a particular classroom.

Class size reduction programs are popular with the public. In the last 10 years, 40 states have implemented such programs. Class size reduction seems to enhance the social experiences of both teachers and students. Teachers who are effective with small classes know how to individualize teaching. They have clear expectations, they are less distracted by discipline problems, and they balance teacher-directed and child-centered teaching.

Terminology is used loosely in some research, too. Some researchers conflate three related but distinct terms: class size reduction, pupil-teacher ratio, and class size.

UW-Madison education professor Beth Graue and colleague Erica Rauscher recognize that such blurring of meanings poorly serves the needs of education policymakers and stakeholders. To sort out the terminologies, they interviewed scholars who have worked on the topic and began unpacking the assumptions used in research, policy, and practice.

Let’s consider a hypothetical school with 30 certified staff members and 300 K–2 students—a 10:1 ratio. One might think a pupil-teacher ratio the appropriate tool for understanding class size and its impact on instruction. But wait—the pupil-teacher ratio approach is actually intended for economic analyses, not for analyzing instructional effectiveness. The pupil-teacher ratio addresses staff expenditures, including those for both classroom and specialist teachers. In our hypothetical school, the 10:1 ratio represents the average of lower special education ratios and higher general education ratios—not the actual number of students per teacher in every child’s classroom. Thus, a school’s pupil-teacher ratio says little about what actually happens in a classroom and how human resources are allocated.

It isn’t surprising that problems arise when (a) implementations of class size reduction programs rely on data from pupil-teacher ratio studies, (b) data that describe class size and pupil-teacher ratio are used to support (or undermine) class size reduction programs, and (c) tools to evaluate class size reduction programs use the assumptions underlying pupil-teacher ratios.

Teaching and group size

The logic of class size reduction implies a chain of effects: Smaller groups mean more intimate learning relationships, which then provide more in-depth knowledge. Instruction becomes more responsive to student needs, yielding greater achievement. This logic also implies that teachers in class size reduction contexts actually know how to create these changes in their classrooms, or that they are provided with the support necessary to achieve these goals.

But research has often found the opposite: that teachers use the same strategies regardless of class size. While teachers claim to provide more individualized instruction in smaller classes, observations of teaching practice don’t bear this out.

Graue points out that investments in class size reduction need to be accompanied by support for teacher change. States and districts should make proportional investments in professional development so that educators have the tools they need to make the most of smaller classes.

Instruction and professional development
Student outcomes are difficult to interpret when class size reduction is not clearly described or enacted. To better understand the outcomes, Graue says, we need to better understand the nature of instruction in varied instructional contexts. That will require a two-pronged approach:

1. Use the growing body of research on best practices to build a framework for instructional strategies that capitalize on the benefits of smaller class size. Class size reduction requires specific actions by teachers to change the learning opportunities available to students.
2. Provide professional development for teachers and administrators. Next-generation efforts to implement and research class size reduction should focus on the knowledge educators need to use class size reduction effectively and on models of education that develop that knowledge.

The bigger picture
To ask two related and larger questions: Is class size reduction intended to close the achievement gap? Or is it a tool to boost achievement for all students? If the former, a targeted approach is called for; if the latter, a universal approach.

Graue says that questions about class size reduction point to the basic inequality of schooling in the U.S. What investments are we as a society willing to make to put success within reach of all children? What mechanisms might reduce existing inequalities?

Class size reduction alone cannot undo the damage done to children by poverty, violence, or inadequate child care, Graue says. Benefits aside, class size reduction is enacted in an institutional context of high-stakes testing, crumbling infrastructure, increasing numbers of children with high needs, and competition from other programs for teacher attention and effort. Committing resources to class size reduction is a good first step toward correcting the inequities that form the foundation of schooling. But alone, it’s not enough.