State and local efforts across the nation to reduce class size
According to Education Week, 32 states now have class size reduction programs or limit class size by law. In addition, Minneapolis has a city-funded class size reduction program for all grades through high school. The following is a summary of several of these programs and their results.
Texas
Texas was one of the first states to reduce class size. In 1983, then-Governor Mark White appointed the Perot Commission to come up with recommendations for improving the state’s public schools. As a result, sweeping educational reforms were proposed and then passed by the State Legislature in 1984, including a statewide program to reduce class size to no more than 22 students in kindergarten through 4th grade. As a result, Texas became one of the leaders in the nation in improving achievement among minority students. A recent poll in Texas found 77% of voters opposed to repealing the class size limits, and 71% willing to pay even higher taxes in order to maintain them. In fact, fewer Republicans supported repealing the class size limits than Democrats.
Tennessee
In 1989, class size was reduced to 15 in grades K-2 in Tennessee’s poorest counties. In these districts, test scores improved dramatically, so that by 1993, their ranking rose from 85th to 57th out of 138 districts in math, and from 99th to 78th in reading. In 1993, Tennessee began reducing class size in all schools to an average to 20 for grades K-3.
(For more on Tennessee’s program, see the SERVE publication, “How Class Size Makes a Difference,” 2002.
Minneapolis
In 1990, 1996, and 2000 the Minneapolis school board put before the voters a proposed surcharge on the city’s property tax that would fund smaller classes, with the goal of reducing class size to 19 in grades K-2, 25 in grades 3-8, and 26 in high school. Each time, the voters have approved the levy by greater margins, because they have seen how successful smaller classes have been in improving their schools.
For example, from 1997-2001, students demonstrated a 25% gain in math passing rates (vs. 3% gain statewide); and a 70% gain in reading passing rates (vs. 51% gain statewide). More than 79% of those students who have had seven or more years of lower class size scored at or above grade level in reading, compared to 53.5% of students who had 1-3 years of lower class size, and 42.3% who had no years of small classes. Similar gains have been noted in math. The improvement among minority students has been especially large – with an approximate doubling of pass rates among black and Hispanic students who have had the benefit of smaller classes on a sustained basis.
In November 2000, the Minneapolis voters approved the class size levy by a margin of 73 to 27%– despite the fact that only 18 % of the voters had children in the public schools. This latest referendum imposed a levy that became effective in 2002 and will last for eight years.
(More information on the Minneapolis program can be found on the MPLS website.)
California
In 1996, then Governor of California, Pete Wilson, proposed that the state reduce class size to 20 for all students in grades K-3. The program quickly passed the State legislature. Class size reduction was budgeted at $1 billion the first year, and rose to $1.6 billion in 1997; since then the state spending on this program has been flat, amounting to only about 4% of the total state budget for public schools.
The implementation of the program was very sudden, and the planning process took place in just a few weeks over the summer. As a result, there was temporary disruption and a strain on facilities. Nevertheless, every single controlled study that compared students who were placed in smaller classes to those who did not has shown significant gains in achievement. Test scores are up throughout the state in the early grades, especially in the state’s large urban school districts, where scores have risen by double digits since the program began. Principals, teachers, and parents are overwhelmingly enthusiastic and believe that class size reduction has been worth the cost. As a result, not a single candidate for Governor in the last two election cycles has suggested eliminating or even cutting back on the program’s funding.
(For more on the findings concerning the benefits of smaller classes in California, see the evidence from California webpage, and the “Research supports class size reduction,” California Educator, May 2003)
New York
New York State has its own class size reduction program for grades K-3, though it was only partially funded. In August of 1997, Governor Pataki and the State Legislature agreed to provide funds for smaller classes for grades K-3rd through the “LADDER” program. Including in the program’s authorizing language were funding levels agreed upon by all parties, that were supposed to increase each year until 2001, when class size reduction was to be funded at $225 million statewide. Soon after passing, the implementation of class size reduction was deferred until the fall of 1999.
In August of 1999, after protracted negotiations, the Governor and the State Legislature passed a budget that included $75 million for smaller classes for grades K-3, the amount originally agreed upon two years before. When class size reduction came to NYC public schools that fall, the program was widely hailed by principals and teachers as providing important instructional benefits, as well as reducing the number of disciplinary referrals, improving teacher morale, and increasing parental involvement.
For more on the benefits of New York’s program, see the Educational Priorities Panel report, “Smaller is Better”.
Since 2000, NYC has received about $89 million in annual state funds to reduce class size in grades K-3 through this program. In March of 2006, the State Comptroller released an audit that found that NYC had been misusing these funds, and had only created 20 extra classes instead of the 1586 claimed. If all the classses had been created that NYC had received funding for, class sizes would have reached 19.1 on average citywide, and the schools would have surpassed the state goal of 20. Instead, class sizes remained near 22 on average citywide.
North Carolina
North Carolina has one of the most ambitious state programs to reduce class size. In 1991, Burke County, a largely rural and poor county in the western part of the state, began to lower class size, and by 2000 had brought class sizes down to 15 in grades 1-3rd. This program was funded primarily through using Title I funds and through regular state aid. The students who were in smaller classes consistently achieved higher scores in both reading and math than students of similar background elsewhere.
In 1996, Draper Elementary School, a rural working class community, lowered class size to 15 in grades 1-5. As a result, teachers and administrators noted higher student achievement, better teacher-student and parent relationships, and an improved school climate. Since the program began, the percentage of first and second graders at grade level has doubled and in some cases tripled.
For several years, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the state’s largest school district, has reduced class size by varying amounts, depending on how many low-income students were in each school. In the district’s high-poverty schools, this has led to a class size of 16 compared to 19-23 elsewhere. Since the program began, the achievement gap between racial and ethnic groups has narrowed, and test scores of black students have risen by 18%. The district recently scored the highest of any urban school district tested in its NAEP assessments.
Since 2001, North Carolina has lowered class size in all of its lowest performing schools to 15 for grades K-3, 17 in grades 4-8, and 20 in grades 9-12. This was carried out not just to improve student achievement in these schools, but also as a result of a statewide survey of teachers and administrators that asked them what would be the most effective incentive to induce teachers to work in low-performing schools. The number one response was to lower class size, with 83.7% of teachers and 83.1% of administrators replying that it would be an effective incentive, outstripping any other proposal, including providing a signing bonus. More recently, there has also been a statewide program to reduce class size in all public schools to 18 for grades K-3.
(More information on North Carolina’s class size reduction programs can be found in the SERVE publication, “How Class Size Makes a Difference,” 2002; also, see the North Carolina survey of teachers and administrators.)
Florida
In November 2002, Florida voters approved by over 200,000 votes a referendum to amend their constitution to include class size limits in all grades. Last spring, the Governor and the Legislature appropriated about $1 billion statewide to start implementing the program, with about half of this to pay for additional teachers and the rest for school facilities. This fall, class size averages have dropped substantially in most districts across the state.
The Florida referendum called for gradual reductions in class size over the course of the next eight years, until they reach no more than 18 for grades pre-K-3, 22 for grades 4-8, and 25 in high school. The guidelines are also flexible, so that class size will be calculated in stages: first averaged by district, then by school, and finally, in each individual classroom.
Most political analysts believe that it is unlikely that the Governor and his allies in the State Legislature will be successful in their effort to roll back the program to only grades K-3, since surveys show that the measure is even more popular now among voters than when it was originally passed.
Many editorial boards in the state have urged the state’s political leaders to comply with the class size limits, and to fully fund them. As the editors of the Naples Daily News wrote, “We believe voters knew what they were doing in 2002. They knew the drive for individualized attention in the classroom would not come cheaply. They were telling school boards and legislators to do what they have to do.”
Florida Today: “Fulfilling the class-size amendment won’t be easy, but most things worth doing aren’t. That’s why voters should refuse to overturn the constitutional mandate they gave to Bush and lawmakers until the day legislators fulfill their obligation to prioritize, fund and improve education in Florida.”
The St. Petersburg Times: “The amount allocated to class size reduction this year, for better or worse, is less than 1 percent of the state budget. If that’s a hurricane, then Florida needs the rain.”
In early December, the leader of the Senate Education Committee urged the Florida School Boards Association to endorse the roll back of class size limits, since otherwise it would be difficult to get it on the ballot and have it pass. Instead, by a 66-14 vote, the School Boards Association voted to “vigorously support” the limits approved by voters last year. (For more information on Florida’s class size reduction program, see the state website.)
Social Networks:
