Class Size and Academic Performance in Elementary Schools - Essay Example

Running Head: SIZE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN ELEMENTARY Size and Academic Performance in 4th Grade Elementary Schools [Writer's Name] [Institution's Name] Class Size and Academic Performance in 4th Grade Elementary Schools Abstract This paper discusses how class size and academic performance in 4th grade elementary schools are inter-related. A through study is conducted and analyzed to obtain exact facts and figures in order to make a neutral decision. Finally, results obtain explicitly illustrate that a smaller class size has a drastic improvement on the student's grades. Research and Methodology This paper's research has been conducted using primary and secondary research. Although most of the data consisted of pre-conducted survey by National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and then analyzed and studied in-depth. Policy makers have turned increasingly to reducing class size as part of education studies designed to improve achievement of American children. At least over a dozen states have already adopted policies that reduce class sizes. Unfortunately, class size as described and measured in most cited literature does not readily translate into student-faculty ratios. Class size is defined as the number of students assigned to a teacher for a specific period of group instruction. In contrast, the student-faculty ratio is a measure that aggregates the entire student body of an educational entity (school, program, grade, or enrollment cohort) and expresses it as a ratio to the entire faculty involved in their teaching.(Brian and George,2003) Average class size is a measure that aggregates the number of students in the number of classes to which they are assigned and divides it by the number of classes. As a summary statistic, average class size is closer to the root meaning of class size than the student-faculty ratio. The speed and enthusiasm with which America implemented class size reduction underscored a shared optimism on the part of legislators, educators, and parents that fourth grades would quickly improve the quality of education and lead the state's fourth grade students to achieve higher scores on standardized tests. To a great extent, this optimism has been rewarded: evaluations after the second and third years of class size reduction in America confirm that students taking part in fourth grades do perform a lot better on standardized tests than similarly placed students in larger classes. Educators hope these gains will increase as the program matures and students have longer exposure to fourth grades. My research on class size reduction would study its full effects - positive and negative - which may not be realized practically for several more years. However, as class size reduction programs gain momentum across the nation, educators and legislators would be well advised to learn from America's experience and keep equity foremost in their minds when planning their own programs. This paper reviews the history and status of class size reduction in America, reports results from comprehensive evaluations of the study for fourth graders, and derives a short set of studies from the experiment. These studies are intended to help inform the debate about class size in other states and in the nation as a whole. The strong political support for class size reduction in America has been based on the belief that reducing class size would produce significant improvement in student achievement. This certainty, in turn, was based on the positive results of a class size reduction experiment on fourth grades throughout major American schools, the Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio, or STAR, program. Students who participated in reduced size classes in the STAR program during the primary grades made statistically significant achievement gains in all subject areas tested.( George and Brian,2003) The achievement gains were equal for boys and girls. Also important from the perspective of some American legislators, the achievement gains were largest for minority students and students attending inner-city schools. STAR's success has inspired many states and the American government to support policies to cut the size of primary-grade classes. In addition to America and fourth grades throughout major American schools, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin have implemented class size reduction initiatives. At over a dozen other states are also involved in or in view of some type of class size reduction program. The American government has also investing heavily in class size reduction. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion to help school schools hire new teachers in order to drive down the size of primary-grade classes to 18 students or fewer. Congress appropriated an additional $1.3 billion for class size reduction in fiscal year 2000. Official class size reduction assistance is focused on schools with the highest number of fourth graders living in poverty as well as to those with the highest overall enrollments. Consequently, large urban school schools have received a significant portion of the Official funds. Within these schools, funds to hire teachers are generally focused on schools with the greatest need or with the largest classes. The Official policy was designed specifically to avoid creating further inequity in the education system. Enacting class size reduction in America By 2000 a 10-year decline in student achievement in America had reached the point of alarm - classrooms were overcrowded as a result of a 12% increase in fourth graders enrollment over the previous five years; qualified teachers were in short supply; and minority students, low- income students, and those whose native language was not English (designated "EL" for "English Learner" students) were falling steadily behind. Public confidence in the state's education system was further eroded by the results of the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment, in which America's fourth- graders tried for last place out of the over three dozen participating states. The study tested various fourth grade class sizes and the children's academic performance comparison was carried out. The data and analysis are given in the appendix. In view of the fact that the America economy is booming, and the legislature found itself with a rare budget surplus. Because state law requires that a fixed percentage of surplus attentions be spent on the public schools, the legislature had substantial funds to invest to reverse the educational decline. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson and the legislature agreed to spend up to $1.5 billion a year to reduce fourth grade class size. Class size reduction is a voluntary program, but it provides an almost irresistible financial incentive for school schools to participate. In 2000-02, the first year of the program, schools were reimbursed a flat rate of $650 for each child in a reduced size class. In 1990-99, the per-student rate was raised to $800, and it was increased to $832 for the third year of the program. During the first year of the program, the state also provided $200 million to help overcrowded school schools install portable classrooms (up to $36,857 per classroom), and in the second year it reallocated any "unused" class size reduction funds for additional facilities grants. Although America's confidence in class size reduction was based in large measure on fourth grades throughout major American school's STAR program, class size reduction and STAR are vastly different programs. STAR was a controlled experiment, albeit a large one involving more than 12,000 students during the course of its four- year intervention. Class size reduction, by contrast, is a statewide program, not a controlled experiment. It is also being implemented on a vastly larger scale - 1.8 million America fourth grade students were in reduced classes by the end of the initiative's third year. The scale of class size reduction studies posed unique problems. In particular, many America schools confronted a profound shortage of qualified teachers and adequate teaching facilities. By contrast, all the teachers in the fourth grades throughout major American schools experiment were fully qualified. In addition, the curriculum on fourth grades throughout major American schools was standardized, while America's curriculum standards were still in development when class size reduction was implemented. Furthermore, America is culturally diverse in ways that fourth grades throughout major American schools are not. While nearly all students in the fourth grades throughout major American schools experiment spoke English, almost one-third of America's students live in households in which primarily other languages are spoken. From its earliest meetings, the class size reduction Consortium agreed that the evaluation of America's program needed to be comprehensive. I have proposed to consider the effect of reduced class size on student achievement, but it also resolved to examine the impact of the studies on all aspects of the education system. The Consortium believed - correctly, as it turns out - that some of the most important effects of class size reduction might not relate directly to student achievement. The analysis of the data shows that America's fourth class size reduction suggests that class size reduction is having positive effects on parent attitudes and student achievement. However, the gains to date have come at a substantial cost in terms of equity. School schools serving most of the state's historically disadvantaged students - those who are minorities, those from low-income families, and EL students - have received fewer benefits and may even have been hurt by class size reduction. These schools found it more expensive to implement class size reduction, they saw a dispercentageate decline in their average teacher qualifications, and they were forced to take more facilities and resources from other programs to create additional classroom space. This study ultimately found winners and losers in the race to implement class size reduction. As mentioned above, America's class size reduction program was implemented very quickly. However, not all school schools were positioned to respond with equal speed. Urban schools - which have high percentages of low-income, minority, and EL students - were significantly slower to implement class size reduction than suburban and rural schools. Schools in urban schools were already dealing with shortages of space, teachers, and financial resources, all of which contributed to delays in implementing the program. Class size reduction exacerbated these problems. Because funding was linked to the speed of implementation, schools that were slower to reduce class size received percentageally less class size reduction attention from the state. While all schools earned the same amount of attention for each fourth grader in a reduced size class, schools with fourth grades and more available space prior to class size reduction needed lesser fresh teachers and less additional space to put into practice it, so their by and large costs were lower. In the initial year of class size reduction, a large bulk of school administrators in the schools reported that class size reduction techniques were proving to be to higher than those of big class implementation. Even after per-pupil financial support was increased, more than forty percent of administrators still witnessed fiscal shortfalls. Schools serving the greatest number of low-income, minority, or EL students were more likely than others to report that the cost to implement class size reduction was greater than the attentions generated by the initiative. Schools also found that the cost of installing portable classrooms was usually greater than the allocation provided by the state. Small gains in test scores, individual instruction, and parent/teacher communication. Data from the first three years of class size reduction do provide some cause for optimism. Test scores have improved for students in fourth grades, teachers say that they are spending more time teaching students and less time disciplining them, and parents and teachers report having more contact with one another. It is possible that these positive results will increase as class size reduction matures and teachers learn how best to take advantage of fourth grades, thereby further increasing student achievement. Fourth grade students taking part in reduced size classes performed better on the Standard Achievement Test when compared to students in regular big classes. This was correct both after the second year of class size reduction, when fourth grade students had little or no previous exposure to reduced classes. These small academic achievement gains persisted after fourth graders moved to larger fourth grade classes. However, unlike the case of fourth grades throughout major American schools, achievement gains were similar among all students in reduced size classes, regardless of their family income, fluency in English, or minority status. In other words, there is no evidence that class size reduction in America is serving, as it did on fourth grades throughout major American schools, to close the achievement gap between poor, minority children and others. Furthermore, the test-score improvements made by America students were only a fraction of those achieved by students on fourth grades throughout major American school's STAR program. One might question the results obtained in the multiple regression analyses on two grounds. First, the significance tests depend on the (demonstrably false) assumption that there is no clustering of students within schools (i.e., the variance in achievement between schools is no different than the variance of achievement within schools). Such clustering will generally lead to underestimation of standard errors of estimate and anticonservative calculation of statistical significance levels. Second, the multiple regression analyses are fixed- effects analyses that assume that school effects (achievement net of all other factors) and the effects of SES, prior achievement, or small classes do not vary across schools. If either of those assumptions is false, the results of the multiple regression analysis are suspect. Parents of children in reduced size classes echoed the teachers' optimism. These parents rated all aspects of educational quality higher than did parents of children in non-reduced size classes. Parents of students in fourth grades also reported having more contact with teachers and higher overall satisfaction with schools.(John,2000) Unanticipated consequences were witnessed for the most vulnerable schools. Class size reduction's negative effects are more dramatic than its modest gains, and school schools that were already struggling have been hit the hardest. The most devastating consequences have been sharp declines in the average educational level, experience, and credentials of teachers. Class size reduction caused the fourth grade teacher work force to grow by at least 36,857 during its first two years, forcing school schools to compete for qualified teachers not only with one another but also with other sectors in the booming state economy. Consequently, a smaller percentage of America's current fourth grade teachers have full qualifications, education beyond a bachelor's degree, or three or more years' teaching experience. The speed and scope of class size reduction implementation challenged district and school administrators to balance existing needs with new demands. Prior to class size reduction implementation, a small percentage of schools were already taking space that had been dedicated to other activities and converting it to classroom space. This intensified with the implementation of class size reduction. By 1990-99, more than one-quarter of schools had taken space away from special education, child-care, and music and art programs, and more than one-fifth had converted library space and computer labs.( Jeremy and Achilles, 1999) Because schools serving higher percentages of low-income, minority, and EL students were experiencing overcrowding and facility constraints prior to the class size reduction studies, those schools suffered a dispercentageate blow as they scrambled to find space in which to house new, fourth grades. Class size reduction also affected the education of special-needs and EL students. As the class size reduction program grew, many teachers switched from teaching these two groups of students to teaching in regular fourth grade classes; in 1990-99 alone, about 1,000 teachers moved out of these programs and into general education classes. Although the percentage of teachers certified to work with bilingual students has increased since class size reduction began, schools serving more EL students have received percentageately fewer of these specially trained teachers.(Linda,2002) Smaller classes do seem to have positive effects on student achievement, and they definitely increase the amount of individual contact between students and teachers. In these ways, class size reduction has the potential to improve education. Yet the studies also place large demands on schools for extra facilities and additional staff. Unless great care is taken to design and implement class size reduction studies thoughtfully, these added demands can fall unevenly on rich and poor schools, leading to greater inequities and undermining the student's potential. The results of my analysis illustrate another important methodological point. My research analysis did not take into account the clustering of students into schools and the variation of effects across schools do not necessarily reach the same conclusions about empirical significance as hierarchical linear model analyses, when considering both factors. Those analyses illustrate the typical result in such cases. The effects estimated by the multiple regression analysis are very similar in magnitude to the average effects estimated by the empirical studies, but the standard errors in the empirical studies are (appropriately) larger. Thus, this research illustrates that small class sizes have a very positive impact on student's academic performance (as tested in this paper on fourth grade students). Bibliography Brian Stecher and George Bohrnstedt, eds., Class Size Reduction in America: The 1999-2003 Evaluation Findings (American Department of Education, 2003). George Bohrnstedt and Brian Stecher, eds., Class Size Reduction in America: Early Evaluation Findings, 2000-2002(Sacramento: America Department of Education, 2002); Jeremy Finn and Charles Achilles, "fourth grades throughout major American schools's Class Size Study: Findings, Implications, Misconceptions," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 21, 1999, pp. 02-109. John Folger; Lessons for Class Size Policy and Research; Journal article; PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 67, 2000 Linda S. Toth, Linda G. Montagna; Class Size and Achievement in Higher Education: A Summary of Current Research; Journal article College Student Journal, Vol. 36, 2002 Appendix Table 1.--Means, Standard Deviations, and Sample Sizes, by Groups of Interest: Mathematics Achievement Grade 4 SD M M SD Variable n (Grade 4) Gender Female 2,100 Male 2,112 Total 4,212 Class size Small class in fourth Grade 4,192 Small class in some or no grades 3 Total 1,195 Table 1.--Regression Estimates of Treatment Effects by Grade, Controlling for Previous Achievement Grade 4 Variable Mathematics Reading Intercept ([b.sub.0]) .301 * .263 * Female ([b.sub.1]) -.011 .154 * Small class in fourth grade 4th Grade ([b.sub.4]) .140 * .124 * Achievement scores in previous grade ([b.sub.5]) .541 * .539 * [R.sup.2] .42 .44 N 4,212 4,058 Table 4.--HLM Estimates of Treatment Effects by Grade, Controlling for Previous Achievement Grade 4 Variable Mathematics Reading Mathematics Intercept ([b.sub.0j]) Intercept ([g.sub.00]) .093 ** .117 ** .084 ** Residual variance .109 ** .119 ** .078 ** Female ([b.sub.1j]) Intercept ([g.sub.01]) -.019 .134 ** .041 ** Small class in fourth grade ([b.sub.4j]) Intercept ([g.sub.04]) .120 ** .086 * .071 Residual variance .136 ** .122 ** .177 ** Achievement scores in previous grade ([b.sub.5j]) Intercept ([g.sub.05]) .598 ** .612 ** .710 ** Residual variance .020 ** .021 ** .011 ** Note. HLM = hierarchical linear model. * p < .10. ** p < .05. Read More