**A R C H I V E D I N F O R M A T I O N**

Boosting Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation

A First-Year Report

# U.S. Department of Education

######### ![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.2in" height="1.2in"}September 2000

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ###### Richard W. Riley                                               |
|                                                                       |
| U.S. Secretary of Education                                           |
|                                                                       |
| ###### Michael Cohen                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education            |
|                                                                       |
| ###### Joseph Conaty                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| ###### Director, New Projects Unit                                    |
|                                                                       |
| ###### Robert Stonehill                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Director, Class-Size Reduction Program                                |
|                                                                       |
| ###### September 2000                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The text of this report is in the public domain. Feel free to         |
| photocopy or reprint. To order copies of this report write:           |
|                                                                       |
| ED Pubs                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Editorial Publications                                                |
|                                                                       |
| U.S. Department of Education                                          |
|                                                                       |
| P.O. Box 1398                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Jessup, MD 20794-1398                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Fax: 301-470-1244; send email requests to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>; or   |
| call toll free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS).                     |
|                                                                       |
| Gillian Cohen, Christine Miller, Robert Stonehill and Claire Geddes   |
| at the U.S. Department of Education wrote this report.                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.2in" height="1.2in"}**The Class-Size
Reduction Program:**

Boosting Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation

A First-Year Report

> ***Reducing class size is one of the most important investments we can
> make in our children\'s future. Recent research confirms what parents
> have always known \-- children learn better in small classes with good
> teachers, and kids who start out in smaller classes do better right
> through their high school graduation.***
>
> **\--President Bill Clinton**

Parents and teachers have long known that smaller classes make a
difference. Students in smaller classes have higher achievement levels,
fewer discipline problems, and more personal attachment to their
teachers and classmates. A growing body of well-designed research,
including experimental research using random assignment, is confirming
this conventional wisdom. In 1998, Congress responded to President
Clinton's call for a national initiative to lower class size in the
early grades to no more than 18 students. Research indicates that
classes that small are effective in helping to improve academic
achievement, especially for disadvantaged students.

That year, Congress made a bipartisan commitment to provide a down
payment on a proposed seven-year phase-in of the Class Size Reduction
program. The fiscal year (FY) 1999 appropriation of \$1.2 billion
enabled school districts across the nation to hire an estimated 29,000
new teachers for the 1999-2000 school year. This July, the U.S.
Department of Education awarded an additional \$1.3 billion in FY 2000
funds to enable states and local school districts to continue their
class-size reduction efforts. This report highlights the benefits of the
Class-Size Reduction program after just one year of implementation.
Though this is only a modest beginning to reach our nationwide goal, the
past year saw 1.7 million young children learning in smaller, more
personalized, classrooms.

*The Class-Size Reduction Program Is Making A Difference*

Too many children in this country spend their early school years in
overcrowded classrooms. As a result, children -- particularly poor and
minority children -- do not receive the individualized attention they
need. They do not learn to read well and independently, and are too
likely to fall through the cracks.

![](media/image2.wmf)

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
              **Prior to the implementation of the federal Class-Size
              Program and similar initiatives in several states, more
              than 85 percent of our students were in classes with over
              18 children, and about 33 percent were in classes of 25 or
              more students.**[^1]

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------

However, after just one year of implementation, the federal Class-Size
Reduction Program is already helping local communities lower class size
in the early grades. In 90,000 classrooms (primarily in high-needs
schools), the average class size in grades 1-3 has been reduced from 23
to 18. Smaller classes give children across the country the opportunity
for a solid foundation in the basics and increase their chances of
academic success in the later grades.

The Class-Size Reduction program has helped an estimated:

-   1.7 million children in the early grades receive instruction in
    smaller, more personalized classes;

-   90,000 teachers who now teach more manageably sized classes;

-   23,000 schools -- almost one-third of the nation's elementary
    schools -- that have hired one or more new teachers; and,

-   15,000 school districts that improved teacher recruitment and hiring
    or provided professional development to help teachers maximize the
    benefits of smaller classes.

![](media/image3.wmf)

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
              **Last year, the Class-Size Reduction program enabled
              schools to hire approximately 29,000 new teachers. As a
              direct result, 61,000 additional teachers saw their class
              sizes shrink.**

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------

-   ![](media/image2.wmf)In the 1999-2000 school year, districts
    receiving Class-Size Reduction funds reported that their classes
    would have been significantly larger without such funds. Districts
    reported that almost half (49 percent) of the classes would have had
    23 or more students per class, nearly a third (32 percent) would
    have had 25 or more, and 17 percent would have had 27 or more
    students per class. National data, shown in the chart below, paints
    the same general picture.[^2] Without federal funding, 86 percent of
    classes would have been larger than the recommended average class
    size of 18 students.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   However, schools that hired teachers with their Class-Size Reduction
    funds were able to reduce the average class size from about 23
    students to 18 in the targeted grades.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Approximately 86 percent of hired teachers were placed in the early
    grades. The greatest number (39 percent) were placed in first grade,
    followed by third grade (24 percent) and then second grade (23
    percent). About 15 percent were placed in other grades, usually in
    districts where they already had small classes in the early grades.

-   About one percent of the teachers hired were special education
    teachers.

##### 

##### Class-Size Reduction Funds Directly Impact Classrooms

![](media/image2.wmf)Every dollar provided for the Class-Size Reduction
program goes to local school districts. No funds are retained at the
national or state levels for administration. As the chart below
illustrates, 87 percent of the funds are being used to hire teachers
while only 2 percent of the money is used for administrative activities
at the local level.

![](media/image3.wmf)

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
              **Federal Class-Size Reduction funds help create more
              manageable classrooms. This allows teachers to focus on
              teaching and learning and spend less time dealing with
              discipline problems.**

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------

**Small classes and small schools lay the foundation for safe schools.**
They promote stronger bonds between teachers and students that lead to
an improved school climate and fewer discipline problems and
disruptions. More personal classroom environments allow teachers to give
more individualized attention to each of their students, permitting them
a better opportunity to identify troubled children and recommend
counseling before violence occurs.

**Smaller classes help improve teacher morale**. Teachers in smaller
classes spend less time on discipline and classroom management and more
time providing instruction to children. This raises their level of job
satisfaction. In addition, smaller classes can enable teachers to
implement strategies learned in preparation programs but which they are
unable to practice because of the sheer number of students in their
classrooms.

*Smaller Classes Result in Better Teaching and Learning*

Local districts report using Class-Size Reduction funds to directly
support urgent priorities and improve achievement where the need is the
greatest. Smaller classes are rapidly becoming an integral component of
school reform efforts. For instance:

![](media/image4.wmf)Turning Around Low-Performing Schools.

**Washington, D.C.** is one of a number of districts that used their
Class-Size Reduction funds to support local efforts to turn around
low-performing schools. The District targeted its \$5.6 million
allocation to 32 schools identified as low-achieving. Each site that
received a grant hired one additional teacher. Hendley Elementary used
its money to hire an additional teacher for the first grade, allowing it
to reduce class sizes from 24 to 18 in all four of its first-grade
classrooms. The school met all six of its performance objectives for the
1999-2000 school year, including a decrease in the number of students in
first grade scoring below the basic level. The District also registered
an increase in the number at both the proficient and advanced levels in
both reading and math. First-grade teachers at Hendley report greater
satisfaction with students\' achievement, motivation, and skills when
they are able to provide instruction to a smaller number of children.

**Columbus, Ohio** used its \$3 million Class-Size Reduction allocation
to hire 58 fully certified teachers, placing them in 13 high-poverty,
low-performing schools. In these schools, the program has reduced class
size in grades one through three from 25 students to approximately 15.
These schools, as well as others in Columbus, are implementing proven
models of reading instruction, such as *Success for All*. Teachers
receive the professional development and support needed for effective
implementation of these models.

![](media/image5.wmf)

Improving Reading Achievement

Anne Arundel County, Maryland combined federal, state and local funds to
support its early reading initiative. Anne Arundel used its Class-Size
Reduction allocation of just over \$1 million to hire 19 first- and
second-grade teachers for their highest-need schools. In 2000-2001, it
will hire three teachers who will be deployed in the same manner. The
district also received county funding to hire 30 more teachers to
further reduce class sizes. By coordinating the use of its local and
federal funds, Anne Arundel will reduce class sizes in grades one and
two from an average of 25 children per class to an average of 15.
Georgetown East Elementary, a high-poverty school that also used federal
Title I funds to reduce class sizes, improved their first and second
grade reading performance to the point that the school is now among the
top three elementary schools in the county. Other Maryland school
districts, such as Montgomery County, have used federal, state, and
local class-size reduction funds to boost the impact of early reading
initiatives.

**West Middlesex Area School District, Pennsylvania**. West Middlesex
used its 1999 Class-Size Reduction allocation to hire two new first
grade teachers (one at Luther Low Elementary and one at Oakview
Elementary). As a result of the two new teachers, each school reduced
class sizes in the first grade from 23 students per class to 18. During
the 1999-2000 school year, students' scores on the Iowa Test of Basic
Skills in reading, language, and mathematics improved over the scores
from the previous year. The students' overall grade equivalent scores
increased from 1.9 to 2.1.

## South Delta School District, Mississippi, located in the rural west-central Delta region, serves two high-poverty counties where all students are eligible for free lunch and all schools are designated as Title I "school-wides." The district used its \$118,760 allocation to hire three teachers, enabling the district to reduce average class sizes in grades 1 through 3 in its elementary school from 26 students to 21. Having fewer students in each class has helped South Delta to implement its new reading initiative more effectively. Teachers now have more time to analyze students' particular strengths and weaknesses through their Analytical Reading Inventory and can provide more one-on-one instruction to better meet students' individual needs. Teachers also report having more time to plan, allowing them to develop more creative and engaging lessons for students.

**Trinity Area School District, Washington, Pennsylvania.** The Trinity
Area School District used its 1999 allocation to hire two teachers to
reduce class size in the first and second grades at Trinity South
Elementary from 25 to 15 students. After just one year of this
intervention, first graders improved by four percentage points over the
previous year on the district-level writing standards; second graders
showed a three percent increase. The improvement in reading was even
more dramatic. Between 1999 and 2000, the number of first-grade students
scoring at 80 percent or higher on performance tasks improved by 12
percentage points. For second graders, these numbers improved by 21
percentage points.

![](media/image6.wmf)

**Improving Individualized Instruction and Classroom Management.**

**Rockford School District 205, Illinois**. Rockford, the third largest
school district in Illinois, has a poverty rate of 62 percent. With the
\$797,963 it received, the district hired 19 additional primary grade
teachers. As a result, the district was able to reduce the number of
students in 43 other classrooms (including 35 first grade classrooms).
Without federal support, the average class size in these grades would
have been about 26 students. With Class-Size Reduction funds, Rockford
reduced class sizes in the targeted grades to 17-18 students per class.
When surveyed, teachers said they were able to increase the attention
given students and improve early identification of reading problems as a
result of the smaller classes.

**Fredericksburg County, Virginia**. Fredericksburg used its Class-Size
Reduction funds to hire two third grade teachers to team teach at the
Hugh Mercer Elementary School. While one teacher works with small groups
of students to provide instruction in reading, writing, or mathematics,
the other teacher works with the remaining students. At any given time,
students are receiving instruction in a group no larger than 18
students.

***Federal Funds Go Where They Will Have the Greatest Impact***

Because federal Class-Size Reduction funds are targeted to districts
with the highest concentrations of children in poverty as well as those
with the highest overall enrollments, large urban districts have
received a significant portion of the available funds. Within these
districts, monies to hire teachers are generally targeted to schools
with the greatest needs or with the largest class sizes.

The following table shows how some of the nation's largest districts
have used their Class-Size Reduction funds to hire additional
teachers.[^3]

+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| **Estimates of  |                    |            |                 |
| Teachers Hired  |                    |            |                 |
| With Federal    |                    |            |                 |
| Class-Size      |                    |            |                 |
| Reduction Funds |                    |            |                 |
| in Urban School |                    |            |                 |
| Districts**     |                    |            |                 |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| #######         | **Current          | ###        | **Estimated     |
| School District | Class-Size         | ##### Teac | Allocation for  |
|                 | Reduction          | hers Hired | 2001**          |
|                 | Allocation**       |            |                 |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Anchorage       | \$1,845,702        | 40         | \$2,654,546     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Atlanta         | \$3,110,313        | 58         | \$4,938,553     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Birmingham      | \$1,562,510        | 23         | \$2,138,425     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Boston          | \$3,545,000        | 38         | \$4,992,309     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Broward County, | \$4,132,500        | 74         | \$6,617,673     |
| FL              |                    |            |                 |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Cleveland       | \$4,981,000        | 82         | \$6,791,335     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Columbus        | \$3,037,137        | 58         | \$4,140,978     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Dallas          | \$5,171,868        | 75         | \$7,808,009     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Denver          | \$2,583,983        | 12         | \$3,699,074     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Des Moines      | \$854,694          | 29         | \$1,228,049     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Detroit         | \$13,315,320       | 240        | \$18,095,999    |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| El Paso         | \$1,700,000        | 51         | \$2,566,503     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Fort Worth      | \$2,513,796        | 58         | \$3,795,097     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Houston         | \$8,379,760        | 167        | \$12,650,988    |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Indianapolis    | \$2,649,205        | 32         | \$3,791,959     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Jefferson       | \$2,779,119        | 92         | \$3,737,504     |
| County          |                    |            |                 |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Long Beach      | \$2,700,000        | 15         | \$4,316,221     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Los Angeles     | \$26,300,000       | 203        | \$42,043,188    |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Memphis         | \$3,861,000        | 76         | \$5,451,375     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Mesa, AZ        | \$1,119,873        | 32         | \$1,660,265     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Miami-Dade      | \$10,718,155       | 207        | \$17,163,762    |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Milwaukee       | \$6,218,480        | 97         | \$8,784,270     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Nashville       | \$1,811,871        | 33         | \$2,558,194     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| New Orleans     | \$4,520,913        | 109        | \$5,795,426     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| New York City   | \$61,190,120       | 808        | \$95,806,879    |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Norfolk         | \$1,393,861        | 27         | \$1,994,396     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Oklahoma City   | \$1,482,261        | 41         | \$2,279,899     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Omaha           | \$1,508,098        | 30         | \$2,150,783     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Orange County   | \$2,550,276        | 72         | \$4,076,872     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Philadelphia    | \$12,795,416       | 288        | \$17,298,116    |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Pittsburgh      | \$2,365,675        | 42         | \$3,198,155     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Richmond        | \$1,200,000        | 25         | \$1,717,012     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Rochester       | \$2,376,000        | 41         | \$3,720,162     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Sacramento      | \$1,900,000        | 31         | \$3,037,341     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Salt Lake City  | \$661,092          | 20         | \$943,490       |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| San Antonio     | \$2,886,204        | 46         | \$4,357,324     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| San Diego       | \$3,868,104        | 63         | \$6,183,552     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| San Francisco   | \$1,606,764        | 37         | \$2,568,573     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Seattle         | \$1,560,686        | 37         | \$2,203,601     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Tucson          | \$1,604,269        | 52         | \$2,378,404     |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+-----------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #### New York City Takes Big Steps with Smaller Class Sizes           |
|                                                                       |
| For many years, class sizes in New York City have been among the      |
| largest in New York State, averaging about 28 children per class in   |
| elementary schools. In 1999-2000, New York City received \$61 million |
| in Federal Class-Size Reduction funds. In addition, the city received |
| some \$49 million in state funds to reduce class size. The state and  |
| federal funds were used to create about 950 new, smaller classes in   |
| grades K-3, with an average of about 20 students per class. New       |
| classes were created in 530 of the district's 675 elementary schools. |
| Since every new class that was created helped reduce the size of      |
| other classes in that grade, the New York City Board of Education     |
| estimates that 30 percent of students in kindergarten through grade 3 |
| are in smaller classes as a result of the initiative.                 |
|                                                                       |
| The independent Educational Priorities Panel recently completed a     |
| study of the first year of the class-size reduction program in New    |
| York City. Among improvements reported as a result of smaller classes |
| were:                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Noticeable declines in the number of disciplinary referrals;      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Improved teacher morale;                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   a focus on prevention rather than remediation; and                |
|                                                                       |
| -   higher levels in classroom participation by students.             |
|                                                                       |
| In addition, the study noted that while it was still too early to     |
| make definitive judgments, students placed in smaller classes         |
| appeared to be learning faster than when they were in larger classes. |
| In schools where there was not the space to create enough new         |
| classes, some of the federal money was used for an \"alternative      |
| approach.\" One such approach was to provide classrooms with an       |
| additional teacher to give more individualized and small group        |
| instruction to students for a significant block of time on a regular  |
| basis. The Board of Education hired only teachers for this purpose,   |
| not paraprofessionals, in line with research that shows that the      |
| educational benefits of pairing a paraprofessional with a teacher in  |
| a regular-size classes are negligible.                                |
|                                                                       |
| In summary, the report offers the following recommendation:           |
|                                                                       |
| > *At this point, the New York City class-size reduction program has  |
| > every indication of success, and will most likely lead to           |
| > significant improvements in student outcomes if the legislative     |
| > support for this program is sustained and expanded.*                |
|                                                                       |
| Source: Haimson, L. (April 2000). *Smaller is Better: First-hand      |
| Reports of Early Grade Class Size Reduction in New York City Public   |
| Schools*. New York, NY: Educational Priorities Panel.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***Teachers Report Results From Reducing Class Size***

> ***Smaller class sizes allow our teachers and students to do the best
> they can. Teachers do not teach most effectively when they are
> hampered by the burden of too many students in the classroom.***
>
> ***\--U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley***

Teachers throughout the country report experiencing significant benefits
from smaller classes. For instance:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *I had a good idea of each child's basic ability by the first week of |
| school, because I had more time to spend with each child              |
| individually. I knew very early on who to watch for potential         |
| learning and behavior problems....Each child also had more time to    |
| share his thoughts and ideas in both oral and written form... There   |
| also were few behavior problems...Since everything that we did this   |
| year took so much less time than usual, we were able to do so much    |
| more...*                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| \--**Teacher in West Middlesex, Pennsylvania**                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *We have had practically [no]{.underline} discipline problems. The    |
| children are more like a team and they expect the best from each      |
| other. This saves a great mount of our instructional time. ...I had   |
| only one child (from my class of 19) fail reading for the first       |
| six-week grading period. This alone is proof that the children are    |
| receiving more individualized instruction and they are greatly        |
| benefiting from class size reduction.*                                |
|                                                                       |
| \--**Teacher in Mississippi**                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *All children in this city, this state, this country are entitled to  |
| the benefits of smaller classes. Speaking as an educator, it should   |
| not be a privilege, it should be a right.*                            |
|                                                                       |
| \--Principal Norma Genao, P.S. 185, Harlem, New York                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##### Supporting State Efforts: Sparking a National Movement 

Over 20 states across the country have instituted their own efforts to
lower class size, and the flexibility of the federal program has allowed
for close coordination between the federal and state programs. Last
year, at least two new states -- Georgia and Massachusetts -- began
investing their own resources in smaller classes and improving student
achievement. In some other states, class-size reduction initiatives have
been in place for more than a decade. For instance:

-   ***Massachusetts*** appropriated \$18 million to the Aid to Reduce
    Class Size in grades K-3. The initiative will be targeted to schools
    in which at least 22 percent or more of the children come from low
    income households. The funds may also be used to extend half-day
    kindergarten to full-day kindergarten. The first installment of the
    Aid to Reduce Class Size funds will be used in the 2000-2001 school
    year.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Indiana*** began its program to reduce class size - known as
    \"Prime Time\" - in 1984. As a result, some districts already had
    achieved the targeted levels of 18 students in first grade and 20
    students in third grade when federal funds became available. Of the
    295 districts in the state, 268 participated in the federal program
    in 1999-2000, with 20 of the districts choosing to reduce class size
    in intermediate and middle school classrooms. Other districts
    utilized federal funds by reducing primary classrooms even further,
    or by hiring specialists to teach reading in small groups. A total
    of 59 districts used all of their funds for professional
    development.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Minnesota*** began its statewide program in 1993. In the latest
    two-year budget cycle, \$100 million was allotted to reduce class
    size, about \$50 million each for the 1999 and 2001 school years.
    The program emphasizes kindergarten and first grade, and a
    class-size goal of 17 students. Since the availability of federal
    Class-Size Reduction funds, some small, rural districts were able to
    coordinate the use of their federal and state funds to hire one
    teacher. Although a few districts hired teachers for the fourth and
    fifth grades, the vast majority -- 95 percent -- focused on
    kindergarten through third grades.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # Class-Size Reduction in Wisconsin Grows Dramatically                |
|                                                                       |
| Federal Class-Size Reduction funds are helping Wisconsin advance the  |
| reform efforts begun in 1996 through the SAGE (Student Achievement    |
| Guarantee in Education) program, which helps participating schools    |
| reduce student-teacher ratios to 15:1 in grades K-3. According to the |
| Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, evidence of the SAGE      |
| program\'s success has prompted the state legislature and the         |
| governor to dramatically increase funding to allow 400-500 more       |
| elementary schools to participate next school year. In FY 2000, SAGE  |
| will be funded at \$58.8 million. In FY 1999, Wisconsin received      |
| \$20.1 million in Federal funds that local districts used to hire     |
| approximately 475 teachers. Of that total, districts used \$1.4       |
| million (7 percent) to provide professional development to teachers.  |
|                                                                       |
| According to the third-year evaluation report of the program, SAGE is |
| fostering an enthusiasm for learning that is boosting student         |
| achievement. Results from achievement tests show statistically higher |
| performance for SAGE students across all grade levels when compared   |
| to comparison schools with similar characteristics. African-American  |
| SAGE students scored lower on a pretest than African-American         |
| students in comparison schools but made significantly larger gains    |
| and surpassed achievement by African-American students in comparison  |
| schools on the post-tests. The study is finding that smaller classes  |
| provide:                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   high levels of classroom efficiency;                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   a positive classroom atmosphere;                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   expanded learning opportunities; and                              |
|                                                                       |
| # enthusiasm and achievement among both students and teachers.        |
|                                                                       |
| The federal program has been able to complement SAGE and support      |
| local reform efforts**.** The U.S. Department of Education has worked |
| with Wisconsin to eliminate barriers to class-size reduction efforts  |
| in local districts. For example, Wisconsin was granted waivers        |
| allowing districts to use more than 15 percent of their funds for     |
| professional development and to serve children in kindergarten.       |
|                                                                       |
| Source: Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik,J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A.    |
| and Ehrle, K. (2000). Wisconsin's Student Achievement Guarantee in    |
| Education (SAGE) Class Size Reduction Program: Achievement Effects,   |
| Teaching and Classroom Implementation. *The CEIC Review*, Volume 9,   |
| Number 2 (March).                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ###### California                                                     |
| 's Class-Size Reduction Program Continues to Develop and Show Results |
|                                                                       |
| California established its statewide class-size reduction program     |
| beginning with the 1996-1997 school year. An ongoing study of the     |
| program is showing that smaller classes have boosted student          |
| achievement in communities across the state for the second year in a  |
| row. Children throughout California, regardless of their              |
| socioeconomic background, race or ethnicity, are benefiting from      |
| being in smaller classes.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Third grade students in smaller classes performed better on       |
|     achievement tests than third graders in larger classes for the    |
|     second year in a row. These achievement gains persisted after the |
|     students returned to larger classes in fourth grade.              |
|                                                                       |
| -   In 1998-1999, over 1.8 million students in 92,000 classrooms      |
|     (K-3) benefited from reduced class size. Over 92 percent of       |
|     California students in K-3 were in classes of 20 or smaller, and  |
|     only 9 districts in the State were not participating in the       |
|     initiative.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   The percentage of fully certified teachers in grades K-3, which   |
|     had dropped from 98 percent in 1995 to 88 percent in 1997,        |
|     remained fairly steady in the third year of class-size reduction, |
|     dropping only 1 percent further in 1998 (to 87 percent).          |
|                                                                       |
| The federal program allows California the flexibility needed to       |
| address the serious problems of teacher quality and to reduce class   |
| sizes in the schools that need it the most. In the 1999-2000 school   |
| year (which has not yet been included in the ongoing state            |
| evaluation), districts in California:                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   used 25 percent of their federal CSR funds for professional       |
|     development to upgrade the skills of teachers, an amount triple   |
|     the rate of other states;                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   used \$129,177,936 of these funds to hire about 2,000 new         |
|     teachers; and                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   assigned three-quarters of these new teachers to grades 4 and 5,  |
|     thus enabling the class-size reduction initiative to extend       |
|     beyond grade 3.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Federal Class-Size Reduction funds are helping California expand its  |
| statewide initiative in several important areas. For example:         |
|                                                                       |
| -   The federal program is targeted to the neediest schools, where    |
|     the research shows that students can benefit most from reduced    |
|     class sizes. In this way, the federal program sends more of its   |
|     funds to disadvantaged schools that have not yet fully benefited  |
|     from the California program. This can help teachers become fully  |
|     certified and schools can hire additional fully certified         |
|     teachers. The federal program also takes very seriously the       |
|     requirement that funds be used to hire only fully certified       |
|     teachers. The U.S. Department of Education sent a notice to all   |
|     district superintendents, including all those in California,      |
|     reminding them of this requirement.                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   The federal program provides resources to hire teachers before    |
|     requiring classes to be small. The California program mandates    |
|     that districts reduce their class sizes before they receive any   |
|     funds. This created a financial hardship for some districts. The  |
|     federal program distributes resources up front, so districts can  |
|     hire as many teachers as they can afford to without having to     |
|     take resources from other programs.                               |
|                                                                       |
| Source: Stecher, B.M. and Bohrnstedt, G.W., Eds. (2000). *Class size  |
| reduction in California: 1998-99 evaluation findings.* Class-Size     |
| Reduction Consortium, Year 2 Evaluation Report. Palo Alto, CA:        |
| American Institutes for Research.                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

*Research Continues to Show that Small Classes Boost Achievement*

Evidence continues to accumulate that shows that reducing class size
improves student achievement, reduces discipline problems, and provides
a lasting benefit to both students and teachers. During the past year,
more and more research studies showing the positive effects of reducing
class size have been completed, including:

-   *The Tennessee Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio)
    Data* - New reports from the Project STAR class-size reduction
    experiment clearly show that students who spent more years in small
    classes realized greater gains in student achievement in all
    subjects than did students who participated for fewer years. They
    also show the benefits of participating in smaller classes continued
    well beyond the time the students were in small classes.[^4]

-   *The Wisconsin SAGE Program* - New results from Wisconsin add
    independent evidence of the benefits of smaller classes. After two
    years, the impact of reduced class size in Wisconsin's SAGE program
    appears consistent with the Tennessee STAR study results. The size
    of the SAGE evaluation and the strength of its results suggest that
    class-size reduction in early grades yields significant gains in
    student achievement. SAGE results also suggest that high-quality
    team teaching (where two fully qualified teachers share a classroom
    with 30 or more students) has results similar to those obtained in
    self-contained classrooms.[^5]

-   *National Assessment of Educational Progress Data -* A new RAND
    study, led by David Grissmer, examined 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996
    National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from
    representative samples of 2,500 students in 44 states to look at the
    effect of state characteristics, including class size, on student
    achievement. The study showed that, controlling for students' family
    back­grounds, states with the lowest pupil-teacher ratios in the
    early grades had the highest NAEP scores.[^6]

-   *State Assessment Data* - The American Institutes for Research
    analyzed the performance of a national sample of schools on their
    respective state assessments. The study concluded that reduced class
    size is significantly related to higher academic performance,
    particularly in reading. The positive impact of smaller classes on
    reading achievement also was found in middle and high schools. This
    study also showed that students benefited not only from small class
    sizes but gained additional benefit from attending high schools with
    lower enrollment overall.[^7]

This overwhelming body of evidence from independent researchers using
different data and methodologies, and both experimental and
quasi-experimental methods, clearly demonstrates that reducing class
sizes in the early grades improves student achievement.

##### Investing Wisely: Reducing Class Size as a Cost-Effective Strategy

The accumulating evidence not only shows that class-size reduction is an
effective strategy for improving academic performance, but also is a
cost-effective one, particularly for students who need help the most.
For instance:

-   *National Data* - The RAND report described above also concludes
    that "...to raise achievement scores, the most efficient and
    effective use of education dollars is to target states with higher
    proportions of minority and poor students *with funding for lower
    pupil-teacher ratios*, more widespread kindergarten efforts, and
    more adequate teaching resources." [^8]

-   *Tennessee STAR Data* -- Because teachers are expensive, hiring
    paraprofessionals is frequently cited as an alternative investment.
    However, Jeremy Finn (a professor at the State University of New
    York at Buffalo), after a careful reexamination of the STAR data,
    found that adding paraprofessionals to the classroom does little to
    improve student achievement. He concluded that resources used to
    hire teaching assistants in the classroom could be better spent on
    reducing class size by hiring qualified teachers.

-   *Reanalysis of Previous Research* -- In his recent research, Alan
    Kreuger, an economist at Princeton University and the National
    Bureau of Economic Research, concludes that there are substantial
    and significant returns to reducing class size in the early
    grades.[^9] Kreuger also argues that resources would be optimally
    allocated if targeted toward those who would benefit most from
    smaller classes - children and schools in high poverty districts.
    Kreuger's findings are based on reanalyses of data from literature
    reviews conducted by Eric Hanushek (a professor at the University of
    Rochester), in which the author concluded that class-size reduction
    is not a cost-effective investment.[^10]

> During the past year, researchers, policy makers, and educators
> participated in a national conference sponsored to address a broad
> range of questions related to implementation, including recruitment,
> professional development and student behavior.[^11] In general, the
> research on class size suggests that teachers of smaller classes
> confront fewer discipline problems, cover subject matter in more
> depth, have more one-to-one contact with students, and keep better
> track of student progress. School principals and district
> superintendents also report that smaller classes have allowed them to
> establish and maintain better relationships with students, parents and
> families. These are the type of improvements that save school
> districts money over time.[^12]^,^ [^13]

# *The Federal Class-Size Reduction Program: How It Works*

The U.S. Department of Education's Class-Size Reduction program was
enacted just over a year ago as part of the 1999 Department of Education
Appropriations Act. With that bipartisan legislation, Congress made a
\$1.2 billion down payment on President Clinton's proposal to help local
communities hire 100,000 qualified teachers over seven years to reduce
class size in grades one through three to a national average of 18
students per class. In FY 2000, Congress provided a small increase that
brought the appropriation to \$1.3 billion. This year, the president's
budget proposal asks Congress to provide an additional \$450 million in
funding, raising the total to \$1.75 billion for the 2001-2002 school
year. This funding increase will enable local communities to hire as
many as 20,000 additional teachers, for a total of 49,000 teachers hired
with Class-Size Reduction funds.

Program funds are distributed to states by a defined formula. All 50
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico participate in the
program (See Appendix A). Since needs are greatest in the poorest
communities, and because research shows that smaller classes provide the
greatest benefits to the most disadvantaged students, the program
targets funds to high-poverty communities. Each state distributes 80
percent of the funds to school districts based on the number of poor
children in each district. The remaining 20 percent is distributed on
the basis of total enrollment.

Class-Size Reduction funds go directly to our nation's classrooms. Every
dollar appropriated by Congress is allocated to local school districts.
No funds may be used for federal or state administrative costs, and
within school districts, no more than three percent of the money may be
used for administrative costs. Because small classes make the greatest
difference when teachers are well-trained, school districts may use up
to 25 percent of the funds for providing professional development to
both newly hired and experienced teachers. The remainder of the funds
may be used for recruiting and hiring fully qualified regular and
special education teachers and teachers of children with special needs,
including teachers certified through state and local alternative routes.

Because average class size varies considerably from district to
district, and often from school to school within a district, districts
are encouraged to target program resources to schools with the highest
average class sizes and the children most in need of more individualized
instruction. The Class-Size Reduction Program provides flexibility to
accommodate these school districts, as well as the growing number of
districts that will reach a class-size target of 18 students as a result
of the program. Districts that have already reduced class size in the
early grades to 18 students (or reached comparable state goals) have
flexibility. They may use program funds to make further reductions in
those grades, to reduce class size in other grades, or to take other
steps to improve the quality of teaching in small classes.

# 

***Making Class-Size Reduction Even More Effective***

In the 2000-2001 school year, \$1.3 billion is available for the second
year of the Class-Size Reduction program. These funds will enable
districts to continue to support the teachers hired during the previous
school year and, depending upon the size of a district's allocation and
its needs, may allow districts to hire more teachers or carry out
additional recruiting or professional development activities.

In addition, a few modifications were made to the Class-Size Reduction
program requirements to help local districts implement the program more
effectively. These changes are in direct response to state and district
concerns. Among the modifications made were:

-   Providing districts that receive allocations less than the amount
    necessary to hire an additional teacher with greater flexibility in
    the uses of their funds;

-   Including kindergarten as one of the early grades;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Placing even more emphasis on ensuring that teachers hired with
    program funds are fully qualified;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allowing states and districts to substitute state or local
    class-size reduction goals for the national goal; and,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Inserting new public reporting requirements for states,
    participating districts, and schools.

***Further Reductions Will Help Meet a Critical National Priority***

It is essential that federal funds be invested in *proven* education
reforms - approaches that produce results consistently and reliably.
Students and taxpayers deserve nothing less. A growing body of solid
research shows that reducing class size meets this test, as do the
experiences of some 1.7 million students in 23,000 schools and 90,000
classrooms nationwide.

Reducing class size is not a silver bullet. We must continue to see that
all students have access to high standards, well-prepared teachers,
increased public school choice, and more accountable schools. Many
students need the extended learning time provided by afterschool and
summer school programs, along with extra help from teachers, parents,
tutors and mentors. But providing students with smaller classes must be
part of our strategy to improve our schools. With the evidence now
available, there are no excuses for not acting now.

That is why in 1998 President Clinton proposed a seven-year program to
bring class size in the early grades to a national average of 18
students per class. Twice, Congress has responded on a bipartisan basis
to the president's proposal, providing enough funds to help local
communities hire some 29,000 additional teachers. This year the
administration has proposed to expand the effort by seeking \$1.75
billion to help local communities hire an additional 20,000 teachers.
The net effect of this investment will be to substantially reduce class
size in a total of 150,000 classrooms, and to provide higher quality and
more personalized instruction to approximately 2.5 million children. We
are confident that this investment, which will be used to place
well-trained and highly qualified teachers into classrooms with a
manageable number of children, will significantly bolster student
achievement around the nation.

##### 

##### Contact Us!

For more Information on the Class-Size Reduction Program, contact the
U.S. Department of Education by*:*

-   Internet: www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/

-   E-mail: class_size@ed.gov

-   Fax: (202) 260-8969

Appendix A---Class-Size Reduction Allocation Estimates for FY 2001, by
State

+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| **State**             | **FY 1999** | **FY 2000**   | **FY 2001**   |
|                       |             |               |               |
|                       | **A         | *             | **Estimate**  |
|                       | llocation** | *Allocation** |               |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| ALABAMA               | \           | \$21,039,181  | \$26,568,688  |
|                       | $19,413,279 |               |               |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| ALASKA                | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| ARIZONA               | 17,508,087  | 18,974,426    | 25,956,565    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| ARKANSAS              | 11,623,964  | 12,597,496    | 16,771,634    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| CALIFORNIA            | 129,177,934 | 139,996,859   | 206,503,890   |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| COLORADO              | 13,164,489  | 14,267,043    | 18,845,486    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| CONNECTICUT           | 11,353,179  | 12,304,031    | 15,971,909    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| DELAWARE              | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| FLORIDA               | 51,848,131  | 56,190,521    | 83,028,189    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| GEORGIA               | 29,909,345  | 32,414,315    | 47,490,039    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| HAWAII                | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| IDAHO                 | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| ILLINOIS              | 50,137,659  | 54,336,793    | 68,551,170    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| INDIANA               | 20,096,000  | 21,779,082    | 28,764,560    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| IOWA                  | 9,449,330   | 10,240,731    | 13,577,075    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| KANSAS                | 9,582,885   | 10,385,472    | 13,535,643    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| KENTUCKY              | 19,641,601  | 21,286,626    | 26,415,049    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| LOUISIANA             | 29,471,026  | 31,939,287    | 37,779,350    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MAINE                 | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MARYLAND              | 17,485,082  | 18,949,494    | 24,813,476    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MASSACHUSETTS         | 22,447,648  | 24,327,685    | 31,612,299    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MICHIGAN              | 50,275,610  | 54,486,298    | 68,326,363    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MINNESOTA             | 16,662,118  | 18,057,605    | 23,272,582    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MISSISSIPPI           | 19,208,820  | 20,817,599    | 24,146,938    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MISSOURI              | 20,568,788  | 22,291,467    | 29,426,014    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| MONTANA               | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NEBRASKA              | 5,827,594   | 6,315,667     | 8,311,057     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NEVADA                | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NEW HAMPSHIRE         | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NEW JERSEY            | 27,414,745  | 29,710,787    | 39,622,535    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NEW MEXICO            | 9,619,782   | 10,425,459    | 14,790,712    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NEW YORK              | 104,517,491 | 113,271,050   | 163,730,161   |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NORTH CAROLINA        | 24,678,787  | 26,745,687    | 36,217,944    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NORTH DAKOTA          | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| OHIO                  | 46,139,496  | 50,003,776    | 62,908,804    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| OKLAHOMA              | 13,529,819  | 14,662,970    | 20,810,521    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| OREGON                | 11,564,476  | 12,533,025    | 16,291,963    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| PENNSYLVANIA          | 50,982,529  | 55,252,423    | 68,923,253    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| PUERTO RICO           | 40,440,447  | 43,827,419    | 53,729,060    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| RHODE ISLAND          | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| SOUTH CAROLINA        | 14,495,110  | 15,709,106    | 22,032,804    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| SOUTH DAKOTA          | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| TENNESSEE             | 20,066,133  | 21,746,713    | 28,331,524    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| TEXAS                 | 97,206,460  | 105,347,705   | 146,753,343   |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| UTAH                  | 7,691,587   | 8,335,773     | 10,977,199    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| VERMONT               | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| VIRGINIA              | 21,038,247  | 22,800,245    | 30,102,427    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| WASHINGTON            | 19,619,284  | 21,262,440    | 27,701,322    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| WEST VIRGINIA         | 11,301,032  | 12,247,517    | 15,016,312    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| WISCONSIN             | 20,118,645  | 21,803,624    | 28,419,744    |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| WYOMING               | 5,623,097   | 6,094,043     | 8,087,314     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| Outlying Areas/BIA    | 6,000,000   | 6,000,000     | 8,750,000     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| Evaluation            | 0           | 0             | 2,000,000     |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Total**             | \$1,        | \$            | \$            |
|                       | 200,000,000 | 1,300,000,000 | 1,750,000,000 |
+-----------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+

[^1]: Data from *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding. U.S.
    Department of Education, 2000.*

[^2]: Data from the Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding,
    U.S. Department of Education, 2000.

[^3]: Council of Great City Schools (1999). U.S. Department of Education
    budget estimates

    Note: Estimates for 2001 are based on each district's share of its
    State's allocation

[^4]: Finn, J., Gerber, S., Farber, S., and Achilles, C. (2000). Teacher
    Aides: An Alternative to Small Classes? *The CEIC Review*, Volume 9,
    Number 2 (March).

    Boyd-Zaharias, J. and Pate-Bain, H. (2000). Early and New Findings
    from Tennessee's Project STAR. *The CEIC Review*, Volume 9, Number 2
    (March).

[^5]: Molnar et al, 2000.

[^6]: Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J. and Williamson, S. (2000).
    *Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell
    Us.* Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

[^7]: McLaughlin, D. and Dori, G. (forthcoming). School-level Correlates
    of Reading and Mathematics Achievement in Public Schools. Pp.
    189-236 in Grissmer, D. and Ross, M. (Eds.) *Analytic Issues in the
    Assessment of Student Achievement.* Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

[^8]: Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., and Williamson, S. (2000).
    *Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell
    Us.* Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

[^9]: Kreuger, A. (2000). An Economist's View of Class-Size Research.
    CEIC Review, Volume 9, No. 2 (March).

[^10]: Hanushek, E. (1999). Some Findings From an Independent
    Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and From Other
    Investigations of Class Size Effects. Pp. 143-164 in Special
    Issue-Class Size: Issues and New Findings. *Education Evaluation and
    Policy Analysis*, Volume 21, Number 2 (Summer).

[^11]: Wang, M. (2000). How Small Classes Help Teachers Do Their Best:
    Recommendations from a National Invitational Conference. *The CEIC
    Review*, Volume 9, Number 2 (March).

[^12]: Brophy, J. (2000). How Might Teachers Make Smaller Classes Better
    Classes? *The CEIC Review*, Volume 9, Number 2 (March). Achilles, C.
    (1999). *Let's Put Kids First, Finally: Getting Class Size Right.*
    Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Achilles, C. and Finn, J. (2000).
    Should Class Size Be A Cornerstone for Education Policy? *The CEIC
    Review*, Volume 9, Number 2 (March).

[^13]: Hanson, M. (2000). Using Class-Size Reduction Research to Create
    a Learning Community: A Case Report of Gundry Elementary School.
    *The CEIC Review*, Volume 9, Number 2 (March).