+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  | ######## Policy and Program Studies Service       |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

A Descriptive Evaluation of the\
Federal Class-Size Reduction Program

Executive Summary

2004

+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
|                           |                           | ![]          |
|                           |                           | (media/image |
|                           |                           | 1.jpeg){widt |
|                           |                           | h="1.5222222 |
|                           |                           | 222222221in" |
|                           |                           | height       |
|                           |                           | ="1.52222222 |
|                           |                           | 22222221in"} |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
| **[U.S. Department of     | **[Office of the Deputy   |              |
| Education]{.smallcaps}**  | Secretary]{.smallcaps}**  |              |
|                           |                           |              |
| **[Doc \#                 |                           |              |
| 2004-18]{.smallcaps}**    |                           |              |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+

A Descriptive Evaluation of the\
Federal Class-Size Reduction Program

Executive Summary

By

Mary Ann Millsap

Jennifer Giancola

W. Carter Smith

Dana Hunt

Abt Associates Inc.

Cambridge, Mass.

Daniel C. Humphrey

Marjorie E. Wechsler

Lori M. Riehl

SRI International

Menlo Park, Calif.

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Deputy Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

2004

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. HS 282-98-0006, Task 19. The project monitors were Stacy
Kotzin and Tracy Rimdzius in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The
views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No official
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be
inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

**Office of the Deputy Secretary**

Eugene Hickok

*Deputy Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies**

David Goodwin

*Director*

**August 2004**

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to produce it in
whole or in part is granted. Although permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies
Service, *A Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class-size Reduction
Program: Executive Summary*, Washington, D.C., 20202.

This report is available on the department's web site at
<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ods/ppss/reports.html>.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the more than 500 district staff and almost 500
principals who completed the two national surveys on class-size
reduction. We also appreciate the cooperation and goodwill of the six
states, 12 districts, and 24 schools whose personnel were so generous
with their time as we visited their offices, schools, and classrooms. We
are particularly pleased with our collaborative relationship with SRI
International, who was an equal partner with us in each aspect of this
evaluation. They visited half the states, and authored Chapter 3. Their
prior knowledge of the class-size reduction efforts in California
greatly informed this evaluation. We also want to thank our colleagues
at the CSR Research Consortium, the partnership researching California's
class size reduction reform. They were very generous in sharing their
early evaluation findings as well as their instruments; we adapted
several survey items for use in our surveys. We also appreciate the
advice, support, and guidance of our federal Project Officers Tracy
Rimdzius and Stacy Kotzin in the U.S. Department of Education.

Executive Summary

Overview of the Program

The federal Class-Size Reduction (CSR) Program, first authorized in PL
105-277, begun in Fiscal Year 1999, represented a major federal
commitment to help school districts hire additional qualified teachers,
especially in the early elementary grades, so children would learn in
smaller classes. The CSR program also allowed funds to be spent as
professional development, in part to help teachers take advantage of
instructional opportunities in smaller classes. The ultimate goal of the
program was to improve student achievement, particularly in reading, by
reducing class size in grades K-3 to 18 students.

Through the Department of Education Appropriations Act of 1999, \$1.2
billion was initially appropriated for this program. States allocated
100 percent of the funds to school districts based upon a formula
distribution using poverty and enrollment data. There was neither a
ceiling nor a floor on district allocations. School districts were
required to use a minimum of 82 percent of the funds for recruiting,
training new teachers, and teacher salaries. No more than 3 percent was
to be used for local administration and no more than 15 percent to pay
such costs as professional development. The initial emphasis was on
reducing class size in grades 1 to 3. In FY 2000, the appropriation
totaled \$1.3 billion, the grade span was expanded to include
kindergarten, and the proportion of funds potentially available for
professional development increased from 15 percent to 25 percent,
whereas the portion required to be used on teacher salaries
correspondingly decreased from a minimum of 82 to 72 percent. The FY
2001 appropriation rose to \$1.623 billion.

As part of the reauthorization of the 2001 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the CSR program was folded into Title II.
Although no longer a separate federal program, class-size reduction
remains an allowable use of funds under Title II, Part A. It is one of
many ways that districts can use their Title II, Part A funds to improve
teacher quality and student achievement in their schools. Therefore,
this evaluation provides valuable lessons not just about the federal CSR
program, but also about a major component of Title II, Part A of NCLB.

Purposes of the Evaluation

The evaluation was designed to address multiple research questions,
organized into three main categories: (1) distribution and uses of
federal CSR funds; (2) implementation of CSR; (3) and effects of CSR on
class size. This evaluation was not intended to provide data on the
effects of CSR on classroom practices or student achievement. Under the
uses of funds, we were particularly interested in how districts used
their funds, the numbers of teachers hired, the schools selected to
receive CSR teachers, spending issues such as the extent of carryover
from 1999-2000, and the coordination of federal CSR funds with other
funding sources. Questions about CSR implementation included sources and
qualifications of new teachers, types of recruitment activities
undertaken, nature and quality of professional development provided, and
availability of facilities for reducing class size. To assess the impact
of the federal CSR program on class size, we were interested in the
methods used to reduce class size as well as average class size before
and after the program went into effect.[^1]

Methodology

The evaluation used mixed data collection methods. Surveys of district
staff and school principals provided generalizable information about the
federal CSR program, while site visits to six states, 12 districts (two
in each state), 24 schools (two in each district), and 48 CSR classrooms
(two from each school) provided qualitative information that illuminated
and helped verify the survey findings. The surveys and site visits were
conducted in the spring of 2001, during the federal CSR program's second
year of funding, and most data correspond to the 2000-2001 school year.

Research on Class-Size Reduction

Support for the federal CSR program was based on research that found
that small classes could have a positive influence on student
achievement. For example, research from Tennessee's Project STAR
(Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio) found that students who had been
randomly assigned to small classes (13 to 17 students) in grades K-3
outperformed their peers in regular classes (22 to 25 students) and in
regular-plus-aide classes on standardized and curriculum-based tests
(Achilles *et al*., 1996). Additionally, by eighth grade, those students
who had been placed in small classes through Project STAR were still
outperforming students who had been placed in regular classes or
regular-plus-aide classes in K-3 (Finn, 1998; Nye, 1995).

The Wisconsin Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) study
led to conclusions similar to the STAR study---students in SAGE
classrooms (12 to 15 students) achieved higher scores than students in
comparison classrooms (21 to 25 students) (Molnar *et al*., 1999). In
the SAGE study, teachers reported that they had more knowledge about
students, more instructional time allowing them to cover more content
and individualize instruction, and fewer discipline problems. These
changes in their classrooms increased job satisfaction, reduced the
stress of teaching many students, and allowed teachers to work with
other teachers in more effective ways.

Other researchers, however, have argued that the external validity of
the Tennessee experiment (STAR) has not been established sufficiently to
warrant generalizing the results across different populations and
settings in the United States. These critics claim that further
randomized experiments are needed (Hanushek, 1999) and that class-size
reduction in the context of teacher shortages can reduce teacher quality
and effectiveness and can shrink or eliminate any benefits of having
fewer students in the classroom (Jepsen & Rivkin, 2001). Additionally,
researchers suggest that most teachers do not change their instructional
practices when class size is reduced, and "only teachers whose
instructional methods benefit from smaller classes---e.g., those who
work with small groups, those who depend on personal relationships with
students, those who emphasize hands-on projects---are more productive
with smaller than with larger classes" (Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran &
Willms, 2001).

Findings from California's class-size reduction initiative confirm some
of these critics' concerns. Under a law passed in 1996, the state
provided districts with \$650 per student for each K-3 classroom with 20
or fewer students. An evaluation of this class-size reduction initiative
found that class-size reduction was associated with declines in teacher
qualifications and inequitable distribution of credentialed teachers;
i.e., as districts reduced class size in K-3 classrooms, they hired more
teachers without full credentials, most of whom were hired by schools
serving the most disadvantaged students. Additionally, although parents
said they liked the reduced size classes, and teachers reported giving
students more individualized attention in these classes, teachers did
not report covering more curriculum as a result of small class size, nor
did the evaluation link reduced class size to changes in student
achievement (Bohrnstedt & Stecher, 2002).

Findings from the Federal Evaluation

Distribution and Uses of Funds

-   In the first year, federal CSR funds were distributed to states
    based upon the greater of a state's share of funds under Part A of
    Title I or the Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants
    program formula. In years 2 and 3, state distributions were
    proportional to the year 1 distribution. Within states, all funds
    were distributed to school districts based on the number of children
    in poverty (80 percent) and school enrollment (20 percent).

-   States and districts received their funding allocations under the
    law, and spent it according to the mandated guidelines. In 2000-2001
    for example, teacher salaries made up 84 percent of the funding,
    with 14 percent for professional development and 1 percent each for
    administrative procedures and new teacher training and testing.

-   In 2000-2001, about 25,000 teachers were hired with federal CSR
    funds. Ninety-four percent were regular classroom teachers rather
    than specialist teachers. Three percent were reading specialists and
    2 percent were in other categories. Schools with the largest class
    sizes in their district were typically the recipients of the
    federally funded CSR teachers. Sixty percent of schools hired one
    teacher, 30 percent hired two teachers, and 10 percent hired more
    than two teachers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In keeping with the law's explicit intent, two-thirds of all
    districts coordinated federal CSR funding with other funding
    sources, including funds from Title I of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act and Title II of the Higher Education Act, as
    well as state and local CSR initiatives. When districts received
    state or local CSR funds, those funds were typically five times the
    size of the federal CSR allocation but often came with more strings
    attached, such as restricting funding to teachers in separate
    classrooms.

-   Although only 1 percent of the teachers hired with federal CSR funds
    were special education teachers, 16 percent of districts reported
    coordinating their CSR program with the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The study did not explore how
    these programs were coordinated. In addition, sixty-nine percent of
    the districts offering professional development with CSR funds
    reported including special education teachers in this professional
    development. It is not clear why the professional development was
    not offered to special education teachers in every district.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The single largest funding issue was the large carryover of first
    year funds into a second year of activities, not unexpected given
    the very short timeline to hire teachers and the uncertainty of
    second year funding. More than 60 percent of large districts, and 34
    percent of medium and small districts, carried over funds from
    1999-2000 to 2000-2001. Some made a strategic decision in 1999-2000
    to carry funds over, whereas others either did not have enough time
    to hire teachers or could not find qualified teachers. Some \$150
    million were carried over to the 2000-2001 school year.

Implementation

-   Recruiting and hiring fully certified teachers was a problem in
    almost one-third of large districts, and in 10 percent of smaller
    districts. Many large districts were engaged in large-scale
    recruitment initiatives (often with different funding sources), but
    a lack of credentialed applicants was a major problem (and more of a
    problem than non-competitive salaries or single year funding). In 40
    percent of all districts, over 50 percent of the new hires were
    novice teachers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Although permitted to use up to 15 percent of federal CSR funds in
    1999-2000 for professional development, and up to 25 percent in
    2000-2001, districts spent an average of 13 percent in 1999-2000 and
    14 percent in 2000-2001. Only 39 percent of districts chose to spend
    CSR funds on that activity. According to district personnel, the
    professional development offered typically focused on reading (80
    percent of districts) and/or math (57 percent) rather than on
    instructional strategies to optimize the use of small class size (38
    percent). In lieu of professional development, districts used funds
    to hire teachers to reduce class size.

-   Just as large districts had trouble finding qualified teachers, they
    also were more likely than smaller districts to have shortages of
    space. Almost 60 percent of large districts reported facilities
    problems, typically not enough additional rooms and insufficient
    funds to modify existing facilities. In response, districts promoted
    team teaching or converted non-classroom space (other instructional
    rooms like gymnasiums, or non-instructional rooms like teachers'
    lounges) into classrooms. Overall, 42 percent of the schools that
    hired CSR teachers did not place them in self-contained classrooms.

-   CSR implementation has been affected by other administrative and
    resource-related issues: the lack of state administrative funds
    resulted in minimal state involvement in the program; districts were
    unable to hire teachers due to the late notification of the
    availability of funds; district administrators were wary about the
    uncertainty of the program's future; and allocations for rural
    districts were too small to create a meaningful program.

-   Based upon observations in 48 CSR classrooms in 24 schools, some
    teachers took advantage of smaller classes to tailor instruction and
    maximize one-on-one time with students, giving students more time
    and attention. At the same time, other CSR classes functioned like
    non-CSR classes, with desks in rows and the teacher lecturing from
    the front of the room.

Changes in Class Size

-   In the schools and grades where federally funded CSR teachers were
    placed, average class size decreased with the advent of federal CSR
    funds, typically by one or two students. After the federal CSR
    program, overall average class size ranged from 18 students per
    class in kindergarten, to 20 in grade 1 and 21 students per class in
    grades 2 and 3. There are two reasons for the modest reduction in
    average class size. Many schools (44 percent) did not assign the CSR
    teacher to a separate classroom, but rather assigned the teacher to
    special subjects or team teaching. Even in schools where teachers
    were assigned to their own classrooms, 52 percent had simultaneous
    increases in enrollment that mitigated class size reduction.
    Overall, 73 percent of schools either did not assign teachers to
    separate classes or had enrollment increases that reduced CSR's
    impact.

-   In grade one, the largest decrease in the average class size in a
    single school was nine students per classroom; in grade 2, the
    largest decrease was ten students per classroom, and in grade 3, the
    largest decrease was 12 students per classroom.

-   To reduce class size, 57 percent of schools placed CSR teachers in
    separate classrooms, 24 percent hired teachers to reduce class size
    in particular subjects (e.g., reading or mathematics). One in six
    schools (17 percent) created additional sections in priority
    subjects, and about 10 percent used team teaching.

-   Schools most often used federal CSR funds to reduce class size in
    grades 1-3. Based upon our case studies, grade one was targeted to
    advance early literacy goals, whereas grade 3 was targeted to
    prepare students for state-mandated grade 4 assessments.

References

Achilles, C.M., Nye, B.A., Zaharias, J.B., Fulton, B.D., and Cain, C.
1996. Education's equivalent of medicine's Framingham heart study.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Bohrnstedt, G. W. & Stecher, B.M. (eds.). 2002. *What we have learned
about class size reduction in California*. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education.

Ehrenberg, R.G., Brewer, D.J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J.D. 2001. Class
size and student achievement. *Psychological Science in the Public
Interest* 2: 1-30.

Finn, J. 1998. Class size and students at risk: What is known? What is
next? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on the
Education of At-Risk Students.

Hanushek, E.A. 1999. Some findings from an independent investigation of
the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class
size effects. *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis* *21:*
143-164.

Jepsen, C., & Rivkin, S. 2001. *What is the tradeoff between smaller
classes and teacher quality?* Unpublished manuscript, Public Policy
Institute of California.

Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K.
1999. Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted
pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. *Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis* *21*(2): 165-l78.

Nye, B., Fulton, B.D., Boyd-Zaharias, J., and Cain, V.A. 1995. The
lasting benefits study, eighth grade technical report. Nashville, TN:
Center of Excellence for Research in Basic Skills, Tennessee State
University.

[^1]: Because the school survey is limited to schools that had hired at
    least one teacher with federal CSR funds, average class size was
    computed only in those grades in which teachers were placed. The
    average class size then will be smaller than a nation-wide average
    across all grades and schools.