Financing Class Size Reduction

First Printing, 2005

Produced through

The Regional Educational Laboratory,

The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at 

Greensboro

Written for the SERVE Center at UNCG by

C. M. Achilles 

Content Editing by 

Art Hood

Editorial, Design, and Production Support Provided by 

The SERVE Center at UNCG Publications Unit

Donna B. Nalley, Director of Publications

Karen DeMeester, Senior Program Specialist

Tracy Hamilton, Art Director

The content of this 

publication does not 

necessarily reflect the views 

or policies of the Institute 

of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education, 

nor does mention of trade 

names, commercial products, 

or organizations imply 

endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

This document was produced 

with funding from the 

Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department 

of Education, under contract 

no. ED-01-CO-0015.

SERVE is an education organization with the mission to promote and support 

the continuous improvement of educational opportunities for all learners in 

the Southeast. To further this mission, SERVE engages in research and development that address education issues of critical importance to educators in 

the region and provides technical assistance to SEAs and LEAs that are striving for comprehensive school improvement. This critical research-to-practice 

linkage is supported by an experienced staff strategically located throughout 

the region. This staff is highly skilled in providing needs assessment services, 

conducting applied research in schools, and developing processes, products, 

and programs that inform educators and increase student achievement. 

Associated with the 

School of Education, 

University of North 

Carolina at Greensboro
Contents

Author’s Note ........ 4

Chapter I—Background Information ........ 6

 Chapter II—Examples of Class Size Reduction Funding ........ 13

 Chapter III—Benefits of Class Size Reduction ........ 17

Conclusion ........ 20

 References and Bibliography of Selected Sources ........ 21

Appendix ........ 27
4 Author’s Note

C. M. Achilles, Ed.D., is a professor of education administration (Ed.Ad.) part-time at Seton Hall University (SHU) and 

Eastern Michigan University (EMU). He has taught education 

administration since 1967 at the University of TennesseeKnoxville, the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, and 

part-time at Nova Southeastern University. 1

Class size reduction has been shown to, among other things, improve academic achievement for all students and particularly for low-income and 

minority students. With the No Child Left Behind Act’s heavy emphasis 

on scientifically based research, adequate yearly progress, and disaggregated results, one wonders why all children aren’t enrolled in small 

classes. Unfortunately, concerns about class size reduction’s expense 

and misunderstandings about the research discourage class size reduction implementation. This document addresses these concerns by providing an overview of class size reduction financing that includes:

◆ Definitions of class size reduction terminology with implications 

for class size research;

◆ Guidelines for financing class size reduction implementation;

◆ Case studies of successful class size reduction implementations 

at little or no extra expenditure;

◆ A summary of class size reduction cost-benefit considerations; 

and

◆ A comprehensive bibliography.

The minimum base for informed decisions about class size costs and 

their computations is clarity that starts with careful definition of 

important terms and their consistent use throughout the discussion. 

For example, the terms class size and pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) are not 

the same. Thus, projections of class size costs that are based on PTR 

computations or estimates used as a proxy for class size data are not 

appropriate information about class size costs. Estimates of costs based 

on PTR data provide very high figures and shroud the actual costs of 

small classes that are addressed later.2

 For clarity, terms used in this 

document are defined here:
5

Average Class Size—Derived from school-level data. Average class size 

is calculated by dividing the number of students in a school by the 

number of regular classroom teachers only.

Class Size—“The number of students for whom a teacher is primarily 

responsible during a school year” (Lewit & Baker, 1997, p. 113). Class 

size is an addition problem, solved by counting the number of students 

in a class or on the class roll.

Class Size Reduction—Includes efforts to achieve class sizes smaller 

than at present, such as from 25 to 18 pupils. Accurate pre and post 

data are needed for comparison and analyses of the class size reduction 

processes and outcomes.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR)—“The number of students in a school or 

district compared to the number of teaching professionals” (McRobbie 

et al., 1998, p. 4). In some venues, all educators are part of the computation, including counselors, administrators, etc. Determining PTR is a 

division problem. In a room with 30 students and one teacher, the class 

size is 30, and the PTR is 30:1. If a second teacher is added, the PTR 

becomes 30:2 or 15:1, but the class size is still 30. In computing PTR, 

the divisor is very important. 

Small classes or appropriate-sized classes refer to classes of about 14–18 

in K, 15–18 in grades 1–3 or 1–4.

Discussions of cost issues often generate resistance to small classes. 

But dire predictions of high costs for small classes are often:

◆ Based on economic “models” and estimates rather than costs 

actually encountered in successful class size reduction efforts; 

◆ Built on PTR equations and not actual class size data; and

◆ Estimated for varying grade levels (e.g., grades 9–12) rather 

than for the early primary grades, where most class size 

research has been done.

These theoretic predictions are not based on actual cases of small class 

use in primary grades where the research is most consistent and prevalent. Determining actual small class costs is difficult because calculations must be done on a school-to-school basis, rather than drawing 

data from large databases, a condition that produces PTR and not class 

size information. The finance case studies provided later in this document provide actual data and examples of class size implementations.
6 Chapter I—Background 

Information

Longitudinal research has shown that small classes begun early in the 

students’ education, for example in pre-school and PK or K (early intervention), and continued for at least three and preferably four years 

(sufficient duration), have continuing, demonstrable, increasing positive benefits. This statement derives from two acclaimed education 

experiments. Those experiments are the Perry Pre-School study of 123 

impoverished Michigan youth (Barnett, 1995) and the Tennessee STAR 

experiment with 11,601 students, which demonstrated the value of small 

classes (about n=15 students) over regular classes (about n=24 students 

or 24 students and a full-time teacher assistant) in grades K–3 (Word et 

al., 1990; Finn & Achilles, 1990, 1999; Gerber, et al., 2001). 

Positive results of both experiments [and of the North Carolina Abecedarian early intervention study (Campbell & Ramey, 1995)] continued 

long after the treatment ceased. Researchers following STAR students’ 

progress found lasting and increasing cognitive benefits (test scores) as 

the students moved through the grades (Biddle & Berliner, 2002; Finn & 

Achilles, 1999; Finn et al., 2001; Finn, 2002; Nye et al., 1999). Benefits 

were evident in the rates of students taking college entrance examinations such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the American College Testing Program (ACT), implying that students planned to attend 

college (Krueger & Whitmore, 2000). 

An orderly class size reduction start, beginning with kindergarten and 

adding one grade per year through third or fourth grade, provides planning time for careful class size reduction implementation. Meantime, 

central administration planning for system-wide small classes can be 

based on research and theory “checkpoints” of potential savings from 

small classes. 
7

Table 1. Checkpoints in Assessing True Costs of

Appropriately Sized Classes in Primary Grades.

(Modified from Achilles & Price, 1999, p. 14)

Item Potential for Cost Saving

Grade Retention ◆ Number of students held back decreases

◆ Later drop-out rate decreases, graduation increases

Improved Student 

Behavior in School

◆ Vandalism costs decrease

◆ Required corrective actions, such as Saturday school or 

detention decrease

◆ Classroom disruptions decrease

Remediation and 

Special Projects

◆ Fewer expensive special projects required

◆ Concentrate on fewer students for shorter duration

Early Identification

and Correction of 

Learning Problems

◆ Special education programs reduced in later years

◆ Programs accurately “targeted” to most needy students

◆ More effective use of inclusion

◆ Note possibility of increased costs in K and 1

Teacher Morale ◆ Increased attendance; reduced substitute costs

◆ Reduced “burn out”

◆ Incentive value of small classes

Creative Space Use

(Space is a challenging 

issue)

◆ Transportation-related costs

◆ Flexibility and “found” space

◆ Partnerships with business

◆ Remodel, re-open sites

◆ Portable units as last option

Community, Parent 

Involvement, 

Volunteers

◆ Small classes attract parents and volunteers

◆ Field trips (etc.) are less congested

◆ Teachers get to know parents well

Teacher Assistants ◆ Research suggests reducing the number of assistants and 

assigning those remaining to non-class (support) work

◆ Remove “general” assistants through attrition
8 Findings from STAR longitudinal analyses (e.g., Finn et al., 2001) and 

from other research (e.g., Newmann et al., 2001) have also confirmed 

that intensity is important. Students in small classes benefit from coherent, stable, planned instruction with a competent teacher. Instructional 

time is not interrupted by confusing fragmentation caused by student 

comings and goings for endless “projects” (Achilles & Finn, 2002a, b; 

Achilles et al., 1995). These foundational findings (early intervention, 

duration, and intensity) provide a framework for small classes as a cornerstone for education improvement. 

Sharp (2002) found that in elementary grades in United States schools 

(and in the schools of one Canadian Province) the difference between 

actual class size (counting students in a teacher’s classroom) and PTR 

(the number of students at a site divided by some combination of educators and/or adults serving those students) was approximately 10 students in 1997 and nine students by 2001, after federal class size legislation. The difference between class size and PTR was larger in urban 

districts, confirming Boozer and Rouse’s (1995) finding that minority 

and low-achieving students were more likely than other students to be 

in schools with favorable PTRs but large classes, a condition occasioned 

by many “projects.” 

Achilles and Sharp (1998) and Sharp (2002) demonstrated that knowing and analyzing the differences between actual class size and PTR is 

key to class size reduction success. For example, if an elementary building (grades K–5) has a PTR of 15:1, but the average class size in a regular teacher’s room is 27 students, there may be personnel flexibility to 

achieve class sizes of 14–18 in grades K–1 for the first year of class size 

reduction with minimum—or no—extra costs above available funding 

if the process followed the class size research findings (Sharp, 2002). As 

the benefits of class size reduction become evident, additional options 

for personnel reallocations occur. 

Class size reduction planning may include analyzing costs, estimating 

benefits and savings, identifying funding options (e.g., grants, federal 

sources, local sources, resource reallocation, and corporate giving), and 

finding space solutions. Typically, schools and districts rely on some 

combination of local, state, and federal funds to pay for class size reduction. Categorical program dollars—special education, Title I, programs 

for students with limited-English proficiency, etc.—comprise the bulk of 

funds typically reallocated (Odden and Archibald, 2001). Shelden Etheridge, Director of Federal Programs for Berkeley County (South Carolina) 
9

Schools, notes several possible funding strategies: 

◆ Making use of special state class size funds to reduce class 

sizes to 18:1 in all schools and using Title I funds to further 

reduce classes at Title I schools to 15:1; 

◆ Using Title I Targeted Assistance funds from the school level for 

class size reduction; 

◆ Using Title II and Title V to support class size reduction; 

◆ Allocating Federal Title III funds for class size reduction in 

Limited English Proficiency-specific classes;

◆ Reallocating staff resources to employ teachers rather than 

assistants;

◆ Designating lottery funds for class size reduction; 

◆ Acquiring class size reduction funding from grants; and

◆ Using IDEA funds in a staff inclusion model for self-contained 

class size reduction settings (2003). 

The approximate difference of 10 students between class size and PTR 

in the United States may explain Darling-Hammond’s (1998) international comparisons of staff allocations in schools. Darling-Hammond 

(p. 11) noted that in the U.S. in 1995, about 45% of certified educators 

were actually full-time teachers of classes of students on a day-to-day 

basis. The remaining 55% were project and “special” teachers, media, 

counselors, administrators, and supervisors. This U.S. percentage of 

staff allocations to full-time teaching was the lowest shown in the 

eight comparisons: Belgium with 80% of teachers in full-time roles 

was highest. 

Bracey (1999) noted that “while pupil-teacher ratio has been declining 

so has the proportion of school staff who are teachers: In 1950 over 

70 percent of all staff members were teachers.” The change in the percentage of teachers in classes reflects continuing reliance on projects 

and “pull-outs.” Title I contributes heavily to this despite repeated 

findings of Title I’s general ineffectiveness (e.g., Abt, 1997; Borman & 

D’Agostino, 1996; Wong & Meyer, 1998). 

Because personnel salaries are the highest annual cost in education, 

and given the PTR and class size differences in America’s elementary 

schools (Achilles and Sharp, 1998; Sharp, 2002), proclamations of the 

high costs of small classes, especially in K–3, are greatly exaggerated if

those in charge of small-class implementations would reallocate teachers from some non-classroom duties to full-time, in-class teaching. This 
10 approach requires careful analysis because some “special” teachers are 

required in legislation, such as for special education. 

Findings from STAR and other studies (e.g., Word, et al, 1990; Gerber, et 

al., 2001) also call into question the widespread use of teacher assistants 

beyond those required by legislation (the STAR study found that teacher 

assistants in classrooms had no consistent positive effect on student 

achievement). A RAND study (Grissmer, et al., 2000) concluded, “This 

estimate is nearly five times more expensive than class size reductions, 

so it is doubtful any set of changed assumptions could make assistants 

nearly as effective as class size reductions” (p. 254). Other researchers 

(e.g., Egelson et al., 2002) have reached similar conclusions. Analyses of 

class size reduction outcomes such as in Burke County, North Carolina, 

have shown that redirecting funds saved by phasing out some teacher 

assistants and using the money for class size reduction provide substantial student benefits.

Although costs for added personnel are the usual focus in class size discussions, Witte (1999, p. 9) reported that the California class size reduction study (1999) “found that space problems were listed as the number 

one problem by principals....” Schools sometimes have extra space, but 

usually superintendents and principals must be creative in meeting the 

need for more classroom space. 

Burke County (N.C.) Schools, for example, solved this problem in several 

ways. The district took advantage of a system-wide grade configuration 

change just prior to the implementation of the class size reduction program that made previous sixth-grade classrooms in elementary schools 

available for primary classroom space. Mobile units were also added in 

elementary schools where space was limited. Because parents support 

the reduced class size program, using mobile units for additional classroom space has not been an issue. In some cases, Burke County also 

remodeled and reopened older schools that previously had been closed 

(Egelson et al., 2002). 

When Wisconsin’s Kenosha Public School District implemented a class 

size reduction program, some schools converted their art, music, or multipurpose rooms to regular classrooms (Odden & Archibald, 2001). Other 

space solutions might include multiple-use possibilities or remote inneighborhood sites connected by technology to the school of record and 

“found” space, such as the Downtown School in Winston-Salem, N.C.
11

Applied in accordance with the research, and assuming that a) a favorable pupil-teacher ratio such as 14:1 or so exists in the building, and 

b) space is not a major factor in the implementation, then small classes 

can be achieved with little or no extra expenditures and no annual 

upgrading costs by re-assigning teachers already available. As Brewer 

et al. (1999) and Witte (1999) noted, how small classes are implemented 

will greatly influence class size costs.

Table 2 identifies some cost issues that need analysis before class size 

implementation. 

Table 2. Examples of Cost Ideas About 

Small-Class Implementation and Sources 

for the Information.

COSTS SAMPLE SOURCES

A. Expensive

MACRO-Level Information Brewer et al. (1999), Witte (1999) 

Economic “Models” with 

“Business as Usual”

Hanushek (1998, 1999)

PTR vs. Class Size Picus (2001); Harris and Plank (2001)

Theoretic California CSR Consortium

B. Little or No Added Costs

MICRO-Level Information Achilles and Sharp (1998); Sharp (2002)

Experience in Schools Chandler (2002); Etheridge (2002)

Measured “Trade-Offs” Krueger (1997, 1998, 2000)

Class Size and PTR Differences Krueger and Whitmore (2002)

Little or No Added Costs

(Actual Examples)

Burke Co. and Draper school in N.C. (In 

Egelson et al., 1996, 2002); Achilles & 

Finn (2000, 2002a, 2002b); Achilles & 

Price (1999)

(table continued next page)
12 COSTS SAMPLE SOURCES

C. Implementation Strategies, State Level

Prime Time (Indiana) 1983 Demonstration Project. Did not initially 

include K.

STAR (Tennessee) 1984–1990, 

with follow-up 2004

Statewide longitudinal experiment 

involving 11,601 students.

Texas, 1985–2003, little added 

costs

H.B. 72 (1984). Small classes in grades 

K–3, adding grades 4–5 later. Short and 

long-term outcomes.

SAGE (Wisconsin) 1996–present Followed the STAR outcomes and added 

curricular and other steps.

California, 1996–2003, expensive, 

not planned

CSR began in grades 1–3, with K added 

later—weak positive outcomes initially, 

poor implementation. (Biddle & Berliner, 

2002).

North Carolina, 2001–present, 

statewide

Legislation. Fair implementation.
13

Chapter II—

Examples of Class Size 

Reduction Funding

Are smaller classes expensive? Do they require large numbers 

of new teachers (a major source of cost increases)? The answer: 

“It depends.” 

Single-site studies of class size implementations have shown that small 

classes (15–18 students) in early grades can be achieved at little or no 

extra cost by staffing reallocations and changes in school organization. In every case, student outcomes improved; school and class size 

support grew—as shown by such things as increases in enrollment and 

parent/volunteer involvement. 

One way to consider issues and costs of small classes in early schooling 

is to understand how successful districts and schools implement small 

classes. This section provides real-life examples from several states of 

small classes achieved at minimum or no extra cost.

Funding a district-wide CSR program since 1990

Beginning in 1990, a North Carolina district (n=15,000 pupils) achieved 

class sizes of about 14–16 students incrementally, K–4, by careful 

planning, reductions in remediation projects as small-class outcomes 

allowed, by extending inclusion, and by reallocating funds through 

attrition of teacher assistants. After initial cost outlays for renovation, the small classes operate each year within normal state per-pupil 

expenditures. Achievement in this previously low-achieving district 

ranks among the highest in the state. The K–4 benefits extend into 

upper grades as shown by rising test outcomes and declining dropouts 

as cohorts of students who began school in small classes go through 

high school (Burke County, North Carolina. Test Results, 2002–2004; 

Egelson et al., 2002; Achilles, Harman & Egelson, 1995).
14 Feasibility planning for a district-wide 

CSR program

Within a large national study, Sharp (2002) analyzed one suburban 

Michigan district’s resources to determine if the district could implement small classes in K–3 in all four elementary schools after receiving 

state class size reduction funds to achieve small classes in two highneed schools. Results affirmed that with planning, assessment of current and desired program outcomes, and reallocating resources, classes 

of about 15 students in all K–3 settings were attainable. Reallocations 

took into account the outcomes of small classes as determined by the 

class size research.

The importance of creative leadership

In a case study, Odden and Archibald (2001) demonstrated that small 

classes could be funded by analyses of current resources, potentials 

for added revenues, planning, and reallocation based on actual and 

projected conditions. They found that a “medium-sized school district 

in Wisconsin was able to reallocate resources to reduce class sizes in 

K–5 without spending more money or increasing its tax rate” (Abstract. 

Emphasis added). Key to the district’s success were the leaders who 

had “full knowledge of the district budget and how that budget was 

derived” (p. 9) and who used that knowledge creatively. 

Funding CSR through a combination of local, state, 

and federal funds

Berkeley County, South Carolina, originally obtained first-grade small 

classes (14–16 pupils) in 1998–1999 by combining federal, state and 

local resources. The first year of implementation required a collaboration of funding from Title I, a state class size reduction program, 

and funds from a state compensatory program. In addition to 93 staff 

funded from local resources for a 21:1 class size allocation, 41 teachers 

employed through special state funds reduced class size to a maximum 

of 18 students each in all 147 first-grade classrooms. Federal funds were 

used to employ an additional 13 teachers and further reduce first-grade 

class sizes in all Title I schools to a maximum of 15 students. At the 

conclusion of the 1998–1999 school year, class sizes in all first-grade 

classrooms (147) averaged 14.4 students with only two classes exceeding 

an enrollment of 15 students (Etheridge, 2002).
15

Funding CSR through personnel reallocations

A small district in Michigan achieved class sizes in K–4 of 15 or fewer 

pupils within the regular budget by re-assignment of personnel, job 

consolidations, reduction of teacher assistants via attrition, and 

reducing projects based on small-class benefits. The district funded 

the effort by using 100% of its At-Risk and Title I dollars and eliminating teacher assistants and a transitional first-grade program. 

Achievement, teacher morale, and community support increased 

(Chandler, 2/02. Personal communication). 

A prior SERVE publication featured North Carolina’s Draper Elementary 

School class size reduction program (Egelson, et al., pp. 23–27). In the 

multiple-year effort, “Draper’s principal used considerable ingenuity... 

to reduce class sizes without additional expenses” (p. 23). Personnel 

reallocations adjusted to instructional and educational needs of students and teachers primarily accomplished this class size reduction. 

The principal converted one and a half Title I positions, one Spanish 

teacher position, and portions of the physical education and music 

positions into regular classroom teacher positions. To ensure that the 

students still had physical education and music classes weekly, some 

classes were doubled up for those sessions. Monitoring showed that 

from pre-class size reduction, Draper outcomes improved over the 

years, so “students are able to meet state standards by the time they 

begin middle school” (p. 27). 

Finally, a medium-sized suburban school system (6,000 students) in 

Rochester, New York, began planning in 2002 for small classes (approximately 15 students) in grades K–4. The school board approved the plan 

that was built on reallocation of personnel and other resources, starting 

with grades K–1 in 2003, and adding grades 2, 3, and 4 in succeeding 

years. By February 2005, the district was ahead of schedule in implementing the plan, with very positive community and professional staff 

response and initial indicators of positive student outcomes. The district 

is employing a cohort model, with selected looping options, and the plan 

is being implemented with no added costs (Graham, J. K., 2005). 

Examples in the second and third items above received initial assistance 

from state-level grants (a class size pilot study grant in Michigan and 

the SAGE initiative in Wisconsin) for some schools in the systems. The 

fourth and fifth examples used Title I funds to start. Parent requests 

encouraged administrators to seek ways to extend class sizes of about 
16 16 students, K–3, to all schools rather than just schools that received 

federal or state funds. Although state and federal funds can serve as 

incentives to initiate class size reduction, continuation relies on leadership, reallocations, planning, and flexibility provided by successful 

class size reduction outcomes.
17

Chapter III—Benefits of 

Class Size Reduction

One criterion for change in social programs is that benefits should 

outweigh costs and remain after the “treatment” ends. The Appendix 

includes Crane’s (1998) criteria for assessing benefits of social programs 

with STAR facts presented for each criterion. Because class size reduction results last and increase if the student has at least three—and 

preferably four—years of continuous schooling in the small-class setting (K–3), short- and long-term actual costs of small classes require 

a longitudinal analysis that has not yet been done. Although not a 

cost-benefit analysis, the present material, organized by benefit heading, summarizes some efforts of economists and others who have made 

cost-benefit estimates linked to class size. Each study uses models that 

have assumptions and numerous caveats connected with them. 

Broad economic benefits 

Krueger’s (2002) analysis of STAR’s class size experiment “suggest[s] 

that the internal real rate of return from a seven-student reduction 

[from 22 students to 15 students] in class size in the first four years 

of primary school is about 6%. At a 4% discount rate, every dollar 

invested in small classes yields about $2 in benefits” (p. 34).

After a detailed analysis of schools in the Stockholm area of Sweden 

and drawing on the STAR longitudinal data for comparisons, Krueger 

and Lindahl (2002), stated: 

Lastly we calculated the costs and benefits of a class size 

reduction for the U.S., using the results from STAR, and for 

Sweden, using the results from the Stockholm pupil data. 

We found that decreasing class sizes can, with reasonable 

assumptions, indeed, have benefits that are larger than the 

costs. (pp. 96–97)

Early identification of learning disabilities

A major potential savings is the early identification of learning problems that usually occurs in small classes. In a small class with no teacher 
18 assistant, a teacher is more likely to refer for special education testing 

a difficult-to-teach student. If a problem is identified, early intervention in the small-class setting has the potential to reduce the number 

of students assigned to special classes later, providing cost-savings and 

requiring fewer special education teachers later. Teachers in reduced 

size classes also report having better opportunities to implement special needs students’ individualized learning plans (Achilles, 1999).

Improved high school graduation rates 

Using a sample of nearly 5,000 students from STAR, Finn, Gerber, and 

Boyd-Zaharias (2004, p. 4) calculated graduation rates for students by 

low and high socio-economic status (SES) using free and reduced-price 

lunch as the SES proxy. Graduation rates for lower SES students improved 

from 70.2% (no small classes) to 88.2% if students had small classes in 

grades K–3; graduation rates for higher SES students improved, but less 

dramatically (83.7% to 87%). Higher graduation rates have implications 

for incarceration rates and future earnings.

Increased college entrance test-taking rates 

Using the STAR database, Krueger and Whitmore (2000) noted that 

being in a small class in grades K–3 influenced whether or not a student took a college-entrance examination. There was a slight overall, 

but not significant, difference favoring all small-class students, but 

the positive difference in test-taking rates for African-American students who had been in a small class in K–3 was statistically significant 

(p < .001), reducing the gap between the rates of African-American and 

white students in taking the ACT or SAT college-entrance tests by 54%. 

If taking college-entrance exams equates with the person’s actually 

attending college, then the large gains for minority students can have 

economic benefit from earnings and reduced need for social services. 

Improved student behavior

Student behavior in school influences costs for discipline referrals and 

consequences such as detentions, removal from classes, and suspensions. 

Measures of student behavior provide inferences of cost savings. Success 

Starts Small (Achilles, et al., 1995) showed a 50% reduction in discipline referrals after class size reduction. Small classes in early grades 

influence student short-term and long-term school behavior positively, 
19

increasing both academic and social engagement (Finn, et al., 2003). 

Using STAR students (n = 2,728) who had participation data in grades 

4 and/or 8, Pannozzo, Finn, and Boyd-Zaharias (2004) demonstrated 

that students in small classes had more positive indicators of participation and engagement, such as lower dropout and higher graduation 

rates than did students in larger classes. 

Closing the racial achievement gap

While class size reduction is beneficial to all students, low-income and 

African-American students tend to benefit more than white students 

(Achilles, Finn, Gerber, & Pannozzo, 2000). STAR results showed that 

average test scores for African-American students rose by 7-10 percentile points while they were in small classes, compared to an increase 

of 3–4 percentile points for white students. Gains decreased somewhat 

upon return to regular size classes in fourth grade, but the gap closure 

persisted. Krueger and Whitmore (2001) estimated that “if all students 

were in a small class in grades K–3 for one to four years...the blackwhite test-score gap would fall by 38 percent in grades K–3, and by 15 

percent thereafter” (Executive Summary).

No recurring annual costs 

Once small classes are established, there are minimal extra costs for 

succeeding years, but other interventions, like some comprehensive 

whole school reforms, have extra costs each year (e.g., hardware/software and staff training).

Achilles and Price (1999) listed probable cost savings from appropriate 

implementation of small classes where “appropriate” meant following 

the class size research and phasing in small classes, one grade at a 

time, K–4. Table 1 (page 7), based on successful experiences with small 

classes to date, summarizes probable school and district savings when 

class size reduction is done thoughtfully.

Inferences drawn from positive cognitive outcomes for small class 

interventions and especially for long-term behavioral outcomes such 

as graduation rates, college-entrance test taking, grade retention, and 

dropout all support that for early grades (K–3), small classes provide 

substantial student benefits and economic returns. 
20 Conclusion

Small classes have many positive benefits and powerful research and theory bases for being successful. This monograph should help policymakers 

and practitioners to judge and use class size research to improve schools 

for students and to consider appropriate class sizes in the early years of 

schooling as a cornerstone of sound education policy.

Small classes may be construed as more costly than larger classes if 

small classes mean: a) simply adding teachers and doing business as 

usual, b) no small-class benefits are subtracted from costs, and c) small 

class initiatives do not follow the research, such as starting in the 

earliest grades. But class size reduction can often be accomplished at 

little to no extra cost if the administrators know and correctly use the 

research and are committed and creative in their funding efforts. 
21

References and 

Bibliography of

Selected Sources

ABT Associates. (1997, April). Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Author. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Education on 

Title I outcomes.

Achilles, C. M. (1999). Let’s put kids first finally: Getting class size right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Achilles, C. M. (2002). Class size in the early grades. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta 

Kappa.

Achilles, C. M., & Finn, J. D. (2000). Should class size be a cornerstone for educational policy? In M. C. Wang & J. D. Finn (Eds.). How small classes help 

teachers do their best (pp. 299-324). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University 

Center for Research in Human Development in Education.

Achilles, C. M., & Finn, J. D. (2002a). Constructing “common sense” from class 

size research, theory, and use. Paper Presented at Mid-South Educational 

Research Association (MSERA) Conference, Little Rock, AR, November 11, 

2001.

Achilles, C. M., & Finn, J. D. (2002b). The varieties of small classes and their 

outcomes. In J. D. Finn & M. C. Wang (Eds.). Taking small classes one step 

further. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., & Pannozzo, G. (2000, October). 

Small classes do reduce the test-score achievement gap. Paper presented at 

the Council of Great City Schools Conference, Los Angeles, CA. [ERIC ED 

454601]. 

Achilles, C. M., Harman, P., & Egelson, P. (1995). Using research results on class 

size to improve pupil achievement outcomes. Research in Schools, 2, 23-30.

Achilles, C. M., Kiser-Kling, K., Aust, A., & Owen, J. (1995, April). A study of 

reduced class size in primary grades of a fully Chapter 1 eligible school: Success 

Starts Small (SSS). Paper presented at the American Educational Research 

Association, San Francisco. [ERIC ED 419-288].

Achilles, C. M., & Price, W. J. (1999). Can your district afford smaller classes in 

grades K–3? School Business Affairs, 65(1), 10-16.

Achilles, C. M., & Sharp M. A. (1998). Solve your puzzles using class size and 

pupil teacher ratio (PTR) differences. Catalyst for Change, 5, 5-10.

Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 25-50.
22 Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Small class size and its effects. Educational 

Leadership, 59(5), 12-23.

Boozer, M., & Rouse, C. (1995, May). Intraschool variation in class size: Patterns 

and implications. (ED 385935). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Industrial 

Relations Section Paper #344. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Borman, G. D., & D’Agostino, J. V. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A 

meta-analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy 

Analysis, 18(4), 309-326.

Bracey, G. (1999). Education Disinformation Detection and Reporting Agency 

(EDDRA). www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey

Bracey, G. W., & Stellar, A. (2003). Long-term studies of preschool: Lasting benefits far outweigh costs. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10), 780-783, 797.

Brewer, D., Krop, C., Gill, B. P., & Reichardt, R. (1999). Estimating the cost of 

national class size reductions under different policy alternatives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 179-192.

Burke County North Carolina Public Schools. (2002, 2003, 2004). Results of the 

(annual) testing program. Morganton, NC: Author. Provided on CD.

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for highrisk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of 

early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 743-772.

Crane, J. (Ed.). (1998). Social programs that work. New York: Russell Sage 

Foundation.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses 

from a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5-15.

Egelson, P., Harman, P., & Achilles, C. M. (1996). Does class size make a difference?

Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Egelson, P., Harman, P., Hood, A., & Achilles, C. M. (2002). How class size makes a 

difference. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Etheridge, S. (2002). Class size reduction: Berkeley County outcomes. Paper Presented at Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) Conference, 

Chattanooga, TN, November 6-8, 2002.

Etheridge, S. (2003). Class size reduction: Berkeley County outcomes. Brief presented at SERVE Research and Policy Symposium on Class Size Reduction and 

Beyond, Raleigh, NC, February 25, 2003.

Finn, J. D. (1998, April). Class size and students at risk: What is known? What is 

next? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Finn, J. D. (2002). Small classes in American schools: Research, practice and politics size. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 551-560.

Finn, J., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557-577.
23

Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, 

implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 

21(2), 97-107.

Finn, J., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring 

effects of small classes. Teachers College Record 103(2), 145-183.

Finn, J., Gerber, S. B., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2004, February). Small Classes in the 

Early Grades, Academic Achievement, and Dropping Out. Paper presented at 

the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA, 

April 14, 2004.

Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). The “Whys” of class size: 

Student behavior in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 

321-368.

Finn, J. D., & Wang, M. C. (2002). Taking small classes one step further. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Gerber, S. B., Finn, J. D., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). Teacher 

assistants and students’ academic achievement. Educational Evaluation and 

Policy Analysis, 23(2), 123-143.

Graham, J. K. (January 2005). Appropriate elementary class size. Rush-Henrietta 

Central School District: Rochester, NY.

Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., & Williamson, S., (2000). Improving 

student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND.

Hanushek, E. A. (1998). The evidence on class size. Occasional Paper No. 98-1. 

Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political 

Economy.

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(2), 143-163.

Harris, D., & Plank, D. N. (2000). Making policy choices: Is class size reduction 

the best alternative? In S. W. M. Laine & J. G. Ward (Eds.). Using what we 

know: A review of the research on implementing class size reduction initiatives 

for state and local policy makers. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). 

Krueger, A. B. (1997, June). Experimental estimates of education production 

functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, National Bureau of Economic Research Paper #6051. 

Krueger, A. B. (1998, March). Reassessing the view that American schools are 

broken. FRNBY Economic Policy Review, 29-43.

Krueger, A. B. (1999). An economist’s view of class size research. M.C. Wang & 

J.D. Finn (Eds.), How small classes help teachers do their best. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education and Temple University.

Krueger, A. B. (2000). An economist’s view of class size research. CEIC Review, 

9(2), 19-20. 
24 Krueger, A. B. (2002). Economic considerations and class size. [Working Paper 

8875]. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA. 

Krueger, A. B., & Lindahl, M. (2002, May). The school’s need for resources: A report 

on the importance of small classes. Stockholm: The Expert Group on Public 

Finance.

Krueger, A. B., & Whitmore, D. M. (2000, March). The effect of attending a small 

class in the early grades on college test-taking and middle school test results: 

Evidence from Project STAR. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University, Industrial 

Relations Section.

Krueger, A. B., & Whitmore, D. M. (2001, March). Would smaller classes help close 

the black-white achievement gap? [Working Paper 451]. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section. 

Lewit, E. M., & Baker, L. S. (1997, Winter). Class size. The Future of Children: 

Financing Schools. 7(3), 112-121.

McRobbie, J., Finn, J., & Harman, P. (1998). Class-size reduction: Lessons learned 

from experience. Policy Brief No. 23. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. 

Molnar, A. (1998). Smaller classes, not vouchers, increase student achievement. 

Harrisburg, PA: Keystone Research Center. 

Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional 

program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement 

policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-322.

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (1999). The long-term effects of 

small classes: A five-year follow-up of the Tennessee class size experiment. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 143-163.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2001). Committing to class size reduction and finding 

the resources to implement it: A case study of resource allocation. Education 

Policy Archives, 9(30).

Pannozzo, G. M., Finn, J. D., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2004). Paper presented at 

American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, San Diego, 

CA, April 2004.

Picus, L. (2002). In search of more productive schools: A guide to resource allocation in education. Eugene, OR: ERIC-CEM. 

Sharp, M. A. (2002). An analysis of pupil-teacher ratio and class size. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI.

Slavin, R. E. (2002) Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational 

practice and research. Educational Researcher, 3(7), 15-21.

Wang, M. C., & Finn, J. D. (Eds.). (2000). How small classes help teachers do their 

best. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center for Research in Human 

Development in Education.

Wenglinsky, H. (1997). When money matters. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing 

Service, Policy Information Center.
25

Witte, J. F. (1999). Cost benefit issues and implications of reducing class size in 

public schools. Conference Summary. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional 

Educational Laboratory.

Wong, K. K., & Meyer, S. J. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of 

findings from recent evaluations. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 

20(2), 115-136.

Word, E., Johnston, J., Bain, H., Fulton, D. B., Boyd-Zaharias, J., Achilles, C. 

M., Lintz, M. N., Folger, J., & Breda, C. (1990). Project STAR Final Technical 

Report. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of Education.

Special Issues of Professional Publications

◆ Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (1999, Summer). Issue on class 

size. D. Grissmer, Guest Editor. Washington, D.C.: American Educational 

Research Association. 

◆ Educational Leadership (2002, February). Issue on class size and school size. 

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Books (See References) 

◆ Achilles (1999)

◆ Finn & Wang (2002)

◆ Wang & Finn (2000)

Monographs (See References) 

◆ Achilles, C. M. (2002). Phi Delta Kappa 

◆ Egelson, P. Harman, P. Hood, A. & Achilles, C. M. (2002). SERVE (Also 1996)

◆ Finn, J. D. (1998). OERI. Washington, D.C.

◆ Molnar (1998). Keystone Research Center

◆ Wenglinsky, H. (1997). Educational Testing Service

Websites

◆ PreSchool Longitudinal Study—www.highscope.org

◆ U.S. Department of Education—www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize 

and http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000303pdf 

◆ Project STAR—www.heros-inc.org and www.reduceclasssizenow.org

◆ Wisconsin’s Project SAGE—www.uwm.edu/Dept/CERAI/sage.html

and www.educationanalysis.org

◆ Minnesota—www.mpls.k12.mn.us/Benefits_of_Reduced_Class_Size.html
26 E-mail (Personal Communication)

◆ J. Chandler, 2/02, 7/02

Advocacy Group

◆ Class Size Matters, a clearinghouse for information on class size data.

www.classsizematters.org

Policy Briefs

◆ “Class Size: Counting Students Can Count.” Research Points. American 

Educational Research Association. www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_

and_Publications/Research_Points/RP_Fall03.pdf

◆ “Class Size Reduction: Lessons Learned from Experience.” WestEd Policy Brief. 

www.wested.org/policy/pubs/full_text/pb_ft_csr23.htm

Notes

1. C. M. Achilles was one of four principal investigators (PIs) of the Student 

Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) experiment in Tennessee and PI of other 

class size studies. He has consulted on class size matters since 1983. He was 

a PI of several staff development studies, Project SHAL (An Effective Schools 

initiative in St. Louis), a researcher on the Phi Delta Kappa Commission on 

Confidence in Public Schools, etc. He is author or co-author of numerous 

books, chapters, monographs, articles, research reports and ERIC entries. 

Some material here has been adapted, paraphrased, or used verbatim from 

earlier papers, such as Achilles and Finn (2000, 2002a; 2002b).

2. These points have been made in other papers and articles. Material here is 

modified only slightly from Achilles & Finn (2002). The role of school and 

district leadership in reform: A case of validity as mistaken identity. Paper 

at AERA, New Orleans, LA 4/2/02. pp. 4–7.
27

Appendix

Critique of STAR Results Using Crane’s (1998) Criteria. STAR is a Class Size 

Reduction (CSR) Experiment, Not a Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) Effort.*

Crane Criteria and 

Questions STAR’s Facts

1. Do the benefits outweigh the 

costs? Yes

In the short term (K–3), there were no definitive data. In the 

“follow-up studies,” yes; in the STAR reanalysis, yes; in alternative 

implementations, yes. See (Krueger, 1999; Finn & Achilles, 1999; 

Finn et al., 2001).

2. Does the program have a 

statistically significant effect 

on the treatment group? Yes

Yes. This statistically significant difference was found each year, all 

years, and in many combinations of analyses done by STAR persons 

and by others (as far away as London).

3. What is the magnitude of the 

program’s effect? Shown in 

effect size or ES

Effect-size (ES) results were .17–.40 in the early analyses. Effects 

were about twice as high for minority children as for Anglo children, 

grades K–3 (each year, all years). Grade-equivalent analyses show 

continuing growth even after students leave small classes (see #4). 

(Finn & Achilles, 1999; Finn et al., 2001).

4. How long do the effects of 

the program last? At least 

into high school and beyond

Positive academic and social effects of K–3 small classes are 

highly visible in H.S. and beyond including in college-entrance 

tests. (Boyd-Zaharias & Pate-Bain, 2000; Krueger, 1999; Krueger & 

Whitmore, 2000).

5. What is the relationship 

of the evaluator to the 

program? Independent

The STAR evaluator was a contracted independent expert. STAR 

personnel did secondary analyses. The external expert’s work is (and 

was) the primary analysis accepted and published. Others have reanalyzed STAR data with similar results.

6. Can the program and its 

results be replicated? Yes

7. Can the program maintain 

its effectiveness on a larger 

scale? Still being assessed—

but yes, if well implemented

They have been consistently replicated in well-designed class 

size analyses. Replications of STAR have been achieved in single 

districts, and in general policy implementations. Reported gains and 

ES for well-conducted studies are similar. Evaluations of statewide 

small-class efforts in CA and the results in Texas (HB 72, 1984) 

suggest large-scale benefits, but these results are less definitive 

than STAR or SAGE in Wisconsin, probably because of less controlled 

implementations.

* Social Programs That Work (1998) edited by J. Crane. Russell Sage Foundation. 324 pages.
The SERVE Center at UNCG

P.O. Box 5367

Greensboro, NC 27435