Published by

Associated with the School of Education

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

First Printing, 2003

Written by

Art Hood, Program Specialist, SERVE

Edited by

Paula Egelson, Director of Reading and School Improvement, SERVE

Donna Nalley, Publications Director, SERVE

Karen DeMeester, Senior Program Specialist, SERVE

Designed by

Tracy Hamilton, Senior Graphic Designer/Art Director, SERVE

Acknowledgments

SERVE would like to thank the following Burke County 

(North Carolina) Schools educators for their assistance 

with this document:

David Burleson, Superintendent

Phyllis Daugherty, Grades K–2 Instructional Facilitator

Michelle Holder, Teacher, Salem Elementary

Becky Roach, Grades 3–5 Instructional Facilitator/ 

Volunteer Services Coordinator

Lisa Scott, Teacher, Forest Hill Elementary

Shannon Sullivan, Teacher, Valdese Elementary

Susan Wilson, Director of Elementary Education

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.
3

A Parent’s Guide 

to Class Size 

Reduction

Introduction

Reducing the number of students in a class, especially 

in the early grades, is one approach educators have taken to 

improve student achievement. Class size reduction programs 

have been implemented at the state, district, and individual 

school levels. This publication defines class size reduction, provides an overview of class size reduction research, lets parents 

know what to expect from a class size reduction program, and 

answers frequently asked questions. It offers information for a 

variety of audiences—parents primarily, but also policymakers 

and state-, district-, and school-level educators.

What Is Class Size Reduction?

Class size reduction programs lower the number of students in a 

classroom—typically, in the range of 15 to 18 students—and are 

generally implemented in the primary grades (K–3). The central 

goal of class size reduction is to improve academic achievement 

for all students. However, educators can choose this approach for 

other reasons as well. While class size reduction is beneficial to 

all types of students, low-income and minority students particularly benefit. Research has shown that, in terms of standardized 

test scores, students benefit most when:

 They are in small classes early in their schooling 

experience.

 They remain in the small class setting for several years. 

In addition to increased academic achievement, class size reduction also produces changes in the ways teachers interact with 
4

students and parents. Smaller classes allow teachers to increase 

individual instruction and small-group work, and students can 

potentially move through the curriculum at a quicker pace. Communication between teachers and parents also tends to increase 

when smaller classes are implemented.

Over the past 20 years, educators in more than 25 states—most 

notably Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California—have initiated 

class size reduction programs. In the SERVE region, Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have enacted 

some form of class size reduction legislation, and Mississippi educators have used federal funds to reduce class sizes. For several 

years, SERVE has studied the class size reduction programs of two 

North Carolina sites: Burke County Schools and Draper Elementary 

(Rockingham County Schools). 

What Does the Research Say?

Interest in class size reduction programs increased after 

the Tennessee class size experiment in the 1980s called 

Project STAR. From 1985–1989, STAR involved more than 

11,000 students in kindergarten through third grade in 

79 elementary schools. Enrolling students at participating schools were randomly assigned to one of three types 

of classes: 

1. A small class (13–17 students) with one teacher 

2. A regular class (22–25 students) with one teacher 

3. A regular class with a teacher and a full-time teacher 

assistant

Teachers were also randomly assigned to the different 

types of classes, and students stayed in the same type of 

class through the third grade, if they remained in their 

original school.

Students were tested in the spring of each school year, and 

other information was also collected, including how the teachers 

taught, how students behaved and participated in class, and the 

number of students retained in grade. Researchers continued to 

study the STAR students after they returned to regular classes in 

the fourth grade and as they moved through high school.

Class Size Reduction

in Mississippi

“We have had practically 

no discipline problems. 

The children are more of a 

team, and they expect the 

best from each other. This 

saves a great amount of 

our instructional time for 

actual instruction.”

— South Tippah School 

District, Mississippi, 

teacher Suzanne Wooley, in 

Rucker & Tankson (2000)
5

Tennessee’s Project STAR Findings: 

 At each grade level (K–3), in all types of 

schools, on every kind of standardized test, 

and for all subjects, the small-class students 

performed better than their peers in regular and 

regular/assistant classes (Boyd-Zaharias & PateBain, 2000a). 

 Smaller classes had the lowest percentage of students 

retained in grade among the three groups (K–3) (Word 

et al., 1990).

 In kindergarten through third grade, the greatest 

advantages were found for minority, inner-city students 

from low socio-economic backgrounds, revealing 

that smaller classes help reduce the white-minority 

achievement gap (Word et al., 1990). 

 Benefits were sustained in grades 4–8 (Finn, Gerber, 

Achilles, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2001).

 STAR students who attended small classes in the early 

grades generally performed better academically than 

their regular-class peers in mathematics, reading, and 

science in grades 4, 6, and 8 (Finn, Gerber, Achilles, & 

Boyd-Zaharias, 2001). 

 Students from the smaller classes were better behaved 

and were rated as using more effort on classwork and 

taking more initiative in learning activities than were 

students from the larger classes (Finn, 1998).

 Benefits were sustained to high school (Boyd-Zaharias 

& Pate-Bain, 2000b).

Not everyone agrees about the conclusions to be drawn from 

the research on class size reduction. Some researchers have concluded that there is no strong link between class size and student achievement (Hanushek, 1999). Some have noted that class 

size reduction, if carried out on a large scale, can worsen teacher 

shortages (Laine & Ward, 2000). Others have suggested that class 

size reduction is too expensive and there may be more cost-efficient ways to improve student achievement (Johnson, 2002). 

Much of this research, in turn, has been criticized for faulty 

methodology and for confusing pupil-teacher ratio with average 

class size (Biddle & Berliner, 2002). 
6

1 For more information 

on class size reduction 

research, see How Class 

Size Makes a Difference at 

www.serve.org/classsize/

HCSMAD or order a free copy 

by calling 800-352-6001.

 Students assigned to the small classes in early grades:

 Graduated on schedule at a higher rate than did 

students from either the regular classes or the 

regular classes with an assistant. 

 Completed school with an honors diploma more often 

than students from either the regular classes or the 

regular classes with an assistant. 

 Dropped out of school less often compared to regular 

classes and regular classes with an assistant (BoydZaharias & Pate-Bain, 2000b).

 Assignment to the smaller classes was also related to an 

increase in the likelihood that African-American students 

would take the ACT or SAT college entrance exams 

(Krueger & Whitmore, 2001).

Class size reduction in other states has confirmed the STAR findings 

and also found the following small class size benefits:

 Benefits to students: Parents report that students like 

school more. Student self-confidence and relationships 

with peers improve in small classes, and student 

participation and cooperation tend to increase. Students 

also show a higher level of academic focus in the smaller 

classrooms (Harman & Egelson, 2000; Achilles, KiserKling, Owen, & Aust, 1994; Cavenaugh, 1994; Molnar, 

Smith, Zahorik, Halbach, Ehrle, Hoffman, & Cross, 2001; 

Burke County Public Schools, 1994).

 Benefits to teacher-student relationships: Teachers 

are able to give more individual attention to students. 

Teachers are also able to rely less on testing and make 

more use of portfolio assessments and classroom projects 

(Harman & Egelson, 2000; Achilles et al., 1994; Egelson 

& Harman, 2000; Zahorik, Molnar, Ehrle, & Halbach, 

2002; Stecher & Bohrnstedt, 2000).

 Benefits to teacher-parent communication:

Teacher-parent communication and interactions increase 

and improve, and parents report a more family-like 

atmosphere at the school (Harman & Egelson, 2000; 

Achilles et al., 1994; Egelson & Harman, 2000).

 Other potential benefits: Class size reduction programs 

may help schools recruit and keep teachers. Also, 

class size reduction programs may serve as a draw for 

attracting businesses to the school district1 (Burke 

County Public Schools, 2000; Personal communication 

with Burke County (NC) Schools Superintendent David 

Burleson, March 18, 2002).
7

What’s the Difference Between

Class Size and Pupil-Teacher Ratio?

The terms pupil-teacher ratio and average class size are often 

used interchangeably, but incorrectly. A pupil-teacher ratio is 

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

number of certified personnel at that school. Certified personnel

includes not only regular classroom teachers but also administrators, music, art, physical education, and special education 

teachers, as well as other professionals who are usually not in 

classrooms. Average class size is calculated by dividing 

the number of students in a school by the number of regular classroom teachers only. For example, a study of the 

Boston Public Schools (Miles, 1995) found that the pupilteacher ratio for the district was 13:1, but the average 

class size was 23, and, thus, a more accurate representation of the typical classroom setting. So, while reducing 

the pupil-teacher ratio seldom positively impacts student 

achievement, reducing class size does and is the focus of 

this publication.

What Can Parents Expect

from Their School’s Class Size 

Reduction Program?

While class size reduction can produce positive results, 

implementation can be challenging, as it may require 

more teachers or a change of teacher responsibilities, 

more classroom space, and additional materials. Schools 

and districts implementing class size reduction typically 

rely on some combination of local, state, and federal 

funds to pay for the program, but funding sources can 

change with administrations. For instance, a federal program that provided money for hiring additional teachers 

in support of class size reduction was ended in 2002. 

Schools and districts, therefore, must rely on their own 

sustainable resources for funding. Common strategies 

include eliminating teacher assistant positions, changing teachers’ instructional responsibilities, reducing or eliminating electives, and using mobile units for classrooms. Taxes are typically 

not increased to fund class size reduction. 

Reduced Class Size

in Wisconsin

“Teachers are better able to 

get to know their students 

and families. Our population is mobile, and having 

SAGE-size classes is a great 

benefit to having time to 

meet with and contact 

parents, especially for less 

stable [or] mobile families. 

Conferences/contacts are 

more frequent, which helps 

parents feel more comfortable with school and have 

a solid understanding of 

their child’s learning.”

— Wisconsin principal of 

reduced class size school, 

in Molnar et al. (2001) 
8

Frequently Asked Questions About

Class Size Reduction

How big will the classes be?

Maximum class size in most class size reduction programs falls 

between 13 and 20 students, and the typical range is between 15 

and 18 students. 

What grades will be affected?

Occasionally class size reduction programs are implemented in 

middle or high school, but they are typically targeted at the 

early grades: kindergarten through third grade. This is because 

results achieved in the primary grades can last into high school 

and beyond.

Will there be enough qualified teachers if the 

school implements class size reduction?

It depends on the program. In 1996, California began a statewide 

class size reduction program that reduced class size in kindergarten through third grade from an average of 33 students per class 

to an average of 20. California implemented the program very 

quickly and soon required large numbers of additional teachers. 

By 1999, California districts had hired 29,000 additional teachers. 

As there were not enough certified teachers to meet this increase 

in demand, the percentage of fully certified teachers in 

kindergarten through third grade dropped from 98% in 

1995 to 87% in 1999. However, due to the size and rapid 

implementation of the program, California’s example is 

unique. Other states have implemented class size reduction in selected districts and schools rather than statewide 

and have not experienced these difficulties in meeting 

their teacher needs, and, conversely, many view their class 

size reduction programs as useful teacher recruitment and 

retention tools.

What happens to the teacher assistants?

One of the things the STAR study found was that teacher assistants in classrooms had no consistent positive effect on student 
9

achievement. That is, there were no differences in average test 

scores between students in regular-sized classes with teacher 

assistants and those without. During implementation of class 

size reduction, teacher assistant positions are often eliminated 

to free up funding for additional teacher salaries. When Burke 

County (North Carolina) Schools implemented class size 

reduction, district officials decided not to use teacher 

assistants in the smaller classes. Assistants were trained 

to work in a one-on-one tutoring program or were moved 

to work in the upper grades of their assigned schools. 

Some assistants who left or retired were not replaced; no 

one lost his or her job as a result of the new initiative. At 

the time, the loss of teacher assistants in first through 

third grade was questioned because community support 

for the assistants was strong. Annual surveys conducted 

by the superintendent since the late 1990s, though, 

show that a majority of the parents want smaller classes 

as the top funding priority. 

At Draper Elementary School (Rockingham County, North 

Carolina), the principal converted the five teaching assistant positions for first through fourth grades, along with 

several specialty teacher positions, into regular classroom 

teacher positions. The displaced assistants were reassigned elsewhere in the district. Again, there was initial 

concern among the community and teachers about the 

loss of assistants, but this faded as they saw the benefits 

of class size reduction.

How will instruction be different in

smaller classrooms?

While some teachers continue to teach the same way they 

always have, teachers in small classes often report changing 

their teaching from whole-class instruction to a more varied 

approach, with an emphasis on individual students and smallgroup instruction, hands-on activities, and project-based 

learning. Teachers spend less time on discipline and cover the 

content at a faster pace. They also report they are better able 

to identify and meet students’ needs and provide quick feedback and individual attention. Teachers report greater enthusiasm for teaching in small classes than in regular size classes. 

Small Class Size in 

North Carolina

“Class size reduction is a 

critical component in our 

elementary program. Having 15 students to each 

teacher allows each child 

to have daily one-on-one 

assistance as well as groupcentered activities. This 

kind of environment is very 

important in the child’s 

early formative years.”

— in Burke County Public 

Schools’ Annual Report of 

Progress (2000) 
10

Students in small classes have fewer discipline problems and 

higher levels of academic focus and participation. Teachers attribute the changes to fewer students and more time to get to know 

their students and evaluate and respond to their needs. If parents feel their children are not experiencing more individualized 

instruction in a small class, they should talk with the teacher.

How will teacher-parent communication change?

Teacher-parent communication usually increases and improves 

after schools start a class size reduction program. Teachers know 

the students and parents better, and parents feel comfortable 

sharing information about their child with the teacher. 

Teachers in small classes tend to communicate more often 

with parents, using notes, phone calls, conferences, and 

regular student progress reports. Parents of students in 

small classes tend to volunteer more in the classroom and 

participate more in parent-student events. 

Where do schools find the extra 

classroom space?

Sometimes schools have extra space due to fewer students, but usually superintendents and principals must 

be creative in meeting the needs for more classroom 

space. North Carolina’s Burke County Schools met this 

requirement in several ways. It took advantage of a system-wide grade configuration change; just prior to the 

class size reduction program, the system went from a 

kindergarten–6th elementary, 7th–9th junior high, and 

10th–12th high school configuration to a kindergarten–5th, 

6th–8th, and 9th–12th scheme. This change 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 supported 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 had previously been closed. 

When Wisconsin’s Kenosha Public School District implemented a class size reduction program, some schools 

Class Size Reduction

in Tennessee

“The small class size was 

very helpful to me this year 

because I had educationally challenged students 

who needed a little more 

time and attention. The 

class size enabled me to do 

group work with those students while others worked. 

Also, I could identify the 

needs of each student, 

and assessment was made 

quickly. In a full size class 

of 25 students, I could not 

identify student learning 

problems as quickly.”

— Tennessee teacher on 

reduced class size, in 

Achilles (1999)
11

converted their art, music, or multipurpose rooms to regular 

classrooms (Odden & Archibald, 2001). 

What will happen to art, music, physical 

education, foreign language, and special 

education?

To create the additional teacher positions necessary for class 

size reduction, schools and district personnel sometimes 

convert specialty education teacher positions into regular 

classroom teacher positions. For instance, the principal at 

Draper Elementary School converted one and a half Title 1 

positions (positions for assisting low-performing students), 

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. 

In California, almost two-thirds of the districts have shifted funds 

from other programs to help fund class size reduction. Music/arts 

programs are among those most often affected. 

What about special needs students?

The sooner a student with special education needs is identified, 

the better. Early identification may allow the student to receive 

early help and avoid lengthy and expensive special education 

treatment later on. STAR found that placement in small classes 

increased the probability that a student would be identified 

early as needing special education help, but that placement in 

a regular size class or a regular class with an assistant reduced 

the probability that a student’s special education needs would 

be identified. Teachers in reduced size classes also report having 

better opportunities to implement special needs students’ individualized learning plans (Achilles, 1999).

Will my child have difficulty transitioning to a 

large class in the higher grades?

One common concern is that students may not adjust well when 

they return to larger classes. Research, however, shows that most 

students have no trouble adjusting. In fact, the STAR study found 
12

that in fourth grade, students from the smaller classes were better 

behaved, put more effort into class work, and took more initiative in learning activities than students from the larger classes 

(Finn, 1998). Additionally, the academic gains achieved in the 

smaller classes in the early grades remained with the students. 

Middle school students who attended STAR small classes scored at 

levels indicating that they were from four to eight months ahead 

of their peers who had not been in small classes in early elementary grades.

Is class size reduction here to stay?

This will depend on a number of conditions, including financial, 

parental, and community support, and the commitment of district and school administrators and teachers. For example, Burke 

County Schools began its class size reduction program in 1991, 

and today, all first-, second-, and third-grade classrooms in each 

of its 17 elementary schools have class sizes of 15 or fewer students. Through three superintendents and several school board 

turnovers, the class size reduction program has survived and 

grown. The parents, community, administrators, and educators 

have all seen the benefits of small classes and want the program 

to continue. With this support, the superintendents have found 

ways to pay for the program. Small class size has become permanent, to the extent that as new elementary schools are built, 

first- through third-grade classrooms are built for class sizes of 15 

students, rather than the customary 25. 
13

What Can Parents Do?

Class size reduction continues to be a key strategy considered 

when trying to improve student achievement. Without additional funding, though, class size reduction programs may 

require some tradeoffs. Research has demonstrated the benefits of class size reduction, and many legislators, educators, 

and parents believe the benefits far outweigh the challenges. 

Parental support, though, is critical to the success of class size 

reduction programs. Parents can be instrumental in pushing 

for the creation of a program. Especially in the early stages 

of class size reduction programs, schools and districts need 

parental support until the results begin to speak for themselves. With established programs, parental support is needed 

to ensure that class size reduction remains a funding priority. 

Parents can support smaller classes by being involved at the 

school and knowing firsthand about classroom conditions; by 

being knowledgeable about class size reduction research; by 

writing letters of support to the principal, superintendent, and 

school board; by attending and speaking at board meetings; or 

by other means relevant to the local situation. Smaller classes 

can be worth the effort. 

These websites have more information on

class size reduction:

 Health and Education Research Operative Services (HEROS), Inc. 

www.heros-inc.org/classsizeresearch.htm

 Reduce Class Size Now

www.reduceclasssizenow.org

 What We Have Learned About Class Size Reduction

in California

www.classize.org/techreport/index-02.htm

 Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?

www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/title.html

 2000–2001 Evaluation Results of the Student Achievement 

Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program

www.uwm.edu/Dept/CERAI/documents/sage/cerai-02-01.htm

 National Education Association Class Size Reduction Page

www.nea.org/classsize

 American Federation of Teachers Class Size Reduction Page

www.aft.org/issues/class_size.html
14

References

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

Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Pannozzo, G., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. 

(2001, November). The power of small classes to reduce the test-score 

achievement gap. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association, Little Rock, AR.

Achilles, C. M., Kiser-Kling, K., Owen, J., & Aust, A. (1994). Success starts 

small: Life in a small class. Final report. Greensboro, NC: University of 

North Carolina at Greensboro. (ERIC EA 029049).

Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Small class size and its 

effects. Educational Leadership, 59(5), 12–23.

Boyd-Zaharias, J., & Pate-Bain, H. (2000a). Early and new findings from Tennessee’s Project STAR. The CEIC Review, 9(2), 4.

Boyd-Zaharias, J. & Pate-Bain, H. (2000b). The continuing 

impact of elementary small classes. Paper presented at 

the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research 

Association, New Orleans, LA.

Burke County Public Schools. (1994). Reduced class size program: Project 

evaluation, grades 1−3, 1993−1994.

Burke County Public Schools. (2000). Annual Report of Progress, 1999–2000.

Cavenaugh, R. (1994, March). Class size and best practice. Education Alternatives, 3(1), 3.

Egelson, P., & Harman, P. (2000). Ten years of small class size in Burke 

County, North Carolina. In M. Wang, & J. Finn (Eds.), How small 

classes help teachers do their best (pp. 279−297). Philadelphia, PA: 

Laboratory for Student Success at Temple University Center for 

Research in Human Development and Education and the U.S. Department of Education.

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

is next? Washington, DC: National Institute on the Education of AtRisk Students, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. 

Department of Education.

Finn, J. D. (2002, March). Small class size in American schools: Research, 

practice, and politics. Phi Delta Kappan, 551–560.

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

The enduring effects of small classes. Teacher College Record 103(2), 

145–183.

Hanushek, E. A. (1999, Summer). 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.
15

Harman, P., & Egelson. P. (2000). Three years of a small class-size initiative: A quantitative case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North Carolina Association for Research in Education.

Johnson, K. (2002, February). The downside to small class policies. 

Educational Leadership, 59(5), 27–29.

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

classes help close the black-white achievement gap? Working 

Paper #451, Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section. 

www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/working_papers.html 

Laine, S. M. H., & Ward, J. G. (Eds.). (2000). Using what we know: A 

review of the research on implementing class-size reduction initiatives 

for state and local policymakers. NCREL Educational Policy Publication. www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/weknow/index.html

Miles, K. H. (1995). Freeing resources for improving schools: A case study 

of teacher allocation in Boston Public Schools. Educational Evaluation 

and Policy Analysis, 17(4), 476–493.

Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K., Hoffman, 

L., & Cross, B. (2001). 2000–2001 evaluation results of the Student 

Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program. Milwaukee, WI: 

Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation, School of 

Education, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. www.asu.edu/educ/

epsl/Archives/SAGE%20Archives/2000-2001%20Evaluation/epru0201-104.pdf.

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

finding the resources to implement it: A case study of resource 

reallocation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(30).

Rucker, S., & Tankson, K. (2000). Reducing class size. 

Presented at the Kids First: Sharing Solutions Conference, May 

18–19, 2000, in Washington, D.C.

Stecher, B., & Bohrnstedt, G. (2000). Class size reduction in California: 

1998−99 evaluation findings. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes 

for Research.

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

Lintz, M. N., Achilles, C. M., Folger, J., & Breda, C. (1990). 

Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR): Tennessee’s K–3 class 

size study. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of Education.

Zahorik, J, Molnar, A., Ehrle, K., & Halbach, A. (2002). Teaching reducedsize classes: Lessons for teachers. In J. Finn, & M. Wang (Eds.), Taking small classes one step further (pp. 3−18). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Reducing the number of students in a class, especially in the early grades, is one approach educators 

have taken to improve student achievement. Class 

size reduction programs have been implemented at 

the state, district, and individual school levels. This 

publication defines class size reduction, provides an 

overview of class size reduction research, lets parents know what to expect from a class size reduction program, and answers frequently asked questions. It offers information for a variety of audiences—parents primarily, but also policymakers 

and state-, district-, and school-level educators.