Small Classes Early On Give Lasting Gains

WASHINGTON —  Students who attended small classes in their first few years of school performed significantly better through high school than students who began in larger classes, according to fresh data released Thursday from a landmark study of public school students in Tennessee.

Even though they returned to larger classrooms after third grade, high school students who attended smaller classes beginning as early as kindergarten were less likely to drop out, more likely to graduate from high school on time, more likely to take advanced-level courses and more likely to earn superior grades and go to college than students who began their education in larger classes, researchers said.

Gains were especially great for minority students. Princeton economist Alan B. Krueger found that, in particular, the difference between the percentage of black and white students taking college entrance exams was cut in half for blacks who started out in smaller classes. Those who take the exams are considered more likely to enroll in college.

Study May Bode Well for California

The new report, part of a long-term study that helped spark the current nationwide movement toward smaller classes, may bode well for California’s ongoing program, the nation’s largest, to cut class sizes. After a $4-billion-plus investment over the last three years, more than 80% of all California students in kindergarten through third grade now attend classes of 20 or fewer pupils.

Early analysis of test scores in California suggests students in smaller classes may be starting to make gains that parallel the Tennessee findings. But experts cautioned that the size and complexity of conditions in California schools make the challenge far greater and the results less certain than for a smaller, less diverse state.

“One can’t help but be encouraged by the lasting impact of the experiment,” said Brian Stecher of the Rand Corp., who is conducting a large-scale study of California’s experience in reducing class sizes. “But I am cautious about whether it will generalize to California.”

Stecher, along with Eric Hanushak, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Rochester in New York, also suggested that other kinds of reform might be equally effective and less disruptive.

“From all evidence I’ve seen, the effects of teacher quality are just much, much larger than any effects you ever see from differences in class size,” said Hanushak, who in the past has questioned the policy implications of the Tennessee study. “Couldn’t we do even better if we had put the money for smaller class sizes into making sure there were a higher quality teaching force available?”

Researchers in Tennessee’s STAR, or Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio, experiment, have faced such questions before. They acknowledge that cutting class size is expensive, but they argue that it can produce benefits without additional staff training, new curricula or other complex changes.

Charles M. Achilles, an education professor at Eastern Michigan University and a lead STAR researcher, said Thursday that, while quality teaching is unquestionably important, it is not easy to achieve throughout a school system, whereas cutting class size is a clear-cut reform with proven results.

Students who begin their school careers in small classes “establish a trajectory of success,” he said.

Earlier findings from the STAR study played a role in California’s decision to embark on class size reduction and helped shape President Clinton’s push for federal funds to help local schools cut class sizes by hiring an additional 100,000 teachers across the country.

What has given the STAR findings unusual credibility is that they rest on something close to a scientific experiment.

Over a four-year period beginning in 1985, more than 6,000 students a year were randomly assigned to classes in grades K through 3. Some were sent to classrooms with no more than 15 students. Others were assigned to classes of up to 27 students. Teachers for these small and regular-sized classes were also chosen at random. Participating schools reflected a cross-section of urban, suburban, rural, poor, middle-class and other student populations.

Then, after third grade, students who had been in small classes went back to larger classes. Using standardized test scores and other data, researchers have been tracking their progress ever since.

New analysis of data shows that, by the end of the eighth grade, students who had smaller classes from kindergarten through third grade were more than a year ahead of those who began in regular-sized classes when tested in reading, math and science.

The gains persisted through high school, researchers said.

California Data Show Gains

In California, an analysis of last year’s standardized test scores suggested that smaller class sizes already are showing a modest payoff. A higher percentage of students in classes of only 20 students scored above the national average than did those in classes with more than 20 students.

But the California data also showed that students who spoke English may have benefited more from smaller classes than youngsters with limited English skills. And California, unlike Tennessee, has large numbers of students who do not speak English.

The debate over whether smaller class sizes or the quality of teachers play a greater role in learning has raged with particular intensity in California.

California launched its experiment with smaller class sizes three years ago. But the policy fueled a demand for teachers that the market could not supply.

About 30,000 teachers in the state are now working with so-called emergency permits, meaning that they have yet to complete the state’s required teacher preparation courses.