-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/223efa36880bcf3e0850d4ed113007b5.pdf
1a85404837ad42f829d5086721c02fdf
PDF Text
Text
.NPV.24.1997
"
·(t
-,
DEPT
OF ED/DEP SECY
NO. 906
�'.
.
DEPT OF 'ED/DEP SECY
NpV.24.1997
NO. 906
, -' J .~ ....
•
Th~ca~lrDrnla EdUc~tlan Polley Blndnll'
provides a neullal forum Cor swe-leveJ education poUcy..malteb 3114 educators to gafu In-depth lmowledge ahbut emcrstng policy isSues. The
,
'
.1
.
seminars haVe contributed 10 the4evelopn1f;lt1t, m0di6Ol1ion and enhancement of educat10n reform iniGlives 10 California.
The Califoinia Education Polley Setnl.nar is funded by the W~
and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Walret S. Johrison foundation, the Pioftjler
Fund. th'e WaIter and ElIse Haas Pund, Ihe WaoCEr Foundation and the SlUm Foundations.
,
,
.
' .
!
i .
Th'a California State University 1n1t11Uta fBI' EdUCldlan RefOrm
.,
.
'
I
is a UnJvefslty- baSed policy cenler focusing on elem~tary andi~ondary school issUes. Lociued on the California Slate UnlVersity, Sacramento
. campus, the Institute is supported by the Califom1a Slate univebity ~ancynor:5 office.
AddJlloliillCOPllB A. Ibis ripiipt may bJ obtalli8d
.
"
tit CcJ.tacaria:
The CSU IrislilUte for EdUCatIon Reform
csU, sacramento
60001 Street
Sacran:iento, CA 95819-6018
Telephone:
(916) 27S-46OO
FAX:
' (916) 278-5014 '
•
"
�.
NOV.24.1997'
2:41PM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
,
"
NO. 906
I, )
':
P.4/21
"
I n t rod U'C ti 0 11'
,
• .tliaMhild .1IIItIII'Y olillisl 8Iii .1ItU1Ion
Reducing class size baS, at Urnes, come to be regarded as almosl the Holy G~ of public edilcarlon. As a school inlprovemeN measure, it enjoys
almost universal popularity among both parenrs and leacbers. However, substantial class size reducdon rarely occurs on any significant scale
because it Is so a'Penslve to accomplish.
there is no better example of the tnlde-olf between desire and IiScal reality than here In CalIfornia., Where claSs size redUction bas been dlscussed
and desired for yeUs, but class ~ze inexonbly Increased beginning in the 1970s, and umll recently we were generally ranked either 49th or 50th
in the cOuntry in this category. WIlen school distl'lcts faced funding reductions, many foulul that lncrememal Increases in class size were more
poUl1chlly palabihle than other possible cost-cuning measures.
"
COllirlbut1rig to !his dynamic was adlspute which has eXistedwilhin the education research communJ.ty for maDyYears OWl' the reladve gains In
stUdent achieVement posSible or probable as aresult of a reductioilln ~ s!{.es. While some recent studies and aconsiderable degree 6f common
sense poirit 10 ,Sm3ll1ir d2SseS as an l(Iherent educational
research unti11978 showed little indJcaiion that class siZe reduction would
generate improved studeiu ~evement. Thus, lime empirical ~dence existed at the lime 10 back up the cl3ims of adVocateS for smaller claSs SIZe.
.
.
advan.
,
'
The first widely regarded posltJve evidence b~ public in 1978, with release ohhe results of a mera.analySis conducted by Dr. G.V. Glass and
his assci'dates of numerous studies OD class si2e arid other factOrs affecting student achievement. Glass' conclusions were many.and multifaceted.
but the key one With regard to class Size was rh1s: small, incremental rl!ducliollli in class size were not geneTalIy effective in improving srudent
penormance; hoWever, after 11 eerral.n threshold slUdent-reacher mo - eSllIrnI.Ied to be In the nose of IS;1 to 20: l'- measurable benefllS to
smdet'l[ acb.tevement were seen (see Appendlx Afor adescription of the Glass reSearch and related stUdies).
((~I>" Thelon~ clasS Sl.·ft reduction m~ passed in CalifomJa. Sthe 1980s reflected this presaiPdo.,n of 20:1 or less. SeDaleB1l1666 (Morg3nIHait)
\~
of 1989 provided additional limdins to high schools ml1tvotun1arily reduced class size In one subject area in one grade 10 the desired 20:1riltio.
dnrln.
.
"
With that slngle eXception. hoWever, no sw:e Iegislauon to reduce dass size received serious consideration in CaUfornia until cilr~er !his yeu.
NBW Initiative Alin8~ at Early Gpadal
. ' ."
'., ,':", ~.
, This year, an upturn In the slllre's economy, Coupled Wtlh the education iiJnding guaralltee1l conlainedin Proposition 98, made an ambItious Dew
lnidative possible.. AS a result, the GoVernor and Legislature tcigelher drafted and approved SB 1777 (O'CoDhell), which appropriated $i71 mIlI10n to
be'lriUIsferrild 10 dtstders that reduce c:la.~ size to specified levels. T.he requirements otthe bill are that schoolS reduce eorollmellYS in griides one and
tWo and ei!her Idnderg3rten ot third gl"4de to no more than 20:leme 20;1r.1tio was once again adopr.ed in accordance With the conclusions reached
by Glass and other researchers). caIJIoml"s new clasS size redua/on program is, like the MorgantHan legislation before It, ~tirely volwl1ary for '
dlslriClS. HOwever. over 90% of districlS with 'high schools lOok advanr:sgo at the 1989 measure, and niost observers predici the presenl sense of ' .
urgency among puenlS and reaChers for class size rcduclion maltes an extremely hlgh d!stria panidpallon rate In the. current program l.!kel, '
!lIe 1996 legislation despite being the largest and rrtost ambilious program of class size reducrion ever aaempted, is being implemented.ln a
remarkably shonperiod of time. ObVious benefirs are already apparent, including: more mageable workloads, greater opportUnities for
'teacher a'tterition to JndiVidual student learnJng needs, and Improved morale and endlusJasm of both parents and students.
,
.
~.
~.
'
mel
,
However, this enormoUs, ~ change has generated numerous side effeclS of yacying severity
Signlftcance. Many new leatherS - some With
limIted quaUBcations,rnanv sdll in !he process of gelUng c:redfnnaled ....... bave had 10 be hired with very short notice. Some teachers have also
been reaSsigned from grades four. fiVe and six to the lower sra,des wtth little opportunity fot trnJn.Ing. Unused buildings and pomwles have had [0
be readled, and other buildings recon6guredlnlO classrooms, sometimes displacing libraries, computet labs, auditOriums or other sland.1td
school fadlitles. And in some instances, die olher 1n1POna,nl eduCational responSibilities of teachers and adminlstralOrs have had to be. put on
hold :IS a concerted effort has been made to begin the sCbool year With the appropriale 20:1ratio In place.
.
Is Less More?
II November 1996
�~OV.24.1997
2:41PM
,DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
S8pt8mbe~ 18,1888 .nar
NO. 906
P.S/21
On September 18, 1996 a group of,50 Slate offidals, loclll education leaders and academics gatbered in Sacramento to discuss both the inunedi·
ale questions raised by tlle rapid implemeiuatton of Ibis masSive program, and tbe larger analytical questions raised by the legislation. These
qUestioris include:
• IS class size reduction !i'l and of J1self lIIcely TO deathe improvemems .In slUdenr achieYemeni so. thrOugh tbe lmplenienmi:lon of this program?
" What kinds of professional de't'e1opment measures are necessary to iJl$Ure that class SIZe reductiol'l has itS fntended effects?
What type of evaluarJon can help stare ofBc:iaJs, loc31 educuors and !he general pubUcdeterIDine the efiecdveness of rue program?'
.. What has been the eXperience of OTher Slntes and their local schools that have attempted class size reduction?
• Are there changes in the legisla.1ion !hat need to be cOnsidered when the 1e~slarure reConvenes? .
•
In addition to a general discussion of these issues and concerns, the seminar feamred twO guest presenteIs who oifered tbelr own research
findings and Jlislghts to the participants: Dr. Jeremy Finn of the.S~UnlV6r~ly of New York, Buffalo, and Dr. Robert Slavin ofJohns Hopklns
UniverSity in Baltimore. Bnd biographies of ~h of these disitguished rCsea.rclJers follow.
. .
Dr. Je«myFinn is a professor in the Department of Community and Educational PsYchology at me State UnJverslty of New York, Bli1l':l1o,
.currently on leave and serving as a visiting NAEP SclIolar at the Education TesunS Service in Princetor:i, New Jersey. Dr. rll'll1 previously sel"t'ed as a
lead r~earcher on Tennessee's Project STAR. one of the most sYStematic research stUdies of !he effects of cl:lss size reduction on pupil achieve"
meitl everconducted, .
'
Dr. Robert SlaVin is Co· Director of tQe Center for Research on Bducation of StudentS Placed 31 RIsk atJohns Hopkins Unlversiry and has
conducted e.xtensive research in many subJecl&, including literacy programs, cooperarJve Jeaming and the effects of cla,;;s size reduction. He is
also the Origininor of SucCess For AlI, a nadonally-r~cogniZed. site·based school refonn prognun emphasiZIng:J.!l essential cominiirnent to
al.tUning rending profiCiency at grade level for e:irJy elemenmry age studen!!.
Is Less More?
•
~ovember 1996
I't
,
�DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
N.OV.24.1997 " 2: 41PM
NO.906
.,
Pre sen t a I Ion ' 0 r 0 r.
J' ere In
y
••
,
J ' ••
:
"',
•
",
~.,. ,
f I II II
,•
(NOTE; TbroUghout tbis 1'tJPOrtlcOm""~u
by il'ldltJtdu~p~pafing In Ssptembtir 18 seminai' me ~m1Nl'rized without
\ . quOtation,· all text contained bBreln sbpWd be WIfJtlftkd as pampbrafing antllor synthesizing what was actuan, silld, and not as qtl()res
littrlbutabf4 eithi, to IJios. F',,'n and SlarJin or to any DtherpaiticiptJnl.)
mao,
tbe
In'troductlon
The results ofthe Sble ofTcnnesSee's ProjectsrAR, an intensive IOng!\Udinal smdy of tbe c:I1\:ds of class size reduction, were One of many factors lJ'IOuendng
the thlnklngbehind callforrua.'s neW prOgram of class size teduc:lion.' Three central questions for CeIifomia pollcy.JD:Ikers arise from the Project STAR Study:
.. Is there evidence that sniall class size lit the kindeIglUten through third grade l.e\icl helps improve stu~el1t acbJevement?
•
..
Wh:u klitd of eXpec:Wions are fair and reasonable for me present caJjfrim1a class size reduction initiative?
'8,ow might we evaluate this proQrain in order 10 observe and record iIs results?
,
'
,
' " . I
Prlijoct STAR: ACal'ufulstudy or the EHaC~!.Dr C)ailllZl
Projeel STAR stands as avery imponrult researcll: proJIlCt due ~ several unique design features;
• It used large and diVerse s.'ImPI.es..;.. oVer 6,000 pupils from over 300 dasstooms in 78 ~er<uy. suburban and Nral scl!0aJs paniClpiUed.
• If impiemenieC a longitudinal destgn. with the small-class intervention cOfl1inued for four years (1-3) and rhe stUdents traCked conumiously
through me present (gr.wl10).
• Doth DOrm-referenced and c:umcuhim·based iests were admlnl~feted at rhe eiul of eacluchOol Yeat '
D
SNdents and teilt:hers were asSigJied 10 small ,03-17) or regular (22-26) classes at random wit"ln etieb schoOl. The etfeclS that were
,
discovered were thus alllibutable dlrealy to class size.
No olber speclalleacher preparation or materials Were provided.
,,',
E:idl of the above fearurescontributed to ~e Vlllidity and 'I'lIlue of the study's ultimate results and conclusions,
((1.1-
\~
ProJoct STAR ,Flndln9i
,The major findings of Project STAR include: ,
• SIllaller claS~~ ,generated sb1tisl:ically sigriificant beneftts ~oss the board, for evelY subject, every age,~up and everyat.hi~ment m~ie
.in eve!Y year ohbe projea.
n The small-class adwntage was found for boys and ~r1s alike, for inner-clty, urban, suburban and rUral schools, and for while and rrilnodtY
stUdents alike.
n" IDngmidin31l111tUyses shOWed ihar the smaIl-dass ~ was esrablished in Idnderg:ltten, il1~d in grdde I, and remained
grzdf5 2aitd 3,
D ThesmalI cl.1SS adVlUlaige translated to academic linprovement equivalent Ul one month 1n kindergarten. two months by the end of grade 1, ,
_In
and someWhat more byrhe end of both crades 2and 3.
• Achlevemerit g31ns were greater for minority than for white StUdents; Iheretore, the achieverbenE gap between white and mlnorll)' slil~ts wits
reduced In small classes.
Foliow.up analyses shoWed:
.. ,The ~~.dass ad~tage ,w maintained'in gcide 4and .In subsequent grades even after all srodents were returned to regular-sized dasst'.S
(although the advimtages did dJrninJsh,notllnlike most early-grade totciveotions),
. . -, Teacher ratings in srades 4 and 8 indicated that students who had been In smaIl classes were more acdvely engaged in learning, look greater
:~
lniuauve In Ibe classroom, md displayed less disruptive behaVior than peers who had been in regublr clilsses.
,
Is Less More?
II November 1996
�C" : ''';''' .~N.OV .24. 199-r 2: 42P~DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO. 906
i
,
',.i,
.',
,.'
The beneih of wa,Il cla.~c:an be realized even Without presemce or inSeivJce tcaciler preparation (although theSe may Increase the benefit). •
II The cffecrs of small Class Site may actually J)e substantially lUGer thaD those reponed,when out-oC-range classes (i.e. Ihoseshowing stmsticaJly i~ ~
huge gains ill' achil!Yemet'lt) ate remOved Crom the analysis.
II There may be other a&-yet-uDdocumented benellts; for example, reduced discl.pUnaiy measures, reduced need for ~eda1 education and/or
reduc.ed dropout rates,
II 1;:1 Is not the sam~ as 30:2; matis, Smaller c:lasses oillyworkwh~ die IOIal nwnberofstude.ms in !he classroom drOps. not simplywhen an aide
or asecond teather is ad.ded to an already-crowded room.
II
How Will caliloPRla'. Class 81ze Reductlo'n
InltlaUva ,Moasup.a Up'
Class size reduction Is an e,.;pensive and antb1tlou& progratl\ to
undermke, espedal.ly in a Slate with the sile and diverSity of California.
. tVeilthe e.\"Penditure of close to $1 billion for IhI.s neW progra.r4t - ~ .
G
the most e.\'tfinsive claSs size reduction program l1Ddcrtaken ~ywherc
- it is remarkable that no funds bave been allocated at this pamt to
eviUuate the el!ecdveness of the program and whether It ought to be
continued or modi..6.ed.
't
Evaluating aSmall-Clasllnltlatlve:
Lalsonl Lelrned
"
The Projeet sTAR evaluation may be auseful source fot any futUre evaluation of califorilJa's current class size reduction lnitilitive. Afew sti.gg~' ~,>'"
lions on st:u'dy design and evaIuaUon measures follow:
\.~
Monitor class enrollments regularly to watc:h for class stze drifting as stUdents enter or leave.
s Design a siniple but reliable dala collection system. !r. few Ups:
• to the ellenl feasible, mnke sure mal Studen~ can be tracked even if they change school& or :are gr:ad.&-retllined;
• nuke certatn thilt stUdents e:m be matched With their teacher in the da~ system; ,
II
• make cc.nain thal diJferent sources of clara. can be merged;
• don't depend on school or teacher recOrds to be collected after me fact; and
'. conect each indiCator in a Sivenprespeciflcd time rame each year (let the teachers Imo\V this Js coming).
€
• GiVe sQmething back to 'the teachers and schools you stUdy.
Mlalrlrll,
iii Choose achievement Jndic.'Uors by consensus and collect the saine measures from all p'anidpanng schoolslclasseslpupils.
• Because the program is not a randomized ~"Periment) a pretest of academic rea4iness or performance is very useful (ll does liOI have
to be an entire battery).
" Keep the number of addinonal indlcators $mall; fo'cllS on the essenti31 elements, forex:imple:
• reaCher behavior: Measure lime sptm! on classroom managemem time Versus insttllclional time ill. reading and marhem:u.tcs.
• reach'" morale tmd satisfaction: Provide a quick cbe'cldist plus an opportUnity to request asststailce, resources, eJ.C:
• Reports ofstudent bebavior.
Is less More? •
November 1996
••
�NOV.24.1997
2:42PM
,
•
•
•
•
DEPT OF ED/DEP 5ECY '.
NO. 906
.
Teacher ftPOrts IIIIdior obsenadons of student engagement, and Ihe exteDl (0 which everybody 18 involVed in 1eaming aahilles,
IllsdpUne problemslcoiltaCIS wirh paren~
Refemls for sPecial educ:.atlon.
In-grade retentions,
.ConclUsion
Sin.3liet cJa.SSes can be a maj or step toWard ensuririg every srudent is engaged in Ihe leamiDg prOCess beCauSe studeDlS are left with no plaCe 10
tude and eSsentially reqwred by circurilslanc:e to become more actlve lesmers in the classroom. A9 to whether the ~1in!fiC3llt gainS which are
acllIew.bie
are woitb the also very stg0i6cant price -
Ibis iS'lID issue for pol1c:y.m.kers. DOt reseSrCbers.
Is Less More?
II N'0vember 1996
�•··•··.... ··.NOV.24.199~·2:42P~DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
·
·
NO. 906
Presentation 01 011. Robellt Slavin
.
'
This Is an exiraordiruuy time for education, both nationally and In California, After years of being a ~nlf...priodty Jssue, 3lways on tlle agenda
but consistenrly outranked by o~ers, education has finally risen to the top among is~es of concern in bOth arenas. Today even the PresideIit ha.q
'Ient his Visible. support to the need to focus on basic early education skills such as reading.
,
.
~
~\:I
In the past, major educadon inltlatlves have more often than not resulted in disappointrnerus, fonowed by a subsequent relucWtce to.speruj new
dollm on·educaI:lon. TWo keys to implementing elfectl.ve progi'ams are providing schools and teachers with the professional flexibility needed to
adapt to refonn prOgrams, and providing professional development to
an teachers to e.."Pand their lalOw1edge and abil1lles.
PrDb1Bin81~0881b18 Solutlonlln california Initiative
There are three panlculnrly .i.nlportant problems \01th tbe class size reducuon initiative currently being implemented in California, which reqUIre
polky-malters anentlon on 'an urgent basis:
Ii
The funding proVided for reduction of class sizes In grades K~3 ~ be ln~dent, given the Jarge clasS sizeS now present in Callforilla and the
unpetadve to reduce to. a 20;1 stUdent 10 teacher ratio.
iT
• The immediate need for new leachel'$ generated by tllis qUid, aCtIon may reqUIre distrtclS to liire uitCredentialed, uilderqilallfied and in some
.' .
'
.
cases incompetent teachers.
II The pL'lIl doesn't provide any real solution to the serious encroachment problem eteated byaddlng thousands of new classes to an aJmidy
wider-built sellool sYstem. Many schools are being forced, £01' example, to make very d.ifBcultcholces .between reduced class·sIzes and
importimt fllcillries such as Ubrartcs.
,
It is likely that these problems will be exacerbated in dlstdcts serving .,redomlnandy disadvantaged students_
in addition, other existing inrerventions aimed at Jmpro\'ing student achievement -... sud!. as one-UH>ne tutoring programs - may face adverse
pressures based on these sweeping changes. And fbially, dle question remaJ.ilS. is 20:1 alaw enough ratio 10 mal~ a real difference?
As some potential solutloris to lheSe prObl~ms Pollcy-makers should consider:
• E.\i>loring whether class size reduction can be funded in such a way as to reduce encroachment on eXisting schooll'eSollrce5 and prosrams.
The key is providing flexibility for'decislon-mwccrS at the indiVidual sChool site to make adjUSlments in hOw they approach these IssUes.
• Bringing in additional part-lime teachers to reduce claSs size funher£or reading time (many tredentlaled but non-wotldngteaohers who are '
rcUred or Ju!.ve yo~ng children would gladly come back part-time),
• PrOViding txti'a tutoring (or strugglJng studcnlS. particularly in Ihe key first grade year (some tutoring programs have a very strong basis
in research) ..
Ii PrOviding fadlli.1tii!~/mentOrs for new faculty members.
·lslue.to Consldar In prOtalllan.) DBvaloPmBul
,
'.,
Three principal elements should go, into any prares~iona1 development progmn that is adopted 1J!. connectton willi class
~~~
.
.
,
• The school or district should focus on finding a program wilb clear eVidence of effedliveness el.s~where, rather than trying to invent ilS oWn
(
program;· many progriuns with proven tnu:lt records of effectiwness are out there aYallable to be replicated.
'
• The School's faculty and sWf should be given all the relevant illformatlon and allowed 10 select thelt own profesSional development progt.un
from the a\'3l1able options, so Ihat they' are making a d!.oic:e for agiven program by consensli~.
• Fonow-up is essential- the training must be cOmprehensive and ongoing, ac!ive supeniS10n and cl.assroom observatlon is essential.
.
Is Less More~
II November 1996 '
,
Iri"A
V
�NDV.24.1997
" . ,',
~,;
.',..
. I'
'!.,
2:43PM
. j.
' ; ,
,:
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
I • '
( ~r
(~
Is Less More?
II November 1996
NO. 906
P.10/21
�·'
NOV. 24. 1997
2:44PM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO.912l6
'Questions and Answers
This seciton 15 divided into four pans, reflecting me focus of dlsca8s10n on fQQI major aieas o~, concern:
Pundlng and Evaluation; DangerouS
"
Trnde-OlJs; The Tennessee-vs.-Callfomta Comparison; and Teachers and Professional DevelopmenL
Funding and EValuatIon
QUESTION: Is an evaluaiion of this program Decessmy~ Aren't Jhere enough dall repoIU alread}li
SLAVIN: You need co find out wluu the real Jmpact of this proif.ram Is. You can't lust rely on the Project STAR data; that study involved 6,000
Si:Udecr5 in Tennessee, whereas you are dealing ~ millions of ki4s hue In calJfornla. I would a1sonole that education seems to enjoy ,1l' unique
Stl.tus with reprd to the need for emIualion. Weare' 1aIk1Dg about atwo bOOoD dollar fDldal1ve bere, and yet there is hes.!tatlon to spend l\VO
million to stUdy whe!her the piogram is actually working. How much sense dOes that make?
fINN: We need to know what acrually happens: what are the costs'o(,~p~l3tion. whether mere was ~ real benent TC srudent adueVeinerit. and
which lands of silU3I:ions md vru:iables offered the hJghest payoffor the dollars mvt'SIed. An m.'3lualion of some son Is imP01'Ulnl, but it should be one
in wbicheVery dislrictmeasures !he same elements, this is the ooly way to geDemte meanil1gful data that is uSeful for policy dedSfon-maklns.
,
"
QUESTION; W'jth regard rD the concern aboUt lMIlualton: (saw acartoon recently that shows a claSs which has hadUs S!Z6 reduCed to 20 Just the
dny before, Wuh the pdnclpal walldng In already asking, "Ate test scores up yet?" Very $OOft, the {vcus will be on that We're already exploring how to
assess srudoot progress. ,What mIgIu be some appropriate typOS of evidence of gams resuInng from class size rcdudion?
SLAVIN: You don't Want 10 use any land of assessment a teacher applies to their own class. and you do wam to.hale data mar's comparable from
place 10 place. Have leachers test eru:h others Idds in dlJiereri[ schools, or have profeSsional reseaichers do It Some sample of schools that are
comparable In sodo-economic siarus lllId prIor achievements should beassessed using a sWidard readiziglnvcDtoryptogiam,
QUESTION: Some studies suggest that lower class size helps mo're in
the eurly, grades. when the fOcus is on basic s\dlls like reading, Is what
We reaUy need more fonnal reading insrmc:tl.onl Do we need explicit '
readlng instruction in IIIte primary gtades and in middle sChools?
,
"
SLAViN: What we need is 10 change peOple's thinking about bow to
teach rellliblg, We need to focus on building skills fnciemenmlly and
cilntiiluQusly, rtther than thro\l,1ng it all out t~ere ar once and hOping
most of it slicics. ReadinG should be fOalS of e1emenwy ~hool
faculty all tbe Wlly up through the sixth grade. Teachers should move
forWard from the foundation of basIc reading skills inTC teaching effective reading maIegl.es (and eventually. study strategies) such as how to '
, organiie ana analyze informalion.
'
'
.
,
a
,
Dangerous 1i'ad8;.orrS '
.
,-
.. ' '.
,
",
.
:.'
QUESnON: The dass s12e ri!dualon efort we're going through today In Ca.Ilfomia is Cordng schools and distdas to shUlne pnorlUcs and l1ddt'e3s
muldpJe \'Uriables in ways that are haimmg the leaming environment even as meyre redudng clasS size. Many schools are saatficing libnuy space in
order to convert it inEO new classrooms: others are losing compUlet labs or sdtncc Jabs or music and art lhdliIIes. Ate these kinds of1rdde-oft's worth it?
fTh'N: Thei"c's DO Wa,to know the impact of these kinds of trade-olrs. caIifornJa seems to have defined ~s size reduaJon
as the intervention of
choice wtdlout considering side ea'ects such lis theSe. There should always be a lIllriety of means used., never, just a reductlon In cJ.ass size. Class
size reductlon Is slmv1y one tool of many available 10 aid in the learning process.
~)
Is Less More?
.
'
II November ,1996
•
�NO\l.24.1997 '2:44PM
NO. 906
~ SLAVIN: The legtslalion is much '/00 resa'icliwe. Upanldpadng in di1s prognun is causing people to shm down omer good programs thaI are working, the
€ t\.. le&Wauolt is actually ading iu.m3nncr COUJdetIoprOdudive to lIS own stated gOals. Avariety of f.U.tors should be b~ght IntO me mlx, arid people shouId
always be lookJng aI the Il'd.de-ofls. Uthe rrade-otfs required to achieve lower clasS size are tOO damaging, don't do It
,.
Thl,lanoa8S8S ,VI. CalifornIa ComparlsDn
QUEmON: Project Sl'AR's class size reduCtions took srudoot-teJCher
ratios from 25: 1 to 15: 1. Other research seems rD indiCate there is a
threshold of elfecdveness for cl:I.ss siZe reduCUons af around 15 rD.18
sll.ideril:s. UCal.lforrifa'sc:w:rent Jnidatlve can only get class size down 10
20:1 ~ above the supposed threshold - arc we was~ money on ttns
e!I~n?
FINN: well, Califonlia's approach does beg the question, why 201 Why.,
not'11 or 18, giVen whal some of the resew sbows~ But thereituaiiy
isn't a huge difference betWeen 18 and 20 srudl!J1t$'in aclasS. The
·negative correlatlon between class size and srut4m1 achievement Is fairly
steady overall, 1wl!J1ty Is still considerably better than 30, even iNt isn't
as good as 18. And consider mat most days, there will be approximately .
olle to three students absenl, brinsing the total number doVm In the 17· ,
, lSrnnge on afrequent basis.
{(6,
't\l
" '..
Q. VE. srto~; Most of the Tennessee dau i:i based on a reductlon In
class size from about 24 students 10 about 15. In Calfforn1a, we're
looking in going from 34 to 20 - a much larger change, How do The
stiJdy findingS rranslaie betwe'en theSe .rent envtrOnnil!J1ts1 Are !here
additlonal cbanges teachers Will need to m1ure to adapt?
SlAm: Other studies have been done chalting class si1.e redUcdons
from 2910 21 and other combinauons. There sIill isn't enough data .
ovetall to pinpoint the precise impacts of class size reduc:lions on
.
studeot acWevement. But e'Videilce does exist tlui.t smaller is better, It's imPOrt:Ult to emphasize additionally the need to choose etlect1ve profes
sional dm:uopmenl strategies Cor teachers wbo take on these new asstgninenl5,
Qlll!S110N:
Were there space problems assodaled Wilh TeMessee'S·class size iedliCd.on prOgram?
Fi.~: There weren't any real space problems in Tennessee.
SLAVIN: Th~re':lre sighificam problems wilh gcneral!zlng Tennessee's expeiience to Callfornia. Schools Volunteered, so that scho'Ols that bad sp:it:e
problems probably didn't paniclpi1re. B.eCltuse the' PlOject STAR 5!UdY involved a·rewtvely smaI1 propotdon of even Tennessee's schools, the impact
on the avallabilltyofteachers was probably very small It's mIlly quite a dJlferent thing to implement this son of ptOgram on a maSsive scale; these
kinds of ISsUes abOut me avaJ.IabUi~ of teachers and space are going to bam amuch greaIer impaa.
•
(
Is less More?
II November 1996
�NOV. 24. 1997
2:45PM
NO; 906
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
P.13/21
~OPI ail~ ~rot8..IDnlI Davalapmant .
. .,,
--~---~~~~~~~~~
Qt.!ESTlON: With regard 10 crealing greater flexibility in the law, ,mOSt or the exaJnpJes given in the dtseuSsJon were for Eeachers who have some
degree of spedal amrung, as opposed to J(!adter aides or other people who do not meet Special certi.llcadon requiremenrs. IS that an :lCcurate
characrertzauon of how yqu see me needs presendy?
•.
· SlAVIN: In my \!jew, there has been an over-inVemnent in instructIonal
aides. Research indicates Ihat the correladon ohides to lmproved
achieveme'nt is profoundly zero. Studies have been done comparing
large, dasses lYIlh and without teaCher aides; \'Il'QIally no dilferences
. ere found, with the ec(~ptioll of. snuauon where the aide Is fociJ.sed
W
on tutoring srudenlS one·tHae on reading sldUs.
QiJEmON: ClaSs size redui:tiongenetates ahuge amount of ~~"r f'
from teachers who are exdled aboullhe prosP'td of being able to do and,
· teach more eveiy day In the clasSroom. ThJs enthusiasm niay in fac:t be
~: 11 'I h •
one oflbe key mol's thai makes claSs size reduction efettife in
~If~~~~~';
increastng srudent achieVement Might there be SO}fte Unk betWeeil this
I$I.~~·
erithusmsm and th~ successful reSultS of other class Size reduaion eifol'l5l
I
MN
r~
SLAViN: There might be, and It should be aed. HowCM!r, 1D IM!ry study
of claSs size reaui:tlon, Ib.e 'teacllerS inwr.tably fuel a gmU sU1:se of
enthusIaSm and freedom But it's like someone who's bam in acast and
then they get me cast olfand suddenly teellIke !hey an fly. They an'lj theY
em run _ but they can't fly. I tlJink while people are srlll enthusiaStIc
•
about Ihe pOsSibilil1ei before them is preciSely the dIne to 5Wt geabig diem
fb rhlnk abOUt new, eJIeah'e Sttalegies they can use to take adwDmge of this,
,r.uhec than hoping the elitbllslasmJtse!fWJl1 emytbe day.
.,,'
iO
, QUEstiON: Ma'riy reachers feelwith drilmatlcally reduced class size,
they can now do things they lilwayswanted to do, like have regular orill
. .
presentatiohs by stUdents. Class size doeS mike', big dUIerenCf iD !he tbtngs you can do In a clrissroom., And a great dea.I·of professional
di!velopment h.appens infonnally among teachers on the job, rather than in formal professional development prosrnms.
'f
SlAVIN: M a teAchet and aparent, It seems obvious to me than 20 is berce.r than 30. There are sci many mOte thinSS you can dO wiilt '!he stildeii.1S in tile '
· classroom. Blit evi!ty research stUdy of reduced dass size shoWs that size alone doesn't make a huge difference In IUld of ilSelf. It can, bUt professional
develoPment is an essential componimlofensurlrlg thaHhe advanl.'Ige olfered by sriWler class size iiansl:ues into results.
Is Less Mote?
III November 1996
•
�NOV. 24. 1997
"
.
~~ .~".
,,"
;,
:
",
2:46PM
'I
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO. 906
,
Final Thoughts
'
( . SeveialpolmsraJsedln th. Septembu 18 _ _ bw dose saUJlDymicollSIdmIIo. by bo1h ..... ",d lacaIechICaIi.. P'Uq.makm,
.• state polley-makers should consider granting greater local D.exibiUty In the proglam, i.e. pennllt1ng fundLnS to be used for resWch-baSea,
cost·effecltve tutOring progr,uns, or for the formation or smaller classes focusing spl!clflWlyon readinB Md ma.th. nits Is espedally .
necessary in VIeW of some of the P0EeAtially damaging trade-offs being implemented 81 individual scbools due rothe ~vetwhel.m1rig demand
for class slze reductiOn.
'. educal10n offidals must be prepared to resist calls for 1mmed1aJe Implementation of class size redaction if the trade-off's are too great
toclu
for sDidents' (for example, reqWrfDg The ellmlnaUon of libI'lilies or the hiring of unqualiled teachifi).
• Schools and districts ,must reCognJze The need for professional dMlopment focusing on \wys adler'S can rake adYalUage or smaller cl:isS size.
.• Profes.slonal development programs should be chosen by loc:alsc:boolm, based on research of theprogr,w's proven effectiveness, and should be
suStained over an e,\1ended period oftime. '
• Asearching evaluation of this unprecedented $1 bUUoR program's ,~~ec~V8l\ess In Jmproving student aehJevernent should be audlorited
arid funded.
!r ' (
. Is Less More?
III November 1996
�NOV.24.1997
2:46PM
,
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO. 906
P.15/21
Appendix A
'
The folloWing passage was excerpted from "Reductng C/tIss b: ARtN;ew o/the
California Research Bureau. Cillfomla State library Ourie 11, 1996).
Lttemtu~,and Optkms/01' COflstderatkm, .. David C, lllig,
•
~.
L1t8l'illlrl RBVlaw
Aperceplion exllS amongparems and teachers that smaller classes are better than larger classes. Rese3rcbers and polley analysIS, how'evet, are
more wury. Some researchers have redtnica1 concerns about the research designs of studies mit repon a relallonsb.ip between reduced class' sil.e
and improved aclIieyeinent -lncll1ding the Projeci STAR stUdy. Other studies address concerns thaf are based on the, cost effeCtIveness or
program design of sma1let classes. '
ArialyslS have raised several fiscal and implementadon Issues,lncludlrig questions about whether the benefits of reduced class sizes are sufficienl to
offset thecoslS incurred to create them, These srudJes suggest that other strategies can be implemented 10 improve slUdent perfonnance at alower CDS{,
In addition, there ate concerns about whether classes With as few as 1S ~~en are small enough to achieVe mi1rked improvemenlS In perionnance,
and wbether those impl'Ovemenls persist in subsequent years. ~~lhen! are concems aboutwhether. ~t reforms. such as curriculum and, .
Ifaching style changes and qIialllY improvement,medr.lnisms, ~~uld accompany smaller clssses In order to sSM conslslOOt Ildlievemein g3Jns.
Follo\\''ing is a discussion of the Uterarure mat drove the Project S'L\R demonsuatton project, as \\'t!ll as other liteslUre Ihat addresStlS other·
comprehensive manns that can complement small claSses. I
Rlslapchar. Had Dlffirailt lhaul~ About thl APprapriaiu 81m ., ClI....
The small ~ size of 15 slUdents was c:hosen for
Project STAR based on the work of agroup of researchers bmded by Gene Glass and Mary Lee Smtth. lbese researthers used a SDltlStiCal teclm1que moWn
metHtnalyslsto der.eImine an esrlm:ue ofthe relallolisbip between class size and srudem acbil.MlDllml' tbe pr;tnwyflndlng of the Glass-Smith lU1iIlysis
~;;is !hat claSs size reduaion iniptoved srudent adUevemem. but tIw those improvemenlS were relaIi\l!ly small for d2ss sl2~ of 20 or more SlUdeilts.
as
Soden! wlle"in,in"" ...,.signibrIy JmproYed for dasse5 ills IwI r...r ib3n 15 ""den..'
.
Another research entity, the Educatlonal Research Sen'.ice! (HRS). challenged the Glass-Smith analysis on seve.rnl grounds. including the rellability
of fhe meta-analysis technJque to predict appropriate class size, and file studies used by Glass-Smidt to suppon Its research,· By the early·19S0's,
hOwever. the basic GlasS·SmJdl results wete widely cited in the lirer:uure, whIle these results are me basis for many potiey initJab'ves, me deoo.[e
tlasn'ot been senied. and many researchers remain unconvfnced aboUllhe GJ.aSs..Smith results.
A1986 EM repon, using a dift'erent analytical teChnique, sugges[oothat ncluevmnent gains are found fn classeS thai enroll feWetmah 22 stUdenlS.
Funhet. the repon suggests that these results are most pronounced in early e1emenrary classes (kinderpnen throuSh grade 3) and in classes
containins mainly disadvantaged clllldfen. The ERS results have been chaUenged for many of the same reasons as mose annbuted to Glass-Smith, .
Flald Projects CDinplamant&d the Res8arCh UlaraturB.
In1he early 1980's, as Project StAR WlIS under developmentl reseatchet's
were reporting encouraging early results from a class-size demonstt'll[Jon project at one Nashvllle elemenwy school. In addition, another class
size a'Peiiment, Indiana's Project PrilDe lime', was showing promising results. University researchers that were evaluatlng the Nashville
demonstration project also were advocating Project Prime llme as one possible model for reduclng class sizes in TeiUJessee. Follow-up srudJes of
the Nashville ~'Perimenl. along witlt later srudies of Project Prime TIme, reportee! that achievement gains made by children in smaDer cl..asses in
the first year were not sustained in subSequent years of instruclion. These studies, however, were pubJished alter Project stAR began,
Is Less More?'
II November 1996
8
�..
,N.OV.24.1997
2:47PM
NO. 906
DEPT OF .ED/DEP SECY
c.•".
..
(~~
P.16/21
Are.Ceil.t anhlysl; of the GJ~.S-SIlU.·th.. da~. by RObert.' Slavin'challenges w!tether reduci~ gd~ses to 1; st\lil~nrs. or less would acrohll'1 lmprci v
'
.
.
e,
pertotinance.1 AS It rums out, when removing one study from the group used by Glas.YSmnh, me average effect Cor classes of about 15 Studerus ,
declined sisnifiC:intly.8 F1irther, most'of the large gains in achievement in the Glass-Smith IUlalysIs be anrlbuted to tUtoring siniations that had
, ,,'
tan
omy ltO ; chJtdren;
,
. , '
"
IlUdlBiAlIOldaldy Othif a.Dlnas from ImIlllaP Clas•. In addilion to achievement gains; researchers have report~d other
benefits that are attributed tp s~aIl~ class size. Por example, some of the Project'sN team reponed that children in small classes were less
, . lJkely to be retatned than children in reguJar classes. They tlso found thaI founh grade teadlers reponed more acllve y.u1lcipalion from'students
wbo had preViously been enri>Ued in smaller classes.
' "
,
AdilTerem smilll claSs size evaluadon conducred in NeVada4 suggeslS that chlJd.ren In, small classes are less likely to be tefmed to special educa.t1on.
ReSearchers also have reponed hlgher inoril.le and less teacher Stress for teachers who insUuct classes with a smsller nUmber of Students. MOther
· byproduCt of smarter claSs size is ihat teacbers report th:u they Can move through theIr curricUlum ~ a w~ pace. In most or these l.a.SWiees the
. changts are smafi and are not alwayS ~1BtIst1cally siQtlifiamt. Nevc~,e1eS~, silch
can be cOnsidered as benefits to class size remiCT1on. 'Ill
·addition, 10 Ih~ ~1cnt thal these nonadtievement o~m~ of SIIIlIJfer classes re4uce costs over lime, they could be considered in poliqr discussions.
b
... OOBI Manay Manar?
Many pollcy analysIS have used tbe research noted above to debate whether the benetlls derived from redUdng
class size are greater thatl their Cost. Much of the Ulerature on this 'topic, however, does not ~vid~ enough iriformation 10 determine
: whemermoney does or dOes.noi matter, or under whal coriditions money does milner. Studies ijp~caliy fotus on broad averages, across'many
.tYPes of schilol sltes, alld often lead to very different conclusJons. For eXample, a r~cent artiCle lit the.Hatvard Education Letrer iQ used a
demoitsthli1on project in Austin, texas to show how cWfemn[ analytical technIques could yield contradictOIY conclusions. In the AusUn .
demonstration, IS poorly perfordung elementary scho~ls were given $500,006' eacll per year for ave years, and were direCted to improve
",.. srudetit penoi:!:riance. Eich sChool used some of its, funds to redu(le class size; yet, oilly two schools showed Improvements. One analysis
(c~uiltlrigsllccess<;s and fallures) would suSsest thai money didn't mailer,!n that 13 schools did not i~prove stUdent performance. Con
,
versely, another analysis, one that focuses on average.g3.In In srudent achievement across sites, miSh.t show thIn the rwo exemplarY schools
compe'risared for those schools that did not sueceedj thus, money di4' mailer.
'
@t
,!
,
,.
, The teal significance of tbe Austin demon_on to policy makers Is thaz it sUSgcSlS the need to compare improved sehools to those tllal did not
, imprOve. wiilitllie authors found is thai the' Improved scllools markedly changed 'the way teachers taught in ,1h~ smaller class s~ltings. Thjs
·eXample emphasizes the need.~ne what is occurrIJig aI eacb test siteriuher than'merely relying on averages to drive pol1cyfotmauon.
.
. to '
".
'.
.
The cl~s size debatets bom more subtle IU'ld more c1inplexthah Illst reducing cl~s size. Recently, one tesearehJ from Harv1ud, Richard
Murnane, Slated [hat asking whether moneyniilICrs in the wrong qUestion. Instead, h~ suggests that policy makers ·should identify snldent
pedotfuance goals, wong WiUl a scI. of strareSies for achievlnG diose goals.. He suggests thatpoLtcy IiIakers,shoWd then deiennlne how funds can
be used to silpport the adiievement of their goals lL
'
..
I
I ..
, sb'1n 1989.
, llle G!w·Smllh llndJl1!liS derived aam!he U.!G of si:illlllClll cechlllqliDli III e;f!rrille ~ Clirve Ihlll li bWied on empolalltin fram .he felllllS O{11'''Iion (onrrooed" ;rL'dlesre.i~ by Ihe· .al,lll'ion. 5liVltl'S
Ji.alt'sIB ~Iriec tile uClImJ dam uTlderlYinS the GlilSS~Smllh cullio. v.cI fOQ1id IhCI mcse dill:! WPI mIlCh sllulter gNll$lJtmlbcgnlns baaed on lIIe Iib.~M eslimnIils. Slal'ln:lls;; m,ggesWI thai elh~r
Srildll':! coUl~ be eXcluded el\her bci::nule Ihe II\ldyexllllllned only 5hoit dlIDIIon _I cllisses (3il mlnul!!!). or lhe st1ldfmm!iI~ pDtiHui:orid:u'Y claSlies ~ns lbelt 5rudJcslQ lIIe~. ilowiMlr.
WOuld 11111 mi~ :lfec'nl\e r\'9ullS. ..
.
.,
. .
., TheStiidy Slivln excluded _an &'Peii",enllhIllItllICd WnQu,er dUs M~e IIITecI$lI\Olor 'skin Ii:uriUiB 1'ht "hleW:mcnlleit U5~ In 1M ~rlme!l' CtIi\.~r.;.ed ~f I1IIIYi'" a IOilnis bali 'orr n.iinil roi":l
,peeitl8d periOd ollllTle,
0,
,•
.
Snow 1993,
1"5.
"
f. SikiOlllSId
The Prolecl mR "tim and
olJo susgeA!hat clalls .illll'educdons should be acc01J)pWed wfIh OIher clwtgu IncludJng Cllllgell
Sl'Jle. Some of I/Icse clllll'lljCS may
• \;",,,
lll/Ur:llr'il'hcn ck!- are S1'112lJer; ~1I11h'sa c:hallgtS CIJln«ll bi Illumed, ARCIIII[ book P\lbll.hed by Ihe Orookinp iMllIIll dtIIYr'J Simlkr conctuslOM OIanllShek 199.t). ThIs book sumroan~ Ille
p worl' or I p\'Ilminen19rG1lp af cducallon economists wllh chirso baclipDlmds. It suPPOI1i lila nouon Ih" ",,&JIlt dwes mUll be Imbedded In fIIjI~ COlllflreneaslvt raformJ,
(((('I'lll
I
,
Qlhlllll)~lers
:..'
10 ias !lore1
l!Ile~clu!lll
II No;ember ~996
.,
Mltve
�~ ~NO~.24.1997
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
2:47PM
A P pen d i
I
J(
NO. 906
8: S e rn in a.- Par tic i pan t s
earl Cohn, superilitendent .
Ron AblerI CSBA Ditecror, Region;
Callfomla School BoUds Association
P.O. Box 220
Sania Rosa, GA 95402
(101) 546-0424
Long Beach UniRed School D.IsII1ct
1515 Hughes way··
Long Beach. CA 90810
(310) 997-8000
.
.
, Diane Cordero de Noriega, Dean
School of Educanon
Mlrilyn Astoie, AtWlg D!rec:lor
Professional Development Consortium
Sacr.unento CountY Oitlce of Educ:adon
9738 Uncoln Village Driw
'SaCtamelltOiCA 95827·3399
(916) 228.26;6
csu Saerameiuo
6000 J Street
sammeruo, CA 9S819.;Q)79
" '(9~6) 278-6639
~.
Pamela Davis, Manager
Mary Bnll, Director
Cumcu1um, InSlrilclion and AsseSsment
San Diego County Office of Education
. Middle Grades Academic SUpport
CaI1forrua Depanmeiu of EduCatIon
721 Capital. Mall
SaUamenlO. CA 95814
. (916) 654-6518
6401 Unda VlStl ROad
SaLt Diego. CA. 92111-7399
(619) 292·3500
Linda Bond, Consultimt
Professional Services Division
Cominission on Teacher Credenlilllinc
1812 9th Sr.reeI
,MaUreen DlMar~, Secretary
Omce of Cblld Development and Education
llZlL Street, Suite 600
Sacramento, C\ 95814
SacramenlO, CA 95814
(916) 327-0586
(916) 3Z3·0611
Ann 1Y8D8, DIreCtor
School FacUJties Planning DlV1slon ..
California DePartment of Bducatiotl
S60 JSlree~ Suite 165
James Brown. Supenntericlent ...
Glendale Vn.illed. Sebool DJsttia
223 N. Jackson Street
Gleitdale, CA 91206.4380
(818) 241-3111
Sacramento, CA 95814 .
(916) 445·2144
Boben Femu, Director
.Educadonal Aeeounrabillty
Riverside VniBed school DJstda
Sue Burr, AssOciate Director
Insrftute for Education Refonn
CSU Sauanienro
6000 J Street
• 3380 14th SU'eet .
Sacramento, CA 95819·6018
(916) 278-4600
Riverslde, CA 92501
(909) 788.7190
James Catterall, Professor
Jeremy FlOn, EduC8lional TestiDg Service
UeL\. Graduate School of Education .
Moore Hall, Room 3341
Los Arigeles, CA 90095 .
(310) 825-5572
large Scale Assessment Research
Mail Stop 02·T
Princeton, NJ 08641
(609) 134-1061
Is lcss MoreP
II November 1996
!
�NOV.24.1997
2:47PM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
P.18/21
;1/.1".Dave Gordon, Superintendent
JeanJohnsolD, DepulY Superintendent, InStruction,
IX
Elk Grove VSD
!Q( Grove, CA 95624
(916) 686-7700
John GrifDng, Consullant
Mid,e1le j01lnsoo, Pdndpal
Senate Budgel Cominittee
Grantte Rill mfmenwy School
State Capitol, Room SOB .
Sacriunento, CA 95814
(916) 445-,202
,'
Elk GroVe USD
.
9510 Elk Grove-Flonn Road
Elk Gfove, CA 9S624
(916) 686·7700
9371 Grah1te 8lIl Drive
9S10 Elk Grove-Plonn Road
RiVerside, CA 92509
(909) 360-2725
. lUck nail, Cu.rdcu1um Coordiriator
Siui Bernardino CountY Schools
601 Norm ESti'eet
San Bernardino, CA 92410-3093
Wayne Johnsen, Vice PresidtlOt
;,
G:iry Han, DJreaor
lfisdrute for Educa~on Reform
CSU Sacramento
6000 j Sneer
Patrlcla Kelly, Associate Professor
School of EducBdon
csu san Bernardlno
5500 University Parkway
San Bem:irdJno. CA 92407
(909) 880-5657
Saailmenro, CA. 95819·6018
(916) 278·46.00
•
"
., caJ1iomJa Teacilets Association
1705 Murchison Drive
Burlinganle, CA 94011
(415) 697-1400
(909) 387·3028
I,(:
"
D~Yid !lUg, Cal1IoI'l'lfa ReSearch Bureau
DianeKlrkbam. Prrndpal ConsUlrant
Senate B<1ucadon Co.rrimiltee
Stile Capiro!
Sacramento, C\ 95814
(916) 445·2522 '
. California State IJbmrY
900 N Srreer, Suire 300
S3cl'llI'I1ento, CA 94237-0001
(916) 653-6372
8UI tucu.., Chief ConsWtaDt
Assembly' Education Comminee
Stile Capitol .
Cheryl lripam,lnstfuctional SUpport
HwnboJdrCoumy OfBce of Edu~adon
"901 MYrtle Aveime
Eureka. CA 95S01
Sammenlo, CA 9S814
(916) 445-9431
(707) 445·7078
Ruth McKenna, Chief Deputy Superintendent
InstrUctl,onal ServiCes
. California Depanment'of Educarioa
P.O. Box 944272
sacramenta, CA 95814
(916) 653·5875
Elaine Joonson, Assistant to the President
California Federation of Teachers
One Kai3er Pu, Suire i 440
Oaldand, CA 94612-3604
(510) 8~2~812
.
Is Less More?
II November 1996
':".
�-; ,~t
v
".;
"i"...
~.
. NOy.24.1991
' , ' '.
-I
2:48PM
. DEPT OF ED/DEP $ECY
NO. 906
"
"
<;
,"", 0;
,"
Unda Murray, Superintendent
San Jose UniBed School District
8S5 Lenzen Avenue
SanJose,CA'9512~2736
(408) ·53,..6000
;,
Joan M.Pien:e, CSBA DirectOr, Region 7
-,.
","
'i.,~
.• '
..
Robert SIPin. CO-Dlrectar
CRESPAR
JOMs Hopkfns University
5505 N. Cbarles Street
8a1t1.m.o~ MD 21218
(410) 516-8809
Anne McKinney. Senate Minodly Fiscal Consulmnt
State Capirol, RoOm 2209
Sact3mento, CA 95814
(916) 323-9221
Jeannie OropeZa, Start Budget Anal~t
, I
Departmellt of Finance
915 LStreet
Sactiunento, CA 95814
(916) 445·0328
P.19/21
Sue Teele, Director
Bducation Extension
UC RJverstde
1200 UDiversity AVemle
R/.Verside, CA 92507
;, (9(9) 787-4361 ext. 1663
Belh Threatt, IPD Depirlment Maaager
CaUfomia teacherS AsSociation
1705 MurchiSon Drive
BUrlingame,CA 94011
(415) 697-1400
California School BOards Association
2525 Corte del Marques
Walnut Creelt, CA 94598
(510) 932-3877
Ana 111mn, MslSWlt Superlntendent.
Chula VIsta Elementary School Distri.li
84 East J Sireet
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 425·9600
Ray Reinhard, Deputy SeCretary
.Child Development &Education'
1121 LStreet, ROom 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 323-06u
9
Janet Tornc:ello, Director
Pre·K throuBh 121'ilstrUclion
Montebello Un!tl.cd S~ool Disrrtct
123 S. MontebeUo BlVd.
ldontebeUo. CA 90640.4729
Rebecca Sargent. President
California School Boards .WociarioD
H2l Voorhees
Redondo Beach, CA. 90278
(2,13) 887-7922
(310) 316·6100
Rene Townsend, Superinrertdent
Coronado UniBed School Distria '
555DAvenue
Coronado, CA 9211S
(619) 522-8900 . '
Joel SchWliltz.· Program Analyst
Legislative Analyst Office
925 L Street, SUile 1000
Saciamenro, CA 95814
(916) 44,·4656
ShU'OD 'nicker, SuPerinlendenl
Visalia Un16ed School DJSUia
lUeI, Simpson, Chiel of Staff
Senate Education COinmittee
State CapItol
SaClllJ11ei1to, CA 95814
(916) 445-2522
J
315 E. Acequia Street
Visalia, CA 93291
(209) 73()'7551
Is Less More?
III November 1996
. ~·t
�'.
. ~OV.24.1997
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
·2: 48PM
.
/ ' . J~hW1na Vefdlu, Assistant Supeilm.endent
f\ ~ Insrruc:lional ServiceS
.
.
South Bay Union ElemenllU'y
.
601 ELm Avenue
lrilpelial Beachl CA 91932-2098
(619) 575-5900
PIal Wllftn, Director
Eclucation DIY1slon
LegislatiVe Analyst Office
925 LStreet. Suite 1000
. Sacramento, cA 95814
(916) 44,-46$6
Vera Visnell, SuperintendeOt
Pasadena Unified School D19~a
Lorna Winter. Consulrant
Ow Size Reduction '
caIJfomta De~ of Education
7~1 capitol Mall
Sacramento, GA. 9S814
351 S. Hudson Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91109
(SiS) 795-6981 .
"
ft . "
Krisdn Voelkl
'~9'16) 657-27~
C/o Jereiny Flnn
Jill \VyIUIs, CSBA DJtecror, Region 5
St:Jte University ot Ne\v York, Buffalo
409 Chri?topher Baldy Hall
Burfalo, NY 14260-1000
(716) 645-2484
California School Boards Assodadon
135 VanNess
San Frandsco, CA 94102
(510) 670·6475
Prisdlla WaltOn
f ~,.
,
'(t!'
CaJlfomia DepNtmertl ofEducidon
721 Capitol Man
s3.c:ramento, CA. 95814
(916) 657-3393
.
'
Is tess More?
II N~Wmber 1996
NO.906
P.20/21
�,
,
F:", !)IOV. 24. 1997
.
~
,
2: 48PM
f
DEPT OF EDyDEP :jECY
NO. 906
Other publications Available frOin the 'CSU,lnstitute lor Education Relorm
'"
•
School Rf/orms That wo;b: StlCcesifol Strategiesfor EducatingAt-Risk Youth
October 1996
.
'
AState o/Emorgsncy .. ,In a SttmJ o/EmBtgenc;y Teaebns
september 1996
Bui/tlinga PoIJJ81'jUl R6fUirng Program: /ITom Rewircb tD Practice
Febnlaty 1996
1be Teacbers Who Teach OUT '/bacbers
February 1996
'School CbolCe: Lessons Learized.A RetlOspecdve on Assem/J1y BIIlf. 111,4 ~ 19
Februaiy 1996
.1 r
Bducatil:mRejorm: Implications andRtispormbilrlles for K-12 and Higber lducation
, November 1995
State Polici~s andSchoo! R8S1rU.~turlng: ExperienCes With tbeSenateBill 1274 Demonstrat1cm Prograrrz
September 1995
Prdfos.'iional Devefopmiml Schools; An AnnoltJtedBibliographic Resource
September 1995
l(t' Teacbers and T()ach{~g: Recommelumtlons/or Policy Makers
",
December 1994 "
v
AU m~terws can be a~tcssed on dleInternet at Www.csus:edUlier
. Is Less More?
III November 1996
P.. 2l/21
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Andrew Rotherham - Education Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Andrew Rotherham
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2000
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36329">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/612954">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0103-S
Description
An account of the resource
The Education Series highlights topics relating to class size reduction, test preparation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, charter schools, the digital divide, distance learning, youth violence in schools, teacher salaries, social promotion, Hispanic education, standardized testing, and after-school programs. The records include reports, draft legislation, memoranda, correspondence to and from organizations and community leaders that focus on education issues, articles, publications, email, and fact sheets relating to the Administration’s progress on education.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
171 folders in 12 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Is Less More? Exploring California's New Class Size Reduction Initiative] [Report]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Andrew Rotherham
Education Series
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0103-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 2
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2011-0103-S-edu.pdf">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/612954">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/22/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2011-0103-Sa-is-less-more-exploring-californias-new-class-size-reduction-initiative-report
612954