Sign the petition now: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/838/620/965/demand-to-reduce-class-size-in-philadelphia-public-schools/
The Full Story
Abstract
All too frequently in America today, teachers, students, and parents are complaining of overcrowding in the classroom; all while administrator’s are speaking out for lack of funding. Budget cuts combined with school closings and growing enrollment are resulting in students who go to Philadelphia public school to be assigned to classes of 30 or more. Although on paper, the district shows an average much lower than that, in the teacher allocation process, they allocate 1 teacher per 30 students in grades K-3 and 1 teacher per 33 students in all other grades. This paper examines multiple empirical research studies designed to measure the impact of class size on student achievement. Additionally, this paper discuses the analysis of these research studies by professionals in various areas such as education, psychology, and economics.
For application purposes, factual data is also provided on the School District of Philadelphia, such as budget information, demographic data, and student assessment results. Overall, assessment of student performance in the district shows need for improvement, and the majority student demographic information matches that of the student demographics who benefit the most from learning in smaller classes. Upon analysis, the students in the School District of Philadelphia are a match for expert recommendations on, if considering who would benefit the most from reducing class sizes, not only academically in the short term, but also socio-economically in the long term.
Initially, I researched to answer to the question if funding such a large, district-wide class size reduction program was possible, but after finding overwhelming expert and professional analysis that adamately advocated for small class sizes, the search turned to researching how to fund it. Further analysis provides some preliminary suggestions, but further research would is still needed.
Finally, due to the overall nature of effects of small class size uncovered, the need for such a program in Philadelphia reduces to a moral responsibility. Simply, it is the right thing to do and we must find a way.
Introduction
This past spring, I was visiting my son’s elementary school in Philadelphia, PA, when I ran into the school Principal. He asked if he could speak to me for a few minutes, in regards to some concerns he had at the school. What was going on, was that he had received a report detailing the student enrollment and number of teachers assigned to the school for the 2019-2020 school year, and upon review he realized that the enrollment projections were low, there were fewer teachers assigned to the school in previous year, and that the average class size was set to dramatically increase. His superiors were not very responsive to his concerns, so he was reaching out to parents to rally support for the cause. I just happened to be one of those parents.
Until this point, I never really thought about my son’s class size before; and probably because I never really had to. He has always been in a class of between 20-25 students, and I never really thought anything of it because that was the typical class size that I was in when I went to elementary school, oh-so-many years ago. However, when the school principal informed me that next year, my son would likely be in a class with at least 44 students; I suddenly became interested in the matter. As per Philadelphia School Board Policy 126, the school district only allocates one teacher per 30 students in grades K-3, and 1 teacher per 33 students in all other grades (philasd.org), so not only was the school district not following their own policy, but even those class sizes seemed large to me. After all, common sense tells us that having less kids in a classroom would make a teacher’s job easier.
At this point I decided to get myself together go to voice my complaints at a Board of Education Policy Committee meeting. The members were more than willing to remedy my son’s individual classroom situation, and did so quickly, but were not so interested in delving into the subject of reviewing Policy 126. After all, I am only one person making a complaint, so maybe if they put my son in an appropriate size class, I will be satisfied. Yet, I did not feel satisfied. My intuition tells me that these large class sizes is something that needs to change, but what does the research say? How important is class size in education? What do the experts have to say and how much would it cost? These are some of the questions this paper seeks to answer.
Factual Background
As it turns out, many research studies and analysis have been conducted in the past several decades exactly on this topic. One of the first and most well known research studies dedicated to K-3 class size is “Project STAR”, or student/teacher achievement ratio, conducted in 1985-1989 by Helen Pate-Bain and the Tennessee Department of Education (Boyd-Zaharias 1999). To measure the results of the study, students were given the SAT and BSF assessments, and “test results continued to show statistically significant differences between small and regular size classes,” (Boyd-Zaharias 1999). In other words, children who were placed in classrooms with fewer students did much better on assessment tests than children who were placed in classrooms with more students. Additionally, “preliminary findings show that STAR students who attended small classes in K-3 were more likely to be in advanced classes and honors courses [in high school] than STAR students in larger classes,” (Boyd-Zaharias 1999). These results show clear short-term and long-term gains from reduced class sizes.
In a more recent study, researchers analyzed the associations between Title 1 programing and achievement gaps and found that “African American and Latinx students in high poverty, high minority schools made greater gains in reading in schools that used Title 1 for reduced class size,” (Kainz 2019). The Center for Public Education agrees, and has stated on their website that in regards to CSR programs (Class Size Reduction), that “minority and low-income students show even greater gains,” (centerforpubliceducation.org). Indeed, after assessing the validity of a total of 19 different research studies, including Project STAR, the Center for Public Education has made several determinations regarding the effectiveness of class size reduction programs as follows:
• Smaller classes in the early grades (K-3) can boost student academic achievement;
• A class size of no more than 18 students per teacher is required to produce the greatest benefits;
• A program spanning grades K-3 will produce more benefits than a program that reaches students in only one or two of the primary grades;
• Minority and low-income students show even greater gains when placed in small classes in the primary grades;
• The experience and preparation of teachers is a critical factor in the success or failure of class size reduction programs;
• Reducing class size will have little effect without enough classrooms and well-qualified teachers; and
• Supports, such as professional development for teachers and a rigorous curriculum, enhance the effect of reduced class size on academic achievement. (centerforpubliceducation.org)
Wait a minute. The Center for Public Education recommends class sizes of no more than 18 students, but the School District of Philadelphia is content with allocating 1 teacher per 30 students in grades K-3 and 1 teacher per 33 students in all other grades.
Overall, funding appears to be the main pushback from school administrators as to why they cannot implement smaller class sizes in their districts, despite the overwhelming evidence of how students benefit from these conditions. Yet, is it really that simple? After all, over the past two decades, the Federal Government has created grant funding through Title 1 and Title 11 for class-size reduction programs, along with many states who have also created grants for similar programs. One Pennsylvania program, the Great Public Schools initiative, PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 25-2599.2, enacted 2003, “offers grants to districts for various allowable uses like the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a class size reduction program. These programs are authorized to appoint or assign a minimum of one teacher for every 17 students or two teachers for every 35 students enrolled in a kindergarten, first, second, or third grade classroom,” (nea.org). Although this statute specifically mentions using the grant money for class size reduction programs, it also leaves open the option for the district to use the funds for “various allowable uses” that are not really spelled out. Therefore, the individual school districts are left to determine whether or not a class size reduction program would be the best use of its funds. Obviously, the members of the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia have decided otherwise, as data presented in the Education Law Center’s “Is School Funding Fair: A National Report Card” indicates that although Pennsylvania ranks #8 in predicted funding level per student, the state ranks 44th in staffing fairness (student to teacher ratio) (Baker, et al. 2018). In other words, out of all 48 states where data was collected, Pennsylvania had one of the highest per student funding, yet had one of the worst student to teacher ratios.
Philadelphia has long been in a financial crisis. As recently as 2013, the district planned to close 1 in 6 of the city’s public schools in order to save money (Kilkenny 2013). Yet, research shows that even though the district may be saving money right now by closing schools and entertaining larger class sizes, they most likely are losing money in the long run. A study done in Alabama indicates that, when it comes to funding smaller class sizes, “short term investments in increased K-12 funding at the state and local level return roughly twice the original cost to the state in terms of the net present value of increased tax receipts and reduced social service costs over the life of the students,” (Neter, et al. 2017). Simply put, children who attend school in smaller class sizes grow up to be more productive citizens. Therefore, not only children benefit from smaller class sizes, especially in elementary school, but also society as a whole benefits from these conditions as well.
Expert Analysis
When it comes to the actual class size debate, Project STAR and similar studies provide us with a lot of factual data, however researchers and academics utilize and interpret this data in many different ways, resulting in dispute on what the data collected in Project STAR actually means. A lot weighs on these implications, as educational policy and funding priorities are often decided based on these expert analysis and recommendations. After analyzing the data from Project STAR, some experts like Spyros Konstantopoulos of Michigan State University find that “once previous grade achievement and small-class membership are controlled for, small-class effects are typically insignificant except in 1st grade,” (2012). Of course, this was after this same scholar published a paper with Barbara Nye of the University of Chicago that presented an analysis of the Project STAR data that concludes that “there are cumulative effects on academic achievement for small classes in early grades,” and a “statistically significant effect [on academic achievement] of an additional year of small classes,” (Nye 2001).
Because funding is always a concern when recommending education policy, others analyze the data to see if the positive effects of small-class size on students is limited to specific groups. Many experts agree with the Center For Public Education’s recommendations that minority and low-income students benefit the most from smaller class sizes, while others specify those who qualify for free lunches are the students who benefit the most, suggesting that income may be a stronger indicator than race. Another opinion is that “students who are not academically engaged outside the classroom benefit more from small classes than students who are academically engaged,” (Ertefaie, et. Al 2018). Some academics, like Kitae Sohn even go so far as to recommend caution “when citing the positive carryover events of [Project] STAR,” because her investigation of the data shows that the classes were not truly randomized, and that “they are instead distributed in such a way as to increase the academic achievement of students in small classes and decrease that of students in regular classes,” (Sohn, 2015).
In response to these and others criticisms of Project STAR, researchers and academics alike began to compare others studies to Project STAR, as well as create new research studies to answer some of the question left unanswered by the study. For example, even if we can prove that smaller class sizes leads to higher test scores in mathematics and reading, what does this mean overall for the academic achievement of the student, and are these effects lasting?
One research article, published in the Journal of Educational Philosophy serves to answer some of these questions. The experts compared data from Glass and Smith (1978), Project STAR, and data from district and state level class-size-reduction (CSR) initiatives that have been implemented in the U.S. after Project STAR (Finn 2005). They sought out to answer three questions: “(a)Is participation in small classes in early grades (K-3) related to the likelihood that a student will graduate from high school? (b) Is academic achievement in the early grades related to high school graduation? (c) If class size in K-3 is related to high school graduation, is the relationship attributable to the effect of small classes on students’ academic achievement and subsequent effect of achievement on graduation?” (Finn, 2005). Analysis of the data led this team of researchers to conclude an answer of “yes,” to these questions. In fact, they found that “the odds of graduating after having attended small classes for 4 years were increased by about 80.0%,” (Finn 2005), and that this may even be an understatement! Clearly, the authors of this study disagree with Spyros and the need for small class size for only one year. Furthermore, this study finds that these effects held for white and minority students alike (Finn 2005), and because those students are more likely to graduate high school, with better test scores, they are also more likely to attend college. Those who attend college are also more likely to have a higher income, which is why it is no surprise that “kindergarten test scores are highly correlated with outcomes such as earnings at age 27, college attendance, home ownership, and retirement savings,” (Chetty 2011).
One of the main criticisms of Project STAR and other studies done on the impact of class size is that there were no controls to account for teacher quality. Therefore, some argue that the higher student achievement could possibly be caused by those students having better qualified teachers. So, when Gary James Harfitt and Amy B.M. Tsui designed their research study on the effects of small-class sizes on student achievement, they created multiple case studies, in which the same teacher would be assigned to teach a small class and a large class. In this unique study, “Findings show that students were more motivated and engaged in their learning in the small classes studied,” (Harfitt, 2015). These researchers also chose to analyze the data in a different way. In previous studies, the data was analyzed from the perspective of cognitive learning theory, examining the impacts of small-class size on test-scores and specific academic achievement, however in this study, the researchers collected and analyzed the data using social learning theory as a theoretical perspective. They also used observation and interviews of both the students and teachers to instruct their findings. In the end, “it became apparent that students in smaller classes (a) volunteered responses to teacher’s questions more frequently; (b) initiated interaction with their teacher more frequently by asking questions or seeking clarification; (c) were more likely to use humor with the teacher; (d) were more inclined to help each other and; € were more engaged in learning,” (Harfitt, 2015). These behaviors within the classroom form what is called a “community of practice,” (COP), which is basically a way of describing the learning processes within a class. Theoretically, this community of practice within a classroom effects each individual student’s academic performance, and although smaller classes were not directly linked (cause/effect) to a COP classroom, “this study concludes that smaller classes might be more conducive to the formation and development of powerful CoPs,” (Harfitt 2015). So, although studies that compare class-size with test scores have varying results, the social effects of smaller class sizes on students is undeniable. In this study, the smaller classes had “more harmony as a collective group, less anxiety, better peer relations, closer relationships with teachers, and more cooperation among class members,” (Harfitt 2015), all which have positive effects on student learning, and remember, the students in the large and small classes within this study had the same teacher. Therefore, teacher quality was not a factor in generating these different results between the two class sizes.
Finally, if teacher quality affects student achievement, class size itself may affect teacher quality. In one study done by researchers Annemarie H. Hindman and Andres S Bustamante, class size was one factor linked to a change in teacher depression (2019). Although this study focused on pre-K teachers, the effects would still carry over to teachers of other young students, such as kindergarteners.
Overall, most expert analysis of class-size impacts on student achievement provide that smaller class sizes do have a positive effect. It is only in measuring this effect where experts disagree. While some find that the positive effects in academic achievement are short-lived, more find it to be find it long-lasting, but is it worth the cost?
Response To Experts
The effects of smaller class sizes on student achievement have been measured in many different studies and in many different ways. The most common approach involves examining how smaller class sizes impact students’ test scores in reading and math, and although most of these studies do show improvement in test scores for children in class size reduction programs (CSR), these are also the studies that are most criticized for having imperfect processes within their scientific method. As noted earlier, many of these studies do not control for teacher quality when analyzing the results of student assessments in CSR classrooms, and as teacher quality undeniably has an effect on student achievement, I agree with the notion that the true measurements of the effects of small class sizes on student achievement cannot be measured without this control. Furthermore, because student achievement on assessment tests can also be influenced by factors outside of the classroom (i.e. individual intelligence and learning outside the classroom) (Duckworth 2012), experts have even less reason to trust analysis based on studies involving standardized tests as assessment tools.
Yet, with all of these uncertainties, experts still stand fairly certain that smaller class sizes benefit low-income and minority students. One reason for this may be because standardized tests tend to be biased towards the majority culture, therefore white, upper-and-middle-class students are more likely to learn (culturally) things that will aid them in doing well in these tests, outside of the classroom. For example, students whose families are considered middle or upper class are more likely to have parents who have college degrees than students in low-income families. Children with parents who have college degrees are also more likely to be taught Western Academic culture at home, therefore providing them with preparation for standardized achievement tests outside of the classroom. Conversely, children in low-income families are less likely to have parents with college degrees, and therefore less likely to have academic culture reinforced at home. In these cases, children are solely relying on the academic instruction they receive in the classroom to prepare them for taking these standardized assessment tests, and therefore benefit more from the increased individualized attention that teachers are able to give students’ in smaller classes. After all, standardized tests are not designed to measure intelligence, but rather made to measure the mastery of learned material, as most people would agree that a single standardized test score is not an accurate measure of one’s IQ. With this information in mind, it is no wonder why different experts come up with differing analysis of the results of a study when standardized test scores are used to measure gains in academic skills. For this reason, the evidence that I find most powerful in support of class size reduction programs is the research analysis provided by Gary James Harfitt and Amy B.M.. Tsui using social learning theory.
In their study, Harfitt and Tsui discovered that the smaller classes had developed a stronger community of practice, which fosters increased classroom learning. In other words, the teachers were better able to nurture and cultivate academic culture in their classes with fewer students. Now, if a teacher had a class of students who were already familiar and acclimated to traditional academic culture, forming a community of practice in the classroom may be a piece of cake. Just as much, these students will already be primed for standardized test taking. However, if a teacher has a classroom with students who are not familiar or adjusted to traditional academic culture, then the ability to build a community of practice in the classroom becomes more paramount. In this case, a teacher is not only teaching the reading, math, and/or science skills to succeed on a standardized test, but also the academic culture and language that one needs to know to do well on the test.
Furthermore, academic achievement is not solely measured by standardized test scores. No matter what a student scores on a test, generally, they must make passing grades in their classes as well to graduate high school and/or attend a higher education institution. In order to do this, students need more skills than just those they need to pass a standardized test. Generally, student grades do not just solely measure mastery of material, but also completion of homework and class participation; practices that are learned through social learning theory in the classroom (through a community of practice); and although experts have correlated kindergarten test scores (and smaller class sizes) with higher graduation rates (Finn 2005), greater college attendance and adult income (Chetty 2011), and have used gains in standardized test scores to justify the need for education policy that supports CSR programs, it seems more likely that these results are gained from the community of practice within the classroom (that can flourish due to smaller class sizes) than just simply the number of students in the class.
Overall, the evidence and expert analysis is in support of small class sizes, especially in the early grades, and generally, education policy is made in favor of expert analysis. The problem is that policy makers want evidence of a direct causation and/or correlation before they commit to such large expenses, such as a class size reduction program. The problem is, the strongest evidence in support of small class sizes (social learning theory), does not provide a direct link between small class sizes and improved student academic achievement. Perhaps this is because there is not one, single identifiable impact of smaller class sizes, but instead the smaller class sizes enable other, seemingly unrelated, conditions to be achieved that also improve student achievement. To put it simply, public schools have many problems and smaller class sizes may provide a holistic solution to those problems. For example, in this scenario: a teacher may have a class of low income students. Those students may be highly intelligent, but they also might not be interested in getting good grades at school. They do not want to pay attention in class, and instead want to talk to their friends. There may also be bullying in the classroom. Now, in this scenario, having a smaller class size may or may not beneficial to the teacher in the way that they can spend more one-on-one time with the students, but it definitely increases the teacher’s ability to keep the class on task as a whole. Unfortunately, the students who could
benefit most from learning an academic classroom community of practice culture, are the ones who live in the most over-crowded and under-funded school districts.
Argument
Obviously, after reviewing all of the data and expert analysis presented so far, anyone can see that smaller class sizes (i.e. classes of 17 students or less) are beneficial to most students and highly beneficial to particular demographics of students. Many students in the School District of Philadelphia fall into these demographics. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 34.7% of children in Philadelphia public school come from families with income below the poverty level, 48.5% come from families who receive Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, and over 50% of students identify as a minority race/ethnicity. With statistics like these, the School District of Philadelphia would be an ideal candidate for a class size reduction program, as per the recommendations of experts like Kirsten Kainz and those at the Center for Public Education because of both demographics and socioeconomic status. After all, the School District of Philadelphia is in desperate need of improvement. The Nation’s Report Card, the publication of a congressionally mandated national assessment, shows that in 2017, only 16% of fourth graders in the Philadelphia School District scored at or above Proficient in Math and only 17% scored at or above proficient in reading. Test results for students in the 8th grade showed similar results (The Nation’s Report Card 2017).
The official stance of the Philadelphia Board of Education, however, is that despite these potential benefits for students, the district simply just cannot afford to have a policy, allocating one teacher per 22-25 students, and this lack of funding is Harrisburg’s fault (McGinley, BOE Policy Meeting 2019). Yet, for the 2016-2017 school year (2015-2016 Fiscal year), the District reports having received approximately half of its funding from the state and a student/teacher ratio of 16.84 (Common Core of Data, 2019). How can this be? One explanation is given by James Malamut, a former teacher for the Philadelphia School District, in an interview for a UC Berkley journal article: “it was 31 [students in a class] on paper, but there would be times when it was closer to 35. They’d sneak a few kids in there unofficially,” (Woods 2015). So it seems like the district is not willing to admit how extensive their overcrowding is. Furthermore, instead of using grant funds for overall class size reduction programs, it uses a good amount on salaries for full-time literacy coaches. The purpose of these literacy coaches is to assist in students achieving appropriate reading levels for their grade. In an article for The Philadelphia Tribune, Superintendent William Hite and CFO for the district Uri Monson boast about 150 new literacy coaches for K-3 classrooms and 1,700 additional teachers and school support positions (Persinger 2019), so it does appear that the district’s leaders have good intentions. Yet, the improvement portrayed by these statements is misleading. When actually comparing proposed budgets from 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, the actual number of additional full-time teachers is only 147, a far-cry from any number closer to 1,700, meaning that most of the additional positions added are in the form of student support staff, a.k.a. part-time teacher assistants (The School District of Philadelphia Guide to School Budgets 2018-2019 and The School District of Philadelphia Guide to School Budgets 2019-2020). Plus, when considering the benefits of literacy coaches, of course an argument can be made that the gains in reading skills are comparable to those made in CSR classrooms, but literacy coaches do not provide the additional social and non-cognitive benefits that CSR classrooms do, as provided by the research of experts like Chris Nether, Raj Chetty, Gary James Harfitt, and Jeremy D. Finn. Put simply, literacy coaches may help students improve their reading skills, but because they float around and are not consistently in the classroom, they do not particularly contribute to the main teacher’s ability to create and maintain and functional community of practice within the classroom. Since the community of practice, enabled by smaller class sizes, is what is most significant in producing academic and social gains in the classroom (and later in life), then any plans for improvement should consider this perspective. The literacy program does not. Instead, the program focuses on hitting benchmarks only. Therefore, instead of concluding that the district cannot afford to revise Policy 126, members of the board might look at diverting funds from less effective programs to the cause, of which, the Literacy program is one example.
Examining the financial data of the School District of Philadelphia in this way may give a person insight as to whether or not the district can afford to reduce class sizes, however after reviewing all of the research and expert analysis of the data on the matter, I have found that asking whether or not Philadelphia can afford to reduce class sizes is asking the wrong question. With the insight provided by Jeremy Finn, et al, that benefits include increased high school graduation rates (2005), Raj Chetty, et al., that students are more likely to attend college and have higher earnings at age 27 (2011), and Chris Nether, et al., that society will benefit from twice the amount of collected tax revenue and decreased social service costs; I have concluded that in fact, the correct question to be asking is “When would be like to pay the price, now or later?” We can either properly fund education now, or we can bear the cost (which will be greater) later in decreased tax revenue and increased spending on social services. Not to mention the increased quality of life that people have with higher education and incomes.
It is, in fact, the hidden costs of sub-standard education that are most overlooked. A single adult with no children might not be so very motivated to supply more of their tax dollars to the public school system because, at first thought, they might feel that this issue might not affect them. Yet, even if a person never has any children, the children in their community will eventually grow up and become adult members of said community. Adult members of society who live, work, and vote in your neighborhood, city, and state, and, in order to live alongside of responsible, contributing members of society, that society must educate and raise children to become such things. Ultimately, we live in a democracy, and in order for that democracy to not only function, but flourish, as our founding fathers intended it to, we have a responsibility to educate and raise children in our communities to become responsible participants in our democracy. The Founding fathers trusted our universities to do the job of educating our young minds, but in order for the universities to do this, students must make it there; and making it there starts with a sound education starting with Kindergarten. Some even say that it starts before Kindergarten, which is why many states, including Pennsylvania, have increased funding to Pre-K programs. However, according tot a letter sent by over 70 professors of education and psychology to the New York City school district, “any gains from pre K would likely be undermined without concurrent effort to reduce class size in grades K-3,” (classsizematers.org/fund-class-size-now/).
We all want our graduation rates to rise, and there are many ways of achieving that, but graduating from high school alone is not enough. The quality of the education must count as well. Even when students do graduate from high school, and even if they do go on to college, many of them must attend remedial English and Math classes during their first semester. In fact, in one of my first classes at the Community College of Philadelphia, I was assigned to read an article that was about the student’s unpreparedness and difficult attitudes for basic community college classes! In this article, the author describes students who show up late to class, do not have the books, and are unfamiliar with basic academic culture (McGrath and Spear 1991). It sounds like these students could have used some community of practice experience in their elementary and secondary classrooms. The members of the Board want to ask the question, “What does it mean to be a graduate of the School District of Philadelphia?” and they want the answer to project a positive image of the district. Yet, the reality is that a lot of the times, being a graduate of the School District of Philadelphia means that if you go to college, you will likely have to take remedial courses, and according to research published in the Journal of Higher Education, enrolling in remedial courses at a 2-year college does increase the chances of attaining a bachelor’s degree, but it also means that it will take longer to do so (Saw 2019). This means a longer waiting period before joining the workforce as a college graduate, and higher costs in financial aid.
So, while School District of Philadelphia embarks on its mission of improving the school district, it is so far doing so by funding extraneous programs and planning to close more schools. Instead, what the city needs to do is to form a committee to revise Policy 126 and plan a long-term class size reduction program. Obviously, the Policy cannot go from allocating 30 students to 1 teacher to 17 students per teacher overnight, but it can immediately lower that number by at least one or two to get the process started, and as the city embarks on creating its new plan to better our public schools, now is the perfect time to look at a class size reduction initiative. After all, the Board is considering redrawing the catchment areas anyway, so why do it under Policy 126 and keep the status quo of large classes? In the end, it is not that we can’t afford to reduce class sizes, the reality is that we can’t afford not to.
Conclusion
When it comes to the positive benefits of placing students in small class sizes (approximately 15-18 students per teacher), numerous studies show empirical evidence that the effect is far reaching and significant. Expert analysis of the data produced in these studies prove more than convincing in multiple explanations for the relationship between class size and student achievement. Furthermore, the research also provides that funding class size reduction programs now will benefit communities economically in the long-run.
Creating a class size reduction initiative in the School District of Philadelphia is a possibility if the Board of Education examines its current use of funds, including federal and state grants and local tax revenue. As a further possibility, the city may solicit private donations and could possibly launch a fundraising initiative for the purpose of class size reduction. Currently, allocating 1 teacher per 30 students is not only irresponsible for the present, but also for the future. The Board of Education will not take action if there is one lone voice asking for this reform. A public call-to-action is needed.
Reflection
When I began this research project, I was aware of the general fact that overcrowding was a problem, along with funding, and I knew that classes that were over thirty students were not the best conditions for students, however I had no idea how big of a deal class sizes were. There turned out to be hundreds to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals on the benefits of small class sizes. The research of course provides the most obvious connections to small class sizes and higher grades, test scores, and reading levels, but I was pleasantly surprised to find research done on the subject by those other than educators. Research and analysis of effects of small class sizes of students examines many areas, including psychological, economic, and socioeconomic angles.
I started out interested in this issue because of my son’s increasing class size, but after realizing how big of a deal this issue is, I feel that I need to be advocating for more than just him. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that this research needs to be shared with all of the citizens of Philadelphia because right now, the status quo, Policy 126 is unjust. Unjust to our students, our teachers, and our communities.
Annotated Bibliography
“ACS-ED District Demographic Dashboard 2012-2016: Philadelphia City School District, PA.” Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates. National Center for Education Statistics, nces.ed.gov/Programs/Edge/ACSDashboard/4218990. Accessed 7 June 2019.
This website provides socioeconomic and demographic data for the City of Philadelphia and children who attend public school in the city.
This is an official government website and the data available is provided by the official government organization, the National Center for Education Statistics.
Since reduced class sizes specifically benefit minority and low-income students, this data is relevant to assessing the potential benefits of a class size reduction program for the City of Philadelphia public schools.
Baker, Bruce D., Danielle Farrie, and David Sciarra. “Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card.” 7th Edition. Education Law Center, Rutgers, Feb. 2018. Edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/publications/Is_School_Funding_Fair_7th_Editi.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2019.
This is an in depth report that examines the fiscal condition and funding fairness of the nation’s public schools. The report provides the research methods and measuring standards along with a reporting of individual state data and rankings.
This report is a reliable source of data because was commissioned by the U.S. government and is conducted by professionals from the Education Law Center and Rutgers University.
This report contains information on how Pennsylvania’s funding of public schools compares to other states in various data categories.
Boyd-Zaharias, Jayne. “Project STAR: The Story of the Tennessee Class-Size Study.” American Educator, American Federation of Teachers, Summer 1999.
This report gives a brief history of how Project STAR came to be. It explains the key features of the experiment’s design as well as the early results, and follow-up analysis. The authors describe many benefits for students in reduced class sizes compared to students in larger classes.
This article was published by the American Federation of Teachers and uses official data from the government supported study Project STAR.
This article provides information and data from the most well-known class-size research study and program and gives insights that are most relevant to the class-size debate.
Chetty, Raj, et al. “How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star*.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 126, no. 4, Nov. 2011, pp. 1593-1660. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1093/qje/qjr041. Accessed 19 May 2019.
This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the long-term results of Project STAR, the Tennessee class-size study. The researchers in this study used the Project STAR data, along with federal tax return data and census data and applied many types of statistical analysis to determine the possible long-term effect of reduced class size in the early grades. This paper also explains the conclusions of this empirical analysis.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics is a reputable peer-reviewed journal published by the Oxford University Press and any paper in this journal is of high-quality. Also, the authors of this paper are associated with Harvard University, UC Berkeley, and Northwestern University, all well-know and respected universities, as well as the National Bureau of Economic Research.
This paper provides insight into the long-term gains of small class sizes and provides data that supports policy change and funding for class size reduction programs. This paper also explains how these programs can be most effective.
“Class Size and Student Achievement.” Center For Public Education. Centerforpubilceducation.org/research/class-size-and-student-achievement. Accessed 17 May 2019.
This page details and lists the Center for Public Education’s analysis and conclusions of 19 class-size related studies and their recommendations for educators and policy makers.
The Center for Public Education is a nonprofit organization that provides up-to-date research/data/analysis of current education issues. This is a national organization that is an initiative of the National School Board Association.
This page from the Center for Public Education’s website informs educators of their recommendations as to the optimal class size (no more than 18 students) to maximize benefits for students and what students benefit the most from these recommended class sizes.
“Data Tools: District Profiles.” The Nation’s Report Card. Nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/districtprofile?chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=xQ&sfj=NL&st=MN&year=2017R3. Accessed 7 June 2019.
This online database provides the assessment results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, administered by the U.S. government. The database also provides a comparison on the results of major U.S. cities, including Philadelphia.
This data is reliable as it comes from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the U.S. Department of Education, and the Institute of Education Statistics. This data also comes from the most recent assessments on record.
This data shows that the students in the City of Philadelphia school district consistently rank among the lowest of all major cities in the U.S. in reading and math scores.
Duckworth, Angela L., et al. “What ‘No Child Left Behind’ Leaves behind: The Roles of IQ and Self-Control in Predicting Standardized Achievement Test Scores and Report Card Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 104, no. 2, May 2012, pp. 439–451. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ991188&site=ehost-live. Accessed 2 June 2019.
This publication is of a research study done to analyze the difference between student’s grades and their performance on standardized assessment tests and what the results mean. The researcher’s have found standardized achievement tests are good for measuring IQ, student grades are better indicator’s of a student’s self-control, mastery of the material, and ability to “get it done.”
This paper was published in a scholarly academic journal, the Journal of Educational Psychology and was peer reviewed. Also, the author of this paper is from the University of Pennsylvania, known for its Ivy league status.
This article shows that standardized test scores are not the most reliable assessment of a student’s academic ability, and this is relevant to the class size debate since policy makers and administrator’s typically use standardized tests to assess the affect of small class sizes on student academic performance.
Ertefaie, Ashkan, et al. “Discovering Treatment Effect Heterogeneity through Post‐treatment Variables with Application to the Effect of Class Size on Mathematics Scores.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), vol. 67, no. 4, Aug. 2018, pp. 917–938. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/rssc.12265. Accessed 19 May 2019.
This is an abstract of an article that describes researchers’ analysis of Project STAR data. The authors’ mission was to determine if certain types of students benefit from reduced class sizes. They indeed identify and show evidence for which students benefit the most from smaller class sizes.
This is abstract and paper has been peer reviewed and published in an academic journal. The researchers/authors are associated with the well known schools of the University of Rochester, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Pittsburgh.
I took used the findings of this article and compared them against the demographics of the School District of Philadelphia to see if the students would be a match to those that benefit the most from small class sizes.
Finn, Jeremy D., et al. “Small Classes in the Early Grades, Academic Achievement, and Graduating From High School.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 97, no. 2, May 2005, pp. 214–223. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.214. Accessed 25 May 2019.
This paper presents the research and findings of an investigation to address three specific research questions relating to small class sizes and long-term effects, specifically high school graduation. Jeremy D. Finn, et al. do indeed find that small class sizes have a huge impact on a student’s success in graduating high school. They also find that small classes are need for several years and impact all students, no matter the ethnicity or socioeconomic status.
This research appears to be generally accepted by the academic and professional community, as the research was funded by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation, the findings were originally presented at an American Educational Research Association conference, and were also published in this academic journal from the American Psychological Association.
This source shows the importance of making policy for and funding, reduced class sizes.
“Great Public Schools Criteria for Pennsylvania.” National Education Association, nea.org/home/achievement_Pennsylvania.html. Accessed 17 May 2019.
This webpage displays the PA State Codes for the PA Great Public Schools grant program, enacted in 2003. This code shows that the grant may be used for class size reduction programs, and that the state recommends a minimum of one teacher for every 17 students or two teachers for every 35 students in grades K-3.
The National Education Association provides accurate government information on their official website.
This information is relevant to the School District of Philadelphia and to what standards they should be pursuing.
Haimson, Leonie. “NYC Should Fund Class Size Reduction Now!” Class Size Matters, 2 April 2019, classsizematters.org/fund-class-size-now/. Accessed 6 June 2019.
This page on the classsizematters.org website is dedicated to a proposal that the organization has addressed to the New York City Council that calls for a $200 million fund allocation for a class size reduction program. The proposal cites research on class size reduction and it’s potential outcomes for closing the achievement gap and eventual cost savings. The authors provide data on the NYC school budget that gives insight into the school district’s spending pattern.
Class Size Matters is a nonprofit organization that was formed to lobby the NYC school district to reduce class sizes in the New York City school district. The research that they cite for their proposal is mostly from peer-reviewed academic journals, which generally provide reliable information.
The New York City school district is similar to that of the School District of Philadelphia in that they both are funding literacy programs and hiring full time literacy teachers while choosing not to act on the overall over-crowding in the classrooms, especially in the most vulnerable and in-need schools.
Harfitt, Gary James, and Amy B. M. Tsui. “An Examination of Class Size Reduction on Teaching and Learning Processes: A Theoretical Perspective.” British Educational Research Journal, vol. 41, no. 5, Oct. 2015, pp. 845–865. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1002/berj.3165. Accessed 20 May 2019.
This academic paper presents the conditions and results of a study on class size done in Hong Kong, as well as the author’s conclusions on the data. In previous class size studies, there were no controls in place for teacher quality or other such effects that might influence the study results, besides the actual size of the class. The authors make clear that this study is different because for sets of large and small classes, the same teacher was in the classroom. Furthermore, as traditional class size study analysis usually draws upon cognitive learning theories, the authors of this paper interpret the results of this study using social learning theory.
This information in this source is reliable because it was not only published by in a peer-reviewed academic journal, but also the journal is one that is well known for educational research. The journal itself is a publication of the British Educational Research Association, an international organization that is dedicated to academic educational research and policy. Also, the authors of this paper are affiliated with the University of Hong Kong.
On the topic of class size, there have been many studies done, but they have still left some questions unanswered. One of the debates about these previous studies is that there is still confusion on whether class size produces better academic results or if teacher quality is more impactful. This study is unique in that it utilizes the same teachers for both the large and small class sizes. Therefore, this paper provides some clarity on the effects of class size when teacher quality is equal. Finally, since this paper was published in 2015, it provides a more recent perspective than many other articles published on the effects of class size.
Hindman, Annemarie H., and Andres S. Bustamante. “Teacher Depression as a Dynamic Variable: Exploring the Nature and Predictors of Change over the Head Start Year.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 61, Mar. 2019, pp. 43–55. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2018.09.004. Accessed 14 May 2019.
This abstract article reports on a research study and analysis that measures teacher depression over the school year. The study reports on Head Start teachers of pre-K students and analysis factors that contribute to the teachers’ level of depression throughout the school year.
This is a peer-reviewed article published in the well accredited Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. This research was also done in the School District of Philadelphia.
Class Size was one contributor to teacher’s overall level of depression. Since a teacher’s level of depression also plays a part in overall teacher quality, and teacher quality has a positive effect on student achievement, we can infer that class size ultimately has a positive effect on student achievement.
Kainz, Kirsten. “Early Academic Gaps and Title I Programming in High Poverty, High Minority Schools.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 47, Apr. 2019, pp. 159–168. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.08.012.
Abstract of article examining the use of Title 1 funding and the funded programs’ effectiveness. Title 1 funding is intended to reduce the performance gap between majority and minority students and those who live in high poverty schools.
The author of this article is affiliated with the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The article was originally published in a scholarly research journal and is peer reviewed.
Title 1 funding may be used for Class Size Reduction programs in Title 1 schools, and the findings and conclusions of this study show that these programs are indeed effective in reducing the achievement gap and improving reading skills in high poverty, high minority schools.
Kilkenny, Alison. “The Fight for Philly’s Schools:” Nation, vol. 296, no. 7, Feb. 2013, p. 5. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=85470107&site=ehost-live. Accessed 19 May 2019.
This is a short article that gives an update on the financial state of the School District of Philadelphia in 2013. Overall, the school district is in a financial crisis, operating at a 5-year deficit, and closing schools as a solution to the problem.
The reporting done in this article was vetted and published by a well-known national magazine, that, according to Wikipedia, is the longest running weekly magazine in the U.S.
This article provides insight into the financial history of the School District of Philadelphia as well as how the city’s leadership has chosen to deal with their budget problems in the past.
Kitzmiller, Erika M. “Public Schools, Private Dollars: An Education Arms Race.” Phi Kappa Phi Forum, Mar. 2019, pp. 14–17. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=135467154&site=ehost-live. Accessed 21 May 2019.
This article discusses how public school districts are funded and how private donations and philanthropy play a role in that funding. This private funding of public school districts tends to only increase the achievement gaps, as wealthier communities usually are the beneficiaries of this type of funding, while the communities more in-need of funding typically receive less in private donations.
This article has quite a credible author, as she is associated with both Columbia University and Harvard University.
Soliciting private donations may be a way for the School District of Philadelphia to gain the funds needed to institute a class size reduction program. They already use this type of funding, as the district has created a website designed for schools to advertise needs and for community members to contribute donations.
Konstantopoulos, Spyros, and Wei Li. “Are There Additional Benefits from Being in Small Classes for More than One Year?” Educational Research & Evaluation, vol. 18, no. 7, Oct. 2012, pp. 671–685. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718431. Accessed 19 May 2019.
This abstract article gives a brief description of the results from a research study, using Project STAR, that looks at the effectiveness of small class sizes. The study controls for previous academic achievement and small class size for students.
This study uses Project STAR data and the authors are associated with Michigan State University.
This study finds that there are no cumulative effects of small class sizes on students and advises that if students are placed in small class sizes, that it should be in first grade.
McGrath, Dennis and Martin B. Spear. “Stories from the Front.” The Academic Crisis of the Community College. E-book, State University of New York Press, 1991, Albany, New York.
This exert describes the experiences of teachers at community college. The authors describe an average day in a classroom and the teacher’s interactions with their students.
The authors are community college professors themselves, so the stories come mostly from their real life experience.
The stories from this exert portray the students are underprepared for college level coursework and unadjusted to academic culture.
Neher, Chris, et al. “Budgeting for the Future: The Long-Term Impacts of Short-Term Thinking in Alabama K-12 Education Funding.” Journal of Education Finance, vol. 42, no. 4, Jan. 2017, pp. 448–470. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx^direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1169302&site=ehost-live. Accessed 14 May 2019.
This is an abstract of an article that describes a study in Alabama. This study links certain intervention initiatives with student graduation rates. This paper also examines the findings and how they should be applied to policy making.
This article is peer reviewed and published in a reputable scholarly journal out of the University of Illinois.
This abstract provides evidence in support of funding class-size reduction programs and in general, supports funding of elementary and secondary education.
Nye, Barbara, Larry V. Hedges, and Spyros Konstantopoulos. “Are Effects of Small Classes Cumulative? Evidence From a Tennessee Experiment.” Journal of Educational Research, vol. 94, no. 6, July 2001, pp. 336–345. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00220670109598771. Accessed 25 May 2019.
Persinger, Ryanne. “School District introduces $3.4 billion budget.” The Philadelphia Tribune. 28 March, 2019, phillytrib.com. Accessed 9 June 2019.
This newspaper article informs readers of the School District of Philadelphia’s proposed budget for the 2019-2020 school year, along with some highlights of the budget plan. The writer interviews the Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer of the school district.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is a well-known local newspaper and is held to high fact-checking standards. The author quotes and cites officials from the district.
The budget includes adding a significant number of new literacy coaches for Grades K-3 and many new teachers and staff. Overall, the district’s proposed budget totals $3.4 billion.
Philadelphia School District Board of Education. “20190516-BOE Policy Meeting.” The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education, 16 May 2019, videoplayer.telvue.com/player/0bfLByeZXfZHVlpy5BHT5v2arkggCWuH/media/479980?autostart=true&showtabssearch=true. Accessed 9 June 2019.
This is a video recording of the Philadelphia School District Board of Education Policy Committee meeting held on May 16, 2019 at 440 N. Board Street, Philadelphia, PA. The Board of Education makes available to the public recordings of all of it’s meetings. I have personally attended this an other meetings, which are open to the public.
At this meeting, I gave testimony on the large class sizes in Philadelphia and asked the Committee if they would consider reducing class size.
Saw, Guan Kung. “Remedial Enrollment During the 1st Year of College, Institutional Transfer, and Degree Attainment.” Journal of Higher Education, vol. 90, no. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 298–321. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00221546.2018.1493668. Accessed 4 June 2019.
“Search for Public School Districts: Philadelphia City SD.” Common Core of Data. National Center for Education Statistics, 2019, nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&details=1&InstName=Philadelphia&State=42&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictType=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&DistrictType=8&NumOfStudentsRange=more&NumOfSchoolsRange=more&ID2=4218990. Accessed 7 June 2019.
The National Center For Education Statistics provides a “district search” on their official website. I searched for the School District of Philadelphia. On each District’s page is the official data for the school district from the government database, the Common Core of Data. The data is from the 2016-2017 school year, and fiscal data from 2015-2015.
This search was done on an official government website and results accessed come from official government collected data.
This data reports the School District of Philadelphia as having a 16.84 student/teacher ratio, a total revenue of $3,030,964,000; and total expenditures of $2,824,311,000.
Sohn, Kitae. “Nonrobustness of the Carryover Effects of Small Classes in Project STAR.” Teachers College Record, vol. 117, no. 3, Mar. 2015, pp. 1–26. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=101983127&site=ehost-live. Accessed 15 May 2019.
This abstract article presents the research methods and findings of Project STAR data. Kitae Sohn investigates how true the randomization of students was in Project STAR and determines through this particular analysis that the experiment was not truly randomized. This analysis suggests skewed results to reflect higher achievement for students in small classes.
This is a peer reviewed article, and the author is associated with Konkuk University, South Korea.
This abstract suggests caution when citing Project STAR, which is a rare analysis of the study.
“The School District of Philadelphia Guide to School Budgets 2018-2019.” The School District of Philadelphia. April 2018, philasd.org. Accessed 9 June 2019.
“The School District of Philadelphia Guide to School Budgets 2019-2020.” The School District of Philadelphia. April 2019, philasd.org. Accessed 9 June 2019.
These budget guides are released every year by the School District of Philadelphia and give a description and breakdown of the proposed budget and expenses of the school district. The budget provides details that include how much is spent on teacher salaries and benefits, principal salaries, and building maintenance costs.
Woods, Darian. “The Class Size Debate: What the Evidence Means for Education Policy.” University of California Berkely. Policy Matters Journal, 23 Sept. 2015, gspp.berkeley.edu/research/featured/the-class-size-debate-what-the-evidence-means-for-education-policy. Accessed 15 May 2019.
This article examines the results of different class size studies and how this debate relates to policy making in local public school districts, specifically those in California. After comparing both sides of the class size debate, the author concludes that smaller class sizes are beneficial enough to be considered in policy making at the state and local levels.
This article is published on the University of California, Berkeley website, as an official academic publication. The author cites peer-reviewed, scientific studies and interviews real public school teachers.
The Oakland Public School teacher, James Malamut, who was interviewed for this article also taught in the Philadelphia School District and speaks on the conditions of class size from his real life experience.
A Call To Action: Class Size Reduction for The School District of Philadelphia 