The False Promise of Class-Size Reduction

8/7/2019 The False Promise of Class-Size Reduction

1/24www.americanprogress.o

The False Promise of Class-Size

ReductionMatthew M. Chingos April 2011


2/24


3/24

The False Promise of Class-SizeReduction

Matthew M. Chingos April 2011


4/24


5/24

1 Introduction and summary

4 The evidence on class-size reduction

8 CSR: The most expensive school reform

10 Looking ahead

12 References

13 Endnotes

15 About the author and acknowledgements

Contents


6/24


7/24

inun n ummy | www.mene.

Introduction and summary

Class-size reducion, or CSR, is enormously popular wih parens, eachers, and

he public in general. Te laes poll resuls indicae ha 77 percen o Americans

hink ha addiional educaional dollars should be spen on smaller classes raher

han higher eacher salaries.1 Many parens believe ha heir children will ben-

e rom more individualized atenion in a smaller class and many eachers nd

smaller classes easier o manage. Te pupil-eacher raio is an easy saisic or he

public o monior as a measure o educaional qualiy, especially beore es-scoredaa became widely available in he las decade.

Policymakers across he naion, including hose in a leas 24 saes, have aken

hese ideas o hear and enaced CSR iniiaives a coss upward o billions o dol-

lars.2 Caliornia allocaed $1.5 billion per year in he lae 1990s o reduce class size

in he early grades. Florida has spen abou $20 billion since 2002 reducing class

size in every grade rom kindergaren hrough high school.3 Te ederal govern-

men also has is own program, which provided $1.2 billion o $1.6 billion per

year rom 1999 o 2001 or CSR in grades K3. Tis program was absorbed ino

ile II o he No Child Le Behind Ac in 2001.4

Tese policies, coupled wih rends in local school disrics, have produced a wide-

spread reducion in he number o sudens per eacher over he pas our decades.5

Figure 1 shows ha he pupil-eacher raio in public schools has allen by abou 30

percen since 1970. Tis rend parly reecs an increase in educaional services o

sudens wih disabiliies, as required by ederal law beginning in 1975.6 Bu alling

pupil-eacher raios aeced all sudens, as evidenced by he even seeper drop a

privae schools (which serve ewer disabled sudens).7 Te rend a privae schools

also likely reecs he srong preerence o parens or small classes and he greaerincenive or privae schools o respond o hose preerences.

Parens, eachers, and policymakers have all embraced CSR as a sraegy o

improve he qualiy o public educaion. Tere is surprisingly litle high-qualiy


8/24

2 cene amen pe | te Fe pme c-sze reun

research, however, on he eecs o class size on

suden achievemen in he Unied Saes.8 Te

credible evidence ha does exis is no consis-

en, and here are many low-qualiy sudies

wih resuls all over he map. Te mos encour-

aging resuls or CSR come rom a single experi-men conduced in he 1980s, which ound

ha a large reducion in class size in he early

grades increased es scores, paricularly among

low-income and Arican American sudens.

Bu evaluaions o large-scale CSR policies in

Caliornia and Florida have yielded much less

posiive resuls, perhaps because o he need

o hire so many (inexperienced and poenially

less eecive) new eachers.

Te evidence on class size indicaes ha smaller classes can, in some circum-

sances, improve suden achievemen i implemened in a ocused way. Bu CSR

policies generally ake exacly he opposie approach by pursuing across-he-

board reducions in class size a he sae or ederal level. Tese large-scale, unar-

geed policies are also exremely expensive and represen wased opporuniies o

make smarer educaional invesmens.

Large-scale CSR policies clearly ail any cos-bene es because hey enail seep

coss and produce benes ha are modes a bes. Bu wha abou reducions in

class size a he disric or school level? When school nances are limied (as hey

always are), he cos-bene es any educaional policy mus pass is no Does

his policy have any posiive eec? bu raher Is his policy he mos produc-

ive use o hese educaional dollars? Assuming even he larges class-size eecs

in he research lieraure, such as he SAR resuls ha indicae ha a 32 per-

cen reducion in class size increased achievemen by abou 15 percen o a year

o learning aer one year, CSR will sill ail his es because i is so expensive.

Reducing class size by one-hird, rom 24 o 16 sudens, requires hiring 50 per-

cen more eachers. Depending on how much exra space schools have, new acili-

ies may need o be buil o accommodae he addiional classes.

Tere are cerainly many policies ha migh be proposed as cos-eecive alerna-

ives o CSR, bu one se o policies ha sand ou are hose aimed a improving

eacher qualiy. Researchers agree ha eacher qualiy is he single mos imporan

in-school deerminan o how much sudens learn.9 Sanord economis Eric

ource: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2009, Table 64.

Figure 1

Pupil-teacher ratio in U.S. public and private schools,

1970-2007

Pupil-teacher ratio

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Public schools

Private schools


9/24

inun n ummy | www.mene.

Hanushek has esimaed ha replacing he wors 5 percen o 8 percen o eachers

wih average eachers would dramaically boos achievemen in he Unied Saes.10

Invesing less in CSR would ree up resources ha could be used o recrui and

reain highly eecive eachers. For example, schools migh rea dieren eachers

dierenly, or pay eachers dierenly based on heir eeciveness in he classroom

or he subjec area hey each, as Robin Chai and Raegen Miller have suggesed.11

Te ac ha across-he-board CSR policies a he sae or disric level are no

cos-eecive does no mean ha smaller classes should never be used, bu raher

ha hey should be reserved or use in special cases by individual schools. A

principal may decide, or example, ha a smaller class makes sense or an inexperi-

enced eacher who needs suppor in developing skills o provide accommodaions

or sudens wih disabiliies. A he same ime, he principal may wan o assign a

larger class o a highly eecive veeran eacher, perhaps wih some exra compen-

saion or he addiional work required. School disrics should encourage his

kind o creaive managemen and enable i by collecing and providing o princi-pals deailed daa on heir eachers and he classes hey each.


10/24


The evidence on class-size reduction

Te vas majoriy o class-size sudies are no rigorous, so heir resuls are no

very useul as a guide o policy. Te primary diculy in sudying class size is ha

schools wih dieren class sizes likely dier in many oher, dicul-o-observe

ways. More afuen schools are more likely o have he resources needed o pro-

vide smaller classes, which would creae he illusion ha smaller classes are beter

when in ac amily characerisics were he real reason. Alernaively, a school

ha serves many sudens wih behavior problems may nd i easier o manage

hese sudens in smaller classes. A comparison o such schools o oher schoolsmigh give he appearance ha small classes produce less learning when in ac he

behavior problems were he main acor.

Sudies ha do no careully isolae he causal eec o class size (and only class

size) produce widely varying resuls. Sanords Eric Hanushek compiled 276

esimaes o class-size eecs rom 59 sudies, and ound ha only 11 percen o

hese esimaes indicaed posiive eecs o smaller classes.12 A similar number

(9 percen) were negaive, wih he remaining 80 percen no saisically disin-

guishable rom zero. Princeon economis Alan Krueger argued or an alernaive

mehod o couning he esimaes, bu his change only increased he proporion

o sudies showing posiive eecs o 26 percen, wih he majoriy showing eiher

negaive or insignican eecs.13 One way o inerpre hese allies is ha class

size maters in some circumsances bu no ohers. Anoher plausible explanaion

is ha unreliable sudies produce unreliable resuls.

Te only way o credibly measure he causal eec o class size is o compare

sudens who are in larger or smaller classes or reasons unrelaed o heir

achievemen. One way o do his is a conrolled experimen, where research-

ers randomly assign sudens o smaller and larger classes. Te only large-scaleclass-size experimen carried ou in he Unied Saes is he Suden eacher

Achievemen Raio, or SAR, sudy, which was conduced in ennessee during

he lae 1980s.14 Beginning wih he enering kindergareners in 1985, sudens

and eachers were randomly assigned o a small class, wih an average o 15


11/24

te evene n -ze eun | www.mene.

sudens, or a regular class, wih an average o 22 sudens.15 Tus he reducion

in class size (seven sudens, or 32 percen) was quie large.

Te resuls o he SAR experimen aer one year were encouraging: Sudens in

he small kindergaren classes ouperormed sudens in he regular-size classes

on sandardized ess by abou 15 percen o a year o learning.16

Bu his eec didno increase aer one year, and decreased by he end o he hird grade when he

experimen ended.17 In oher words, he calculaion o he class-size eec depends

enormously on he ime rame used. Te bump in es scores aer one year would be

impressive i i didn erode over ime despie he coninued use o small classes. 18

Sudens who enered he SAR experimen in laer years also saw gains rom

being in he smaller class ha were generally concenraed in he rs year o

paricipaion. Addiionally, he posiive eecs o class size in Projec SAR were

larges or black sudens, economically disadvanaged sudens, and boys.19

Te oher prominen high-qualiy sudy o class size in he Unied Saes is

Sanord economis Caroline Hoxbys examinaion o Connecicu schools using

daa rom he 1980s and 1990s.20 Hoxby akes advanage o dierences in class

size ha resul rom random changes in he school-age populaion. For example,

a small school ha has 15 rs-grade sudens in one year and 18 he nex year

would have a larger class during he second year. Addiionally, a school ha has

se a class-size limi o 25 would have one second-grade class o 25 i here were

25 second-grade sudens bu wo classes o 13 i here were 26 sudens. Hoxby

nds no relaionship beween class size and achievemen in ourh and sixh grade

(which should reec class size in all previous grades). Hoxby does no even nd

class-size eecs a schools ha serve disproporionaely large shares o disadvan-

aged or minoriy sudens.

Tere is no consensus as o how o reconcile hese wo conicing sudies,

bu here are several possibiliies. Firs, here are many dierences beween

Connecicu and ennessee ha migh make class size a more imporan acor

in he later sae. For example, in 199495 Connecicu had he highes-paid

eachers in he naion, whereas ennessee ranked 34h.21 Perhaps higher salaries

atrac beter eachers and beter eachers can each well regardless o he size ohe class.22 In Projec SAR, he class-size eec varied widely by schoolhe

small-class eec was posiive in wo-hirds o he schools, bu negaive in he

oher hird.23 Eric Hanushek has inerpreed his nding as evidence ha dier-

ences in eacher qualiy are exremely imporan.24


12/24


Anoher poenially imporan dierence beween he wo sudies is ha he

eachers in Projec SAR knew hey were par o an experimen, whereas in

Connecicu here was no experimen, jus daa colleced and analyzed aer he

ac. One way his knowledge could aec he resuls is i SAR eachers assigned

o regular-size classes were disappoined and reduced heir eor as a resul. A

nal dierence worh noing is ha SAR did no include smaller schools becausehey did no have enough sudens o randomly assign beween class ypes in a

single grade, whereas he Connecicu sudy ocuses on small schools because

heir class sizes are mos aeced by modes populaion changes. Tus i could be

he case ha class size maters more in larger schools han in smaller schools.

Even hough hese sudies canno be reconciled, he imporan poin is ha we jus

don know a whole lo abou he impac o CSR on suden achievemen. Te wo

sudies o he early grades have conicing resuls, and we know litle abou he laer

grades. Te only high-qualiy sudy o class size in middle or high school is Tomas

Dee and Marin Wess analysis o eighh-graders in a naionally represenaive daase.25 Dee and Wes compare he oucomes o he same sudens who atended

dieren-size classes in dieren subjecs. Tey nd no impac o class size on es

scores (excep or a small eec in urban schools), bu do nd modes eecs on

noncogniive skills such as suden ateniveness and atiudes abou learning.

Research on large-scale CSR iniiaives suggess ha such policies are unlikely o

produce he kind o resuls seen in he SAR experimen. Caliornias lae-1990s

policy ha reduced K3 class sizes by abou 10 sudens (rom 30 o 20, on aver-

age) is dicul o evaluae because saewide ess were no adminisered unil

aer he program began. Te mos careul sudy o his mulibillion-dollar policy

ound ha i had modes eecs on suden achievemen o 6 percen o 11 per-

cen o a year o learning, some o which were ose by he hiring o inexperienced

eachers o lead newly creaed classes, paricularly in he rs ew years o he pol-

icy.26 Oher uninended negaive consequences o he Caliornia policy included

an increase in class size in grades 4 and 5 and he use o muligrade classrooms.27

Florida enaced an even broader CSR policy ha imposed specic caps on class

size in every core-subjec classroom in every grade.28 Tis policy cos abou $20

billion o implemen during is rs eigh years, wih coninuing coss o $4 billiono $5 billion each subsequen year. In a recen sudy, I ound no evidence ha

he Florida policy had any impac on es scores in grades 4 hrough 8, perhaps

because class size does no make much o a dierence in hese grades.29 I also

ound no impacs on hird-grade scores, which would be aeced by class sizes


13/24

te evene n -ze eun | www.mene.

in grades 1 o 3. Te reducions in class size o abou wo o hree sudens ha I

examined were smaller han in previous sudies, bu I didn nd relaively small

eecsI ound no eecs even in he grades ha experienced he bigges reduc-

ions in class size.

Tere is clearly a need or more rigorous sudies o class size, bu wo imporanconclusions emerge rom he exising research. Firs, across-he-board reducions

in class size a he sae level are likely o yield disappoining resuls, as was he case

in Caliornia and Florida. Second, CSR policies pursued a he school or disric

level may produce larger eecs in some circumsances. Te ennessee SAR

reducion o class size in he very early grades produced he larges class-size eecs.

Bu even i reducing class sizes produces benes his large, is i worh he cos?


14/24


CSR: The most expensive

school reform

Te coss o class-size reducion are as cerain as he benes are uncerain.

Reducing class size means hiring more eachers and building more classrooms

he public school sysems wo primary coss. Reducing class size by one-hird,

rom 24 sudens o 16 sudens, requires hiring 50 percen more eachers.

Depending on how much exra space schools have, new aciliies may need o be

buil o accommodae he addiional classes. And i small classrooms are buil o

accommodae small classes, schools may be suck wih small classes in he uure

even i hey decide hey are no cos-eecive.

Consider his example: A school ha pays eachers $50,000 per year (roughly he

naional average) would save $833 per suden in eacher salary coss alone by

increasing class size rom 15 o 20.30 Te rue savings, including aciliies coss and

eacher benes, would be signicanly larger. Tese resources could be used or

oher purposes. I all o he savings were used o raise eacher salaries, or example,

he average eacher salary in his example would increase by $17,000 o $67,000.

School nances areand always will benie, so he righ way o hink abou

every dollar spen is no will i have any posiive eec? bu is his he bes pos-

sible way o spend his dollar?31 A hugely expensive policy has o produce very

impressive resuls in order or i o be preerable o all o he oher poenial uses

or hose resources. Class-size reducion almos always ails his es because i is

oo expensive o jusiy even benes as large as hose suggesed by he ennessee

SAR sudy.

Some advocaes o class-size reducion argue ha a policy ha produces any

bene is worh he cos, bu ha is only rue i here are no alernaive policies.

Tere are many educaional policies ha deserve o be careully considered inerms o heir benes and coss. Te emerging consensus ha eacher eecive-

ness is he single mos imporan in-school deerminan o suden achievemen

suggess ha eacher recruimen, reenion, and compensaion policies ough o

rank high on he lis.


15/24

csr: te m exenve em | www.mene.

Economiss Eric Hanushek and Seven Rivkin repored he resuls o 10 sudies ha

use suden es scores o measure eacher eeciveness. 32 Tese sudies indicae

ha, on average, a suden augh by an above-average eacherone a he 75h

percenilewill learn more han he suden o an average eacher by 27 percen o

29 percen o a years worh o learning.33 Hanushek has also esimaed ha replacing

he wors 5 percen o 8 percen o eachers wih average eachers would dramai-cally boos achievemen in he Unied Saes.34 In addiion o removing chronically

ineecive eachers, schools migh also change heir personnel policies o beter

reec marke realiies. Robin Chai and Raegen Miller have argued ha schools

should rea dieren eachers dierenly, or example, and pay eachers dierenly

based on heir eeciveness in he classroom or he subjec area hey each. 35

Changing he naure o he eaching proession o make i more responsive o

qualiy would come a a cos. eachers would need o be paid more o compen-

sae hem or he loss o job securiy. Providing bonuses o eachers in high-need

subjecs and schools would also consume resources. I hese policies are morecos-eecive han reducing class size, hen increasing class size in order o pursue

hem would increase suden achievemen. Rigid across-he-board CSR policies

make i impossible or schools o pursue such policies by ying up valuable educa-

ional resources.


16/24


Looking ahead

Te populariy o class-size reducion may make i dicul or policymakers o

pursue more cos-eecive policies.36 Sae policymakers who are deermined o

implemen CSR policies should arge he reducions a sudens who have been

shown o bene he mos: disadvanaged sudens in he early grades.37

Bu an even beter approach would be o le individual schools use small classes as

a response o very specic circumsances. An individual principal may decide, or

example, ha a smaller class makes sense or an inexperienced eacher who needssuppor in developing skills managing a classroom wih several sudens wih

behavior problems. A he same ime, he principal may wan o assign a larger

class o a highly eecive veeran eacher, perhaps wih some exra pay o compen-

sae he eacher or he exra work required. O course, principals would need o

be given he exibiliy o make such careully considered arrangemens.

Tese sors o eciency-enhancing decisions should no be limied o innova-

ive principals acing on heir own, bu should be enabled and encouraged a he

disric level. Frederick Hess and Jon Fulleron have argued ha school disrics

should collec deailed daa no jus on expendiures and es-score oucomes (as

mos now do) bu also on oher areas such as human capial and nance.38 Daa

on he size o every class and he eeciveness o he eacher leading i (as mea-

sured using value-added mehods or observaions) ough o be available o he

principal, wih he undersanding ha disric adminisraors also have access o

hese daa and expec he principal o use hem. Te coss o building such com-

plex daa sysems are no negligible, bu are a small racion o he cos o CSR.

Looking ahead, educaion researchers, policymakers, and praciioners migh

also consider wheher here are ways o leverage he inuiive benes o smallerclassessuch as more individualized insrucionwihou he seep coss and

uninended consequences. An imporan ronier in his regard may be expanding

he insrucional model o include high-qualiy compuer-enhanced educaion.

A sophisicaed piece o soware ha gives argeed eedback and allows each


17/24

ln e | www.mene.

suden o learn a her own pace would be highly individualized ye could be pro-

vided o large numbers o sudens a a racion o he cos o a small class.

Te idea is no ha virual educaion could replace radiional educaion, bu ha

beter oucomes migh be achieved wihou an increase in coss hrough a com-

binaion o soware-driven and radiional insrucional mehods. Each mehod(or a combinaion o he wo) migh be used in conexs where i is mos advana-

geous. For example, perhaps some mah conen could be augh o 30 sudens

in a compuer lab wih a eacher providing help as needed, which would ree up

resources o each reading skills in he radiional way in a smaller class.

echnology-enhanced educaion is sill in is inancy, so is ull poenial is ar

rom clear, bu he imporan poin is ha disrics (and saes) need o hink

creaively abou ways o reallocae resources so ha hey ge he mos ou o every

dollar. In he wake o he economic recession ha began in 2008, i has become

clear ha our naions public schools mus learn o do more wih less. CSR poli-cies use up valuable resources ha make i dicul or schools o arge resources

on he sudens who need hem he mos, and o pursue cos-eecive policies

ha bene all sudens.


18/24


References

American Federaion o eachers. 2007. Survey andAnalysis o eacher Salary rends 2005. Washingon.

American Federaion o eachers. 2009. Survey andAnalysis o eacher Salary rends 2007. Washingon.

Angris, Joshua D., and Vicor Lavy. 1999. Using Mai-monides Rule o Esimae he Eec o Class Size onScholasic Achievemen. Quarerly Journal of Economics,114(2): 533575.

Chai, Robin, and Raegen Miller. 2010. reaing Di-eren eachers Dierenly. Washingon: Cener orAmerican Progress.

Chingos, Mathew M. 2010. Te Impac o a UniversalClass-Size Reducion Policy: Evidence rom FloridasSaewide Mandae. Program on Educaion Policy andGovernance Working Paper 10-03.

Educaion Commission o he Saes. 2005. Sae Class-Size Reducion Measures. Denver.

Dee, Tomas S., and Marin R . Wes. Te Non-CogniiveReurns o Class Size. Educaion Evaluaion and PolicyAnalysis. Forhcoming.

Hanushek, Eric A. 1999. Te Evidence on Class Size. InSusan E. Mayer and Paul E. Peerson, ed., Earning &Learning: How Schools Mater. Washingon: BrookingsInsiuion Press.

. 2003. Te Failure o Inpu-Based Schooling Poli-cies. Economic Journal, 113(485): F64F98.

. 2010. Te Economic Value o Higher eacher

Qualiy. Naional Bureau o Economic Research Work-ing Paper No. 16606.

Hanushek, Eric A., and Seven G. Rivkin. 2010. General-izaions abou Using Value-Added Measures o eacherQualiy. American Economic Review, 100(2): 26771.

Hess, Frederick M., and Jon Fulleron. 2009. BalancedScorecards and Managemen Daa. Working paper.Cener or Educaion Policy Research.

Hill, Carolyn J., and ohers. 2008. Empirical Benchmarksor Inerpreing Eec Sizes in Research. Child Develop-men Perspecives, 2(3): 172177.

Hoxby, Caroline M. 2000. Te Eecs o Class Size onSuden Achievemen: New Evidence rom Popula-

ion Variaion. Quarerly Journal of Economics, 115(4):12391285.

Jepsen, Chrisopher, and Seven Rivkin. 2009. Class SizeReducion and Suden Achievemen: Te Poenialradeo beween eacher Qualiy and Class Size. Jour-nal of Human Resources, 44(1): 223250.

Krueger, Alan B. 1999. Experimenal Esimaes oEducaion Producion Funcions. Quarerly Journal ofEconomics, 115(2): 497532.

. 2003. Economic Consideraions and Class Size.

Economic Journal, 113(485): F34F63.

Millsap, Mary Ann, and ohers. 2004. A Descripive Eval-uaion o he Federal Class-Size Reducion Program:Final Repor. U.S. Deparmen o Educaion.

Sims, David. 2008. A Sraegic Response o Class SizeReducion: Combinaion Classes and Suden Achieve-men in Caliornia. Journal of Policy Analysis andManagemen, 27(3): 457478.

. 2009. Crowding Peer o Educae Paul: Lessonsrom a Class Size Reducion Exernaliy. Economics of

Educaion Review, 28: 465473.

Wmann, Ludger, and Marin Wes. 2006. Class-SizeEecs in School Sysems Around he World: Evidencerom Beween-Grade Variaion in IMSS. EuropeanEconomic Review, 50(3): 695736.


19/24

Enne | www.mene.

Endnotes

1 Education Next, pm n Eun py n gvenne 2007suvey. reu vbe ://eunnex./e/EN-pEpg_cmee_pn_reu..

2 Eun cmmn e se, se c-sze reunMeue (2005).

3 F demen Eun, 200910 F EunFnne pm, F doE inmn dbe W,summe 2009, vbe ://www.e./e/b-ew//e..

4 My ann M n e, a deve Evun e Feec-sze reun pm: Fn re, U.s. demen Eun (2004).

5 te u-ee n equven vee ze, bue w e ee n ny u-ee been ee e ene uny ve enby n e me.

6 te ee w e Eun a hne cen a 1975, w w eve n enme e invu w d-be Eun a n 1990.

7 F n evene ne n e eun nexn me n me e e n e u-ee, ee E a. hnue, te Evene n c sze, n sunE. Mye n pu E. peen, e., Earning & Learning: How SchoolsMatter(Wnn: Bn inun pe, 1999).

8 F exme -quy nenn evene, ee Ju d.an n V lvy, Un Mmne rue Eme eEfe c sze n s aevemen, Quarterly Journalof Economics, 114(2) (1999): 533575; n lue Wmnn n

Mn We, c-sze Efe n s syem a un eW: Evene m Beween-ge Vn n tiMss, EuropeanEconomic Review, 50(3) (2006): 695736.

9 F ummy eve ee ue, ee E a. hnuen seven g. rvn, genezn bu Un Vue-aeMeue tee Quy, American Economic Review, 100(2)(2010): 26771.

10 E a. hnue, te Enm Vue he tee Quy, N-n Bueu Enm ree Wn pe N. 16606 (2010).

11 rbn c n reen Me, ten dfeen tee dfe-eny (Wnn: cene amen pe, 2010).

12 E a. hnue, te Fue inu-Be sn pe,Economic Journal, 113(485) (2003): F64F98.

13 an B. kuee, Enm cnen n c sze,Economic

Journal, 113(485) (2003): F34F63.

14 te emn ny pje star an B. kuee, Exemen- Eme Eun pun Funn, Quarterly Journalof Economics, 115(2) (1999): 497532.

15 a u w ne eu-ze w eee. hvn n e n e m n m n uenevemen.

16 te efe ze e ne ye w bu 0.2 n evn,w nvee ye enn un e vee nnun n efe ze m neen e (vee m n en). ree n cyn J. h n e, EmBenm ineen Efe sze n ree,Child Develop-ment Perspectives, 2(3) (2008): 172177.

17 au un m e pje star . te efe zee ee ye uen w enee n neen w 0.14n evn. dvn efe ze by e u ve-e nnu n n efe ze ee by h n e (2008)ne en bu 16 een ye en-n (.e., e efe ze e n em n evn uene e, bu n n em ye enn). te e ee vee nze (men ze, n evn n e)

en n m e. Eme efe, w e be n euen w enee e exemen n neen, n xe efe n uen e, ene, n ee un ee.

18 F ee un ue, ee E a. hnue, teEvene n c sze, n sun E. Mye n pu E. peen, e.,Earning & Learning: How Schools Matter(Wnn: Bninun pe, 1999).

19 te u-ye efe ze (n n evn) e uen enee e uy n neen e 0.23 b uen,0.13 we uen, 0.17 uen ebe e ee ee eue-e un m, 0.14 uen n ebe bem, 0.03 , n 0.25 by (u unm e pje star un -e en n m ee). te efe (n n evn) n -e e uen n e star exemen w e -ee, nun e enn, wee 0.15 uen, 0.24 b, 0.13 we, 0.21 vne uen, 0.10

nnvne uen, 0.11 , n 0.18 by. teeeu n -by-eny-wve xe efe (e eve w nmzn ue).

20 cne M. hxby, te Efe c sze n suen aeve-men: New Evene m pun Vn, Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 115(4) (2000): 12391285.

21 amen Feen tee, suvey n any teesy ten 2005 (2007).

22 t e ue n n nenn nex by lueWmnn n Mn We, c-sze Efe n s syemaun e W: Evene m Beween-ge Vn n tiMss,European Economic Review, 50(3) (2006): 695736.

23 an B. kuee, Exemen Eme Eun punFunn, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2) (1999): 497532.

24 E a. hnue, te Fue inu-Be sn pe,Economic Journal, 113(485) (2003): F64F98.

25 tm s. dee n Mn r. We, te Nn-cnve reun c sze, Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis (mn).

26 ce Jeen n seven rvn, c sze reun n su-en aevemen: te pen tef beween tee Quyn c sze, Journal of Human Resources, 44(1) (2009): 223250.
http://educationnext.org/files/EN-PEPG_Complete_Polling_Results.pdfhttp://educationnext.org/files/EN-PEPG_Complete_Polling_Results.pdfhttp://www.fldoe.org/eias/databaseworkshop/ppt/fefp.ppthttp://www.fldoe.org/eias/databaseworkshop/ppt/fefp.ppthttp://www.fldoe.org/eias/databaseworkshop/ppt/fefp.ppthttp://www.fldoe.org/eias/databaseworkshop/ppt/fefp.ppthttp://educationnext.org/files/EN-PEPG_Complete_Polling_Results.pdfhttp://educationnext.org/files/EN-PEPG_Complete_Polling_Results.pdf


20/24


te efe ze n -eve n evn n e eeeme (umn 4 n 9 tbe 3) ne m 0.037 0.072 ne 2 n 3. tee efe ze e nvee ye ennun e e- n ubje-e vee nnu n n efeze ee n h n e (2008). hweve, e nveeue bby vee e mun uen enn beue-eve n evn en be ubny men uen-eve n evn.

27 dv sm, a se rene c sze reun: cmbn-n ce n suen aevemen n cn, Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management, 27(3) (2008): 457478, n dv sm,

cwn pee Eue pu: len m c sze reu-n Exeny, Economics of Education Review, 28 (2009): 465473.

28 te mxmum ze n F e 18 n e pk3, 22 ne 48, n 25 n e 912.

29 Mew M. cn, te im Unve c-sze reunpy: Evene m F sewe Mne, pm nEun py n gvenne Wn pe 10-03 (2010).

30 te vee ee y n e Une se $51,049 (amenFeen tee, suvey n any tee syten 2007 (2009)).

31 sme ue ue -efevene by mn eeme y n eme e y efe nuen uue enn (ve e eme, une eeen). a y ue me n bene n be -efeve, bu ye -bene ny me e

mn n e my ve ue even ebene ey been en n feen y.

32 E a. hnue n seven g. rvn, genezn bu UnVue-ae Meue tee Quy, American EconomicReview, 100(2) (2010): 26771.

33 sey, ey un vn ee w ne nevn bve vee ( me e vee ee)nee e e by 0.11 n 0.15 n evn n e-n n m, eevey. i nve ee eme ye enn (e jun e e 75 eene bu0.7 n evn bve e men) by vn by e ve-e e vee nnu n n efe ze m e 4 8 (ee en vee by vue-e ue) ee n h ne (2008).

34 E a. hnue, te Enm Vue he tee Quy, N-n Bueu Enm ree Wn pe N. 16606 (2010).

35 rbn c n r een Me, ten dfeen tee dfe-eny (Wnn: cene amen pe, 2010).

36 Bu e zen wu ee feeny ey une e me e n e ef w e e ey vef e uy en n e uenenm me. t Nvembe, 55 een ve nF ve mey e b e csr y (bu weeunbe beue e e men e e nun 60 een).

37 se venmen my w me mxmum ze e be n ey nen, u e mxmumnumbe en n ey n m. cen,w e eque by w en , u n be ew 40 e uen n m ene 25 30, buu e u n be ue jun eun ze m 25 23 n ene e

bn .

38 Fee M. he n Jn Fuen, Bne se nMnemen d, wn e, cene Eun pyree (2009).


21/24

abu e u n nweemen | www.mene.

About the author

Mathew M. Chingos is a Fellow in he Brown Cener on Educaion Policy a he

Brookings Insiuion and a Posdocoral Fellow a he Program on Educaion

Policy and Governance a Harvard Universiy. He sudies educaion poliics,

economics, and policy a boh he K12 and possecondary levels. Chingoss rsbook, Crossing he Finish Line: Compleing College a Americas Public Universiies,

coauhored wih William G. Bowen and Michael S. McPherson, was published

by Princeon Universiy Press in 2009. His curren research examines eacher

labor markes, class-size reducion policies, ciizen percepions o school qual-

iy, echnology-enhanced learning, and he college choices o low-income su-

dens. Chingos received a B.A. in Governmen and Economics and a Ph.D. in

Governmen, boh rom Harvard Universiy.

Acknowledgements

Te Cener or American Progress hanks Te Bill & Melinda Gaes Foundaion

or generously providing suppor or his paper. Te auhor would like o hank

Teodora Chang, Raegen Miller, Megan Slack, and Marin Wes or helpul com-

mens and suggesions.


22/24


23/24


24/24

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute

dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity

for all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to

these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies reflect these values.

We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and

international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that

is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The False Promise of Class-Size Reduction

Documents

Transcript of The False Promise of Class-Size Reduction