Photo courtesy "MaST" Charter

Photograph courtesy "MaST" Charter

In but three years, California'south class size reduction programme in kindergarten through the 3rd grade has unraveled at a rapid rate, and continues to practice so.

The purpose of the program, which began in 1996 when the land was enjoying a budget surplus, was to reduce class sizes in those early grades to 20 students, in the belief that smaller class sizes improve student bookish outcomes.

The program has cost the state some $25 billion in direct funding from Sacramento since its inception, in improver to the additional funds that local school districts accept had to spend to cover the full costs of the program.

But an EdSource survey of the land's 30 largest school districts, based on data supplied by schoolhouse officials, plant that half of the districts now have thirty or more students in 1 or more Chiliad–3 grades during the electric current schoolhouse yr.

This contrasts with the 2008-09 school twelvemonth when virtually every district in the state had a ratio of 20 students per teacher in those grades.

Last autumn, Stockton Unified was able to restore average class sizes of 20 or fewer to its kindergarten classes — the only district among the largest 30 that has been able to keep course sizes to that number in any one of the K-3 grades. But even in Stockton, those classes are an anomaly. Its 1st through tertiary grade classes boilerplate 32 students, among the highest in the state in those grades.

Before the program was introduced, California'south Yard-12 public schools had larger pupil-instructor ratios than every country except Utah and Arizona across all 12 grades.

Similar surveys by California Watch in 2009 and 2010 show how quickly class sizes have grown in kindergarten through 3rd course. In 2009-10, just five districts had class sizes of 30 students in ane or more M-iii grades. By 2010-11, that number had jumped to ten districts, and by this year to fifteen districts.

In 2009-x, two-thirds of the xxx largest districts, which serve nearly 2 million students, were able to maintain class sizes with 24 or fewer students in the K-3 grades. This yr, only iv districts — San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Elk Grove — had class sizes of 24 or fewer in all four K-3 grades.

The unraveling of the plan is directly tied to the state's budget crisis. Until 2009, schools qualified for a generous subsidy of more than $i,000 per student if they maintained a class size of under 21 per class. Even though school districts had to contribute some of their own funds, the subsidy was a powerful incentive for districts to participate.

But beginning in 2009, in a move to give districts more flexibility in how they managed their shrinking revenues, the Legislature gave districts the right to raise class sizes to over 25 students and notwithstanding get seventy percent of the subsidy they had been receiving.

At the time, onetime Gov. Pete Wilson, who initiated class size reduction when the land enjoyed a upkeep surplus in 1996, said the changes "totally defeat the purpose of the program. If yous get 70 pct of the funds for doing nothing, where is that money going? Information technology is not accomplishing the purpose for which the program was devised."

Until then, 99 percent of the state'south 883 districts eligible to participate in the program had an average of twenty students in K-3 grades. If average class sizes reached 22 or more, they lost all their subsidy.

Initially, even when permitted to exercise so, school administrators were reluctant to let go of a programme enormously popular among parents — and teachers. For the first ii years, federal stimulus funds helped blunt the bear upon of the downturn on the schools, and many districts were able to retain relatively pocket-size grade sizes.

But as the budget crunch has deepened, and federal stimulus dollars dried up, K-three class sizes have risen across the state. School districts such as Capistrano, Chino Valley, Orange, Fontana, Moreno Valley, San Bernardino City, San Jose, and San Juan now all accept average K-3 class sizes of 30 students in all 4 grades.

The form size reduction program is all the same protected in the state budget every bit a "categorical" program. But equally part of his budget reform proposal to stop all but 5 state categorical programs, Gov. Jerry Brownish is proposing to eliminate protected funding for the form size program besides, which could hasten its demise because schools would be permitted to use the funds for any educational purpose.

The state'south largest districts appear to have been especially difficult striking. According to a contempo survey of almost half of the state's 950 districts by the Legislative Analyst's Office, boilerplate grade sizes in the K-3 grades has risen modestly in recent years to an average of 26 students in 2011-12. It is besides the instance that some school districts, especially those where voters accept approved local "parcel taxes," such as Berkeley, accept been able to to maintain G-iii course sizes with an average of twenty students.

Even though the program has been among the most popular of all education reforms introduced in recent years, in that location is no definitive research that shows that it has resulted in improved academic outcomes in California.

The programme was motivated in part past a highly successful pilot program in Tennessee in the late 1980s where course sizes were reduced from an average of 22 to fifteen students per form. Controlled research showed improved academic performance amongst students who participated in the programme, along with increased college omnipresence.

Just unlike in Tennessee, California's class size reduction program was introduced hastily in the summer of 1996, which did non let for whatsoever controlled studies of its impact. In addition, form sizes were not lowered as much every bit they were in Tennessee.

A 2002 report by the CSR Research Consortium, of which EdSource was a member, concluded that the human relationship between smaller classes and student achievement was "inconclusive." But the researchers cautioned that its conclusions were of express utility "because of the rapidity with which class size reduction was implemented (in California), gaps in the land testing programme, and other research design considerations."

Similarly, research on the touch of grade sizes on bookish outcomes has drawn mixed conclusions, a recent extensive review from the Brookings Institution establish:
"Because the pool of credible studies is small and the individual studies differ in the setting, method, grades, and magnitude of class size variation that is studied, conclusions have to be tentative."
The review did find that reductions of seven to ten fewer students per class can take a positive touch on on pupil achievement, particularly for depression-income students.

An Pedagogy Week review tended to support the Brookings report on the effectiveness of smaller course sizes.
"Research, for the almost part, tends to back up the belief in the benefits of small classes. While not all studies on the subject accept shown that students learn more in smaller settings—and some are notwithstanding ongoing—most have linked smaller classes to improvements in achievement."
Only the Education Week review also noted that "shrinking the number of students in a class does not automatically translate into better learning." To get the most out of smaller classes, "teachers may need to modify their education practices, dropping lecture-style approaches and providing more than frequent feedback and interaction."

If information technology weren't for the land budget crisis, which makes introducing reforms of any kind difficult to impossible, the dismantling of the class size reduction program could have given state policy makers and educators an opportunity to look at alternative strategies for bookish improvement. As the Brookings report, co-authored by Matthew Chingos and Russell Whitehurst, concluded:
"Class-size reduction has been shown to work for some students in some grades in some states and countries, but its impact has been institute to be mixed or not discernible in other settings and circumstances that seem like. It is very expensive. The costs and benefits of class-size mandates need to be carefully weighed against all of the alternatives when hard decisions must be made."
When the form size reduction program began unraveling in the 2009-10 school yr for the first time, Ramon Cortines, then Los Angeles Unified Superintendent of Schools, said that he didn't think a xx-to-1 ratio is "sacred." More than important, he said, "is the kind of quality fourth dimension you spend with your students, and how you dissever your time in the classroom."

To get more than reports like this one, click here to sign upwards for EdSource's no-cost daily electronic mail on latest developments in educational activity.