University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Class size reduction: A case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Class size reduction: A case study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6’ x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was microfilmed as received. ii and 69 This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION: A CASE STUDY by David E. Hutt A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION April 2001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UM I Number: 3041470 Copyright 2002 by Hutt, David Edward All rights reserved. _ _ ® UMI UMI Microform 3041470 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. Ail rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA School of Education Los Angeles, California 90089-0031 This dissertation, written by David Edward Hutt under the direction o f h ^^Dissertation Committee, and approved by all members o f the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Do c t o r o f E d u c a t io n November 9, 2000 Dissertation Committee Chairperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. David E. Hutt Dr. Dennis Hocevar ABSTRACT CLASS SIZE REDUCTION: A CASE STUDY There is not universal consensus that a class size reduction (CSR) formula is a significant panacea for helping students to learn and develop. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of class size reduction using a case study design from one school’s experience over a 3-year period. The study depicted the efforts of a school community to assess the effectiveness of class size reduction. The study described a multifaceted approach to examining CSR’s effectiveness in a practical context, thereby broadening consideration for the usage of class size reduction. A review of significant literature, including efforts in Tennessee, Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and California was conducted. The study discussed the process that the school community used to identify the areas of consideration for multiple measures of assessing effectiveness. The school community identified a control group of students who went through their entire school career at the same school without the treatment of class size reduction. The school identified several experimental groups of students who went through their entire school career with the treatment of class size reduction. The studied school community identified the following measures: nationally normed testing assessment, locally normed testing assessment, student participation, teacher methodology, and school climate. The study provided several instruments for obtaining teacher and 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. parent reaction to CSR effectiveness. The reliability and validity of findings were strengthened by survey results obtained from parents who had students in pre-CSR and CSR environments. In addition, survey results from teachers who taught in pre- CSR and CSR environments also strengthened the reliability and validity of findings. The predicted gains in achievement and other hypothesized benefits of CSR were not realized. It is important to note, however, that in the time span of the study the student population changed from a high socioeconomic group to one more reflective of a mid-range socioeconomic group The change likely explains why the hypothesized benefits of CSR were not realized in the present context. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter Page Teacher Methodology Behaviors ................................................ 46 School Climate.............................................................................. 50 4 SUMMATION.................................................................................... 55 Summary ...................................................................................... 55 Discussion on Findings................................................................. 56 Limitations of Study..................................................................... 59 Implications of S tu d y ................................................................... 60 Suggestions for Future Research/Practice................................... 61 Summation.................................................................................... 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY 63 APPENDICES 69 A SAMPLE OF CBM ASSESSMENT PROMPT 70 B INDIVIDUAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 72 C PARENT SURVEY-CLASS SIZE REDUCTION ........................ 74 D TEACHER SURVEY CLASS SIZE REDUCTION 79 E SUPPLEMENTAL PARENT SURVEY CSR ................................. 81 F SUPPLEMENTAL TEACHER SURVEY 91 G SAMPLING OF PARENT COMMENTS 93 H CHARTS 97 iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Aggregated Annual Teacher Survey ................................................... 48 2. Results of Teacher Supplemental Survey............................................ 50 3 Summative Totals of Parent Survey..................................................... 52 4. Aggregated Supplemental Parent Survey............................................ 54 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page 1 . Total Reading Comparison-Second Grade ....................................... 98 2. Total Reading Comparison— Third Grade............................................ 99 3. Total Reading Comparison— Fourth Grade......................................... 100 4 Total Language Comparison— Second G rade..................................... 101 5. Total Language Comparison-Third Grade ....................................... 102 6. Total Language Comparison— Fourth Grade ..................................... 103 7 Total Math Comparison— Second Grade ............................................ 104 8. Total Math Comparison— Third G rade................................................ 105 9. Total Math Comparison— Fourth G rade.............................................. 106 10 CBM Reading Fluency— Second Grade .............................................. 107 11. CBM Written Language Fluency— Second G rade............................... 108 12 Math Computation Fluency— Second G rade........................................ 109 13 Reading Fluency— Third Grade ............................................................ 110 14. Written Language Fluency— Third G rade............................................. I ll 15. Math Computation Fluency— Third Grade ........................................... 112 16. Reading Fluency— Fourth Grade............................................................ 113 17. Written Language Fluency— Fourth G rade........................................... 114 v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chart Page 18. Math Computation Fluency-Fourth Grade 115 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In July 1996, the state of California initiated one of the largest scale efforts to reduce the class size loading of classrooms. Lowering class size in the grades between kindergarten and third grade from a maximum of 33 to no more than 20 students per teacher was heralded as a sweeping reform to revive academic performance in reading, written language, and mathematics (Achilles, 1997). California joined the states of Tennessee and Wisconsin in a systemic effort to institute smaller class sizes. Previous findings indicated that smaller class sizes produced significant improvement in student achievement (Finn & Voelkl, 1992; Glass & Smith, 1978; Robinson & Wittebols, 1986;). Other states have since instituted their own class size reduction effort. Statement of the Problem There is not universal consensus that class size reduction is a significant panacea for helping students learn. Hanushek (1998, p. 17) testified that, “Existing evidence indicates that achievement for the typical student will be unaffected by instituting the types of class size reductions that have been recently proposed or undertaken.” Mitchell, Carson, and Bandarak (1989) indicated that reducing class size will not hurt educational attainment, but there is some question whether the 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. benefits are worth the cost. Zykowski (1996) wrote that, “Class Size Reduction allows a teacher to see a child having problems right away. Additionally, the main result is more instructional time, more comprehensive knowledge of students, and teacher enthusiasm for more individualization” p. 51). The effectiveness of class size reduction should be studied, given the amount of public revenues used to support its initiation. It is incumbent to examine the full range of developmental issues surrounding a child’s educational experience to determine the net effect of class size reduction. In seeking to explain effectiveness it is helpful to broaden the scope of analysis to include multiple measures of student achievement, levels of student participation, patterns of teacher instructional methodology behavior, and parent perceptions. Purposes of the Study The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of class size reduction at Junction School. By using a case study design; a detailed description of the phenomenon, known as class size reduction, in its application at one of California’s elementary schools provides insight into its effectiveness. By so doing, the study depicts the efforts of the school community to ascertain the value of incorporating class size reduction to benefit its students. This study examined a range of data points, centering on the areas of importance ascribed by the school community for evaluation. The net effect of class size reduction upon the full range of developmental issues surrounding a child's educational experience was examined. • > Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Certain themes became known, which provided additional insight for the literature related to class size reduction and related educational policy discussions. The study examined each of these themes, paying particular attention to the impact that class size reduction had upon them. Questions to be Answered The following research questions were investigated using information gathered by school and district staff: 1 . How does the academic performance of students who have only been in a class size reduced environment compare to students who never were in a class size reduced environment? 2 How does the level of participation and positive behavior of students who have only been in a class size reduced environment compare to students who never were in a class size reduced environment? Significance of the Study California is investing SI S billion per year into its class size reduction effort (Stecher & Stasz, 1999). The federal government is now proposing to support class size reduction nationwide at a rate of $12 billion over the next 7 years to help local schools provide small classes (Chase, 1999). The significance of this study adds to the body of research being gathered to ascertain if this is an effective expenditure of public support. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Further, the study describes a multi-faceted approach to examining the effectiveness of class size reduction, thereby broadening consideration for the usage of class size reduction. Research can help policymakers create what they need, but only if their research is focused on the right questions and conducted in a useful way (Millman, 1997). Simply setting test score goals and identifying them as absolute measures of programmatical success does not result in greater learning (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Of current Class Size Reduction studies it has been suggested that norm-referenced testing ought to be supplemented with criterion referenced tests, well aligned to a given school district’s sanctioned curriculum (Popham, 1997). He also refers to student learning as including affective, behavioral, and psychomotor outcomes; along with cognitive outcomes. The study yields a greater understanding of the impact that class size reduction has upon various aspects of schooling. The study provided an in-depth view of the phenomenon through an analysis of the effect that class size reduction has upon both student performance and development. Finally, the study is offered as an evaluation prototype that can be replicated to benefit other schools and districts. The practical significance of this prototype can be ascribed to assess the net effect which class size reduction has upon the full range of developmental issues surrounding a child's educational experience. Stecher & Bohmstedt (2000) indicated that time and variety of experiences from the field is necessary to realistically assess the impact of Class Size Reduction because of the 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. scale in implementation throughout California. This study provided a comparison between a Control Group of students who did not receive instruction under Class Size Reduction versus three Experimental Cohort Groups of students who only received instruction in a Class Size Reduction (CSR) environment. Other schools can apply the same methodology. Comparing the gains of CSR students versus those non-CSR students throughout their educational career will yield insight into the persistence of gains in later grades. The practical significance of this study is that it provides policymakers with additional experience from the field in connection with Class Size Reduction. This experience assists in realistically assessing the impact of Class Size Reduction. Further, it points out the myriad of other attending factors that present themselves because of implementing Class Size Reduction. Finally, it assists in evaluating this reform effort to insure that the full value for investment of resources is achieved. Review of the Literature Despite decades of studies on the subject of CSR, scholars remain divided over whether simply reducing class size can bring about lasting improvements in achievement and behavior. Recent activity in this area is striving to ascertain if the research shows that smaller classes promote student achievement in the early grades. Glass and Smith (1978) published a meta-analysis combining the results of 78 empirical studies pertaining to the relationship between class size and achievement. They soon followed it with a second meta-analysis in 1982. Overall they found that 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. small classes were associated with higher achievement at all grade levels, especially if students were in the small classes for more than 100 hours, and if student assignment was carefully controlled and monitored. They found that the major benefits of reducing class size occurred when the number of students in the class was fewer than 20. They concluded that small classes were superior in terms of students’ reactions, teacher attitude, and the quality of the instructional environment. A recent analysis by Slavin (1990) questioned whether reducing classes to IS students or less actually improved student achievement. Studies were analyzed according to three criteria for inclusion: a study was included only if class size had been reduced for at least a year and classes o f less than 20 students were compared to substantially larger classes, but only when students in the larger and smaller classes were comparable. Using this “best evidence synthesis” strategy, he found that most of the large gains in achievement could be attributed to tutoring situations with only 1 to S children. Additionally, Slavin found that reduced class size had a small positive effect on students that did not persist after their reduced class size experience ended. Robinson and Wittebols (1986) reviewed more than 100 relevant research studies using a related cluster analysis approach. They concluded that the clearest evidence of positive effects associated with class size reduction is in the primary grades, particularly kindergarten through third grade. Further, reducing class size is especially promising for disadvantaged and minority students. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Other research analyses have concluded that class size reduction does not have an appreciable effect. Tomlinson (1988) examined trends from data derived from the 1950s and 1960s in United States’ public schools. He did not find any consistent relationship between class size and standardized test scores. Odden (1989) reviewed the existing research and argued that a system wide class size reduction policy would only produce modest gains in student achievement and incur an unjustifiably high cost. Hanushek (1994) has reviewed repeatedly available studies on the effect of CSR and concluded that reducing class size should not be expected to produce better student performance. Additionally, he stated that, “Despite popular opinion, class size reduction initiatives are expensive and have proved ineffective” (p. 33). He cited that between 1950 and 1995 pupil-teacher ratios have fallen by 35%, while the achievement of 17 year old students were at roughly the same level as existed before classes were reduced. He did indicate that if used, CSR was best employed at kindergarten. Others have used somewhat differing analytical techniques to examine the same data and have disputed Hanushek’s conclusions. Wenglinsky (1997) designed a study to investigate the relationship between spending in education and student performance. He combined data from three different databases generated by the National Center for Education Statistics. He used math scores of fourth and eighth grades from the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress. His analysis 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sought to control for the effects of district wealth and students’s socioeconomic backgrounds. He found that at the fourth grade level lower student/teacher ratios are positively related to higher mathematics achievement. He stated the study’s conclusions: “Fourth graders in smaller-than-average classes are about half a year ahead of Fourth grades in larger-than-average classes” (Wenglinsky, 1997, p. 3). A policy brief issued by WestEd cited that there is a national interest in the approach of reducing class sizes to boost student achievement (Finn & Voelkl, 1992). The report further shows that class size reduction has benefitted many students, particularly low income and minority children. Although over 1,100 studies have examined the relationship between class size and student achievement, no definitive conclusions have been reached. While positive results have been demonstrated in certain states, efforts, other research finds little connection between student-teacher ratios and student performance. Others have raised questions about the limitations of the basic analytical approach used because it relies on student-teacher ratios as a measure for class size (Achilles, 1996; Finn, 1998). Usually grouping of data is done on an aggregated basis, reporting all students of all grade levels together and representing student achievement at the level of school or school district average scores. This was done instead of representing students placed in specific groupings (Cohort). In the early 1980s there was a large scale project in Indiana to study the effects of CSR on student performance (Mueller, Chase, & Walden, 1988). 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Beginning in 1984, Indiana’ s “Prime Time” project allocated resources to support the reduction of class size to 18 in first, second, and then kindergarten and third grade classrooms. An evaluation of the project analyzed achievement scores for these students, compared to mean class scores in reading and mathematics form 10 school districts for tests that were administered the year immediately preceding the project. The benefits of class sizes of 1:18, especially in the primary grades, was cited to include: 1 . Higher test scores. Reading scores for first graders showed the greatest improvement, with smaller gains in mathematics. 2. More participation in school, as reflected by attendance patterns. 3. Improved student behavior, as reflected by the absence of disciplinary referrals. 4. Sustaining effects in later grades, as reflected by performance scores on standardized assessments. 5. Increased interactions between teacher and student as measured by engagement and participation between the two parties, (pp. 4-9) By using a substantial database from the Texas education system, Ferguson (1991) found significant relationships between class size and student achievement. Using first through seventh grades, he found that district student achievement fell as the student/teacher ratio increased for every student above an 18 to 1 ratio. There were no conclusions cited in the areas of classroom discipline or the quality of teacher-student interaction. 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One of the most significant and wide-ranging series of studies on class size reduction has been done, using data from Tennessee. The Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) research project was designed to provide information related to the effect of early elementary (K-3) small class sizes had upon student performance. Project STAR researchers tracked the progress of more than 12,000 randomly selected students in 79 schools in Tennessee between 1985 and 1989 (Word & Achilles, 1990). The K-3 elementary classrooms in this study were divided into three groups: regular class size, regular class size with a full time teacher's aide and small class size (13 to 17 students). The study found that students in the smaller classes performed significantly better than their peers on the reading and math components of the Stanford Achievement Test, compared to students in the other groups. The contrast was most significant for minority students or students attending inner-city schools. A second phase of the project, entitled “Lasting Benefits” (Achilles, Nye, Zaharias, Fulton, & Cain, 1996) continued to track students from the initial study to determine whether small class benefits persist over time. The study concluded that students were less frequently retained in grade, succeeded in narrowing the achievement gap between children living in poverty and more affluent students, and had higher achievement, although the difference diminished somewhat as years went on. The third phase, “Project Challenge” (Achilles & Finn, 1999), studied the 17 economically poorest school districts in the state. With use of CSR, districts improved their end of year standing in rank among the state’s districts from 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. well below average to above average in reading and mathematics. In 1996, Health and Education Research Operative Services (HEROS) conducted a 10th grade follow-up study (Pate-Bain, Fulton, & Boyd-Zaharias, 1999). Using the Tennessee Competency Examination (TCE) as an indicator, the study found that a significantly larger percent of small class students versus students who had attended regular or the regular/aide classes passed the TCE Language requirement. The same was true for the mathematics requirement. Researchers reported that students from CSR classes in the primary grades had better graduation rates, higher grade point averages, and were more inclined to pursue higher education (Boyd-Zaharias, 1999). In summary, the evidence from each of the four studies is strong that smaller class size at the beginning of the school experience does improve the performance of children on cognitive tests. In addition, the effect continues into later grades when children are returned to regular sized classes. It is important to note, however, that not all research supports the methodology or conclusions from the STAR effort. In separate studies Hanushek (1999) and Hoxby (1998) questioned the positive effect of CSR. Hanushek cited poor methodology that magnified benefits. Such elements included: 1 . Between 20 and 30% of the students left the project each year, with less than half the original number remaining at the end. 2. The students who quit tended to be below-average achievers with a high transiency rate, giving the smaller classes a perceived boost in achievement. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3. Neither the teachers nor the schools chosen for the project were selected randomly. 4. No pretests were conducted on any students upon enrollment, which provided no benchmark to assess their level of achievement. Hoxby (1998) found that reductions in class size within the range of 15 to 30 students had no effect on achievement. The author cited that, “STAR participants were aware of being evaluated and mindful of the rewards being contingent upon the outcome (of performance)” (p. 1). A 1987-88 teacher observation study in classes of 15 and 25 students and a 1991-95 longitudinal 1:15 initiative in Burke County, North Carolina provided positive results, similar to those found in the STAR studies (Egleson, Harman & Achilles, 1996). The program’s goals were to reduce class size to 15 students in all first, second, and third grade classes. Evaluation of the effort indicated that compared to a matched group of students in classes that had not been phased into the smaller class initiative, students in the smaller classes outperformed the comparison group in first, second, and third grades on both reading and mathematics achievement tests. An analysis of the relationship between class size and student achievement for Florida students using 1993-94 school level data found no relationship between smaller classes and student achievement (Florida Office of Public Relations [FOPR], 1998), although the study’s authors expressed caution about drawing conclusions from the analysis, based upon the limitations of the available data. 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Wisconsin began a CSR program in 1996-97. The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program’s objective was to phase in class size reduction in kindergarten through third grade in school districts serving students from low-income families. SAGE and comparison school students’ academic learning were measured at the beginning and end of the first grade year and again at the end of the second grade year. The level of size reduction was to achieve a student/teacher ratio of 15 to 1 or less. The reported results (Molnar, Percy, Smith, & Zahorik, 1998) indicated that test scores in smaller first grade classes increased 12 to 14% more than scores of students in regular classes. Students performed consistently better than comparison students in mathematics, reading, language arts, and total scores for the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). African American SAGE students scored significantly better than African American comparison students in all grades in all subjects. While consistent with STAR findings, SAGE is different in that the SAGE study does not have the longitudinal scope as STAR. Secondly, the SAGE project class reductions were accompanied by other program initiatives; such as rigorous academic curriculum, before and afrer school activities, and professional development and accountability programs, which may confounded the effect(s) and exerted some influence. Beginning in 1996, California embarked upon a statewide initiative of reducing class size in grades kindergarten through third grade throughout the state. Class size 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was reduced from an average of 28.8 (maximum of 33) to a maximum of 20. In its first evaluative study, students in CSR schools scored better than students in non-CSR schools (Stecher & Stasz, 1999). Students who would have scored at the 50* national percentile “moved” to the 53rd percentile rank. Such movement is not indicative of substantial change in overall academic performance. Further, it is important to note that the gains were not similar to Tennessee and have not been observed to date in the California effort. In its second evaluative study, there was a small positive gain in student achievement associated with being in reduced size classes, as measured in grade 3 (Stecher & Bohmstedt, 2000). Further, this gain was realized equally by students, regardless of their background characteristics. Yet the gain was small. As Stecher and Bohmstedt indicated, “Class size reduction had some effect, but it's small enough that it would take quite a long time to bring California up to the national average or to close the achievement gap between the performance of minority students and white students” (p 7). Recently, the United States Department of Education (1998) released its study of class size reduction. It indicates that: 1 Smaller classes promote student achievement in the early grades. The significant effects of class size reduction on student achievement appear when class size is reduced to a point between 15 and 20 students. 2. If class size is reduced from substantially more than 20 students per class to below 20 students, the related increase in student achievement moves the average student from the 50* percentile up to above the 60* 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. percentile. For disadvantaged and minority students the effects are larger, (p. 1) While class size reductions cannot guarantee better student performance, successful programs share key characteristics. These characteristics include: concentration is in the primary schooling years, classes reduced to fewer than 20 students, and urban students benefit more than rural students. Overall, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether small classes improve student achievement in a wide range of contexts When class size reduction is successful, students in early grades learn more and continue to have an edge over the rest of their peers when they return to normally sized classes. The impact is greatest and longer lasting, however, if they remain in small classes. The payoff in terms of student achievement gain does not necessarily translate into a cost-effective investment. Kindergarten through third grade students benefit most, as do minority students in urban schools. Class size reduction cannot be isolated as the sole factor for increased student achievement. Methodology/Description The study used a case study approach to examine class size reduction in the Junction School District over a period of 3 years. The scope of analysis included multiple measures of student achievement, levels of student participation, patterns of teacher methodology behavior, and parent perceptions. Of particular importance was the comparison between students who had not received instruction in a class size reduced environment matched against those that had 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Junction is a rural school district, in the town of Palo Cedro, California; located 10 miles east of Redding. Junction School is configured to deliver instructional services to students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade. During the time of the study there was a total district enrollment that fluctuating between S2S and 580 students. Junction School began its participation in the state sponsored SCR program in 1996-97 at the first and second grades. Participation was expanded to third grade in 1997-98, then to kindergarten in 1998-99. The focus of the study concentrated on the impact class size reduction had by examining student performance and participation, teacher patterns of methodology behavior, and parent perceptions. Within the specifics of Junction School’s experience with class size reduction, the study was constructed of Control and Experimental Cohort Groups. The study sampled student performance based upon a comparison of a Control Group of 42 students who had never participated in schooling with a class size reduction environment to the performance of students who had only participated in schooling with a class size reduction environment. The study sampled three Experimental Cohorts of students, each Cohort having at least 24 students who have only experienced schooling in a class size reduction environment. The units of analysis are clustered around comparative data for each group during a specific grade when they were in attendance. Standardized national test score comparisons between the Control and Experimental Cohort Groups, beginning 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with second grade, was a unit of analysis. A locally normed criterion test aligned with the district’s curriculum, known as Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM), provided score comparisons between the Control and Experimental Cohort Groups, beginning in second grade, was a unit of analysis. The comparison in the number of referrals to consider specialized instructional services was a unit of analysis. The level of attendance and participation, as measured by absenteeism and tardiness, was a unit of analysis. The quality of behavior, as measured by the number of suspensions was a unit of analysis Teacher responses to structured survey questions were a unit of analysis, measuring teacher methodology behavior. In addition, administrative review of lesson plans and instructional observations was an additional unit of analysis. Parent responses to structured survey questions were a unit of analysis, measuring parent perceptions. In addition, the validity of perceptions was strengthened as there were nine families who received a supplemental survey because they had had children who had attended school without class size reduction and also had children who had attended school with class size reduction. Assumptions of the Study Basic to the study of CSR at Junction School are the assumptions that: 1. Because of the context in implementation imposed by state guidelines, the experience is typical of schools utilizing class size reduction in California. 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2. There are multiple units of analysis that can be measured reliably and with validity. 3. The units of analysis can be sampled and compared accurately. 4. While certain aspects of schooling may have been altered during the scope of the study, fundamental operations of schooling remain consistent across the Control and Experimental Cohort Groups Delimitations The delimitations in the study are as follows: 1 The study was confined to the class size reduction experience at Junction School for a period of 3 years. 2. There are a number of characteristics; such as socioeconomic index of families, readiness of child to attend school, family mobility, composition of class groupings, curriculum changes, staff changes in assignment, and changes in clientele type that are not weighted as factors. 3. The only data used in the study was obtained from the school. 4. Other aspects of schooling, such as instructional practices or curriculum materials, were not included in the study. Limitations The limitations of the study are as follows. 1 . Findings are not generalized to other situations involving class size reductions at other California schools. 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2. There was limited racial diversity in the student body at Junction School. 3. The outcomes of the study were possibly affected by the procedures used to collect the data. 4. Pre-CSR (class size reduction) difference in instructional methodologies, class room management, and assessment strategies. Definition of Terms Terms used in this study include: Behavior Student social activity associated with designated school rules. Class Size Reduction The specific and conscious practice of loading a classroom at a ratio of 20 students (or less) per certificated teacher. Comparison Groups A Control Group of students and Experimental Cohorts of class size reduction students who received their education exclusively through Junction School. Development The academic, social, emotional, and physical progress of students as referenced to standardized norms of expectations. 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness The difference in student performance between student groups as measured by aggregated data of the Control Group compared to each of the class size reduction Experimental Cohorts. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 has introduced and stated the problem to be studied. Further, the purposes of the study, questions to be answered, and significance of the study were included. A review of the literature on class size reduction was presented A summary of the methodology and description of the case study was provided. Assumptions, delimitations, and limitations of the study were presented. The definition of terms germane to the study was included. Chapter II presents a case study description of the experiences in using class size reduction at Junction School. Chapter III presents the findings of the case study. The findings are presented in tabulations of data identified. Chapter IV contains a summary of the study. A discussion of the findings are presented. Limitations of the study are discussed. Implications of the study and suggestions for further research and practice are offered. The study concludes with a bibliography listing of sources that were referenced in the study and appendices that present pertinent study data. 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY/DESCRIPTION District Profile Junction Elementary School District is located in Shasta County, approximately 10 miles east of Redding. The school system services the community of Palo Cedro and an unincorporated area of approximately 35 square miles. The school district is comprised of two schools on one site, connected by a common playing field/activities area The schools are viewed by the community and staff as one continuous kindergarten through eighth grade school program. Student enrollment within the school district has fluctuated between 525 to 610 students. The school district population is primarily Caucasian, with small percentages of Native American, Black, and Oriental students. The percentage of students eligible to receive services from Aid For Dependent Children (AFDC) has increased ffom 9% in 1991-92 to 41% in 1999-00. There are no secondary language acquisition issues affecting instructional methodology or approach. The mobility factor of students has risen from less than 2% in 1991-92 to 24% in 1999-00. The noteworthy factors of family background with which the district contends are the significant percentage of students which come from either group homes, “homes” operated as half way houses for battered women, or children who have been adopted with medical histories of 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pre-natal drug addiction. Junction School District employs 73 people. There are 24 full-time and 3 half-time regular classroom teachers; 3 full-time special education teachers; 1 part-time psychologist; 1 part-time speech therapist; 1 part-time nurse; and 2 full time administrators. All teachers hold credentials for subjects to which they are assigned. The average length of district experience is 11 years. Instructional and clerical aides, library/media clerks, secretaries, custodians, cooks, and bus drivers make up 38 part-time and full-time support staff positions. The average length of district experience, in classification, is 12 years. School Profile Junction Elementary is one of two schools operated by the Junction Elementary School District The elementary school site provides instructional services to 325 students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade. The school student population closely mirrors the overall district ethnicity, with 98.5% of the students being Caucasian, with less than 1% each being Native American, Black, and/or Oriental students. The percentage of students eligible to receive services from AFDC reflects an increase from 9% in 1991-92 to 41% in 1999-00. There are no secondary language acquisition issues affecting instructional methodology or approach. The mobility factor of students and families has risen from less than 1% in 1991-92 to 17% in 1991-92. There are 17 full-time classroom teachers; a Miller-Unruh Reading Specialist, a Resource Specialist special education program teacher; a part-time Music teacher; a 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60% time Speech Therapist; a 30% time Nurse, a 20% time psychologist; and a 70% time site administrator as its certificated staff. All classroom teachers are credentialed to provide services to which they are assigned. The average length of site service is 13 years. There is a full-time school secretary as site support in the office. There is a full-time evening custodian to provide maintenance and operations site support. Federal and State Consolidated Project categorical funding pays for instructional aid support in the primary grade classes. From 1991-92 to 1999-2000, the amount of aide time in each of the primary grade classes has decreased from 3 and Va hour per day to 3 hours per day. There is a great amount of parent/community volunteerism on a daily basis; reflected in the annual total of 1,000 hours (or more) annually. The school is recognized regionally as one of the most effective schools in the region (SchoolWisePress, 1999; State Academic Performance Index, 1999). The school has been recognized as a state distinguished school in 199S. Junction School was one of 600 randomly sampled schools by the Rand Corporation for the state commissioned analysis of the effect of CSR upon student performance, school-wide climate, and teacher professionalism. Utilization of Class Size Reduction (CSR) Junction School began its participation in the state sponsored CSR program in 1996-97 at the first and second grade levels. Participation was expanded to third grade in 1997-98 With the 1998-99 school year, kindergarten was included; thereby 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. achieving full participation at grades supported by the state for class size reduction. As one of the district priorities for the 1998-99 school year, the governing board directed that a comprehensive analysis of the effect which CSR had upon children and school operations be undertaken. Within the scope of this charge, the governing board identified that areas of evaluation were to include student performance and development, instructional practices, and school climate. Research Design Model In determining the measures of evaluation for this objective the superintendent was, “to convene an advisory committee of school staff, parents, and community members to identify measures of success in achieving program goals and objectives” (Junction Elementary School District, 1998, p. 16). There was a school-wide and community-wide announcement of the advisory committee’s formation and the scope of its responsibility. The composition of the committee included two community people with no children in school; three parents of school aged children; four teachers of primary grade students; and the site administrator. There were other visitors to the range of meetings that included teachers from other grades, administrators ffom other area schools, and one school board member. The committee met a total of four times over the span of 3 months. At its first meeting the committee was provided an orientation to the charge of responsibility authorized by the governing board and several research articles on class size reduction. At subsequent meetings the committee discussed measures of success 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for student performance, development, and behavior. Data points of measurement were identified. Additionally, attention was focused upon determining the impact class size reduction had had upon instructional strategies, also known as patterns of teacher methodology behavior. Lastly, considerations centered upon identifying data points and measures of success for assessing the effect class size reduction had upon school climate. Through its work the committee limited the context of their work, given that there was an acknowledgment that there were delimiting factors which can positively (or negatively) influence the areas of student performance and development, instructional strategies, and school climate. These factors include socioeconomic indexing of families, readiness of child to attend school, family mobility, composition of class groupings, curriculum changes, staff changes in assignment, and changes in attending clientele type. The committee made its summation of measures for assessment public at a regular meeting of the governing Board of Education on December 10, 1998. In determining the effect class size reduction had upon student performance and development the committee identified data points of statewide test scores, locally normed assessments, timeline comparisons of referrals for specialized services, and number of referrals for suspension. 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Normed Assessments Using the statewide test scores it was recommended to use the “Total Reading,” “Total Language,” and “Total Math” as points of assessment. Further, it was recommended to develop a “Control” versus “Experimental Cohort” research design model. The “Control” Group was to consist of students who had only attended Junction School and had not received instruction in a class size reduced environment. Researching student cum records for student attendance identified members of the “Control” Group. Students who had attended Junction School exclusively from kindergarten through eighth grade before CSR was implemented comprised the “Control” Group. The “Experimental Cohort” Group, or Groups, were to consist of students who had only attended Junction School and had only received instruction in a class size reduced environment. The committee felt that by comparing the student performance in these areas between students who had never received instruction within a class size reduction structure versus students who had only received instruction in class size reduction the strength and validity of comparison would be stronger. It was noted in the committee report that the scope of analysis would be limited to initial data gathered after 2 .5 years of experience unless a commitment to acquire longitudinal data would be made by the district. It was stated that comparisons of “Control” to “Experimental Cohort” at each grade level, beginning at second grade and continuing through eighth grade, would strengthen the comparison. Additionally, if there could be multiple “Experimental 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cohorts” identified the comparison also would be strengthened Further, that the variable of comparison between “before CSR” and “after CSR” would be limited unless there would be a continuing attention to gathering data consistent with the recommendations from the committee. Lastly, the committee acknowledged the potential that annual test instruments might change, but that the areas reported upon (Total Reading, Total Math, etc.) would be relevant and useful. In using locally normed assessments the school had been using CBM for S years before class size reduction was implemented. As utilized at Junction School, CBM was an initiative to capture the range and depth of student achievement through tasks sampled directly from the curriculum and instruction delivered in the classroom (Farr & Beck, 1991; Martinez & Lipson, 1989; Meyer, 1992; Nolet, 1992; Tindal & Marston, 1990). Reading selections taken from the appropriate grade level reader, administered as a 1 minute “cold” read assessed “Reading Fluency”. Writing prompts found in the Language Arts series materials were administered to assess “Correct Written Word Sequence/Spelling”. The writing sample that a student composed after hearing the prompt was obtained from a 1 minute writing period. Writing was assessed by the number of correct word sequences, correct spelling, and appropriate word syntax that was evident in the writing. Finally, a 1 minute timed test of mathematics computation, drawn from the Math series’ text was used to assess “Math Computation.” A sample of assessment prompts is found in Appendix A. It was believed that by using the “Reading Fluency,” “Correct Written Word 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sequence/Spelling,” and “Math Computation” there would exist valid points of assessment between the “Control” and “Cohort” Groups. The school had identified performance standard expectancies of students at each grade level. Because the CBM was administered at three intervals over a school year, children’s ability to achieve at a higher level of proficiency would be measurable. Additional Measures While the “Control” and “Cohort” Group Model was not used beyond the measures cited above, several other measures were identified by the committee to be assessed through survey results from parents and/or teachers: Did children read before an adult in school more often under CSR and were children with special needs identified sooner to receive services under CSR?. The level of student behavior in school participation was to be determined by the number of absences, tardies, and disciplinary referrals recorded between the Control Group and the Cohort Groups. The committee felt that these points of assessment would indicate the level of developmental^ appropriate behavior to learning by students. Further, there would be information about the opportunity to identify children with special needs sooner and provide more timely service interventions. The committee learned that when implemented, CSR carried a requirement that teachers in school systems implementing CSR would have a minimum of 30 hours of training in methodology behaviors associated with smaller group instruction 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prior to assignment in CSR. There were eight areas of professional training that included: systematic phonetic instruction, skills instruction balanced to access literature, assessment of student progress, implications of research to classroom instruction, increasing student vocabulary, appropriate materials and lessons, comprehension strategies for developing independent reading, and including parents/community in the instructional process shown as Appendix B The validation of each specific teacher’s participation in such staff development was recorded and filed in their professional personnel file. The committee identified the following as measures of success which could be assessed through lesson plans, lesson observations, student work folders and anecdotal records, and results from teacher surveys. Instruction is more individualized under CSR, instruction is more responsive to individual needs under CSR, communication with home is more frequent under CSR, there is less time required for transitions between learning activities under CSR, and there is greater enhancement and enrichment of the curriculum under CSR. The advisory committee identified the following as measures of “school climate”: Parents are happy with the impact CSR has upon their child, greater insight into the development of individual students is communicated to parents, classroom climate is more conducive to learning, behavior management is more effective, there are fewer absences/tardies, and levels of community volunteerism is high. The ways of obtaining this information were to be derived from parent observations of their 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. students, administrator observations of teacher instructional methodology, teacher observations, and survey responses from parents and/or teachers. A copy of the survey used to secure responses from parents and teachers is found as Appendices C and D. Parameters and Reports of Assessment The parameters of assessment were approved for usage by the governing board at its December 10, 1998, regular meeting. The first report on evaluating the impact of class size reduction on students’ performance and development was made on May, 13, 1999 A research study design of a student Control Group and a Cohort of CSR students was identified by referencing student cumulative record files Eligibility to belong to a group was based upon a student’s profile of school attendance. Only students who had attended Junction School throughout their school career could belong to a group. The Control Group of students were 42 students who had exclusively attended Junction School through eighth grade without the experience of a class size reduced environment. Comparatively, the first Experimental Cohort (labeled as CSR #1) consisted of 31 students who had attended Junction School exclusively and who had only attended primary grades in a CSR context. The first year report examined performance and behavior, instructional strategies, and school climate in a manner consistent with the parameters identified by the advisory committee and accepted by the board of education. This initial report assessed the two groups by their performance and development in the second grade, 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. given that Cohort #1 had only completed and tested at that level. In subsequent years, it was recommended that other grades of performance be included for Cohort #1, as students matriculated through the system. Additionally, it was recommended that additional Experimental Cohorts be added. The caveat was stated that the number of members for each Experimental Cohort could become smaller because of student mobility, but in no case could an Experimental Cohort become larger because of the “membership” requirement that a student had to attend Junction School programs continuously and exclusively for inclusion in the study. A survey instrument, consisting of 21 questions, shown as Appendix C, was distributed to parents in each of the Experimental Cohorts. A survey of teachers assigned to CSR, shown as Appendix D, was distributed. Questions from both surveys addressed the areas of interest defined by the advisory committee in the areas of instructional strategies and school climate. The next report of evaluation that class size reduction had upon the performance and development of students, instructional strategies, and school climate at Junction School was made on February 10,2000. The Control Group of students consisted of 42 students who had attended Junction School through eighth grade without the experience of a CSR environment. The evaluation measures for the Control Group in each of their instructional years was obtained by researching student cum records. In addition to Cohort #1, there was a second CSR Experimental Cohort added. This second Cohort was comprised of students in the year immediately after 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cohort #1. The Cohorts (labeled CSR#1 and #2) consisted of 29 and 25 students, respectively, who had attended Junction exclusively and had only attended primary grades in a CSR context. Because of the articulation of Cohort #1 and addition of Cohort #2, the scope of evaluation was broadened to include a comparison of “Control” versus “Experimental Cohort” performance and behavior measures at the second and third grades. The parent and teacher surveys were administered and results tabulated. At this time, feedback was given by staff during debriefing of the survey administration that several questions had a context of comparison to the implementation phase of CSR, but did not appear to be as useful with the district fully implementing CSR. The determination was made to discontinue the parent survey questions that had been asked during the early phase of CSR implementation. The next report of evaluation that CSR had upon the performance and behavior of students, instructional strategies, and school climate at Junction School was made early in the summer o f2000. Data points for three Experimental Cohorts had been accumulated as standardized and local testing was completed in May 2000. As a result, the scope of evaluation continued to broaden allowing a comparison between the Control Group and Cohort # 1 in fourth grade, Cohort #2 in third grade, and Cohort #3 in second grade. Additionally, there were nine parents of students that had received their education exclusively at Junction School prior to CSR and who also had students that received their education exclusively at Junction School with CSR identified. These parents were given a supplemental survey, shown as Appendix 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. E, to obtain their perspective on the effect CSR had upon their family. There were two teaching staff that were also given a supplemental survey, Appendix F, to complete who had taught in the primary grades before CSR and after implementation of CSR. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS Junction School used a multi-faceted evaluation design to assess the effectiveness of CSR. The academic performance of students who had only been in a class size reduced environment (known as an Experimental Cohort) was compared to students who never were in a class size reduced environment (known as the Control). This comparison was structured by using information from nationally normed standardized test data, locally normed standardized test data, pre/post assessment measures number of referrals and placements to special services, and responses by teachers and parents on attitude survey questions. The level of student participation was compared between Control and Experimental Cohort Groups. This comparison was structured by comparing attendance patterns, absences and tardies, between the Control and Experimental Cohort Groups. The degree of positive student behavior between the Control and Experimental Cohort Groups was compared. This comparison was structured by comparing the number of referrals for suspension between the Control and Experimental Cohort Groups 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Academic Nationally Normed Measure One unit of analysis for assessing student academic achievement and development was the percentage of students who scored at or above the national average on a standardized test. Three areas; designated as “Total Reading,” “Total Language,” and “Total Math,” were the specific areas of focus. Total Reading Student performance of the Control Group in their second grade experience was 77% scored in the 50* percentile or higher on “Total Reading.” This compares to 74% of Cohort #1, 72% of Cohort #2, and 87% of Cohort #3. Third grade performance of the Control Group was that 78% scored in the 50* percentile or higher on “Total Reading.” This compares to 58% of Cohort #1 and 72 % of Cohort #2. Student perfonnance of the Control Group as fourth graders reflected that 80% scored in the 50* percentile or higher in “Total Reading.” This compares to 65% of Cohort #1 Second Grade Comparison As demonstrated by Chart 1 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of “Cohort Group” students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Reading” portion of the nationally normed measure was 3%, 5%, and -10%; compared to the Control Group when all students were in the second grade. The Control Group’s level of academic performance, compared to all of the Experimental 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cohort Groups, reflected a range of 3% to -10%. The mean percentage of performance difference equaled less than 1%. Third Grade Comparison As demonstrated by Chart 2 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the S O "1 percentile or higher on the “Total Reading” portion of the nationally normed measure was 20% and 6%, compared to the Cohort Groups when all students were in the third grade. The Control Group academically outperformed all of the Cohort Groups by a range of 6% to 20%. The mean percentage of performance difference equaled 13%. Fourth Grade Comparison As demonstrated by Chart 3 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Reading” portion of the nationally normed measure was 15% compared to the Cohort Group, when all students were in the Fourth Grade. The Control Group academically outperformed the Cohort Group by 15%. Total Language Student performance of the Control Group in their second grade experience was 67% scored in the 50th percentile or higher on “Total Language.” This compares to 55% of Cohort # 1,60% of Cohort #2, and 54% of Cohort #3. Third grade performance of the Control Group was that 80% scored in the 50th percentile or higher on “Total Language.” This compares to 48% of Cohort #1 and 75% of 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cohort #2. Student performance of the Control Group as fourth graders reflected that 74% scored in the 50* percentile or higher. This compares to 69% of Cohort #1. Second Grade As shown by Chart 4 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Language” portion of the nationally normed measure was 12%, 7%, and 13%, compared to the Cohort Groups when all students were in the second grade. The Control academically outperformed all of the Cohort Groups by a range of 7% to 13%. The mean percentage of performance equaled 10 .7%. Third Grade As shown by Chart 5 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Language” portion of the nationally normed measure was 32% and 5%, compared to Cohort Groups, when all students were in the third grade. The Control Group academically outperformed all of the Cohort Groups by a range of 5% to 32% The mean percentage of performance difference was 18.5%. Fourth Grade As shown by Chart 6 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Language” portion of the nationally normed measure was 5% compared to the Cohort Group, when all 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. students were in the fourth grade The Control Group academically outperformed the Cohort Group by 5%. Total Math Student performance of the Control Group in the second grade was 80% in the 50* percentile or higher on “Total Math.” This compares to 58% of Cohort #1, 56% of Cohort #2, and 71% of Cohort #3. Third grade performance of the Control Group was that 67% scored in the 50* percentile of higher. This compares to 52% of Cohort # 1 and 76% of Cohort#2. Student performance of the Control Group as fourth graders reflected that 73% scored in the 50* percentile or higher. This compares to 65% of Cohort #1. Second Grade As demonstrated on Chart 7 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Math” portion of the nationally normed assessment measure was 22%, 24%, and 9%; compared to the Cohort Groups when all students were in the second grade. The Control Group academically outperformed all of the Cohort Groups by a range of 22% to 9%. The mean percentage of performance difference equaled 18%. Third Grade As shown on Chart 8 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Math” portion of the nationally normed measure was 15% and -9%, compared to the Cohort Groups when 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. all students were in the third grade. The Control Group academically outperformed all of the Cohort Groups by a range of -9% to 15%. The mean percentage of performance difference equaled 3%. Fourth Grade As demonstrated by Chart 9 (see Appendix H), the percentage difference of Control students scoring at the 50* percentile or higher on the “Total Math” portion of the nationally normed measure was 8% compared to the Cohort Group, when all students were in the fourth grade. The Control Group academically outperformed the Cohort Group by 8%. Locally Normed Measure One unit of analysis for assessing student academic achievement and development was the performance of students who were assessed using a locally normed measure, referred to as Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM). The range of performance expectancy was derived from the field experience of establishing “norms” from the 7 years of this assessment measure utilization. Second Grade Reading Fluency At the second grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Reading Fluency is 34 words read in 1 minute. The spring performance expectancy (post) for CBM Reading fluency is 94 words per minute. As illustrated by Chart 10 (see 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix H), 57% of the Control Group achieved these expectancies, while 32% of Cohort 1, 36% of Cohort #2, and 67% of Cohort #3 achieved these expectancies. Written Language Fluency At the second grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Written Language Fluency is nine words correctly utilized in grammar and syntax. The spring expectancy (post) for CBM Written Language Fluency is 15 words correctly utilized in grammar and syntax. As illustrated by Chart 1 1 (see Appendix H), 50% of the Control Group achieved these expectancies, while 41% of Cohort # 1, 50% of Cohort #2, and 37% of Cohort #3 achieved these expectancies. Math Computation Fluency. At the second grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Math Computation Fluency is seven problems correctly solved in 1 minute. The spring expectancy for CBM Mathematics Computation Fluency is 15 correctly solved problems in 1 minute. As illustrated by Chart 12 (see Appendix H), 78% of the Control Group accomplished these expectancies; while 56% of Cohort # 1 , 79% of Cohort #2, and 83% of Cohort #3 achieved these expectancies. Third Grade Reading Fluency At the third grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Reading Fluency is 66 words read in 1 minute The spring performance expectancy (post) in CBM Reading Fluency is 103 words in a 1 minute timed read. As shown in Chart 13 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (see Appendix H), 63% of the Control Group achieved these expectancies; while 41% in Cohort #1 and 76% in Cohort #2 accomplished this. Written Language Fluency At the third grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Written Language Fluency is 18 words correctly utilized in grammar and syntax. The spring expectancy (post) for CBM Written Language Fluency is 23 words correctly utilized in grammar and syntax. As shown in Chart 14 (see Appendix H), 62% of the Control Group achieved these expectancies; while S0% of Cohort #1 and 60% of Cohort #2 reached these levels. Math Computation Fluency At the third grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Math Computation Fluency is 1 1 problems correctly solved in 1 minute. The spring expectancy (post) for CBM Mathematics is 21 problems correctly solved in 1 minute As shown in Chart IS (see Appendix H), 70% of the Control Group achieved these expectancies; while 65% of Cohort #1 and 84% of Cohort #2 reached these levels. Fourth Grade Reading Fluency At the fourth grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Reading Fluency is 74 words per minute. The spring CBM expectancy (post) for Reading is 114 in a 1 minute read. As demonstrated by Chart 16 (see Appendix H), 67% of the 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Control Group reached these expectancies, while 59% of Cohort #1 achieved these expectancies. Written Language Fluency At the fourth grade, the fall Written Language Fluency expectancy (pre) is 28 words correctly utilized in grammar and syntax. The spring expectancy (post) is 34 words correctly utilized in grammar and syntax. As demonstrated by Chart 17 (see Appendix H), 70% of the Control Group reached these expectancies, while 65% of Cohort #1 achieved these expectancies. Math Computation Fluency At the fourth grade, the fall performance expectancy (pre) for CBM Math Computation Fluency is 21 problems correctly solved in 1 minute The spring expectancy (post) for CBM Math Computation is 34 problems correctly solved in 1 minute. As demonstrated by Chart 18 (see Appendix H), 72% of the Control Group achieved these expectancies, while 65% of Cohort #1 reached these expectancies. Synthesis In the three areas of CBM test scores at second grade level the Control Group outperformed each of the Cohort Groupings, except for Cohort #3 in Reading and Math. In the three areas of CBM test scores at third grade level, the Control Group outperformed each of the Cohort Groupings, except for Cohort #2 in Reading and Math In the three areas of CBM test scores at fourth grade level, the Control Group outperformed the Cohort #1 Group. 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Special Needs Referrals In comparing the number of student study team referrals and/or placement in a special education program, the Control Group had a total of seven referrals, in the time period between second and fourth grades. Five of these referrals resulted in placement within a Resources Specialist Program. There was one placement in a Special Day Class Program. Cohort #1 had 14 referrals in the time period between second and fourth grades. Eleven of these referrals resulted in a Resource Specialist Program placement. There were no placements to a Special Day Class Program placement. Cohort #2 had four referrals in the time period between second and third grades. Four of these referrals resulted in a Resource Specialist Program placement. There were no placements to a Special Day Class Program placement. Cohort #3 had seven referrals in the time period of second grade. Four of these referrals resulted in a Resource Specialist Program placement. There were no placements to a Special Day Class program placement. Summary Interpretation The number of referrals for the Control Group was one half as many as Cohort #1 over the same period of time for instruction. Seventy-one percent of the referrals in the Control Group resulted in a Resource Program placement, while 78% of the Cohort #1 referrals resulted in a Resource Program placement. 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Student Behavior Student participation in school was measured from several points of data analysis: The percentage of students who had zero to three absences during the school year, the percentage of students who had zero to five tardies during the school year, and the number of referrals for disciplinary suspension recorded. This analysis was applied to the Control Group and each of the Cohorts. Additionally, these data were triangulated to the specific grade year of each group of students. Absences Twenty-eight percent of the Control Group had zero to three absences in a school year, while in second grade. While in second grade; Cohort # 1 had 54%, Cohort #2 had 36%, and Cohort #3 had 33% of their respective members who had zero to three absences. In third grade, the Control Group had 34% of its members who had zero to three absences in a school year. By comparison; Cohort #1 had 41%, Cohort #2 had 44% of its members, when in the third grade, who had zero to three absences. In the fourth grade, the Control Group had 38% of its members who had zero to three absences, while Cohort #1 had 58% of its members with zero to three absences. Summary Interpretation In second grade, the Experimental Cohort #1 Group had a better pattern of attendance, as measured by the percentage of students who had zero to three absences. In third grade, the Experimental Cohort #2 Group had a better pattern of 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. attendance, as measured by the percentage of students who had zero to three absences. In the fourth grade, the Experimental Cohort #1 Group had a better pattern of attendance, as measured by the percentage of students who had zero to three absences. Tardies Sixty-eight percent of the Control Group had zero to five tardies during a school year, when in the second grade. When in the second grade, Cohort #1 had 96%, Cohort #2 had 92%, and Cohort #3 had 96% of its members who had zero to five tardies. In third grade, the Control Group had 64% of its members with zero to five tardies; while Cohort # 1 had 90% and Cohort #2 had 80% of its members with zero to five tardies. In the fourth grade, the Control Group had 93% of its members with zero to five tardies, while Cohort #1 had 93% of its members with zero to five tardies. Summary Interpretation In the second grade, the Experimental Cohort Groups had a significantly higher percentage of students who had zero to five tardies, compared to the Control Group. In the third grade, Experimental Group Cohort #1 had 26% more students who were tardy between zero to five times compared to the Control Group. In the fourth grade, there was no difference in the percentage of students who were tardy between zero and five times between the Control and Experimental Group Cohort #1. 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Suspension Referrals While in the second grade, the Control Group had one referral for suspension, Cohort #1 had no referrals for suspension, Cohort #2 had no referrals for suspension, and Cohort #3 had no referrals for suspension. While in the third grade the Control Group had no referrals for suspension, Cohort #1 had four referrals fo r suspension, and Cohort #2 had no referrals for suspension. While in fourth grade, the Control Group had two referrals for Suspension and Cohort #1 had five referrals for suspension. Summary Interpretation In second grade, there was no difference between any of the Experimental Group Cohorts in the number of recorded suspensions. In third grade, the Experimental Group Cohort #1 had the highest number of recorded suspensions. In fourth grade, the Experimental Group Cohort # 1 had the highest number of suspensions. Teacher Methodology Behaviors Teacher responses to structured survey questions were a unit of analysis In addition, review of lesson plans and lesson observations were additional units of analysis for triangulation of teacher survey responses. There were 15 teachers surveyed over the period of the study, to date. The survey was administered once each year during the period of the study. Twelve of the teachers had 3 or more years in teaching primary grade students. Two teachers had 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. taught in the primary grades before CSR. One hundred percent of teachers surveyed responded to the surveys in each of the years it was administered. The results of the annual survey have been aggregated and are reported as Table 1 . Teachers strongly agreed that instruction was more individualized under CSR. Further, there was equally strong agreement that the instructional program was more responsive to individual needs under CSR. There was strong agreement that instructional flexibility was increased to meet the needs of individual learners under CSR Early intervention to address special needs was reported as being accomplished in a more timely fashion. There was extremely strong agreement that there is greater insight into the development of individual students under CSR. Based upon administrative review of lesson plans and lesson observations it was noted that usage of small group with individual attention to students increased by 15% from the time period of the Control Group to the time period of the Cohort Groups. Further, usage of flexible grouping, with student assignment to groups changing for individual subjects increased by 11% from the time period of the Control Group to the time period of the Cohort Groups In addition, individual tutoring with a single student during regular class time was observed to increase by 9% from the time period of the Control Group to the time period of the Cohort Groups. Use of diagnostic strategies or processes to assess specific strengths and weaknesses of an individual child was observed to increase by 8% from the time period of the Control Group to the time period of the Cohort Groups. Lastly, the individual conferencing 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1 Aggregated Annual Teacher Survey As you know our school board has asked for a report on the effect which Class Size Reduction has upon several areas of school operations. These areas are: student performance and development, instructional strategies, and school climate. This survey is the instrument to gather teacher impressions in a number of areas. I ask that you take a few minutes to respond and return the survey to Vicki by tomorrow. Thanks. Please circle the number which best matches your impression of the area surveyed I = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral/no change 4 = disagree S = strongly disagree 1 . Instruction is more individualized under Class Size Reduction 1.3 2. There has been a shift away from “managing a classroom” to :providing instruction" 1.5 3. The instructional program is more responsive to individual needs 1.3 4. Communication between school and home is more frequent 1.6 5. There is less time taken to make transitions between activities 1.6 6. There are a wider array of activities that are provided to enrich learning 1.8 7. Instructional flexibility has been increased to meet the needs of individual learners 1.1 8. There is greater insight into the development of individual students 1.1 9. Direct communication is more available 1.4 10. Early intervention to address special needs is accomplished in a more timely fashion 1.1 11. There is a greater likelihood of different methods being used to teach children 1.3 12. Climate is more conducive to learning 1.4 13. Communication between teachers and staff are more productive 2.0 14. There is greater chance for fewer student absences 3.1 15. Behavior management is more effective 1.5 General Comments: _____________________________________________________________ 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with a student about his/her work was observed to increase by 4% from the time period of the Control Group to the time period of the Cohort Groups. The results of a supplemental survey given to teachers who had taught in the primary grades before and after implementation of CSR are shown as Table 2. They responded that usage of teaching strategy that focused upon small group with individual attention to students was greatly more in use with CSR. There was more time devoted to responded by indicating that they devoted more time per time per instructional day to activities that fostered individual or small group work. In addition, they reported that their ability to effectively monitor student progress was greatly more in evidence with CSR. Of particular interest was the reported difference in providing individual feedback (oral and written) on student work. School Climate Parent responses to structured survey questions were a unit of analysis. An annual survey was conducted. The summative totals of the surveys as shown as Table 3. There was a return response rate of 77%, 79%, and 70% in the 3 years in which it was distributed. Certain questions reflected an inquiry into the effectiveness of implementation, resulting in the survey being discontinued after 1999 A sampling of parent comments, submitted with survey responses is included as Appendix G. Parent perceptions of the value for CSR are apparent. More than two thirds of the parents responding indicated that they felt their child’s learning to read was much improved under Class Size Reduction. Over a 3 year period a mean average of 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 Results of Teacher Supplemental Survey (Class Size Reduction— CSR— Effect) As you know our school board has asked for a continuing series of annual reports on the effect that Class Size Reduction (CSR) has had upon several areas of school operation. The purpose of this survey is to ask you for your insight into teaching practices within the classroom. You are being given this survey because of your experience at teaching in the primary grades at Junction School before and after the implementation of Class Size Reduction. Your responses are very important in helping to understand what value Class Size Reduction has had upon student development and classroom practices. Your responses will be kept confidential. Thank you for your help. The following questionnaire asks you to respond to a number of statements by indicating how much you either agree or disagree with the statement. On the line provided after each statement please write the number from the scale below that best matches your impression of the area surveyed. 5 = strongly agree 4 = agree 3 = neutral/no change 2 = disagree 1 = strongly disagree 1. There is more small group instruction in a CSR environment _5_ 2. My teaching practices for Reading instruction are the same as before CSR 3.5 3. I know more about the individual needs of students in a CSR environment _5_ 4. I find that 1 can structure instruction to do more individualized activities _5_ 5. I have additional time to provide individual tutoring in a CSR environment _4_ 6. Communication between home and school is more frequent with CSR 2 7. I find that 1 can cover more materials in a CSR environment _3_ 8. My teaching practices for Math instruction are the same as before CSR 3 .5 9. My instiuctional program is more responsive to individual needs with CSR _5_ 10. I was able to provide greater early intervention for special needs before CSR 4 Thank you for your responses to this survey. Your comments will be kept anonymous and confidential. Please return the survey in the provided envelope. 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56% indicated that they felt their child’s learning to write was much improved under CSR. Over a 3 year period, a mean average of 59% indicated that they felt their child’s learning of mathematics was much improved under CSR. Over a 3 year period, a mean average of 59% indicated that they felt their child’s learning to talk and express him/herself was much improved under CSR. Most notable, is that the highest percentage of parent responses, indicating an aspect of the school climate to be “much improved” was their perception of how CSR had affected their child’s teacher’s ability to meet much improved under CSR (over a 3 year period a mean average of 56% indicated their child’s individual needs). Over a 3 year period, there was a mean average of 75% responding that a teacher’s ability to meet individual needs was much improved. A supplemental survey was administered to parents who had had children that received their instruction completely in a non-CSR environment and children that received their instruction completely in a CSR environment. Aggregate results of the survey are reported in Table 4. The inquiry that received the strongest affirmation was the statement about, “The school climate is more conducive to learning under CSR.” The mean response to this question was 4.8. The inquiry that received the weakest affirmation was the statement about, “Instruction is more individualized.” The mean response to this question was 2.4. 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T able) Summdjve Tdals ofPanrt Survey PARTI: Part / o f this survey asks for some background information about you and your child. 1. Do you have a child enrolled in a classroom in which class size has been reduced to 20 students or fewer per teacher? a. Yes b. No c. Don't know 2. What grade is your child in? a. Kindergarten b. Grade I c. Grade 2 d. Grade 3 e. Other 3. For how many months has your child been enrolled in a class with 20 studoits or fewer per teacher? a. Less that one month b. 1-3 months c. 4-6 months d. Mare than six months 4. Is your child enrolled in a class that secludes dudods from more than cne pade level (a multi-grade combination dess)? a. Yes b. No c. Don’ t know PART II: Please lell us how class size reduction has affected your child by answering the following questions: 1996-97 1997-9* 1998-9' How has dass size reduction affected your child’s teaming to read? 67% 6956 39% a. Much intproved wider dasa size reduction 14% 20% 1356 b. Somewhat improved under dasa size reduction 16% 115. 8% c. No change 1% >1% d. Somewhat worse under dass size reduction e. Much wane under class size reduction How has dass size reduction affected your child's learning to write a. Much ingiroved under dasa size reduction 63% 51% 5556 b. Somewhat improved under dass size reduction 20% 40% 28% c No change 14% 9% 16% d. Somewhat worse under dass size reduction >1% e. Much worse under dasa size reduction How has dasa size reduction affected your child’s learning of mathcsnsua? a. Much improved under dass size reduction 66% 53% 59% b. Somewhat improved under dass size rcdudion 21% 38% 34% c. No d..-ige 11% 95'. 7% d. Somewhat worse under dass size reduction e. Much worse under dass size reduction How has dass size rcdudion affeded your child's leaning to talk and express himself or herself? a. Much improved under dasa size reduction 57% 57*o 62% b. Somewhat improved under d a n size reduction 3056 24% 8% c. No change 11% 18% 30% d. Somewhat worse under dass size reduction 1% e. Much worse under dasa s i s rcdudion 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3. (continued) 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 Hew his dass size reduction affeded your child's performance n sdioo)? a. Much mproved under dass size reduction 60% 57% 50% b. Somewhat improved under d a n size reduction 18% 39% 34% c No change 9% 2% 16% d Somewhat worse under dass size redudkat 2% e. Much worse under d a n size reduction How has dass size rcdudion affeded your child’s teacher's ability to meet your child's aidividual needs? a. Much mproved wider dass sue rcdudion 83% 76% 67% b. Somewhat approved under dam size reduction 11% 22% 19% c No change 2% >2% d Somewhat worse under dass size redudkn e. Much worse wider dass size rcdudion How has dass size rcdudion affeded how well your child likes school? a. Much improved under dass size rcdudion 49% 29% 38% b. Somewhat improved under class size redudion 21% 385» 20% c. Nodunge 29% 31% 40% d Somewhat worse under dass size redudicm 2% >2% e. Much wane under dass size redudion How has dass size redudion affeded how well your child gets along wsh other students? a. Much improved under dass size reduction 31% 335% 335% b. Somewhat improved under dass size redudion 31% 31% 23% c. No change 36% 33% 44% d Somewhat worse under dass size redudion 3% e. Much worse under dass size redudion How has dass size rcdudion affeded your child's eSerest in learning? a. Much inproved under dass size reduction 54% 365% 475% b. Somewhat inproved under dass size redudion 23% 445% 225% c. No change 22% 18% 305% d Somewhat worse under dass size redudion 2% >1% e. Much worse under dass size redudion How has dass size redudion affeded your child's ability to concentrate an learning? a. Much improved under dass size rcdudion 63% 585% 52% b. Somewhat improved under dass size reduction 30% 365% 335% c. Nodunge 5% 6% 13% d Somewhat worse under dass size rcdudion >2% e Much worse under dass size reduction How has dass size redudion affeded your involvement with the school as a parent? a. Much at proved imdcr dasa size rcdudion 23% 16% 14% b. Somewhat improved imdcr dass size redudion 21% 165a 21% c. Nodunge 53% 68% 64% d Somewhat worse imdcr dsss size reduction >1% e. Much worse under dass size redudion How has dass s in redudion affeded the number and quality of contacts you have had with your child's teacher? a. Much inproved under dass size redudion 41% 45% 37% b. Somewhat improved under dass size reduction 275% 235% 17% c. No change 28?% 32% 455% d Somewhat worse under d ais size reduction e. Much worse under d a n nze reduction 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4 Aggregated Supplemental Parent Survey 1. My children in CSR read with an adult more often 4.2 2. Instruction is more individualized without CSR 2.4 3. My children teamed at a higher level by being in a CSR classroom 4.4 4. My child’s teacher knew more about how to help my child because of CSR 4.0 5. Instructional programs are more responsive to individual needs under CSR 4.4 6. Communication between home and school is more frequent during CSR 4.8 7. The school climate is more conducive to learning under CSR 4.8 8. My child was able to learn how to read more efficiently during CSR 4.0 9. My child was able to leqm how to do mathematics more efficiently under CSR 4.2 10. Early intervention to address special needs is accomplished in a more timely fashion because of CSR 4 6 11. The development of appropriate social behavior took place before there was CSR 3 .8 12. There has been more material covered with the lower numbers of students in CSR 4.5 13. Communication between teaches and staff are more productive since CSR has beenused 4.4 14. My students liked going to school before CSR was used 3 6 15 There is a greater chance for fewer student absences because of CSR 3 .6 16. The instructional program is more responsive to individual needs with CSR 3 .8 17.1 can tell that my child’s teacher has changed his/her way of teaching because of CSR 4.4 18. There are a wider variety- of activities that are provided to enrich leamng during CSR 4.2 19. All aspects of my child’s development were more effectively guided in CSR 4.0 20. Direct communication was more available before CSR 3.0 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4 SUMMATION Summary The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of class size reduction at Junction School. By using a case study design a measurement of effectiveness was derived by examining a Control Group of students who received their instruction without class size reduction and several Experimental Cohort Groups of students who had only received their instruction within a class size reduced environment. The performance of students on two types of academic assessment measures: The state mandated STAR test and the locally normed Curriculum Based Measurement were used as measures of academic effectiveness. The amount of absenteeism and tardiness was used to measure levels of student participation. Patterns of teacher instructional methodology were measured by referring to lesson plans, classroom observation records, and teacher surveys. Parent perceptions of class size reduction were measured through parent surveys. The strength of parent perception was enhanced by administering a supplemental survey to parents who had both students who received their instruction without class size reduction in place and students who received their instruction only in a class size reduced environment. 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The findings of the study showed that the academic performance of the Control Group was generally at or above each of the Cohort Groups, when compared at similar grade levels. Generally, the Control Group demonstrated a greater level of student participation, as measured by absenteeism and tardiness, compared to any of the Cohort Groups. Based upon administrative review of lesson plans and classroom observation records, and supported by teacher survey responses, the usage of small group instruction with individual attention to students increased by 15%. In addition, individual tutoring with a single student during regular class time increased by 9 % . Parent survey responses overwhelmingly supported the use of class size reduction. Most notably, was the parent perception of how class size reduction affected how their child’s teacher’s ability to meet individual learning needs increased. This was reinforced by the strength of response received through the supplemental survey of parents who had children that been instructed in non-class size reduction environments and children who had been instructed in class size reduction environments Discussion on Findings One of the aspirations of implementing class size reduction within California schools was that a similar effect to the Tennessee effort would be realized. Based upon this case study, that was not the case The predictive findings, by use of the measures identified in the study, were not realized. It is important to note, however, that in the time span of the study the student population changed ffom a high 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. socioeconomic group to one more reflective of a mid-range socioeconomic group. Additionally, the percentage of families that had both biological parents in the home was replaced by a larger percentage of families that had only one parent or a blended parentage. Lastly, the percentage of families that had only one parent working was replaced by a higher percentage of families where both parents worked on a daily basis. It is significant to realize, then, that the student performance measures were lower, but that these decrements likely resulted from contextual variation that was beyond the school’s Control. Parents and educators were emphatic in their level of support for class size reduction, giving credence that the use of class size reduction is a very popular matter of public policy. While the effect of class size reduction within this case study does not mirror the effects of other state models it does reflect a similar profile seen in California since inception. In the time period for 1998-99 the state commissioned report on CSR found that between 1 and 4% more students scored above the national median, compared to schools where CSR had not been implemented. Such effects, albeit positive, have generally been described as “small” or even “disappointing.” While the original prediction was that the number of special needs referrals would be less with CSR the opposite has held true. This was apparent from the case study experience and reinforced by the findings from the California State commissioned study. It has been suggested that this has happened because teachers can more readily identify students who need special levels of assistance sooner in the 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. child’s school experience. The greater number of special needs referrals, then, is construed as a benefit. These levels of similar “non-findings” are qualified by the caveat from the state commissioned study that said, “No one has ever implemented a class size reduction reform on this scale before. Students in Tennessee’s STAR study had 4 years of class size reduction beginning in kindergarten, and no student in California has yet received this much instruction in reduced class sizes” (Stecher & Bohmstedt, 2000, pp. 13-14). When compared to the use of class size reduction in other states it is important to note that there were other variables implemented. In Tennessee, class size reduction was part of a complete overhaul of the state’s educational system, including changes in standardizing the texts and materials used to deliver instruction, the methodologies used to present instruction, and the alignment of student performance measures to the curriculum taught. This level of activity has not taken place in California. In fact, the lack of adequately prepared teachers and availability to adequate facilities continue to hamper a clear picture of what effect class size reduction has upon student development. The comparative size of Junction School’s efforts provided what might result from class size reduction because the school had adequate facilities and all participating teachers had extensive experience in primary grade instruction at the time of full implementation. Alignment between the 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assessment measures and what is taught, was and continues to be, less than a perfect match. The experiences of using class size reduction in Wisconsin and Oregon were also combined with other systemic reforms. In Wisconsin’s SAGE program resources were devoted to retraining teachers to instruct with small classes, instructional materials throughout the system were standardized, and assessment measures were aligned with primary instructional content. In Oregon, teacher training and inservicing supplemented changes in class sizes to maximize learning opportunities. It is apparent that research of comparing the success of these states’ programs, including California, yield the following characteristics: 1. The effectiveness of class size reduction is strengthened when the teaching corps is adequately trained and utilize the best practices in teaching methodology with small group instruction. 2. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds benefit most from the individualized environment, both academically and emotionally 3. The validity of measuring the effectiveness class size reduction is strengthened when multiple measures of assessment are used, not simply achievement test results. 4. Class size reduction is not the only factor used to increase student achievement. Limitations of Study 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While the data collected and studied from Junction School provided additional reference in the effectiveness of class size reduction at the primary grades there were limitations to the study Findings from this particular case study can not be generalized to other situations involving class size reduction efforts in other California schools. Junction School did not have a great degree of student diversity, either during the Control or Cohort Groups’ attendance. Secondly, the outcomes of the study were possibly affected by the procedures used to collect the data. While the composition of the Control and Cohort Groups was predicated that no student could become part of a grouping who had not been in attendance at Junction School throughout their school career, the assumption that any student who left the Control or Cohort Group was of equivalent ability may have influenced the assessment of group performance. This was not a random or matched case system of group composition. There are factors, besides class size reduction, that can influence the areas of interest within the case study. Alignment of curriculum to assessment measures, texts and materials utilized during the case study, teacher methodology and practices, and levels of home support also affect student performance, participation, and development. Implications of Study The case study experience at Junction School provides additional data for a comprehensive evaluation of the merits for utilization of class size reduction. The large amount of financial resources required to support class size reduction must be 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. justified at a policy level based upon the value received. The level of value ascribed to the utilization of class size reduction at the parent and staff level indicates a strong level of public acceptance and support for a continuation of such efforts. The additional insight provided by the case study experience at Junction School holds merit for further study between the relationships that form and extend when there is greater interpersonal interaction on a scale closer to a one-to-one relationship. Considering the effect of class size reduction beyond the impact upon student achievement data is important. Weighing the opportunity for greater opportunities to individualize instruction, more thorough implementation of best teaching practices, and positive emotional and social development is areas that merit further study. Suggestions for Future Research/Practice Additional longitudinal data are needed. The aggregate student experience under class size reduction is relatively small. Efforts to standardize the Control-Experimental Cohort Model of comparing salient data points is crucial, given that any type of regional or statewide “Control” Group is near or at the point of graduation from high school programs. Additionally, improvements in the manner of collecting the state’s educational data should be incorporated so that the impact of class size reduction can be consistently and systematically evaluated. Other suggestions might be to broaden the profile of this particular case study design to other schools in other areas of the state and to compare the resultant data to ascertain if the effect is comparable or not 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Summation Class size reduction is an extremely popular program for loading classes within California schools. Loading, however, does not address the entire myriad of challenges that come with the diversity of students attending school. Is the money being invested in such loading the most effective way to help children learn and develop? 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY Achilles, C. M. (1996). Summaries of recent class-size research with an emphasis on Tennessee’s project STAR and its derivative studies. Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research and Policy in Basic Skills. Achilles, C. M. (1997). Small classes, big possibilities. The School Administrator. 9. (54), 6-15 Achilles, C. M. (1999). Let’s put kids first, finally Getting class size right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Achilles, C. M., & Finn, J. D. (1999). Tennessee’s class size: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 21(2). 97-109. Achilles, C. M., Harman, P., & Egelson, P. (1995). Using research results on class size to improve pupil achievement outcomes. Greensboro, NC: Southeast Regional Vision for Education (SERVE). Achilles, C. M., Nye, B., Zaharias, J. B., Fulton, B. D., & Cain, C. (1996). Education’s equivalent of medicine’s Framingham heart study. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse No. ED 402677 Boyd-Zaharias, J. (1999). Quality schools build on a quality start. In E. W. Chance (Ed ), Creating the quality school (pp. 67-93). Madison, WI: Magna Publications. Boyd-Zaharias, J., Pate-Bain, H., & Fulton, B. D. (1999). Effects on class-size reduction in the early grades (K-3) on high school performance: Preliminary results from project STAR. Tennessee’s longitudinal class size study. HEROS. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Education. Bracey, G. W. 11999). Reducing class size— the findings, the controversy. Kappan. 81(3), 246-247. Chase, B. (May, 23, 1999). Real proof that small class sizes yield big benefits. National Education Today. 21 -24. 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Toward what end? The evaluation of student learning for the improvement of teaching. Grading teachers, grading schools. Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Egelson, P , Harman, P., & Achilles, C. M. (1996). Does class size make a difference? Recent findings from state and district initiatives Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse No. ED 398644. Farr, R , & Beck, M (1991) Evaluating language development: Formal methods of evaluation. In J. Flood (Ed ). Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp 489-501). New York: MacMillan. Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation. 28(2). 465-498. Finn, J. D (1998). Class size and students at risk: What is known? What is next? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and improvement, National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students Finn, J D , & Voelkl, K. (1992). Class size: An overview of research. Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology Occasional Paper No. 92-1. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York, Graduate School of Education Publications. Florida Department of Education. Office of Policy Research. (1998). The relationship of school and class size with student achievement in Florida: An analysis of statewide data fOn-linel. Available: www fim. edu/doe/bin00048/home0048. htm. Florida Office of Public Relaions. (1998). Report on effectiveness of class size reduction. Tallahassee, FL: Public Documents Distribution. Glass, G. V , Cahen, L. S., Smith, M. L., & Filby, N. N. (1982). School class size: Research and policy Beverly Hills, CA. Sage. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Lane, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research. 66(3). 361-396. Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hanushek, E. A. (1998). The evidence on class size. Public testimony Washington, DC, 105*, 2B d Congressional Record. S12479-S12482 {HOC). Hanushek, E. A. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other experiments of class size effects. Working paper. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 21.2, forthcoming summer 1999. Hanushek, E. A., Goldstein, H. & Blatchard, P. (1998). Class size and educational achievement. A review of the methodology with particular reference to study design. British Educational Research Journal. 24(3). 255-268. Hoxby, C. M. (December, 1998). The effects on class size and composition on student achievement: New evidence from natural population variation. NBER working paper 6869. Cambridge, MA. National Bureau of Economic Research Junction Elementary School District. (1998). Class size reduction report. Palo Cedro, CA: Author. Keller, B. (2000). Smaller class sizes get mixed reviews. Education Week. 19(421. 25. Martinez, M. E., & Lipson, J. L. (1989). Assessment for learning. Educational Leadership. 46(71. 73-76. Meyer, C. A. (1992). What’s the difference between authentic and performance assessment? Educational Leadership. 4918). 39 Millman, J. (1997). How do 1 judge thee? Let Me count the ways. Grading teachers, grading schools. Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Mitchell, D F., & Beach, S. A. (1990). How changing class size affects classrooms and students. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory Mitchell, D. F., Carson, C., & Bandarak, G. (1989). How changing class size affects classrooms and student. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California. 6 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Molnar, A., Percy, S., Smith, P., & Zahorik, J. (1998). 1997-98 results of the student achievement guarantee in education (SAGE) program. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Mosteller, F. (1995, Summer/Fall). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The future of children. Mosteller, F., Light, R. J., & Sachs, J. A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education. Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review. 66(4), 797-842. Mueller, D. J , Chase, C. I., & Walden, J. D. (1988). Effects of reduced class size in primary classes. Educational Leadership. 45(71. 48-50. Nolet, V. (1992). Classroom based measurement and portfolio assessment. Diagnostique. 1811). 5-25. Odden, A. (1989). Class Size and student achievement: New and affordable strategies that make sense. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Odden, A. (1990). Class size and student achievement: Research-based policy alternatives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 12(2). 213-227. Ogawa, R. T., Hutson, D., & Stine E. E. (1999). California’s class-size reduction initiative: Difference in teacher experience and qualifications across schools. Educational Policy. 13(51. 659-673 Pate-Bain, H., Fulton, B. D., & Boyd-Zaharias, J (1999). Effects of class size reduction (K-3) on high school performance: Prelininarv results (1999) from project STAR. Tennessee’s longitudinal class-size study. Project STAR Press Conference document, April 10, pp. 110-132. Popham, W. J. (1997). The moth and the flame: Student learning as a criterion of instructional competence. Grading teachers, grading schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rees, S. “Class size reduction in California.” [http//www.schooiwisepress.com]. August, 2000. Robinson, G. E. (1978). Class size: A summary of research. Arlington, V A: Educational Research Service. 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Robinson, G E , & Wittebols, J. H (1986). Class size research: A related cluster analysis for decision making. Arlington, VA: Education Research Service. Sadowski, M. (March/April, 1995) The numbers game yields simplistic answers on the link between spending and outcomes. The Harvard Education Letter— 11. Slavin, R. (Fall 1990). Class size and student achievement: Is small better? Contemporary Education. 62. Smith, M. L., & Glass, M. L. (1978). Meta-analvsis of the relationship of class size and student achievement. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Stecher, B. M., & Bohmstedt, G. W. (Eds ). (2000). Class size reduction in California: The 1998-99 evaluation findings. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes to Research. Stecher, B. M., & Stasz. (1999). Class size reduction in California 1996-98: Early findings signal promise and concern. Palo Alto, CA: Class Size Reduction Research Consortium. Tindal, G. R., & Marston, D. (1990). Classroom-based assessment: Evaluating instructional outcomes Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill. Tomlinson, T. (1988). Class size and public policy: Politics and panaceas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. United Staes Department of Education. (1998). Class size reduction analysis. Washington, DC: Office of Public Documents Wenglinsky, H. (1997). When money matters: How educational expenditures improve student performance and how they don’t. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Wood, E„ & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Project STAR final report. 1985-1990 Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of Education. Zykowski, J. (1996). Student grouping: A direct link to achievement-A review of CERC’s research of class size. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative (CERC). 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was microfilmed as received. This reproduction is the best copy available. I M I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF CBM ASSESSMENT PROMPT Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Scoring Instructions Begin timing when student reads their first word. When one minute is up, mark the last w ord read, but allow student to finish the sentence. Mark any words that were m ispronounced, read incorrectly, or skipped. Subtract these words from total w ords read. Do not mark self-corrected words as incorrect. If a student struggles on a word, allow a silent 3-count, then provide w ord and mark as incorrect. Fluency CBM Instructions 1 am going to ask you to read to me for one minute. I want you to read as much as you can, as well as you can. Do you have any questions? You may begin. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B INDIVIDUAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^ APPENDIX C PARENT SURVEY-CLASS SIZE REDUCTION Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PARDfT SURVEY—CLASS StZE REDUCTION PARTI: P an I o f this survey ask* fo r tornw bockgrom d mformasrom akous you and your child 1 Do you hove a child enrolled n a clu a o a a in which clan s is has been reduced 1 0 20 srudcms or fewer p a teacher0 a. Yes b. No c Don't know 2 What grade is your child in? a Kindergarten b. Grade I c. Grade 2 d Grade 3 e Other 3 For how many mooths has your child been enrolled in a clan with 20 students or fewer per teacher? a Leu than one month b 1-3 months c. 4-6 mnncha d. Marc than six mood* 4 Is your child carolled ia a clan that includes smdents from more than one grade level (a multi-trade contention dan)? a Yes b. No c. Don’t know PARTD: P i rat e s t U us how cl ass s a t reduct i on has af f r< H dyosr c h Ud by aasm ri ug t he / oi l ow ut g quest i ons 5. How has daas size reductioo aflacted your child’s leaning to read0 1996-97 1997-91 1991-99 a Much improved tauter dasa sue raductioo 67% 69% 39% b. Socarwhs improved under daea s is reduction 14% 20% 13% c. No change 16% 11% 1% d. Sorerwht wont uadn d a s sue reduction 1% >1% e. Mach worse and* ctes a is reduction Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PARENT SURVEY-CLASS SIZE REDUCTION 1996-97 1 997-90 199199 How has clan m e reduction affected your child's »*»g to write? a. Much improved under class sue reduction 63% 51% 55% b. Somewhat improved under clam sue reduction 20% 40% 2f% c. No change 14% 9% 16% d Somewhat worse under clan size reduction >1% c. Much worse under class sue reduction How has class sac reductioo affected your child's kerning of mathematics7 a. Much improved under clan size reduction 66% 53% 59% b Somewhat improved unda class sue reduction 21% 31% 34% c No change 11% 9% 7% d Somewhat wwie unda class size reduction e. Much wane unda class size reduction How has class size reduction affected your child’s kanuog to talk and express himself or herself? a. Much unproved unda class size reduction 57% 57% 62% b. Somewhat unproved tauter class sue reductioo 30% 24% 1% c. No change 11% 11% 30% d Somewhat worse unda class sue reduction 1% c Much worw unda class size reduction How has class size reduction affected your child’s performance n school'7 a. Much improved undo d m size reduction 60% 57% 50% b. Somewhat improved unda class sue reduction 21% 39% 34% c. No change 9% 2% 16% d. Somewhat mone tn d a cteas size reductioo 2% e. Much worse tmd* dam tu t reduction 10. How haa clan a s radactiao iftcMd your child'i u cfas’t ability * > acet j a m dald't individual m d i? a. Much improved unda class rise reduction n % 76% 67% b Somewhat improved under class size reduction u% 22% 19% c. No change 2% >2% d. Saotwfca want unda d a s a s redaction c Much wane undo etas a s reduction Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fARENT SURVEY-CLASS SIZE REDUCTION 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 11 How has class use reduction affected how well you* gfrifaj likes school9 a. Much unproved under class sue reduction 49% 29% 38% b. Somewhat unproved under class sue reductioo 21% 38% 20% c No change 29% 31% 40% d Somewhat worse under class sue reduction 2% >2% e Much worse under class size reduction i 2 How has class sue reduction affected bow well your child gets along with other students9 a. Much unproved under class size reductioo 31% 33% 33% b Somewhat improved under class sue reduction 31% 31% 23% c No change 36% 33% 44% d Somewhat worse imder class sue reduction 3% e Much worse under class sue reduction 13 How has class size reduction affected yoi* child's interest to learning9 a Much improved under class sue reduction 54% 36% 47% b Somewhat unproved under class sue reduction 23% 44% 22% c No change 22% 11% 30% d Somewhat worse under class sue reductioo 2% >1% e. Much worse undo class sue reductioo 14 How has class sue reduction affected you child's ability to concentrate on Icarntat? a. Much improved under clan size reduction 63% 58% 52% b Somewhat unproved undo class sue reduction 30% 36% 33% c. No change 5% 6% 13% d Somewhat worse under clan sue reduction >7% e. Much worse under class sue reduction I 5. How has class sac reduction affected y on involvement with the school as a parent? a Much jnprm trl undo clan sue reduction 23% 16% 14% b Soocwffen improved under class siae reduction 21% 16% 21% c. No change 53% 68% 64% d Somewhat worse unda d a n s i s induction > 1% e. Much worse under d a n s is reduction Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PARENT SURVEY-CLASS SIZE REDUCTION 1996-97 1997-91 1991-99 16. How hai d a g m t reductioo effectcd the p i b ti end quality of coaacu you h o g hid with yam ctald'i tgchg? f t - Muck unf*ov«d wmda d m t u t ntoctko* 41% 45% 37% b Som ew itt inyrovtd undo d m ita reduction 27% 23% 17% c. No chflnfc 21% 32% 45% d SoncwtM wane uwder d o i u s reduction e Much wane uada d a n u s reduction Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D TEACHER SURVEY-CLASS SIZE REDUCTION Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CIh i S k i R i M a i ciStcl (T iM k r S a m y ) Aj you know our school boad has asfcad for a report an ike d b d wfceh Clan S is Reduction hat upon m o i l areas of school opaiaoom T hor areas «e: nudes prrfrainerui and development, instnrcuonal strategics, aid school d aw n . This survey m the tasmanon to gather teacher impressions in a number of areas. I ask dal you th e a few amuses «o respond and return the survey to Vicki by tomorrow. Thanks Pleas circle the m—bn which besi n ia rh n your iaprrstioa of tie «ca surveyed 1* strongly agree > agree 3» aeunyao change a- dingier S- strongly disagree I lartnicoon is more mdividualiad anrtrt Clan Siar Reduction 1 3 2. There has been a shift awey from "managing a classroom' io "provufcng instruction' i . s 3. The umnictiooal a w n s is more moonsivc so individual needs 1 • 3 4. Communrcauon between school aid borne is more frequent 1 • * > i. T V** ‘t 41" *•"** V — « ** map* T r wftf™— between aetivitiga * • * 6 There arc a wido array of actjvit>c> that arc provided io canch learning * ‘ B 7 bupuctronal fleaibtlny has been incraanad to a n d the aaads of artvtdual kaniers 1.1 5. There is aieaaa uaaht ah) the dccsloamem of individual andean 1 1 9. Diracs ccmmtatrarira ia more available l . a 10. Early iaservenoon a ad&em special anads is arrnmpliihcd at a aore timely Caahroo 1 . i 11. «« • lifc*KUo»«t eA dtfll— W tmml U A ^ w r f W i w rfc 1 . 3 12. O rnate ia more conducive so has— 13. romniitratinahenwuataachmaaadaaffammortBredacovc a .o 14. Thaat iaeraaar chance far inraaoadcaasham es* 3 .1 13. Behavior mananemmt is a o re effective 1*5 General rim irnrnn.__________________________________________________________ 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL PARENT SURVEY CSR Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ju n ctio n S c h o o l D istrict (0*7 DESCHUTES ROAD PM.OCEDRO.CM.VOmM MO7] (M0IS47M74 f»X a <S30)S47-40nC D a Paitn Aj you know out School Boatd h a aahad fat a m aiaiag m of mma l raporu ai da cflcctlintClauSlUReduction te l upoa a*ickooi'■ optneoai Tte tadoaad turvay u aataap fa yoia rcatata i rtpw Xng Claaa Sut Radumna ia onte lo pan Ijt i |ln front families who lad dukhan t i l attadad tuflirw School befctt C lm S ia Rwtunma i d who ted children Itei aaaadad Junction SdBd itm CUa Si m I t e n i a i wot aattad A readout staple of pataatt whoa fhattiy Sts the praMa froa about is te ia | aahad to a a p k u d n n a n q Tte ntpoaaa will te kept tanoyamia tad a t e w l Tte aw ay it bang earned ou a pul of a aaapreteaave. aaihi-yea propel far tte Juactno School Dittnct Boatd of Tiueues to cvaluatt tte d le a fan Claaa Site Reduction has upon the ctcmciaary school's apcreboa I aauctpale that survey ftsokt wdl te used a pan of lunaion't M i p c plan (at |w r idiop tffactivc irhnolng to al children You a t u ln d to crenplrtt the tadotad anvay about y e a reflaaioaa wnh Clatt Sitt Reduction and « i tflda Tte aw ay waa dtaiaaed io te cotnplstad ia atwa 20 auwjtct Ptruopatioa ia snktty vohauty, tea I lapa ttei you u uiU apaa so tike pat a d a turvay la otdw to pita helpftil infatuat ion there aaadt io te a laph n p o n a m e to faawtutaskally valid iafa t a as tb ta d Q a a S ia Reduction Alonp with ortwt r n pniaai. pout a ^oaat i will provide valuable iafataatioa a am School Board Tte aavty data will te uaad a idtaify d a pana of O t a Siaa Raductioo rsforutihetvnxh wad aad tte pant lhanaad to te laproved Patticipaiat' a iw in a tte aavty will te arialy ronlSdiaitl la pttnatiad itauka. your antwan win te coatbiaad wah aatwata t o a tte atm panibpaan aad taponad only a “total mamici* If you have any ipaainM a coacaaa aboa this nudy. cornea aa a 5470274 at nty konw phone (246-1244) Voa teunad ratpoat by July 24.2000 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Class Size Reduction (CSR) effect As you know our school board has asked for a continuing series of annual reports on the effect which Class Size Reduction (CSR) has had upon several areas of school operation. These areas are: student performance and development, instructional strategies, and school climate. This survey is being used to obtain information from parents who have had students who attended Junction School when there was no Class Size Reduction and have had students who attended Junction School with Class Size Reduction. Your responses are very important in helping to understand what differences in school operation have happened with the implementation of Class Size Reduction. Thank you for your responses. The first section of this questionnaire helps policy makers to understand the background of families who have attended Junction School. All of your responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. 1 . How many children are in your family____ 2. How many of your children attended Kindergarten through Third Grade between 1991-92 and 1995-%_____ 3. How many of your children attended Kindergarten through Third Grade between 1996-97 and 1999-2000_____ 4. How many of your children are boys_______ are girls_______ 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The second section of this questionnaire asks you to respond to a number of statements by indicating how much you either agree or disagree with the statement. On the line provided after each statement please write the number from the scale below which best matches your impression of the area surveyed. 5=strongly agree 4=agree 3=neutra 1/nochange 2=disagree l=strongly disagree 1. My children in CSR read with an adult more often_______ 2. Instruction is more individualized without CSR________ 3. My children learned at a higher level by being in a CSR classroom____ 4. My child’s teacher knew more about how to help my child because of C SR________ 5. Instructional programs are more responsive to individual needs under CSR________ 6. Communication between home and school is more frequent during CSR____ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7. The school climate is more conducive to learning under CSR_______ 8. My child was able to leant how to read more efficiently during CSR _ 9. My child was able to leant how to do mathematics more efficiently During CSR______ 10. Early intervention to address special needs is accomplished in a more more timely fashion because of CSR______ 11 The development of appropriate social behavior took place before there was CSR______ 12.There has been more material covered with the lower numbers of students in CSR______ 13.Communication between teachers and staff are more productive since CSR has been used______ 14.My students liked going to school before CSR was used______ 15 . There is a greater chance for fewer student absences_______ 16. The instructional program is more responsive to individual needs___ 17.1 can tell that my child’s teacher has changed their way of teaching because of C SR______ 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 - strongly agree 4= agree 3 = neutral/no change 2 = disagree 1 =strongly disagree 18.There are a wider variety of activities that are provided to enrich learning during CSR_____ 19. All aspects of my child’s development were more effectively guided in CSR______ 20. Direct communication waj more available before CSR______ Comments: ____________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The third section of this survey is an open ended section where you can provide any written type of comments you wish to be known regarding your family’s experiences with schooling before there was Class Size Reduction and then after Class Size Reduction was implemented. When you are finished please return your survey in the stamped envelope provided. The responses you have provided will be kept confidential and anonymous. They will be used, along with other data, to help monitor the effect that Class Size Reduction is having on school operations. Thank your very much for your answers to the survey. 21.1 believe that Class Size Reduction is valuable because 22. 1 believe that Class Size Reduction is not valuable because Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23. When comparing the education my children had before there was Class Size Reduction to the education my children had after Class Size Reduction was started, the following is important to know: 24. When comparing the school climate that existed before Class Size Reduction was staned to the school climate after Class Size Reduction began, the following is important to know: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25. The following CSR related changes have taken place in the way in which my children are taught: 26. Comment of the following lines about anything that was not asked about on this survey Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thank you again for your responses to this survey Your com m ents will be kept anonym ous and confidential. Please return your com pleted survey m the provided envelope Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTAL TEACHER SURVEY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C lua Site Reduction (CSR) d k d As you know our school board his asked for a en«a»»img scries o f annual reports on the effect that Gass Size Reduction (CSR) has had i^mo several areas o f school opcraboa. The purpose o f this survey b to ask you fee your aright into « — » •> " " § practices within the classroom. You are being given thbswvey because ofyour experience a teachings the primary grades at Junction School before rad after the s u b nc icarinn o f Chia Size Reduction. Your responses are very b u m f s in hdpng to uulcm and w fant value Class Size Reduction has bad upon studem devdopnera and classroom practices. Yota- responses will be kept confidential. Thank you for you help. The following questionmne ask you to respond to a cumber o f tw rtn rrat by indki taig bow ouch you either agree or disagree with the On the Ikie provided after each statement please write the number from the scale bdow that best matches your anptessiuo o f the area surveyed. 5 m strongly agree 4*agree 3-neuoal/no change 2*dbagree 1 ■strongly disagree 1. There b more small group instructional a CSR enviroomea____ 1 Mv teaching p ractices foe Readme instruction are the same as before CSR 3. 1 know more about the individual needs o f studens in a CSR envhotaneg____ 4. I find that I can structure autructioo to do more bdividualszrd activities____ 3. 1 have additional time to provide individual tutoring at a CSR environment____ 6. Communication b etween home and school b more frcquea with CSR____ 7. I find that I can cover more materials n a CSR environment____ 8. My teaching practices for Math hatructioo are the same as before CSR____ 9. My instructional program b more responsive to individual needs with CSR____ 10.1 was able to provide greater early n erv atio n for special needs before CSR_ _ _ Thank you for your responses to tfab survey. Your comments w iO be kept anonymous and confidential. Please return the survey m the provided envelope. 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX G SAMPLING OF PARENT COMMENTS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PAJtEKT SURVEY c o m m e n t s Whai da yaa H u boat about daa aiat ndanfaa? I thiafc h gitrea Ac tcacba a n t of * chaacc 1 0 and read to A t adreithal a ttdt of hu/bo madrot I have beta m y iapreaaod wtA Jiaactioa School uAca a a ( m | it to a y fnrada'chiiAen'iichooleipmcacca and lack thereof I aa capaoaily a f n a d w i* A t captctctiont a t for A t leadr r f t a n . When I a w a glade K, tw fiaga p aaad. look tape tod Uacned to norits. Thaoha to taachiog aad ( r e a l A ta • h a d anrt.' Mi hat brent poutire (oc t fint hne icbool pareaL I tpfrtrialr you aatatireacu m d i w t a of my child'* need*. The owit individual ancaiia ay child raceira. Ht (to t btno aducatm. The one on out cowan wiA Ac ta b • I didn't hove Aof b a I act bo* a p o n tc i n u for duality, i n quantity. I believe At tcacha/nudca raoo A a daa ta r tuducnao afford cat go a long way A amain* dal a anidta dotao't f a i r dauagh At aacha. Mott mat it apod wiAaarhchild. Tht child gtaa coafldtact vriA At aannnn (addioooal aotatioo) boa At aicha a d aM c. Tcachtr aod child haw a btao itiaioaAip a laanaai oat a oat a oat beau Oat oo oat Rudtal aarhrr jttrrtruna (Vtrsooaod nanoeua m l Tcachct ability to facet aaiadmdaalaadaaa’aaaadaiacreaaedtafold' My aoa haa kanad to nod • a m A n ay oAa tao chilAw n th CSR. Mott ttacha-aodcA nnatarl Mow aAA tanaina - Ita Atffartiag fat totdtoi • m ore relating ini atBa n fat child aad taaha. More tone wiA each atudaol caa't bdp ba help Atm. Abo, iaaa w ta oa m rh m h m too aaay chifchta laadi u aaw tfiacaret aachAg. Although my daaghai'a treaal tndrea hart aot ban directly affcaad by Ac claaa lixt reducuoa, 1'a mat if 23 rtadrali or ware ware rebel data. Ait would not be baarfi m l to wy of Acaodtaa. (Abo. aot fair It At u bin) More paanaalnat far arhrhiM Brtag able to aotiot pwiMta treat acre caaily Each tbakw get a chaacc to haw a o t oat ta oat ariA Ata aocha. H a ttacfap bat wore bat to gai a A each child, aot uraratahtd tad ahb to ttach auchhcaa. Tbt aachm aw ahb a gbt a a t M o t e to Aaa aatdaan aad Aa a il fat Ac bda learn aort aad a a fall through At aacki if Aty haw a prohka «dA any abyacta Cttdrao Iaaa baaa a d faaa. My faaat child gtalaa of help aad abandon. I doa'l know if d aa toe aafcta toy (hfSrreact. Lot dimcdret. aoar a d aaadi with iacraaaad ability to mai a a n and cooperate and panacipat te a chilAta aaaaa aaia coaaaaadaa far da aaadaa a d At taacha a date ate b a diatactiooa far tht ttadtnu tad da aacha aad alto alloaii pnaihlt Date far ttachaa to ytad 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. More b a t tpcat with each (roup or ladividuai duld. Uaamu if a change ia u m a a y Add to m ax grades. Moving ail grades (especially with older chihhen) preticiprer ia data t i n reduction C law oon sides actualljr T ****? time w ortiof with andm s rednr than naming dmoi aad doing paperwork. I'm am certain bccauae I'm not completely knowledgeable about all the factor! coocrrninf class sue r ed u ctM O - Bcmg mare prepared at the fTfinaim of the yen. All grade levels should be reduced. Kids nerd aac on ooe- It doesa't really matter what grade level they are. At a working, divorced mother. I espccl the teachers to do the searbing. Not me during homework time. Aad ■ my son's grade level ( ). his teacher ia doing a wonderful job. If the had more seudeatt. he wouldn’ t be leaning as well It's really that lunplc and logical. As kmg as the teacher ca make dull subica madcra auae unne-aing Kids will lean and not get bored. Keeping grade levels sspn are - avoiding cocabo classes. Quality time Take it through more grades. Other tmac level claares with Inge grotgt activity. To have it ao all rln art through 1 2s grade had d a n sin reduction i tapUmc taed. I believe th a allowing spaces lie cans enrol lees ham the twgVwing of the year to avoid having to make class to r rhn g r t mid-yen would be a great im provement. To separate bids trending to thdr abilities and omve than up in cumculmn when they are ready or down when they need extra help. Better aae of Inchng One. FI an ewer the tvro grade level in ooe clan concept. Have other option beside combining 2 grades in a d a n with ooe teacher. Available far ad grades. I think it 't working p eat the wny it is. Having }2 b d t m a d a n widi no aide is wtaere uoproveneol is oaadad. T rtha|a eras more one an one bate for reading, matt, and writing Teacher could cad i individual p ra b ta a (packer. aiVhtmonl tinoring time for th n e ttudeats with *xciaj nand t tndlor weahneu areas. Kadndng ad ajn en i* aatt Imxnanad gaunt pattdpnkon. Focua on iadividaal strengths aad umakaeaan of m id i and impniving apacilic weak areas. Contacting p n en by phone if paoblena develop ocndantcally. Adding a few a n t whole p ad s (combined dree) activities ao they can get to know all the kids then age would be nine. That e r meiaar p eal 3* grade. (Ntanwoua responses) If possible, allow aaorc raotn b e growth in grades to H e m s den t have u move to different dasare during A t school f o r Less SIP days. Too many days p en t away bom the rlaaaro ora Need to go to year-round schools. Let dte teachers teach tad keep politics out of the classroom 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C ha« cth ct* io io IS a u d m ip a ItccA a. To a o a o o d a the cdditiood d o U ra o id -y a r cod aoi 'A iiO e" Ac hide m o d wbeo theyh»»ebeenA ocdyplacediatheircJaoaboxA chef—e fo lthetchooiyea. (d o ak ii’ i loach f a d a kidi m i teoA ai 1 0 o r a A ar Udi aid -y ea. Loafer tchooldeyt at lao (acalciid ay « a (far tchooll In a y to e 'i a a , b«ie| tied of Ay, la s ae d to e a s y help Ian widi a p im ia e him itlf io 6 m of the d a s . hid kreptfl* d m k b up lo 20 - aol ru n I m ac. Oct bock to baaa, H ah chddrat n al AiBi they cob toe lout io m l life. It u had to tcil wha uoptovaocai a y a o baa to o k doc to c lia nducboa a if it is him Icaniaf n o a a o ocw (tid e level. I do a c ■ bif im t c u w c a dot yea. Gcfnof ridofm uM aoifcciiisclaa. K jdnha Aouid be io special ed (ADD, etc.) o cio clau cod take up too ouch itochtt time. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX H CHARTS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 T o W Ree*ngComp»r>»on ThinlG rsde Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 / / // ' / / // vX-y/W''' / / / / / / / / / y // / a c u x - 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ch*d e Tot»l languaga C<wnp*r«on FoufFt s / /" / / "A / / /'[ § 88 5 v o 8 *s o 5 t 3 f 5* i5 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 £ U J £ Z s 8 Z S ¥ 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T O W M o m C om parison 1 h rd Gwda 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Charts T ot* M ath Comparison Fourth G rada 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 * 1 1 4 C O M f »u*ncy TtvroGriOt 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 C B M Md* C o m p u tro n Fluency Th»d (V *d* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C*wl 1 6 C 6 M Mtfti Computation f **ncy f oufth O aO a

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals

PDF

Closing the leadership gap

PDF

A case study of instructional supervision, including teacher evaluation, and the impact on teacher practice

PDF

An evaluation of a Gallup -designed professional development mentoring program

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high performing urban elementary school

PDF

Effects of the STAR testing program on teachers and the curriculum

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among school superintendents

PDF

Cognitive coaching training for master teachers and its effects on student teachers' ability to reflect on practice

PDF

Institutional factors affecting academic persistence of underprepared community college freshmen

PDF

Examining the relationship between writing self -efficacy, writing performance and general achievement for third graders

PDF

Comparison of the predictive validity of a written test, an integrity test, a conscientiousness questionnaire, a structured behavioral interview and a personality inventory in the assessment of j...

PDF

A teamwork skills questionnaire: A reliability and validity study of the Chinese version

PDF

A quantitative and qualitative study of computer technology and student achievement in mathematics and reading at the second- and third-grade levels: A comparison of high versus limited technolo...

PDF

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

An examination of California school districts' response to AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370: The Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998

PDF

Current and future managerial competency requirements for manufacturing, assembly, and /or material processing functions

PDF

A case study of the California teacher evaluation system and its impact upon teacher practice in an alternative education high -performing urban high school

PDF

A closer look at the impact of teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing California elementary school

PDF

A case study of the Math Matters professional development program in one elementary school

Asset Metadata

Creator Hutt, David Edward (author)

Core Title Class size reduction: A case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,education, elementary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Baker, Robert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-125609

Unique identifier UC11328834

Identifier 3041470.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-125609 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3041470-0.pdf

Dmrecord 125609

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hutt, David Edward

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA