Princeton University

Class Size
Author(s): Eugene M. Lewit and Linda Schuurmann Baker
Source: The Future of Children, Vol. 7, No. 3, Financing Schools (Winter, 1997), pp. 112-121
Published by: Princeton University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602449
Accessed: 15-12-2015 06:39 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Princeton University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Future of Children.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 112

-HL

Class Size
Eugene M. Lewit
LindaSchuurmannBaker

EugeneM.Le7it,Ph.D.A
is directorof research
H aving fewer children in a class is attractiveto both parentsand
teachers. One recent national poll found that 70% of adults
and grantsfor econom- believe that reducing class size would result in big improvements
ics at the Center
for the in public schools.' Fewer than 10%believed that it would make no improve-
Futureof Children. ment at all. A 1997 EducationWeeksurvey found that 83% of teachers and
Linda Schuurmann 60% of principals agree that class size in elementary schools should not
Baker, M.P.H., is a exceed 17 students, compared with a national average of 25 students per
researchanalystat the
Center
for theFutureof class.2 Teachers feel that smaller classes encourage increased student-
Children. teacher interaction, allow for more thorough evaluation of students, and
promote greater teaching flexibility.3However, because of the additional
teachers and facilitiesrequired, reducing classsize is costly.In California,for
example, school districtsclaimed nearly$1 billion in state funds for class size
reduction in 1996--97 alone.4
Recent publicity and legislativeaction in severalstates have fueled inter-
est in smaller classes, particularlyin the lower grades. Although research
and debate on class size are not new, some of the increased attention comes
from an evaluation of a Tennessee demonstration project. The study found
that students in grades K-3 did significantly better on achievement tests
when they were in classroomswith 13 to 17 students per teacher than when
they were in standard-sizeclasses (22 to 25 students) or in standard classes
with a teacher and an aide.5Children from the smaller classes continued to
perform better than children from the larger classes, even in subsequent
years when all children were in standard-sizeclasses. The value of class size
reduction is still being debated, however,because of the high resource costs
of widespread efforts to reduce class size and uncertainty as to whether
results comparable to those achieved in Tennessee can be replicated on a
large scale.6For reasons of space, this article does not review the literature
on the effects of class size reductions on student achievement.7
When class size reduction is a policy goal, measuring class size consis-
tently is important. Staffing decisions play a major role in class size because
the administrative and instructional relationships between teachers and
pupils result in part from the amount and type of staff hired by a school dis-

The Future of Children FINANCINGSCHOOLSVol. 7 * No. 3 - Winter t997

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 113

trict. There are several ways that the relationship between the number of
students and staff can be measured, and the statisticchosen can determine
whether schools faced with a mandate to decrease class size add teachers,
build classrooms, or reassign existing staff and space. This Child Indicators
article examines the measurement of class size and a related measure, the
pupil-teacher ratio. It also looks at variations across states in the number
of students per classroom and long-term trends in class size and pupil-
teacher ratios.
This articlefinds that pupil-teacherratiosare consistentlylower than aver-
age class size because class size statisticsdo not reflect the use of specialized
teachers or teacherswho work in multiple classrooms.Because the utilization
of school facilities is not included in either statistic, class size and pupil-
teacher ratios do not provide any information about the adequacy of the
physicalenvironment for education. Moreover,averagesof either statisticdo
not provide information about the range of classesof different sizes within a
state, district,or school. Classsize varieswidelywithin states,and averageclass
size in a state is not a good predictor of the prevalence of large classesin that
state.Despite the differencesbetween the two statistics,over the long term the
trend has been towardboth smaller classesand lower pupil-teacherratios.

and
Definitions reported as average class size. In the SASS
1993-94 report, classes taught by special
Measurement education teachers (which tend to be very
Two different statisticsare used to describe small) are excluded from the calculation of
the relationship between the number of stu- average class size. This is true with regard to
dents and the number of professional staff the estimates of class size from the SASS
members in an educational setting: classsize shown in Figure 1.
and the pupil-teacher ratio. Class size is an
administrativemeasure typicallydefined as Although small classes may be associated
the number of students for whom a teacher with self-contained classrooms, the types of
is primarilyresponsible during a school year. space used for education vary widely from
The teacher may be responsible for most of fully enclosed classrooms to portable build-
the instruction of the students (as in a self- ings to large open spaces (such as converted
contained classroom) orjust for instruction cafeterias or gymnasiums) which may be
in one subject (as in a departmentalized occupied by one or several classes at a time.
program in which teachers are assigned to Most class size statisticsdo not address the
several classes of different students). In nature or adequacy of the physical space
the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), used for instruction.In the SASS,for exam-
conducted by the National Center for ple, there are no questions about the amount
Education Statistics,this class size measure is or type of space used for instruction.9
obtained by simply asking teachers how
many students are enrolled in their classes.8 Pupil-teacher ratios are typically calcu-
The averageof all of the teacher responses is lated by dividing the number of enrolled

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1997

students in an educationalunit--school, dis- teachers whose primaryassignment was to

trict, or state--by the number of full-time- release teachers from their classrooms so
equivalent (FTE) teachers assigned to that that they could take part in professional
unit. Pupil-teacherratios are availablefrom training,assumeadministrativeduties, or do
the SASS and from the National Surveyof classroom planning (see the article by
Salaries and Wages in Public Schools Monk, Pijanowski,and Hussain in thisjour-
(NSSW), which is conducted annually by nal issue). This routine use of a large share
the Educational Research Service. NSSW of the teaching staff as substitutesdoes not
respondents in school systemsare asked to affect the size of the classes that children
report their fall enrollment and the number experience but is reflected in pupil-teacher
of FTE employees in 27 positions.10These ratiosand would account for some of the dif-
figures include special education students ference between pupil-teacher ratios and
who are in grades K-12 and special educa- averageclasssizes.
tion teachers who have a class assigned to
them. Teacherswho pull students from reg- Other staffingdecisions also play a large
role in determining average class size and
student-teacher ratios. With a set budget
andstudent
asetbudget
Wdth body,
tfmore and student body,if more regularclassroom
teachersare hired, classescan be smaller;if
regulardassroomteachersare hired,dasses more specialtyteachersare hired, classeswill
canbesmaller; are
teachers
ifmorespecialty be larger.The Boston studyfound that more
hired,classeswill be larger. than 40% of teachers in the Boston Public
School system worked in areas other than
general education (for example, in special
ular classroomsfor a few hours each day are education or bilingual programs).12These
not included in these teacher-pupilratios." programs have relativelysmall numbers of
By contrast,pupil-professionalratiosinclude studentsper teacher,and in some instances,
all teachers,as well as librarians,nurses,and teachers work individually with students.
administrative staff, and thus provide a Hiring such a large proportion of teachers
broader picture of the staffingresourcesper to workwith small numbers of students pro-
pupil. The pupil-teacher ratios from both vides special services to many students but
surveysare shown in the middle portion of leavesregularclassroomteacherswith larger
Figure 1, and the pupil-professionalstaff classes.As mentioned above, in some statisti-
ratiofrom the NSSWis in the bottom partof cal reports,these smallspecializedclassesare
Figure 1. excluded from class size calculations,which
would bias mean classsize upward.If the fac-
Figure 1 shows that, because of the addi- ulty members who teach these classes are
tional staff included in pupil-professional included in the staffcount used to calculate
ratios,these ratios (15.4 pupilsper FTEstaff) pupil-teacherratios, the difference between
are lower than pupil-teacher ratios (17 to these ratios and class size may be particu-
18.4 pupils per FIE teacher). In addition, larlygreat. In that same Boston area district,
the pupil-teacherratiosare lower than aver- the districtwidepupil-teacherratio was 13.2
age class size (23.2 to 25.2 pupils per class). students per teacher, but most classes had
There are severalreasons for the difference more than 23 students per teacher.
between the pupil-teacherratio and average
class size. Classsize is larger than the pupil- Neither average class size nor pupil-
teacher ratio because class size does not teacherratiosprovideinformationabout the
include teachers who work either in multi- distributionof classesof differentsizes.Take,
ple classrooms (such as music teachers), or for example, two schools with an average
in specialized settings (such as special edu- class size of 20. School A has 10 classes, 5
cation teachers), nor does it include teach- with 10 students and 5 with 30 students.
ers who do administrativework and do not School B has 10 classes, all with 20 stu-
interactwith students. For example, a study dents. The averageclasssize and the school-
of teacherworkloadsin Boston revealedthat wide pupil-teacher ratios are the same in
9% of certified teachers for elementary both schools, but the number of classes of
schools and an additional 30% for sec- each size is very different.These differences
ondary schools were full-time substitute within schools can result from different

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Class Size
CHILDINDICATORS: 115

Figure1
AverageClassSizes,Pupil-Teacher Ratios,and Pupil-Professional
Ratiosin PublicSchools,1993to 1994

Class Sizes
Self-contained
classrooms
Departmentalized
classrooms
Pupil-Teacher Ratios
Studentsper full-time
teacher
Studentsper full-time-
equivalentteacher
Ratios
Pupil-Professional
Studentsper building-level
professionalstaff

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Numberof Students

NationalSurveyof Salariesand Wages in PublicSchools (NSSW)

Schools and StaffingSurvey(SASS)

Data are from the NationalSurveyof Salariesand Wagesin Public Schools (NSSW)and the Schools
and Staffing Survey (SASS). In the NSSW, building-level professional staff includes principals,
teachers, counselors, librarians,and school nurses. Teachers in the NSSW include only full-time
teachers. In the SASS, departmentalized classes mainly represent secondary schools, and self-
contained classesmainly represent elementaryschools. Special education classes,which are much
smaller on averagethan regularclasses,are excluded from the calculationsof averageclass size.
m Pupil-teacherratios and average class size give different pictures of the educational environ-
ment. Pupil-teacherratios are lower than average class size because the ratios include spe-
cialized teachers along with regular classroom teachers.
m Students in self-contained classrooms, most often elementary students, have the highest
average class size, 25.2 students per class.
m Average class size does not provide any information about the range of class sizes or the
resources spent by schools on students.

Source: Educational Research Service. School staffing ratios, 1993-94.Arlington,VA: ERS,1994; National Center for Education Statistics.
Schools and staffing in the UnitedStates:A statisticalprofile, 1993-94.NCES96-124. Washington,DC: U.S.Department of Education,Office
of EducationalResearch and Improvement,1996, p. 3, Table 1.2.

educational programs in the schools (for imum class size. This practice resulted in
example, more small specialized classes in considerable variation in class sizes across
one school) or from union contracts and grades and schools.
other management practiceswhich stipulate
a maximum class size. For example, the Geographic Variations
union contract in the Boston school district Measures such as average class size can
referred to above stipulated a limit on class obscure the wide variation in class sizes
sizes based on school level and program across schools, districts,and states. Statistics
areas.1•Often, classeswere added to a grade that provide information about the distribu-
when necessaryto avoid exceeding the max- tion of class sizes or pupil-teacher ratios,

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 THE
FUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1997

such as medians or the proportion of classes

under or above a certain size, are helpful in
Trends
As shown in Figure3, the trend over the past
determining the extent to which students century is towardsmaller classes and lower
are actuallyin classes of different sizes. The
pupil-teacherratios.Despite recent increases
proportion of classes with 30 or more stu- in enrollment, the pupil-teacher ratio is
dents is one such measurewhich happens to smaller today than at any time since data
focus on largerclasses. have been reported.6 In the 1901-02 aca-
demic year,the averagepupil-teacher
ratio
Dataabout averageclasssize and the per- in elementary and secondary schools was
centage of classeswith 30 or more students 36.3, and it has since declined steadilyto its
in grades K-6 in all 50 statesand the District
of Columbia are presented in Figure 2.
presentlevelof about17.16Between1961
and1991,theaveragenumberof pupilsper
Figure 2 illustratesthat, although no state class in public schools, as recorded by the
has an averageclasssize of more than 30, the National Education Association's survey
percentage of large classesin grades K-6 in entitled "The Statusof the American Public
1993-94 variedwidelyand that averageclass School Teacher,"declined from 29 to 24.~7
size is not a good predictorof the prevalence
Changing enrollment and staffing pat-
terns are two major causes of the decline.
Despite t aces in emAdnent1 t1 The article by Guthrie in thisjournal issue
discusses the changes in enrollment from
pqnpineadr ratiois smaler odaytan at 1949 to the present during the baby boom,
ny fm sin data hae beenreorte*L babybust, and babyboom echo periods that
drove the ratios down. Even when enroll-
ment was booming during those periods,
of large classes in a state. For example, rapidly expanding school faculties out-
Arizonaand North Carolinahad approxi- strippedthe growthin the numberof stu-
matelythesameaverageclasssize,butthe dents.Between1972and1986,enrollment
withmorethan30stu- declined, making it easier for classsizes and
of classes
percentage
dents was more than twice as high in pupil-teacher ratios to decline. Now, how-
Onlysixstates(Arizona,
Arizona. California,ever,when enrollment is on the rise, reduc-
Maryland, Nevada, New York, and Utah) ing classsize is more of a challenge, and the
had more than 30% of their classeswith 30 decline in pupil-teacher ratios has stalled.
or more students in 1993-94. Of those six Changes in program have also contributed
states, California, Nevada, and Utah have ratios.
to the rapiddeclineof pupil-teacher
enacted class-sizereduction legislationsince Schools have added special education and
the surveydata were collected.'4 other specialtyteachersto better addressthe
specific needs of students and enrich their
Considering data only at the state level curricula.' As noted earlier,these additional
an
gives incomplete picture of the distribu- staff members can cause a reduction in
tion of class sizes or pupilteacher ratios. pupil-teacher ratios even when class size
Substantialvariationsin classsizesand pupil- does not change.
teacher ratios can be found at the district,
school, and even classroomlevel, and these This decline in class size and pupil-
are closely linked to per-pupilexpenditures. teacher ratios suggests that, although class
A 1993 studyof pupil-teacherratiosin 4,000 size is currentlya topic of great interest to
districtsfound, not surprisingly,that districts policymakers, this interest does not stem
with higher expenditures per pupil had from a nationalincreasein averageclasssize
lower pupil-teacher ratios.15For example, or pupil-teacherratiosover the long term.
districts that spent from $1,500 to $1,999
per pupil had an average of 19 pupils per Conclusion
teacher,while districtsthat spent more than The national data reviewed in this article
$6,000 per pupil had an averageof 10 pupils document several important points about
per teacher. The study concluded that, on the utilizationof professionalstaffin educa-
average, a district that is given a 10% tion: (1) mean class sizes have been declin-
increase in funding will spend 4% on ing over time and appear to be at an all-time
decreasingthe pupil-teacherratio. low,yet classsizes are still significantlyabove

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Class Size
CHILDINDICATORS: 117

Figure2
PublicSchoolAverageClassSizeand Percentageof Classes
with30 or MoreStudentsby State,GradesK-6,1993to 1994
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Utah
Arizona
New York
Maryland
California
Nevada
Colorado
Indiana
Florida
Oregon -

Georgia
Minnesota
WestVirginia
Delaware
Tennessee
NorthCarolina
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
UnitedStates
Hawaii
Alaska
Alabama
Kansas
Virginia
New Hampshire
Idaho
Louisiana
Ohio
Michigan
Illinois
Oklahoma
Iowa
Missouri
Montana
Washington
Wyoming
SouthCarolina
Nebraska
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Texas
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Rhode Island
Maine
Districtof Columbia
North Dakota
Arkansas
Kentucky =
Connecticut
New Jersey
Vermont

Average class size

Percentage of classes with 30 or more students

Note: Data for this figure come from the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey,Public School Teacher
Questionnaire.Teachers of grades K-6 were asked the number of children in their classes. Average class
size masks the large differences in the distributionof classes of differentsizes in differentstates. Nevada,
California,and Utah have recently taken action to decrease class size.

Source: DeMello,V., and Broughman,S. SASSby state, 1993-94Schools and StaffingSurvey:Selected state results.NCES96-
312.Washington, of Education,
DC:U.S.Department CenterforEducation
National 1996,p. 131,Table4.1.
Statistics,

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OF CHILDREN 1997

Figure3
AverageClassSizeand Pupil-Teacher
RatiosinPublicSchools,1901to 1997

40
35A - AA

30A
-- - -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .. .
2 5
A....A.

A.

15 -------------------------------------------------- - --------
-....................... ..---.-... ...-----------

5- r
--- -- ----- -- -------- ----- ----- ------- -----
----------------- ----
- -
r--- ---
-------------
----- ----- ----- ----------

01 I I IIII I IIYI I I I I I I I I I II I I I
0 - C V
ol o o o oC- ? ol ol )ol qol WY
Nol Nol CN qz Wa)IC)q LO LO
ol ol o 0
0, 0,O 0,O r--
C)
0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Year

Pupil-teacher ratio
.A--
NSSW:
Average numberof pupilsper teacher
NEA:Average numberof pupilsper class

Data for this figure come from three separate sources, all representing public elementary and secondary
schools in the United States. The National Education Association survey, "The Status of the American
Public School Teacher,"shows the average number of pupils enrolled in a class as reported by the teachers.
NSSWdata are reported on the districtlevel and show the average number of pupils per teacher. The pupil-
teacher ratio data come from federal surveysof the states and are simply the total state pupil enrollment
divided by the total number of full-time-equivalentteachers.
m Each of the surveys shows a declining trend in average class size and pupil-teacher ratios until recent
years.
m Pupil-teacher ratios have declined faster than average class size, largely because of the specialized
staff members who have been added to the public schools.

Source: Educational Research Service. School staffingratios, 1993-94.Arlington,VA:ERS,1994;U.S.Department of Education,Office of EducationalResearch

and Improvement. Digest of education statistics 1996. NCES96-133. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,1996, p. 79, Table 68; U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 120years of American education: A statisticalportrait Washington,DC:National Center
for Education Statistics,1993,pp. 46-48, Table 14.

levels regarded as "ideal";(2) mean classsize Together, teaching staff and facilities
measures can mask considerable variability make up at least 70% of the resources that
in actual class size, and it appears that many are typicallyspent on schools, so decisions
children are still being taught in classeswith about class size can have a big impact on
more than 30 students; and (3) student- how resources are allocated.'9 If a school
teacher ratios, which are generally below board decides to decrease class size, it could
classsize ratios,are also at all-timelows.What do so without adding to its budget by
the data do not reveal, however, are the increasing spending on regular classroom
resource implicationsimplicit in specific pol- teachers and classrooms and decreasing
icy decisions regarding class size and class spending on other aspectsof education such
size reductions. Some key issues are as specialized teachers and facilities. A
reviewedbelow. school district with many specialized teach-

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CHILD ClassSize
INDICATORS: 119

ers and facilities,for example, could use the In Virginia,legislation passed in 1995 set
funds designated for special education or for up an initiative program for grades K-3
at-risk children to serve those children in which provided schools with extra funding if
reduced-size regular classroom settings they reduced both pupil-teacher ratios and
rather than on special classes.'3Many class maximum class size for poor children.23
size reduction efforts, however, have kept Most statesother than Californiawhich have
spending on the other aspects of education enacted legislation to reduce staffing ratios
relativelyconstant and, thus, require signifi- have done so by focusing on pupil-teacher
cant additional resources. Because, as noted ratios without maximum class size or facili-
above, instructional costs make up the ties requirements.24 These differences in
majority of school budgets, a school with strategywill have direct implications for the
one teacher for every 30 students would route schools take to implement class size
have to nearly double its budget to have one policy as well as the associatedcosts and ben-
teacher for every 15 students (which is the efits of the changes. Reducing class size can
number recommended by the National be accomplished without providing new
Education Association).20 facilitiesby dividing existing classrooms,and
pupil-teacher ratios can be reduced by
Specific requirements of class size adding teachers anywhere in the school sys-
reduction initiatives, such as maximum tem-no additional facilities or even sepa-
allowable class size and facilities require- rate classroomsare required.
ments, can affect both the costs of reducing
class size and the educational environment Whether the benefits from current
reflected in class size statistics.For example, efforts to reduce class size in the elementary
the maximum allowable class size require- grades willjustify their considerable cost is
ment of 20 pupils per class included in the an empirical question that cannot yet be
recent California class size reduction initia- answered. Results of this major educational
tive will result in an average class size below reform may depend as much on the way
20 among participating schools in the state teaching staff and students are organized as
and will substantiallyreduce the variability on the validity of the science behind the
in class size and the prevalence of large push for smaller classes. Current national
classes in the state. California's space data on overall pupil-teacher ratios or aver-
requirement that each class be in a self-con- age class size provide only limited informa-
tained space or in a "spacethat provides the tion about the actual size of the classesexpe-
same average square footage per pupil rienced by young children during the very
enrolled in the same grade levels at the early school years.Attention will need to be
school site" as in 1995-96 (before the class paid to both the educational and cost impli-
size reduction program began)21 means cations of actualclasssize, staffingratios,and
that schools may not simply add teachers to space requirementsbefore it will be possible
existing classrooms and declare that class to determine if the current push to reduce
sizes have been reduced. Because of the class size is working and worth the cost.
space requirement in California, recent
reductions in class size have meant that The authorsthankStevenBroughmanof the
1,400 computer labs, music rooms, and National Centerfor EducationStatistics,Victor
child care facilities permanently lost their Bandeirade Melloof theAmericanInstitutesof
space, even though the state's class size Research,and BrookeWhitingof the National
reduction program added funding to the EducationAssociationfor their commentsand
educational system.22 helpfulexplanationsof data.

1. Hartand TeeterResearchCompanies.NBCNews/ WallStreet Journalpoll, question 108.

March1997.
2. Edwards,V.B.,ed. Schoolclimate.Education
Week (January22, 1997) 16,17 (supplement):48.
Availableonline at http://www.edweek.org.
3. Finn,J.D.,and Achilles,C.M.Answersand questionsaboutclasssize:A statewideexperiment.
AmericanEducationalResearch
Journal (Fall 1990) 27,3:557-77.
4. Schwartz,
J. Classsizereduction.
Sacramento:LegislativeAnalyst'sOffice,Stateof California,
February12, 1997,pp. 7-8. Availableonline at http://www.lao.ca.gov/class_size_297.html.

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OF CHILDREN 1997

5. For a discussion of the Project STARresults, see Mosteller,F. The Tennessee study of class size
in the early school grades. TheFutureof Children(Summer/Fall 1995) 5,2:113-27; Word,E.,
Johnston, J., Bain, H.P., et al. Student/Teacher
Achievement
Ratio(STAR):Tennessee'sK-3 classsize
study.Final SummaryReport 1985-1990. Nashville:Tennessee Department of Education,
1990, p. 35.
6. Tomlinson, T.M.Classsize and public policy: Politics and panaceas.EducationalPolicy(1989)
3,3:261-73.
7. For a reviewof the class size literature,see Blatchford,P., and Mortimore, P.The issue of class
size for young children in schools: What can we learn from research?OxfordReviewof
Education(1994) 20,4:411-28. For a discussion of the Project STARresults, see note no. 5,
Mosteller.
8. The SASSwas conducted in 1987-88, 1990-91, and 1993-94. In the future it will be admin-
istered at five-yearintervals. Broughman, Steve. Statistician,National Center for Education
Statistics.Personal communication, April 23, 1997; National Center for Education Statistics.
Schoolsand staffingin the UnitedStates:A statisticalprofile,1993-94. NCES 96-124. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
1996, p. 1.
9. See note no. 8, Broughman.
10. Educational Research Service. Schoolstaffingratios,1994-95. Arlington, VA. ERS, 1995, p. 2.
11. Brown, Melinda. Director of Salaryand Compensation Studies, EducationalResearch Service.
Personal communication, May22, 1997.
12. This does not include substitute teachers. Miles, K.H. Freeing resources for improving
schools: A case study of teacher allocation in Boston public schools. EducationalEvaluationand
PolicyAnalysis(1995) 17,4:476-93.
13. See note no. 12, Miles.
14. Education Commission of the States. Classsize:Statelegislationgrid.Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States,April 7, 1997.
Districtlevelevidence
15. Picus, L.O. Theallocationand useof educationalresources: frm theSchoolsand
New
StaffingSurvey. Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,January
1993, p. 67.
16. These ratios come from state reports of the number of teachers and student enrollment.
They include special education students and teachers, with the exception of severelydisabled
students enrolled in state-runschools in some states. Snyder,T.D., ed. 120 yearsof American
education:A statisticalportrait.NCES 93442. Washington,DC: National Center for Education
Statistics,U.S. Department of Education,January 1993, pp. 46-48, Table 14; National Center
for Education Statistics.Schoolsand staffingin theUnitedStates:A statisticalpwfile,1993-94.
NCES 96-124. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, 1996, p. 3, Table 1.2.
17. This surveyof public school teachers at all grade levels has been conducted everyfive years
since 1956. Whiting, Brooke. Senior ProfessionalAssociate, National Education Association.
Personal communication, April 25, 1997.
18. Lewit, E.M., and Baker,L.S. Child indicators:Children in special education. TheFutureof
Children(Spring 1996) 6,1:139-51.
19. U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement.Digestof
educationstatistics,1996. NCES 96-133. Washington,DC: National Center for Education
Statistics,1996, p. 160, Table 163.
20. McKenna,B. Some philosophical, organizational,and definitional considerations. In Class
size.Reference and Resource Series. Washington,DC: National Education Association, 1977,
pp. 8-15; Whiting, Brooke. Senior ProfessionalAssociate, National Education Association.
Personal communication, May 1997.
21. CaliforniaSB1414. Education code Section 52123(g), see question numbers 92, revised 15,
revised 16, and revised 28.
22. See note no. 4, Schwartz,pp. 12-13.
23. Schools with 20% to 49% of the students in the free lunch program must bring their ratio to
an average (per building) of 20 to 1 with a maximum class size of 25. Schools with 50% to
69% of students receiving free lunches must bring their ratio down to 18 to 1 with a maxi-
mum class size of 22, and schools with 70% or more students receiving free lunches must
bring their ratio to 15 to 1 with a maximum class size of 20. Virginia Omnibus Educational

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CHILD
INDICATORS:
ClassSize 121

Act of 1995. Code of Virginia, ?? 22.1-199.1A. Enacted 5/95; see note no. 14, Education
Commission of the States, p. 5. Atkinson, Diane. Principal Policy Analyst, Division of Policy
and Public Affairs,Virginia Department of Education. Personal communication, April 21,
1997.
24. Mississippi,for example, mandates only pupil-teacher ratios in education accreditation
requirements. See Burnham, T. Accreditation of thestateboardof education.Bulletin
requirements
171, 12th ed., rev.Jackson: MississippiDepartment of Education, August 1996, p. 33.

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:39:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions