5.1 INCREASE CLASS SIZE …. Student Teacher Ratio
The widespread common belief that smaller class size significantly improves student academic performance is false.
More than 300 studies of class size showed almost without exception it made no difference. Suggestions for reducing class size are not based on sound history, research or experience. http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/985
A recent 2010 Harvard Education Press volume cites numerous studies that contradict the Project STAR experiment which continues to be cited by advocates of smaller class size. The book is Stretching the School Dollar – How Schools and Districts Can Save Money While Serving Students, edited by Frederick M. Hess and Eric Osberg.
“Hoxy found no statistically significant effect of class size on student achievement “ In a California Department of Education study, “researchers found ‘only limited evidence’ linking gains in student achievement to the smaller classes.”p129. “A ‘school-level analysis finds no relationship between CSR exposure and student achievement,’ the report concludes flatly.”p129. Another study recognizes the extraordinary price tag of CRS, concluding that “an important question is whether the benefits justify the substantial cost.”p130. In addition to how expensive smaller classes are, consider that additional classrooms must be built, equipped, and maintained.p130. The preceding excerpts are from chapter 5, The Efficient Use of Teachers by Steven F. Wilson.
Wilson writes, “… implemented in conjunction with other delivery system reforms that it would fuel, class size increases could have a strongly positive effect on student attainment. p131.
Wilson says, “Certainly a look at the performance of school systems internationally lends little support to an American reform strategy based on smaller class size and higher teacher-student ratios.”p131. An international study “…found little support for reducing class size. That three of the highest performing countries (Singapore, Korea, and Japan) had average class sizes greater than thirty students (Korea’s averaged more than fifty) might alone give one pause.”p131
In spite of this evidence the NEA, AFT and AERA continue to push for smaller class size, promising academic gains. p127.
How do each of our Sycamore district leaders stand on this issue?
James
Weber
Adamec
Cole
Mercurio
Stauback
Richter
Steven F. Wilson writes, “Courageous district leaders will ask whether the benefits of small classes justify their extraordinary costs. As teachers are the single largest expense in schools, class size and teacher assignments are far and away the most powerful lever for controlling costs and increasing productivity.” 131
=============================================================
Initiative (Belleview Public Schools)
1. Increase class size Annual savings $17.6 million
Source: Stretching the School Dollar book. The Efficient Use of Teachers by Steven F. Wilson. Chapter 5, p. 126. Harvard Education Press
========================================================
Substantial savings possible by increasing student-teacher ratios
Ohio’s faces an unprecedented $8 billion budget deficit next year. With 40 percent of state revenue invested in K-12 education, Ohio’s public schools will surely have to endure a fair share of the cuts. To his credit, Governor Strickland has taken action, asking the Cincinnati-based KnowledgeWorks Foundation to investigate options for cost-savings and efficiencies in education. One area that should be examined closely is student-teacher ratios, as upward of two-thirds of district spending goes toward staff salaries and benefits.
Current state law calls for ratios no larger than 25 students per teacher (though the governor’s education reform plan, passed into law last summer, aims to lower the ratio in kindergarten through third grade to 15:1 over the next several years). In practice, however, average student-teacher ratios don’t fall anywhere close to the state maximum. Just a handful of Ohio districts have a ratio higher than 25:1 and more than half have ratios below 18:1.
My colleagues and I analyzed average student-teacher ratio, enrollment, and teacher salary data for local school districts that the state education department makes publicly available. We wanted to know what the financial impact of increasing student-teacher ratios might be — especially if ratios were increased by just a few students. How much money could really be saved? Would the state and local school districts see a sizeable difference in their bottom line?
Here is what we found:
- If every district in the Buckeye State raised its average student-teacher ratio by one student (e.g., from 16:1 to 17:1), there is a potential statewide savings of $276 million in teacher salaries alone.
- If the districts with ratios lower than 20:1 raised theirs to that level, the state could save $458 million in teacher salaries.
- If the districts with ratios lower than 22:1 raised theirs to that level, the state could save $848 million in teacher salaries.
- If every district in the state operated at an average 25:1 student-teacher ratio, the state could save $1.38 billion in teacher salaries alone.
This is a simple analysis to be sure. Many factors impact student-teacher ratios and aren’t fully accounted for here, from districts classifying administrative staff as teachers for reporting purposes to the increasing number of intervention specialists needed to serve students with special needs to the requirement that Title I elementary schools maintain very small class sizes.
But it can’t be denied that making a small increase in the number of students that teachers serve could give the state, and local districts, real fiscal relief. When you consider the fringe benefits, professional development needs, and retirement costs that go along with each teacher, the potential savings would be even greater. Further, these are savings that could be realized almost immediately, as opposed to other suggestions that will take time to phase in, like the increased use of technology to provide instruction.
At the district level, the savings become even starker. Take Bexley, a suburban Columbus district which is asking voters for an additional $3 million per year on November 2. Bexley’s reported student-teacher ratio, for the most recent year data are available, is just over 16:1. Increasing it to 20:1 would realize up to $1.8 million per year in savings in teacher salaries alone. Boosting it to 22:1 would save $2.4 million — just $600,000 shy of what voters are being asked to support.
The situation is similar in Oakwood, a district outside Dayton which is asking voters for an additional $1.8 million per year. Oakwood’s average student-teacher ratio is just under 16:1. Increasing it to 18:1 would realize about $996,000 per year in savings in teacher salaries alone. Boosting it to 20:1 would save $1.7 million annually — $100,000 shy of the levy request.
There are surely similar examples across the state — districts that are essentially sitting, perhaps unknowingly, on a pot of money that could ameliorate their fiscal pain with little to no actual impact on student learning.
Advocates of smaller class sizes won’t be happy with any recommendation to put more kids in a classroom. But research shows that good teachers can be just as effective with 21 or 23 students as they can with 15 or 18, especially in grades four and up.
There are obviously clear losers in this scenario. Increasing student-teacher ratios means fewer teaching jobs. But when the state is facing a mammoth budget deficit and is trimming off tiny expenditures at every corner, we have to consider all opportunities for larger potential savings.
This article originally appeared in the Columbus Dispatch. August, 2010
FY2010
Students per Teacher (pupil-teacher ratio)
Area districts
Batavia………………..17.3
Cincinnati……………..15.8
Deer Park …………….16.5
Elmwood………………15.3
Finneytown…………..15.5
Harrison……………….14.4
Indian Hill……………..13.2
Kings……………………..16.5
Lakota 46110…………18.0
Lakota 49569…………22.1
Lebanon……………….19.4
Little Miami……………21.6
Loveland………………17.7
Mariemont…………….13.9
Mason………………….16.9
Milford…………………..18.1
Mt. Healthy……………14.9
Norwood……………….17.1
Sycamore……………..14.1
Winton Woods………..13.1
Wyoming…………………13.9
Source: iLRC, Fiscal Bench Mark Reports. Matthew Danzuso, ODE, 4/6/11
Sycamore Students Per Teacher (pupil-teacher ratio)
FY2010 14.1
FY2009
FY2008 17.3
FY2007 17.7
FY2006 17.4
FY2005 16.9
FY2004 17.2
FY2003 16.8
FY2002 16.9
FY2001 17.1
FY2000 18.3
FY1999 19.5
Source: ODE (iLRC; Fiscal Bench Mark Reports for FY2010 data)
The cost of small class size
By Eva Moskowitz, Sunday, March 27, 6:09 PM
That class size should be small is revered like an article of faith in this country. Its adherents include parents, education groups, politicians and, of course, the unions whose ranks it swells. In many states it is even required by law, which has lead to millions of dollars in fines against schools in Florida and a lawsuit against New York City by its teachers union.
Yet small class size is neither a guarantor nor a prerequisite of educational excellence.
The worst public elementary school in Manhattan, 16 percent of whose students read at grade level, has an average class size of 21; PS 130, one of the city’s best, has an average class size of 30. Small class size is one factor in academic success. The question, then, is whether the educational benefits of class-size reduction justify the costs.
Some proponents contend that because research shows reducing class size is beneficial, spending on this should be prioritized over anything that is unsupported by research. That’s a neat rhetorical trick but unsound logic. The absence of research on, say, teacher salaries doesn’t prove that we should pay the minimum wage to teachers to dramatically reduce class size. Research should guide spending decisions only if it measures the benefits per dollar of spending on all alternatives.
At Harlem Success Academy Charter School, where we’ve gotten some of the best results in New York City, some classes are comparatively large because we believe our money is better spent elsewhere. In fifth grade, for example, every student gets a laptop and a Kindle with immediate access to an essentially unlimited supply of e-books. Every classroom has a Smart Board, a modern blackboard that is a touch-screen computer with high-speed Internet access. Every teacher has a laptop, video camera, access to a catalogue of lesson plans and videotaped lessons.
Outfitting a classroom this way costs about $40,000, or $13,500 amortized over three years. That’s how much New York charter schools receive per pupil annually, so we can afford this by just increasing class size by a single student.
Add just one more student per class schoolwide, and Harlem Success Academy I gets another $300,000 in total. With that, we can afford headhunters to find the best principals in the country, business managers to handle the non-instructional administration that would otherwise distract these great principals from driving high-quality instruction, ample professional development for teachers, museum trips for students, etc.
In other words, a 19th-century school can be transformed into a well-managed 21st-century school by adding just two students per classroom. Reducing class size is expensive because most costs vary with class size. Decrease a class from 25 to 24 students and you need to hire 4 percent more teachers as well as build and maintain 4 percent more buildings.
Obsession with class size is causing many public schools to look like relics. We spend so much to employ lots of teachers that there isn’t enough left to help these teachers be effective. According to the city’s education department, New York public schools spend on average less than 3 percent of their budgets on instructional supplies and equipment (1 percent), textbooks (0.6 percent), library books and librarians (0.5 percent), and computer support (0.5 percent). Basic supplies are rationed in absurd ways: A school will pay $5 million in salaries to teachers who end up wasting time writing on blackboards because the school has run out of paper that costs a penny a page. (Don’t believe me? Ask a teacher.)
This parsimony is particularly unfortunate because, while employees become more expensive every year, technology and intellectual property become cheaper and better. Instructional software improves, computers become more powerful, good children’s books multiply.
Take e-books. Any parent whose child has gotten hooked on Harry Potter knows that many children are natural, even addictive, readers. They are more likely to read prodigiously if they have immediate and unlimited access to books, so, for example, when they finish the first book in a series, they can start the next one immediately instead of waiting for the next trip to a school library. This can be done by giving students an e-reader stuffed with 100 books. Such devices can be passed on to other students and the long-term cost is no greater than buying books in hard copy.
Overspending on class-size reduction is particularly unconscionable in tough fiscal times. We need to invest in ways that will help teachers be more effective, such as professional development, technology, school leadership and abundant curricular materials. Spending in these areas, already too low, should not be cut further in blind adherence to the cult of small class size.
The writer, a former New York City councilwoman representing Manhattan, is founder and chief executive of the Success Charter Network, a collection of seven charter schools in Harlem and the Bronx.
A 12/14/10 email to Sycamore school officials and area media announcing this new web page. This page will be updated as new information is obtained.
The Sycamore School District is required by law to have at least the minimum student/teacher class ratio of 25/1 because it takes funds from the state. (See below.) If Sycamore didn’t take any state funds, there would be no ordinance to follow and no restriction on class size.
In FY 2008, the most recent data available, Sycamore’s actual average class ratio of 17.3/1 was NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW since it fell well within the “minimum.” That is, Sycamore could increase the actual number of students by 7 per teacher and still be within the law.
The bottom line is this: The district administration and local board chooses/plans to continue this very costly practice. However, there is plenty of room to change the ratio before state interference. The question is, What will be the stance of the current administration/board given the recent disclosure of relevant research?
.
—————————————————————
• Ohio Administrative Code
• » 3301 Department of Education – Administration and Director
• » Chapter 3301-35 Standards for Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade
3301-35-05 Faculty and staff focus.
(3) The ratio of teachers to students school district-wide shall be at least one full-time equivalent classroom teacher for each twenty-five students in the regular student population as defined in section 3317.023 of the Revised Code. School districts receiving funds under section 3317.029 of the Revised Code must comply with the teacher-student ratios and other requirements of that statute.
.
The ratio of teachers to students in kindergarten through fourth grade on a school district-wide basis shall be at least one full-time equivalent classroom teacher per twenty-five students in the regular student population. Said ratio shall be calculated in accordance with sections 3317.02 and 3317.023 of the Revised Code.
.
Source: http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/3301-35-05
It’s time the Sycamore School District lived within it means. If they need to increase class size, so be it. If parents want smaller class sizes, they can pay the extra freight.
One requirement of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) is for districts to have additional teachers to meet the students/teacher ratio of 15:1 in grades K-3 by 2012.
John Kasich has said EBM will not be implemeted if he becomes governor.
Source: Some words on schooling controversies by John Scheu, Superintendent of Haredin-Houston Local Schools (Shelby County). The Enquirer Nov. 1, 2010. A15
Sycamore’s reported student-teacher ratio, for the most recent year data are available, is just over 17:1. Increasing it to 20:1 may realize up to an estimated $TBD to $TBD million per year in savings in teacher salaries alone.