<%BANNER%>

A Public Policy Analysis Regarding the Expectation of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044047/00001

Material Information

Title: A Public Policy Analysis Regarding the Expectation of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (114 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Foster, Allison
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: class-size -- reduction
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Improving student achievement in the public schools has been at the top of the political spectrum for years. One of the strategies being used across the country to improve student achievement is class size reduction. Many state legislatures have created policies to decrease class sizes. In November 2002, Florida voters passed the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Amendment, which has significantly decreased class sizes in Florida; however, the policy has been incredibly expensive. The purpose of this study was to answer the research question: In the state of Florida, is class size reduction a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement? The process of exploring this question included reviewing research studies and policies regarding class size reduction, analyzing the impact Florida's CSR policy has had on student achievement scores, and considering the cost effectiveness of Florida's CSR policy and alternative approaches for improving student achievement. This study offered a body of research to gain a greater understanding of class size reduction policy efforts across the country as related to Florida's CSR mandate. The focus of this study was to help policymakers and voters in Florida decide if using limited resources for class size reduction were a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement. After examining relevant literature on Florida's CSR policy and the effects of its implementation, the student achievement results as related to Florida's CSR policy, and other potential strategies to improve student achievement, this study clearly showed that Florida's CSR policy is not a cost-effective expectation for improving student achievement.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Allison Foster.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044047:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044047/00001

Material Information

Title: A Public Policy Analysis Regarding the Expectation of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (114 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Foster, Allison
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: class-size -- reduction
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Improving student achievement in the public schools has been at the top of the political spectrum for years. One of the strategies being used across the country to improve student achievement is class size reduction. Many state legislatures have created policies to decrease class sizes. In November 2002, Florida voters passed the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Amendment, which has significantly decreased class sizes in Florida; however, the policy has been incredibly expensive. The purpose of this study was to answer the research question: In the state of Florida, is class size reduction a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement? The process of exploring this question included reviewing research studies and policies regarding class size reduction, analyzing the impact Florida's CSR policy has had on student achievement scores, and considering the cost effectiveness of Florida's CSR policy and alternative approaches for improving student achievement. This study offered a body of research to gain a greater understanding of class size reduction policy efforts across the country as related to Florida's CSR mandate. The focus of this study was to help policymakers and voters in Florida decide if using limited resources for class size reduction were a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement. After examining relevant literature on Florida's CSR policy and the effects of its implementation, the student achievement results as related to Florida's CSR policy, and other potential strategies to improve student achievement, this study clearly showed that Florida's CSR policy is not a cost-effective expectation for improving student achievement.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Allison Foster.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044047:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 A PUBLIC POLICY ANAL YSIS REGARDING THE E XPECTATION OF FLORIDA'S CLASS SIZE REDUCTION AMENDMENT By ALLISON STEWART FOSTER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Allison Stewart Foster

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all of the people who have supported me during my quest to complete my dis sertation. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. R. Craig Wood, for his guidance and encouragement His direction and assistance with the development and support of my topic has made me a better writer and researcher. Also, I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Linda Eldridge, Dr. Bruce Mousa Dr. Cynthia Griffin, and Dr. Bernard Oliver for their support with my dissertation. I would also like to thank Angela Rowe for her assistance each semester with the registration process and with th e completion of all the necessary paperwork. In addition to my committee, I would like to thank all the professors who taught me and guided me with my journey through the doctoral program. I realize that the cohort program offered in Collier County invo lved a lot of traveling time for the professors; I appreciate the extra time involved to offer the cohort model. I also want to thank my colleagues in Collier County and Anna Brown from Hillsborough County. I appreciated having the opportunity to work wi th and learn from all of the incredible educators in our cohort program. Finally, I would like to than k my family. I owe a big thank you to my parents who have always supported me with my educational goals. Their support and encouragement helped me fr om the beginning to the completion of my doctoral degree A very special thank you goes to my wonderful husband, Patrick Foster! Many exciting things happened to us during my time as a doctoral student. From our wedding on June 12, 2010, to the arrival of our beautiful daughter, Reese Foster, on December 2, 2011, I could not have completed this program without his incredible support

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACK NOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 6 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................................ ................................ ....................... 9 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 9 Other State Class Size Restrictions ................................ ................................ ......................... 13 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 16 Purpose of the Study; Research Question ................................ ................................ ............... 18 Significance of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 20 Method of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 23 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 23 Research on Class Size ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 4 Federal Class Size Reduction (CSR) Program ................................ ................................ ....... 26 Statewide Class Size Reduction Efforts ................................ ................................ ................. 28 Four Major CSR Policy Implementation E fforts ................................ ................................ .... 32 Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) ................................ ............................ 33 Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio Project (CSPAR) ................................ ............................... 38 Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program ................................ .......... 43 California Class Size Reduction ................................ ................................ ............................. 48 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 54 3 FLORIDA'S CLASS SIZE REDUCTION AMENDMENT ................................ .................. 59 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 59 Origin of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment ................................ ........................... 60 FCAT Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 63 Other Policy Changes in Florida ................................ ................................ ............................. 64 Policy Changes at the National Level ................................ ................................ ..................... 69 Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment and Student Achievement ................................ 71 Financial Impact of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment ................................ .......... 73 Other Educational Factors Affected by Florida's CSR Amendment ................................ ...... 75

PAGE 5

5 4 COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION ................................ ................................ ........... 79 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 79 Cost Effectiveness of Educational Policies for Raising Student Achievement ...................... 80 Cost Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction ................................ ................................ ........... 83 Cost Effectiveness of Florida's Class Size Amendment ................................ ......................... 87 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 91 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 91 Summary: "Sizing" Up Florida's Class Size Reduction Policy ................................ ............. 92 Current Status of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment ................................ .............. 94 Plausible Ramifications ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 97 Recommendations for Florida Policymakers ................................ ................................ .......... 98 APPENDIX A CITED CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES, AND CASES ................................ ...................... 99 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 103 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 114

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Class size reduction studies/projects ................................ ................................ ................... 56 4 1 Strategies to increase student achievement based on cost effectiveness ratio ..................... 90

PAGE 7

7 Abstract of Dissertatio n Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education A PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS REGARDING THE EXPECTA T ION OF FLORIDA'S CLASS SIZE REDUCTION AMENDMEN T By Allison Stewart Foster August 2012 Chair: R. Craig Wood Major: Educational Leadership Improving s tudent achievement in the public schools has been at the top of the political spectrum for years. One of the strategies being used across the count ry to improve student achievement is class size re duction. Many state legislatures have created policies to decrease class sizes. In November 2002, Florida voters passed the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Amendment, which has significantly decreased class si zes in Florida; however, the policy has been incredibly expensive. The purpose of this study was to answer the research question: In the state of Florida, is class size reduction a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement? The proce ss of exploring this question included reviewing research studies and policies regarding class size reduction, analyzing the impact Florida's CSR policy has had on student achievement scores, and considering the cost effectiveness of Florida's CSR policy a nd alternative approaches for improving student achievement. This study offered a body of research to gain a greater understanding of class size reduction policy efforts across the country as related to Florida's CSR mandate. The focus of this study was to help policymakers and voters in Florida decide if using limited resources for class size reduction were a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement. After

PAGE 8

8 examining relevant literature on Florida's CSR policy and the effects of its implementation, the student achievement results as related to Florida's CSR policy, and other potential strategies to improve student achievement, this study clearly showed that Florida's CSR policy is not a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement.

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction In November 2002, Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment setting limits for the maximum number of students in core classes. 1 Beginning with the 2010 2011 school year, the maximum number of students allowed in core classes was limited to: 18 students in pre kindergarten through grade 3; 22 students in grades 4 through 8; and 25 students in grades 9 through 12. 2 After Florida voters passed the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Amen dment, the Florida Legislature in 2003 passed Senate Bill 30 A which amended § 1003.03, F.S., 3 and thus required school districts to start implementing the new constitutional amendment. 4 The act required the number of students in each classroom to be redu ced by at least two students per year beginning in the 2003 2004 school year until the classrooms met the requirements of the class size amendment. 5 Senate Bill 30 A set the standards each year as follows: 2003 2004, 2004 2005, and 2005 2006 at the distr ict level 2006 2007, 2007 2008, and 2008 2009 at the school level (The 2009 Legislature extended the calculation at the school level for an additional year to include 2009 2010). 2010 2011 at the classroom level 6 1 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 2 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 3 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 4 Fla. Stat. § 2003.391 (2003) 5 Fla. Stat. § 2003.391 (2003) 6 Fla. Stat. § 2003.391 (2003)

PAGE 10

10 Senate Bill 30 A defined the term "core cla sses," which was named but not defined in the class size amendment, as "mathematics, language arts/reading, science, social studies, foreign language, English for Speakers of Other Languages, exceptional student education, and courses taught in traditional self contained elementary school classrooms. 7 According to the Florida Department of Education, since 2003 the Florida Legislature has appropriated more than $1 9 billion toward operational expenses and $2.5 billion in facilities funding to implement the C lass Size Amendment. 8 Due to the state of the economy and the expenses associated with implementing the class size amendment, in the 2010 session, the Florida Legislature proposed a new amendment to voters to revise the existing law to make compliance wit h the class size requirements more manageable for school districts. 9 Four of the main Florida gubernatorial candidates in 2010 supported the proposed constitutional amendment -Democrat Alex Sink, Independent Bud Chiles, and Republicans Bill McCollum an d Rick Scott. 10 Many of the most widely circulated Florida newspapers endorsed Amendment 8 including St. Petersburg Times 11 7 Fla. Stat. § 2003.391 (2003) 8 Florida Department o f Education, "Class Size Reduction Amendment," h ttp://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 9 Florida Amendment 8 (2010) 10 Matt Coleman, "Florida G ubernatorial Candidates Back Class Size Referendum," Florida Times Union June 23 2010, http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2010 06 23/story/florida governor candidates back changes class siz e amendment/; Akilah Johnson, "Gubernatorial Candidates Back Cla ss Size Referendum," Sun Sentinel.com June 23 2010, http://weblogs.sun sentinel.com/educationblog/2010/06/gubernatorial_candidates_back.html. 11 "Fl exibility on Class Sizes Saves M oney, Makes Sense," The St. Petersburg Times July 28 2010, http://www.tampa bay.com/opinion /editorials/article1111392.ece/.

PAGE 11

11 Orlando Sentinel 12 South Florida Sun Sentinel 13 Florida Times Union 14 Palm Beach Post 15 and Herald Tribune 16 On the opposite side of the debate were those opposed to the amendment. The statewide teachers union -Florida Education Association -was one of the leading forces against Amendment 8. 17 Many individuals and corporations donated funds in opposition of Amendment 8. The V ot e No on 8 organization received over $1.2 million in campaign contributions. 18 Major cash contributions in opposition of Amendment 8 included America's Families First with $600,000, America's Families First Action Fund with $400,000, and Public Education D efense Fund with $200,000. 19 The Florida Education Association filed a lawsuit to block Amendment 8 from the 2010 statewide ballot. The teachers union argued that the proposed measure was a misleading attempt to reduce state funding for public education. 20 In response to the filed lawsuit, Representative Will Weatherford, who sponsored the amendment, stated, 12 "Our Endorsements: Amendments Made Simple," Orlando Sentinel October 23 2010, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os ed florida amend ments -20101022,0,837082.story/. 13 "Vote Yes on Amendment 8," S un Sentinel October 10 2010, http://www.sun sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorials/fl class size amendment 8 editor ial t20101010,0,5124117.story/. 14 "Yes on Amendment 8: Worthy of Support," The Florida Times Union October 21, 2010, http://jacksonville.com /opinion/editorials/fl class size amendment 8 edito rial t20101010,0,5124117.story/. 15 "Endorsement: Yes on Amendment 8: Change the Class Size Law," The Palm Beach Post October 1, 2010, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/editorials/endorsement yes on a mendment 8 change the class 949 084.html?cxtype=rss_editorials/. 16 "Yes on Amendment 8," The Herald Tribune October 15, 2010, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101017/OPINION/10171027/2078/OPINION?p=1&tc=pg. 17 Ballotpedia "Florida, Class Size, Amendm ent 8 (2010)," www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Class_Size,_Amen dment_8_(2010)/. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Florida Education Association v. Florida Department of State 2010 CA 2537 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2010).

PAGE 12

12 We're trying to protect the integrity of small class sizes in the state of Florida. At the same time, we're providing flexibility for the thousands of principals and administrators and school board members and superintendents, and, frankly, the because of the class size restraints. 21 On September 10, 2010, Leon County Circui t Chief Judge Charles Frances upheld the placement of the amendment on the 2010 ballot. 22 The 1st District Court of Appeals expedited the case by sending it directly to the Florida Supreme Court. 23 On October 7, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that A mendment 8 would remain on the ballot. 24 Florida Class Size Amendment 8 appeared on the November 2, 2010 b allot; however, with only 54.49% approving the amendment, it failed to achieve the minimum 60 % approval rating. 25 Due to the classroom level requirem ent for 2010 2011 and Amendment 8 not passing, on January 18, 2011, the Florida Department of Education issued $31.3 million in fines for public schools and another $355,000 for charter schools for exceeding the maximum class size limits. 26 Initially, the penalties were set at $40.8 million for public schools and $2.3 million for charter schools; however, twenty five of the thirty five school districts found in violation of the class 21 Jeffrey Solochek, "Teachers Union Sues to Stop C lass Size Vote," St. Petersburg Times July 24, 2010, http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/teachers union sues t o stop class size vote/1110654/. 22 Florida Education Association v. Florida Department of State SC10 1784 (Fla. 2010). 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Bal lotpedia January 10, 2011, "Florida Class Size, Amendment 8 (2010)," http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_ Class_Size,_Amendment_8_(2010)/. 26 Florida Department of Education, "2010 11 Class Size Reduction Summary ," http://www.fldoe.org/board/meeti ngs/2011_01_18/classred. pdf.

PAGE 13

13 size caps appealed and had the fines r educed. 27 Palm Beach County was issu ed the highest fine at $15.8 million after an $835,000 reduction. 28 Florida's Class Size Reduction (CSR) policy 29 h as led to expenses exceeding $19 billion in operational costs and $2.5 billion in facilities 30 during a time of limited economic state resources for education, which has led to a lot of rhetoric in Florida and across the country regarding the issue of class size and student achievement. 31 One main question is whether the funds spent to provide smaller class size actually lea d to higher student ach ieve ment. The other main question i s whether the resources spent on class size restrictions a re the best use of funds, or if the resources could be spent in other ways to have a greater impact on st udent achievement. This study e xamine d the research and data regarding the class size reduction in Florida to determine if the mandate has been associated with higher achievement Moreover, this study examined class size reduction efforts in other states relevant to the broader discussion taking place across t he country on the merits of smaller class sizes. Finally, it was designed to communicate with Florida policymakers, educators, parents, students, and other citizens the cost benefit analysis of class size reduction. Other State Class Size Restrictions The re are two main methodologies regarding class size calculations: one is to limit the actual number of students in each class such as the state of Florida's CSR policy, 32 and the other 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 30 Florida Department of Education, "Class Size Reduction Amendment," h ttp://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 31 Ballotpedia January 10, 2011, "Florida Class Size, Amendment 8 (2010)," http://ba llotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_ Class_Size,_Amendment_8_(2010)/. 32 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03

PAGE 14

14 is to limit the average class size. As of November 2009, the Education Commis sion of the States identified thirty five state legislatures with at least one policy limiting the number of students that could be in a general education classroom. 33 As of 2009, t wenty eight state legislatures (Alabama, 34 Arkansas, 35 Delaware, 36 Flor ida, 37 Georgia, 38 Hawaii, 39 Iowa, 40 Kentucky, 41 Louisiana, 42 Maine, 43 Mississippi, 44 Missouri, 45 Montana, 46 Nevada, 47 New Hampshire, 48 New Jersey, 49 33 Kyle Zinth Maximum P 12 Class Size Policies ," Education Commission of the States, November 2009, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/85/21/8521.pdf 34 Alabama S tate Board of Education, Approved Teacher/Pupil Ration Resolution, September 11, 1997, http://alsde.edu/boe/teacherpupil.doc. 35 Arkansas Department of Education, Rules Governing Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public School and School Districts, 1 0.02 Class Size and Teaching Load. 36 Del. Code Ann. tit. § 1705A 37 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 38 Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 160 1 3 .02 39 Bo ard of Education, State of Hawai i, Department of Education, Board of Education Policies, Policy 2237: Class Size, http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/POL1.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/6052f4516c4a68eb0a256f 720001ae21?OpenDocument 40 I owa Admin. Code 281 16.3 (256C) 41 Ky. Rev. State. Ann. § 157.360 42 La. Rev. State. Ann § 17:174 43 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20 A § 4502 44 Miss. Reg. 36 000 071; Miss. Code Ann. § 37 151 77; Miss. Reg. 36 000 001; Mississippi Public School Accountability Standards, 2008 http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/accred/2008%20final_Account_Stds.pdf 45 Accreditation Standards for Public School Districts in Missouri Class, size/Assigned Enrollments 2.1, http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/Fourth%20Cycle%20Standards%20and%20Indicators.pdf. 46 Mont. Admin. R. 10.55.712; Mont. Admin r. 10.55.713 47 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 388.700; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 388.720 48 N.H. Admin. R. Ed. 306.17 49 N.J. Admin. Co de § 6A:13A 4.3

PAGE 15

15 New Mexico, 50 New York, 51 North Carolina, 52 North Dakota, 53 Oklahoma, 54 Pennsylvania, 55 Rhode Island, 56 South Carolina, 57 Tenne ssee, 58 Texas, 59 Virginia, 60 and West Virginia 61 ) had hard cap policies meaning that districts or school s could not use average class sizes to meet class size policy requirements. 62 Six state legislatures (Indiana, 63 Maryland, 64 Massachusetts, 65 New Mexico, 66 Nor th Dakota, 67 and Vermont 68 ) had semi hard cap policies in which districts and/or schools used average class siz es to meet policy requirements, and one state, Idaho, 69 h ad a policy providing for a recommended maximum class size. As of 2009, the Education Comm ission of 50 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22 10A 20 51 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 151 1.3 52 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C 301 53 N.D. Admin. Code § 67 19 01 36 54 Okla. Admin. Code § 210:35 5 41; Okla. Stat. tit. 70 § 18 113.1; Okla. Admin. Code § 210:35 5 42 55 22 Pa. Admin. Code § 4.20 56 Code R.I. Rules § 08 060 002 57 S.C. Code Regs. § 43 205; S.C. Code Regs. § 43 231; S.C. Code Regs. § 43 232; S.C. Code Regs. § 43 234; 58 Tenn. Code Ann. § 49 6 104; Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. § 0520 1 3 .03; Tenn. Code Ann § 49 6 3110 59 Tex. Educ. Code § 25.112 60 Va. Code Ann.§ 22.1 253.13:2 61 W. Va. Code of State Rules § 126 28 8; W. Va. Code § 18 5 18A 62 Kyle Zinth Maximum P 12 Class Size Policies." 63 Ind. Admin. Code tit. 511, r. 1 4 1 64 Md. Regs. Code tit. 13A § 06.02.05 65 Mass. Regs. Code tit. 603, § 8.01 66 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22 10A 20 67 N.D. Admin. Code § 67 19 01 36 68 Code Vt. Rules § 22 000 003 (2120.8.2) 69 Idaho Admin. Code § 08.02.02.110

PAGE 16

16 the States identified f ifteen state legislatures (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin) a nd the District of Columbia that had no identified policies at the statewide level limiting class sizes. 70 As of 2010, n ineteen state legislatures (Alabama, California, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennes see, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, a nd Wisconsin) have relaxed restrictions since 2008, 71 and California, Utah, and Wisconsin no longer have class size restrictions. 72 The Florida L egislature is the only state legislature that unsuccessfully attempted to re lax the class size restrictions. 73 Statement of the Problem For the past three decades, there have been many class size reduction policies which may have influenced average class size in certain states. According to the National Center for Education Stat istics, the national ratio of students to teachers decreased from 1970 to 2008, falling from 22.3 students per public school teacher in 1970, to 17.9 in 1985, and down to 15.3 in 2008. 74 Supporting researchers have argued that class size reduction is a dir ect way to improve 70 Kyle Zinth Maximum P 12 Class Size Policies." 71 Kathryn Do rko and Sarah D. Sparks, "Setting Class Size Limits," Education Week 30, no. 13, (2010), http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/13class_size_map.html 72 Ibid. 73 Florida Amendment 8 (2010); Kathryn Dorko and Sarah D. Sparks, "Setting Class Size Limi ts," Education Week 30, no. 13, (2010), http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/in fographics/13class_size_map.html. 74 U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.a sp ?id=28.

PAGE 17

17 student achievement. 75 On the other hand, skeptics have argue d that the small, generalized reductions that result from most state policies do not provide eno ugh improvement to justify the cost. 76 Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement R atio, STAR project, probably the most influential work on the perceived merits of reduced class sizes, was conducted in Tennessee between 1985 and 1990. Researchers tracked over 7,000 students in kindergarten through third grade in over three hundred clas srooms in seventy nine different schools. 77 The main objective of the project was to determine whether class size impacted student achievement. At the end of the project, researchers found that score gains in the first grade wer e about 15 % larger in small classes than in regular classes ; however, there was no additional class size effect after first grade 78 Research studies have been able to create situations such as the Tennessee STAR project in which class size was reduced an d a ll other factors stayed th e same ; however, when class size reduction efforts were made on a larger scale such as at the state level, other factors were affected. California policymakers learned that lesson firsthand when the state legislature started 75 See for example, Alan B Krueger and Whitmore, Diane M ., 2001, The Effect of Attending a Small Class in the Early Grades on College Test Taking and Middle School Test Resul ts: Evidence from Project STAR ," Economic Journal Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 1 28, January 2001; Gene V. Glass and Smith, Mary Lee, 1978, "Meta Analysis of Research on the Relations hip of Class Size and Achievement," San Francisco: Far West Laboratory of Educational Research and Development, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED168129.pdf 76 See for example, Anthony H. Normone and Lynn Ilon, "Cost Effective School Inputs: Is Class Size Re duction the Best Educa tional Expenditure for Florida? Educational Policy 20, no. 2 (May 2006); Stuart S. Yeh, "The Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches for Raising Student Achievement," Journal of Education Finance 36, no. 1 (Summer 2010); Matthew M. Ching os, "The False Promise of Class Size Reduction," Center for American Progress April 2011, http://www.americanprogress.org/is sues/2011/04/pdf/class_size.pdf. 77 Tennessee State Department of Education," The State of Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ra tio (STAR) Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990," http: //www.heros inc.org/summary.pdf. 78 Ibid.

PAGE 18

18 the statewide class size reduc tion initiative in 1996. 79 In the first year of implementation, more than a fifth of the teachers hired had only emergency credentials, and the schools that were affected the most served poor and minority students. 80 Also, it was argued that the funds spen t to reduce class size have caused districts to have limited funds to support extracurricular activities, which often have a positive effect on student achievement. 81 U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, discussed this point at the Washington based Am erican Enterprise Institute meeting. I anticipate that a number of districts may be asked next year to weigh targeted class size increases against the loss of music, arts, and after school programming. It's difficult to talk about class size, but we owe it to the country's children to have these conversations. We support shifting away from class size based reduction that is not evidence based. 82 Although research studies on class size reduction have shown some positive effect s on student achievement, 83 as Arne Duncan suggested, the cost to implement class size reduction has a huge impact on other programs, which also impact student achievement. 84 Purpose of the Study; Research Question The purpose of this study was to examine data from Florida's CSR po licy 85 as well as other CSR research studies and state policies, wit h the goal of understanding if class size reduction were a cost effective strategy for improving student achievement. Is class size reduction a cost effective approach for improving the qu ality of education? To comprehend fully 79 Cal. Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996 80 CSR Research Consortium, George W. Bohrnstedt and Stecher, Brian M, eds., "What We Have Learned About Class Size Redu ction in California," September 2002, http://www.classize.org/techreport/CSRYear4_final.pdf 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Tennessee State Department of Education," The State of Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1 990," http:/ /www.heros inc.org/summary.pdf. 84 CSR Research Consortium, B ohrnstedt and Stecher, eds., "Class Size Reduction in California ." 85 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03.

PAGE 19

19 this question, this dissertation examined the pertinent history, political trends, and research data concerning class size reduction efforts throughout the nation and specifically Florida's CSR policy. 86 To provide an important context, it was essential to review the political trends and research studies throughout the nation to understand how and why each side of the debate has supported or opposed class size reduction policies. The research question to be answered: In the state of Florida, i s class size reduction a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement ? The goal of this study was to examine data from Florida's CSR policy 87 as well as other class size reduction efforts across the country to pr ovide findings and conclusions that answer the research question. In order to answer this question, it was important to supply sufficient historical context to understand the two opposing sides of the class size reduction debate, what those two sides beli eve, and the bases of their respective viewpoints. Answering the research question will help policymakers decide what efforts to make regarding Florida's current CSR policy. 88 In order to provide a comprehensive answer to the main research question this study offer ed a body of research to gain a greater understanding of class size reduction policy efforts across the country as related to Florida's CSR mandate 89 The focus of this study wa s to help policymakers and voters in Florida decide if using limited reso u rces for class size reduction were the best strategy to improve student achievemen t. To examine this topic, it was necessary first to understand Florida's CSR policy 90 and the effects of its implementation. Secondly, it wa s 86 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 87 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 88 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 89 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 90 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03.

PAGE 20

20 important to examine the results of current and past class size reduction efforts in other part s of the country. Finally, it wa s essential to look at other strategies to improve student achievement to determine if class size reduction is the best way to improve the quality of edu cation. Significance of Study Improving s tudent achievement has been at the top of the political spectrum for years. Over the past two decades, it has evolved from Goals 2000 91 by President Clinton, to No Child Left Behind 92 under President Bush and now to Race to the Top 93 under President Obama. The policies we re different; however, the goal of improving the public schools and increasing student achievement wa s the same. One of the strategies used across the country to improve student achievement wa s class size reduction. This study enable d policy makers to determine the impact of class size reduction efforts, identif ied the positive and negative effects associated with class size reduction efforts, and help ed policymakers to det e rmine if class size r eduction were the most effective way to increase student achievement. Method of Study This study was designed as an analysis of public policy. If class size decreased and achievement increase d then a positive correlation existed. If cla ss size decrea sed, and there were no change in achievement, then no correlation existed To understand the effects of Florida's CSR policy, 94 it was important to analyze critically class size reduction efforts across the country and in Florida to determine the impact on student achievement and other school factors. It was important to understand the history of class size reduction efforts in Florida as 91 Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994) 92 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002) 93 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Section 14005 6, Title XIV, (Public Law 111 5) 94 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03.

PAGE 21

21 well a s other parts of the country. Policymakers must be able to evaluate all factors when making important decisions that impact limited financial resources. This study provide d a view of the realities of the class size reduction effort in Florida to determine the correlation between class size and achievement so politi cians, educators, and voters could make their own d ecision on this controversial topic. A review and analysis of relevant research studies related to class size reduction efforts also provide d important background information on this topic. An overview of class size reduction efforts across the country ov e r the past thirty years provided context for policy decision related to this topic. Also, an in depth overview of other strategies to in crease student achievement provide d an answer to the research question of what wa s the most effective way to increase student achievement, especially with limited financial resources. Limitations of the Study The scope of this study focuse d on understanding the effects of Florida's CSR policy 95 while establishing a greater understanding of similarly modeled programs across the co untry. This study also attempted to understand the history, politics, effects, and current realities of class size reduction efforts in Florida and a cross the country. It also sought to determine whether class size reduction wa s the most effective methodology to increase student achievement. This study was not designed to be a data driven effort to determine whether smaller class sizes lead to increased student achievement. There have been several controlled research studies which have analyzed th e effects of class size reduction. 96 This effort was limited to offering a 95 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 96 See for example, Tennessee State Department of Education, The State of Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990," http://www.heros inc.org/summa ry.pdf; Institute of Education, London, "Cl ass Size Research Project," ht tp://classsizeresearch.org.uk/; Norman L. Webb, Meyer, R., Gamoran, A., and Fu, Jianbin, "Participation in the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program and Performance on State Assessments at Grade 3 and Grade 4 for Three Cohorts of Students

PAGE 22

22 public policy research observation surrounding the implementation of class size reduction on a larger level such as an entire state, looking at other state efforts but focusing spec ifically on Florida's CSR policy. 97 Organization of the Study Chapter 1 provided background information on Florida's CSR policy. 98 It also provided an overview of class size reduction efforts and research studies in other parts of the country. It provided decision makers contextual information on class size reduction efforts as a baseline for a more in depth public policy analysis. Chap ter 2 outlined class size reduction efforts and research studies conducted in the United States and United Kingdom over th e past thirty years. It provided a n historical perspective of the class size reduction debate. Chapter 3 provided background information on how and why Florida policymakers presented the Class Size Reduction Amendment to the voters and thus made it law a ccording to the state constitution, and examined the history and impact of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment. It also analyzed standardized achievement results to determine if student achievement increased, outlined the financial impact of the law on local school districts, and examined other educational factors that have been affected due to the class size restrictions. C hapter 4 discussed the cost effectiveness of class size reduction efforts and alternative approaches to determine whether Florid a's CSR policy 99 wa s the most effective strategy for improving the quality of education. Chapter 5 offered conclusions, implications, and recommendations for policymakers as they consider the continuation of class size reduction efforts in Florida. Grade 1 Students in 1996 97, 1997 98, and 1998 99," Wisconsin Center for Education Research February 9 2004, http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu/normw/sage/SA GE%20FINAL%20REPORT%2020904.pdf. 97 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 98 Fla. St at. § 1003.03. 99 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The purpose of this study was to answer the research question: In the state of Florida, is class size reduction a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement? In order to address this question, it was im portant to analyze the relevant literature regarding class size reduction and nation wide and international class size implementation efforts. Since very few research studies have been conducted on the student achievement impact of Florida's Class Size Re duction policy, 1 it was important to review all relevant literature to determine first of all if class size reduction efforts led to increased student achievement at all before considering if Florida's CSR policy 2 were a cost effective expectation for impr oving student achievement. Class size reduction has been studied by many different researchers in various fields ranging from education to economics to administration. The research on CSR is voluminous and highly varied in quality and focus. 3 Interpretat ions of the studies has often been contentious with educational groups like the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association in favor or reducing class sizes to researchers like Hanushek who argue that class size reduction has little to no effect on student achievement, but has contributed to about 85% of the spending increase since 1970. 4 Hanushek did a study on 277 estimates on the effects of class size reduction; 15% had statistically positive effects for small class sizes; 13% fo und negative 1 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 2 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 3 Elizabeth Graue and Erica Rauscher, "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12, 2009) 4 Eric Hanushe k, "The Evidence on Class Size," Wallis Institute of Political Economy, University of Rochester, 1998, http://www.wallis.rochester.edu/WallisPapers/wallis_10.pdf

PAGE 24

24 effects; and 72 % found no effects or statistically insignificant effects. 5 However, other researchers argue, There are indeed significant effects on student achievement related to reduced class sizes, but the effort itself does not guarantee success without additional attention to teacher quality, increased funding, availability of necessary facilities, and community/district belief in the power of reform. 6 Research on Class Size Several major analyses conducted to examine rese arch studies on class size have concluded that reducing class size is related to increased student achie vement. In 1978, Smith and Glass published a meta analysis combining the results of seventy seven empirical studies pertaining to the relationship between class size a nd achievement. Overall, they found that small class sizes 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. 7 In 1986 Robinson and Wittebols published a review of more than 100 relevant research studies; they concluded that the clearest evidence of positive effects was in the primary grades, particularly kindergarten through third grade, and that reducing class size was especially promising for disadvantaged and minority students. 8 However, they cautioned that positive effects were l ess likely if teachers did not change their instructional methods and classroom 5 Eric Hanushek, "Some Findings from an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Exper iment and from Other Investigations of Class Size Effects," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, no. 2, Special Issue: Class Size Issues and New Findings, (Summer 1999): 143 163. 6 Elizabeth Graue, Kelly Hatch, Kalpana Rao, and Denise Oen, "The Wisdom of Class Size Reduction," American Educational Research Journal, 44, no. 3, (2007): 670 700. 7 Gene V. Glass, Leonard S. Cahen, Mary L. Smith, and Nikola N. Filby, School Class Size: Research and Policy (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982). 8 Glen E. Ro binson and James H. Wittebols, Class Size Research: A Related Cluster Analysis for Decision Making ( Arlington, VA: Education Research Service, 1986).

PAGE 25

25 procedures in the smaller classes. 9 In 1989, Slavin did a synthesis to analyze empirical studies that met three specific criteria: study had to involve a class size reduction for at least a year, classes of less than twenty students were compared to substantially larger classes, and students in the larger and sm aller classes were comparable. 10 Slavin found that reduced class size had a small positive effect on students that did not persist after their reduced class experience. 11 Ferguso n did an analysis database regarding the Texas education system. He found sig nificant relationships among teacher quality, class size, and student achievement; he found that district student achievement fell as the student/teacher ratio increased for every student above an eighteen to one ratio. 12 Other research analyses have conclu ded that class size reduction did not have a statistically significant effect on student a chievement. Tomlinson examined data from 1950 to 1986 in the United States and did not find any consistent relations h ip between class size and standardized test scor es; he concluded that the research did not justify a policy to reduce class size especially in light of the costs involved. 13 Odden reviewed existing research and argued that a system wide class size reduction policy would produce only modest gains in stud ent achievement and incur an unjust ifiably high cost. 14 An analysis of the relationship between class 9 Ibid. 10 Jeremy D. Finn, Class Size and Students at Risk: What is Known? What is Next? ( Washington, D C: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on the Education of At Risk Students, 1998). 11 Ibid. 12 Ronald F. Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters." Harvard Journal on Legislation 28, no. 2 (1991): 465 498. 13 Tom Tomlinson, Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1998). 14 Allan Odden, "Class Size and Student Achievement: Research Based Policy Alternatives." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12, no. 2 (1990): 213 227.

PAGE 26

26 size and student achievement for Florida students using 1993 1994 data found no relationship between smaller classes and student achievement. 15 Hanushek's analysis of class size reduction studies found that the relationships between various school expenditures including class size reductions and student achievement were remarkab ly weak. 16 One prominent high quality study on class size in the United States w as conducted by Hoxby, who examined Connecticut schools using data from the 1980s and 1990s. 17 Hoxby took advantage of natural difference in class size that resulted from random changes in school age population. 18 She found no relationship between class si ze and achievement in fourth and sixth grade, and she did not even find class size effects at schools that serve a high percentage of disadvantaged students. 19 Federal Class Size Reduction (CSR) Program The Federal Class Size Reduction (CSR) Program, 20 start ed in 1999, represented a commitment at the federal level to help school districts hire additional teachers so children would learn in smaller classes. The ultimate goal of the program was to improve student achievement by reducing class sizes in grades K 3 to an average of 18 students per class. 21 Through the Department of Education Appropriations Act of 1999, $1.2 billion was initially appropriated for 15 Florida Department of Education. Office of Policy Research. "The Relationship of School and Class Size with Student Achieveme nt in Florida: An Analysis of Statewide Data," (1998). 16 Hanushek, "The Evidence on Class Size ." 17 Caroline Hoxby, "The Effects of Class Size on Student Achievement: New Evidence from Population Variation," Quarterly Journal of Economics 4, no. 115 (2000 ): 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105 277, 112 Sat. 2681 (1999). 21 U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, A Descriptiv e Evaluation of the Federal Class Size Reduction Program: Final Report Washington, D.C., 2004.

PAGE 27

27 this program. 22 States allocated 100% of the funds to school districts based on distribution formula us ing poverty and enrollment data. 23 School districts were required to use a minimum of 82% of the funds for recruiting, training new teachers, and teacher salaries. 24 The initial emphasis was on reducing class sizes in first through third grades. In 2000, the appropriation was increased to $1.3 billion and the grade span was expanded to include kindergarten. 25 As part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education of 1965 (ESEA), the CSR program was put into Title II, Part A, of the No Chi ld Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). 26 Although no longer a separate federal program, class size reduction remains an allowable use of funds under Title II, Part A. 27 The final report completed on the Federal CSR Program focused on the allocation of funds, im plementation of the program, and class size changes rather than on the student achievement impact of the smaller class sizes. 28 The federal class size reduction funds did lead to modest reduction in class size in kindergarten through third grade 29 When co nditions were right, the program was more likely to be implemented as intended by the legislation: w here there were ample supplies of well quali fied and credentialed teachers w here classroom space was available 22 Ibid. 23 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105 277, 112 Sat. 2681 (1999). 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 20 U.S.C. §§ 630 1 et seq. (2002) 27 Id. 28 U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, A Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class Size Reduction Program: Final Report Washington, D.C., 2004. 29 Ibid.

PAGE 28

28 where professional development plans were coh erent and relev a nt to teaching in smaller classes where districts were able to hire teachers year round and absorb them into the system 30 Many districts across the country, however, were not able to meet the conditions to properly implement the legislatio n. 31 In the final report of the Federal CSR Program, the authors commented on the possible use of NCLB Title II, Part A, funds for reducing class size versus one of the other allowable teacher quality reform activities allowed under the law. 32 The final repo rt suggests that districts take into account the factors that research suggests are important in class size reduction efforts. The supply of qualified teachers and available classroom space, the availability of professional development activities focused o n teachers' instructional practices in smaller classes, the relative amount of change in class size that funds may produce, and the extent to which student enrollment is likely to change are all factors that districts may want to consider as they determine whether to use their Title II, Part A, funds for class size reduction or other reform efforts. 33 The Federal CSR Project was an effort to reduce class sizes throughout the country and provided valuable information on the implementation of a large scale cl ass size reduction effort ; however, the project did not focus on the impact of smaller classes on student achievement like research studies, which have been done on class size reduction. Statewide Class Size Reduction Efforts In addition to the Federal Cl ass Size Reduction (CSR) Program, 34 many state legislatures have implemented statewide programs to reduce class size. According to the Education 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105 277, 112 Sat. 2681 (1999).

PAGE 29

29 Commission of the States, thirty five state legislatures have at least one policy that limits the number of stu dents that may be in a general education classroom. 35 Data from several state initiatives have added to the research evidence concerning class size reduction in the United States in the primary grades. 36 Texas was one of the first states to reduce class si ze. In 1983, Governor Mark White made an effort to improve the public schools in Texas which resulted in a statewide program to redu ce class size to no more than twenty two students in kindergarten through 4th grade. 37 In 1984, the Indiana L egislature s tarted the Prime Time project, which allocated money to support the reduction of class size to eighteen in first, second, and then kindergarten and third grade classrooms. 38 Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project 39 was started in 198 5 as a four year experimental study on class size reduction, funded by the Tennessee General Assembly, and directed by the Tennessee State Department of Education. Of the many studies and experiments on class size reduction, Project STAR was the most in d epth, well known study done on this topic. 40 35 Kyle Zinth Maximum P 12 Class Size Policies ," Education Commission of the States, November 2009, http://www.ecs.org /clearinghouse/85/21/8521.pdf; Zinth, Kyle, State Policies Focusing on Class S ize Reduction, Education Commission of the States, September 2009, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/81/95/8195.pdf 36 U.S. Department of Education, "Reducin g Class Size: What Do We Know?" May 1998, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED420108.pdf 37 Tex. Educ. Code § 25.112 38 Ind. Code § 20 43 9 39 Tennessee State Department of Education," The State of Tennessee's Student/Teac her Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990," http:/ /www.heros inc.org/summary.pdf. 40 Doug Harris and David Plank, "Making Policy Choices: Is Class Size Reduction the Best Alternative?" North Central Regional Education Laboratory September 12 2000, http://education.msu.edu/epc/forms/choices/pdf.

PAGE 30

30 Large scale efforts to reduce class size have not been limited to just a few states. 41 Since Texas, Indiana, and Tennessee led the class size initiatives in the mid 1980s, many other states legislatures have ma de statewide efforts to reduce class size. According to the Education Commission of the States, thirty five state legislatures have at least one policy that limits the number of students that may be in a general education classroom. 42 As discussed earlie r, several state legislatures (Alabama, 43 Arkansas, 44 Delaware, 45 Florida, 46 Georgia, 47 Hawaii, 48 Iowa, 49 Kentucky, 50 Louisiana, 51 Maine, 52 Mississippi, 53 41 U.S. Department of Education, "Reducin g Class Size: What Do We Know?" May 1998, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED420108.pdf 42 Zinth Maximum P 12 Class Size Policies; Zinth, State Po licies Focusing on Class S ize Reduction ." 43 Alabama State Board of Education, Approved Teacher/Pupil Ration Resolution, September 11, 1997, http://alsde.edu/boe/teacherpupil.doc. 44 Arkansas Department of Education, Rules Governing Standards for Accredit ation of Arkansas Public School and School Districts, 10.02 Class Size and Teaching Load. 45 Del. Code Ann. tit. § 1705A 46 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 47 Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 160 1 3 .02 48 Bo ard of Education, State of Hawai i, Department of Education, Board of E ducation Policies, Policy 2237: Class Size, http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/POL1.NSF/85255a0a0010ae8285255534006047 9d/6052f4516c4a68eb0a256f 720001ae21?OpenDocument (accessed September 18, 2011 ). 49 Iowa Admin. Code 281 16.3 (256C) 50 Ky. Rev. State. Ann. § 157.360 51 La. Rev. State. Ann § 17:174 52 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20 A § 4502 53 Miss. Reg. 36 000 071; Miss. Co de Ann. § 37 151 77; Miss. Reg. 36 000 001; Mississippi Public School Accountability Standards, 2008 http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/accred/2008%20final_Account_Stds.pdf

PAGE 31

31 Missouri, 54 Montana, 55 Nevada, 56 New Hampshire, 57 New Jersey, 58 New Mexico, 59 New York, 60 North Carolina, 61 North Da kota, 62 Oklahoma, 63 Pennsylvania, 64 Rhode Island, 65 South Carolina, 66 Tennessee, 67 Texas, 68 Virginia, 69 and West Virginia 70 ) established hard cap policies, which meant that districts and/or school s could not use average class sizes to meet class size policy require ments. 71 Also discussed earlier, six state legislatures (Indiana, 72 Maryland, 73 54 Accreditatio n Standards for Public School Districts in Missouri Class, size/Assigned Enrollments 2.1, http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/Fourth%20Cycle%20Standards%20and%20Indicators.pdf. 55 Mont. Admin. R. 10.55.712; Mont. Admin r. 10.55.713 56 Nev. Rev. Stat § 388.700; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 388.720 57 N.H. Admin. R. Ed. 306.17 58 N.J. Admin. Code § 6A:13A 4.3 59 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22 10A 20 60 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 151 1.3 61 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C 301 62 N.D. Admin. Code § 67 19 01 36 63 Okla. Adm in. Code § 210:35 5 41; Okla. Stat. tit. 70 § 18 113.1; Okla. Admin. Code § 210:35 5 42 64 22 Pa. Admin. Code § 4.20 65 Code R.I. Rules § 08 060 002 66 S.C. Code Regs. § 43 205; S.C. Code Regs. § 43 231; S.C. Code Regs. § 43 232; S.C. Code Regs. § 43 234; 67 Tenn. Code Ann. § 49 6 104; Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. § 0520 1 3 .03; Tenn. Code Ann. § 49 6 3110 68 Tex. Educ. Code § 25.112 69 Va. Code Ann.§ 22.1 253.13:2 70 W. Va. Code of State Rules § 126 28 8; W. Va. Code § 18 5 18A 71 Zinth Maximum P 12 Class Si ze Policies; Zinth, State Policies Focusing on Class S ize Reduction ." 72 Ind. Admin. Code tit. 511, r. 1 4 1 73 Md. Regs. Code tit. 13A, § 06.02.05

PAGE 32

32 Massachusetts, 74 New Mexico, 75 North Dakota, 76 and Vermont ) 77 established semi hard cap policies in which districts and/or schools used average class sizes to meet policy requireme nts. Although the numerous state efforts to reduce class size have led to many reports on class size effect s on academic achievement, only a few research studies are of high enough quality and sufficiently relevant to be given credence as a basis for legi slative action. 78 Four Major CSR Policy Implementation Efforts There have been numerous studies conducted on class size reduction; however, f our major CSR policy implementations have led to the most extensive re search and findings on the topic : Project STA R, a large scale experimental study in Tennessee; a longitudinal study of larger and smaller classes in the United Kingdom ; SAGE, a sta tewide policy in Wisconsin; and Californi a's Class Size Reduction efforts Graue and Rauscher 79 created a chart providing a summary of the four major projects (see T able 2 1 on page 5 6 ) In addition to the four major policy efforts, many other studies were also evaluated in an attempt to answer the question: Does class size reduction lead to increased student achievement? 74 Mass. Regs. Code tit. 603, § 8.01 75 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22 10A 20 76 N.D. Admin. Code § 67 19 01 36 77 Code Vt. Rules § 22 000 003 (2120.8.2) 78 Grover J. "Russ" W hitehurst and Matthew M. Chingos, "Class Size: What Research Says and What it Means for State Policy," The Brookings Institution May 11, 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0511_class_size _whitehurst_chingos.aspx 79 Elizabeth Graue and Erica Rauscher, "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12, 2009); [chart in original article]

PAGE 33

33 Project STAR ( Stu dent/ Teacher Achievement Ratio ) The Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project 80 was a four year experimental study on class size reduction conducted from 1985 1989, funded by the Tennessee General Assembly, and directed by the Tennes see State Department of Educa tion. Over 7,000 students in seventy nine schools were randomly assigned into one of three interventions: small class (13 to 17 students per teacher), regular class (22 to 25 students per teacher), and regular with aide class (22 to 25 students with a full time teacher's aide). 81 Classroom teachers were assigned randomly to the classes they would teach. 82 The interventions were initiated as the students entered kindergarten and continued through third grade. 83 The State paid a pproximately $3 million dollars per year to cover the costs for the extra teachers and aides and to provide modest contracts to four universities involved in the study. 84 The STAR project provided a detailed, in depth look at the impact of class size reduct ion over a four year time period. STAR's kindergarten results showed that small classes provided a definite advantage in achievement, but the addition of a teacher's aide did not make a significant difference. 85 At the end of first grade, Project STAR stu dents in the small classes were outperforming students in the regular and regular/aide classes by substantial margins on standardized tests. 86 The addition of a teacher's aide in first grade made a slight difference in 80 Tennessee State Department of Education," STAR Pr oject: Final Summary Report 1985 1990." 81 Health & Education Research Operative Services, Inc. "Tennessee's K 3 Class Size Study," 2 009, www.heros inc.org/star.htm. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Tennessee State Department of Education," STAR Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990." 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid.

PAGE 34

34 student achievement, but not as much as the small class condition. 87 After first grade, small classes did not make a statistically significant difference in student achievement. 88 Overall, t he study results indicated seven major findings: 89 1 Students in small classes had higher performance than regular and regular/aide classes in all locations and at every grade level. 2. Small class effects diminish ed after first grade. 3. Aides were less effective than small classes in enhancing student performance at each grade level. 4. Math and readin g effects were similar. 5. Small classes help ed low socioeconomic student achievement, but they help ed high socioeconomic student achievement about as much. 6. Small classes reduce d grade retention. 7. Teacher in service training did not improve student ac hievement. 90 Of the many studies and experiments on clas s size reduction, Project STAR wa s the most in depth, well known study done on this topic. 91 Researchers from all over the world have studied and analyzed th e results of the STAR Project. Some researc hers like Shaver have questioned findings in the STAR Project, 92 while others like Finn have verified the results of the Tennessee experiment. 93 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. 91 Doug Harris and David Plank, "Making Policy Choices: Is Class Size Reduction the Best Alternative?" North Central Regional Education Laboratory September 12 2000, http://education.msu. edu/epc/forms/choices/pdf. 92 James P. Shaver, "A Superficial Take on Project STAR," Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 3 (November 2002) 93 Jeremy D. Finn, "Missing the Mark," Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 3 (November 2002); Frederick Mosteller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children 5, no. 2 (1995)

PAGE 35

35 In the planned, ideal implementation of the STAR Project, all students were to remain with the same randomly assi gned class type from kindergarten through the end of third grade. 94 However, many factors caused digressions from this plan. 95 There were a substantial number of new entrants -45% of eventual participants entered after kindergarten. 96 A large percentage of students, 45 % of overall participants, also exited the Project STAR schools. 97 Students who were male, black, or on free or reduced price lunch were more likely to exit and/or enter Project STAR. 98 In addition, due to parental concerns about fairness to students, all students in regular and regular aide classes were re randomized in first grade. 99 Also, about 10% of participants were moved from one class type to another in a non random manner. According to the STAR reports, most of these moves were due to student misbehavior, and were not typically the result of parental requests for smaller classes. 100 Since the experiment was done only in Tennessee, state factors had to be considered when interpreting the results on a broader scale. The percentage of mi nority students in the STAR Project was very close to the overall percentage in the United States at the time of t he experiment (33% vs. 31% ); 101 however, there were very few Hispanic and Asian students in 94 Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, "What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR?" Harris School Working Paper, August 2006, http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications /working papers/pdf/wp_06_06.pdf 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 Hanushek, "Some Findings from an Independent Investigation ." 98 Schanzenbach, "What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR? 99 Ibid. 100 Alan B. Krueger, "Experimental Estimates of Education Production F unctions," Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, no. 2 (1999) 101 Schanzenbach, "What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR?

PAGE 36

36 Tennessee at that time compared to the rest of the n ation. 102 Also, average school spending in Tennessee was about three fourths of the nationwide average, and teachers were less likely to have a master's degree. 103 If additional resources have greater impacts when the baseline levels are lower, then the smal ler classes may have made a larger impact than they would have in school districts with more resources. Researchers interpreted the Project STAR experiment and results differently leading to heated debates on the effects of class size reduction. James Sha ver argued that there were significant design flaws in the study. 104 One argument he had was that the randomization took place within schools, and therefore, the teachers knew whether they were administering the experimental or control treatment, and the st udents knew whether they were receiving special treatment. 105 He argued that the teachers may have performed differently based on their group, and the students may have performed better in the small classes due to the Hawthorne effect. 106 In addition to the teachers and students, Shaver also pointed out flaws due to parental awareness. He quoted a statement from Ronald Ehrenberg that was noted in the November 2001 issue of Scientific American Too many [Project STAR] children migrated from the regular to th e small classes, probably because school personnel gave in to parent demands. 107 Shaver argued that the randomization of the experiment was negated by the shifting of students. Jeremy Finn countered Shaver's statements by arguing that Project STAR met the requirements for a 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 Shaver, "A Superficial Take on Project STAR ." 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 Shaver, "A Superficial Take on Project STAR

PAGE 37

37 "controlled experiment," by having an intervention provided by a researcher and by having a random assignment to experimental conditions. 108 Finn commented that Project STAR, like all research studies, had limitations; however, he noted the significance of this large scale experiment as he called, "among the best ever conducted on an educational intervention." 109 Mosteller described Project STAR as "one of the most important educational investigations ever carried out and illustrates the ki nd and magnitude of research needed in the field of education to strengthen schools." 110 Class size reduction has been debated as an educational policy prior to and since the conclusion of the Project STAR experiment in 1989. Researchers have continued to analyze the experiment to understand many outcomes of class size reduction including test score effects and classroom dynamics. At the end of the project, researchers found that score gains in the first grade were about 15% larger in small classes than in regular classes; however, there were no statistically significant class size effects after first grade. 111 Project STAR was an experimental study, meaning it involved a systematic research approach in which the researchers manipulated one or more variables, and then controlled and measured changes in other variables. In the case of Project STAR, the researchers randomly placed students in three control groups: small classes, regular classes, and small classes with an aide. Experimental studies are general ly considered the "gold standard" against which all other designs are judged, based in the idea if you can implement an experimental design well, then the 108 Finn, "Missing the Mark ." 109 Ibid. 110 Frederick Mosteller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children 5, no. 2 (1995) 111 Ibid.

PAGE 38

38 experiment is probably the strongest design with respect to internal validity. 112 The concern with exp erimental studies is that the manipulations to the variables will not always apply outside the experiment. Experimental interpretations can be difficult to interpret because groups are necessarily isolated from the real world of education. 113 Although ther e has been a lot of debate on the research design of the STAR Project and its connection to real world education; the results still reflect that there were no statistically significant class size effects after first grade. 114 Class Size and Pupil Ad u lt Ratio Project (CSPAR) An alternate approach to Project STAR's experimental design is to set up a longitudinal study that measures the full range of class sizes and accounts statistically for other influential factors. 115 This approach was a dopted in a large scal e United Kingdom study, Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio (CSPAR) Project. 116 The CSPAR Project 117 was a longitudinal, multi method study that followed students from four to eleven years from 1996 2003. The project tracked over 10,000 students in over 300 sch ools from entry (at 4/5 years) to the end of primary school (11 years). 118 The researchers examined the natural variation in class sizes in early years of 112 Research Methods Knowledge Base, "Experimental Design ," http://www.socialresea rch methods.net/kb/desexper.php. 113 Colin Robson, Real World Research (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993). 114 Mosteller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size ." 115 Peter Blatchford, The Class Size Debate: Is Small Better? (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003). 116 Ibid. 117 I bid 118 P eter Blatchford, "Class Size," in Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia ed. Anderman, Eric (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009).

PAGE 39

39 schooling rather than imposing a treatment. 119 Four class sizes were used in the study: under 20, 20 2 5 students, 26 29 students, and 30+ students. 120 The study was designed to evaluate comprehensively the effect of class size and pupil/adult ratios on students' academic achievement and on classroom processes such as teaching, student attention, and classroo m behavior. 121 The first section of the study (KS1) examined the influence of class size from school entry in the first year (4/5 years) through Key Stage 1 (5 7 years). 122 The second section (KS2) examined Key Stage 2 (7 11 years). 123 The longitudinal design gave researchers the opportunity to capture the effects of naturally occurring differences in class size and student adult ratios. The study has offered an integrated account linking class size, classroom processes, and student achievement. 124 Results from KS1 showed that as class sizes became smaller there were more times when students were the focus of the teacher's attention, and more times when they were engaged in active interaction with the teacher. 125 In the small classes, children were more likely to interact with their teachers, more one on one teaching took place, children were more often the focus of a teacher's attention, more teaching took place overall, and children more often attended to their 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid. 121 Institute of Education, London, "Class Size Research Project," ht tp://classsizerese arch.org.uk/. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 Peter Blatchford, Paul Bassett, and Penelope Brown, "Do Low Attaining and Younger Students Benefit Most from Small Classes? Results from a Systematic Observation Study of Class Size Effects on Pupil Classroom Engage ment and Teacher Pupil Interaction," American Educational Research Association Meeting (2008) http://www.classsizeresearch.org.uk/aera%2008%20paper.pdf

PAGE 40

40 teachers. 126 KS1 Results from completed end of the y ear teacher questionnaires and case studies provided a more qualitative version of connections between class size and teaching. 127 The findings suggested that class size affected the amount of individual attention, the sustained and purposeful nature of int eraction between teachers and children, the responsiveness of teachers to their students, the depth of a teachers' knowledge of children in their classes, and sensitivity to individual children's specific needs. 128 The study found a clear effect of class siz e differences on children's academic achievement during the first year in both literacy and mathematics. 129 The results were comparable to those reported by the STAR project, thus supporting the findings through both experimental and non experimental resear ch designs. 130 Small classes worked best in literacy for children with the lowest school entry scores. 131 Class size effects in the first year were still evident at the end of the second year; however, by the end of the third year the effects were not clear. 132 There were no clear long term effects of class size differences on mathematics achievement. 133 The study also found that moving to a larger class the following year had a negative effect on progress. 134 126 Peter Blatchford, Anthony Russell Paul Bassett, Penelope Brown, and Clare Martin "The Effect of Cl ass Size on the Teaching of Pupils Aged 7 11 Years," School Effectiveness and School Improvement 18, no. 2 (June 2007) 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Peter Blatchford, "Class Size," Education.com, http://www.education.co m/reference/article/class size/. 131 Ib id. 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid. 134 Ibid.

PAGE 41

41 The KS2 study involved seventy five schools whic h wer e part of the KS1 study, seventeen schools not previously part of the research but now attended by students who were part of the KS1 study, and 110 new schools not previously involved with the KS1 study. 135 The KS2 study concentrated on the use of TAs (Teac hing Assistants) in classrooms and the effect they have on student achievement. 136 The KS2 study found that th e TA's role is direct in regard to face to face interactions supporting specific students; however, there was no evidence that the presence of TAs, or any characteristic of TAs, had a measureable effect on student achievement. 137 This finding is in alignment with Project STAR's results. However, the CSPAR KS2 Project also included the qualitative component which showed that TAs did have an indirect e ffect on teaching; students had a more active form of interaction with the teacher and there was more individualized teacher attention. 138 A follow up CSPAR study focused on the relationships between class size and teaching for KS2 students. The researche rs focused on two questions: 1. Do teachers in large and small classes differ in time spent on teaching and instructional activities; time in individual, group and class contexts; teacher child contact; and individual attention from teachers? 139 2. Do t eachers in large and small classes differ in more qualitative dimensions of teaching? 140 135 Peter Blatchford, Anthony R ussell, Paul Bassett, Penelope Brown, and Clare Martin, "The Role and Effects of Teaching Assistants in English Primary Schools (Years to 6) 2000 2003 Results from the CSPAR KS2 Project," November 2004, http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1366/1/Blatch ford2007teachingassistants5.pdf. 136 Ibid. 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. 139 Blatchford, Russell Bassett, Brown, and Martin "The Effect of Class Size ." 140 Ibid.

PAGE 42

42 The results showed that there was more individual attention in smaller classes, a more active role for students, and beneficial effects on the quality of teaching. 141 Ho wever, the KS2 results showed some interesting points relevant to the older elementary school students. Years 5 and 6 we re heavily focused on the preparation for the SATs, which led to a heavy dependence on whole group instruction and a relatively undiffe rentiated curriculum accompanied by passive and hopefully attentive students. 142 In fact, there was very little individual instruction in the KS2 classrooms; whole group teaching and individual work dominated instructional time. 143 Overall, based on the resea rch design of the study and the qualitative components, the CSPAR Projects including both the KS1 and KS2 sections led to important findings related to class size reduction. The results showed that smaller classes enhanced literacy instruction, student ta lk, and participation in smaller classes. 144 Teachers used more instructional strategies and there were more opportunities for social interaction. 145 Teacher assistants positively influenced classroom interactions, but did not measurably affect academic achi evement. 146 Although smaller classes in the CSPAR Project resulted in positive observational influences, the achievement results from the CSPAR Project, like the STAR Project, showed that there were no clear long term effects of class size differences on st udent achievement by the end of the third year. 147 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 144 Graue and Rauscher, "Researcher Perspecti ves on Class Size Education ." 145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 147 Ibid.

PAGE 43

43 Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE ) Program Project STAR and the CSPAR Project were two research studies done that were very different in design One was done in the United States and one was done in the United Kingdom, and one used an experimental design and the other a longitudinal design. In addition to research projects, there have been state policy changes which have added to the research on class size reduction. One policy change is the Students Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) 148 Program in Wisconsin. Signed into law in 1995, the SAGE Program started as a five year pilot program during the 1996 97 school year to test the hypothesis that smaller classes in elementary school raise the academic achievement of disadvantaged students. 149 In order to participate in the SAGE Program, schools were required to do the following: Reduce the student teacher ratio in classrooms to 15:1 in grades K 3; Remain open extended hours (creating "lighte d schoolhouses"); Develop rigorous academic curricula; and, Implement plans for staff development and professional accountability. 150 During 1995 96, any school district in Wisconsin that had at least one school serving 50% or more children living in pover ty was eligible to participate in the SAGE Program. 151 One school with at least 30% or more on free or reduced lunch in each eligible district could participate; in Milwaukee, up to ten schools could participate. 152 148 Wis. Stat. § 118.43 149 Wis. Stat. § 118.43 150 Norman L. Webb, Meyer, R., Gamoran, A., and Fu, Jianbin, "Participation in the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program and Performance on State Assessments at Grade 3 and Grade 4 for Three Cohorts of Students Grade 1 Students in 1996 97, 1997 98, and 1998 99," Wisconsin Center for Education Research February 9 2004, http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu/normw/sage/SA GE%20FINAL%20REPORT%2020904.p df. 151 Wis. Stat. § 118.43 152 Id.

PAGE 44

44 In September 1996, The SAG E Program was impl emented in thirty schools in twenty one districts throughout Wisconsin. 153 The program was phased in over a three year period: K 1 in 1996 97, K 2 in 1997 98, and K 3 in 1998 99. 154 During the 1999 2000 year, SAGE served kindergarten through third gra de stu dents in seventy eight schools in forty six school districts. 155 Participating districts received $2,000 per student and were required to meet "contractual" requirements with the Department of Public Instruction. 156 All participating schools had to take part in an annual evaluation conducted by the Center for Urban Initiatives and Research and the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. 157 Evaluation of the first three years of the program showed that students in the SAGE schools scored s ignificantly higher than students in the contrast schools in language arts, reading, and mathematics. 158 The SAGE Program 159 has continued to grow since its implementation in 1995. The additional schools have led to increased expenses. In the first three yea rs, state funding for the SAGE program tripled: $4.2 million in 1996 97, $6.9 million in 1997 98, and slightly over $15 153 Webb, Meyer, Gamoran and Fu, "Participation in SAGE Program and Performance." 154 Ibid. 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid. 157 P. Maier, Molnar, A., Percy S., Smith, P., and Zahorik, J, "First Year Resu lts of the Student Achievement G uarante e in Education Program. Submitted by the SAGE Evaluation Team Center for Urban Initiatives and Research," University of Wisconsin Wilwaukee, December 1997 ; A. Molnar, Smith, P., and Zahorick, J, 1998 99 Evaluation Results of the Student Achi e vement Guara ntee in Education (SAGE) Program, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education December 1999; A. Molnar, Smith, P., and Zahorick, J, 1990 00 Evaluation Results of the Student Achi e vement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program, University of Wi sconsin Milwaukee, School of Education December 2000; A. Molnar, Smith, P., and Zahorick, J, 2000 2001 Evaluation Results of the Student Achi e vement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education 2001. 158 I bid. 159 Wis. Stat. § 118.43

PAGE 45

45 million in 1998 99. 160 In the 2000 2001 school year, the state provided an additional $37 million to allow approximately 500 additional s chools to join the program. 161 Since its inception, SAGE has had four rounds of contracts in which new schools were permitted to join the program. The most recent round, 2010 11, required participating schools to ha ve an enrollment of at least 30% low inco me children. 162 In 2010 11, there were 214 school districts participating in SAGE, six of which were new to the program. 163 There were 458 indiv idual SAGE schools, including thirty one new to the program. 164 Beginning in 2007 08 SAGE per pupil funding was incr eased from $2,000 per student to $2,250 per pupil; however, due to insufficient funds, the state has not been to provide the full funding per student. 165 In 2008 09, funding for SAGE grants was $111,734,100, or $2,238 per pupil. 166 For 2009 1 0, funding decre ased 2.5% due to budget reductions; funding was prorated to $2,078 per pupil. 167 In 2010 11, decreased funding and additional schools being added to the grant caused aid to decrease to $1,998 per pupil, less than the original allocation in 1995. 168 160 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau Budget Briefs, "Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) November 1999, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/budbriefs/99bb7.pdf. 161 Webb, Meyer, Gamoran and Fu, "Participation in SAGE Program and Performance." 162 Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau "Preschool to Grade 5 Program (DPI Categorical Aids)," Joint Committee on Finance, May 19 2011, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011 13%20Budget/Budget%20Papers/536.pdf 163 Ibid. 164 Ib id. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 167 Ibid. 168 Ibid.

PAGE 46

46 With a cu rrent annual budget of approximately $110 million, SAGE is an expensive public policy to operate. 169 Since it is so expensive to operate the SAGE Program, it is necessary to determine if the SAGE Program leads to increased student achievement. Many studies have been done on SAGE, 170 with the main research coming from the annual evaluations done by the Center for Urban Initiatives and Research and the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. 171 By analyzing data in 2004 collected by the Univ ersity of Milwaukee team from 1997 2001 researchers concluded that the SAGE program had a significant cumulative effect from the beginning of first grade through third grade in all three Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills ( CTBS ) content areas (reading, la nguage arts, and mathematics). 172 The results indicate that there wa s a benefit to students being in SAGE classrooms over multiple years. However, the effects were not sustained into fourth grade on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination ( WKCE ) in reading, language arts, or mathematics tests, with SAGE students scoring statistically equivalent to comparison students. 173 Similarly, no cumulative effect for the SAGE program was found for the grade 3 Wisconsin Reading and Comprehension Test ( WRCT ) 174 The results on the grade 3 WRCT and the grade 3 CTBS reading test produced 169 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Summary of 2011 13 Biennial Budget B ill 2011 Assembly Bill 40/Senate Bill 27 As Amended by the Joint Committee on Finance ," June 2011, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/pb/pdf/jfcb udsum1113.pdf 170 See for example, Maier, Molnar, Percy, Smith, and Zahorik, "First Year Resu lts of SAGE Program;" Molnar, Smith, and Zahorick, 1998 99 Evaluation of SAGE Program;" Molnar, Smith, and Zahorick, 1990 00 Evaluation Results of SAGE Program;" Molnar, Smith, and Zahorick, 2000 2001 Evaluation of SAGE Program." 171 Webb, Meyer, Gamoran and Fu, "Participation in SAGE Program and Performance." 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid.

PAGE 47

47 conflicting results for the SAGE Program ; WRCT results indicated no significant effect, whereas the CTBS results indicated significant cumulative effects. 175 Researchers have criticize d the SAGE Project primarily because SAGE involved a quasi experimental design in which the teachers and students were not randomly assigned. 176 The researchers criticized the SAGE Proj ect for many reasons including: C lassroom composition changed annually i n both SAGE and non SAGE schools; there was potential selection bias since the selection process of which schools would be SAGE schools and the selection of students within the schools was unknown; and the three other components besides class size reductio n of the SAGE project, including rigorous curriculum, professional development, and the lighted schoolhouse program were not uniformly implemented. 177 Goldstein and Blatchford also con cluded that SAGE schools might have been selected based on favorable fa ctors to produce biased outcomes to make the treatment seem more effective. 178 The extent to which the factors suggested by the researchers may have contributed to the study's outcomes i s unknown which makes the results of the SAGE Project unclear. 179 The con cerns by researchers 180 about the SAGE Project combined with the mixed achievement results have not provided compelling evidence to support a project that costs the state of 175 Ibid. 176 See for example, Peter Blatchford, Harvey Goldstein, and Peter Mortimo re, "Research on C lass Size Effects: A Critique of Methods and a Way F orward," International Jo u rnal of Educational Research 29 ( 1998): 691 710; Harvey Goldstein and Peter Blatchford, "Class Size and Educational Achievement: A Review of Methodology with Particular Reference to Study Design," British Educational Research Journal 24, no. 3 (1998): 255 268; David Grissmer, "Class Size Effects: Assessing the Evidence, Its Policy Implications, and Future Research Agendas," Educational Evaluation and Policy An alysis 21, no. 2 (1999): 231 248. 177 See for example, Blatchford, Goldstein, and Mortimore, "Research on C lass Size Effects," 691 710; Goldstein and Blatchford, "Class Size and Educational Achievement," 255 268; Grissmer, "Class Size Effects," 231 248. 178 Goldstein and Blatchford, "Class Size and Educational Achievement," 255 268. 179 Coffins Education Center, "How Smaller Class Size Affects Student Achievement: A Literature Review of the STAR Project and Other Studies," December 20, 2010, http://www.coffin seducationcenter.com/?p=218. 180 See for example, Blatchford, Goldstein, and Mortimore, "Research on C lass Size Effects," 691 710; Goldstein and Blatchford, "Class Size and Educational Achievement," 255 268; Grissmer, "Class Size Effects," 231 248.

PAGE 48

48 Wisconsin over $110 million a year to operate. 181 Th e results of the SAGE Project li ke STAR and CSPAR, showed that student achievement was only affected in lower grades, with mixed results in third grade and no cumulative effects beyond third. 182 California Class Size Reduction In 1996, the California Legislature created the Class Size Re duction (CSR) 183 program, which provided incentives for school districts to reduce K 3 classes to a pupil teacher ratio of no more than 20 to 1. The CSR Program 184 and the CSR Facilities 185 Funding Program represents the single largest appropriation ever -nea rly one billion dollars for the initial year -for educational reform. At the time, K 3 class sizes in California averaged 28.6 students, among the highest teacher student ratios in the nation. 186 The legislation was motivated by the results of Project ST AR 187 in Tennessee that showed that students in classes from 13 to 17 performed better academically. In 1996 97, the legislation provided annual incentive funding of $650 for each student in a smaller class. 188 It also offered a second option of $325 for stud ents in a staggered session in 181 Wiscon sin Department of Public Instruction, Summary of 2011 13 Biennial Budget B ill 2011 Assembly Bill 40/Senate Bill 27 As Amended by the Joint Committee on Finance ," June 2011, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/pb/pdf/jfcbudsum1113. pdf. 182 Ibid. 183 Cal. Chapter 163, S tatutes of 1996; Cal. Educ. Code § 52120 52128.5 184 Cal. Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996 185 Cal. Chapter 164, Statutes of 1996 186 Center for Investigative Reporting, "FAQ: How Class Size Reduction Works in California," November 19 2009, http://centerforinvest igativereporting.org/articles/faqhowclasss izereductionworksincalifornia/. 187 Tennessee State Department of Education," STAR Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990." 188 California Department of Education, "K 3 Class Size Reduction Program H istory and Summar ized Data," August 5 2010, http://www. cde.ca.gov/ls/cs/k3/facts.asp/.

PAGE 49

49 which the pupil teacher ratio was less than 20 to 1 for half the day. 189 In 1997 98, school districts received $800 per pupil for the full day program (Option One) and $400 per pupil for the half day program (Option Two). 190 Th at amount has increased equivalent to the statutory cost of living allowance. In 2004 05, school districts received $928 per pupil for Option One and $464 for Option Two. 191 The state also offered one time allocations to improve facilities or to acquire additional classroom space. In 1996 97, 13,689 teaching stations were funded at $25,000 each for a total of $342,225,000. 192 In 1997 98, 6,562 teaching stations were funded at $40,000 each for a total of $262,480,000, and in 1998 99, 3,859 teaching station s were funded at $40,000 each for a total of $154,360,000. 193 Initially, the legislation specified that if a classroom exceeded an enrollment of 20.44 students based on the number of students between the start of the school year and April 15, then the dist rict would lose its entire CSR allocation for that classroom. 194 Senate Bill 311, 195 which became law in 2004, 196 reduced the penalty if a school modestly exceeded the annual cap. A 21.85 student average was the new maximum that triggered the full penalty (fo rfeiting a ll funds), with deductions of 20% 40 % and 80 % for each one half student above the 20.44 class average. 197 The average was loosened even more in 2009 in response to extraordinary economic 189 Ibid. 190 Ibid. 191 Ibid. 192 California Department of Education, "K 3 Class Size Reduction Data ." 193 Ibid. 194 EdSource "Class Size Reduction (CSR)," http://www.edso urce.org/iss_fin_sys_csr. html. 195 California Senate, 2004, SB 311 196 Cal. Chapter 910, Statutes of 2004 197 Ibid.

PAGE 50

50 circumstances. The full penalty was given when the averag e exceeded 24. 95 resulting in a loss of 30 % and interim deductions of 5 % 10 % 15 % and 20 % 198 California's CSR Program is voluntary, but the huge incentives provided by the state have led most districts to implement the reduced class sizes. In the first ye ar of the program, 1996 97, 94 % o f the districts (839) participated. 199 In 1998 99, th e percentage increased to 98% of the distr icts participating and then 99 % participating in every year from 1998 99 (883 districts) to 2006 07 (877 districts). 200 The numb er of CSR classes grew steadily from the initial 51,612 in 1996 97; however, the number started to decline in 2008 due to the effects of the economy. 201 The changes in the program in 2009 have allowed districts to increase class averages to twenty five or m ore and still get a portion of the subsidy. 202 It has been difficult for the California L egislature to maintain this expensive program. 203 As of January 2010, the state of California had already spent more than $22 billion on the program, making it the most expensive education reform program in California history. 204 The CSR Research Consortium 205 was selected by the California Department of Education to conduct an evaluation of the K 3 CSR Program over four years beginning in May 198 Ibid. 199 California Department of Education, "K 3 Class Size Reduction Data ." 200 Ibid. 201 EdSource "Class Size Reduction (CSR)," http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_csr.h tml. 202 California Senate, 2008, SB 1112; Louis Freeberg and Cabrera, Hugo, "Less Money for Class Size Reduction Under Schwarzenegger Budget," January 12 2010, http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/less money class size reduction under schwarzenegger bud get 820 203 Freeberg and Cabrera, "Less Money for Class Size Reduction." 204 Ibid. 205 CSR Research Consortium, George W. Bohrnstedt and Stecher, Brian M, eds., "What We Have Learned About Class Size Reduction in California," September 2002, http://www.classiz e.org/techreport/CSRYear4_final.pdf

PAGE 51

51 1998. The fourth and final repo rt was published in September 2002 and identified nine major findings: 1. Implementation of CSR occurred rapidly, although it lagged in schools serving minority and low income students. CSR implementation was nearly complete for all represented grades (K 3) by the fourth year of the program. It took a little longer in urban districts, which have more minority students, due to the difficulty of acquiring additional classroom space. 2. The analyses of the relationship of CSR to student achievement was inc onclusive Although both overall exposure to CSR and statewide average test scores increased, the changes in test scores did not track with the incremental changes in CSR. 3. CSR was associated with declines in teacher qualification and a more inequitabl e distribution of credentialed teachers. Reducing class size required an increase in the number of teachers in California. Between 1995 96, the year before CSR implementation, and 1998 99, the third year of the program, the total number of K 3 teachers i ncreased 46%. As a result, the proportion of K 3 teachers who were not fully credent ialed increased from 1.8% to 12.5% from the first to second year of the program. Most of the non credentialed teachers ended up in schools serving the most disadvantaged students. 4. CSR had only a modest effect on teacher mobility. The school transfer rate was small compared to the 46% increase in the number of K 3 teachers during the four year time period. 5. CSR implementation did not affect special identification or p lacement. CSR did not affect the number of students referred, identified, and/or placed in special education classes 6. Students in reduced size third grade classes received more individual attention, but similar instruction and curriculum. Teachers in b oth reduced and non reduced size third grade classes reported spending similar amounts of time covering similar amounts of curriculum. 7. Pa rents liked reduced size classe s Parents of children in reduced size classes reported satisfaction levels far high er than parents of children in regular size classes. 8. Classroom space and dollars were taken from other programs to support CS R CSR implementation took space from such uses as music and arts, athletics, childcare programs, and special education classro oms. 9. In spite of budget shortfalls, districts are not projecting CSR cutbacks for 2002 2003 This report was done in 2002, but at the time, none of the districts surveyed indicated the elimination of the CSR program due to budget cuts. 206 206 CSR Research Consortium, Bohrnstedt and Stecher, eds., "Class Size Reduction in California ." [italics in original].

PAGE 52

52 In addition to the four reports conducted by the CSR Research Consortium, there have been many other studies done on the effects of California's class size reduction program. 207 Due to the wide scale nature of the largest state in the nation implementing a CSR Program, 208 t he California initiative has provided valuable information to the research on class size reduction. 209 California's CSR Program 210 was motivated by the results from Project STAR. 211 However, one important feature of STAR was that the researchers went to great lengths to hold all other factors, particularly teacher quality, constant. 212 Due to the extensive class size reduction program undertaken by California, inevitably the composition and quality of the teaching force was affected. 213 Fatih Unlu extended the res earch on California's CSR Program by using student level achievement data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to look at the effects of reduced class size on academic performance. 214 The achievement effects of the CSR Program were st atistically significant. 215 In comparison to California 8th graders, California 4th graders who were affected by CSR grew by at least 0.25 of a standard deviation from 1996 and 207 See for example, Christopher Jeps en and Rivkin, Steven, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achieve ment : The Potential Tradeoff Between Teacher Quality and Class Size ," The Journal of Human Resources 44, no. 1 (December 21, 2009); Fatih Unlu, "California Class Size Reduction Reform: New Findings from the NAEP," November 2005, http://www.classsizematte rs.org/wp content/uploads/2011/04/California_CSR_Fatih_Unlu.pdf 208 Cal. Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996 209 See for example, Jepsen and Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement ;" Unlu, "California Class Size Reduction Reform ." 210 Cal. Chapter 16 3, Statutes of 1996 211 Tennessee State Department of Education," STAR Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990." 212 Ibid. 213 Jepsen and Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement ." 214 Unlu, "California Class Size Reduction Reform ." 215 Ibid.

PAGE 53

53 2000. 216 African American students benefited more than any other racial or ethnic group. 217 This study provided an extensive analysis of the achievement effects of California's CSR Program, 218 but it did not answer the question of whether the program was cost effective. Another study on California's CSR Program, done by Christopher Jespen and Steven Rivkin, 219 focused on the potential tradeoff between teacher quality and class size. They found that the CSR initiative led to a short term increase in the share of teachers lacking full cert ification, but this factor leveled off soon after the initial implementation. 220 They also found that there was little or no support for the hypotheses that the need to hire large numbers of teachers led to a lasting reduction in the quality of instruction. 221 Their findings suggest that CSR increased achieveme nt in the early grades for all demographic groups; however, they also raised the question as to whether the benefits justify the substantial costs. 222 This type of targeted state spending limits the flexibility of schools and districts to allocate resources to other education initiatives. Overall, the research has been mixed regarding the effects of the CSR Program on student achievement. 223 The extensive, four year study by the CSR Research Consortium 224 showed that the relationship of CSR to student achieveme nt was inconclusive. Faith Unlu found 216 Ibid. 217 Ibid. 218 Cal. Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996 219 Jepsen and Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement ;" 220 Ibid. 221 Ibid. 222 Ibid. 223 See for example, Jepsen and Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement ;" Unlu, "California Class Siz e Reduction Reform ." 224 CSR Research Consortium, Bohrnstedt and Stecher, eds., "Class Size Reduction in California ."

PAGE 54

54 that the achievement effects of the CSR Program were statistically significant according to the NAEP results. 225 Jespen and Rivkin 226 found evidence that third graders in California did benefit from CSR, but the gains we re dampened by a decrease in teacher quality at schools that serve minority populations. Bohrnstedt and Stecher were unable to find a link between class size reduction and student achievement in California and reported that, CSR was associated with declin es in teacher qualifications and a more inequitable distribution of credentialed teachers. 227 Summary The various class size research studies have resulted in mixed findings; however, for the most part they indicate that reduced class sizes do lead to inc reased student achievement 228 in the early primary grades 229 and for African American 230 and economically disadvantaged students. 231 Also, positive outcomes on student and teacher attitudes have been found in smaller classes. 232 Therefore, it would seem that CSR i s an effective way to increase student achievement. H owever, there have been studies done on all four of the biggest CSR projects that have found 225 Unlu, "California Class Size Reduction Reform ." 226 Jespen and Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement ." 227 Ibid. 228 See for ex ample, Bruce J. Biddle and David C. Berliner, "Small Class Size and Its Effects," Educational Leadership 59, no. 5 ( 2002); David Grissmer, "Conclusion: Class Size Effects: Assessing the Evidence, Its Policy Implications, and Future Research Agenda," Educ ational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, no. 2 (1999) 229 Blatchford, "Class Size ." 230 See for example, Schanzenbach, "What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR? Unlu, "California Class Size Reduction Reform ." 231 Phil Smith, Alex Molnar, and John Zah orik, "Class Size Reduction: A Fresh Look at the Data," Educational Leadership 61 no. 1 ( 2003 ) 232 John Zahorik, Anke Halbach, Karen Ehrle, and Alex Molnar, "Teaching Practices for Smaller Classes," Educational Leadership 61, no. 1 (2003).

PAGE 55

55 that the effects did not last beyond the initial years. 233 Also, the class size reduction efforts have come wi th large price tags -over $22 billion 234 in California over a fifteen year period and over $21 billion 235 in Florida over the first nine yea rs of the Class Size Amendment; therefore, the return on investment needs to be considered. Jespen and Rivkin 236 found that California's CSR increased achievement in the early grades for all demographic groups; however, they raised the question as to whether the benefits justify the substantial cost. It makes sense that a policy that involves billions of dollars would le ad to some level of increased achievement; however, the main question that these main class size studies have not answered: Is class size reduction a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement ? There is very little evidence on the overa ll effects of large scale class size reduction policies and essentially no evidence on the effects of CSR as compared to equivalent additional resources. 237 233 See for exampl e, Webb, Meyer, Gamoran, Fu, "Participation in SAGE Program;" Frederick Mosteller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children 5, no. 2 (1995); Graue and Rauscher, "Resear cher Perspectives on Class Size;" Jespen a nd Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement ." 234 Freeberg and Cabrera, "Less Money for Class Size Reduction." 235 Florida Department Of Education, "Class Size Reduction Amendment," h ttp://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 236 Jespen and Rivkin, "Class Siz e Reduction and Student Achievement ." 237 Matthew M. Chingos, "The Impact of a Universal Class Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Statewide Mandate," Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Papers Series August 2010, http://www.hks. harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEP610 03_Chingos.pdf

PAGE 56

56 Table 2 1 Class size reduction studies/p rojects 1 Project STAR (Student/Teach er Achievement Ratio) Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) California Class Size Reduction Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio (CSPAR) Project Location Tennessee Wisconsin California United Kingdom Context State sponsored pilot begun in 1984, mandated in 1985. Four year, $12 million project completed in 1990; STAR included 79 elementary schools in 42 districts. Urban initiative designed to ameliorate the effects of poverty. Piloted in 30 schools, primarily in urban Milwaukee. Governor Pete Wi lson proposed a class size reduction for K 3 and the L egislature enacted the program in 1996. Class sizes capped at 30 in early years. Blatchford et al. studied the natural variation in classes. Treatment conditions Students and teachers randomly assigne d to one of 3 conditions: 1) small class (13 17), 2) full class size (22 25), or 3) full size class with aide. A cohort of students followed K 3, with students kept in the same treatment condition. Piloted in 30 high poverty schools, rolled out to almost 500, with four elements; class size reduced to 15; rigorous curriculum, professional development, and lighted schoolhouse for social services. Funding: $2,000 per low income student. Universal implementation through K 3 throughout state. Districts rec eived $650 per student and facilities grants for $25,000 if classes were limited to 20 students. Examined natural variation in class sizes in early years of schooling rather than imposing a treatment. Class Size Three groups: Small (13 17) Full (22 25) Fu ll with aide Class size of 15 through 15:1 classes, 30:2 shared space, 20:2 team taught or SAGE block classes in which a second teacher is added for literacy or math. 20 students per class K 3 Four groups: Under 20 20 25 students 26 29 students 30+ student s 1 Elizabeth Graue and Erica Rauscher, "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12, 2009); [chart in original article]

PAGE 57

57 Table 2 1. Continued Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) California Class Size Reduction Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio (CSPAR) Project Location Tennessee Wisconsin California Uni ted Kingdom Research design Random assignment experiment comprised of volunteer schools with enough sections for treatment and control sections. Data include measures of student achievement, observations of classroom process, follow on analysis beyond 4 years of the implementation, including analysis of retention, graduation. Quasi experiment, comparing treatment to control schools similar in family income, reading, school size, and racial composition. Mean class sizes in the comparison group 22 25 stude nts per teacher. Data included Terra Nova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills administered in Grades 1 3, teacher surveys, teacher logs, classroom observations, and student records. CSR Research Consortium studied 432 schools and conducted surveys of 1,485 teachers, 336 principals and 2,113 third grade parents. Study compared schools that implemented CSR and those that did not. Data included the Stanford Achievement Test scores, administrative data, data on students with disabilities, surveys, classroom o bservations, and case studies. Mixed methods inquiry examining whether CSR affects student achievement but also studying the underlying relationship between class size and classroom processes. Data included case studies, teacher reports, observations, tea cher ratings of student behavior, and teachers' estimates of time use.

PAGE 58

58 Table 2 1. Continued Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) California Class Size Reduction Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio (CSPAR) Project Location Tennessee Wisconsin California United Kingdom Results 2 Students in small classes outperformed students in larger groups or in classes with aides. Addition of aide to full class size not beneficial. Reduced race base d achievement gap. Fewer discipline problems, more interaction in class. SAGE students outperformed comparison group in literacy and math K 1 with best outcomes for African American students. SAGE classrooms had fewer disciplinary problems and they had m ore time spent on explicit instruction. Implementation influenced by physical space constraints and teacher adaptation to team teaching situations. Qualified teachers and classroom space became more rare for many low income students, thus widening the res ource gap between wealthy and poor schools. Overall benefits included a slight increase in test scores after years 2 and 3, more time teaching, less disciplining, and more reported parent teacher contact time. Enhanced literacy instruction, student talk, and participation in smaller classes. Teachers used more instructional strategies and there were more opportunities for social interaction -but generally a lower quality of peer relations -TAs (classroom aides) positively influenced classroom interact ions but did not measurably affect academic outcomes. Reprinted by permission f rom E ducation Policy Analysi s Archives Vol. 17 No. 9 ( P ages 5 6, Table 1 ) 2 Elizabeth Graue and Eri ca Rauscher, "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12, 2009); [chart in original article] Results reflect findings by Graue and Rauscher; Findings in my literature review reflect more researche rs and thus show different results.

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 3 FLORIDA'S CLASS SIZE REDUCTION AMENDMENT Introduction This study was conducted to answer the research question: In the state of Florida, is class size reduction a cost effective expecta tion for improving student achievement? In order to answer this question, it was necessary to an alyze the results of Florida's CSR policy, 1 in relation to the relevant literature on class size reduction A lthough the research studies on class size reduct ion have resulted in mixed findings on the student achievement impact with limited to no effects beyond the initial years 2 and at a large expense 3 i n 2002, Florida voters approved the CSR Amendment 4 leading to one of the largest statewide efforts to reduc e class sizes. To provide an important context to the research question, it was essen tial to review the origin of Florida's CSR policy 5 and the impact the CSR policy has had related to the expectation of improving student achievement. 1 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 2 See for example, Norman L. Webb, Meyer, R., Gamoran, A., and Fu, Jianbin, "Participation in the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program and Performance on State Assessments at Grade 3 and Grade 4 for Three Cohorts of Students Grade 1 Students in 1996 97, 1997 98, and 1998 99," Wisconsin Center for Education Research February 9 2004, http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu/normw/sage/S AGE%20FINAL%20REPORT%2020904.pdf; Frederick Most eller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children 5, no. 2 (1995); Elizabeth Graue and Erica Rauscher, "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12, 2009) ; Christopher Jespen and Rivkin, Steven, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement : The Potential Tradeoff Between Teacher Quality and Class Size ," The Journal of Human Resources 44, no. 1 (December 21, 2009) 3 Louis Freeberg and Cabrera, Hugo, "Les s Money for Class Size Reduction Under Schwarzenegger Budget," January 12 2010, http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/less money class size reduction under schwarzenegger budget 820; Florida Department Of Education, "Class Size Reduction Amendment," h ttp ://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 4 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 5 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03.

PAGE 60

60 Origin of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment In 2002, Florida State Senator Kendrick Meek launched an initiative to reduce class sizes in Florida's public schools. He was inspired to create the legislation when his daughter, Lauren, started kindergarten in a classr oom in Dade County with thirty three other students. 6 The amendment proposed to set the maximum class sizes of pre kindergarten through 3rd grade classes to eighteen 4th through 8th grade cl asses to twenty two, and high school classes to twenty five 7 It al so included language to reduce class sizes by two students in 2003 and to reach full compliance by the beginning of the 2010 2011 school year. 8 Article IX, Se ction 1, Florida Constitution, wa s amended to read: Section 1. Public Education. The educatio n of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high q uality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public ed ucation programs that the needs of the people may require. To assure that children attending public schools obtain a high quality education, the legislature shall make adequate provision to ensure t hat, by the beginning of the 2010 school year, there ar e a sufficient number of classrooms so that : 1. The maximum number of students who are assigned to each teacher who is teaching in public school classrooms for prekindergarten through grade 3 does not exceed 18 students ; 2. The maximum number of students who are assigned to each teacher who is teaching in public school classrooms for grades 4 through 8 does not exceed 22 students; and 6 "Kendrick Meek," Answers.com http://www.a nswers.com/topic/kendrick meek/. 7 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 8 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 [emphasis in original]

PAGE 61

61 3. The maximum number of students who are assigned to each teacher who is teaching in public school classr ooms for grades 9 through 12 does not exceed 25 students The class size requirements of this subsection do not apply to extracurricular classes. Payment of the costs associated with reducing class size to meet these requirements is the r esponsibilit y of the state and not of local school districts. Beginning with the 2003 2004 fiscal year, the legislature shall p rovide sufficient funds to reduce the average number of students in each classroom by at least two students per year until the maximum n umber of s tudents per classroom does not exceed the requirements of this subsection 9 The amendment was controversial from the start. 10 Supporters of the amendment, including People for the American Way, Florida Education Association, and the NAACP, foc used on large classes in urban areas of Florida. 11 Meek supported the bill stating, For the first time parents will have a chance to vote on something they've always wanted and that is smaller class sizes. 12 Governor Bush and state l egislature Republican s strongly opposed the bill because it was unclear how much the amendment would cost and how it would be financially supported. 13 Liz Hirst, press secretary to Governor Bush, stated, While this may be a worthy goal, we still have to ask the question where will the money come from? 14 On November 5, 2002, Florida vote rs app roved the amendment 52.4% to 47.6% 15 The amendment received the majority of the vote in less than half of the counties; however, the three 9 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 [ emphasis in original] 10 Linda Kleindienst, "Class Size Cap Goes on Ballot," Sun Sentinel August 2, 2002, http://www.articles.sun sentinel.com/2002 08 02/news/0208020111_1_cap class class size jeb bush/ 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Florida Department of State Division of Elections, "Florida's Am endment to Reduce Class Size," http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initde tail.asp?account=34393&seqnum=1.

PAGE 62

62 largest counties including Meek's home county of Dade, along with neighboring Broward and Palm Beach counties all strongly supported the amendment, thus helping it pass at the state level. 16 Although voters in only twenty eight of the sixty seven counties approved the amendment, it passed in the statewi de vote, and all sixty seven districts were required to implement the new restrictions. 17 Due to this amendment and other close statewide measures, the law was changed requiri ng amendments to gain 60% of the statewide vote starting in 2006. 18 The amendmen t changed the language in Article IX Section 1 of the Florida Constitution to include the statement that the class size restrictions were needed "t o assure that children attending public schools obtain a high quality education." 19 The concept of a "high q uality education" has been debated for years in classrooms, schools, districts, and states all over the country. Many different policies have been tested to create a high quality education. States and districts have offered school vouchers, opened charte r schools, created high stakes tests, expanded the school day and/or calendar, required highly qualified teaching certification, and other policies in addition to implementing class size restrictions. All policies cost money to implement, so the question often asked is whether the policy leads to increased student achievement or in the words of the Florida Constitution a "high quality education." 16 Florida Department of State Division of Elections, "November 5, 2002, General Elections," htt p://enight.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11/5/2002&DATAMODE= 17 Ibid. 18 Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California http://www.iandrinstitute.org/Florida.htm. 19 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1

PAGE 63

63 Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment, 20 approved in 2002, has been one of the largest statewide efforts to reduce class sizes even larger than California's 21 voluntary CSR effort, which only targeted kindergarten through 3rd grade. Students in Florida have experienced substantially smaller classes because of the class size reduction (CSR) mandate. 22 According to the Florida Department of Education, average class size in core classes in grades four to eight fell from 24.2 in 2003 to 18.6 in 2009. 23 The development of t his policy was based on the concept that resources provided to reduce class size would have a la rger impact on student achievement than spending resources on other policies. 24 The past eight years of this huge, statewide class restriction effort has provided a lot of data and information on the effectiveness of class size restrictions. FCAT Results T he administration of the high stakes FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) for grades three through ten in addition to the implementation of the Class Size Reduction Amendment 25 has provided important student achievement data. Student achievement re sults have increased in Florida since the implementation of the CSR mandates. For example, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores of students in fourth grade increased dramatically, with Florida surpassing the national average in read ing in 2003 and math in 2005. 26 20 Fla. Stat. § 100 3.03 21 Cal. Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996 22 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 23 Matthew M. Chingos, "The Impact of a Universal Class Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Statewide Mandate," Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Papers Series August 2010, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEP610 03_Chingos.pdf. 24 Ibid. 25 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 26 Chingos, "The Impact of Class Size Policy."

PAGE 64

64 Between 1996 and 2009, fourth grade math scores increased by 0.84 standard deviations, while reading scores increased by 0.39 standard deviations between 1998 and 2009. 27 Over the same period, the NAEP scores of eighth grade students increased by 0.39 standard deviations in math and 0.26 standard deviations in reading. 28 Scores on Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) also posted large increases during this period. Between 2001 and 2009, fourth grade math and reading scores increased by 0.70 and 0.43 standard deviations, respectively. 29 Eighth grade math and reading scores increased by 0.26 and 0.29 standard deviations, respectively. 30 The percentage of students scoring level 3 or higher on the FCAT in 3rd, 4th, and 5 th increased from 54 % in 2001 to 72 % in 2009. 31 In middle school, the percentage scoring level 3 or higher increased from 48 % in 2001 to 62 % in 2009, and in high school from 32 % in 2001 to 42 % in 2009. 32 Other Policy Changes in Florida If Florida's CSR 33 ma ndates were the only new policy affecting test scores, then the results would indicate that the CSR mandates had a positive correlation regarding student achievement; however, determining the effects of Florida's CSR mandates is difficult to determine sinc e so many other policies were implemented during the same time as the class size 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Foundation for Excellence in Education, "Florida Formula for Stud ent Achievement: Lessons for the Nation," 2009, http://www.excelined.org/docs/Oklahoma%20Education%20Presentation.pdf 32 Ibid. 33 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03

PAGE 65

65 restrictions. In 1999, the Florida Legislature passed Governor Bush's A+ Plan. 34 The A+ Plan was designed, to provide enhanced opportunity for students to gain the knowledge and skills necessary for postsecondary education, a career education or the world at work. 35 The A+ Plan established a grading system, A through F, based on the proportion of students passing the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) at each publ ic school. 36 The plan also gave new options for students attending schools that received two "F" grades in four years. 37 The Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), as part of the A+ Plan, allowed "students who attended or who were assigned to attend failing public schools the option to choose a higher performing school or a participating private school." 38 For seven years, 1999 2000 through 2005 2006, students at failing schools in Florida had the opportunity to attend private schools or successful public sch ools. As many as 763 students in a year enrolled in a private school through the Opportunity Scholarship Program 39 before the Florida Supreme Court declared the "private" school option unconstitutional on January 5, 2006. 40 Students at failing schools have continued to take advantage of the Opportunity Scholarship Program by attending higher rated public 34 Florida House. 1999. A+ Plan. Florida Legislative Session, H.R. 751, 753, 755. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Florida Department of Education, "Opportunity Scho larship Program," August 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/osp/files/Fast_Facts_OSP.pdf 40 Bush v. Holmes 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006).

PAGE 66

66 schools: 1,688 students in 2005 2006 year; 1,319 students in 2006 2007; 1,304 students in 2007 2008; 1,280 students in 2008 2009; and 1,431 students in 20 09 2010. 41 In addition to the Opportunity Scholarship Program, other choice programs were introduced including the McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program 42 and the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program. 43 The McKay Scholarships Program, 44 available for eligible students with disabilities to attend an eligible public or private school of their choice, was originally created in 1999 as a pilot program. 45 During the 2009 2010 year the McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Progra m provided 20,926 Florida students with special needs the opportunity to attend one of 959 participating private schools. 46 The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program (FTC) 47 was established in 2001 to provide an income tax credit for corporations that con tribute money to nonprofit Scholarship Funding Organizations (SFOs) that award scholarships to students from families with limited financial resources. 48 The Florida Legislature created that state statute to encourage private, voluntary contributions; to ex pand educational opportunities for children of families with limited financial 41 Florida Department of Education, "Opportuni ty Scho larship Program," August 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/osp/files/Fast_Facts_OSP.pdf 42 Fla. Stat. § 1002.39 43 Fla. Stat. § 1002.395 44 Fla. Stat. § 1002.39 45 Fla. Stat. § 1002.39; Florida Department of Education, "Mc Kay Scho larship Program FAQs," http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/faqs.asp 46 Florida Department of Education "McKay Scholarship Program," http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/M cKay/files/Fast_Facts_McKay.pdf. 47 Fla. Stat. § 1002.395 48 Fla. Stat. § 1002.395; Florida Department of Education, "Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program FAQs," http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/ Information/CTC/faqs.asp.

PAGE 67

67 resources; and to enable children to achieve a greater level of excellence in their education. 49 During the 2009 2010 year, $106 million in the Florida Tax Credit 50 scholarships were awarded to 28,927 students enrolled in 1,033 participating Florida private schools. 51 In addition to the variety of scholarship opportunities, Florida also has offered extensive charter school choices since 1996, when the first Florida charter school s tatutes were approved. 52 During the 1996 1997 school year, there were five charter schools in operation. That number has increased every year, and in 2009 2010, there were 410 charter schools in operation in Florida. 53 The enrollment in charter schools ha s increased from 16,120 students during the 1999 2000 school year to 137,196 students during the 2009 2010 year. 54 According to state statute 55 all charter schools are required to: Be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices and operations; Be accountable to the school district for its performance; Not charge tuition and fees; Comply with all applicable state and local health, safety, and civil rights requirements; Not discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex, handicap, or marital status; Subject itself to an annual financial audit; 49 Fla. Stat. § 1002.395; Florida Department of Education, "Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program FAQs," http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC/faqs.asp 50 Fla. Stat. § 1002.395 51 Florida Department of Educati on, "FTC Scholarship Program," July 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC/files/ctc_fast_facts.pdf 52 Fla. Stat. § 1002.33; Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools, "Charter School Law and Compliance," 2008, http://www.floridacharterschools.org/public/charterschoollawandcompliance.asp 53 Florida Department of Education, "Charter School Programs," August 2 010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/charter_schools/files/fast_facts_charter_schools.pdf 54 Ibid. 55 Fla. Stat. § 1002.33

PAGE 68

68 Maintain all financial records that constitute its accounting system in accordance with current law; Annually adopt and maintain an operating budget; s education accountability program. 56 Although charter schools provide parents with more educational options for their children, there is a lot of debate whether charter schools provide a higher quality education. 57 The school accountability results lead t o mixed findings. In 2009, 36 % of charter schools made AYP (adequate yea rly pro gress); whereas, only 23% of all public schools in Florida made AYP. 58 On the other hand, only 52% of charter schools in Florida earned an "A ; whereas, 62% of all public school s earned an A. 59 Although data are not conclusive on academic achievement at charter schools versus public schools, with over 140,000 students currently attending charter schools in Florida, the charter school movement has definitely had an impact on th e educational environment in Florida since the first charter school statutes were passed in 1996. 60 56 Id. 57 See for example, Fla. Stat. § 1002.33; Center on Education Policy, "State Policy Differences Greatly Impact AYP Numbers," April 2011, www.cep dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=KoberRiddle... AYP ... ; Florida Department of Education, "Charter School Programs," August 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/charter_schools/files/fast_facts_charter_sch oo ls.pdf; Florida Department of Education, "Number of Florida Schools Earning A's Climbs to All Time High," June 18, 2009, http://www.fldoe.org/news/2009/2009_06_18.asp 58 Fla. Stat. § 1002.33; Center on Education Policy, "State Policy Differences Greatly Im pact AYP Numbers," April 2011, www.cep dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=KoberRiddle... AYP ... 59 Florida Department of Education, "Charter School Programs," August 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/charter_schools/files/fast_facts_char ter_sch ools.pdf; Florida Department of Education, "Number of Florida Schools Earning A's Climbs to All Time High," June 18, 2009, http://www.fldoe.org/news/2009/2009_06_18.asp 60 Fla. Stat. § 1002.33; Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools, "Charter School Law and Compliance," 2008, http://www.floridacharterschools.org/public/charterschoollawandcompliance.asp

PAGE 69

69 Policy Changes at the National Level In addition to the state changes, there have been national changes which have impacted education in Florida. On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 61 This was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was first enacted in 1965 and last reauthorized in 1994. 62 No Child Left Behin d (NCLB) expanded the federal government's role in education and became a focal point of education policy. 63 The core of NCLB 64 included many measures designed to lead to widespread gains in student achievement and to hold schools more accountable for stude nt progress. The most significant cha nges triggered by NCLB included annual testing, academic progress, report cards, teacher qualifications, Reading First program, and funding changes. 65 By the 2005 2006 year, states were required to test students in grad es three through eight annually in reading and mathematics. By 2007 2008, states had to include a science test at least once in elementary, middle, and high school. Each state is also required to have a sample of 4th and 8th graders participate in the Na tional Assessment of Educational Progress testing program in reading and math to compare state test results. 66 One requirement of NCLB was the expectation that states had to bring all students up to the "proficient" level by the 2013 2014 year. Individual schools are required to meet adequate 61 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002) 62 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 ; "No Child Left Behind," Education Week September 21, 2004, http://www.edweek.org/ ew/i ssues/no child left behind/. 63 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 ; "No Child Left Behind," Education Week September 21, 2004, http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no child left behind/ 64 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 65 "No Child Left Behind," Education Week September 21, 2004, http://w ww.edweek.org/ew/issues/no child left behind/ 66 Id.

PAGE 70

70 yearly progress (AYP) for the entire student population and specific demographic subgroups. 67 As the requirements have increased since NCLB was enacted, so have the number of schools not making AYP. In 2010, NCLB rea ched a national high of 38% not making AYP. 68 Florid a led all states with 86% of the schools not making AYP in 2010. 69 Schools receiving federal Title I funding that fail to meet AYP for two consecutive years, must provide technical assistance and offer t he choice of attending another public school. 70 Schools that fail to make AYP three years in a row must offer supplemental educational services. 71 For continued failures, schools are faced with outside corrective measures, which could include governance cha nges. 72 Other changes included report cards, teacher qualifications, Reading First, and funding changes. Starting with the 2002 2003 year, states were required to furnish annual report cards showing student achievement data and information on the performa nce of school districts. 73 By the end of the 2005 2006 year, all teachers working in public school had to be "highly qualified" in each subject taught, meaning that a teacher had to be certified and proficient in the subject matter. Also, at the end of th e 2005 2006 year, all paraprofessionals hired with Title I funds must have completed at least two years of college, obtained an associate's degree or higher, or passed an evaluation to demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability. 74 NCLB created a new 67 Id. 68 "How Many Schools Have Not Made Adequate Yearly Progress," Center on Education Policy April 2011 www.cep dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Usher_Report_ AYP ... 69 Ibid. 70 United States Departm ent of Education, "Elementary and Secondary Education," http://www.ed.gov/esea 71 Ibid. 72 United States Department of Education, "Elementary and Secondary Education," http://www.ed.gov/esea ; "No Child Left Behind," Education Week September 21, 2004, http: //www.edweek.org/ ew/issues/no child left behind/. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid.

PAGE 71

71 compet itive grant program called Reading First to help states and districts set up "scientific, research based" reading programs for students in kindergarten through third grade, with priority given to high poverty areas. 75 NCLB changed the Title I funding formu la to better target resources to school districts with high concentrations of poor students, and it gave states and districts greater fle xibility in how they spend the federal funds. 76 Just like many state policy changes, there have been mixed opinions on h ow NCLB 77 has impacted education at the school level. Supporters of the law's accountability mandates have characterized them as vital change efforts. Some observers have argued that the laws' ultimate effectiveness depends on how closely states and schoo ls adhere to NCLB's principles of "tough accountability." 78 Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment and Student Achievement With so many policy changes implemented at the state and national level during the same time as the class size restrictions, it is d ifficult to determine the effects of Florida's CSR 79 mandates on student achievement. Chingos 80 conducted a study on the impact of Florida's statewide mandated class size reduction policy on student achievement He estimated the impact of Florida's CSR 81 po licy by comparing deviations from prior achievement trends in "treated districts," districts that were required to reduce class size to deviations from prior trends in 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002) 78 Education Trust, "Don't Turn Back the Clock," November 18, 2003, http://www.edtrust.org/dc/press room/press release/don%E2%80%99t turn ba ck the clock%E2%80%9D over 100 african american and latino superint 79 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 80 Chingos, "The Impact of Class Size Policy." 81 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03

PAGE 72

72 "comparison districts," districts that had met the class size requirements before the CS R mandate. 82 He focused his research on grades four through eight since there were FCAT scores for all five of these grades. The districts that were over the CSR mandates had to reduce class size. The districts that had already met the district level requ irements also decreased class size in order to start the effort of reaching the school and class requirements. By 2006, the third and final year of district level CSR implementation, 83 district level average class size had fallen by 1.6 students in the dis tricts that already had made the CSR mandates and 4.6 in the districts that were above the state required levels, a difference of three students. 84 Chingos also examined the school level reductions. From 2006 2009, the CSR mandates were required at the sc hool level. 85 By 2009, the third year of school level CSR implementation, class size fell by 2.7 students in grade four to eight (3.6 in grade four, 3.5 in grade five, 2.2. in grade six, 2.2 in grade seven, and 1.8 in grade eight). 86 If smaller class sizes lead to increased student achievement, then the districts that had to reduce class sizes to meet the CSR mandates 87 should have had the most improvement from 2003 2006, and the individual schools that reduced class sizes also should have shown increased stu dent achievement. The results from the district and school level analyses indicate that the 82 Chingos, "The Impact of Class Size Policy." 83 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 84 Chingos, "The Impact of Class Size Policy." 85 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 86 Chingos, "The Impact of Class Size Policy." 87 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03

PAGE 73

73 CSR mandates in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non cognitive outcomes. 88 The district level analysis indicates that from 2003 2007, student ac hievement in the districts that had to reduce class sizes was 0.035 standard deviations higher (statistically insignificant) in math and no higher in reading than the districts that received equivalent resources without having to reduce class sizes. 89 Afte r three years at the school level, results indicate that math and reading scores at the schools that had to reduce class sizes were either no different from or modestly lower than they would have been had these schools received less funding per pupil and n ot been required to reduce class size. 90 Overall, the results of Chingos' study suggest that large scale, untargeted CSR mandates are not a particularly productive use of limited educational resources. 91 Financial Impact of Florida's Class Size Reduction Am endment According to Article IX, Section I of the Florida Constitution [b] eginning with the 2003 2004 fiscal year, the L egislature shall provide sufficient funds to reduce the average number of students in each classroom by at least two students per year until the maximum number of students per classroom does not exceed the requirements of this subsection. 92 The Class Size Reduction Amendment h as led to expenses exceeding $19 billion in operational costs and $2.5 billion in facilities. 93 The operating fu nds have increased every year, starting with $468,198,634 during the 2003 2004 year, and reaching $2,927, 464,879 during the 2011 2012 88 Chingos, "The Impact of Class Size Policy." 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1. 93 Florida Department o f Education "Class Size Reduction Amendment," http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/.

PAGE 74

74 year. 94 The state has spent over $2.5 billion in facilities from 2003 2008, with the most expensive year during 2006 2007, the first year of the school level requirements, with a total of $1,100,000,000. 95 The state has spent over $ 21.6 billion implementing this amendment. 96 Although the payment of costs associated with meeting the class size requirements is supposed to be th e responsibility of the state and not the local school districts according to the Florida Constitution, 97 it is important to consider the impact this amendment has had on staffing and budget calculations for districts throughout the state. With the econ om ic downturn, Florida legislators have made cuts to all parts of the budget including education. In May of 2011, the legislators slashed education spending by nearly 8% for the 2011 2012 school year, the deepest in decades. 98 The cuts caused per student fu nding to drop $542 while the state's contribution to schools was the smallest since 2003. 99 This drop wa s significant considering Florida already rank ed in the bottom states for per pupil expenditures. 100 According to the latest figures from the National Ce nter for Education Statistics, Florida spent $9,084 per student during the 2007 2008 year, compared to a national average of $10,297. 101 Florida ranked thirty sixth, behind thirty four states and the District of Columbia. 102 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 98 Leslie Postal and Dave Weber "Years of Cuts Bring Florida Schools to Breaking Point," Orlando Sentinel May 15, 2011, http://articles.orlandosentine l.com/2011 05 15/features/os school budget cuts 20110515_1_school year principal shaune storch seminole county schools. 99 Ibid. 100 National Center for Education Statistics, "Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Ye ar 2007 2008," May 2010, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/expenditures/findings.asp 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid.

PAGE 75

75 Other Educational Factors Affect ed by Florida's CSR Amendment Although the state has "funded" the class size amendment, districts have lost significant funds for other resources. Districts have been forced to cut programs and positions to focus financial resources on the class size requ irements. One of the most noticeable cuts has been with support staff positions. Schools have lost guidance counselors, behavior specialists, media specialists, data and literacy coaches, and other support personnel since these positions are not accounte d for in the state statute. 103 In addition to cutting positions, districts have hired less qualified teachers or substitutes to save funds. 104 In Okaloosa County and St. John's County, they have established the Associate Teacher program, in which the district s hire teachers at a reduced rate and place them with a Lead Teacher. 105 The classrooms with the Lead and Associate Teacher are then assigned students over the class size amendment. In Okaloosa County the Associate Teacher's pay is $25,000, $7,428 less tha n a regular starting teacher. 106 Many districts, such as Sarasota County, have hired long term substitutes in place of beginning teachers to save on the cost of benefits. Sarasota's Deputy Chief Financial Advisor Al Weidner projected that the district woul d save $998,249 during the 2010 2011 year by filling open teaching positions with substitute teachers. 107 103 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 104 Okaloosa County Education Association, "Technical Assistance Paper Associate Teacher Program," http://www.myocea.org/negotiations/at_ tap.pdf; Moira Toner, "County Schools Enrollment Down About 400," Pelican Press October 27, 2010, http://www.pelicanpressonli ne.com/localnews/105871978.html. 105 Okaloosa County Education Association, "Technical Assistance Paper Associate Teacher Program," http://www.myocea.org/negotiations/at_tap.pdf 106 Ibid. 107 Moira Toner, "County Schools Enrollment Down About 400," Pelican Press October 27, 2010, http://www.pelicanpressonli ne.com/localnews/105871978.html.

PAGE 76

76 Another effect of the class size reduction efforts is the creation of multi age classrooms. Schools have been forced to create multi age classrooms wh en there are too many students in multiple grade levels, but not enough to add another teacher for each grade. Mutli age classrooms had gained popularity throughout the 1990s; however, the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 108 limited the practi ce, negating its viability as an effective instructional alternative since the research shows that multi age classrooms adversely affect achievement. 109 Schools across the country have cut existing multi age programs because of the strict requirements and a ccountability that NCLB imposes upon schools. 110 The intense grade level standards have made the practice of multi age education extremely difficult. After years of doing awa y with mul t i age classrooms, many districts and schools across the state were face d with adding multi age classrooms during the 2010 2011 year when they were forced to meet the class size restrictions at the classroom level. 111 Since the use of multi age classrooms is a recent result of the class size amendment, the impact on test scores is yet to be determined. Another effect is that high schools have had to turn away students from Advanced Placement (AP), Internationa l Baccalaureate (IB) foreign language, gifted, and other "specialized" classes when they have reached the class size c ap of twenty five in ninth through 108 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002) 109 David Sims, "How Flexible is Educational Production? Combination Classes and Class Size Reduction in California," November 2003, http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/enseig/ecoineg/articl/Sims2003.pdf ; Debra Viadero, "Mixed Blessings," Education Week March 15, 2006 110 Priscilla Pardini, "The Slowdown of the Multiage Classroom: What Was Once a Popular Approach Has Fallen Victim to the Demands for Grade Level Testing," School Administrator March 2005. 111 See for example, Fla. Stat. § 1003.03; Brevard Public Schools, "C lass Size Amendment ," http://www.brevard.k12.fl.us/portals/community/Class_Size_2011.htm ; Indian River Schools, "Class Size Reduction," http://www.indianriverschools.org/sites/SchoolBoard/Meetings/Lists/20102011%20Meetings/Attachments/174/Clas s%20Size%20Re duction%20Presentation.pdf (November 10, 2011).

PAGE 77

77 twelfth grades. 112 On April 28, 201 1, Senator Simmons proposed Senate Bill 1466 113 to provide flexibility in the implementation of class size reduction by redefining the terms "core curricula courses" and "extracurricular c ourses." 114 As a result of this bill, t he 2011 Florida Legislature amended subsections fourteen and fifteen of Section 1003.01 of the Florida Statutes. 115 The statute change reduce d the number of core courses covered by class size requirements from 849 to 30 4; classes that are no longer identified as "core" include AP, IB, gifted, and foreign language classes along with many others. 116 The state legislators were able to create this bill resulting in the implementation of the Class Size Restriction Amendment 117 s ince the CSR Amendment restricts students in core classroom, but does not define the term core classroom. 118 The class size restrictions have been difficult for all school districts especially with the downturn of the economy. The effects have been differen t across the state depending on enrollment and local factors. Some districts have lost students, which has led to less funding from the state to support school facilities. Other districts either stayed the same or increased enrollment, causing them to ha ve to hire many teachers and build new classrooms to accommodate the CSR Amendment. 119 Districts are having to consider all options to meet the 112 Fla. Stat.§ 1003.01 113 Florida Senate, 2011, SB 1466. 114 Id. 115 Fla. Stat.§ 1003.01 116 Florida Senate, "Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement," March 16, 2011, http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/1466 /Analyses/znCD0V7zpJF1T2OspOaPLUgmBY4=|7/Public/Bills/14 00 1499/1466/Analysis/2011s1466.ed.PDF 117 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 118 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 119 Id.

PAGE 78

78 class size requirements. 120 Some districts are having to bus students to alternate schools once class caps are met at districted sites. 121 Many districts are adding portables or using a flexible schedule to maximize classroom space. 122 In some schools the limited classroom space has led to teachers floating to various classroom locations throughout the school day. 123 Als o, districts have increased virtual school options to help with the class size restrictions since there is no class size cap for virtual courses. 124 In Dade County, in the spring of 2011, over 7,000 students were enrolled in a program in which core classes are taken using computers in one classroom with no teacher, only a facilitator. 125 Many of the students were not given the option to choose whether they wanted this type of instruction; they were forced to take the classes at fifty four participating school s to help Miami Dade meet the CSR mandates. 126 The CSR Amendment 127 has not only affected class size, it has also had an impact on many other district and school policies and practices. When determining the effectiveness of the CSR Amendment, 128 the effect of all of the changes caused by the class size restrictions must be considered and compared to other policy changes that could be used in place of the class size restrictions to impact student achievement. 120 Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability, "School Districts Are Reducing Class Size i n Several Ways; May Be Able to Reduce Costs," Report No. 07 29, May 2007, http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0729rpt.pdf 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 Laura Herrera, In Florida, Virtual Classrooms w ith No Teachers," The New York Times Jan uary 17, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/education/18cl assrooms.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1. 126 Ibid. 127 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 128 Id.

PAGE 79

79 CHAPTER 4 COST EFFECTIVENESS E VALUATION Introductio n The cost effective expectation of Florida's CSR policy 1 for improving student achievement was the essential purpose of this study. Although the findings in this study suggested that class size reduction efforts did not last past the initial years, 2 s ome researchers might argue that there have been studies conducted on class size reduction that resulted in student achievement gains. 3 Also, although many policies have been implemented since Florida's CSR policy 4 was put into effect in 2003, some policymak ers in Florida might suggest that the student achievement gains sinc e 2003 5 are a result of the class size reduction effort s However, even if student achievement gains could be attributed to reduced class sizes that would not signify that class size red uction is a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement. In order to answer the research question fully, it was important to not only look at the student achievement results in the literature studies on class size reduction and in Flori da 1 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 2 See for example, Norman L. Webb, Meyer, R., Gamoran, A., and Fu, Jianbin, "Participation in the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program and Performance on State Assessments at Grade 3 and Grade 4 for Three Cohorts of Students Grade 1 Students in 1996 97, 1997 98, and 1998 99," Wisconsin Center for Education Research February 9 2 004, http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu/normw/sage/S AGE%20FINAL%20REPORT%2020904.pdf; Frederick Mosteller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children 5, no. 2 (1995); Elizabeth Graue and Erica Rauscher, "Researcher Per spectives on Class Size Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12, 2009); Christopher Jespen and Rivkin, Steven, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement : The Potential Tradeoff Between Teacher Quality and Class Size ," The Jour nal of Human Resources 44, no. 1 (December 21, 2009) 3 See for example, Bruce J. Biddle and David C. Berliner, "Small Class Size and Its Effects," Educational Leadership 59, no. 5 ( 2002); David Grissmer, "Conclusion: Class Size Effects: Assessing the E vidence, Its Policy Implications, and Future Research Agenda," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, no. 2 (1999) 4 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 5 Matthew M. Chingos, "The Impact of a Universal Class Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Sta tewide Mandate," Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Papers Series August 2010, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/P DF/Papers/PEP610 03_Chingos.pdf; Foundation for Excellence in Education, "Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the Nation," 2009, http://www.excelined.org/docs/Oklahoma%20Education%20Presentation.pdf

PAGE 80

80 since the implementation of the CSR policy, but also to review the cost effectiveness for increasing student achievement of multiple education p olicies, and ultimately of Florida's CSR policy. 6 Cost Effectiveness of Educational Policies for Raising Studen t Achievement Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), 7 schools are expected to make adequate yearly progress in raising student achievement in reading and math or face a series of progressive sanctions and penalties. With the increased pressure s and demands from the high stakes tests and the limited financial resources, educators and policymakers have focused their efforts on finding the most cost effective approaches for raising student achievement in reading and math. 8 The available options a re diverse ranging from school and district approaches including rapid assessments or longer school days to statewide programs including voucher programs and charter schools. 9 A cost effectiveness analysis compares the costs and outcomes of different polic ies to help determine the most efficient course of action. 10 In the area of education, a cost effectiveness analysis assesses outcomes in educational terms such as student achievement. 11 Yeh conducted a comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis of twenty t wo different approaches for raising student achievement in reading and math. 12 For each intervention, Yeh determined 6 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 7 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002) 8 Henry M. Levin and Patrick J. McEwan, Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications (2nd ed. ) (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001); Stuart S. Yeh, "The Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches for Raising Student Achievement," Journal of Education Finance 36, no. 1 (Summer 2010) 9 Ibid. 10 Levin and McEwan, Cost Effectiveness Anal ysis: Methods and Applica tions. 11 Ibid. 12 Yeh, "Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches ."

PAGE 81

81 the annualized standard deviation effect size and divided that by the annual cost per student to determine the effectiveness cost ratio. 13 The results of Yeh's cost effectiveness ratios, compared to student achievement data and/or the costs associated with different approaches, offer interesting and valuable information for educators and policymakers to use when making decisions. 14 The twent y two approaches to increase student achievement evaluated in Yeh's study listed in order of the cost effectiveness ratio are listed in T able 4 1 on page 90 As shown in the table Yeh found rapid assessment to be the most cost effective approach. 15 Rapid assessment includes both reading and math assessment programs. Reading Assessment is "a popular program designed to encourage students to read books at appropriate levels of difficulty while alerting teachers to learning difficulties and encouraging teac hers to provide individualized tutoring or small group instruction." 16 Math Assessment is a program that "provides individualized, printed sets of math problems, a system of assessing student performance on these problems, and a scoring system in which stu dents and teachers receive rapid, frequent feedback on student performance upon completion of every set of problems." 17 Rapid assessment utilizes the advantages of technology to give teachers the ability to focus on individual tutoring and to provide feedb ack that includes general and specific strategies for improvement and assessment of higher order thinking skills. 18 The cost for rapid assessment is 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Stuart S. Yeh, "The Cost Effectiveness of Five Policies for Improving Student Achievement," American Journal of Evaluation 28 (December 1, 2007) 17 Ibid. 18 John Hattie and Helen Timperley "The Power of Feedback," Review of Educational Research 77 (2007)

PAGE 82

82 by far the least expensive compared to other approaches for improving student achievement. The annual cost per student in 2006 dollars was $9.45 in reading and $18.89 in math, adjusted for the costs of teacher training time and the upfront fixed costs associated with the program with the effectiveness cost ratio estimated as high as 0.020752 in math and 0.0285 71 in reading. 19 Yeh found charter schools to be the least cost effective approach to improving student achievement. 20 Yeh averaged the standard deviation effect sizes from three large scale studies that used charter school data from Florida, North Carolin a, and Texas. 21 The average effect size for charter schools after five years in operation was 0.009 SD in reading and 0.001 SD in math. 22 With an annual cost per student of $8,086.30, this led to a cost effectiveness ratio of 0.000001 in reading and 0.0000 00 in math. 23 Yeh's results supported research results by Bifulco and Ladd 24 and Sass 25 that showed that the effect of competition from charter schools on the performance of traditional public schools was insignificant. In addition to offering the most and least cost effective strategies for increasing student achievement, Yeh's analysis 26 provides valuable information for policymakers and educators on the many available approaches for influencing reading and math scores. One major finding is that five of t he six least expensive approaches (rapid assessment, comprehensive school reform, 19 Yeh, "Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches ." 20 Yeh, Cost Effectiveness of Five Policies ." 21 Ibid. 22 Yeh, "Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches ." 23 Ibid. 24 Robert Bifulco and Helen F. Ladd, "The Impacts of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: Evidence from North Carolina," Education Finance and Policy 1 ( Winter) 25 Tim Sass, "Charter Schools and Student Achievement in Florida," Education Finance and Policy 1 (Wi nter 2006) 26 Yeh, "Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches ."

PAGE 83

83 cross age tutoring, computer assisted instruction, and longer school day) had the top five cost effectiveness ratios, 27 thus indicating that large costs are not necessary to r aise student achievement. Also supporting this finding, on the opposite end, four of the five most expensive approaches (high quality preschool, additional school year, voucher programs, and charter schools) had the lowest cost effective ratios. 28 Another finding specific to Florida is that many of the large scale policy efforts the state has implemented including voucher programs, charter schools, and class size reduction efforts led to cost effectiveness ratios in the bottom half of the twenty two approa ches studied with voucher programs and charter schools representing the two least cost effective strategies for having an impact on student achievement. 29 Cost Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction The cost effectiveness ratio for class size reduction fell just below the middle of the twenty two approaches evaluated in Yeh's analysis. 30 The annual inflation adjusted cost per stud ent to reduce class size from twenty four to a maximum of seventeen students per class was $1,379.28, 31 resulting in cost effectiven ess ratios 32 of 0.000065 in math and 0.000075 in reading according to the results of one study 33 and 0.000094 in math and 0.000087 in reading according 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Robert Reichardt, "The Cost of Class Size Reduction: Advice for Policymakers," RAND Graduate School 2000, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_disser tations/2006/RGSD156.pdf 32 Yeh, "Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches ." 33 Barbara Nye, Larry V. Hedges, and Spyros Konstantopoulos, "Are Effects of Small Classes Cumulative? Evidence from a Tennessee Experiment," Journal of Educational Research 94 (2001)

PAGE 84

84 to another study. 34 Yeh integrated Reichardt's cost analysis 35 with estimates of student achievement result s from the Tennessee STAR experiment to estimate the cost effectiveness of class size reduction. 36 Since the Tennessee STAR Project was a controlled study involving only 11,600 students and 1,330 teachers 37 at a total cost of $12 million, 38 the cost effectiv eness of this study was far from the results of large scale statewide efforts in California and Florida. 39 Estimates done by Aos, Miller, and Mayfield 40 on the cost effectiveness of class size reduction that include studies other than STAR have much smalle r cost effectiveness ratios than Yeh's estimates. Aos, M iller, and Mayfield analyzed thirty eight recent studies on class size reduction, and based on their findings, estimated that each one student reduction in class size increases student achievement by 0.019 SD in grades K 2 and 0.007 SD in grades 3 6, for an average of 0.013 SD. 41 This study found that each one student reduction in class size cost $217 per student per year, leading to a cost effectiveness ratio of 0.000060. 42 34 Jeremy D. Finn, Susan B. Gerber, Charles M. Achilles, and Jayne Boyd Zaharias, "The Enduring Effects of Small Classes," Teachers College Record 103 (2001) 35 Robert Reichardt, "The Cost of Class Size Reduction: Advice for Policymakers," RAND Graduate School 2000, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/2006/RGSD156.pdf 36 Yeh, "Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches ." 37 Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, "What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR?," Harris School Working Paper, Aug ust 2006, http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications/working papers/pdf/wp_06_06.pdf 38 Frederick Mosteller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children 5, no. 2 (1995) 39 Matthew M. Chingos, "The False Promise of Class Size Reduction," Center for American Progress April 2011, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/class_s ize.pdf. 40 Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Jim Mayfield, "Benefits and Costs of K 12 Educational Policies: Evidence Based E ffects of Class Size Reductio ns and Full Day Kindergarten," Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2007 http://www.scribd.com/doc/11202361/Benefits and Costs of K12 Educational Policies EvidenceBased Effects of Class Size Reductions and FullDay Kin dergarten 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.

PAGE 85

85 California's large, statewi de class size reduction policy 43 that reduced K 3 class sizes by about 10 students (from 30 to 20, on average) is difficult to evaluate because statewide tests were not administered until after the program began. 44 The most detailed study 45 of the multi bill ion dollar California state policy found that it had modest eff ects on student achievement of 6% to 11% of a year of learning, some of which were offset by the hiring of inexperienced teachers to lead newly created classes, particularly in the first few ye ars of the policy. 46 Other unintended negative consequences of the California policy included an in crease in class size in grades four and five 47 and the use of multi age classrooms. 48 Hanushek compiled 269 estimat es of class size effects from fifty nine stu dies, and found that only 11 % of these estimates indicated positive effects of smaller classes. 49 Hanushek points out that the issue is not whether there exists any evidence that class size reduction ever matters 50 Surely class size reductions are benefic ial in specific circumstances -for specific groups of students, subject matters, and teachers. 51 He suggests that the broad reductions in class size 43 Cal. Educ. Code § 52120 52128.5 44 Chingos, False Promise of Class Size Reduction ." 45 Christopher Jeps en and Rivkin, Steven, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement : The Potential Tradeoff Between Teacher Quality and Class Size ," The Journal of Human Resources 44, no. 1 (December 21, 2009) 46 Ibid. 47 David Sims, "Crowding Peter to Educate Paul: Lessons from a Class Size Reduction Externality," Economics of Education Review 28 (2009) 48 David Sims, "A Strategic Respons e to Class Size Reduction: Combination Classes and Student Achievement in California," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27, no. 3 (2008) 49 Eric A. Hanushek, "The Failure of Input Based Schooling Policies," Economic Journal 113, no. 485 (2003) 50 Eric A. Hanushek, "Evidence, Politics, and the Class Size Debate," in The Class Size Debate ed. Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute, 2002, http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/classsizedebate.full%20volume.pdf 51 Ibid.

PAGE 86

86 across all schools, subject matters, and grades is not effective -especially considering the cost comp ared to other reforms. 52 Chingos 53 also suggests that the costs associated with class size reduction are not worth the benefits, even assuming the largest class size effects. Assuming even the largest class size effects in the research literature, such as th e STAR results that indicate that a 32% reduction in class size i ncreased achievement by about 15% of a year after one year, CSR will still fail this test because it is so expensive. Reducing class size by one third, from twenty four to sixt een students, requires hiring 50% more teachers. Depending on how much extra space schools have, new facilities may need to be built to accommodate the additional classes. 54 The costs associated with class size reduction are as certain as the benefits are uncertain. 55 A school that pays teachers $50,000 per year would save $833 per student in teacher salary costs by increasing class size from fifteen to twenty students. 56 Chingos points out that school finances are finite, so the right way to think about every dollar sp ent is not "will it have a positive effect?" but "is this the best possible way to spend this dollar?" 57 Although some advocates of class size reduction argue a policy that produces any benefit is worth the cost, Chingos suggests that is only true if there are no alternative policies. 58 52 Ibid. 53 Chingos, False Promise of Class Size Reduction ." 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.

PAGE 87

87 Cost Effectiveness of Florida's Class Size Amendment In his paper "The False Promise of Class Size Reduction ," Chingos 59 shared his research on class size reduction which illustrated that the student achievement results have not lived up to t he promises of CSR efforts. Chingos discussed the fact that Florida has spent about twenty billion since 2002 reducing class size in every grade from kindergarten through high school. 60 Florida voters passed the CSR Amendment 61 in 2002, six years after California started its CSR 62 policy for K 3 in 1996. A comprehensive study 63 on California's CSR efforts, completed in September of 2002, prior to Florida's vote to approve the CSR amendment, showed that there were questions about the large scale statewide effort for class size reduction. Florida voters still approved the amendment, 64 and Florida's policy set mandatory requirements, unlike California's CSR policy, and the Florida mandate set class size limits for K 12 rather than just K 3. T he mandatory component for all grade levels, K 12, has made Florida's policy even more expensive to implement than California's per year with a tot al of over twenty one billion from 2003 2012 65 At an average cost of over $2.3 billion per year, 66 the stude nt achievement gains need ed to be major to match the huge expense associated with the CSR policy. However, studies, such 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1. 62 Cal. Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996 63 CSR Research Consortium, George W. Bohrnstedt and Stecher, Brian M, eds., "What We Have Learned About Class Size Reduction in California," September 2002, http://www.classize.org/techrepor t/CSRYear4_final.pdf 64 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1. 65 Florida Department of Education, Class Size Reduction Amendment." http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 66 Ibid.

PAGE 88

88 as the one done by Normone and Ilon, 67 on Florida's CSR policy indicate d that the benefits have not been worth the expenses. Reducing overall class sizes in the state of Florida is an enormous financial undertaking. If the intention of voters was to put in place a public policy that improved the quality of K 12 education in the state, the question seems obvious as to why class size was the intervention proposed for an amendment. No study we found addressed whether CSR was the most cost effective educational expenditure for raising achievement scores in Florida, much less whether it was the most cost effective way to spend taxpayer doll ars across other sectors. 68 The research findings by Normone and Ilon indicte d that CSR wa s not a cost effective means of raising student achievement as measured by test scores in the state of Florida. 69 Their research showed that the qu ality and mix of st affing yielded the same results at a substantially reduced cost. 70 An in depth study done in 2011 by Chingos a lso show ed no evidence that Florida's CSR policy has had any impact on test scores in grades four through eight and no impact on third grade score s which would be affected by class sizes in K 3. 71 Chingos compared students in Florida who were more affected by the CSR policy because they attended schools or districts that were much larger than the maximum allowed class size levels (treated schools/d istricts) with students who were less affected by the CSR policy because they attended schools or districts that were already in compliance (comparison schools/districts). 72 The results from both the district and school level analyses indicate d that the ef fects of mandated CSR in Florida were small at 67 Anthony H. Normone and Lynn Ilon, "Cost Effective School Inputs: Is Class Size Reduction the Best Educa tional Expenditure for Florida? Educational Policy 20, no. 2 (May 2006) 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Chingos, Impact of Class Size Policy." 72 Ibid.

PAGE 89

89 best. The estimates from the district level analysis indicated that after three years of implementation, student achievement in the treated districts was 0.035 standard deviations (statistically insignifican t) higher in math and no higher in reading than it would have been had these districts received equivalent resources without a CSR mandate. 73 The results a t the school level indicate d that, after three years of implementation, math and reading scores at th e treated schools were either no different from or modestly lower than they would have been had these schools received less funding per pupil and not been required to reduce class size. 74 The results from various class size studies have shown that "across the board reductions in class size at the state level are likely to yield disappointing results, as was the case in California and Florida." 75 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Chingos, False Promise of Class Size Reduction ."

PAGE 90

90 Table 4 1 Strategies to increase student achievement based on cost effectiveness r atio 76 1) Rapid Assessmen t 2) Comprehensive School Reform 3) Cross Age Tutoring 4) Computer Assisted Instruction 5) Longer School Day 6) Teacher Education 7) Teacher Experience 8) Teacher Salary 9) Summer School 10) Rigorous Math Classes 11) Value Added Teacher Assessme nt 12) Class Size Reduction 13) 10% Increase in Spending 14) Full Day Kindergarten 15) Head Start 16) High Standards Exit Exam 17) NBPTS Teacher Certification 18) Higher Licensure Test Scores 19) High Quality Preschool 20) Additional School Year 21) Voucher Programs 22) Charter Schools Reprinted by permission f rom Journal of Education Fi nance Vol. 36, No. 1, Summer 2010 (Page 63, Figure 1) 76 Stuart S. Yeh, "The Cost Ef fectiveness of 22 Approaches for Raising Student Achievement ," Journal of Education Finance 36, no. 1 (Summer 2010) This figure was originally published in Journal of Education Finance Vol. 36, No. 1, Summer 2010.

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Purpose The purpose of this study was to answer the research question: In the state of Florida, is class size reduction a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement? Th e process of exploring this question included reviewing research studies and policies regarding class size reduction, analyzing the impact Florida's CSR policy 1 has had on student achievement scores, and considering the cost effectiveness of Florida's CSR policy 2 and alternative approaches for improving student achievement. The research studies on class size reduction have resulted in mixed findings on the student achievement i mpact with limited to no effect beyond the initial years 3 and at an incredible e xpense. 4 In the state of Florida, although there has been an increase in student achievement 5 since the implementation of Florida's CSR policy, 6 there has been no 1 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 2 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 3 See for example, Norman L. Webb, Meyer, R., Gamoran, A., and Fu, Jianbin, "Participation in the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program and Performance on State Assessments at Grade 3 and Grade 4 for Three Cohorts of Student s Grade 1 Students in 1996 97, 1997 98, and 1998 99," Wisconsin Center for Education Research February 9 2004, http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu/normw/sage/S AGE%20FINAL%20REPORT%2020904.pdf; Frederick Mosteller, "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Earl y School Grades," The Future of Children 5, no. 2 (1995); Elizabeth Graue and Erica Rauscher, "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12, 2009); Christopher Jespen and Rivkin, Steven, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement : The Potential Tradeoff Between Teacher Quality and Class Size ," The Journal of Human Resources 44, no. 1 (December 21, 2009) 4 Louis Freeberg and Cabrera, Hugo, "Less Money for Class Size Reduction Under Schwarzenegge r Budget," January 12 2010, http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/less money class size reduction under schwarzenegger budget 820; Florida Department Of Education, "Class Size Reduction Amendment," h ttp://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 5 Matthew M. Chingos, "The Impact of a Universal Class Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Statewide Mandate," Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Papers Series August 2010, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/P DF/Papers/PEP610 03_Chingos.pdf; Foundation for Excellence in Education, "Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the Nation," 2009, http://www.excelined.org/docs/Oklahoma%20Education%20Presentation.pdf 6 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03.

PAGE 92

92 evidence to suggest that reduced class sizes have led to student achievement gains. The res ults from a district and school level analyses conducted by Chingos indicated that the CSR mandates in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non cognitive outcomes. 7 Overall, the research on class size reduction and an analysis of Florida' s CSR policy indicated that class size had little to no effect on student achievement. 8 T hus, t here is no evidence to suggest that increased student achievement i s a reasonable expectation of class size reduction and there is no evidence to suggest that the results would be different in Florida than in class size reduction efforts in other studies, states, and even in other parts of the world. Even if the research showed that class size reduction led to increased student achievement, the research on clas s size reduction demonstrated that the cost of implementing a statewide program such as Florida's CSR policy 9 was not cost effective. Summary: Sizing Up Florida's Class Size Re duction Policy Class size reduction (CSR) is very popular with parents, teach ers, and the public with 77 % of Americans surveyed indicating that additional educational dollars should be spent on smaller classes rather than higher teacher salaries. 10 Policymakers across the nation have enacted CSR initiatives at costs in the billions of dollars. California allocated $1.5 billion per year in the late 1990s to reduce class size in the early grades. 11 The state of Florida has spent over $21 7 Matthew M. Chingos, Impact of Class Size Policy." 8 Webb, Meyer, Gamoran, and Fu, "Participation in SAGE Program;" Mosteller, Tennesse Study of Class Size;" Graue and Rauscher, "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size ;" Jespen and Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement ." 9 Fla. Stat. § 1003.0 3. 10 Education Next Program on Education Policy and Governance 2007 Survey, http://educationnext.org/files/EN PEPG_Complete_Polling_Results.pdf 11 U.S. Department of Education, "Reducing Class Size," November 1999, http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassS ize/localsuccess.html

PAGE 93

93 billion since 2002 reducing class size in every grade from kindergarten through high school. 12 Th e federal government also has joined in the CSR efforts by providing $1.2 to $1.6 billion per year from 1999 to 2001 13 until the program was absorbed into Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 14 Parents, teachers, and policymakers have embraced C SR as a strategy to improve the quality of public education, although, there is surprisingly little high quality research on the effects of class size on student achievement. 15 Chingos noted that credible evidence that does exist is not consistent, and the re are many low quality studies with mixed results. 16 The most encouraging results for CSR come from the STAR Project conducted in the 1980s, which found that a large reduction in class size in the early grades increased test scores, particularly among low income and African American students. 17 However, evaluations of CSR policies in California 18 and Florida 19 have yielded results that are far less positive due to additional factors when implement ing CSR on a large scale basis. Large scale CSR policies clear ly fail any cost 12 Florida Department of Education. Class Size Reduction Amendment." http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 13 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105 277, 112 Sat. 2681 (1999). 14 20 U. S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002) 15 Matthew M. Chingos, "The False Promise of Class Size Reduction," Center for American Progress April 2011, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/class_size. pdf. 16 Ibid. 17 Tennessee State Department of Education ," The State of Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990," http: //www.heros inc.org/summary.pdf. 18 California Department of Education, "K 3 Class Size Reduction Program H istory and Summarized Data," Augu st 5 2010, http://www .cde.ca.gov/ls/cs/k3/facts.asp/. 19 Chingos, Impact of Class Size Policy."

PAGE 94

94 benefit test because they require enormous costs and produce student achievement gains that are modest at best. 20 Since the start of the 2003 2004 school year, Florida's CSR policy has led to expenses exceeding $19 billion in operational co sts and $2.5 billion in facilities. 21 The operating funds have increased every year, starting with $468,198,634 during the 2003 2004 year, and reaching $2,927,464,879 during the 2011 2012 year. 22 The state has spent over $2.5 billion in facilities from 200 3 2008, with the most expensive year during 2006 2007, the first year of the school level requirements, with a total of $1,100,000,000. 23 The state has spent over $21.6 billion implementing the CSR policy 24 At a price tag of more than $21.6 billion, the s tudent achievement impact should be substantial; however, as shown in a study by Chingos, the results from both the district and school level analyses indicate d that the mandated CSR in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non cognitive outc omes. 25 Current Status of Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment In 2010, Florida l egislators tried to relax the class size restrictions enforced with the 2002 Amendment; 26 however, a change to the state constitution in 2006 affected the attempted change. On November 7, 2006, voters in Florida passed an amendment requiring a 60 % affirmative vote 27 to approve initiated constitutional amendments instead of the 50% that was required when 20 Chingos, False Promise of Class Size Reduction ." 21 Florida Department o f Education "Class Size Reduction Amendment," http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/ 22 Ib id. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Chingos, Impact of Class Size Policy." 26 Florida Amendment 8 (2010) 27 Fla. Const, Art XI § 5

PAGE 95

95 the Class Size Amendment 28 was passed in 2002. The passage of the statewi de change to 60% for amendments affected the attempt to relax the 2002 Class Size Reduction Amendment with the 2010 Florida Class Size Amendment 8. 29 The 2010 amendment received the majority of the votes wi th 54.49% but failed to reach the new 60 % require ment. 30 Fifty nine of the sixty seven counties approved the amendm ent, but with only 54.49% of the total votes, the amendment did not pass. 31 Since Amendment 8 failed to achieve the minimum 60% approval rating, the original class size requirements remained and in January 2011, Florida education officials issued forty three million in penalties to school districts and charter schools for violations in class size limits. 32 The 2011 Florida l egislators amended Section 1003.03 of the Florida Statutes 33 to provid e class size flexibility to schools that enroll students after the October student membership survey. The change allowed schools to assign up to three students in grades K through 3, and up to five additional students in fourth through twelfth after the O ctober survey. 34 The change required all districts that add additional students after October to develop a plan that provides how the school will be in full compliance by the next October student survey. 35 28 Fla. Const, Art IX § 1 29 Florida Amendment 8 (2010) 30 "Florida Department of State Division of Elections," November 2, 2010, http://eni ght.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2010&DATAMODE=/. 31 Florida Department of State Division of Elections, "Requiring Broader Public Support for Constitutional Amendments or Revisions," http://enight.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?El ectionDate=11/7/2006&DATAMODE=. 32 Ballotpedia January 10, 2011, "Florida Class Size, Amendment 8 (2010)," http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Class_Size,_Amendment_8_(2010)/. 33 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 34 Florida Department of Education, "2011 Cla ss Size," http://www.fldoe.org/ClassSize/pdf/csfaqfinal.pdf. 35 Ibid.

PAGE 96

96 The 2011 Florida legislators also amended subsectio ns fourteen and fifteen of Section 1003.01 of the Florida Statutes to re define core curricular courses. (14) "Core curricula courses" means: a) Courses in language arts/reading, mathematics, social studies, and science in pre kindergarten through gra de three, excluding any extracurricular courses pursuant to subsection (15) ; b) Courses in grades four through eight in subjects that are measured by state assessment at any grade level and courses required for middle school promotion, excluding any extra curricular courses pursuant to subsection (15) ; c) Courses in grades nine through twelve in subjects that are measured by state assessment at any grade level and courses that are specifically identified by name in statute as required for high school grad uation and that are not measured by state assessment, excluding any extracurricular courses pursuant to subsection (15); d) Exceptional student education courses; and e) English for Speakers of Other Languages courses. 36 (15) "Extracurricular course s" means all courses that are not defined as "core curricula courses," which may i nclude, but are not limited to, physical education, fine arts, p erforming fine arts, career education, and course that may result in college credit. T he t erm is limited i n meaning and used for the sole purpose of designating classes that are not subject to the maximum class size requirements established in Section 1, Article IX o f the State Constitution. 37 Overall, the legislative changes created a more stringent inter pretation of the "core" curriculum, 38 which reduced the number of classes restricted under the Class Size 39 mandate. According to Florida statute, 40 core courses now include only language arts, reading, math and science in kindergarten through third grade; w riting, reading, math and science in fourth through eighth grades; and in high school, courses measured by state assessments or specifically required for graduation, such as Algebra 1. The legislative changes to the Florida statute, 41 reduced the 36 Fla. Stat. § 1003.01 [emphasis added] 37 Id. [emphasis added] 38 Id. 39 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 40 Fla. Stat. § 1003.01 41 Id.

PAGE 97

97 number of "core" classrooms by hundreds by defining many courses as "electives" including foreign language, advanced placement, fine arts, and other voluntary classes. Although the 2011 Florida Legislature made changes to relax the class size restrictions, Florida still allocated $2,927,464,879 in operating funds for the 2011 2012 year to implement the CSR policy bringing the total funds to $21,646,598,764 since the class size restrictions were first enforced in 2003. 42 The billions of dollars spent on implementin g the CSR policy in Florida was the basis for this study which analyzed the cost effectiveness of this very expensive public policy. Plausible Ramifications The purpose of this study was to examine data from Florida's CSR policy 43 as well as other CSR resea rch studies and state policies, with the goal of understanding if class size reduction were a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement. To fully comprehend this question, this dissertation examined the pertinent history, political tren ds, and research data concerning class size reduction efforts throughout the nation and specifically Florida's CSR policy. 44 This study offered a body of research to gain a greater understanding of class size reduction policy efforts across the country as related to Florida's CSR mandate. 45 The focus of this study was to help policymakers and voters in Florida decide if using limited resources for class size reduction were a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement. After examining rel evant literature on Florida's CSR policy 46 and the effects of its implementation the 42 Florida Department o f Education, "Class Size Reduction Amendme nt," http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. 43 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 44 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 45 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03. 46 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03.

PAGE 98

98 student achievement results as related to Florida's CSR policy, and other potential strategies to improve student achievemen t, this study c learly showed that Florida's CSR policy is not a cost effective expectation for improving student achievement. Recommendations for Florida Policymakers T he popularity of class size reduction makes it difficult for policymakers to pursue more cost effective policies. However, as shown by the nearly 55 % who voted in Florida to scale back the CSR policy, as parents, teachers, and the public understand the tradeoffs with other policies, CSR efforts become less popular. 47 Florida l egislators have already relaxed the class size restrictions by re defining core curricular courses in the Florida statutes. 48 Moving forward, state policymakers need to consider more cost effective approaches for increasing student achievement. Yeh found rapid assessment to be the most cost effective approach for i ncreasing student achievement. 49 Rapid assessment computer programs are just one example of many different technology enhanced strategies to affect student achievement. Technology enhanced education is still in its infancy, so its potential is not clear, but the i mportant point is that Florida l egislators and policymakers need to think creatively about ways to reallocate resources to get the most out of every dollar. 50 With the current economic recession, schools must learn to do more with less. CSR polic ies use up valuable financial resources making it difficult for schools to target the students most in need, and hard to pursue cost effective policies that benefit all children. 47 "Florida Department of State Division of Elections," November 2, 2010, http://enight.elections.myflorida.com/Index. asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2010&DATAMODE= /. 48 Fla. Stat. § 1003.01 49 Stuart S. Yeh, "The Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches for Raising Student Achievement," Journal of Education Finance 36, no. 1 (Summer 2010) 50 Chingos, False Promise of Class Size Reduc tion ."

PAGE 99

99 APPENDIX A CITED CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES, AND CASES United States Codes 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002) Statutes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Section 14005 6, Title XIV, (Public Law 111 5) Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994) Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105 277, 112 S t at. 2681 (1999). Alabama Alabama State Board of Education, Approved Teacher/Pupil Ration Resolution, September 11, 1997, http://alsde.edu/boe/teacherpupil.doc (accessed September 18, 2011). Arkansas Arkansas Department of Edu cation, Rules Governing Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public School and School Districts, 10.02 Class Size and Teaching Load. California Bills California Senate, 1996, SB 1777 California Senate, 2004, SB 311 California Senate, 2008, SB 1112 Codes Cal. Educ. Code § 52120 52128.5 Statutes Cal. Chapter 163, Statutes of 1996 Cal. Chapter 164, Statutes of 1996 Cal. Chapter 910, Statutes of 2004 Delaware Codes Del. Code Ann. tit. § 1705A Florida Bill Florida Senate, 2011, SB 1466 Cases Bush v. Holmes 9 19 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006). Florida Education Association v. Florida Department of State 2010 CA 2537 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2010).

PAGE 100

100 Florida Education Association v. Florida Department of State No. 1D10 4808, 2010 CA 2537 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2010). Florida Educatio n Association v. Florida Department of State SC10 1784 (Fla. 2010). Constitution Art IX § 1 Art. XI § 5 Statutes Fla. Stat. § 1002.33 Fla. Stat. § 1002.39 Fla. Stat. § 1002.395 Fla. Stat. § 1003.01 Fla. Stat. § 1003.03 Fla. Stat. § 2003.391 (2003) Flori da Amendment 8 (2010) Florida House. 1999. A+ Plan. Florida Legislative Session, H.R. 751, 753, 755. Georgia Rules and Regulations Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 160 1 3 .02 Hawaii Policies Bo ard of Education, State of Hawai i, Department of Education, Board of Ed ucation Policies, Policy 2237: Class Size, http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/POL1.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479 d/ 6052f4516c4a68eb0a256f720001ae21?OpenDocument Idaho Codes Idaho Admin. Code § 08.02.02.110 Indiana Codes Ind. Admin. Code tit. 511, r. 1 4 1 Ind. Code § 20 43 9 Iowa Codes Iowa Admin. Code 281 16.3 (256C) Kentuc k y Statutes Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 157.360 Louisiana Statutes La. Rev. Stat. Ann § 17:174 Maine Statutes Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20 A § 4502 Maryland Codes

PAGE 101

101 Md. Regs. Code tit. 13A, § 06.02.05 Massachusetts Codes Mass. Regs. Code tit. 603, § 8.01 Mississippi Miss. Reg. 36 000 071 Miss. Code Ann. § 37 151 77 Miss. Reg. 36 000 001 Mississippi Public School Accountability Standards, 2008 http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/accred/2008%20final_Account_Stds.pdf Missouri Accreditation St andards for Public School Districts in Missouri Class, size/Assigned Enrollments 2.1, http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/Fourth%20Cycle%20Standards%20and%2 0Indicators.pdf Montana Regulations Mont. Admin. R. 10.55.712; Mont. Admin R. 10.55.713 Nev ada Statutes Nev. Rev. Stat. § 388.700; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 388.720 New Hampshire Regulations N.H. Admin. R. Ed. 306.17 New Jersey Codes N.J. Admin. Code § 6A:13A 4.3 New Mexico Statutes N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22 10A 20 New York Codes and Regulations N.Y. Comp. C odes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 151 1.3 North Carolina Statutes N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C 301 North Dakota Codes N.D. Admin. Code § 67 19 01 36 Oklahoma Codes Okla. Admin. Code § 210:35 5 41

PAGE 102

102 Okla. Admin. Code § 210:35 5 42 Statutes Okla. Stat. tit. 70 § 18 113.1 P ennsylvania Codes Pa. Admin. Code § 4.20 Rhode Island Codes Code R.I. Rules § 08 060 002 South Carolina Codes & Regulations S.C. Code Regs. § 43 205 S.C. Code Regs. § 43 231 S.C. Code Regs. § 43 232 S.C. Code Regs. § 43 234 Tennessee Codes & Regulations Tenn. Code Ann. § 49 6 104 Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. § 0520 1 3 .03 Tenn. Code Ann. § 49 6 3110 Texas Codes Tex. Educ. Code § 25.112 Vermont Codes Code Vt. Rules § 22 000 003 (2120.8.2) Virginia Codes Va. Code Ann.§ 22.1 253.13:2 West Virginia Codes W. Va. Code of State Rules § 126 28 8; W. Va. Code § 18 5 18A Wisconsin Statutes Wis. Stat. § 118.43

PAGE 103

103 LIST OF REFERENCES Albers, Katherine. "Collier Schools Look to Hire 500 Teachers," Naples Daily News April 26, 2011, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/apr/2 6/collier schools look hire 500 teachers wednesday/ (accessed June 3, 2011). Answers.com. "Kendrick Meek." http://www.answers.com/topic/kendrick meek/ Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Jim Mayfield. "Benefits and Costs of K 12 Educational Policies: Evidence Based Effects of Class Size Reductio ns and Full Day Kindergarten," Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2007 http://www.scribd.com/doc/11202361/Benefits and Costs of K12 Educational Policies EvidenceBased Effects of Class Size Reductions and Ful lDay Kindergarten Ballotpedia "Florida Class Size, Amendment 8 (2010)." January 10, 2011. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_ Class_Size,_Amendment_8_(2010)/. Biddle, Bruce J., and David C. Berliner. "Small Class Size and Its Effects." Educatio nal Leadership 59, no. 5 ( 2002 ): 12 23. Bifulco, Robert and Helen F. Ladd. "The Impacts of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: Evidence from North Carolina August 2004, Education Finance and Policy 1 ( Winter ): 50 90. Blatchford, Peter, Anthony Russe ll Paul Bassett, Penelope Brown, and Clare Martin. "The Effect of Class Size on the Teaching of Pupils Aged 7 11 Years," School Effectiveness and School Improvement 18, no. 2 (June 2007) "The Role and Effects of Teaching Assistants in English Prima ry Schools (Years to 6) 2000 2003 Results from the CSPAR KS2 Project," November 2004, http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1366/1/Blatchf ord2007teachingassistants5.pdf. Blatchford, Peter, Harvey Goldstein, and Peter Mortimore. "Research on C lass Size Effects: A Crit ique of Methods and a Way F orward," International Jo u rnal of Educational Research 29 ( 1998): 691 710. Blatchford, Peter The Class Size Debate: Is Small Better? Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003. "Class Size," Education.com, http://www.educati on.com/reference/article/class size/ "Class Size." In Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia ed. Anderman, Eric. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009.

PAGE 104

104 Brevard Public Schools, "Class Size Amendment ," http://www.brevard.k12.fl.us/portal s/community/Class_Size_2011.htm California Department of Education "K 3 Class Size Reduction Program H istory and Summarized Data," August 5 2010, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/cs/k3/facts.asp (accessed June 28, 2011). Center on Education Policy "How Many Schools Have Not Made Adequate Yearly Progress," April 2011, www.cep dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Usher_Report_ AYP C enter on Education Policy, "State Polic y Differences Greatly Impact AYP Numbers," April 2011, www.cep dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=KoberRiddle... AYP ... Center for Investigative Reporting "FAQ: How Class Size Reduction Works in California," November 19 2009, http://centerforinvestig ativereporting.org/articles/faqhowclasssizereductionworksincalifor nia/ Chingos, Matthew. "Th e Impact of a Universal Class Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Statewide Mandate," Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Papers Series August 2010, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEP610 03_Chingos.pdf. Coffins Educ ation Center. "How Smaller Class Size Affects Student Achievement: A Literature Review of the STAR Project and Other Studies," December 20, 2010, http://www.coffinseducationcenter.com/?p=218. Coleman, Matt. "Florida Gubernatorial Candidates Back Class S ize Referendum," The Florida Times Union June 23 2010, http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2010 06 23/story/florida governor candidates bac k changes class size amendment/. Council for Education Policy Research and Improvement "Proposed Constitutional A men dment: Class Size Reduction," http://www.cepri.state.fl.us/pdf/Class%20Size%20Summary .pdf. Council for Education Policy Research, and Improvement "The Unintended Consequences of the Class Size Reduction Constitutional Amendment," October 18, 2005, h ttp://www.cepri.state.fl.us/pdf/Collateral Class Final Draft for Oct meeting.pdf. CSR Research Consortium, George W. Bohrns tedt, and Brian M. Stecher, eds. "What We Have Learned About Class Size Reduction in California," September 2002, http://www.classiz e.org/techreport/CSRYear4_final.pdf

PAGE 105

105 Dorko, Kathryn, and Sarah D. Sparks. "Setting Class Size Limits," Education Week 30, no. 13, (2010), http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/13class_size_map.html EdSource "Class Size Reduction (CSR)," http://w ww.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_csr.html. Education Next Program on Education Policy and Governance 2007 Survey, http://educationnext.org/files/EN PEPG_Complete_Polling_Results.pdf Education Trust "Don't Turn Back the Clock," November 18, 2003, http://www. edtrust.org/dc/press room/press release/don%E2%80%99t turn back the clock%E2%80%9D over 100 african american and latino superint Education Week "Setting Class Limits," November 24, 2010, http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/12class_size_map.ht ml. "Class Size ," September 10, 2004, http://www.ed week.org/ew/issues/class size/. "No Child Left Behind," September 21, 2004, http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no child left behind /. Ferguson, Ronald F. "Paying for Public Education: New Evid ence on How and Why Money Matters." Harvard Journal on Legislation 28, no. 2 (1991): 465 498. Finn, Jeremy D. Class Size and Students at Risk: What is Known? What is Next? ( Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research an d Improvement, National Institute on the Education of At Risk Students, 1998). "Missing the Mark." Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 3 (November 2002): 227 229. ., Susan B. Gerber, Charles M. Achilles, and Jayne Boyd Zaharias. "The Enduring Effects of Small Classes." Teachers College Record 103 (2001): 145 183. Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools. "Charter School Law and Compliance," 2008, h ttp://www.floridacharterschools.org/public/charterschoollawandcompliance.asp Florida Departme nt of Education Office of Policy Research. "The Relationship of School and Class Size with Student Achievement in Florida: An Analysis of Statewide Data," (1998). Florida Departme nt of Education. "2009 10 Florida Education Finance Program," Florida DOE Information Databa se Workshop Summer 2009, http://www.fldoe.org/eias/databaseworkshop/ppt/fefp.ppt.

PAGE 106

1 06 "2010 11 Class Size Reduction Summary ," http://www.fldoe.org/board/meetings/2011_01_18/classred. pdf. 2011 Class Size ," http://www.fldoe.org/ClassSize/pdf/csfaqfin al.pdf "Charter School Programs," August 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/charter_schools/files/fast_facts_ch arter_ schools.pdf. "Charter School Programs," August 2010. "Class Size Reduction i n Florida's Public Schools Questio ns And Answers August 2010, http://www.fldoe.org/ClassSize/pdf/cfaqfinal.pdf. Class Size Reduction Amendment." http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. "Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program FAQs," http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC /faqs.asp "FTC Scholarship Program," July 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC/files/ctc_fast_facts.pdf "Mc Kay Scholarship Program FAQs," http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/faqs. asp. "McKay Scholarship Program," http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/files/Fast_Facts_McKay.pdf Number of Florida Schools Earning A's Climbs to All Time High," June 18, 2009, http://www.fldoe.org/news/2009/2009_06_18.asp "Opportunity Scho larship Pr ogram," August 2010, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/osp/files/Fast_Facts_OSP.pdf Florida Department of State Division of Elections. November 2, 2010, http://enight.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2010&DATAMODE = /. Florida's Am endment to Reduce Class Size," http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initde tail.asp?account=34393&seqnum=1. Requiring Broader Public Support for Constitutional Amendments or Revisions," http://enight.elections.myflorida.com/Index.as p?E lectionDate=11/7/2006&DATAMODE =.

PAGE 107

107 The Florida Times Union "Florida Gubernatorial Candidates Back Class Size Referendum," June 23, 2010, http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2010 06 23/story/florida governor candidates bac k changes class size amendment/ "Yes on Amendment 8," October 10, 2010, http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/fl class size amendment 8 editorial t20101010,0,5124117.story/ Foundation for Excellence in Education "Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the N ation," 2009, http://www.excelined.org/docs/Oklahoma %20Education%20Presentation.pdf. Freeberg Louis, and Hugo Cabrera. "Less Money for Class Size Reduction Under Schwarzenegger Budget," January 12 2010, http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/less money c lass size reduction under schwarzenegger budget 820 Glass, Gene V., and Mary Lee Smith. 1978, "Meta Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class Size and Achievement," San Francisco: Far West Laboratory of Educational Research and Development, http: //www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED168129.pdf ., Leonard S. Cahen, Mary L. Smith, and Nikola N. Filby. School Class Size: Research and Policy (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982). Goldstein, Harvey, and Peter Blatchford. "Class Size and Educational Achievement: A R eview of Methodology with Particular Reference to Study Design," British Educational Research Journal 24, no. 3 (1998): 255 268. Graue, Elizabeth, and Erica Rauscher. "Researcher Perspectives on Class Size Education." Education Policy Analysis Archives 17, no. 9 (May 12 2009): 1 26 Graue, Elizabeth, Kelly Hatch, Kalpana Rao, and Denise Oen, "The wisdom of Class Size Reduction," American Educational Research Journal, 44, no. 3, (2007): 670 700. Grissmer, David. "Class Size Effects: Assessing the Evidence, Its Policy Implications, and Future Research Agendas," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, no. 2 (1999): 231 248. "Conclusion: Class Size Effects: Assessing the Evidence, Its Policy Implications, and Future Research Agenda." Educationa l Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, no. 2 (1999): 231 248. Hanushek, Eric A "Evidence, Politics, and the Class Size Debate." In The Class Size Debate ed. Mishel, Lawrence and Richard Rothstein. : Economic Policy Institute, 2002.

PAGE 108

108 "Some Findings from an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and from Other Investigations of Class Size Effects," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, no. 2, Special Issue: Class Size Issues and New Findings, (Summer 1999): 143 163. "Th e Evidence on Class Size," Wallis Institute of Political Economy, University of Rochester, 1998, http://www.wallis.rochester.edu/WallisPapers/wallis_10.pdf "The Failure of Input Based Schooling Policies." Economic Journal 113, no. 485 (2003): F64 F98 Harris, Doug and David Plank. "Making Policy Choices: Is Class Size Reduction the Best Alternative?." North Central Regional Education Laboratory (September 12 2000) http://education.msu.edu/epc/forms/choices/pdf. Hattie, John and Helen Timperley "The Power of Feedback." Review of Educational Research 77 (2007): 81 112. Health & Education Research Operative Services, Inc. "Tennessee's K 3 Class Size Study," 2 009, www.heros inc.org/star.htm. The Herald Tribune "Yes on Amendment 8," October 15, 2010, h ttp://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101017/OPINION/ 10171027/2078/OPINION?p =1&tc=pg. Herrera, Laura. "In Florida, Virtual Classrooms With No Teachers," The New York Times January 17, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/education/18classrooms.html?pag ewanted=1&_r=1 Hoxby, Caroline. "The Effects of Class Size on Student Achievement: New Evidence from Population Variation." Quarterly Journal of Economics 4, no. 115 (2000): 1239 1285. Indian River Schools, "Class Size Reduction," http://www.indianrivers chools.org/sites/SchoolBoard/Meetings/Lists/20102011%20Meeti ngs/Attachments/174/Class%20Size%20Reduction%20Presentation.pdf (November 10, 2011). Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, http://www.iandrinstitute.org/Flo rida.htm. Institute of Education, London, "Class Size Research Project," http://classsizeresearch.org.uk/

PAGE 109

109 Jepsen, Christopher and Steven Rivkin. "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement : The Potential Tradeoff Between Teacher Quality and Class Si ze ," The Journal of Human Resources 44, no. 1 (December 21, 2009) Johnson, Akilah. "Gubernatorial Candidates Back Class Size Referendum, Sun Sentinel.com June 23 2010, http://weblogs.sun sentinel.com/educationblog/2010/06/gubernator ial_candidates_back. html. Kleindienst Linda. "Class Size Cap Goes on Ballot," Sun Sentinel August 2, 2002, http://www.articles.sun sentinel.com/2002 08 02/news/0208020111_1_cap class class size jeb bush/ Krueger, Alan B. "Experimental Estimates of Education Production Func tions." Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, no. 2 (1999): 497 532. Kruger, Alan B., and Diane M Whitmore. The Effect of Attending a Small Class in the Early Grades on College Test T aking and Middle School Test Results: Evidence from Project STAR ," Economic Journal Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 1 28, January 2001. Levin, Henry M. and Patrick J. McEwan. Cost Effect iveness Analysis: Methods and Applications (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Maier, P. A. Molnar, S. Percy, P. Smith, P., and J. Zahorik. "First Year Resu lts of the Student Achievement G uarantee in Education Program. Submitted by the SAGE Evalua tion Team Center for Urban Initiatives and Research," University of Wisconsin Wilwaukee, December 1997. Molnar, Alex, Phil Smith and John Zahorick. 1990 00 Evaluation Results of the Student Achi e vement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program, University o f Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education December 2000. 1998 99 Evaluation Results of the Student Achi e vement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education December 1999. 2000 2001 Evaluation Results of the Student Achi e vement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education 2001. Mosteller, Frederick. "The Tennesse Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades." The Future of Children 5, no. 2 ( 1995): 113 127.

PAGE 110

110 Normone, Anthony H. and Lynn Ilon. "Cost Effective School Inputs: Is Class Size Reduction the Best Educational Expenditure for Florida?." Educational Policy 20, no. 2 (May 2006): 429 454. Nye, Barbara, Larry V. Hedges, and Spyros Konstanto poulos. "Are Effects of Small Classes Cumulative? Evidence from a Tennessee Experiment." Journal of Educational Research 94 (2001): 336 345. Odden, Allan. "Class Size and Student Achievement: Research Based Policy Alternatives." Educational Evaluation an d Policy Analysis 12, no. 2 (1990): 213 227. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability. "School Districts Are Reducing Class Size in Several Ways; May Be Able to Reduce Costs," Report No. 07 29, May 2007, http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/ reports/pdf/0729rpt.pdf Orlando Sentinel "Our Endorsements: Amendments Made Simple," October 23, 2010, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os ed florida amendments -20101022,0,837082.story /. The Palm Beach Post "Endorsement: Yes on Amendmen t 8: Change the Class Size Law," October 1, 2010, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/editorials/endorsement yes on amendment 8 change the class 949084.html?cxtype=rss_editorials/ Pardini, Priscilla. "The Slowdown of the Multiage Classroom: What Was On ce a Popular Approach Has Fallen Victim to the Demands for Grade Level Testing," School Administrator March 2005. Peter Blatchford, Pau l Bassett, and Penelope Brown. "Do Low Attaining and Younger Students Benefit Most from Small Classes? Results from a S ystematic Observation Study of Class Size Effects on Pupil Classroom Engagement and Teacher Pupil Interaction," American Educational Research Association Meeting (2008) http://www.classsizeresearch.org.uk/aera%2008%20paper.pdf Postal, Leslie, and Dave We ber. "Years of Cuts Bring Florida Schools to Breaking Point," Orlando Sentinel May 15, 2011, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011 05 15/features/os school budget cuts 20110515_1_school year principal shaune storch seminole county schools Reichardt, R obert. "The Cost of Class Size Reduction: Advice for Policymakers," RAND Graduate School 2000, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/2006/RGSD156.pdf (accessed July 5, 2011). Research Methods Knowledge Base, "Experimental Design.", h ttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/desexper.php

PAGE 111

111 Robinson, Glen E. and James H. Wittebols. Class Size Research: A Related Cluster Analysis for Decision Making ( Arlington, VA: Education Research Service, 1986). Robson, C olin Real World Research Oxfor d: Blackwell, 1993. Rohrar, Gary. "School Districts Face Class Size Fines of $31 Million," Sunshine State News January 19 2011, http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/school districts face class size fines 31 million/ Sass, Tim. "Charter Schools and Stu dent Achievement in Florida." Education Finance and Policy 1 (Winter 2006): 91 122. Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore "What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR?," Harris School Working Paper, August 2006, http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publicati ons/working papers/pdf/wp_06_06.pdf Shaver, James P. "A Superficial Take on Project STAR." Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 3 (November 2002): 226 227. Sims, David "A Strategic Response to Class Size Reduction: Combination Classes and Student Achievement in Cal ifornia." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27, no. 3 (2008): 457 478. "Crowding Peter to Educate Paul: Lessons from a Class Size Reduction Externality." Economics of Education Review 28 (2009): 465 473. Smith, Phil Alex Molnar, and John Zah orik, "Class Size Reduction: A Fresh Look at the Data," Educational Leadership 61 no. 1 ( 2003 ) : 72. Solochek, Jeffrey. "Teachers Union Sues to Stop Class Size Vote," St. Petersburg Times July 24, 2010, http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/teacher s union sues to stop class size vote/1110654 /. Sparks, Sarah. "Class Sizes Show Signs of Growing," Education Week November 24, 2010, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/24/13size_ep.h30.html?r=1799324482/ Sun Sentinel com "Gubernatorial Candidate s Back Class Size Referendum," June 23, 2010, http://weblogs.sun s entinel.com/educationblog/2010/06/gubernatorial_candidates_back.html. com "Vote Yes on Amendment 8," October 10, 2010, http://www.sun sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorials/fl class si ze amendment 8 editorial t20101010,0,5124117.story /.

PAGE 112

112 Sunshine State News. "School Districts Face Class Size Fines of $31 Million," January 19, 2011, http ://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/school districts face class size fines 31 million /. Tennessee State Department of Education," http://www .heros inc.org/summary.pdf. Tennesse e State Department of Education. The State of Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Final Summary Report 1985 1990," http://www heros inc.org/summary.pdf Th e St. Petersburg Times "Flexibility on Class Sizes Saves Money, Makes Sense," July 28, 2010, http://www.tampabay.com/opinion /editorials/article1111392.ece/. Tomlinson, Tom. Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas (Washington, DC: U.S. Depa rtment of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1998). U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id= 28. U .S. Department of Education Office of the Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, A Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class Size Reduction Program: Final Report Washington, D.C., 2004. U. S. Department of Education. "Elementary and Secondary Education," http://w ww.ed.gov/esea U .S. Department of Education. "Reducing Class Size," November 1999, http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/localsuccess.html U S. Department of Education. "Reducing Class Size: What Do We K now?" May 1998, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED420108.pdf Vidadero, Debra. "Mixed Blessings," Education Week March 15, 2006 Volz, David. Examiner "Florida Teachers Sue to Prevent Class Size Ballot," July 24, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/labor relations in miami/florida teachers sue to prevent c lass size ballot?render=print. W hitehurst Grover J. "Russ" and Matthew M. Chingos Class Size: What Research Says and What it Means for State Policy," The Brookings Institution May 11, 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0511_class_size_whitehur st_chingos.aspx

PAGE 113

113 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Summary of 2011 13 Biennial Budget B ill 2011 Assembly Bill 40/Senate Bill 27 As Amended by the Joint Committee on Finance ," June 2011, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/pb/pdf/jfcbudsum1113.pdf Wiscon sin Legislative Fiscal Bureau "Preschool to Grade 5 Program (DPI Categorical Aids)," Joint Committee on Finance, May 19 2011, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011 13%20Budget/Budget%20Papers/536.pdf Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau Budget Briefs. "Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) November 1999, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/budbriefs/99bb7.pdf Yeh, Stuart S "The Cost Effectiveness of 22 Approaches for Raising Student Achievement." Journal of Education Finance 36, no. 1 (S ummer 2010): 38 75. "The Cost Effectiveness of Five Policies for Improving Student Achievement." American Journal of Evaluation 28 ( December 1, 2007): 416 436. Zahorik, John, Anke Halbach, Karen Ehrle, and Alex Molnar. "Teaching Practices for Smaller Classes." Educational Leadership 61, no. 1 (2003): 75 77. Zinth, Kyle. Maximum P 12 Class Size Policies ," Education Commission of the States, November 2009, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/85/21/8521.pdf State Policies Focusing on Class S ize Reduc tion, Education Commission of the States, September 2009, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/81/95/8195.pdf

PAGE 114

114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Allison S. Foster was born and raised in Sarasota, Florida. Sh e received her bachelor's degree in business from Wake Forest University in 1995, her bachelor's degree in elementary education from Indiana University in 1997, and her master's degree in elementary e ducation from the University of South Florida in 1999. She started her career in education in August of 1997 as a seventh grade math teacher. Afte r eight years of teaching, she became an assistant principal in 2005. She is currently the Principal of Phillippi Shores IB World School in Sarasota, Florida. She is happily married to Patrick Foster and they are enjoying their new life as parents to their daughter, Reese, who was born December 2, 2011.