Election Day brought some surprises, but the fact that voters in
Florida passed an amendment that would reduce class sizes in their
state isn't one of them.
Naturally, most parents would rather see their children in classes
with just 19 other kids and a qualified teacher, instead of in
classes with 30 students, possibly taught by someone who barely got
through school himself.
It's a measure other states are sure to copy. But parents and
legislators need the facts before they can make a decision at the
polls on whether smaller classes will truly benefit little Jimmy
and little Jennifer.
One thing to keep in mind is what happened in California. In 1997,
it launched a statewide push to reduce class size to 20 students in
kindergarten through third grade. To me and my fellow teachers, it
seemed like a great idea. Smaller classes would ensure that we
would be able to spend more time with our students.
The problem was, there weren't enough teachers to go around. And
in many cities, there weren't enough classrooms. Schools yards,
most of which already had a portable classroom installed, had to
make room for new ones. Not a big deal at first, but there were
consequences. At my school, for example, we saw bad behavior
increase during recess and lunchtime because there was less space
for the students to play in.
Portable classrooms weren't the only things moving around at
California schools. Teachers moved as well. Elementary school
teachers with the most experience and tenure transferred to lower
grade levels with newly mandated small classes. That left the
newest, least-experienced teachers with the largest classes.
Teachers also left their positions for newly created ones in
districts offering higher salaries. And teachers from fourth to
12th grade were left wondering why their class sizes couldn't be
reduced, too.
Today, some California districts aren't sure they can pay the bill
for smaller classes. Although the state has spent some $8 billion,
the aid doesn't keep pace with rising teacher salaries.
In Florida, estimates show that meeting the size limits mandated
in the amendment (no more than 18 in kindergarten through third
grade, 22 in grades four through eight, and no more than 25 in high
school), would require constructing at least 30,000 classrooms. It
also would mean hiring as many more teachers in the next eight
years. The projected costs vary widely, but the official estimate
is $27 billion for the first eight years, and $2.5 billion each
year after that.
The amendment itself doesn't shed much light on how to pay for
this. It just says "the payment of the costs associated with
reducing class size to meet these requirements is the
responsibility to the state and not of local school districts." It
doesn't say where those billions of dollars will come from. Most
likely, it will have to be funded through a bond initiative or a
tax increase.
Some Florida taxpayers might accept an increase if they can be
assured that having fewer students in each class will increase
academic achievement. But unfortunately, the effect of class size
on student achievement hasn't been proven.
On the Third International Math and Science Study-1999 (also known
as TIMSS-Repeat), Singapore had the highest scores of any nation
taking the test. It's average class size? Thirty-seven students. In
contrast, the United States, which had scores in the middle of the
pack, had an average of 26 students.
A Heritage Foundation study found similar results. It analyzed the
1998 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) reading
examination, and found that children in classes with 20 or fewer
students didn't score higher than children in classes with 31 or
more students.
Other researchers, including economist Eric Hanushek from the
University of Rochester, have concluded that initiatives to
reducing seldom produce gains in student achievement. "Broadly
reducing class sizes is extraordinarily expensive and, based on
years of research and experience, very ineffective," he said in a
recent study.
The "one-size fits all" constitutional amendment on Florida
ballots doesn't allow for variations based on the needs of the
students, and the content of courses. Ensuring small classes is
important in classes when students are being taught remedial work
and need more individual attention. But no one can guarantee that
smaller classes will boost overall student achievement.
That's a hard lesson to take. But can voters -- and taxpayers --
afford to ignore it?
Megan Farnsworth,
an education fellow at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org),
is a former curriculum specialist and bilingual teacher at
high-poverty schools in Burbank, Calif.
Distributed Nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune Wire