|
|
|
| |
The Costs of Reducing Class Size
Class-size-reduction initiatives have spurred discussion about their effects on student achievement, teacher quality, school facilities, and the organization of the educational system. But no reform can take place without one key element–money, and in the case of CSR, lots of it.
A major consideration for state legislators and for school and district officials who are deciding whether to undertake CSR is, of course, its cost. Much of the debate revolves around the issue of whether reducing class size is cost-effective.
Although some aspects of the financial impact of CSR can be readily calculated, an avalanche of other unanticipated financial and nonfinancial costs may devastate CSR efforts.
Currently, California is confronted with a teacher-quality crisis of huge proportions that is in large part a result of recent class-size-reduction requirements. Implementation of that state’s 1996 Class Size Reduction program "has arguably created the greatest immediate need for personnel and facilities in the history of California public education," stated the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (1999), a nonpartisan watchdog unit of the state’s government. (See sidebar on page 10 for details.)
Another recent study, Teaching and California’s Future: The Status of the Teaching Profession, sponsored by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning and conducted by SRI International, found that more than 10 percent of public school teachers in California have not met the state’s minimum requirements (Shields and others 1999). In addition, over 1 million of the state’s 5.7 million students are enrolled in schools that have such a large percentage of underqualified teachers that the schools are effectively "dysfunctional" (Shields and others).
According to the task force that guided the study, correcting the problem of unqualified and underqualified teachers in California will cost between $1.3 and $1.8 billion (Shields and others).
The following are among recommendations made by the 20-member task force, which consisted of educators and policymakers:
• raising beginning wages from $32,000 to $40,000
• phasing out waivers and emergency permits in the next five years
• providing 100 percent "forgivable" loans of at least $20,000 to students who complete a teacher licensure program and teach in hard-to-staff schools for at least four years (Shields and others)
Despite the overwhelming costs California will incur to ensure that all students are taught by qualified teachers, some argue that CSR can actually save costs in the long run. For example, if–as claimed by its proponents–small class sizes result in improved student behavior in school, there will be a reduction in vandalism costs and less need for corrective measures such as Saturday school (Achilles and Price). Students in smaller classes in primary grades may continue on a path that reduces the need for special education, makes grade retention less likely, and increases the likelihood of high school graduation–all cost savers (McRobbie and others).
Making Sure CSR Pays Off on Its Promise
Few would disagree with the assertion that CSR is not worth the cost if it does not bring about its intended benefits. But to attain those benefits, school districts may need to do more than simply hire more teachers and put them in classrooms with fewer students. A Texas study highlights this issue.
Researchers Richard Murnane and Frank Levy (1996) describe an experiment in Austin, Texas, where the school district, as part of a desegregation plan in the late 1980s, allocated an extra $300,000 per year for five years to each of 15 low-income elementary schools, with the hopes of raising student achievement and attendance. All schools used their funds to hire extra teachers to reduce class size. In 13 of the 15 schools, student achievement and attendance remained extremely low. The two other schools experienced a soaring increase in both attendance and student achievement.
The difference between those two schools and the other 13? The 13 schools "went about business as usual," retaining the same curriculum and teaching methods. The two succeeding schools raised standards, revised curriculum, set up health clinics, and invested in teacher training in addition to hiring new teachers. The key to successfully funding CSR, some believe, is doing more than pouring in large amounts of money and "hoping for the best." Policymakers must ensure that funds are put to the best possible use (Black 1999).
Questions to Ask When Calculating the Cost of CSR
As California’s experience makes clear (see accompanying sidebar), estimating the cost of CSR is an inexact science that must take into account not only personnel and facilities but administrative requirements and displacement of other mandated programs. Here are several questions policymakers can ask when trying to calculate CSR’s actual costs:
1. What is the initial class size? The greater the drop to a smaller class, the larger the cost.
2. Is there a rigid cap or is there flexibility in the number of students per teacher? A rigid cap increases the cost by decreasing the final average class size.
3. What is the cost of teachers who must be hired for CSR? The number of teachers needed, the salary scale of each district, and the experience level of the teachers hired will determine this cost. Teacher costs will increase with time as teachers move up the salary ladder. In addition, teachers will require professional development and support, which adds up to additional costs.
4. How many new classrooms are needed? Additional facilities to house new classes will be needed. Some schools have rented vacant space in nearby retail shopping malls or other commercial buildings, which can be converted to early childhood centers (Achilles and Price 1999).
5. What costs will be incurred when a once-closed school is reopened? Examples are the need for potential renovation, utilities hookups, and resumption of custodial and clerical services.
6. What are the potential savings of CSR? Some districts may experience cost reductions due to reduced grade retention, less vandalism, and so forth.
7. Will the program be equally cost-effective for smaller and larger districts? Will smaller districts need supplemental funding to cover administration of CSR?
8. Will CSR demand so many resources of districts that they are forced to terminate or reduce other programs and services? What level of funding will be required to prevent displacement of other programs?
For examples of CSR program costs, see the table on pages 14-15 on current state initiatives. There are ways to reduce the costs associated with class-size reduction. (For more information, see "Designing a Policy.") EH
| |
| |
Expenditures
on Class-Size Reduction,
1999-2000 School Year
Federal Class Size Reduction
Program
$1,200,000,000
State Initiatives and Programs*
|
|
| |
Alaska
$1,582,594
|
Indiana
$106,709,520 |
Minnesota
$137,700,000
|
South Carolina
$34,158,671 |
|
California
$1,534,254,000 |
Iowa
$10,000,000 |
Nevada
$82,900,087 |
Utah
$67,027,003 |
Florida
$10,000,000 |
Louisiana
$31,939,287 |
New York
$75,000,000
|
Washington
$99,000,000 |
Illinois
$5,000,000 |
Maryland
$11,600,000 |
Ohio
$130,995,486 |
Wisconsin
$18,200,000 |
| |
Total state expenditures: $2,356,066,648
Total state and federal expenditures: $3,556,066,648
The Clearinghouse verified these figures with state departments of
education in March 2000.
* Only state expenditures that have been allocated as part of a
legislated state initiative or program are listed here. As the table
on pages 14-15 indicates, several states (such as Tennesse, Texas,
Virginia, and Wyoming) mandate or encourage maximum student-teacher
ratios and expect districts to meet the targets with general education
dollars (state and local).
|
|
|
|
|
