what is the percentage of increase from the least expensive policy to the most expensive policy?
Executive Summary
Class size is one of the small number of variables in American K-12 education that are both idea to influence educatee learning and are subject to legislative action. Legislative mandates on maximum class size take been very pop at the country level. In recent decades, at least 24 states have mandated or incentivized course-size reduction (CSR).
The current fiscal environment has forced states and districts to rethink their CSR policies given the high cost of maintaining small classes. For example, increasing the pupil/teacher ratio in the U.Southward. by 1 pupil would save at least $12 billion per yr in teacher salary costs alone, which is roughly equivalent to the outlays of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government's largest single G-12 teaching program.
The substantial expenditures required to sustain smaller classes are justified by the belief that smaller classes increment pupil learning. We examine "what the enquiry says" about whether class-size reduction has a positive impact on student learning and, if it does, past how much, for whom, and under what circumstances. Despite there beingness a large literature on course-size furnishings on bookish accomplishment, only a few studies are of high enough quality and sufficiently relevant to exist given credence as a basis for legislative action.
The most influential and apparent report of CSR is the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio, or STAR, study which was conducted in Tennessee during the late 1980s. In this study, students and teachers were randomly assigned to a small grade, with an boilerplate of fifteen students, or a regular grade, with an average of 22 students. This big reduction in grade size (7 students, or 32 percent) was found to increase student achievement by an amount equivalent to about three additional months of schooling 4 years afterward.
Studies of class size in Texas and Israel also institute benefits of smaller classes, although the gains associated with smaller classes were smaller in magnitude than those in the Tennessee STAR study. Other rigorous studies accept found mixed effects in California and in other countries, and no effects in Florida and Connecticut.
Because the pool of credible studies is small-scale and the private studies differ in the setting, method, grades, and magnitude of class size variation that is studied, conclusions have to be tentative. But it appears that very large class-size reductions, on the order of magnitude of 7-x fewer students per class, can have meaning long-term effects on pupil achievement and other meaningful outcomes. These effects seem to be largest when introduced in the earliest grades, and for students from less advantaged family backgrounds.
When school finances are limited, the toll-benefit test any educational policy must pass is not "Does this policy have any positive event?" but rather "Is this policy the most productive utilise of these educational dollars?" Assuming even the largest class-size effects, such equally the STAR results, class-size mandates must still exist considered in the context of alternative uses of tax dollars for education. There is no inquiry from the U.S. that straight compares CSR to specific alternative investments, only i conscientious analysis of several educational interventions constitute CSR to be the least cost effective of those studied.
The popularity of class-size reduction may make information technology difficult for policymakers to increment class size across the lath in social club to sustain other investments in education during a period of budget reductions. In that context, land policymakers should consider targeting CSR at students who have been shown to benefit the nigh: disadvantaged students in the early on grades, or providing a certain corporeality of funding for CSR just leaving it up to local school leaders on how to distribute it.
In settings where country mandates on maximum class size are relaxed, policymakers demand to comport in mind that the outcome of any increase in class size will depend on how such an increment is implemented. For example, a ane-student increase in the pupil/teacher ratio in the U.S. would reduce the education workforce by about vii pct. If the teachers to be laid off were chosen in a way largely unrelated to their effectiveness, such as seniority-based layoffs, then the associated increment in class size might well accept a negative issue on student achievement. But if schools choose the least constructive teachers to let go, and so the issue of increased teacher quality could make up for some or all of the possible negative impact of increasing class size.
Country resource for education should always be advisedly allocated, but the need to judiciously weigh costs and benefits is particularly salient in times of austere budgets. Class-size reduction has been shown to work for some students in some grades in some states and countries, but its impact has been constitute to exist mixed or not discernable in other settings and circumstances that seem like. It is very expensive. The costs and benefits of class-size mandates need to be carefully weighed confronting all of the alternatives when difficult decisions must exist fabricated.
A Context for Linking Research to Policy
There are a small number of variables in American One thousand-12 didactics that are both idea to influence student learning and are subject to legislative activity. Class size is one. Others include human resource policies, funding levels, curriculum, days/hours of education, and testing and accountability. Advocates for legislation on any of these topics are likely to appeal to inquiry prove as back up for their position. That is advisable and desirable as long as: a) the prove is of high quality, b) it is relevant to the legislative activity under consideration, c) conflicting evidence isn't ignored, and d) alternative courses of legislative activeness are similarly evaluated and compared.
The absence of any of these 4 conditions undermines the legitimacy of advocacy that is built on assertions most what "research says." If the bear witness is non of high quality information technology provides little or no support for any conclusions. For case, advocates for course-size reduction might cite evidence that students in smaller classes perform better on state examinations. But this simple correlation could be due to families with higher levels of education living in more affluent schoolhouse districts that tin can afford smaller classes. Class size per se might accept no more than to do with student achievement than the condition of the schools' sports stadiums. "Evidence" that is this weak is no evidence at all.
Research can exist of high quality just of questionable relevance to legislative action because the settings and circumstances of the enquiry are so different from those at hand. For example, a number of well-designed studies of form size in the U.Due south. prior to World State of war II found that educatee accomplishment increased when class size rose.[1] Simply the nature of the population, the organization of schools, the characteristics of teachers then many other things differ between now and the U.Due south. between the 2 world wars that the relevance of this inquiry for current legislation is weak.
Considering the residual of the evidence is too very important. Also oft advocates for particular positions cherry pick their evidence, conveniently ignoring research that raises questions nigh their favored position or putting their thumbs on the appraisal calibration so that the flaws in alien enquiry are emphasized. Advocates for and confronting course-size reduction take engaged in or been accused of engaging in such cherry picking for as long as there has been research on this issue and the prospect of legislation.[two]
Finally, and almost chiefly, all legislative activeness that requires appropriations involves choices. An appeal to evidence to support expenditures without consideration of the costs and benefits of all the options that are bachelor tin seriously mislead. With a limited and currently shrinking pool of state funds available to back up K-12 education, the relative productivity of expenditures should exist carefully considered. What are the costs and benefits of maintaining a cap on class size relative to other state-mandated uses of funds for teaching? And what are the costs and benefits of state mandates on specific uses of education funds relative to appropriations that allow more flexibility at the local level in how funds are spent?
Background on Grade-size Reduction
Legislative mandates on maximum class size have been very popular at the land level. In recent decades, at to the lowest degree 24 states have mandated or incentivized form-size limits in their public schools.[3] Considering the legislatively imposed limits accept most always required a reduction in course size compared to the catamenia prior to the legislation, these initiatives are chosen class-size reduction (CSR).
Country-level CSR initiatives flourished during a menstruation of rapidly expanding per-educatee expenditure on public K-12 education in the U.S. (per educatee revenue increased by 58 percent in real dollars in the terminal twenty years[4]). Indeed, CSR was a meaning contributor to the increase in spending in that the average student/teacher ratio for public schools has decreased by 21 percent in the last 20 years.[5],[6]
The boilerplate U.S. pupil/teacher ratio in the public schools is currently xv.3.[7] With an average U.S. instructor salary of approximately $55,000,[8] each student has an individual toll of about $three,600 in instructor salary alone. With about 49.3 one thousand thousand public school students enrolled, a 1-pupil decrease in class size from the present average would cost over $12 billion a twelvemonth in amass for the U.S.[9] A one-educatee increment in form size would generate an equivalent savings. The costs of CSR are not limited to teacher salaries. More classrooms are needed for smaller classes. In our example of a one-student reduction in class size across the U.Southward., more than 225,000 additional classrooms would need to be added to the nation's stock. In any context $12+ billion a year for any educational initiative is a large amount. Past fashion of comparison, the federal government's largest single K-12 education program, Championship I of the Uncomplicated and Secondary Pedagogy Act, involves most the same level of annual expenditure equally would a ane-student reduction in the nation's average student/instructor ratio.[10]
With the end of federal stimulus funding and economic growth at low rates, 40 states are projecting shortfalls for their 2012 budget twelvemonth. Some, including large states such equally California, Texas, and Illinois, are projecting revenue shortfalls that are more than twenty percent of the size of the 2011 budgets.[11] For these states, there is no single solution. Cuts will have to be made in many areas, including education, and difficult choices volition abound.
In this context, nosotros believe it is useful to revisit research on the effects of class size on student learning, and to explore what the findings from that enquiry take to contribute to the budget deliberations that many state legislatures are presently or will shortly exist engaged in. Does class-size reduction have a positive bear on on student learning? If then, by how much, for whom, and under what circumstances? What would exist the probable effect of relaxing class-size mandates? What are the uncertainties in the conclusions that tin be drawn from existing evidence about country CSR policies?
Research on Form Size
There is a large body of research on the relationship between class size and student learning. A 1979 systematic review of the literature identified lxxx studies.[12] There are surely hundreds today. The vast majority of these studies only examine the association between variation in class size and student achievement. The primary difficulty in interpreting this research is that schools with dissimilar form sizes probable differ in many other, difficult-to-observe ways. For instance, more affluent schools are more than likely to accept the resource needed to provide smaller classes, which would create the illusion that smaller classes are better when in fact family characteristics were the real reason. Alternatively, a school that serves many students with beliefs problems may notice information technology easier to manage these students in smaller classes. A comparing of such schools to other schools might give the advent that pocket-size classes produce less learning when in fact the behavior problems were the primary factor.
The most credible studies of CSR have utilized either randomized experiments, in which students and teachers are randomly assigned to smaller or larger classes; natural experiments in which, for example, a sudden change in class size policy allows a before-and-after analysis of its effects; or sophisticated mathematical models for estimating effects that take advantage of longitudinal information on private students, teachers, and schools. Nosotros limit our review to such studies.
Research that supports the effectiveness of smaller classes
The most influential and credible study of CSR is the Pupil Teacher Achievement Ratio, or STAR, study which was conducted in Tennessee during the belatedly 1980s. Kickoff with the inbound kindergarteners in 1985, students and teachers were randomly assigned to a pocket-size course, with an average of 15 students, or a regular course, with an boilerplate of 22 students. Thus the reduction in class size (vii students, or 32 percent) was quite large. There are several enquiry studies based on the STAR experiment. We examine two, including ane that focuses on longer-term outcomes.
Krueger's analysis of the Tennessee STAR experiment finds that unproblematic schoolhouse students randomly assigned to small classes outperformed their classmates who were assigned to regular classes by nigh 0.22 standard deviations later iv years.[thirteen] This is equivalent to students in the smaller classes having received about iii months more schooling than the students in the regular classes.[14] This event was concentrated in the start year that students participated in the plan. In addition, the positive effects of class size were largest for blackness students, economically disadvantaged students, and boys.[15] Krueger estimates that the economic returns to form-size reduction in Tennessee were greater than the costs, with an internal positive rate of render of about 6 percent.
A recent long-term follow-up of STAR participants into adulthood utilized IRS tax records to investigate a range of outcomes.[16] The researchers find that students assigned to pocket-size classes at the get-go of elementary school are about ii percentage points more than likely to be enrolled in higher at historic period 20. They did not find whatever evidence of an impact on incomes at historic period 27, only the income furnishings are measured with besides much imprecision to warrant strong conclusions.
In summary, STAR researchers have plant positive effects of early and very large class-size reductions on academic achievement in school and college attendance, with the economical benefits of the program outweighing the costs. These are important results from a very stiff inquiry pattern.
Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain used a sophisticated statistical model to examine the effects of natural variation in class size in Texas in the mid-1990s.[17] The study utilized longitudinal information from more than than one-half million students in over three chiliad schools. The researchers found positive effects of smaller class sizes on reading and mathematics in 4th grade, a smaller but withal statistically significant effect in 5th grade, and trivial or no furnishings in later grades. Because the researchers used state assessment results that were simply available beginning at 4th grade, they could not guess class-size furnishings for the early on grades that were studied in STAR. The estimated class-size effects for 4th and 5th graders in Texas were most half the size the 1000-3 effects in Tennessee.
International studies also provide positive evidence for the effects of class-size reduction. Angrist and Lavy took advantage of a class-size limit in Israel of 40 students. Whenever there are more students in a form than twoscore per teacher, a teacher and classroom must be added. The issue on form size in smaller schools tin be dramatic. For instance, with 80 students in a two-classroom third grade, class size will exist 40, just with 81 students information technology will be 27. The researchers find positive effects of smaller 4th- and fifth-grade classes, with issue sizes that are on the lower finish of the range of those constitute in the STAR study.[18] They do non discover any effects on third-grade scores.
Studies with mixed results
In 1996, California enacted a 1000-3 CSR programme designed to reduce class size by ten students per class, from 30 to 20, throughout the state. School participation in start and second grades exceeded 90 percent statewide by 1998, but participation in Kindergarten and third grade did not exceed xc pct until 2000. This staggered introduction of CSR provided opportunities for researchers to report its effects. CSR created 25,000 new teaching positions in its beginning two years. Many of these positions were filled past teachers without certification or prior teaching feel. Other positions were filled by experienced teachers who switched grades or schools.
Jepsen and Rivkin carried out a sophisticated assay to examine the influence of both the course-size reduction and the changes in the teacher workforce.[xix] They discover positive effects for course-size reduction that are about half as large as those found in Tennessee. At the same time they find that increases in the numbers of new and non-fully-certified teachers showtime much of these gains. In other words, students who ended upward in the classrooms of teachers new to their classrooms and grades suffered academically from the teacher's inexperience by almost the aforementioned amount as they benefited from existence in a smaller class. There is an important lesson here: Major education initiatives do non operate in a vacuum. Policies designed to touch one dimension of a pupil'southward educational experience are likely to affect others as well. Other unintended negative consequences of California'southward CSR policy included an increment in grade size in grades four and five[20] and the utilise of multi-form classrooms.[21]
Woessman and Due west, taking reward of differences in boilerplate grade size betwixt the 7th and viiithursday grades within schools, examined form-size effects on performance on international examinations in 11 countries around the world.[22] They discover educationally meaningful furnishings of smaller classes in a small number of countries, and a roughly fifty-fifty split betwixt no effects and pocket-sized effects in the remainder of the countries. Interestingly, the countries in which they find educationally meaningful positive effects of smaller classes are those with depression salary levels for teachers and lower than average performance on international exams. A depression average salary level for teachers suggests that a land is drawing its teaching population from a relatively depression level of the overall capability distribution of all its employees. Thus, the countries studied by Woessman and Due west seem to have taken different paths, with some opting for relatively large numbers of poorly-paid teachers who perform better in smaller classes and others having relatively fewer but ameliorate-paid teachers whose functioning isn't as affected by the number of students in class. In this regard it is worth noting that the East Asian nations that perform at higher levels than the U.Southward. on international exams have very large class sizes.
Dee and West used a nationally representative database of students to compare the outcomes of the same 8th-grade students who had attended different size classes in different subjects. They notice no overall impact of class size on test scores, i.e., the same students did non perform meliorate in the subjects in which they had smaller classes. There was, withal, a pocket-sized positive effect on test scores in urban schools, and pocket-sized overall positive effects on non-cognitive skills such as student attentiveness and attitudes about learning.[23]
Studies with negative results
Arrayed against these positive and mixed findings for CSR are two apparent studies that find no positive effects. Hoxby examined natural course size variation in Connecticut that was caused when natural population variation triggered a change in the number of classes in a grade in a school. For example, a small schoolhouse that has 15 first-grade students in one twelvemonth and xviii the adjacent yr would take a larger class during the second year. Additionally, a school that has set a class-size limit of 25 would have ane 2nd-grade class of 25 if there were 25 second-grade students simply 2 classes of 13 if there were 26 students. Hoxby finds no relationship between class size and achievement in fourth and sixth grade (which should reflect class size in all previous grades). Hoxby does not even find class-size effects at schools that serve disproportionately large shares of disadvantaged or minority students.[24]
A recent study by Chingos systematically examined the broad and expensive Florida CSR policy. In 2002, voters canonical an amendment to the Florida country constitution that set limits on the number of students in cadre classes (such as math, English, and science) in the state's public schools. Start with the 2010-2011 school twelvemonth, the maximum number of students in each core course would be: 18 students through grade 3; 22 students in grades 4 through viii; and 25 students in grades 9 through 12.
In 2003, the Florida Legislature enacted a law that implemented the amendment by beginning requiring, from 2003-04 to 2005-06, districts to reduce their average class sizes either to the maximum for each grade grouping or by at to the lowest degree ii students per year until they reached the maximum. Get-go in 2006-07, compliance was measured at the schoolhouse level, with schools facing the same rules for their average class size that districts faced previously. Beginning in 2010-11, compliance was measured at the classroom level.
This policy price about $20 billion to implement during its first eight years, with continuing costs of $four billion to $5 billion each subsequent year.[25]
Taking reward of the staggered introduction of class-size reductions over fourth dimension at the commune and school level, Chingos utilized a sophisticated earlier-and-after analysis to examine the effects of the policy on student achievement between 2004 and 2009. He finds no evidence that the Florida policy had any impact on examination scores in grades three through 8 (state-wide assessments in math and reading were not administered in the earlier grades).[26]
Research summary
Despite there being a large literature on class-size effects on academic achievement, only a few studies are of high enough quality and sufficiently relevant to be given credence as a footing for legislative action. Because the pool of credible studies is small; the individual studies differ in the setting, method, grades, and magnitude of grade size variation that is studied; and no study is without issues, including those reviewed here, conclusions have to be tentative.
It appears that very large grade-size reductions, on the order of magnitude of 7-10 fewer students per class, tin take meaningful long-term effects on student achievement and possibly on non-cognitive outcomes. The academic effects seem to exist largest when introduced in the earliest grades, and for students from less advantaged family unit backgrounds. They may also be largest in classrooms of teachers who are less well prepared and constructive in the classroom.
The Tennessee STAR experiment generates the largest estimate of the payoffs of a large decrease in course size. In Krueger's cost-do good analysis, the return to the investment in smaller class sizes in Tennessee was slightly bigger than the costs of implementing the program. In other words, information technology paid its fashion.
All other studies of CSR generate either smaller estimates of the effects of variation in class size or find no furnishings at all. Getting a decent sense of the size of the consequence that can exist expected from reducing class size is obviously important to evaluating its benefits. Few voters would support a multi-billion dollar initiative that results in improvements in educatee outcomes (or any other desirable event, such equally the population'southward health or vehicle gas mileage) that are too modest to be noticeable.
One way to roughly approximate the size of course-size effects that is consistent with the existing literature would be to presume that the furnishings are linear, i.e., a reduction in class size past one pupil would generate 10 percent of the benefit of a reduction in class size by 10 students, and to assume that the effects diminish with each grade in schoolhouse, with a reduction of a given number of students in 5th form expected to take about half the effect of reduction of the aforementioned number of students in kindergarten.
The largest estimates of the magnitude of form-size effects are those produced by Krueger (1999), who plant that the students in classes that were vii to viii students smaller on average than regular-sized classes performed about 0.22 standard deviations better on a standardized test. This means that students performed about 3 percent of a standard difference improve for every 1 educatee less in the class. These effects were generated largely past class-size reductions in kindergarten. If we have the result by fivethursday grade to exist half the size of the kindergarten effect, then a reduction in i student per class would generate approximately i.5 percentage of a standard deviation divergence in accomplishment scores in 5thursday class.
This ways that on a statewide cess such every bit the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which has a mean of about 700 and a standard deviation of about 100 at fifth grade for mathematics, a reduction in class size by i student would generate an improvement of i.5 scale score points. Thus a statewide mean of 700 on TAKS would become a statewide mean of 701.5. Alternatively, an increase of course size past 1 student would lead to a statewide mean of 698.5 on TAKS. At grade three the event would be about 2 points up or down (assuming an issue size for a 1 student reduction of two.0, which is 2/3rds of the effect for earlier grades in STAR). To put a one or two point change in student performance as a result of class size in context, the departure betwixt the average scale scores of whites and blacks on TAKS at 5thursday course is 65 points. Note that our estimates of a one to two point result on TAKS of a ane student modify in class size are based on an upper bound for course-size effects based on Krueger'south assay. Estimates that averaged together effect sizes for all the studies nosotros have reviewed, including the two that found no effects at all (Hoxby; Chingos), would obviously be considerably smaller.
Funding Course-size Reduction vs. Other Initiatives
When school finances are express, the cost-do good test any educational policy must pass is not "Does this policy take any positive effect?" merely rather "Is this policy the most productive use of these educational dollars?" Assuming even the largest class-size effects, such as the STAR results, form-size mandates must yet be considered in the context of alternative uses of tax dollars for pedagogy. Will a dollar spent on class-size reduction generate as much return as a dollar spent on: raising teacher salaries, implementing ameliorate curriculum, strengthening early childhood programs, providing more frequent assessment results to teachers to help guide didactics, investments in educational technology, etc.?
In that location is no enquiry from the U.S. that straight compares CSR to specific alternative investments. In other words, the comparison condition for all CSR studies has been concern as usual rather than, for example, a comparison of $xx billion invested in smaller classes vs. $20 billion invested in higher instructor salaries. Thus, estimates of effects and costs from different education investments have to exist extrapolated and estimated from different studies, and this process is necessarily inexact. Even so, Harris finds short-term rates of return for computer-aided pedagogy, cross-historic period tutoring, early childhood programs, and increases in instructional time that are all greater than those for CSR.[27] Whitehurst does not guess costs, but finds effects on student achievement from choosing more than effective curriculum; reconstituting the teacher workforce (for example by substituting Teach for America teachers for new teachers from traditional training routes); and enrolling students in popular charter schools in urban areas that are all as large or larger than those obtained from CSR.[28]
The popularity of grade-size reduction may go far politically difficult for policymakers to increase class size in order to sustain other investments in education, even in a time of upkeep austerity. In that context, land policymakers might consider targeting the reductions at students who have been shown to do good the well-nigh: disadvantaged students in the early grades, or providing a certain corporeality of funding for CSR but leaving it upwardly to local school leaders on how to distribute it. Much smaller classes for inexperienced teachers who demand support in developing skills or for teachers who are responsible for struggling students may make more sense than beyond the board reductions.
The tradeoff between class size and teacher salaries needs to exist very carefully considered. Furnishings on student achievement related to differences in teacher quality are very large. The same data from the Tennessee STAR study that demonstrates long-term furnishings for class-size reduction produces estimates of much larger effects for variation in teacher quality within schools. Thus, for example, while differences between big and small classes in early uncomplicated school had no long-term furnishings on the earning power of adults, differences in classroom quality did.[29] With fixed or reduced state budgets to support K-12 educational activity, maintaining class-size limits means a larger pool of teachers with lower salaries. Information technology means that funds that might exist devoted to raising teacher salaries beyond the board or selectively in hard to make full positions or for highly effective teachers volition be express. By i estimate, an increment in average form size by 5 students would result in an across the lath increase of 34 percent in instructor salaries if all the savings were devoted to that purpose.[30] Higher salaries would probable draw more qualified people into the teaching profession, and keep them in that location.
In the current fiscal climate, information technology is clear that the yearly increases in funding in real dollars that have long been enjoyed past our nation's public schools are coming to an stop for the foreseeable time to come. Many states and districts are contemplating cuts in funding that will require schools to make difficult choices. And then although the inquiry literature has focused on the effect of reducing class size, the electric current policy debate concerns the other side of the coin—the consequences of increasing the size of classes. The potential for negative consequences of larger classes clearly needs to exist weighed against the fallout from cutting other programs in social club to preserve smaller classes—both academic programs and non-academic offerings such as athletics and the arts.
Another important signal is that the effect of any increase in class size will depend on how such an increment is implemented. Our earlier rough calculation indicated that a one-student increment in the educatee/teacher ratio in the U.South., which would salve over $12 billion per twelvemonth in salary costs alone, would decrease the teaching workforce past well-nigh seven percent of the nation's teachers. Many school districts and states across the nation are considering reductions in the teacher workforce on this society of magnitude. If the teachers to be laid off were called in a mode largely unrelated to their effectiveness, such as "last in first out," then the associated increase in class size could well accept a negative effect on student achievement. But if schools choose the least effective teachers to let get, and then the effect of increased teacher quality could make upwardly for some or all of any negative effect of increasing class size.[31]
State resources for pedagogy should e'er be judiciously allocated, simply the demand to carefully weigh costs and benefits is particularly salient in times of austere budgets. Course-size reduction has been shown to piece of work for some students in some grades in some states and countries, but its impact has been constitute to be mixed or not discernable in other settings and circumstances that seem like. It is very expensive. The costs and benefits of class-size mandates demand to be carefully weighed against all of the alternatives when hard budget and program decisions must be made.
[ane]
Jonah Rockoff, "Field Experiments in Class Size from the Early Twentieth Century," Journal of Economical Perspectives, 23(4): 211–230 (2009).
[two]
Run into, eastward.g, Eric A. Hanushek, "The Failure of Input-Based Schooling Policies," Economic Periodical, 113(485): F64–F98 (2003) and Alan B. Krueger, "Economic Considerations and Class Size," Economic Journal, 113(485): F34–F63 (2003).
[3]
Education Commission of us, "Land Class-Size Reduction Measures," Denver, Colorado: Teaching Commission of us (2005).
[4]
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_064.asp
[6]
Note that the pupil/teacher ratio is nearly e'er smaller than class size because it includes teachers in specialized roles equally well as regular classroom teachers. Yet, within states, pupil/teacher ratio and class size are highly correlated. We apply pupil/teacher ratio here because it can be calculated from data reported by all U.South. school districts to the federal government, whereas class size cannot.
[seven]
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/assimilate/d10/tables/dt10_083.asp
[9]
Soon there are 3.2 million teachers serving 49.3 one thousand thousand students in the public schools, which corresponds to 15.iii students for every instructor. Decreasing the pupil/teacher ratio to 14.3 would require hiring 226,000 additional teachers, which at $55,000 per teacher would cost $12.4 billion/year in salary costs alone.
[10]
These per-pupil cost estimates are very bourgeois compared to others in the literature that try to account for all costs of teachers, including fringe benefits and facilities. Run across, e.g., Douglas Due north. Harris, "Toward Policy-Relevant Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Sizes: Combining Effects With Costs," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(1): three–29 (2009).
[eleven]
http://world wide web.usnews.com/news/manufactures/2011/01/14/10-states-with-the-largest-budget-shortfalls
[12]
Gene V. Glass and Mary Lee Smith. "Meta-Assay of Enquiry on Class Size and Achievement." Educational Evaluation and Policy Assay 1(1): 2–16 (1979).
[13]
Alan B. Krueger, "Experimental Estimates of Instruction Production Functions," Quarterly Periodical of Economics, 115(2): 497–532 (1999).
[14]
The average student gains 0.88 standard deviations per yr from kindergarten through the stop of third class (Carolyn J. Hill, Howard S. Bloom, Alison Rebeck Black, and Mark W. Lipsey, "Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting Issue Sizes in Enquiry," Kid Development Perspectives, two(three): 172–177 (2008)). The STAR effect size of 0.22 is 25 pct of that, which corresponds to 2.5 months of a 10-month school year.
[15]
Matthew M. Chingos, "The Simulated Promise of Form-Size Reduction," Center for American Progress (2011).
[16]
Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel Saez, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Danny Yagan, "How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings? Testify from Project STAR," NBER Working Newspaper No. 16381, September 2010.
[17]
Steven Chiliad. Rivkin, Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain, "Teachers, Schools, and Bookish Achievement," Econometrica, 73(2): 417–458 (2005).
[eighteen]
Joshua D. Angrist and Victor Lavy, "Using Maimonides' Rule to Estimate the Result of Class Size on Scholastic Achievement," Quarterly Journal of Economic science, 114(2): 533–575 (1999).
[19]
Christopher Jepsen and Steven Rivkin, "Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement: The Potential Tradeoff between Teacher Quality and Class Size," Periodical of Human Resource, 44(1): 223–250 (2009).
[20]
David Sims, "Crowding Peter to Educate Paul: Lessons from a Form Size Reduction Externality," Economics of Pedagogy Review, 28: 465–473 (2009).
[21]
David Sims, "A Strategic Response to Class Size Reduction: Combination Classes and Pupil Accomplishment in California," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(3): 457–478 (2008).
[22]
Ludger Woessmann and Martin West, "Class-Size Effects in School Systems Around the World: Evidence from Betwixt-Form Variation in TIMSS," European Economic Review, 50(3): 695–736 (2006).
[23]
Thomas S. Dee and Martin R. Westward, "The Non-Cerebral Returns to Course Size," Instruction Evaluation and Policy Analysis (forthcoming).
[24]
Caroline G. Hoxby, "The Effects of Class Size on Student Accomplishment: New Evidence from Population Variation," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4): 1239–1285 (2000).
[25] "2009–10 Florida Education Finance Program," DOE Data Database Workshop, Summer 2009, available at http://www.fldoe.org/eias/databaseworkshop/ppt/fefp.ppt .
[26] Matthew M. Chingos, "The Touch on of a Universal Grade-Size Reduction Policy: Testify from Florida's Statewide Mandate," Harvard University, Program on Teaching Policy and Governance Working Paper. 10-03 (2010), bachelor at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-03_Chingos.pdf
[27] Douglas N. Harris, "Toward Policy-Relevant Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Sizes: Combining Furnishings With Costs," Educational Evaluation and Policy Assay 31(1): 3–29 (2009).
[28] Grover J. Whitehurst. "Don't forget Curriculum," Brown Center Letters on Education, #3. October 2009, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Establishment.
[29] Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel Saez, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Danny Yagan, "How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Impact Your Earnings? Evidence from Project STAR," NBER Working Paper No. 16381, September 2010.
[30] Matthew G. Chingos, "The False Hope of Class-Size Reduction," Center for American Progress (2011).
[31] See, east.g., Donald J. Boyd, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James H. Wyckoff, "Teacher Layoffs: An Empirical Illustration of Seniority vs. Measures of Effectiveness," CALDER Cursory 12 (July 2010) and Dan Goldhaber and Roddy Theobald, "Assessing the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs," CALDER Working Paper 55 (Dec 2010).
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/class-size-what-research-says-and-what-it-means-for-state-policy/
0 Response to "what is the percentage of increase from the least expensive policy to the most expensive policy?"
Post a Comment