By LINDA KILIAN
This school year has brought the biggest change to education in years: The state of California is financing the reduction of class size. Districts will receive incentive funding to reduce the student-to-teacher ratio to 20-to-1 in up to three primary grades, starting with first and second grades.
Finally, educators will have the smaller classes they have asked for; at last we can begin making improvements in California's poor reading and math scores. So why hasn't every district rushed to reduce class size at the three grades allowed?
Like almost any issue, this one has two sides. One of the biggest concerns for districts is the lack of full funding for implementation. We are delighted that the state is providing incentive money of $650 per student in a reduced-size class this year. Without this money, we would be unable to implement such an ambitious class-size reduction program using our current budget.
However, this does not cover the total cost of providing for the lowered student-to-teacher ratio. For example, implementing first-grade class-size reduction in Sunnyvale has cost more than $562,000 this year. The state is providing nearly $500,000, but the district must pay for the rest from our regular budget. We are predicting similar costs for reducing second- and third-grade class sizes as well. This money pays teachers' salaries, so it will be an ongoing cost to the district as long as we have class-size reduction.
Sunnyvale has space for additional classrooms, but it is in closed school sites. All of our closed sites are currently leased out, with the revenues being used to support programs across the district. If we have to reopen schools, we will lose this revenue and may have to make future program cuts.
On the positive side, there is more teacher-student contact in smaller classes. Parents and teachers intuitively know that with fewer students, a teacher will have more time to interact with each student. Teachers will know their students better and be able to respond more quickly when they discover that a student is having trouble with a concept.
Will this lead to improved student learning? Unfortunately, no definitive studies of improvement in student learning have been done for the 20-to-1 ratio.
Studies do show that students in a class of 15-to-1 show significant improvement; can we infer that similar gains would occur at 20-to-1?
We also need to look at some of the less measurable side effects of reduced class size. In smaller classes, there is less noise, more space for each student and less chance of students becoming just part of a crowd. Student stress levels may be lowered; students may like school better because they feel more a part of the group. On the other hand, using more classrooms to serve the primary grades will limit the number of rooms available to all students. Schools would have fewer rooms for special purposes such as reading and computer labs or science rooms.
If class-size reduction were fully funded, there would be fewer obstacles to implementation. Perhaps it is a blessing in disguise that it is not. This opportunity, along with its challenges, has forced educators, parents, and community members to consider the benefits and limitations of class-size reduction before proceeding with implementation. Our district has held two forums to share information with and hear input from the community. This thoughtful consideration and dialogue between all parties will ultimately bring about the best decision for our students.
Linda Kilian is a member of the Sunnyvale Elementary School District Board of Trustees.
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, February 12, 1997.
©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.