Class-Size Reduction: The Next Steps

By Delaine Eastin

In September 1995, when I first proposed reducing class sizes to 20 students, some folks labeled that suggestion a pipe dream. Now, as the first year of class-size reduction (CSR) implementation draws to a close, we are witnessing a wonderful renaissance of enthusiasm and hope in elementary schools throughout California. Students, parents, teachers and administrators at the early elementary grades are sharing in the joy of smaller classes. However, while the CSR program has been enormously successful in its inaugural year, we still face crucial decisions about the program's future.

Today, 95 percent of all school districts are participating in the CSR program. Ninety-two percent of first graders, nearly 75 percent of second graders, 23 percent of third graders, and 17 percent of kindergartners are in classes of no more than 20 students. Of the 895 eligible school districts, 851 are participating; of the nonparticipating districts, many are small and have less than 200 students.

Let me outline some of the most important issues that must be addressed in the coming weeks regarding CSR:

Financing. The current budget proposal calls for funding the program at $666 per student. This amount is inadequate. We should fund the program closer to its true per-pupil cost - and provide an $800 incentive per child.

Facilities. The biggest bottleneck to the CSR program is facilities. It is imperative that we place a $4 billion school facilities bond on the 1998 statewide ballot, with $1 billion of this amount devoted to class size reduction.

I am committed to seeing that smaller classes are not implemented at the expense of other programs. For example, it is crucial that more money be made available for child-development facilities, many of which have been displaced due to CSR. I support the governor's proposal to establish a $15 million loan fund for this purpose, and through my seat on the State Allocation Board I have proposed that an additional $5 million be allocated for child-development facilities.

I also believe there needs to be flexibility in allowing for 40 students and two teachers in a classroom until one year after a statewide school bond has been passed, and that any carryover CSR operating money should be used for facilities. We need to be realistic about what we can expect from schools in light of our facilities' crisis, particularly in urban areas where there is no space to physically expand school sites.

In addition, I will make myself available to school districts to endorse local bond measures that will help to alleviate our space shortages.

Teacher Recruitment. Clearly, finding enough highly skilled teachers to implement the CSR program has been a concern. Recent data now shows that - contrary to what some people had expected - the percentage of teachers hired in California this year on emergency credentials has not increased from last year. This is not to say, however, that we do not still need to increase our pool of trained teachers.

I support the idea of making it easier to hire out-of-state credentialed teachers for the next three years. On the other hand, I do not think we should reduce standards for becoming a teacher in our state - if anything, we should increase the Beginning Teacher Support Program, a proven winner that gives new teachers a formal mentor relationship with an experienced teacher.

More than 30 pieces of legislation have been introduced on CSR, and clearly this issue will remain a top concern of the education community during the coming school year. I believe that we should remain firm in our resolve to keep classes at the 20-to-1 ratio. This is not a pipe dream, but like all good ideas they come to fruition best with a commitment to quality and to high standards.

I look forward to working with the education community and policy-makers as we expand this program into its second year. In business, people concern themselves with ROI - Return On Investment. There is no higher return, in my view, than in education. Therein lies the greatest ROI ... and the fate of our Republic.

Analyst: CSR Needs Flexibility

From the California Legislative Analyst

Lack of flexibility increases costs of implementing the Class Size Reduction (CSR) program, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

In a report released February 12, the office of Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill recommended that the Legislature redefine the 20 pupils-to-one teacher ratio to allow classes of up to 22 to one, and to delay Governor Pete Wilson's 1997-98 budget plan that calls for expanding CSR to a fourth grade.

The CSR program was created as part of the 1996-97 Budget Act with the intent of increasing educational achievement. The average class size - 28.6 students - is to be reduced to no more than 20 students in up to three grades.

After surveying school districts to gather details, Mrs. Hill's office reported these findings:

• Districts are maintaining CSR classes at a ratio of about 19 students to one teacher to be sure of remaining under the cap of 20 students to one teacher. This increases per-pupil CSR costs by as much as 21 percent. As a result, CSR costs about $770 per pupil on a statewide basis under these circumstances. If CSR classes could be kept at 20:1, average costs would be about $630 per pupil in the current year. This cost figure is less than the state's reimbursement level.

  Districts appear to be reducing classes to average sizes well below the 20:1 cap, probably because they are fearful of losing CSR funding and they must plan for enrollment changes during the school year. Severe penalties for going over 20:1 may be pushing them into creating an extra safety margin, resulting in typical class sizes of 19, rather than 20. Also, some districts have less flexibility in dividing their children between classes and may be forced into low class sizes. A school with three classes of 28 students each, for instance, would have to make four classes of 17 students and one of 16 in order to participate in the program.

• CSR per-pupil costs vary from zero to about $1,000 from district to district. These costs depend on initial class size, class size in CSR classes, and the cost of teachers hired.
• The approximately 18,400 teachers hired for CSR have less teaching experience, fewer qualifications and a lower skill level, on average, than teachers hired in previous years. Implementing CSR fully in four grades would require 16,500 additional teachers.
• In the current year, a significant number of CSR facilities were created by converting classroom space used for other programs or services. Facilities to expand CSR next year to more classes and grades will be more expensive on a per-classroom basis, suggesting that districts now have fewer options for expanding CSR facilities other than purchasing portable classrooms.

Analyst recommendations included:

• Districts should be allowed to use CSR teachers much more flexibly than is allowed under the current program. There are a number of effective educational interventions, in addition to CSR, that require additional teaching staff.
• If the Legislature decides to stay with the current program structure, the cap should be redefined to require a 20:1 average ratio for all CSR classes in a district, while allowing individual class maximums of up to 22 students. This action would reduce costs and reduce counterproductive activities (such as busing and shuffling of children between classes) that have occurred solely to remain under the 20:1 cap.
• Due to shortages of qualified teachers and high costs for new facilities, the Legislature should delay implementation of a fourth grade of CSR. The Legislature, however, should earmark $100 million toward funding expansion of a fourth grade in subsequent years.

What Does Class-Size Reduction Cost?

Because districts are maintaining CSR classes at about 19:1 to be sure of remaining under the 20:1 cap, CSR costs are about $770 per pupil statewide, or 21 percent above the state allocation of $650 per pupil. If CSR classes could be kept at 20:1, costs would be about $630 per pupil, compared to the state allocation of $650 per pupil.

What are long-run costs of CSR?

Teachers hired for CSR are lower on the salary scale than the average teacher. However, in five to seven years, their salaries will be more like those of the average teacher. The analyst estimates the long-run per-pupil CSR cost will be about $1,020 (in current dollars) assuming average class sizes of 18.8.