User:Lenind96/sandbox

***Copied directly from article to edit***

1. Dr. Eric Hanushek has called into question the validity of the study on Project STAR, arguing that the bulk of scientific research on small-class sizes shows no or statistically insignificant effects and that there must be another explanation, like flawed random assignment, that produced the result rather than small class size. However, subsequent research has disproven Hanushek's claim that "there is no strong or consistent relationship between school inputs and student performance". Dr. Alan Krueger reanalyzed the data on which Hanushek based this claim and found that Hanushek "places a disproportionate share of weight on a small number of studies that frequently used small samples and estimated misspecified models." When this is corrected, the literature actually reveals a strong correlation between reduced class size and academic performance and suggests that the internal rate of return from reducing class size from 22 to 15 students is around 6 percent. It should be noted that, in more recent years, Hanushek has defended his work in his book "Money Might Matter Somewhere", in which he argues that the amount of money spent per pupil is not as important a factor towards student achievement inasmuch as how the money is spent. In other words, Hanushek argues that giving a student $10,000 worth of pens and pencils would not impact their overall student achievement as much as, say, a $10,000 investment into training and development for that student's teacher.

2. Students who go on to finish their education also bring more value to their communities causing some economists to suggest that smaller class sizes may pay for themselves internally, although other economists question this.[1] An analysis of the Tennessee STAR study demonstrated that the economic benefits from higher achievement alone would be expected to yield twice the cost of reducing class size. A meta-analysis of CSR literature revealed that the benefits of smaller class size outweighed the cost in all but three of the 112 peer-reviewed studies. However, one prominent study looking at the long-term average wage earnings of students who participated in STAR by linking the data from the experiment to IRS tax records 26 years later disagrees. One of the main findings of this study was that class size does not have a significant effect on earnings by age 27. However, it should be noted that the authors themselves do not consider their evidence to be conclusive and should thus be discounted. One valid finding, though, was that students who had teachers with greater education training and work experience were more likely to achieve higher earnings later in life. Additional findings were that students who were put into smaller classes were more likely to graduate high school and to, later, attend college.

3. Subsequent research on the effects of class size reduction has linked small class sizes with a variety of cognitive and non-cognitive benefits for students and teachers, both short and long-term, especially when class sizes are reduced in the early years of schooling. According to the Center for Public Education, the early years of schooling can be defined as K-3. Its benefits are particularly pronounced for lower-income students and children of color, who experience two to three times the gains from smaller classes, leading CSR to be one of only a few education reforms proven to reduce the achievement gap. Smaller classes have also been found to have a positive impact on school climate, student socio-emotional growth, safety and suspension rates, parent engagement, and teacher attrition, especially in schools with large numbers of disadvantaged children.

4. The California K–3 CSR Program was established in 1996 to improve education, especially in reading and mathematics, by reducing class sizes in kindergarten through grade three. The K–3 CSR Program provided funds to public and charter schools that reduced their class sizes to 20 pupils per certified teacher, rewarding each school with $850 per student that was in one of these smaller classes. As a result, the program was consuming 6% of the state's general education budget by 2001 and had, thus far, cost a total of $22 billion.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the program, with some critics arguing it had disappointing results. Because nearly all elementary schools in the state reduced class size at once, especially in grades K–2, it was difficult for researchers to find a control group with which to compare outcomes. The state exam was also new, making it difficult to compare achievement gains to past trends. Additionally, some researchers have noted that the program lacked adequate funding to be properly implemented. One serious drawback of this program is that it was much tougher for schools in lower-income communities to benefit as they were already struggling to retain high-quality teachers and maintain a sufficient quantity of classrooms. Thus, schools in higher-income communities, that already had average class sizes around 20 students, most benefited from this program -- increasing inequality within the education system.

Despite these limitations and concerns, a study by the RAND Corporation of the effects of California's CSR program showed statistically significant achievement gains from smaller classes. One example of this that researchers found was that students who were in reduced classes in grades K-3 had slightly higher scores on average on math exams in 4th grade than students from larger classes. Achievement gains were much stronger on average among high-poverty minority students than low-poverty white students. The most significant result of this program was that class sizes, across the state, were, on average, reduced. Some other significant effects of the program were that teacher quality had decreased and the use of combination classes had increased. Teacher quality worsened because schools had to dig deeper down in the barrel to find teachers, who were typically less educated and less experienced. As to why these achievement gains were greater for high-poverty minority students, the Coleman Report from 1966 has a lot to say.

The Coleman Report, at its essence, concluded quite controversially that family background matters significantly more to a student's achievement than any resources a school can offer. The exact factors defining "family background" that this report looked at were "parents' educational attainment, parents' income, parents’ criminal history, and family structure". The report goes on to explain that it is equally important, if not more so, for public policy to focus on improving resources of the family rather than those of the school. This could suggest that policies attempting to reduce class size might not have as significant effects on a student's educational achievement as would a policy that reduces a student's level of poverty.

*********************************************