O0
3
3
ABCOEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghliklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefgh12ijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
34567890
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 320 305
EA 021 990
AUTHOR
Lane, Kenneth E.; Prickett, R. L.
TITLE
Mandated Class Size and Available Classrooms: An
Educational Facility Dilemma.
PUB DATE
Apr 90
NOTE
26p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Associat:.on (Boston,
MA, April 16-20, 1990).
PUB TYPE
Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Reports
Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Class Size; Crowding; Educational Facilities;
*Educational Finance; Elementary Education; *Needs
Assessment; *State Legislation; *State School
District Relationship; Tables (Data); Teacher Student
Ratio
ABSTRACT
The call for limits on the enrollment of students in
classes has continued to grow during the past decade despite
questions regarding whether class size really makes a difference in
instructional effectiveness. The purposeof the research reported
here is to establish what the states have actually done to reduce
class size in kindergarten through grade 6. Responses to a profile
analysis assessment instrument sent to the state education agencies
for each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, American
Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands are analyzed. Two tables show the caps on class size, the
classrooms needed, the process used to determine the classrooms
needed, and how the new classroom construction was financed. Of the
24 states with mandates to reduce class size, only three (Alabama,
California, and South Carolina) conducted a needs assessment to
determine the number of classrooms needed to meet the mandates. This
study verifies the failure of the states to adequately address the
issues of reducing class size as a means to improving student
achievement. It illuminates the fact that states have passed mandates
but have not conducted a needs assessment of the new classrooms
required to meet the mandates. It verifies also that the local school
systems are being held responsible for meeting the mandates in both
policy and finance without state support in the vast majority of
cases. (6 references) (MLF)
***************************P*******************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
MANDATED CLASS SIZE AND AVAILABLE CLASSROOMS:
AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DILEMMA
K. E. LANE
R. L. PRICKETT
A manuscript prepared for presentation at the AMERICAN
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION in Boston, MA on
April 17, 1990.
U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Ed,,cational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
his document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
Originating it
Minor changes have been made to anrove
reproduction quality
Points of view or opinions stated to this docu-
ment do not necessarily represent Official
OERI position or policy
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MAT RIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).'
Ken Lane is associate professor at California State University in
San Bernardino, CA and Robert Prickett is assistant professor in
the Department pf Educational
Leadership at Western Kentucky
University in Bowling Green,
KY
(502) 745-4890.
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
MANDATED CLASS SIZE AND AVAILABLE CLASSROOMS:
AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DILEMMA
The call for limits on the enrollment of students in classes
has continued to grow during the past decade.
The response to
this call has included no action, special programs enacted by
state boards of education to reduce class size, state board of
education policies placing caps on class enrollment and state
accreditation standards which have limits on class enrollment.
This call for caps on class size has continued despite questions
regarding whether class size really makes a difference in
instructional effectiveness.
It has also continued without
adequate consideration of the need for the means to build the
additional classrooms to meet the mandates.
The U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational
Research and Development in its March, 1988, report Class Size
and Public Policy; Politics and Panaceas has stated that indices
of teacher/student ratios, teacher/class size ratios and
teacher/pupil load ratios do not explain or justify the current
pressures for reduction in class size (Tomlinson, 1988).
The
National Governor's Association in their heralded report, Time
for Results, advanced several ideas regarding year-round schools
and parent choice.
Yet they did not address class size as a
factor for improving education (National Governor's Association,
1986).
3
3
Conversely, some states have formulated programs and
policies in the belief that reduced class does indeed impact
student achievement.
The Indiana State Board of Education
through their Prime Time program has designed a means for
reducing the teacher/pupil ratio in grades K-3 in order to
increase the potential for student achievement.
Their belief in
the program which began in 1984-1985 is reflected by the
exaenditure of more than $240,000,000 for Prime Time (Indiana
Department of Education, 1989).
Project STAR in Tennessee is a
longitudinal study on the effects of reduced class size on
student achievement.
The latest results as presented at the
American Association of School Administrators conference in
February, 1993, show that student achievement is significantly
higher in small classes than in large classes or classes with
teacher aides.
Additionally, the greatest benefits of reduced
class size are found in inner-city schools (Achilles, Bain, &
Firn, 1990).
While Kentucky has had some difficulties handling
he caps on class size at the local level, it is still
illuminating that the superintendents believe that it is the best
solution to improving instruction and achievement in the local
school district (Kentucky State Department of Education, 1987).
With the debate still continuing, there are several
questions which have not been answered.
Those questions are:
1.
What policies have the individual states enacted in
regard to establishing caps on class enrollment?
2.
Is a state has a mandated class size reduction policy
or law, what is the cap for grades K-6?
3.
How many classrooms are needed to meet the mandate?
4
4.
What process was used to determine the number of
classrooms needed to meet the mandate?
5.
How are the additional classrooms to be built financed?
If answers to these questions can be ascertained, then inferences
can be made as the seriousness of the educational reform efforts
to mandate class size and who is to be held accountable for
construction of the additional classroom necessary to meet the
mandates.
The purpose to this research
is to answer the questions
outlined above.
While there is a demand for reduced class size,
the hypothesis advanced here is that the state boards of
education and state legislatures pass the mandates but hold the
local school district responsible for the financing of the needed
classrooms to meet the mandates.
This study is an attempt to
establish in a written format what the states have actually done
to reduce class size in kindergarten through grade six.
STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
A profile analysis assessment instrument was sent to the
state education agencies for each of the fifty states plus the
District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
A follow-up letter
was sent to those agencies which did not respond.
Finally,
telephone calls were made
to those states not responding.
The
information requested followed the format of the questions listed
earlier.
The data is reported in Table 1 which reflects the caps
5
5
on class size by state and Table 2 which reflects the
classrooms
needed, the process used to determine the classrooms needed, and
how the new classroom construction was financed.
DATA ANALYSIS
For simplicity purposes, only the data from the
fifty states
will be analyzed.
Of the fifty states, all 50 (100%) responded.
Of the fifty states, 24 (48%) have
a mandate affecting at least
one grade level either by state board of education policy,
legislative law or state accreditation standard and 26 (52%)
states do not have a mandate regarding class size.
Of '..he states that have a mandate to reduce class size, the
lowest class sizes are:
K
17
Alabama
1
15
Nevada
2
15
Nevada
3
15
Nevada
4
17
Alabama
5
24
Alabama
6
24
Alabama
However, it should be noted that these caps are being phased in
by grade starting with the 1988-1989 school year and are to be in
place by the 1997-1998 school
year.
The highest class cap on
kindergarten is 33 in California.
The highest class cap on
6
STATE
MANDATED
TABLE 1.
CLASS SIZE FOR GRADES K-6
COMMENTS
GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
6
Alabama
Alaska
Yes,
No
1988-89
See note
17
17
17
17
17
24
24
Arizona
No
Arkansas
Yea,
1987
See note
20
25
25
225
28
28
28
California
Colorado
Yes,
No
1966-69
See note
33
32
32
32
29.9
29.9
29.9
Connecticut
No
Delaware
No
Florida
No
Georgia
Yes,
1985
21
25
25
25
33
33
33
Hawaii
No
See note
20
Idaho
Illinois
Yes,
No
1979
25
25
28
28
32
32
32
Indiana
No
See note
Iowa
No
Kansas
No
Kentucky
Yes
See note
28
24
25
25
28
29
29
Louisiana
Yes
26
26
26
26
33
33
33
Maine
Maryland
Yes,
Nc
1984
See note
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Massachusetts
Yes,
K only
See note
25
Michigan
Yes
See note
25
25
25
25
30
30
30
Minnesota
Yes,
1986
See note
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Mississippi
Missouri
Yes,
No
1982
See note
22
27
27
27
27
30
30
Montana
Nebraska
Ye,
No
1989
See note
24
26
26
28
28
30
30
Nevada
Yes
15
15
15
New Hampshire
Yes
See note
25
25
25
30
30
30
30
New Jersey
Yes,
K only
See note
25
New Mexico
New York
Yes,
No
1986
See note
See note
20
20
22
24
25
25
25
North Carolina
Yes,
1987
See note
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
7
STATE
TABLE 1.
CLASS SIZE FOR GRADES K-6
MANDATED
COMMENTS
GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
North Dakota
Yes,
Accreditation
See note
25
25
25
25
30
30
30
Ohio
No
Oklahoma
Yes, 1985
See note
25
22
22
22
25
25
25
Oregon
No
Pennsylvania
No
Rhode Island
No
South Carolina Yes, 1986
See note
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
South Dakota
No
Tennessee
Yes, 1977
25
25
25
25
28
30
30
Texas
Yes, 1985
22
22
22
22
Utah
No
Vermont
No
Ave. class
size
<20
<20
<20
<20
<25
<25
<25
Virginia
Yes
See note
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
Washington
No
West Virginia
Yes, 1983-84
See note
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
Wisconsin
No
Wyoming
No
District of
Columbia
Did not respond
Sainona
No
U.S. Dept.
of Education Not applicable
10
NOTES:
Alabama - Bill 16-13-52.1 was enacted in 1988-89 and phases in these class sizes through
the 1997-1998 school year.
Arkansas - Presently updating a statewide facility inventory with the information gained
being available approximately October 1, 1990.
California - Department of Education School Facilities Planning Division indicated that
there were 60',865 classrooms available before the mandate and 18,385 additional
classrooms were needed to meet the mandate which is now over 20 years old.
Penalities may occur if a school district exceeds the statewide average of 1964 (29.9
for grades 4-8) or the district's average in 1964 if higher.
Hawaii - For grades K-1, there is a maximum cap of 20 to 1.
However, there is no cap for
grades 2-12.
An allocation is made of one position for every 26.15 pupils in a
school, but this is not a class by class ratio.
Indiana - Does not have a legislated mandate on class size.
It is estimated that it would
require construction costs of $600,000,000 to reduce class size for grades K-5 to a
cap of 15 to one.
PRIME TIME is a program by the Indiana State Department of
Education to reduce the adult/pupil ratio in grades K-3.
Kentucky - At the finish of the accreditation cycle of the 1990-1991 school year, a
facility inventory will be available via computer.
Maine - For each school grades 1-6 must average 25 pupils per teacher or less and no class
may exceed 30 pupils.
Massachusetts - Class caps exist for kindergarten only and the kindergarten classes must
average no more than 25.
Michigan - The class size shown here are mandates only in the sense that the School Aid
Act funds the schools and a school may be penalized financially for exceeding this
class size.
For those classes with caps of 30, any certified employee in the
district is figured into the ratio of 30:1.
Minnesota - This ratio is State Board of Education policy, not legislated law.
Any
exception from this ratio must be adopted and filed with the State Board of Education
by August 1, each year.
Mississippi - K may have 27 if there is a teacher aide.
Grades 1-4 may have 30 with
approval of State Board of Education.
Grades 5-6 may have 30 if the class are self
contained or 33 if departmentalized.
Montana - By July 1, 1992, K-2 class size is to be 30.
New Hampshire - These class caps must be met by Fall, 1993.
At the present time, their
studies indicate that 89% of the classes meet these caps on class size.
New Jersey - Only kindergarten has a mandated cap of 25 students.
However, tho New Jersey
Board of education recommends that the ideal class size be 25 students.
New Mexico - grades K1 with 15-20 pupils have an instructional aide.
New York - There is no mandate on class size.
However, if a teachers' load for a six hour
day exceeds 150 students, a justification must be provided to the state.
North Carolina - Under the provisions of 115C-301, "It shall be the duty of local school
boards of education to provide adequate classroom facilities.
North Dakota - Accreditation, a voluntary process for schools, forces schools to maintain
these class sizes.
Failure to do so risks the loss of accreditation.
Over 90
percent of the schools seek accreditation.
Oklahoma - By 1992-1993, kindergarten class size is to be 22.
By 1990-1991, grades 1-3
are required to have class sizes of 21.
Grades K-3 may exceed the class requirements
by nine pupils provided a teaching assistant is hired for that class.
Grades 4-6 may
exceed the class requirements is the additional section would have less than 16
pupils.
South Carolina - Grades 4-6 are required to have a 30:1 ration in reading math.
Other
subjects may have a 35:1 ratio.
Vermont - The numbers reflect average class sizes, not enrollment caps.
Instructional
aides or special tutors must be used to compensate for higher ratios.
Virginia - By the Virginia Board of Education Chapter 13.2, Standards of Quality, July
1988, divisionwide ratios of students in average daily membership to full-time
equivalent teaching positions, excluCing special education teachers, principals,
assistant principals, counselors and librarians are not to exceed the numbers listed
per class.
West Virginia - Exceptions may be requested from the Department of Education for up to 23
in Kindergarten and 28 in grades 1-6.
Wisconsin - The laws regarding borrowing were changed in August 1989 to make it easier for
LEA's to borrow.
LEA's may now borrow up to $1 million without a referendum.
Amounts over $1 million require a referendum only if the local board receives a
petition for referendum from 20% of the persons who voted in the last state election.
STATE
TABLE 2.
DETERMINATION AND FINANCING OF CLASSROOMS
CLASSROOMS TO
MEET M NDATE
PROCESS TO
DETERMINE CLASSROOMS
FINANCING FOR
ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkarisas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
5585
information not
provided
18,385
information not
available
information not
provided
statistics
available
not determined
not determined
,15
Comprehensive needs assessment
local funds
state assisted districts upon
request
part of process to determine
eligibility for state school
building aid
local long-range facilities
plan
information not provided
district funding,
bonds, revolving loan
from State
state bond issues,
local developer fees,
local general
obligation bonds,
school facilities
districts assessments
local funds 10-25%
state 75-90%
information not
provided
survey on district-by-district
School Facilities
basis
Construction
Commission
did not use one
local taxes and bonds
not known
if approved by State,
State; if not
approved, local funds
t.
_I6
STATE
TABLE 2.
DETERMINhTION AND FINANCING OF CLASSROOMS
CLASSROOMS TO
MEET MANDATE
PROCESS TO
DETERMINE CLASSROOMS
FINANCING FOR
ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
not determined
not determined
information not
provided
not determined
information not
provided
state planning;
work w/legislators
information not
provided
not determined
study did not
address this issue
not determined
not determined
not determined
not determined
public hearings conducted
regionally
local option, needs assessment
information not
provided
information not
provided
information not
provided
statewide survey of total
facility needs
information not
provided
local district responsibility
state has school building
inventory
local effort
local bonds
local district
resources
special short term
loans, Bond elections.
information not
provided
local revenue bonds
local effort
mill levy, Operating
Budget
local effort
local ad valorem taxes
& bonds; special state
sales taxes
information not
provided
state, 30% minimum,
remainder, local bond
issues combination of
state and local
funding
18
STATE
TABLE 2.
CLASSROOMS TO
MEET MANDATE
DETERMINATION AND FINANCING OF
PROCESS TO
DETERMINE CLASSROOMS
CLASSROOMS
FINANCING FOR
ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS
South Carolina
11,446
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
information out-
dated, not
available
unknown
unknown
information not
available
District of Columbia
Samoa
U.S. Dept of Education
.4; Qo
questionnaire through state
district offices
did not use one
determined by individual
district
local districts
through property,
wheel & sales tax
local taxes and bond
issue
Literary Loan Fund,
Virginia Public School
funding
State matching funds
from Federal Forest
Funds; local bonds
local districts; no
special state funding
local education agency
special funding (see
note below)
20
6
grade 6 is 33 in Georgia and Louisiana.
The class size cap means
for the grade levels are:
K
24.19
1
24.42
2
24.71
3
25.08
4
27.72
5
28.40
6
28.40
Of the 24 states that have a mandate, only three
(California, Idaho and Tennessee) had the mandate in place before
1980.
Most of the mandates have occurred during the past six
years or since the Nation at Risk report which spurred
educational reform.
Conversely, reduction in class size has not
been mandated in the 26 states.
An analysis of the classrooms needed to meet the mandate is
most revealing in terms of the states' perceived responsibility
to enable local districts to meet the mandates.
Of the 24 states
with mandates, only three (Alabama, California, and South
Carolina) conducted a needs assessment to determine the number of
classrooms needed to meet the mandates.
The remaining 21 states
did not determine the number of classrooms needed.
The typical
response is a general policy stated by the state boards of
education that it is the responsibility of the local school
districts to meet the mandates.
An explanation of how Alabama, South Carolina, and
California arrived at the number of classrooms needed to meet the
size mandates is appropriate.
Alabama outlined its facility
needs in 1989 with a survey of capital outlay needs (Alabama
Department of Education, 1989).
The classrooms needed include
academic classroom and laboratory space for grades K-12.
The
needs assessment also dealt with total facility needs, not just
those impacted by reduced class size mandates.
However, it is
startling to view the assessment results.
and total local costs are:
The classrooms needed
Kindergarten
478
22,921,712
Special Education
652
28,900,986
Regular Classrooms
3,509
182,224,748
Science Laboratories
158
11,367,514
Mathematics Laboratories
79
4,155,943
Foreign Language Laboratories 141
6,779,333
Computer Laboratories
320
15,558,734
Other
248
38,103,724
5,585
$310,012,693
South Carolina conducted its needs assessment in 1989 and
outlined teaching stations needed.
Like Alabama, the figures
reflect total needs rather than those needs related directly to
mandates on class size.
The teaching stations needed are:
New Schools
4,207
Additions
2,803
Major Renovations to Existing Facilities
4,228
Temporaries
208
11,446
The estimated cost of these teaching facilities by year is:
1989-1990
n90-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
187,758,426
237,021,191
253,255,260
264,744,157
122,608,454
134,084,627
$1,199,472,115
22
7
8
California determined their classroom needs based on information
obtained from local districts as a requirement to determine
eligibility for state school facility needs.
While it is
di ficult to determine the cost of reducing class size for grades
K-6, it is readiLy apparent that the cost of new school facility
construction is costly.
The Indiana Department of Education has
conducted a study which estimates that it would require
construction costs of $600,000,000 to reduce class size for
grades K-5 to a cap of 15 to one.
If each stEite averaged $400,000,000 to reduce class size
to
20 for grades K-6, it would cost an estimated $20 billion
nationwide to meet that mandate.
This estimate does not take
into consideration the cost of hiring additional teachers for
those classrooms.
If the additional classrooms are to be constructed, how are
they to be finarcec.?
Of those states that responded to this
question, most of thorn state that it is the responsibility of the
local school district to raise the taxes or bonds to finance new
school construction.
A few states do provide help from the state
level.
Arkansas provides revolving loans to local school
districts.
California provides funding from the state level and
also some joint venture efforts with the local
districts.
Kentucky uses the School Facilities Construction
Commission to
finance new school construction.
In Maine, the state provides
the funding if the state approves the project.
However, the
major responsibility for new school construction to meet mandates
2 3
9
on class size still
the responsibility of the local school
system.
CONCLUSIONS
While reform efforts have pushed for reduced class size as
the most effective means to improving student achievement, it is
apparent that many states have not adopted the concept.
Even
though there is debate as to the effectiveness of reduced class
size in improving student achievement, several states have chosen
to implement mandates to reduce class size.
The latest research
from Project STAR in Tennessee is the first to conclusively show
that small class size does result in significantly higher student
achievement scores than those attained in larger classes or
classes with a teacher aide.
The states which have mandated class size caps have for the
most part limited class sizes to 25 or less in grades K-3 and 30
or less for grades 4-6.
However, most of the mandates have been
implemented without a determination of the classrooms needed to
meet the mandates or without financial help for the local school
systems to meet the mandates.
This study verifies the failure of the states to adequately
address the issues of reducing class size as a means to improve
student achievement.
It vividly illuminates the fact that states
have passed mandates but did not conduct a needs assessment of
the new classrooms required to meet the mandates.
It verifies
1
also that the local school systems are being held responsible for
meeting the mandates in both policy and finance without state
support in the vast majority of cases.
VIEW AS A RESULT OF THE STUDY
Will change occur as a result of this study?
Probably not.
Legislatures and state boards of education probably find it
politically convenient to pass mandates on class size to meet
demands for educational reform.
However, state financial support
to enable the local school districts to meet the mandates has not
been forthcoming.
More studies similar to Project STAR in Tennessee need to be
conducted to validate the relationship between class size and
student achievement.
Howrver, the expenditure of funds in terms
of research dollars to determine school facility needs is not a
high priority of the states or the United States Department of
Education.
The monies, both percentage of budget and actual
expenditures, which are invested in research and development by
educational organizations and the states pale in comparison to
the business community.
When a conscious decision is made by the
federal government, the states and the education community to
place monies into research and development, then maybe the impact
of state mandates and classrooms needed to meet those mandates
can be researched in an effort to keep school facilities from
becoming an educational dilemma.
11
REFERENCES
Achilles, C., Bain, H., & Finn, J.
(February, 1990).
A Data-
Based Challenge. to Tradition.
A presentation at AASA in San
Francisco.
Survey of the Effects of the Cap on Class Size.
(1987).
Frankfort, Kentucky:
Kentucky State Department of
Education.
PRIME TIME.
(1989).
Indianapolis, Indiana:
Indiana Department
of Education, Division of School Finance.
Statewide School Building Facilities Survey.
(1989).
Columbia,
South Carolina:
South Carolina Department of Education.
Time for Results:
The Governor's 1991 Report on Education.
(1986).
Washington, DC:
National Governor's Association.
Tomlinson, Tommy M.
(1988).
Class Size and Public Policy:
PoU.tics and Panaceas.
U.S. Department of Education Office
of educational Research and Development, Washington, DC.