tea: school size and class size in texas public schools

Policy Research Report

Introduction

In response to an enrollment increaseof 666,961 students over the past 10years, Texas public schools haveincreased in both number and size.The highest growth in both the numberof schools and average size of schoolsthat offer regular instruction occurredat the high school level. The numberof Texas high schools with over 2,000students increased by 35 percent from1987-88 to 1997-98, and these verylarge schools now make up 14 percentof all regular instructional highschools. Furthermore, the number ofelementary and middle schools with900 or more students increased by 30percent and 53 percent respectivelyfrom 1987-88 to 1997-98.

While school size increased in Texas,research has been conducted over thepast two decades suggesting that theacademic achievement of manystudents suffers at large schools.Smaller schools are thought to bemore efficient at providing conditionsmore conducive to student learning.One of those conditions is smallerclasses.

This is the first in a series of PolicyResearch Reports on the topic ofschool size and class size in Texaspublic schools. This report presents anoverview of the findings from schoolsize research conducted nationallyover the past two decades. Moreover,school size trends in Texas are de-scribed and the relationship betweenschool size and student academicperformance in Texas is analyzed.

School Size and Class Sizein Texas Public Schools

In addition, Texas policy related tostudent-teacher ratios and class size isreviewed and the relationship betweenstudent-teacher ratios and school sizeis examined. Finally, a review of classsize research conducted nationallypresents findings in the areas of schoolclimate, student academic achieve-ment, and principal, teacher, andparent perceptions. Financial consid-erations in decisions to reduce classsize are also discussed.

With Texas public school enrollmentprojected to increase at more thantwice the national rate over the nextdecade, education administrators andtaxpayers will continue to face diffi-cult decisions related to school facili-ties. The report concludes with adiscussion of some of the wayseducators are exploring to organizeschools and classrooms of all sizes toprovide a better learning environmentto increase achievement for all stu-dents.

Class size in Texas public schools willbe examined more closely in the nextphase of the study. Topics that will beexplored include the relationshipbetween school performance andstudent-teacher ratios, characteristicsof large schools with small student-teacher ratios, and an evaluation ofschool-level class size data.

School Size

Debates over school size continue tosurface in discussions about studentacademic achievement. Generally,larger schools are endorsed because

of their ability to provide academicchoices and efficient economies ofscale. However, small school propo-nents maintain that student achieve-ment improves because smallerschools have higher class and schoolparticipation, parental involvement,attendance, and graduation rates, aswell as a better school climate, moreindividual attention, and fewer drop-outs and student discipline problems.

While the United States populationincreased significantly from 1938 to1990, the number of public schooldistricts declined from 119,001 to15,367 (NCES, 1998). During thesame time period, the number ofpublic elementary and secondaryschools decreased nationwide fromapproximately 247,127 to 83,425(NCES, 1998). Thus, individualschools experienced significantenrollment increases due to districtand school consolidations.

Throughout the 1990s, both the sizeand number of schools continued toincrease as enrollments nationallyincreased. By 1995-96 there were87,125 public elementary and second-ary schools in the United States(NCES, 1998). Average school sizewas 476 students in elementaryschools and 703 students in secondaryschools. Based on NCES data, Texaselementary schools enrolled onaverage about 75 more students thanpublic elementary schools nationallyand Texas secondary schools hadabout 24 fewer students than second-ary schools.


Although enrollment nationallyincreased 16 percent between 1984and 1996, only a 6 percent enrollmentincrease is projected for the next 12year period (NCES, 1998). Projectedincreases vary dramatically betweenregions and among states. A 14percent increase in public schoolenrollment is forecast for Texasbetween 1996 and 2008. Texaselementary school enrollment isprojected to increase by only 10percent; high school enrollment maysurge 24 percent. Only North Caro-lina, Arizona, California, and Nevadaare projected to have greater increasesthan Texas in high school enrollment.Although Texas Education Agencypupil projections for high schoolthrough the year 2003 are moreconservative than the NCES projec-tions, Texas clearly ranks as one of thehigh growth states.

Involvement and Participation

Ordinarily, conceptions of effectiveschools include practices and organi-zational structures characteristic ofsmall schools (Howley, 1997; Raywid,1998; Unks, 1989). Smaller schoolsare perceived as more manageablebecause they cultivate more familiarityand interaction between students, staff,and parents; greater sharing of respon-sibilities; and less opposition tocurricular changes (Miller, Ellsworth,& Howell, 1986; Unks, 1989). Inaddition, research has identified arelationship between small schoolsand increased associations amongstudents and staff. Although someargue that the people, not the size ofthe school, make the difference,studies report that students feel agreater sense of belonging and self-regard at small schools (Cotton, 1996;McGuire, 1989; Meier, 1995; Unks,1989). Although students at smallerschools also have fewer relationshipswith adults in their school life, estab-lished relationships are “more intenseand enduring” (Wynne & Walberg,1995, p. 531). While larger schools

appear to produce a less positive socialenvironment, less social integration,less participation, and less identitywith the school, smaller schools areassociated with reports of greaterpersonal efficacy for teachers andadministrators (Cotton, 1996;Gladden, 1998; McGuire, 1989).

Research also demonstrates thatstudents participate less at largerschools (Finn, 1998). Often, fewerstudents at large schools participate inschool activities due to feelings ofisolation or seclusion (Schoggen &Schoggen, 1988). In addition, thenumber of students who can partici-pate in roles and activities is limited atlarger schools (Pittman & Haughwout,1987). In contrast, students at smallerschools often are more eager toparticipate and have more opportuni-ties to do so (Sergiovanni, 1995). Inaddition to increased student participa-tion in small schools, parents tend toparticipate more often in schoolmatters at small schools (Alspaugh,1994).

Student Achievement

Increasingly, evidence suggests thatschool size, directly or indirectly,interacts with student learning. Propo-nents perceive small schools as moreefficient at raising student achieve-ment and accruing other benefits aswell. In addition to concluding thatstudent achievement suffers in schoolswith enrollments over 2,000, Farber(1998) concluded that gains forreading and mathematics are best forall students, regardless of wealth, whoattend high schools with 600 to 900students. A study by Lee and Smith(1997) using National EducationalLongitudinal Study (NELS) 1988 dataon students from small and largeschools demonstrated that mathemat-ics and reading gains for students inhigh minority and high economicallydisadvantaged schools with 600 to 900students were comparable to theircounterparts at low minority and low

economically disadvantaged schools.However, the analysis noted anincreasing achievement gap betweenhigh-minority and low-minorityschools, as well as high-economicallydisadvantaged and low-economicallydisadvantaged schools when enroll-ment surpassed 900. Miller,Ellsworth, and Howell (1986) studied12 elementary schools in KansasUnified School District #259. Theyalso determined smaller elementaryschools are associated with betterreading achievement levels.

Raywid (1998), reporting on a studyof Philadelphia and Alaska schools,noted that students in small highschools were more likely to pass coresubjects than students in larger highschools. Moreover, results from theAlaskan schools indicated thatdisadvantaged students at smallschools significantly outperformedthose at large schools on standardizedtests of basic skills. Although somestudies endorse large schools as thebest setting for preparing students forcollege, others maintain that smallschools are equally good, if not better,at preparing students for achievementin school, college, and the future(Cotton, 1996). For example, Jewell(1989) found that states with smallerschools have higher SAT and ACTscores.

The prominence of school size effectson students who are economicallydisadvantaged prompts advocates ofsmall schools to tailor their recom-mendations for situations when smallschool size will be most advantageousfor specific types of students. ACalifornia study demonstrated thatwhile large schools may help affluentstudents, smaller schools increasinglybenefit economically disadvantagedstudents (Friedkin & Necochea,1988). In addition, “the negativeeffects on the achievement of impov-erished students are much strongerthan the positive effects of size onaffluent students” (Howley, 1995,


p.15). Thus, large schools are be-lieved to be less detrimental to stu-dents from affluent backgrounds thanto those from more disadvantagedbackgrounds (Howley, 1997; Raywid,1998). Yet, secondary students whoare economically disadvantaged andminority are generally concentrated atthe larger schools. Findings suggestthat minority and economicallydisadvantaged students at theseschools could benefit if the size ofthe school were reduced to a rangebetween 600 and 900 students(Lee & Smith, 1997).

Considerations about school size mustinclude the interaction between schoolsize, student socioeconomic status,and student achievement. The consen-sus is that students learn less and havefewer academic gains in larger schoolsif they are economically disadvan-taged or the school they attend hasstudents who are predominatelyeconomically disadvantaged (Lee &Smith, 1997). According to Howley(1995), the negative effects to studentswho are economically disadvantagedincreases as school size increases.Again, schools with less than 1,000students appear to disrupt the negativeeffects of socioeconomic status inpredicting student achievement(Farber, 1998).

Recent findings on school size demon-strate that most high schools are toolarge for learning to be maximized(Lee & Smith, 1997). “It is notimpossible to have a good largeschool, it is simply more difficult”(Goodlad, 1984, p. 309). While theadvantages of small schools have beenexplored, limited attention has beendirected towards understanding thenegative effects of large schools onachievement and behavior. This isdisturbing considering large, crowdedschools are sometimes believed to bean “incubation area for gangs anddelinquent behavior” (Achilles, 1996,p. 39). Consequently, although reduc-ing school size alone may not improve

student achievement, it may mitigatethe negative effects imposed by largeschools.

Attendance, Dropouts, andGraduation Rates

Regardless of whether measuringgraduation rates or dropout rates,small schools are more likely to keepstudents in school (Cotton, 1996;Gladden, 1998). Nationally a relation-ship has been established betweenschool size and student attendance.Overall, the percentage of studentsabsent on a typical day increases asschool size increases.

In general, large schools, especially inlarger cities, have higher dropout rates(Cotton, 1996; Felter, 1989, 1997;Jewell, 1989). Student dropout ratesremain lower in small school districts(Gladden, 1998). In addition, schooldistricts that maintain only onetransition between schools for studentsafter sixth grade show lower dropoutrates than those where students mustchange schools more than once aftersixth grade (Alspaugh, 1998). Finally,large schools may produce environ-ments that induce students to exitschool sooner by dropping out(McGuire, 1989).

Small schools generally are able todemonstrate higher attendance andgraduation rates. A study of NewYork City Schools reported thatgraduation rates were 7.3 percenthigher for small schools than largeschools (Viadero, 1998). In additionto graduating more students, smallerschools appear to be able to graduatemore students on time.

Economies of Scale

The phrase “economy of scale” is abusiness term meaning that productionof a greater number of units will resultin lower costs per unit (Jewell, 1989).Applying this concept to schooloperations leads to the conclusion that

larger schools are more cost efficient.However, although some believeincreasing the size of a school contrib-utes to a school’s economic efficiency,others contend creating schoolsdeemed too large results in poorerquality, inefficiency, and less produc-tivity (Alspaugh, 1994; Cotton, 1996;Howley, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1995).Meanwhile, some evidence suggestssimilar per-unit costs in the smallestand largest schools. A U-shapedgraph represents this phenomenon. Inother words, as enrollment increasesthe cost per pupil declines, maintains arelative balance, and finally begins toincrease again as the student popula-tion grows (Cotton, 1996; McGuire,1989; Walberg & Fowler, 1987).

Schools with either extremely small orlarge enrollments require additionalcosts and tend to be relatively expen-sive to operate (Alspaugh, 1994).Additional costs for large schools mayinclude more resources in terms highersalaries and benefits; need for addi-tional staff positions including admin-istrative positions; maintenance andoperations costs; and increasedtransportation requirements (McGuire,1989). Cost and efficiency in publiceducation may relate more directly toschool operations than school size.

In terms of cost, a study of New YorkCity’s schools found small highschools match their large high schoolcounterparts in providing educationalopportunities (Viadero, 1998). Al-though the cost per pupil in smallschools approximated $1,410 more peryear than for New York City largeschools, actual costs per graduate wereonly an additional $25.

Curriculum

Larger schools are thought to maintainan advantage over small schools byoffering a more extensive curriculumand greater choice of programs(Howley, 1997; Roellke, 1996; Unks,

(Continued on page 6)


School Size Trends inIn the 1987-88 school year, 5,747 Texas public schoolshoused 3,224,916 students. By 1997-98 the number ofschools had grown to 7,053, a 21 percent increase.Enrollment also grew by 21 percent over the same period(TEA, 1998b).

The number of elementary schools increased by 429, from3,292 in 1987-88 to 3,721 in 1997-98, a 13 percentincrease. While the average size of elementary schoolsgrew by only 15 students, regular instructional schoolsgrew by 20 students. In addition, individual schoolsexperienced significant enrollment changes over thedecade. Of the 3,060 schools that operated as elementaryschools in both 1987-88 and 1997-98, 39 percent hadenrollments that were more than 5 percent higher in 1997-98 and 48 percent had enrollments that were more than 5percent lower.

The number of middle/junior high schools increased by296, from 1,072 in 1987-88 to 1,368 in 1997-98, a 28percent increase. The average school size increased byonly 8 students; however, the size of regular instructionalschools increased by 32 students. Over half of the exist-

ing middle/junior high schools were more than 5 percentlarger in 1997-98 than in 1987-88; one-fourth were morethan 5 percent smaller.

The number of high schools increased by 45 percent from1987-88 to 1997-98. Most of the growth can be attributedto an increase in the number of alternative high schoolsand juvenile justice alternative education programs(JJAEPs). From 1987-88 to 1997-98, regular instructionalhigh schools increased by only 71, a 7 percent increase.The average size of regular instructional high schoolsincreased by 86 students, from 820 students in 1987-88 to906 students in 1997-98. The number of high schools withover 2,000 students grew from 117 to 158. As a result,very large high schools now account for 14 percent of allregular instructional high schools.

Growth of regular instructional schools in urban areas(major urban and other central city school districts) keptpace with enrollment increases. The number of urbanschools increased by 16 percent while the average schoolsize decreased by 8 students. In suburban areas on theother hand, although the number of regular instructional

17

18

19

16

9

13

14

15

20

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

12

1011

Average School Sizeby Region

noigeR egarevAeziSloohcS

1 grubnidE 9762 itsirhCsuproC 4643 airotciV 7834 notsuoH 9675 tnomuaeB 1356 ellivstnuH 3057 erogliK 0048 tnasaelP.tM 4639 sllaFatihciW 05301 nosdrahciR 42611 htroWtroF 39521 ocaW 79331 nitsuA 97541 enelibA 90351 olegnAnaS 64261 olliramA 76371 kcobbuL 73381 dnaldiM 93491 osaPlE 64702 oinotnAnaS 685

Less than 300

300 - 499

500 - 699

700 and Over

Number of Students

19

4


88-7891 89-7991 89-7991ot88-7891egnahCforebmuN

sloohcSegarevA

eziSforebmuN

sloohcSegarevA

eziSforebmuN

sloohcStnecrePegnahC

egarevAeziS

sloohcSllA

yratnemelE 292,3 705 127,3 225 924 %31 51

hgiHroinuJ/elddiM 270,1 906 863,1 716 692 %82 8

loohcShgiH 070,1 897 845,1 266 874 %54 631–

sedarGdenibmoC 313 851 614 291 301 %33 43

noitcurtsnIralugeR

yratnemelE 482,3 805 186,3 825 793 %21 02

hgiHroinuJ/elddiM 560,1 116 013,1 346 542 %32 23

loohcShgiH 730,1 028 801,1 609 17 %7 68

sedarGdenibmoC 232 791 252 772 02 %9 08

PEAJJ/evitanretlA

yratnemelE 8 361 04 84 23 %004 511–

hgiHroinuJ/elddiM 7 352 85 42 15 %927 922–

loohcShgiH 33 501 044 74 704 %3321 85–

sedarGdenibmoC 18 84 461 06 38 %201 21

epyTytinummoC

noitcurtsnIralugeR

nabrU 446,1 847 019,1 047 662 %61 8–

nabrubuS 594,1 527 538,1 487 043 %32 95

natiloportemnoN 876,1 844 687,1 374 801 %6 52

laruR 108 781 008 791 1– %0 01

PEAJJ/evitanretlA

nabrU 57 38 902 18 431 %971 2–

nabrubuS 03 27 871 35 841 %394 91–

natiloportemnoN 81 89 342 82 522 %0521 07–

laruR 6 34 27 8 66 %0011 53–

Growth in Number and Size of Texas Public Schools

Data Source: TEA Fall Survey of Pupils 1987-88; TEA PEIMS 1997-98; TEA ANALYZE Categories 1987-88, 1996-97.

Texas 1987-88 to 1997-98schools increased by 23 percent, average school size alsoincreased by 59 students from 1987-88 to 1997-98.Nonmetropolitan schools, which include schools inindependent town school districts as well as fast growingand stable nonmetropolitan districts, also increased insize. The number of regular instructional schools locatedin rural school districts decreased by 1.

All types of communities saw large increases in thenumber of alternative education schools and JJAEPs from1987-88 to 1997-98, and a reduction in the averagenumber of students enrolled in these schools. The large

increase in the number of alternative education schools andJJAEPs can be attributed in part to a 1995 law mandatingthat districts provide alternative education programs forplacement of students who commit certain offenses(TEC §37.008).

Across the 20 education service center regions, the SanAngelo region had the smallest average school size of 246students. While 17 of the regions maintained an averageschool size between 300 and 699 students, average schoolsize in the Houston and El Paso regions exceeded 700students.


1989). Although large schools oftenoffer more courses, many of theadditional courses are introductory orvocational in nature rather thanenrichment in areas such as mathemat-ics, science, or foreign languages(Monk & Haller, 1993). Furthermore,though large schools may have theavailability of on-site programs,restructuring efforts have enabledsmall schools to remain competitive inoffering varied curricular programs.These efforts include “alternativeteaching assignments, higher educa-tion cooperatives, inter-districtsharing, and use of instructionaltechnologies” (Roellke, 1996, p. 1).In addition, reportedly only a smallpercentage, 5 to 12 percent, of stu-dents in large schools take advantageof extra courses offered (Cotton,1996).

School Size Recommendations

Most researchers and practitionersavoid specifying an ‘optimal’ or‘ideal’ school size. Instead, schoolswithin the ranges indicated below aremost often found to be associated withsupportive learning environments andrelatively better student achievement.Recommendations for school sizerange from 200 to 400 students forelementary schools (Heath, 1994;Williams, 1990) and 400 to 900students for junior and senior highschools (Conant, 1959; Farber, 1998;Goodlad, 1984; Lee & Smith, 1997;Williams, 1990). Very large schoolswith over 2,000 students are consid-ered by some as ineffective for moststudents (Farber, 1998). School sizeis considered to positively affectstudent achievement as studentenrollment rises to about 200 studentsin elementary schools and 400 to 600students in secondary schools, levelsoff, and then begins to decrease afterthe top of the size range is reached(Bracey, 1998a; Fine, 1998; Williams,1990). Although a direct cause-effect

relationship does not necessarily existbetween school size and studentachievement, maintaining a recom-mended school size does seem linkedto environmental conditions capable ofcontributing to increased learning(Miller, Ellsworth, & Howell, 1986).

School Size in Texas

The following is an analysis of schoolsize for Texas public schools. Schoolswere selected for analysis if they fellinto one of the following categoriesbased on 1996-97 grade configuration.

Elementary schools: early childhood/prekindergarten/ kindergarten/Grade 1 – Grade 5

Middle/junior high schools: Grades 6 – 8

High schools: Grades 9 – 12

Each grade configuration representsthe most common grade configurationin Texas public schools for the schooltype. The study was limited to theseschools to remove the effects of gradeconfiguration from the analysis. To beincluded in the study, schools also hadto meet the following conditions.

• Schools received 1997 ratings ofExemplary, Recognized, Acceptable,or Low-performing under theaccountability rating system forTexas public schools.

• Schools were in existence with thesame grade configuration since1994-95 and changes in enrollmentfrom 1994-95 to 1996-97 did notexceed limits set for study. Onlythree schools were eliminated due toenrollment changes.

There were 1,529 elementary schools,641 middle schools, and 808 highschools that met all the conditions tobe included in the study. The 808 highschools represent 55 percent of highschools and 85 percent of studentsenrolled in high school in 1996-97.

The 641 middle schools represent 48percent of middle schools and 54percent of students enrolled in middleschool. The 1,529 elementary schoolsrepresent 42 percent of all elementaryschools and 46 percent of students.

The schools excluded from the studyinclude elementary, middle, and highschools with other grade configura-tions, such as kindergarten throughGrade 6 elementary schools andmiddle schools with Grades 7 and 8only. Elementary and secondaryschools with grades combined on thesame campus, such as kindergartenthrough Grade 12 schools, are ex-cluded. Alternative schools that donot receive a rating under the standardaccountability system are alsoexcluded from the study.

The schools included in the study aresimilar to the state in student demo-graphics such as socioeconomicstatus, race/ethnicity, mobility rate,and limited English proficiency, butdiffer slightly from the state in districtsize and community type. Smallschools are underrepresented in thestudy and large schools are overrepre-sented, especially at the high schoollevel. Because school grade configu-rations vary by community type,elementary schools located in urbandistricts are also overrepresented inthe study and those located innonmetropolitan areas areunderrepresented.

Profile of Texas Schools Studied

For purposes of this study, schools aregrouped into five categories based onsize – from very small schools withfewer than 300 students, to very largeschools with 2,000 or more students.Average enrollment at the schools inthe study is 1,039 students in the highschools, 704 students in the middleschools, and 585 students in theelementary schools. The largest highschool in the study has 4,434 students;17 percent of the high schools have

(Continued from page 3)


2,000 or more students. The largestmiddle school and elementary schoolenrolled 1,717 students and 1,456students, respectively.

Schools are also grouped into eightcategories based on the communitytype of the district in which they arelocated. Factors such as district size,growth rates, and proximity to urbanareas are used to determine the appro-priate category. About 21 percent ofthe schools in the study are located inmajor urban districts. These are thelargest school districts in the state thatserve the six metropolitan areas ofAustin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth,Houston, and San Antonio. As Table1 shows, medium, large, and verylarge schools are overrepresented inmajor urban districts, as might beexpected. Medium, large, and very

large schools are also overrepresentedin major suburban districts, which areother school districts located in andaround the major urban areas. Onlyone-fourth of the major suburbanschools in the study has fewer than600 students, although almost half ofthe schools in the study fall into thesmall and very small size categories.

At the other end of the distribution, allof the schools located in rural districtshave fewer than 600 students and 85percent have fewer than 300 students.This is due in part to the methodologyfor assigning districts to communitytype categories, which is basedpartially on district size. Small andvery small schools are also overrepre-sented in nonmetropolitan districts. Itis interesting that both small and largeor very large schools are overrepre-

sented in other central city and othercentral city suburban districts – themajor school districts in and aroundthe remaining large Texas cities.Large schools are overrepresented inindependent towns, although thesecommunities include schools in allsize categories.

As Table 2 on page 8 shows, thepercentage of students in the schoolwho are racial/ethnic minoritiesincreases - as does the percentage ofstudents with limited English profi-ciency - as school size increases forall three types of schools. Elementaryschools are more ethnically diversethan middle schools and high schools,and have over twice as many studentswith limited English proficiency.Most students who enter kindergartenor first grade with limited English

Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97; TEA ANALYZE Categories 1996-97.

Shaded cells represent categories in which the number of schools is higher than would beexpected, illustrating the relationship between community type and school size in Texas.

Table 1.Number of Schools in Study by School Size and Community Type

)stnedutSforebmuN(eziSloohcS

epyTytinummoCllamSyreV

003rednUllamS995-003

muideM998-006

egraL999,1-009

egraLyreV+000,2

ydutSllAsloohcS

nabrUrojaM 81 171 012 181 43 416

nabrubuSrojaM 5 371 813 661 06 227

ytiClartneCrehtO 81 412 621 77 13 664

ytiClartneCrehtOnabrubuS

22 47 25 05 9 702

nwoTtnednepednI 21 75 63 95 2 661

:natiloportemnoNgniworGtsaF

95 75 41 6 0 631

:natiloportemnoNelbatS

69 532 86 02 0 914

laruR 212 63 0 0 0 842

sloohcSydutSllA 244 710,1 428 955 631 879,2


proficiency develop proficiency beforethey complete elementary school.There is little variation in the socio-economic status of the student popula-tions among the size categories of highschools. About 34 percent of the highschool students in the study areidentified as economically disadvan-taged and no category of high schoolsvaries substantially from this average.About 47 percent of the middle schoolstudents and 55 percent of the elemen-tary students in the study are economi-cally disadvantaged. There is somevariation in the socioeconomic statusof the student populations among thesize categories for middle schools andelementary schools, but no clearpattern emerges in relation to schoolsize. The larger percentages ofeconomically disadvantaged studentsin elementary schools are attributedprimarily to higher participation in the

5-1/K/KP/EEedarGeziSloohcSyratnemelE

tnecrePyllacimonocEdegatnavdasiD

tnecrePytironiM

detimiLhsilgnE

tneiciforPytiliboM

etaR

lipup-rePlanoitcurtsnIserutidnepxE

/tnedutSrehcaeT

oitaR

stneduts003rednu:llamSyreV %36 %25 %21 %12 821,3$ 41

stneduts995-003:llamS %85 %75 %51 %22 377,2$ 61

stneduts998-006:muideM %25 %85 %02 %02 345,2$ 71

stneduts9991-009:egraL %65 %86 %03 %02 844,2$ 81

9-6edarGeziSloohcShgiHroinuJ/elddiM


stneduts995-003:llamS %94 %64 %6 %81 576,2$ 41

stneduts998-006:muideM %15 %85 %9 %12 267,2$ 51

stneduts9991-009:egraL %44 %95 %21 %81 995,2$ 61

21-9edarGeziSloohcShgiH


stneduts995-003:llamS %43 %83 %3 %81 633,3$ 31

stneduts998-006:muideM %43 %54 %6 %81 379,2$ 41

stneduts9991-009:egraL %53 %55 %8 %22 218,2$ 61

stnedutseromro0002:egraLyreV %23 %85 %9 %12 156,2$ 71

Table 2.Profile of Study Schools by Size — 1996-97 School Year

Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97; TEA AEIS 1996-97.

Texas school characteristics vary by grade level and school size.

free and reduced price lunch programsat this level.

A student is considered to be mobile ifhe or she has missed six or moreweeks at a particular school (TEA,1997c). Student mobility is slightlyhigher in large and very large highschools than in medium, small, andvery small high schools. Amongmiddle schools, it is the medium sizedschools that had the highest averagemobility rate. There is little variationin mobility rates among elementaryschool size categories. According to a1997 report on student mobility inTexas public schools, mobile studentshad lower passing rates on the TexasAssessment of Academic Skills(TAAS) than stable students even aftercontrolling for their previous testscores and their socioeconomic status(TEA, 1997e).

Instructional expenditures decrease asschool size increases in all types ofschools. High schools have thehighest per pupil expenditures and thelargest range in expenditures by size,ranging from an average of $3,881 perstudent in very small high schools to$2,651 in very large high schools – a$1,230 difference. Lower operatingexpenditures have traditionally beencited as one of the advantages ofoperating larger schools. However,the increased expenditures at smallerschools are associated with lowerstudent-teacher ratios. Smaller classesare cited as one of the advantages ofsmall schools and are credited withcontributing to higher student perfor-mance. (See page 9 for more informa-tion about the relationship betweenschool size and instructional expendi-tures.)



rehcaeTrePstnedutS

eziSloohcSsseL

21nahtro21

31ro41

51ro61

71nahteroM

715–1/K/KP/EEedarGsloohcSyratnemelE

llamSyreV - 143,3$ 439,2$ - -llamS - 461,3$ 638,2$ 007,2$ 734,2$muideM - - 197,2$ 095,2$ 953,2$

egraL - - - 975,2$ 503,2$9–6edarG

sloohcSelddiMllamSyreV 580,3$ 189,2$ 157,2$ - -

llamS - 798,2$ 636,2$ - -muideM - 961,3$ 697,2$ 455,2$ -

egraL - - 657,2$ 275,2$ 693,2$21–9edarG

sloohcShgiHllamSyreV 042,4$ 054,3$ - - -

llamS 087,3$ 114,3$ 890,3$ - -muideM - 522,3$ 809,2$ - -

egraL - 003,3$ 529,2$ 857,2$ 634,2$egraLyreV - - - 147,2$ 924,2$

Per-Pupil Expenditures by School Size andStudent-Teacher Ratio for Study Schools

1996-97 School Year

Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97; TEA AEIS 1996-97; TEA ANALYZECategories 1996-97.Dash ( - ) indicates that less than 30 schools were in this category.

Campus instructional expenditures perpupil for 1996-97 were analyzed forthe study schools. Campus instruc-tional expenditures are the sum ofexpenditures budgeted for instructionand instructional leadership. Instruc-tion costs include all activities directlyrelated to the interaction betweenteachers and students, includingcomputer assisted instruction andexpenditures to provide resources forJuvenile Justice Alternative EducationPrograms. Instructional leadershipcovers costs associated with manag-ing, directing, supervising, andproviding leadership for staff whoprovide instructional services (TEA,1997c). In this study, campus instruc-tional expenditures are divided by thenumber of students in the school forcomparison between schools ofdifferent sizes.

Elementary schools in the study hadthe lowest expenditures, averaging$2,634 per student, compared to$2,673 for middle schools and $2,854for high schools. In general, per pupilexpenditures decrease as school sizeincreases. An exception to this patternis found in middle schools, whereexpenditures for medium sizedschools are $87 per pupil higher thanthose for small schools.

The greatest difference in expendituresis between very small and smallschools at all levels. As size increases,the savings accrued from larger sizediminish. For example, there is a $545difference in per pupil expendituresbetween very small and small highschools, compared to $161 differencebetween large and very large highschools. Although variation in expen-ditures by size is apparent at all levels,the greatest variation in expendituresis found in high schools.

Per-Pupil Expenditures, School Size, andStudent-Teacher Ratio in Texas

Lower per-pupil expenditures areoften cited as one of the advantages oflarge schools. However, advocates ofsmall schools counter that the higherexpenditures associated with smallerschools and smaller class sizescontribute to higher student achieve-ment. In order to analyze the relation-ship between school size, student-teacher ratio, and per-pupil expendi-tures, schools were grouped into fivecategories based on student-teacherratios. Although per-pupil expendi-tures decrease as school size increases,the largest schools are not always themost cost effecient when student-teacher ratios are taken into consider-ation.

Among the elementary schools in thestudy, per-pupil instructional expendi-

tures decrease as school size increasesregardless of the student-teacher ratio.For the middle schools, however, it issmall (300-599 students) schools thathave the lowest per-pupil expendituresfor schools with student-teacher ratiosranging from 12 to 15 students perteacher. The medium sized highschools also have the lowest averageper-pupil expenditures for highschools with student-teacher ratios of12 to 15 students per teacher. Verylarge high schools, those with 2,000 ormore students, have the lowest per-pupil expenditures among schoolswith student-teacher ratios greaterthan 15 to 1; however, expendituresare not substantially higher for largeschools (900-1,999 students).


Performance

For this study, a number of perfor-mance indicators are examined inrelation to school size. Some of theindicators can be considered measuresof basic performance. They reflect theextent to which students at the schoolremain in school, attend schoolregularly, are promoted from grade tograde with their class, and pass theTexas Assessment of Academic Skills(TAAS), the state’s criterion-refer-enced testing program administered inGrades 3-8 and 10. Other indicatorsreflect the extent to which students atthe school reach higher levels ofperformance. They include averageTAAS scores as measured by theTexas Learning Index (TLI), comple-tion of advanced courses, performanceon college admissions examinations,and meeting a standard on the TAASequivalent to a passing rate on theTexas Academic Skills Program(TASP) test required of all studentsentering Texas public colleges anduniversities.

To examine the magnitude of therelationship between school size andacademic performance it is necessaryto control for other factors known tobe associated with school perfor-mance. Table 3 shows the relationshipbetween school size and performanceafter controlling for the followingschool characteristics: student socio-economic status, race/ethnicity,limited English proficiency, andmobility. Difference in performancefor each additional 500 students on anarray of indicators is shown. That is,two schools with exactly the samepercent of students who are economi-cally disadvantaged, percent ofstudents who are minorities, percent ofstudents with limited English profi-ciency, and mobility rates, but thatdiffer in size by 500 students woulddiffer in performance on each indica-tor by the amount shown. The differ-

ences are based on actual performanceof the schools in the study in the 1996-97 school year.

Attendance. Although attendancerates are not a direct measure ofstudent performance, Texas studieshave found a consistent relationshipbetween attendance and achievementfor students in the elementary grades.Higher student attendance was associ-ated with higher teacher ratings ofoverall student progress and masteryof the essential elements of the Texascurriculum for 1995-96 first graders(TEA, 1997b). Higher 5-year atten-dance rates were also associated withfewer grade level retentions andhigher passing rates on the Grade 5Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(TAAS) for students entering firstgrade in 1992-93 (TEA, 1998a). AsTable 3 shows, elementary schoolshave the highest attendance rates.Elementary students missed anaverage of 6 days during the 1996-97school year, compared to 8 days formiddle school students and 12 daysfor high school students.

Attendance rates decreased slightly asschool size increased for middleschools and high schools in the study.The greatest decrease was found inmiddle schools. After controlling forother school characteristics, onaverage the attendance rate in middleschools decreased by 0.4, about three-fourths of a day a year, with eachadditional 500 students. For highschools, the difference was 0.2 or one-half day a year.

Retention. Grade level retention,defined as having a student repeat agrade he or she was unable to success-fully complete, is one indicator that astudent is not making sufficientacademic progress (TEA, 1997d).Students in Texas public schools areretained at the highest rate in Grade 9.In 1996-97, 18 percent of all ninthgrade students were retained in grade

at the end of the school year. Thehigher retention rates for the highschools in the study reflect these highninth grade retention rates. AfricanAmerican and Hispanic students areretained at higher rates than Asian orWhite students – about one-fourth ofAfrican American and Hispanic ninthgraders were retained in 1996-97.Economically disadvantaged studentsare also retained at higher rates thantheir classmates who are not economi-cally disadvantaged.

At the elementary level, the highestretention rate is found in first grade.In 1996-97, the retention rate for firstgraders was almost 6 percent. As inthe higher grades, African Americanand Hispanic students were retained athigher rates than Asian or Whitestudents. Students who are economi-cally disadvantaged were also retainedat higher levels than students whowere not economically disadvantaged.A study of Texas elementary studentswith limited English proficiencyfound that these students are alsoretained at higher rates than studentswho enter school proficient in English(TEA, 1998a).

In this study, a relationship betweenschool size and retention rates wasfound at the high school level only. In1996-97, retention rates increased asschool size increased both for allstudents and for students who are noteconomically disadvantaged in thestudy high schools. On average, theretention rates for all students in-creased by 0.5 percentage point witheach additional 500 students, whencontrolling for other school character-istics. By comparison, the retentionrates for students who are not eco-nomically disadvantaged increased by0.4 percentage point.

Dropouts. In 1996-97, the Texasstatewide annual dropout rate was 1.6percent for Grades 7-12. Dropout




Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97; TEA AEIS 1996-97.Dash ( - ) indicates no statistically significant relationship found between campus size and performance on indicator. Statistics were included in thetable if the R-square for the regression model was .4 or higher and the contribution of campus size shown was statistically significant at the .05 level.

Where there is a relationship between school size and performance in Texas, the relationship is typically negative —after controlling for student socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, limited English proficiency, and mobility, performancedeclines as school size increases.

Table 3.Relationship Between School Size and Academic Performance

for Study Schools 1996-97 School YearsloohcSyratnemelE sloohcSelddiM sloohcShgiH

srotacidnIecnamrofreP egarevAhtiwecnereffiD005lanoitiddA

stnedutSegarevA

htiwecnereffiD005lanoitiddA

stnedutSegarevA

htiwecnereffiD005lanoitiddA

stnedutSetaRecnadnettA 5.69 - 3.59 4.0– 2.39 2.0–

etaRnoitneteRstnedutSllA 3.2 - 2.2 - 6.9 5.0+

degatnavdasiDyllacimonocE 9.2 - 2.3 - 3.41 -degatnavdasiDyllacimonocEtoN 6.1 - 3.1 - 3.7 4.0+

etaRtuoporDstnedutSllA 3.0 - 7.1 -

degatnavdasiDyllacimonocE 4.0 - 0.2 -gnissaPtnecrePSAAT

gnidaeRstnedutSllA 1.48 6.1– 8.38 - 8.58 -

degatnavdasiDyllacimonocE 5.47 - 8.27 - 9.37 -degatnavdasiDyllacimonocEtoN 0.29 - 1.29 - 2.19 -

naciremAnacirfA 8.37 - 6.47 - 4.97 -cinapsiH 3.67 - 0.47 - 9.57 -

etihW 1.29 - 8.39 - 4.49 -scitamehtaM

stnedutSllA 4.48 0.2– 0.87 4.1– 1.27 5.0–degatnavdasiDyllacimonocE 7.57 - 3.66 - 1.85 -

degatnavdasiDyllacimonocEtoN 6.19 - 7.68 9.1– 4.87 6.0–naciremAnacirfA 9.07 - 6.16 - 5.45 -

cinapsiH 2.87 - 9.76 - 6.95 -etihW 1.29 - 7.98 - 9.48 -

gnitirWstnedutSllA 4.88 - 0.18 - 4.88 -

degatnavdasiDyllacimonocE 9.18 - 5.96 - 8.87 -degatnavdasiDyllacimonocEtoN 8.39 - 6.88 - 6.29 -

naciremAnacirfA 8.97 - 4.17 - 4.38 -cinapsiH 4.48 - 0.17 - 9.97 -

etihW 4.39 - 9.09 - 6.59 -erocSILTgnidaeR 7.67 - 2.57 - 9.77 -

scitamehtaM 1.77 - 9.27 6.0– 5.47 -htworGegarevAILT

gnidaeR 2.6 - 7.4 - 4.6 -scitamehtaM 1.5 - 7.2 - 5.5 -

sesruoCdecnavdA 2.71 -TCA/TAS

noitapicitraP 2.46 -ecnamrofreP 7.52 1.2+

ycnelaviuqEPSAT/SAAT 8.14 5.0+



rates for all the high school grades arehigher than 2 percent, but Grade 12had the highest dropout rate in 1996-97 at 2.5 percent (TEA, 1998c).African American and Hispanicstudents drop out at higher rates thantheir White classmates. Althoughstatewide economically disadvantagedstudents drop out at the same rate asstudents who are not economicallydisadvantaged, among the middleschools and high schools in this study,economically disadvantaged studentshad a slightly higher dropout rate. Theaverage dropout rate for all highschool students in the study was 1.7percent, compared to a rate of 2.0percent for economically disadvan-taged high school students. Theaverage dropout rates for middleschools in the study were 0.3 percentfor all students, and 0.4 percent foreconomically disadvantaged students.After controlling for other schoolcharacteristics, no statistically signifi-cant relationship was found betweenschool size and dropout rates for themiddle schools and high schools in thestudy.

TAAS Performance. School perfor-mance on the Texas Assessment ofAcademic Skills (TAAS) is one ofthree base indicators used to determineschool performance ratings. In 1996-97, the TAAS performance indicatorwas the percentage of non-specialeducation students passing each test(reading, mathematics, and writing)summed across grades, for studentswho were enrolled in the district as ofthe end of October. The indicator isevaluated for each student group(African American, Hispanic, White,and economically disadvantaged), aswell as for all students.

Performance gains in recent yearshave decreased the performance gapbetween economically disadvantagedstudents and students who are not

economically disadvantaged, andbetween African American andHispanic students and their Whiteclassmates. Nevertheless, in 1996-97students who were not economicallydisadvantaged outperformed economi-cally disadvantaged students on allthree TAAS tests at all three schoollevels. White students also outper-formed African American and His-panic students on all three tests at allthree school levels.

A relationship was found betweenschool size and performance on theTAAS reading test at the elementaryschool level only. For each additional500 students, the passing rate on thereading test decreased by 1.6 percent-age points on average, after control-ling for other school characteristics inelementary schools.

At the same time, a relationship wasfound between school size and studentperformance on the mathematics testat all three school levels. The percent-age of students passing the TAASmathematics test decreased as schoolsize increased at all three levels. Thepassing rate for all students decreasedby 2.0 percentage points in theelementary schools, 1.4 percentagepoints in the middle schools, and 0.5percentage point in the high schoolswith each additional 500 students.

At the middle and high school levels,there was a relationship betweenschool size and percent passing theTAAS mathematics test for studentswho are not economically disadvan-taged. The passing rate for studentswho are not economically disadvan-taged decreased by 1.9 percentagepoints in the middle schools and 0.6percentage point in the high schoolswith each additional 500 students.

No statistically significant relationshipbetween school size and TAASpassing rates on the writing test was

found after controlling for otherschool characteristics.

TLI. The Texas Learning Index (TLI)was developed to assess studentprogress across grades on the TAASreading and mathematics tests (TEA,1998d). A TLI score of 70 corre-sponds to the passing standard at eachgrade level. In 1996-97, the TLIcould range from 4 to 100, dependingon the subject and grade level of thetest. School average TLI scores give abroader indication of school perfor-mance than the percent passingbecause they measure each student’stest score rather than only indicatinghow the student performed in relationto the passing standard.

As Table 3 on page 11 shows, there isa relationship between school size andTLI scores in mathematics at themiddle school level. On average,middle school TLI mathematics scoresdecrease by 0.6 point with eachadditional 500 students after control-ling for other school characteristics.

Texas uses the TLI to compute twomeasures of performance gains – TLIaverage growth and school compa-rable improvement. For Grades 4through 8, TLI average growth is acomparison of current year perfor-mance with the prior year perfor-mance for the same students. For theGrade 10 TAAS, TLI average growthis a comparison of current yearperformance with prior performanceon the Grade 8 TAAS for the samestudents. These growth calculationsare limited to those students whoscored a TLI of less than 85 in theprior year. TLI average growth is alongitudinal measure of absolute gainsfor individual students and can beconsidered a measure of value addedfor the school (King & Mathers,1997).



Number of Advanced Courses Offered by School Sizefor Study Schools 1996-97 School Year


Advanced Courses Offered

AverageNumber ofAdvanced

Courses

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

6

7

10

17

25

SchoolSize

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

Two-thirds of Schools

In 1996-97 there were 134 different advanced coursesoffered to high school students in Texas public schools.Advanced courses include College Board AdvancedPlacement (AP) courses and International Baccalaureate(IB) courses, as well as other advanced courses in science,fine arts, English language arts, social studies, mathemat-ics, computer science, and languages. Traditionally,larger schools are believed to have the capacity to offermore courses (Howley, 1997; Roellke, 1996; Unks, 1989),and this is true of the Grade 9 through 12 high schools inthe study. High schools with 2,000 or more studentsoffered an average of 25 different advanced courses,compared to 6 different courses in high schools withfewer than 300 students.

Although the average number of advanced coursesincreased as school size increased, the range of advancedcourses varied dramatically within the school size catego-ries. For example, the very small, medium, and largeschool size categories included schools that offered noadvanced courses. Small and very large schools offeredas few as two advanced courses. At the same time, therewere very small schools that offered as many as 25different advanced courses. One very large high schooloffered 54 different advanced courses, thus offering themost advanced courses by any school in the study.

Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97;TEA AEIS 1997-98.

Most Commonly Offered AdvancedCourses in All Texas High Schools

1996-97 School Year

Advanced Courses in Texas High SchoolsThe most commonly available advanced course in highschools statewide in 1996-97 was pre-calculus, which wasoffered at 907 high schools. Eleven advanced courseswere offered at 300 or more schools. These included threemathematics courses, three English language arts courses(two of which were AP courses), two fine arts courses, twoscience courses, and one computer science course. Thehighest level advanced courses and IB courses in lan-guages such as Arabic, Chinese, German, Hebrew, Italian,Japanese, Latin, and Russian are taught at very fewschools.

esruoC sesupmaCsuluclac-erP 709

dnaBVIcisuM 247IIygoloiB 926

ygoloisyhPdnaymotanA 085yrtemonogirT 535

suluclaC 925IecneicSretupmoC 854

)PA(noitisopmoCdnaerutaretiLhsilgnE 434gnitirWevitanigamI/evitaerC 163

riohCVIcisuM 243)PA(noitisopmoCdnaegaugnaLhsilgnE 623



School comparable improvement is astatutorily mandated measure devel-oped to evaluate an individual school’simprovement in relation to otherschools with similar student demo-graphics. Comparable improvementdoes not affect a school’s accountabil-ity rating but it has been used todetermine financial rewards for high-gain schools. TLI average growth foreach target school is compared to the40 schools that most closely match thetarget school in student socioeconomicstatus, race/ethnicity, limited Englishproficiency, and mobility. Schools areranked within the group and a quartiledistribution is determined.

No statistically significant relationshipwas found between school size andTLI average growth. Table 4 showsthe school comparable improvementquartile distributions for the elemen-tary schools, middle schools, and highschools in the study. The quartiledistributions vary by school size;however, the patterns do not revealstrong relationships with school size.The most distinct pattern is for highschool mathematics. Schools withfewer than 900 students are overrepre-sented in the high gain quartiles (Q1and Q2) on mathematics gains andlarger schools are overrepresented inthe lower gain quartiles (Q3 and Q4).

It is interesting that in four of thedistributions – elementary, middle,and high school reading and elemen-tary school mathematics – very smallschools are overrepresented in both thehighest and lowest quartiles. Also, inthe high school distributions for bothreading and mathematics, very largeschools ranked higher than largeschools in comparable improvementgains.

College Readiness. In 1996-97,almost 20 percent of high schoolstudents statewide completed at leastone advanced course; 17 percent of the

sloohcSyratnemelE sloohcSelddiM sloohcShgiH

loohcSeziS

gnidaeR gnidaeR gnidaeR

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

llamSyreV 43 81 42 53 04 23 42 63 84 53 52 85

llamS 602 781 261 861 02 84 43 42 64 83 43 05

muideM 771 731 931 011 73 34 74 04 62 82 22 81

egraL 93 92 63 71 05 96 76 03 16 95 65 64

egraLyreV 93 23 54 02

scitamehtaM scitamehtaM scitamehtaM

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

llamSyreV 23 42 32 63 93 93 72 72 46 43 44 14

llamS 391 951 461 702 33 53 72 13 65 34 23 73

muideM 831 241 241 141 33 04 06 43 43 12 91 02

egraL 82 13 03 23 54 36 07 83 36 64 06 35

egraLyreV 12 24 64 72


Shaded cells represent quartiles in which the number of schools is higherthan would be expected. There is not a consistent pattern in the relationshipbetween school size and comparable improvement quartile.

Table 4.Comparable Improvement Quartiles for Study Schools

1996-97 School Year

students in the study high schoolscompleted one advanced course.Advanced courses include CollegeBoard Advanced Placement andInternational Baccalaureate courses, aswell as other high level courses in allareas of the curriculum. No statisti-cally significant relationship wasfound between percentage of studentscompleting at least one advancedcourse and size of the high schools inthe study. (See page 13 for additionalinformation on advanced courses inTexas high schools.)

Statewide, 64 percent of Texas publicschool graduates take one of twocollege admissions tests – the CollegeBoard’s SAT I or ACT Inc.’s(Enhanced) ACT Assessment. Thepercentage of students taking the test

who score at or above an establishedcriterion score is used as a measure ofschool SAT/ACT performance.Currently, Texas criterion scores arean SAT I Total score of 1110 or anACT Composite score of 24. Therewas no relationship between SAT/ACT participation rates and schoolsize for high schools in the study.However, a relationship existedbetween SAT/ACT performance andschool size. After controlling forother school characteristics, perfor-mance on college admissions testsimproved as school size increases. AsTable 3 indicates, the percentage ofstudents scoring at or above thecriterion on college admissions testsincreased by 2.1 with each additional500 students.


The Texas Academic Skills Program(TASP) test is a basic skills test ofreading, writing, and mathematicsrequired of all persons entering Texaspublic colleges and universities for thefirst time. The TAAS/TASP equiva-lency indicator shows the percent ofgraduates who performed well enoughon the exit-level TAAS to have a 75percent likelihood of passing theTASP test. Statewide, about 42percent of graduates in the class of1997 met this standard. Like thecollege admissions test standard, therewas a positive relationship betweenschool size and performance on theTAAS/TASP equivalency standard.The TAAS/TASP equivalency rateincreased by 0.5 percentage point foreach increase of 500 students, aftercontrolling for other school character-istics.

Performance Overview

The previous analysis indicates thatperformance of Texas schools variesby school size for some students – afinding that is consistent with resultsof school size research conducted overthe past decade. However, the natureof the relationship between school sizeand performance in Texas differssomewhat from that found elsewhere.Where a relationship between schoolsize and performance in Texas exists,the relationship is typically negative,that is, after controlling for otherschool characteristics, performancedeclines as school size increases. Incontrast, research conducted in otherstates has overwhelmingly suggestedthat performance is highest at mediumsized schools, with performancedeclining at both larger and smallerschools. This analysis shows thatperformance of very large Texas highschools is not substantially worse thanthat of large high schools. In otherstates, very large high schools arefound to have substantially worseperformance than large high schools.

Texas data for middle and highschools support findings elsewherethat smaller schools have higherattendance rates. Also, Texas highschool retention rates increase asschool size increases after controllingfor other factors. Furthermore, aftercontrolling for other school character-istics, no statistically significantrelationship was found betweenschool size and dropout rates in Texasmiddle schools and high schools.Other studies have found higherdropout rates and lower graduationrates at large schools compared tosmaller schools.

There is a relationship between schoolsize and reading performance inTexas elementary schools — asschool size increases, reading perfor-mance declines. Overall, mathemat-ics performance of Texas students ismore adversely affected by schoolsize than is reading or writing perfor-mance. Other state studies havefound both reading and mathematicsperformance to be adversely affectedby school size.

Although the size of the decline inperformance is larger at the elemen-tary and middle level, the perfor-mance of Texas high school studentson indicators of basic performance ismore likely to decline with increasesin school size. Much of the schoolsize research has focused on highschools. Those studies have foundthat students at smaller (but not thesmallest) schools outperform studentsat larger schools in core subjects andon tests of basic skills.

There is a positive relationshipbetween high school size and perfor-mance on some indicators related tocollege readiness. No relationshipwas found between high school sizeand percentage of students completingadvanced courses or taking the SAT/ACT. However, as high school size

increases, SAT/ACT performance andTAAS/TASP equivalency rate in-crease. Some proponents of largecampuses endorse them as the bestsetting for preparing students forcollege. At the same time, smallschool proponents contend that smallschools prepare students for college asadequately as large schools do (Felter,1997; Gladden, 1998; Monk & Haller,1992; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987;Unks, 1989).

At the middle and high school levelsin Texas there is a negative relation-ship between school size and perfor-mance of students who are not eco-nomically disadvantaged. In contrast,school size research conducted outsideof Texas over the past two decades hasfound that economically disadvan-taged students are more likely toperform worse as school size increasesthan students who are not economi-cally disadvantaged. Although theperformance gap has narrowed inrecent years, performance of studentswho are economically disadvantagedremains lower than that of non-economically disadvantaged studentsin reading, mathematics, and writingacross all school types.

Texas students have shown remark-able performance gains over the past 5years since the state began ratingschools and districts under an inte-grated accountability system. Thehighest performance gains have beenfor Hispanic, African American, andeconomically disadvantaged students,student groups that are overrepre-sented in major urban schools. Theserecent performance gains may be partof the reason that the effects of schoolsize are not as strong in Texas and therelationship between school size andstudent performance differs from otherstates.



Student-teacher ratios, the total number of students in a school divided by thenumber of teachers, provide an indication of average class size at the schoollevel. Student-teacher ratios are lower than average class sizes because student-teacher ratios include students in special instructional programs and time teach-ers spend outside the classroom. Student-teacher ratios in 1996-97 for the studyschools were examined.

Student-teacher ratios increase as school size increases in elementary, middle,and high schools. The lowest average student-teacher ratios, 11 to 1, are foundin very small high schools. The average student-teacher ratio in very large highschools is 17 to 1.

School Size and Student-Teacher Ratios

Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97; TEA AEIS 1996-97; TEA ANALYZECategories 1996-97.Dash ( - ) indicates that less than 5 schools were in this category.

Student-Teacher Ratio by School Size andPer-Pupil Expenditures for Study Schools

1996-97 School Year

lipuPrePserutidnepxElanoitcurtsnIsupmaC

eziSloohcSrednU043,2$

–043,2$695,2$

–795,2$068,2$

–168,2$992,3$

dna003,3$revO


llamSyreV 61 51 41 41 21llamS 71 61 61 51 41muideM 81 71 71 61 41

egraL 91 71 71 71 -9–6edarG

sloohcSelddiMllamSyreV 41 31 31 31 21

llamS 51 51 41 31 21muideM 71 71 51 41 31

egraL 81 71 61 51 4121–9edarG

sloohcShgiHllamSyreV - - - 31 11

llamS - - 41 31 21muideM 51 51 41 41 31

egraL 91 71 61 51 41egraLyreV 81 81 71 61 51

Policy Research Report Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97; TEA AEIS 1996-97.

HighSchools

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

Very Large

0

24

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

ElementarySchools

MiddleSchools

StudentsPer Teacher

SchoolSize

for Study Schools 1996-97 School Year

Very small elementary schools havean average student-teacher ratio of 14to 1, compared to 18 to 1 in largeelementary schools. Average student-teacher ratios in middle schools arelower than those in elementaryschools, ranging from 13 to 1 in thesmallest middle schools to 16 to 1 inthe largest.

Payroll represents 73 percent of allschool district expenditures and 82percent of current operating expendi-tures (TEA, 1998f). Therefore, it isnot surprising that student-teacherratios decrease as campus instructionalexpenditures per pupil increase withineach size category. In fact, thehighest-spending large and very largeschools have student-teacher ratiossimilar to those on the lowest-spend-ing small and very small schools. Thisillustrates that larger schools canachieve the low student-teacher ratiosassociated with smaller schools, but ata cost. In general, the highest student-teacher ratios are found in the largestschools with the lowest instructionalexpenditures per pupil. The loweststudent-teacher ratios are found in thesmallest schools with the highestinstructional expenditures per pupil.

Student-teacher ratios also increasewith greater proximity of schooldistricts to urban areas. This trend isseen for elementary, middle, and highschools within most size categories.For example, very small and smallelementary schools located in ruralschool districts have student-teacherratios of 13 to 1 and 14 to 1, respec-tively, compared to 15 to 1 and 16 to 1for those located in urban areas. It ispossible that school size within sizecategories increases with greaterproximity to urban areas.

epyTytinummoC

eziSloohcS laruR-noNorteM nabrubuS nabrU


llamSyreV 31 41 41 51llamS 41 51 61 61muideM - 61 71 71

egraL - - 81 819–6edarG

sloohcSelddiMllamSyreV 21 31 41 -

llamS - 41 41 51muideM - 51 51 51

egraL - 51 71 7121–9edarG

sloohcShgiHllamSyreV 01 11 21 -

llamS - 31 31 -muideM - 41 41 61

egraL - 51 61 71egraLyreV - - 71 71

Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1994-95, 1996-97; TEA AEIS 1996-97; TEAANALYZE Categories 1996-97.Dash ( - ) indicates that less than 5 schools were in this category.

Student-Teacher Ratio by School Size andCommunity Type for Study Schools

1996-97 School Year

Student-Teacher Ratio by Level and School Size for Study Schools


Class Size

Some identify limiting class size asone method for schools to achievetheir academic goals. Class sizestudies endorse small classes for theirability to produce effects comparableto the effects of smaller schools. Smallclasses create classroom conditionsthat afford students the opportunitiesto participate, learn, and achievesocially and academically (Achilles,1997; Olson, 1977). Echoing theconcerns of proponents and opponentsof school size, conversations aboutclass size elicit varied reactions amongparents, educators, researchers, andlegislatures. “The impact of class sizereduction reforms, their cost, and theirrelationship to professional develop-ment are major questions facingcurrent education reform in the UnitedStates” (USDE, 1998b, p.10).

Class Size Policy

Texas Policy

Texas has laws related to both student-teacher ratios and class size. Student-teacher ratios are the total number ofstudents in a school or district dividedby the total number of teachers.Student-teacher ratio requirementsgive districts a great deal of flexibilityin making teaching assignments aslong as the total number of teachersemployed remains at a sufficient level.Class size limitations are much morerigid, requiring that the number ofstudents in each class remain at orbelow the specified limit for all or partof the school year. In 1975, the TexasLegislature passed its first state lawrelated to student-teacher ratios,requiring districts to maintain astudent-teacher ratio of 25 to 1 at allgrade levels beginning with the 1975-76 school year (TEC §16.054, 1984).That law remained in effect until 1984,when the student-teacher ratio wasreduced to 20 to 1 effective with the1984-85 school year (TEC §16.054,

1988). At that time, class size limitswere also imposed for kindergartenthrough Grade 4. Class size limits forkindergarten through Grade 2 wereeffective with the 1985-86 schoolyear. Texas school districts could notenroll more than 22 students inkindergarten through Grade 2 classes.The law extended to Grades 3 and 4 inthe 1988-89 school year. Thesestudent-teacher ratio and class sizelimits have not changed substantivelysince 1984 (TEC §§25.111-25.112,1998).

In 1984, the Texas Legislature alsomade provisions for prekindergartenprograms for four-year-old childrenwho were economically disadvantagedor had limited English proficiency,beginning with the 1985-86 schoolyear (TEC §21.136, 1986). Beginningwith the 1989-90 school year, statefunding for prekindergarten programswas extended to include three-year-oldchildren. The law implementingprekindergarten programs did notaddress the subject of class sizes forthose programs; however, State Boardof Education (SBOE) rules extendedthe 22 student class size limit toprekindergarten classes (19 TAC§75.141(g), 1988). The SBOE classsize restrictions for prekindergartenwere eliminated in 1995 when the rulewas repealed under the SBOE’srevised rule making authority, whichnow allows adoption of rules onlywhen specific authority to do so isgranted in the Texas Education Code.Currently, districts are not required tooffer prekindergarten programs forthree-year-olds, and are not required tooffer programs for four-year-olds iffewer than 15 eligible students areidentified or if offering the programwould require the district to constructnew classroom facilities (TEC§29.153, 1998). Also, as noted above,the 22 student class size limits do notapply to prekindergarten classes.

The state makes provision for districtsthat cannot maintain required elemen-

tary class size limits. The class sizelimits do not apply during the last 12weeks of school, or to any 12-weekperiod selected by districts with largemigrant student populations (TEC§25.112, 1998). Also, the commis-sioner of education may exempt thedistrict from maintaining class sizelimits for one semester if the limitscause undue hardship for the district(TEC §25.112, 1998). A district canapply for a class size waiver under thisprovision if the district lacks facilities,cannot acquire a sufficient number ofqualified teachers, or one section atany grade level at a school exceeds theclass size limit by one or two studentsdue to unanticipated enrollmentincreases during the school year. In1997-98, class size waivers wererequested for 577 schools for the fallsemester and for 696 schools for thespring semester. Almost 98 percent ofthe waivers cited unanticipated growthduring the school year as one reasonthe waiver was requested, 65 percentcited lack of facilities, and 21 percentrequested waivers due to teachershortages.

In 1997-98, Texas elementary schoolsmaintained an average class size of 20students in classes serving regularstudent populations. As Table 5shows, average class sizes are lower inkindergarten through Grade 4 thanstipulated by the mandatory class sizelimits. However, more than one-thirdof kindergarten through Grade 4classes have over 20 students. Onaverage there are 22 students per classin Grades 5 and 6 compared to anaverage of 19 students in the lowerelementary grades. Class sizes insecondary schools range from anaverage of 21 students in English,foreign language, and mathematicsclasses to 23 students in social studiesclasses. Advanced academic courses,which often enroll fewer students, arenot included in the averages. Averageclass size at the elementary leveldeclined by less than one student perclass from 1990-91 to 1997-98.



Data Source: TEA PEIMS 1997-98.NOTE: About 84% of elementary class size records submitted in 1997-98 wereused in computing class size information by grade due to variations in datareporting.

In Texas, the lowest average class sizes are found in theelementary grades. Elementary grades have statutory classsize limits.

Table 5.Class Size in Texas Public Schools

1997-98 School Year

egarevAeziSssalC

forebmuNsessalC

revOhtiWstnedutS02

fotnecrePsessalC

revOhtiWstnedutS02

yratnemelE

sedarGllA 02

netragrednikerP 91

netragredniK 91 931,6 %63

1edarG 91 278,8 %73

2edarG 91 174,9 %53

3edarG 91 935,9 %43

4edarG 91 963,01 %53

5edarG 22

6edarG 22

yradnoceS

hsilgnE 12

egaugnaLngieroF 12

scitamehtaM 12

ecneicS 22

seidutSlaicoS 32

Average size of secondary mathemat-ics classes has not changed; averageclass sizes in other secondary subjectshave increased by about one studentper class.

Districts do not report actual class sizeaverages; these values are derivedusing student counts and teacher full-time equivalent values from staffresponsibility records reported to theTexas Education Agency. Districtshave choices about the level of detailreported on teacher responsibilityrecords, particularly at the elementarylevel. Therefore, these averages canonly be considered an indication ofcurrent practice, not exact figures.

Other State Class Size Policies

As Table 6 on page 20 shows, manystates have policies related to classsize or student-teacher ratios. Policiesvary in grade levels covered and inwhether they are applied at the class,school, or district level. Some statesplace absolute limits on the maximumnumber of students in a class, othersrequire that schools or districtsmaintain an average across all classes.Non-academic classes such as physi-cal education and music are oftenexempt from the class size policies.Furthermore, several states allowclasses to exceed the minimum if aninstructional aide is assigned to theclass to assist the teacher.

In 1996, California initiated a majorclass size reduction program. Cur-rently, the California proposal pro-vides $800 per student in each kinder-garten to Grade 3 classroom thatlimits class size to 20 students orlower. However, California’s initia-tive has been heavily criticized for itsinability to secure certified teachersand facilities to accommodate thedemands placed on schools.

Wisconsin, one of several states inwhich class size limits are negotiatedin teacher contracts, offered a state-

wide class size reduction initiative thatallowed schools in which 30 percentor more of the students are economi-cally disadvantaged to apply forfunding to reduce their average classsizes to 15 in kindergarten throughGrade 2. The first year of the programincluded 84 kindergarten classrooms,96 first grade classrooms, and 5 mixedgrade classrooms (WDPI, 1997).Schools were awarded up to $2,000per child for participation in the classsize reduction initiative. Initially,Wisconsin began implementing theclass size reduction in kindergartenand first grade in 1996-97 and pro-gressed a grade level each successive

year until Grade 3 had been included.The class size reduction measureswere part of the Student AchievementGuarantee in Education (SAGE)program. In an effort to raise studentachievement, the SAGE programconnected class size reduction, staffdevelopment and accountability,curriculum, and human services tolink the school with the community.

In 1989, Nevada’s policies reducedclass size to 16 students in Grades 1and 2 and some kindergarten classesfor students at-risk. Although theprogram expanded to third grade,



Table 6. Class Size Policies

Data Source: State policy documents and personal communications with state agencies, November 1998.NOTE: Student-teacher ratio is total students divided by total teachers. Class size averages and student-teacher ratios shown apply at the campuslevel unless otherwise noted.

amabalA

3-Kni)ediahtiwrehgih(mumixam816-4sedarGni)ediahtiwrehgih(mumixam628-7sedarGni)ediahtiwrehgih(mumixam92

21-9sedarGnioitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot12

aksalA elbaliavatonnoitamrofnI

anozirA enoN

sasnakrA

KPni)ediahtiw02otpu(mumixam01Kni)ediahtiw22otpu(mumixam023-1sedarGnimumixam52,egareva326-4sedarGnimumixam82,egareva52

21-7sedarGnimumixam0321-7sedarGnimumixamyliadrehcaetrepstneduts051

ainrofilaC 3-Knimumixam02

odaroloC enoN

tucitcennoC stcartnocrehcaetnidetaitogeN

erawaleD 3-Kni)ediahtiw33otpu(mumixam22

fotcirtsiDaibmuloC

KPni)ediahtiw02otpu(mumixam512-Knimumixam02

21-3sedarGnimumixam52

adirolF3-Knimumixam02

3-Ksloohcsgnimrofrep-wolyllacitircnimumixam51

aigroeG

mumixam12,ediwtcirtsidegareva2.81mumixam82,ediwtcirtsidegareva2.42otpu(

Kni)ediahtiwmumixam52,ediwtcirtsidegareva5.12

mumixam33,ediwtcirtsidegareva6.82otpu(3-1sedarGni)ediahtiw

8-4sedarGnimumixam33,ediwtcirtsidegareva6.8221-9sedarGnimumixam53,ediwtcirtsidegareva8.03

iiawaH elbaliavatonnoitamrofnI

ohadI enoN

sionillI enoN

anaidnIgnidnuflaiceps;21-Krofoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot03

3-Knisezisssalcecuderotstcirtsidrofelbaliava

awoI enoN

sasnaK enoN

ykcutneK

3-Knimumixam424edarGnimumixam82

6-5sedarGnimumixam9221-7sedarGnimumixam13

anaisiuoL3-Knimumixam62


eniaM enoN

dnalyraM enoN

sttesuhcassaM Kniegareva52

nagihciM stcartnocrehcaetnidetaitogeN

atosenniM enoN

ippississiM

Kni)ediahtiw72otpu(mumixam224-1sedarGnimumixam72

8-5sedarGdeniatnoc-flesnimumixam0321-5sedarGdezilatnemtrapednimumixam33

21-5sedarGnimumixamrehcaetrepstneduts051

iruossiM

2-Knimumixam524-3sedarGnimumixam726-5sedarGnimumixam0321-7sedarGnimumixam33

anatnoM

)dedeecxetimilfiyrotadnamedia(2-Knimumixam024-3sedarGnimumixam8221-5sedarGnimumixam03

21-9sedarGnimumixamyliadrehcaetrepstneduts051

aksarbeN enoN

adaveN 3-Knimumixam51

erihspmaHweN2-Knimumixam52


yesreJweN Kni)ediahtiwrehgih(mumixam52

ocixeMweN

Kni)ediahtiw02otpu(mumixam511edarGni)ediahtiw22otpu(mumixam02

3-2sedarGniegareva226-4sedarGniegareva42

8-7sedarGhsilgnEnimumixam7221-9sedarGhsilgnEnimumixam03

nimumixamyliadrehcaetrepstneduts5318-7sedarGhsilgnE

nimumixamyliadrehcaetrepstneduts05121-9sedarGhsilgnE

mumixamyliadrehcaetrepstneduts06121-7sedarGrehto

kroYweN 02wolebezisssalcecuderotelbaliavastnarG

aniloraChtroN

2-Knimumixam629-3sedarGnimumixam92,ediwtcirtsidegareva62

21-01sedarGnimumixam23,ediwtcirtsidegareva5.8221-7sedarGnimumixamyliadrehcaetrepstneduts051

atokaDhtroN3-Knimumixam52


oihO 21-Krofediwtcirtsidoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot52

amohalkO6-Kni)ediahtiwrehgih(mumixam02


nogerO enoN

ainavlysnneP enoN

dnalsIedohR stcartnocrehcaetnidetaitogeN

aniloraChtuoS

3-Knimumixam03dnastraegaugnal/hsilgnEnimumixam03

6-4sedarGscitamehtam6-4sedarGrehtonimumixam53

21-7sedarGnimumixam535-Krofoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot82

dnagnidaerniediwtcirtsidoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot123-1sedarGscitamehtam


atokaDhtuoS enoN

eessenneT3-Knimumixam52,egareva02

6-4sedarGnimumixam03,egareva5221-7sedarGnimumixam53,egareva03

saxeT4-Knimumixam22

21-Krofediwtcirtsidoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot02

hatUecuderotstcirtsidrofelbaliavagnidnuflaiceps;enoN

ezisssalc

tnomreV

3-Kni)ediahtiwrehgih(egareva028-4sedarGni)ediahtiwrehgih(egareva52

21-9sedarGhsilgnEniegarevarehcaetrepstneduts00121-9sedarGrehtoniegarevarehcaetrepstneduts051

ainigriV

Kni)ediahtiw03otpu(mumixam521edarGnimumixam03

6-4sedarGnimumixam53sloohcshgihdnaelddimrofoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot52

Krofediwtcirtsidoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot521edarGrofediwtcirtsidoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot42

6-4sedarGrofediwtcirtsidoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot52rofediwtcirtsidoitarrehcaet-tneduts1ot42

21-6sedarGhsilgnE

notgnihsaWediwtcirtsidoitarffatsdeifitrecottneduts1ot32

21-Krof

ainigriVtseWKnimumixam02


nisnocsiW stcartnocrehcaetnidetaitogeN

gnimoyW enoN

Page 20


schools could use the funding foreither third grade expansion or to fundother kindergarten through Grade 3programs aimed at improving studentachievement. Similar to the Californiainitiative, Nevada’s program failed toprovide for adequate facilities. Thus,schools were allowed to have class-rooms with 32 students and 2 teachersto maintain the 16 to 1 student-teacherratio. The current policy reduces classsize to 15 students.

Utah has a program that makes specialfunding available for districts toreduce class size. The class sizereduction program was implemented

in 1990 beginning with kindergartenthrough Grade 4, and expanded toGrades 5 and 6 in 1996-1997. Grades7 and 8 will be added in 1998-99.Policies lowered class size to 10students in kindergarten and 15 inGrades 1 through 3. Funding forUtah’s class size reduction programinitially earmarked half of the districtallocation for kindergarten throughGrade 2 implementation, effectivelyprioritizing implementation for thesegrades. Limited classroom space andrapidly increasing student enrollmentscreated implementation difficulty.

In addition to appearing on numerousstate agendas for educational reform,

class size reduction holds a prominentposition on the national educationagenda. As part of a $12 billion, 7-year plan to hire 100,000 new elemen-tary teachers, Congress recentlyapproved $1.2 billion for the 1999-2000 federal budget plan. Thisprovides enough money to hire 30,000new teachers nationally in earlyelementary grades for the 1999-2000school year. The initiative, supportedby the National Education Associationand the American Federation ofTeachers, is intended to help schoolsnationwide reduce class sizes inGrades 1 to 3 to an average of 18students.

Despite the recent trends to provideadditional teachers, the average classsize in regular instructional classroomshas only declined from 30 students to25 students since the 1950’s in el-ementary schools nationwide; and theadditional teachers have workedprimarily with students who havespecial needs (Toch & Streisand,1997). NCES (1997) reported thatclass size in elementary and secondaryschools during the1993-94 school yearaveraged 24 students. Table 7 showsthat nationally class size decreases asschool size decreases and elementaryand secondary schools with fewer than150 student have substantially smallerclasses.

Class Size Research

Tennessee’s Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio) remainsthe most renowned class size study todate. Project STAR, conducted as alongitudinal project from 1985 to 1989with 6,000 students in kindergartenthrough third grade, included studentsin small classes averaging 13 to 17students; regular classes averaging 22to 25 students; and regular classeswith a full time assistant (Achilles,1996; Bingham, 1994). This studyused interview data, test scores,attendance and discipline data, andspecialized questionnaires.

Table 7.National Average Class Size

1993-94 School Year

supmaCcitsiretcarahC

yratnemelEloohcS

eziSssalC

hgiHloohcS

eziSssalC

latoT 42 42

epyTytinummoC

ytiClartneC 52 52

nwotegral/egnirfnabrU 52 52

nwotllams/laruR 32 22

stnedutSytironiMtnecreP

%02nahtsseL 42 32

eromro%02 52 42

stnedutSdegatnavdasiDyllacimonocEtnecreP

%6nahtsseL 42 42

%02ot%6 52 42

%04ot%12 42 42

eromro%14 42 42

eziSsupmaC

051nahtsseL 81 51

994ot051 32 12

947ot005 52 32

eromro057 62 52

Data Source: NCES (1997).NOTE: NCES definitions for elementary and high schools differ fromthose used in Texas. As a result, Grade 6-8 middle schools are includedin the elementary category.

Nationwide average class size increases as school sizeincreases for both elementary and high schools.



The Lasting Benefits Study (LBS)tracked students in the initial ProjectSTAR study and analyzed test scoresfor these students through the end ofeighth grade. This study was designedto assess the long-term academicperformance gains for students whoparticipated in the small classes in theelementary grades.

Predating Project STAR, ProjectPrime Time began as an Indianastatewide initiative in 1984. During itsfirst year of implementation, thisinitiative reduced class sizes toapproximately 18 students in firstgrade classrooms. However, schoolsmaintained the flexibility to increaseclass size to 24 if the classroom had aninstructional aide. The succeedingtwo years added second grade and achoice between third grade andkindergarten respectively.

North Carolina established two classsize reduction programs. In 1991-92,Burke County piloted an initiative toreduce class sizes to 15 students forfirst graders in four elementaryschools. Following positive results onearly assessments, the program wasphased in to all first grade classroomsin all elementary schools within BurkeCounty. The four initial pilot schoolsserved as the sites for phasing-insecond and third grade class sizereductions. By 1995-96, all schools inBurke County had first and secondgrade classrooms of 15 students. Tenelementary schools had reduced classsize to 15 students in third grade by1996-97. The Success Starts Small(SSS) program, North Carolina’ssecond initiative, focused on studentsin Grade 1 and reduced class size to 15students.

Data collected from these initiativesover the past decade provide thefoundation for much of the class sizeresearch conducted and many of theclass size reduction policies consid-ered and initiated today. The follow-

ing is a summary of current class sizeresearch findings.

Class Size Findings

School Climate. According to theUSDE (1998a), small classes promoteimprovement of the environmentalquality of the classroom. Further-more, defenders of small classesperceive small classes as useful inorganizing classrooms so that thediverse academic needs of all studentscan be met.

According to many class size researchstudies, smaller classes have fewerclassroom distractions. Consequently,teachers in small classes spend lesstime on classroom management andexperience fewer discipline problems(Achilles, 1996; Finn, 1998; USDE,1998a; WDPI, 1997). As revealed inthe Success Starts Small project, theincreased space per student maycontribute to fewer distractions andclassroom disruptions (Egelson,Harman, & Achilles, 1996).

As a result of an improved climate,teachers in small classes have moretime available for instruction (WDPI,1997). Small classes exhibit increaseduse of instructional materials and moredirect interaction between teachersand students (Achilles, 1996; Finn,1998). Findings from the STAR studyindicated that instruction in smallclasses and regular classes with anaide differed from other classes in thatbasic instruction was completed morequickly and thoroughly; learningcenters, supplemental texts, andenrichment activities were used morefrequently; and use of other instruc-tional strategies appropriate forelementary grades was incorporated(Achilles, 1996). Teachers in smallclassrooms are able to give studentsmore individual attention, determinestudents’ individual needs morequickly, and spend time with studentswho need assistance (USDE, 1998a;WDPI, 1997). In addition, teachers

experience less fatigue in small classes(Achilles, 1996).

While supplying more opportunitiesfor teachers to interact individuallywith students, small classes provideopportunities for more students toparticipate (Finn, 1993; Finn 1998;Olson, 1977; WDPI, 1997). Advo-cates for small classes maintain thatparents are also more involved if theirchildren are in smaller classes, andstudies have found increased commu-nication between school and home forstudents who are in smaller classes(Achilles, 1996).

Moreover, smaller classes in the earlygrades are perceived as a deterrent forlater retention and remediation (Achil-les, 1997; Bingham, 1994). Theeffects of small classes have notproven as beneficial for retainedstudents during the retention year asusing small classes as a preventionstrategy (Harvey, 1994). For example,most of the counties who participatedin the Project Challenge study, whichapplied the STAR study criteria tomany of Tennessee’s more economi-cally disadvantaged counties, indi-cated a decrease in the number ofretentions after reducing class size(Achilles, 1996). Finally, proponentsof small classes note that deterringretention helps counterbalance thecosts of implementing class sizereduction initiatives.

Academic Achievement. Increases instudent achievement accompany thebenefits of class size reduction notedthus far. Glass, et.al (1982) demon-strated student achievement continuesto improve as class size is reduced andas the years of participation in smallclasses increase. The results of theSTAR study also illustrated that asignificant advantage existed forkindergartners in small classes. In theSTAR study, first grade students insmall classes outperformed otherstudents on a criterion-referenced testof basic skills in reading and math-


ematics (Achilles, 1996). The resultsfrom the second and third gradereflected this same pattern. Curiousabout the extent of the effect resourceallocations had on fourth and eighthgrade mathematics achievement,Wenglinsky (1997) found that reduc-ing student-teacher ratios resulted ingreater average mathematics achieve-ment in fourth grade. However, therelationship between lower student-teacher ratios and mathematicsachievement was not as directly linkedin the eighth grade. Instead, lowerstudent-teacher ratios at eighth gradeseem to influence the environmentalquality of the school and thus indi-rectly affected student mathematicsachievement.

Some proponents regard class sizereduction as a measure for improvingthe achievement of disadvantaged andminority students; thereby reducingthe achievement gap between eco-nomically disadvantaged and minoritystudents, and advantaged and Whitestudents (Bingham, 1994; Bracey,1998a; Finn, 1998; USDE, 1998a;WDPI, 1997). A re-analysis of theSTAR data indicated that minoritystudents who participated in the smallclasses passed the reading portion ofthe basic skills test at a rate compa-rable to White students. In addition,using small classes, optimally begin-ning in kindergarten or first grade andcontinuing for at least two years,served as an intervention strategycapable of preventing the minority-White achievement gap (Achilles,1996; Bingham, 1994; Finn, 1998).Performance reports from the Wiscon-sin Department of Public Instruction(1997) indicate that the achievementgap widened between African Ameri-can and White students at controlschools that did not have smallerclasses. However, students at theschools participating in the SAGEprogram exhibited equal performanceincreases for African American andWhite students. According toWenglinsky’s (1997) report, economi-

cally disadvantaged students obtainthe most gains from small class size.

The benefits accrued from smallclasses in elementary schools appearto have residual effects on studentachievement in later years. TheLasting Benefits Study demonstratedthat students who benefited from smallclasses in kindergarten through thirdgrade had significantly better scoreson both norm-referenced tests andcriterion-referenced tests in readingand mathematics in fourth througheighth grades. In addition, the differ-ence in achievement between studentswho had been in small classes andthose who had been in regular classesor regular classes with an aide ap-peared in other areas tested such asscience and social studies (Achilles,1996). Students who participated inthe STAR program experiencedpositive effects on achievement up tofive years after their participation insmall classes (Nye et. al, 1995).

Principal, Teacher, and ParentPerceptions. Teachers, administra-tors, and parents often support effortsto reduce class size. Achilles (1996)notes that the inclination for homeschooling, private schooling, advancedclasses, or other special programsdemonstrates the desire for smallclasses and the benefits that may resultfrom them. As a rationale for smallerclassrooms, teachers often cite highermorale and better relationships withstudents (Glass, Cahen, Smith, &Filby, 1982; Olson, 1977). Accordingto many class-size research studies,teachers believe that small classes areaccompanied by decreases in disci-pline problems and increases instudent learning. In addition, teachersalso believe students can progressmore at their own rate, stay on taskmore frequently, and achieve more insmall classes (Egelson, Harmon, &Achilles, 1996). Teachers also believethey are able to provide more timelyfeedback, attention, and materials.Furthermore, teachers denote more

interactions between school and homewhen students are in smaller classes(Achilles, 1997). Principals’ percep-tions of the effects of small classesinclude increased individual attentionfor students, quicker diagnosis ofstudent needs, and overall decline inthe number of retentions. Recently,90 percent of superintendents sur-veyed for Education Week said theyagreed that reducing class sizes wouldimprove student achievement (Archer,1998). The USDE (1998a) found thatstudents, teachers, and parents gener-ally report positively on their experi-ences with small classes.

Class Size Recommendations.Current research on class size indi-cates that class size reductions seemmost beneficial in the early elemen-tary grades (USDE, 1998a). Studentsbenefit from smaller classes inkindergarten through Grade 3 (Achil-les, 1997; Robinson & Wittebols,1986); the greatest benefits arederived from smaller classes inkindergarten and Grade 1 (Wordet al, 1990). The benefits accruedfrom smaller classes in elementaryschool appear to have residual effectson student achievement in later years(Nye et al., 1995). There is notcorresponding evidence of higheracademic achievement associatedwith smaller middle and high schoolclasses because there have not been asufficient number of class size studiesat those grade levels.

Class size reductions have beenassociated with the greatest impact onstudent achievement when classes arereduced below 20 students. Class sizereductions to between 15 and 19students have been reported to yieldthe greatest results, especially foreconomically disadvantaged andminority students. Student achieve-ment is not as great if class sizesremain at 20 students or more (Achil-les, 1996; Finn, 1998; Glass et al.,1982; Illig, 1996; USDE, 1998a). Themajor class size studies have analyzed


different size classes at different gradelevels using different methodologiesand different measures of achieve-ment. For that reason, it is not pos-sible to make broad generalizationsabout the advantages of classes with17 students versus those with 18students, for example.

Adding teacher aides to large classesallows teachers to give students moreindividual attention and spend addi-tional time with students who needassistance. A number of state classsize policies give schools the option ofa higher class size limit for classeswith aides. There is some evidence ofpositive effects of adding teacher aidesto large classes and these policiesallow schools greater flexibility inimplementing class size limits. How-ever, adding teacher aides to largeclassrooms does not replicate all theconditions found in small classes(USDE, 1998a). Furthermore, largeclasses with teacher aides do notexhibit the higher levels of studentinvolvement and academic achieve-ment found in small classes (Word etal., 1990; Nye et al., 1995).

Financial Considerations

Costs for schooling are likely toincrease with class size reductions.The need for additional staff andfacilities are the primary reasons forincreased expenditures. However, thebenefits of reducing class sizes inelementary schools must be weighedagainst the cost of providing teacheraides, retentions, special education, orremediation later in school (Achilles,1997; Bingham, 1994).

A number of factors must be consid-ered when calculating the cost of astatewide class size reduction policy(McRobbie, Finn, & Harman, 1998).

• Average class sizes before reduc-tion – the greater the decreaserequired to meet new class sizelimits the greater the cost.

• Flexibility in implementing thepolicy – rigid class size limitsrequire schools to maintain smallerclasses to ensure staying below thelimit, which increases costs.

• Cost of additional teachers –experienced teachers cost morethan new teachers. Also, increaseddemand may raise teacher salaries.

• Cost of facilities – operational costsfor new facilities must be factoredin, as well as construction costs.

• Potential savings accrued fromsmaller classes – in addition toimproving academic performanceof students, smaller classes havebeen attributed with reducingspecial education referrals, reten-tion rates, and disciplinary prob-lems which can reduce expendi-tures for remediation.

In 1985-86, the first year class sizelimits were required for kindergartenthrough Grade 2 classrooms in Texaspublic schools, 256 districts requestedwaivers due to lack of facilities (TEA,1986). Based on construction costs atthe time, it was estimated that the1,800 new classrooms needed forcompliance with the maximum classsize requirement would cost districtsapproximately $106 million. Themajority of waivers were granted tosmall, nonmetropolitan and ruraldistricts. In addition, many districtsthat did not request waivers in 1985-86 cited the new class size require-ments as a reason for needing to buildadditional facilities. The 451 districtsresponding to a survey regardingimplementation of class size provi-sions reported constructing or purchas-ing 1,627 new classrooms and remod-eling an additional 602 classrooms.Costs were estimated at $60 million.These districts also hired 3,152additional kindergarten through Grade2 teachers at a cost of $63 million.Moreover, an additional 457 teacherswere needed statewide in 72 districts

that requested waivers due to teachershortages.

In a 1987 report to the legislature, itwas estimated that the cost to Texasschool districts of complying withclass size limits for the 1988-89biennium would be $610.5 million(Clark, 1988). This estimate included$98.0 million in additional teachersalaries and $189.7 million for facili-ties to maintain smaller classes inkindergarten through Grade 2. Theremaining $322.7 million was theestimated cost of extending class sizelimits to Grades 3 and 4 the secondyear of the biennium - $109.7 millionfor additional teacher salaries and$213.0 million for facilities.

In 1997-98, Texas school districtsbudgeted $2.3 billion for debt serviceand capital outlay. These non-operat-ing expenditures accounted for over 10percent of total district expenditures.Until this year, school districts reliedentirely on local tax revenue to fundthe construction of new facilities.However, the Instructional FacilitiesAllotment (IFA) program, which wasauthorized by the 75th Texas Legisla-ture in 1997 (TEC Chapter 46, 1998),now provides assistance to schooldistricts in making debt servicepayments on qualifying bonds andlease-purchase agreements. Districtsmust apply to the Texas EducationAgency to receive part of the $100million appropriated for the IFAprogram each year of the currentbiennium. The amount of state aid adistrict receives under the IFA pro-gram is based on the district size,property values, and amount of annualdebt service. Priority for funding isgiven to low-wealth districts.

Conclusion

Enrollment in Texas public schools isprojected to increase at more thantwice the national rate over the nextdecade. Consequently, educationadministrators and taxpayers will


continue to be confronted with diffi-cult decisions related to school re-sources. Although longitudinal studiesof cost effectiveness refute the argu-ment that large schools are moreeconomical, annual per-pupil expendi-tures of large schools in Texas arelower than those of small schools.However, lower expenditures at largerschools are achieved at least in partthrough higher student-teacher ratios.Educators and education policymakerswill continue to explore reformsdesigned to overcome the disadvan-tages of large schools and classes byoffering school and class size reduc-tion alternatives.

Overall, analysis of Texas data showthat Texas Assessment of AcademicSkills (TAAS) reading and mathemat-ics performance in elementary schoolsdeclines as school size increases. InTexas middle schools, attendance ratesand TAAS mathematics performancedecline as school size increases. Highschool retention rates increase asschool size increases, and attendancerates and TAAS mathematics perfor-mance decline. The percentage ofTexas high school students completingadvanced courses and taking collegeadmissions tests is not significantlydifferent between large and smallschools. However, performance onindicators of college readiness im-proves as high school size increases.These findings are consistent withfindings from school size researchconducted elsewhere.

While larger schools are exploringpractices that will afford them some ofthe advantages of smaller schools,smaller schools are striving to providebetter opportunities for college prepa-ration. Analysis of Texas SAT resultshas found positive relationshipsbetween SAT scores and percentagesof students passing the TAAS, studentletter grades, and the number ofacademic courses students complete(TEA, 1998e). Recommendations toschools based on these analyses center

on encouraging all students to take agreater number of academicallychallenging courses; increasing thenumber and diversity of rigorous,challenging courses offered; ensuringthat all students are held to consis-tently high standards; and encouragingmore participation in AP, IB, andcollege admissions testing programs.

On average, the number of differentadvanced courses offered by Texashigh schools decreases as school sizedecreases. However, there are me-dium, small, and very small highschools that offer a large number ofadvanced courses, demonstrating thata diverse and challenging curriculumis not out of reach for smaller schools.The ability of small schools to useresources differently provides thepotential to achieve curriculumbreadth and depth similar to largeschools. The percentage of highschool students completing at least oneadvanced course increased from 12percent in 1992-93 to almost 20percent in 1996-97, illustrating thatTexas students are willing to meet thechallenge of more difficult courseswhen the opportunity is offered.

Some alternatives to large schoolsinclude programs such as schools-within-a-school, focus or magnetschools, and charter schools (Gladden,1998; Haller, 1992; Lee & Smith,1997; Raywid, 1997). Additionally,organizing schools into smallercomponents comprised of teacherteams provides some opportunities forstudents and teachers to experience thebenefits of simulated small schoolsthat are inclusive of all children(Oxley, 1994). About one-third of theTexas middle schools responding to a1993 survey reported that they werepartially or fully implementing prac-tices designed to create a communityof learners (TEA, 1994). Practicesincluded academic teaming, in whichan interdisciplinary team of teachersshares a common group of students; asecond, common planning period for

the academic team to allow betterintegration of curriculum and instruc-tion; and advisory periods andmentoring programs to provide stu-dents daily interaction with adultmentors.

As indicated, small classes support anenvironment that often leads to moredirect attention to students, wider useof resources, increased use of instruc-tional methods, greater student partici-pation, higher teacher morale, andfewer class disruptions (Jencks &Phillips, 1998; USDE, 1998a & 1998b;Wenglinsky, 1997). Although estab-lishing a cause-effect relationshipbetween class size and student achieve-ment remains difficult, increasedstudent achievement appears to beassociated with the conditions createdby class size reductions. The effects ofclass size reduction appear greater forstudents if they engage in small classesin the early elementary grades, espe-cially kindergarten and first grade.Some studies, such as the LastingBenefits Study, reveal that participa-tion in small classes can have residualeffects on student academic achieve-ment. Furthermore, small classes havebeen found to facilitate reduction ingaps between minority and Whitestudents’ academic achievement.

In a recent cost analysis for Missis-sippi, the SouthEastern RegionalVision for Education (1998) researchand development group suggestedlimiting the scope of class-size reduc-tions, alternative scheduling, andchanges in staffing priorities as alterna-tives to full-scale class size reductions.In addition, year-round calendars havealso been introduced to alleviate over-crowding. In 1996-97, there were 359schools in 63 school districts operatingon year-round calendars in Texas;three-fourths of these were elementaryschools.

Adding teacher aides to large class-rooms represents another alternative toreducing class size. Although adding


teacher aides to large classrooms doesnot necessarily replicate the condi-tions found in small classrooms, itmay allow teachers to give studentsmore individual attention and spendadditional time with students whoneed assistance. In 1997-98 therewere 48,626 educational aides em-ployed by Texas school districts;educational aides accounted foralmost 10 percent of total staff. Thereis some evidence of positive effects ofadding teacher aides to large classes,effectively reducing the student-adultratio within the classroom. However,large classes with teacher aides havenot been found to exhibit the higherlevels of student involvement andacademic achievement found in smallclasses.

Based on the policies initiated in otherstates, further plans for class sizereductions necessitate consideration ofthe available facilities and supply ofteachers, as well as the quality ofteachers available. In 1997-98, therewere 254, 558 teachers teaching inTexas public schools (TEA, 1998). In1996-97 about 96 percent of Texaspublic school teachers held a certifi-cate issued by the State Board forEducator Certification (SBEC, 1998).Thus, only 4 percent of those teachingin 1996-97 did not hold a certificateissued by SBEC. However, as a resultof teacher shortages and fluctuationsin enrollment or course offerings,certified teachers often teach one ormore courses outside their area ofcertification. At the high school level,20 percent of the teachers teachingEnglish/language arts, science, andsocial studies classes in 1996-97 werereportedly teaching at least one coursefor which they were not certified.In addition, 30 percent or more of themiddle school and junior high teachersteaching in the core areas of languagearts, mathematics, science, and socialstudies were teaching one or morecourses for which they were notcertified. Texas identified specialeducation, mathematics, bilingual

education, English as a second lan-guage, science, and foreign languagesas teacher shortage areas for the 1998-1999 school year.

Small class reformers do not advocateany one school design or instructionalmethodology (Achilles, 1997; Fine,1998: Raywid, 1997). Nevertheless,attention to the quantity and quality ofthe available teaching force is essen-tial because class size reductionsrequire qualified teachers to beeffective (Bracey, 1998b; Hanushek,1998; McRobbie, Finn, & Harman,1998). Availability of adequateschool facilities has also hampered theimplementation of class size reductionpolicies in several states.


Selected References

Achilles, C. (1996). Summary of Recent Class-Size Research with an Emphasis on Tennessee’s ProjectSTAR and Its Derivative Research Studies. Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research andPolicy on Basic Skills.

Achilles, C. (1997). Small Classes, Big Possibilities. The School Administrator, 54. 6-15.

Alspaugh, J. (1994). The Relationship Between School Size, Student Teacher Ratio and School Effi-ciency. Education, 114. 593-597.

Alspaugh, J. (1998). The Relationship of School-to-School Transitions and School Size to High SchoolDropout Rates. High School Journal, 81.154-160.

Archer, J. (1998). In Survey of 622 Superintendents, US Schools Earn B. Education Week. Available Online: http://www.edweek.org/ew/current/08admin.h18.

Bingham, C. (1994). White-Minority Achievement Gap Reduction and Small Class-Size: A Research andLiterature Review. Nashville, TN: The Center of Excellence for Research in Basic Skills.

Bracey, G. (1998a). An Optimal Size for High Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79. 406.

Bracey, G. (1998b). The Eighth Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Phi Delta Kappan,80. 112-131.

Casbon, C. Egelson, P., Harman, P., & Nalley, D. (1998). Reducing Class Size: Strategies and Implica-tions for Mississippi. Greensboro, NC: Office of Academic Education and SouthEastern RegionalVision for Education.

Clark, C. (1988). The Cost of 22-to-1 Class Size Ratios for Texas School Districts. Austin, TX: TexasCenter for Educational Research.

Cotton, K. (1996). School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance. School ImprovementResearch Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Egelson, P., Harman, P., & Achilles, C. (1996). Does Class Size Make a Difference? Recent Findingsfrom State and District Initiatives. Greensboro, NC: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education(SERVE).

Farber, P. (1998). Small Schools Work Best for Disadvantaged Students. The Harvard EducationLetter, 14. 6-8.

Fetler, M. (1997). Staffing Up and Dropping Out: Unintended Consequences of High Demand forTeachers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5. Available Online: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v5n16html.


Fetler, M. (1989). School Dropout Rates, Academic Performance, Size, and Poverty: Correlates ofEducational Reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11. 109-116.

Fine, M. & Somerville, J. (1998). Small Schools Big Imaginations: A Creative Look at Urban PublicSchools. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

Fine, M. (1998). What’s So Good about Small Schools? Small Schools Big Imaginations: A CreativeLook at Urban Public Schools. Chicago: The Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

Finn, J. (1998). Class Size and Students at Risk: What is Known? What is Next? A commissioned Paper.National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students. Office of Educational Research and Im-provement. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Friedkin, N. & Necochea, J. (1988). School System Size and Performance: A Contingency Perspective.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10. 237-249.

Gladden, R. (1998). The Small School Movement: A Review of the Literature, 113-137. In Fine, M. &Sommerville, J. Small Schools Big Imaginations: A Creative Look at Urban Public Schools.Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

Glass, G., Cahen, L., Smith, M., Filby, N. (1982). School Class Size: Research and Policy.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw Hill.

Haller, E. (1992). High School Size and Student Indiscipline: Another Aspect of the School Consolida-tion Issue. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14. 145-156.

Hanushek, E. (1998). The Evidence on Class Size. Rochester, NY: W. Allen Wallis Institute of PoliticalEconomy, University of Rochester.

Harvey, B. (1994). Retention: A Narrative Review of One Hundred Years of Practice. What Are theAlternatives? Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research of Basic Skills, TN State University.

Heath, D. (1994). Schools of Hope: Developing Mind and Character in Today’s Youth. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Howley, C. (1995). The Matthew Principle: A West Virginia Replication? Education Policy AnalysisArchives, 3. Available Online: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v3n18.html.

Howley, C. (1997). Dumbing Down by Sizing Up. The School Administrator, 54. 24-30. AvailableOnline: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v5n16.htm.

Illig, D. (1996). Reducing Class Size: A Review of the Literature and Options for Consideration.Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau.

Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap: Why it persists and what can bedone. Education Week, 18. 33 & 44.

Jewell, R. (1989). School and School District Size Relationships: Costs, Results, Minorities, and PrivateSchool Enrollments. Education and Urban Society, 21. 140-153.


King, R. & Mathers, J. (1997). Improving Schools Through Performance-Based Accountability andFinancial Rewards. Journal of Education Finance, 53. 147-176.

Lee, V. & Smith, J. (1997). High School Size: Which Works Best and For Whom? EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 19. 205-227.

McGuire, K. (1989). School Size: The Continuing Controversy. Education and Urban Society, 21.164-174.

McRobbie, J., Finn, J., & Harman, P. (1998). Class Size Reductions: Lessons Learned from Experience.WestEd Policy Brief, 23.

Meier, D. (1995). Small Schools, Big Results. The American School Board Journal, 182. 37-40.

Miller, J., Ellsworth, R., & Howell, J. (1986). Public Elementary Schools Which Deviate from theTraditional SES-Achievement Relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 10. 31-50.

Monk, D. & Haller, E. (1993). Predictors of High School Academic Course Offerings: The Role ofSchool Size. American Educational Research Journal, 30. 3-22.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). The Condition of Education 1997. Washington, DC:US Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Digest of Education Statistics 1997. Washington, DC:US Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Nye, B., Zaharias, J., Fulton, B., Cain, V., Achilles, C., & Tollett, D. (1995). The Lasting Benefits Study:Grade 8 Technical Report. Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research and Policy on BasicSkills.

Olson, M. (1977). Research Findings That Support Small Class Size. Class Size: Reference and Resourceseries. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Oxley, D. (1994). Organizing Schools into Small Units: Alternatives to Homogeneous Groupings.Phi Delta Kappan, 75. 521-526.

Pittman, R. & Haughwout, P. (1987). Influence of High School Size on Dropout Rate. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 9. 337-343.

Raywid, M. A. (1998). Small Schools: A Reform That Works. Educational Leadership, 55. 34-39.

Raywid, M. (1997). Successful School Downsizing. The School Administrator, 54. 18-23.

Robinson, G. & Wittebols, J. (1986). Class Size Research: A Related Cluster Analysis for Decision-Making. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service, Inc.

Roellke, C. (1996). Curriculum Adequacy and Quality in High Schools Enrolling Fewer Than 400 Pupils(9-12). ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Temporary ClearinghouseAccession Number RC 020 837 (ED number pending).


Schoggen, L. & Schoggen, M. (1988). Student Voluntary Participation and High School Size. TheJournal of Educational Research, 81. 288-293.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). Small Schools Great Expectations. Educational Leadership, 53. 48-52.

State Board for Educator Certification. (1998). Who’s Teaching in Texas Public Schools? Austin, TX:SBEC.

Texas Administrative Code. (1988). Austin, TX: West Publishing Co.

Texas Education Agency. (1986). The 1985-1986 Accountable Costs Study. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1988). The 1987-1988 Accountable Costs Study. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1991). Spotlight on the Middle: Report of the Texas Task Force on MiddleSchool Education. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1994). Survey of Middle School Practices. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1996). 1996 Accountability Manual. Part 2: Comparable Improvement.Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1997a). Expanding the Scope of the Texas Public School AccountabilitySystem. Policy Research Report No. 9. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1997b). First Steps in School: A Examination of Grade 1 in Texas PublicSchools. Summary Report. Statewide Texas Educational Progress Study Report No. 4. Austin, TX:TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1997c). Glossary for the Academic Excellence Indicator System 1996-97Report. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1997d). 1995-96 Report on Grade Level Retention of Texas Students. Austin,TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1997e). A Study of Student Mobility in Texas Public Schools. Austin, TX:TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1998a). Academic Achievement of Elementary Students with Limited EnglishProficiency in Texas Public Schools. Policy Research Report No. 10. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1998b). Enrollment Trends in Texas Public Schools. Policy Research ReportNo. 11. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1998c). 1996-97 Report on Public School Dropouts. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1998d). 1998 Accountability Manual. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Agency. (1998e). Results of College Admissions Testing in Texas for 1996-97Graduating Seniors. Austin, TX: TEA.


Texas Education Agency. (1998f). Snapshot '97: 1996-97 School District Profiles. Austin, TX: TEA.

Texas Education Code. (1984). Texas School Law Bulletin. Austin, TX: West Publishing Co.




Toch, T. & Streisand, B. (1997). Does Class Size Matter? US News and World Report.http.www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/971013/13size.htm.

United States Department of Education. (1998a). Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?Washington, DC: USDE. Available Online: http://www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/reducing.pdf.

United States Department of Education. (1998b). A National Effort to Reduce Class Size: Smaller Classwith Well-Prepared Teachers. Available Online: http://www.ed.gov/inits/classsize/effort.html.

Unks, G. (1989). Differences in Curriculum within A School Setting. Education and Urban Society, 21.175-191.

Viadero, D. (1998). N.Y.C. Study Weighs Cost of Small Schools. Education Week. Available On-Line:http://www.edweek.org/htbin/fastweb?getd.

Walberg, H. & Fowler, W. (1987). Expenditure and Size Efficiencies of Public School Districts.Educational Researcher, 16. 5-13.

Walberg, H. (1992). On Local Control: Is Bigger Better? 118-134. In Source Book on School andDistrict Size, Cost, and Quality. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University, Hubert H. HumphreyInstitute of Public Affairs; Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.(ED 361-164).

Wenglinsky, H. (1997). When Money Matters: How Educational Expenditures Improve Student Perfor-mance and How They Don’t. Princeton, NJ: The Educational Testing Service, Policy InformationCenter.

Word, E., Johnston, J., Bain, H., Fulton, B., Zaharias, J., Lintz, N., Achilles, C., Folger, J., & Breda, C.(1990). Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR): Tennessee’s K-3 Class Size Study. Final reportand final report summary. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of Education.

Williams, D. (1990). The Dimensions of Education: Recent Research on School Size. Working PaperSeries. Clemson, SC: Clemson University, Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and PublicAffairs. (ED 347 006).

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1997). First-Year SAGE Report Shows PromisingIncreases in Student Learning. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionCommunications.

Wynne, E. & Walberg, H. (1995). The Virtues of Intimacy in Education. Educational Leadership,5. 53-54.


Material in this publication is not copyrighted and maybe reproduced. The Texas Education Agency wouldappreciate credit for the material used and a copy ofthe reprint.

Additional copies of this document may be purchasedby using the order form found in the back of thispublication.

Additional information about the Policy ResearchReport series may be obtained by contacting the TexasEducation Agency Research and Evaluation Divisionat (512) 475-3523.

Mike MosesCommissioner of Education

Ron McMichaelDeputy Commissioner

Department of Finance and Accountability

Criss CloudtAssociate Commissioner

Office of Policy Planning and Research

Project Staff

Nancy StevensProject Director

Andrea RorrerResearch Specialist for Special Projects

Research and Evaluation Division

Angie LiuStatistical Assistance

Vicky A. KillgoreGraphics, Layout, and Design

Reviewers

Office of Policy Planning and ResearchMaureen Moore Scheevel

Research and Evaluation DivisionMaria WhitsettNancy J. Smith

Donn Godin

Performance Reporting DivisionCherry Kugle

tea: school size and class size in texas public schools

Documents