Commentary : PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATION : Smaller Class Size Isn’t a Magic Bullet : Reductions work in some cases, but not all. They should be used only where needed and cost-effective.

The notion that smaller classes would make better classes is a deeply held article of faith in American political and policy circles. But are small classes really more effective? Not necessarily.

President Clinton has long made “100,000 new teachers” the mantra of his education policy. Even congressional Republicans, presumably the guardians of federalism, have followed suit. The centerpiece of the GOP’s education legislation--the Teacher Empowerment Act--would require local school districts to spend a portion of the federal booty on reducing class sizes. Teachers love the idea (smaller workloads and more demand for teachers, which means higher pay).

Here in California, the Legislature has provided billions of dollars to schools for an ambitious effort to cut grades K-3 class sizes to no more than 20 students per teacher. While the two major parties differ on the details, few politicians have questioned the underlying assumption that reductions in class size are a cost-effective way to improve educational outcomes. As President Clinton proclaimed in his June 26 weekly radio address, “We know smaller classes will help [children] succeed in school.”

But do we know that? And are there better ways to get results?

A multitude of studies on these questions have come up with mixed findings. Some find positive effects of reductions in class size. Others that compare Catholic schools to public schools find that students in parochial classes do better despite their larger class sizes.

In a study that I recently completed, I reconciled these seemingly contradictory findings. The study began with my observation that better students tend to be found in larger classes, because schools adjust class size to student behavior. One obvious example is that preschool classes are smaller than large lectures for college students. Advanced placement classes, full of attentive students, are larger than classes for students with learning disabilities. Larger classes, like those found in Catholic schools, also are associated with better educational outcomes, not because larger classes are better but because they have more attentive students.

As a result, reductions in class size can have beneficial effects, but the gains are likely to be small for most students. I built a statistical model that indicated that reducing class size from 30 students to California’s target of 20 would increase average educational performance by only 4%--but it would cost 30% more. The best evidence suggests that, to the extent class-size reduction produces benefits, small classes have the largest effect on improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged and special-needs children.

A few researchers, most notably Eric Hanushek of the University of Rochester, also have found that teacher quality is the most important variable in determining educational outcomes for the typical school.

The Catholic school-public school comparison offers another lesson: Class size seems to be less important than another factor--classroom discipline and etiquette. A classroom disrupted by a few misbehaving, unruly individuals cannot produce much learning, even if the majority of students are anxious to learn. Data from Tennessee point to the conclusion that when class-size reductions are beneficial, the benefits derive from limiting the number of children who must be exposed to a given child’s disruptive behavior.

Reducing class size is only one way to limit the effects of disruptive behavior. My analysis shows that an incremental improvement in discipline can make a vast difference for an entire class.

What overall lessons can we draw from these various findings?

First, blanket policies of class-size reduction are inefficient and wasteful. A targeted approach would be best. Schools that have disadvantaged or many special-needs children might want class-size reductions, whereas other schools might be better off allocating their funds in other ways.

Second, the primary theme of education reform should not be class-size reduction. Instead, the focus should be on improvement in teacher quality. A good teacher in a large class is more effective than a poor teacher in a small one. Stricter hiring and promotion standards should be coupled with higher teacher salaries.

American education is not the abject failure it is often portrayed to be. We succeed well at the top, producing the majority of the world’s intellectual leaders, in part because U.S. higher education leads the world. The problem comes not for the top half of students but for the others who are not well-served by our educational system. It is wasteful to spend money on all students when the greater benefits of class-size reduction only accrue to disadvantaged or special-needs children. Rather, society should reduce class sizes only for the children who need it most, and look to other approaches for the rest of our students.