This report provides an overview of the structure and status of the CSR program, the issues raised about the program, early reports on its implementation, and relevant legislative action by the U.S. Congres

Stedman, James B.

UNT Digital Library

1 For detailed information on the activities that can be supported under the new program, see CRSreport RL30834, K-12 Teacher Quality:  Issues and Legislative Action, by James Stedman.Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20447Updated January 15, 2002Class Size Reduction Program: Background and StatusJames B. StedmanSpecialist in Social LegislationDomestic Social Policy DivisionSummaryP.L. 107-110 (H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) reauthorizes theElementary and Secondary Education Act and replaces the federal Class Size Reduction(CSR) program and the Eisenhower Professional Development program with a newformula grant program (FY2002 appropriation of $2.85 billion).  The CSR program,initiated by FY1999 appropriations legislation, was last funded in FY2001 ($1.623billion).  FY2002 appropriations legislation does not continue funding for this program.The U.S. Department of Education estimated that 37,000 teachers were hired under theprogram in its first 2 years.  It was first proposed by President Clinton as an effort to hire100,000 new teachers over a 7-year period and reduce average class size in early gradesto 18 students.  This report will be updated as events warrant.Legislative Action in the 107th CongressOn January 8, 2002, H.R. 1 (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) was signed into law(P.L. 107-110).  This legislation, which reauthorizes the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA), does not include a separate program for class size reduction.Instead it authorizes a new program supporting a broad array of activities to improve theK-12 teaching force.  This program replaces the CSR and Eisenhower ProfessionalDevelopment programs, and permits funding for teacher recruitment and hiring to reduceclass size.1IntroductionFY2001 appropriations legislation (P.L. 106-554) for the U.S. Department ofEducation (ED) included a third year of funding for the CSR program, which wasoriginally proposed by President Clinton as part of the FY1999 budget.  Intended as a 7-CRS-22 According to ED, the average class size in grades 1-3 is 22 (1993-1994, latest data available).Average class size is different from pupil-teacher ratio.  The former measures the average numberof students in a class, generally excluding special emphasis classes, such as special educationclasses or physical education classes, that may be significantly smaller or larger than the averageacademic class.  The latter is a measure of the number of students per teacher, whether suchteacher is engaged in instructional or non-instructional activities.year initiative to support the hiring of 100,000 new teachers to reduce average class sizein grades 1-3 (expanded to K-3 for FY2000) to 18 students, the program faced anuncertain future in light of opposition to its continued funding as a separate program.  Forits 3-year history, the CSR program was the product of annual appropriations legislation,and not separately authorized.  P.L. 107-110, in reauthorizing the ESEA, does notauthorize a class size reduction program; nor was the CSR program continued in FY2002ED appropriations legislation (P.L. 107-116).  The new teacher program in the ESEA wasfunded for FY2002 at $2.85 billion.This report provides an overview of the structure and status of the CSR program, theissues raised about the program, early reports on its implementation, and relevantlegislative action by the U.S. Congress.2Overarching IssuesThe Congress has been reviewing the federal role in elementary and secondaryeducation, most recently during its work on the reauthorization of the ESEA and its debateover the continuation of the CSR program.  At issue have been such questions as whetherthis matter should remain the province of states and localities, whether extensive federalinvolvement will threaten state and local authority over education, whether the federalgovernment is prepared for the long-term financial commitment that class size reductionmight entail, and whether federal aid is more properly awarded with substantial flexibilityallowing school districts (local educational agencies or LEAs) to determine how to spendthese federal education funds.Another fundamental issue is whether the reduction in average class sizes in the earlygrades sought through the program will lead to significant improvement in academicachievement in these grades or whether the effort will have outweighing adverseconsequences.  Although there is no consensus among researchers concerning the impactof class size reduction efforts, the generally positive findings from Tennessee’sStudent/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project, a controlled experiment conductedin a relatively limited number of schools in Tennessee in the late 1980s, have stronglyinfluenced policy debates.  Project STAR found, for example, that enrollment in the earlygrades in classes of 15 or fewer students had a positive impact on students’ academicachievement; minority students, in particular, appeared to benefit from smaller classes; andthe positive effects appeared to persist into later grades.  Many state class size reductionefforts, such as that in California (considered below) as well as the federal CSR program,are promoted by reference to the findings from Project STAR.At the same time, Project STAR is not without its critics, some of whom suggestthat small kindergarten classes may have a positive impact but small classes in highergrades do not, and that implementation problems add “uncertainties” about its conclusions.CRS-33 Hanushek, Eric A.  The Evidence on Class Size, 1998; Gene V. Glass, as quoted in an AssociatedPress article, Teachers, Parents Equate Smaller With Better Classes, as printed in the WashingtonTimes, February 9, 1998.4 This discussion of the California effort and its early results is based on two reports from the CSRResearch Consortium:  Class Size Reduction in California 1996-1998:  Early Findings SignalPromise and Concerns, June 1999; and Class Size Reduction in California:  The 1998-1999Evaluation Findings, 2000, both available on the Web at: [http://www.classize.org].5 Only the scores of third graders in reduced and unreduced classes could be compared because bythe end of the second year of the program nearly all first and second graders were in smallerclasses, thereby eliminating any comparison group of students in larger classes.  Kindergartnerswere not being tested.Some researchers argue that the amount of class size reduction sought by the federal CSRprogram will not make much difference in student achievement.3Finally, class size reduction at the state or national level may have several otherrelevant consequences.  Foremost among them are the following:  increased schoolconstruction or renovation needs to create more classrooms; and increased pressure to hireunderqualified teachers, particularly coupled with growing student enrollment and risingattrition from teaching as a result of retirement.California’s Class Size Reduction Program.  According to ED, about 20states are engaged in their own class size reduction efforts.  Much of the attentionnationwide is focused on California, where a statewide program was initiated through1996-1997 budget legislation and designed to reduce all classes in grades K-3 to not morethan 20 students.  The early findings from this initiative are being used by both sides in thedebate over the federal CSR program.  Under the California program, districts that chooseto participate annually receive a fixed amount per child enrolled in a K-3 class of 20 orfewer students and a facilities grant to address space needs.4  Schools have to reduce classsizes in the first grade initially, followed by the second grade and then either the thirdgrade or kindergarten.  By the end of the program’s second year (1997-1998), nearly everyfirst and second grade student in the state was in a reduced class and more than two-thirdsof all kindergarten and third grade students were in classes of 20 or fewer students.The most comprehensive ongoing evaluation of the California program has issued agenerally mixed report card of the results from the program’s first 3 years.  Amongpositive findings, it found that third grade students in reduced size classes posted slightlyhigher achievement levels than students in larger classes and that these gains persisted intothe fourth grade.5  These small gains were experienced regardless of student background.Teachers in smaller classes reported devoting less time to discipline and more to providingindividual attention to students with reading problems.  Parents of children in smallerclasses were more satisfied with their children’s education and had more contact with theirchildren’s teachers.Among the negative consequences found, at this juncture, is a decline in thequalifications of K-3 teachers; the rate of decline had abated greatly in period covered bythe most recent report from the evaluation.  The percentage of K-3 teachers with less thanfull teacher credentials (those with emergency licenses or certification waivers, or who arein internship programs) rose from 1.8% in the year immediately prior to theCRS-46 It should be noted that lack of full certification does not necessarily mean a person cannoteffectively teach or that such teachers will not subsequently attain full certification.7 The appropriations legislation appears to define fully qualified teachers as teachers who arecertified, have a B.A. degree, and demonstrate the knowledge and pedagogical skills needed to teachin his or her content areas.8 HEA Title II, Teacher Quality Enhancement, provides grants to states for reforming teachercertification requirements and providing professional development.9 This provision also applies to LEAs meeting a class size goal of 20 or fewer if that were a goal(continued...)implementation of the program to 12.5% in 1997-1998 and to 13.4% in 1998-1999.  Theincrease in the proportion of teachers who were less than fully certified was larger inplaces with greater percentages of low-income, minority, or limited English proficientstudents.  For example, in schools with 30% or more low-income students, the percentageof K-3 teachers not fully certified rose from 3% to21% in 1998-1999.6  Finding space toaccommodate new classes generated by reducing class size has proven a hurdle for manyschools, particularly those in districts with greater percentages of disadvantaged students.Federal CSR Program — Status and Implementation IssuesCurrent Status.  The No Child Left Behind Act does not authorize a separate classsize reduction program.  Instead it establishes a new formula grant program supporting abroad array of teacher improvement activities, including class size reduction.  All statesand districts will continue to receive at least what they received for FY2001 under theCSR and Eisenhower Professional Development programs.  FY2002 ED appropriationslegislation funds the new teacher program at $2.85 billion and does not provide fundingfor a separate CSR program.Program Description.  The following is a brief description of the CSR programas it was included in the FY2001 ED appropriations legislation.  Its long-term objectivewas to reduce the nationwide average class size in the early grades (K-3) to 18 studentsthrough the hiring of fully qualified teachers.7Of the annual appropriation, $6 million was reserved for Bureau of Indian Affairsschools and the outlying areas.  The remainder was allocated by formula to the states(including D.C. and Puerto Rico); each received the same percentage of the remainder asit originally received under the FY1999 CSR appropriation.  The entirety of each state’sallocation was distributed by formula among LEAs — 80% on the basis of 5-17 year oldpopulation in poverty and 20% on the basis of public and private enrollment of 5-17 yearolds.  Authorized uses of funds by LEAs included:  (1) recruiting, hiring (i.e., payingsalaries and benefits), and training fully qualified regular and special education teachers;(2) testing the academic content knowledge of new teachers and meeting state certificationrequirements consistent with Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA);8 and (3)providing professional development activities.  LEAs were permitted to spend up to 25%on the second and third activities cited above, up to 3% on administration, and not lessthan 72% on recruiting, hiring, and training new teachers.  Once LEAs reached a thresholdof 18 students on average in classes in grades K-3, they could devote funding to furtherreduction in these or other grades or to activities to improve teacher quality.9 If an LEA’sCRS-59 (...continued)set by a state or LEA prior to enactment of the FY2000 appropriation.10 Emergency certificates are provided to teachers not meeting the requirements for fullcertification.award were less than the starting salary for a new fully qualified teacher, the district couldcombine the CSR funds with other funds to pay the salary or use these funds forprofessional development activities.  An LEA in which 10% or more of the elementaryschool teachers fail to meet state and local certification requirements was permitted to usemore than 25% of its allocation for professional development activities.  FY2001appropriated funds could be used to pay the salaries of teachers hired under the FY1999and FY2000 versions of the program.Any teacher newly hired with FY2001 CSR funds had to be fully qualified.  No fundscould pay the salary of teachers hired with FY1999 CSR funds unless, by the beginningof the 2001-2002 school year, the teachers were certified and demonstrated competencyin their subjects of instruction.An annual report had to be made by each funded state and LEA on the progress inreducing class size, increasing the percentage of core academic subjects taught by fullyqualified teachers, and the impact of class size reduction on student achievement.  Further,upon the request of parents, a school receiving CSR funds had to report on theprofessional qualifications of their children’s teachers.First Year Status (105th Congress).  The FY1999 omnibus appropriationslegislation (P.L. 105-277) included the initial funding for the CSR program — $1.2 billionfor the program.  The Administration estimated that this was sufficient to hire some 30,000new teachers.  The first year program generally followed the provisions described abovefor the current program.  Significant differences included the following:  Its focus was onreducing class size in grades 1-3, not K-3; the FY1999 appropriations legislation precludedan LEA from receiving an award if the amount allocated were less than the district’sstarting salary for a new teacher; such a district would have to enter into a consortium (thisrequirement was often waived and was dropped after the first year); and  LEAs werepermitted to spend only up to 15% on professional development or new teacher testing(increased to 25% in the FY2000 and FY2001 legislation).Selected Implementation Issues in the First Year.  Among the first yearimplementation concerns were the following, each addressed in subsequent appropriationslegislation:  Districts eligible for grants of less than a starting teacher’s salary often hadproblems with the consortium requirement in the FY1999 legislation.  The program didnot permit districts to make up the difference between the CSR allocation and the startingsalary and avoid entering a consortium.  As a consequence, ED waived the requirementfor the 40 states that requested greater flexibility in the implementation of this requirement.Concern was raised during the CSR program’s first year that it supported the hiring ofunderqualified teachers.  In particular, teachers hired with emergency certificates wereallowed to be paid with CSR funding.10  A related concern centered on the extent to whichLEAs were required to devote CSR funding to the recruiting, hiring, and training of newteachers rather than improvement of the existing teaching force.CRS-611 U.S. Department of Education.  Local Success Stories:  Reducing Class Size, 1999;  U.S.Department of Education.  The Class Size Reduction Program:  Boosting Student Achievementin Schools Across the Nation — A First-Year Report, 2000.12 Council of the Great City Schools.  Reducing Class Size in America’s Urban Schools, October1999; Council of the Great City Schools.  Reducing Class Size:  A Smart Way to ImproveAmerica’s Urban Schools, 2000.Second Year Status (106th Congress).  The FY2000 omnibus appropriationslegislation (P.L. 106-113) continued the CSR program at a level of $1.3 billion.  Severalsignificant changes to the first year program were made.  The focus was expanded togrades K-3.  The maximum percentage for professional development and teacher testingwas raised to 25%.  LEAS in which 10% or more of the elementary school teaching forcewas uncertified and which were located in an Ed-Flex state (a state with authority to waiverequirements under selected federal education programs) were newly able to devote up totheir full allocation to professional development.  Districts receiving an amount less thanthe starting teacher salary no longer had to enter into a consortium.  The languagecurrently in the FY2001 version of the program concerning the hiring of fully qualifiedteachers was added.  Reporting requirements were expanded; these provisions werecontinued in the FY2001 appropriations legislation.Third Year Status (106th Congress).  The legislative debate over thecontinuation of the CSR program during the 106th Congress did not take place solelywithin the appropriations process.  The House of Representatives passed legislation (H.R.1995, Teacher Empowerment Act) and the Senate HELP Committee approved legislation(S. 2, Educational Opportunities Act) to replace a free-standing CSR program with broadauthorities for teacher improvement that could be used to support class size reduction orother activities as determined by recipient LEAs.  This legislation was not enacted, andneither were amendments offered at different times during the 106th Congress to providea multi-year authorization for the CSR program.  With regard to the appropriationsprocess, the FY2001 ED appropriations legislation (Consolidated Appropriations Act,2001, P.L. 106-554) included $1.623 billion for the CSR program.  The primary changeto the program was to include all LEAs with 10% or more uncertified elementary schoolteachers in the flexibility authority that previously was limited to LEAs in Ed-Flex states.Early Reports on Implementation.  ED estimates that 37,000 teachers werehired through the program’s first 2 years.  It also estimated that, in the schools and gradelevels where the newly hired teachers were being employed, class size droppedsignificantly.  Further, during the first year, only about 8% of district allocations was spenton professional development and teacher testing (less than the 15% maximum allowed).11The Council of the Great City Schools (an organization representing many of thecountry’s urban school districts) has surveyed its membership on the implementation ofthe federal CSR program in its first 2 years.12  For the 26 districts providing data for bothyears, approximately 75% of the funds was spent on salaries and benefits annually, but therecruitment percentage rose from 0.8% to 3.7% and the percentage spent on professionaldevelopment dropped slightly from 16.1% to 15.6%.  These 26 districts hired 2,860teachers with FY1999 funds and 3,108 with FY2000 funds.  In the first year, the 40responding districts reported that about 90% of the teachers they hired with these fundswere reportedly fully certified.  Similar information was not provided in the second report.

Class Size Reduction Program: Background and Status

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2616/m1/1/high_res_d/RS20447_2002Jan15.pdf

Class Size Reduction Program: Background and Status

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library