Letter to Sen. Patty Murray

by
Charles M. Achilles

Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation
School of Education
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
PO Box 413
Milwaukee WI 53201
414-229-2716

May 26, 2000

CERAI-00-18

May 26, 2000

The Honorable Patty Murray

Senator from Washington

Russell Senate OfficeBuilding #111

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Murray:

First, my apologies for thelength of this letter. I believe, however, that it addresses and importanttopic. The supporting material supports and expands upon the summary in theletter.

Recently, I watched part ofthe discussion on C-SPAN about the "Murray Amendment" to help getsmall classes in the early primary grades in America’s schools. Thanks to youand supporters of that amendment for the diligent work and clear reading of theresearch and evidence that little children need small classes when they begintheir school experiences. Some materials presented to rebut the small-classinitiative were erroneous: Policy makers should have correct information as abasis for important policy decisions. Thus, in this letter I present (a) asummary of the errors, (b) the corresponding research-based facts, and (c) abrief discussion of sources of the errors. Attachments include corroboratingevidence for you to use and share. I can provide additional information to helpin your efforts to get reasonable-sized classes for young students.

I have been a principalinvestigator of the STAR small-class, large-scale (11,600 students),randomized, longitudinal (1985-now) experiment. I am very familiar withclass-size studies and initiatives that support STAR’s findings.

Students who began in STARin Kindergarten (1985) would have graduated from high school in 1998. We havefollowed these youngsters, and we know much about both the early and theenduring and increasing benefits of an early small-class start. Briefly stated,small-class youngsters outperformed the pupils from larger classes each year onall tests, grades K-3. The small-class effect was found while students were inthe experiment and it endured and grew after they left small classes aftergrade 3. Test results in grades 4, 6, and 8 show that a long-term"residual" small-class benefit increased each year. STAR studentswere approximately four months ahead of their large-class peers at the end ofgrade 3; by grade 8 this advantage had increased to more than a year ofacademic benefits, on average.

As striking as thetest-score differences are, perhaps STAR’s greatest benefits are still beinganalyzed. For example, 76% of the small-class students graduated on time and45% graduated with "honors" diplomas. Compare these findings with 64%of large-class youngsters graduating on time and only 29% receiving honorsdiplomas. Long-term differences were particularly positive for minority andtypically hard-to-teach youngsters. Furthermore, other benefits such asdrop-out rates (15% to 24% benefit for small classes) and information gleanedfrom jail sentences and student participation in school show very strong socialoutcomes, similar to those found in the long-term Perry Pre-School Project(those youngsters are 28 or 29 now), and the ABECEDARIAN Project conducted inNorth Carolina whose youngsters are approximately 21-22 now.

A statistically significanthigher percentage of small-class than of large-class minority students took theSAT or ACT test, signaling an intent to attend college. Increased collegeattendance of a group typically underrepresented in higher education will havesocial and economic benefits.

The Senator from Arkansasoffered a "rebuttal" of small classes, but he did not have class-sizeinformation. He was mistakenly using Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) information thatis not applicable to class size. The two terms are not the same. To compute PTRyou divide the number of youngsters at a site (such as a school) by the numberof adults serving that site. The difference between PTR and class size isapproximately 10. That is, if a building has a PTR of about 1:17, you’d countabout 27 youngsters in a teacher’s class. You add to get class size and divideto get PTR. The fallacy of using PTR as class size is easily demonstrated justfrom the numbers that represent the two terms.

Like height and weight, PTRand class size measure different things. Even the source whom the Senator citedhas acknowledged that the terms are not the same. To avoid the notion that Imight misinterpret this claim, I have clipped from actual publicationsProfessor E.A. Hanushek’s actual use of the terms. Amazingly, however, evenafter he stated that the terms are not the same, he substituted one term forthe other, and used PTR outcomes as a basis for class-size claims. This isshown on two tables with the same data but different titles. In educationresearch circles, this sleight-of-hand has little credibility.

Continuing analyses of STARdata have helped explain the lack of a PTR effect on students and the positiveeffect of small classes. This new information should help lawmakers developpolicy for little children. Educators and evaluators have known for some timethat a PTR shift does not lead to measurable improvements for students. The PTRchanges often are driven by the project nature of American education.

The charts that the Senatorfrom Arkansas used represent a PTR shift. They show that in years followinglegislation, such as Title I of ESEA (1965), and the various enactments and amendmentsto the Americans with Disabilities Act (1975,1990), there are dramatic changesin PTR (not in class size). Class sizes have not been falling rapidly in theUnited States, but PTR’s have. American education has experienced PTR change,but not class-size change. Lack of success with PTR should not be mistaken forresearch-driven, positive successes for students starting school in smallclasses.

On a final note, manyresearchers have conducted careful research on class size. Some early studieshad limitations, but current results are consistent and positive. Currentclass-size efforts besides STAR include SAGE in Wisconsin, the class-sizeemphasis in Texas begun with House Bill 72 in 1985, class-size reduction inCalifornia (which is getting some positive results in spite of seriousshortcomings in the implementation process), and others.

A large, research-driven,class-size database exists. Results have been replicated by respectedresearchers. Contrast this with the lone voice that "class size doesn’tmatter" and one should be skeptical (or at least careful) in acceptingthat non-empirical claim uncritically. In fact, several researchers recentlyhave pointed out weaknesses in Hanushek’s work, and not coincidentally one ofthose is an economist. Critics such as Gerald Bracey have considerable researchcredentials, as do other researchers who have questioned both the work ofProfessor Hanushek and its interpretation. It seems unusual that one person’squestionable claims are heard for policy purposes when the long-term researchresults are not even presented to the Committee.

I would explain any of theattachments. I have highlighted some important points to save people time inreading, although I encourage a careful reading of each document. Please continueyour diligence on behalf of America’s youngest students. Perhaps this materialwill help you.

Sincerely,

C.M. Achilles