- Email: [email protected]
Class size in the first years at school: a New Zealand perspective on the international literature
International Journal of Educational Research 29 (1998) 711—721
Chapter 2
Class size in the first years at school: a New Zealand perspective on the international literature Valerie N. Podmore* New Zealand Council for Educational Research, P.O. Box 3237, Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract During the 1980s, topics evident in the class size research included class size and children’s achievement, children’s behavior and affect, outcomes for different groups of children, teacher satisfaction and stress, the organization of instruction, and cost effectiveness. A New Zealand review tracing through the approaches to class size research indicated that the research methods used to investigate class size had become increasingly complex. In the 1990s, these topics continue to be addressed, with an increasing emphasis on the features and impact over time of smaller classes, and on the economics of schooling. In New Zealand in the late 1980s, a 1 : 20 teacher to pupil ratio policy was introduced for junior classes. The current staffing ratio in junior classes is 1 : 23. This summary review of the literature on class size highlights some issues and complexities arising from the international research and research within the New Zealand context. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
The issue of class size has now been under scrutiny for about a century. During the late 1970s and 1980s numerous research studies and reviews were published on the outcomes of class size. Six major topics were evident in the escalating research on class size effects in the early years of school. These were class size and E children’s achievement, measured on standardized tests or rated by teachers; E children’s classroom behaviour, motivation, and affect; E outcomes for different groups of children, focusing on minority groups; E teacher satisfaction and teacher stress; E the organization of instruction, including grouping of children and learning and teaching processes within classrooms; E cost effectiveness; E the unique characteristics of small classes.
* E-mail: [email protected]. 0883-0355/98/$ — see front matter 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 08 8 3-0 3 55 ( 9 8) 0 0 05 9 - 7
712
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
During the 1990s, these topics have continued to be addressed, with increasing emphasis on the features and impact over time of smaller classes, and the economics of schooling.
1. Class size outcomes for children Most reviews of the class size research point to complexities. A New Zealand review tracing the approaches to class size research showed that the research methods used to investigate class size and children’s achievement have become increasingly complex (Podmore, 1990). There are complexities when interpreting data from both crosssectional and longitudinal studies: Links between small class size and children’s achievement are confounded by variations in classrooms, pupil characteristics, and instructional processes (Podmore, 1989, p. 98). Earlier influential research on class size, carried out in the US by Glass and his team of researchers, used the technique of meta-analysis to aggregate the findings from 77 studies of class size and achievement (Glass and Smith, 1978; Glass et al., 1982; Smith and Glass, 1979). Glass et al. (1982) concluded that the achievement of a student taught for more than 100 hours in a class of 20 children would exceed that of 60% of the students taught in classes of 40. In very small classes of 15 or fewer, achievement gains would be greater (p. 42). These findings have withstood more rigorous statistical re-analysis, for example by Hedges and Stock (1983). Most class size studies in the US have assessed children’s achievement using standardized tests or teacher’s assessments of reading and mathematics. In New Zealand, McDonald (1988, 1989) focused instead on promotion practices as an aspect of children’s progress at school. Her study of Maori (indigenous New Zealanders) and non-Maori children’s promotion from one class to the next suggested that small class size is not associated with improved promotion opportunities for Maori students (McDonald, 1988). The rate of promotion out of the junior school (years 1—3 at school, usually from age 5 to 7 years inclusive) increased for non-Maori children in small schools and classes, but Maori children were not promoted more frequently. On the basis of McDonald’s (1988) findings, decreases in class size need to be combined with changes in promotion practices for Maori children: When class size is reduced, the outcomes for pupils are likely to be influenced by aspects of organisation and instruction in the classroom and in society. Reducing class size is likely to benefit minority group pupils only if this practice is accompanied by, at the macro-level, changing value systems and probably promotion practices, and at the micro-level, altering interaction and instructional processes. (Podmore, 1989, p. 96).
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
713
2. The impact of smaller classes over time Several studies in the United States have continued investigating the features and impact of smaller classes, including Tennessee’s Project STAR, (Bain and Jacobs, 1990; Bain et al., 1992; Finn and Achilles, 1990), and Indiana’s project PRIME TIME (e.g., Gilman et al., 1987; Mueller et al., 1988). Project STAR (Student—Teacher Achievement Ratio) has received considerable attention in the recent research literature, including this issue. The STAR longitudinal experimental study was allocated US$12 million government funding to follow children for 4 years from kindergarten to the third grade (Bain and Jacobs, 1990). The project investigated 7000 students’ achievement and development in three types of classrooms: small classes with 13—17 students per teacher; regular classes with 22—25 students per teacher; and regular classes with 22—25 students, a teacher, and a teacher aide. Inner-city schools, suburban schools, and rural schools were included in the research, and both the teachers and the students were randomly assigned to the different class types (Bain et al., 1992). Within the state of Tennessee, all school systems were invited to take part in the experiment, and each participating class was to remain the same type throughout the four years of the study (Finn and Achilles, 1990). The STAR study focused mainly on specific assessment measures to determine the outcome of the different class size and teacher—student ratio types on student achievement. The reading and mathematics achievement of students in small classes was significantly higher than that of students in regular classes, from kindergarten to grade 3 level (Nye, 1994). Benefits were most notably evident for students from ethnic minority groups, who performed almost equally to other students when in small classes, but much lower than other students when in larger classes. During the course of the 4-year STAR study, over 1000 teachers participated in interviews, held at the end of the school year. Teachers described several main ways in which small class size benefitted learning and teaching processes: E basic instruction was covered in less time, leaving additional time for introducing further material; E there were opportunities to use supplementary texts; E basic content was taught in greater depth; E children had more chances to be involved in ‘‘first-hand learning activities,’’ and E there was increased use of learning centers and of appropriate teaching practices for primary schools (Bain et al., 1992). The results of the STAR project research led to some strong statements about the impact of class size (e.g., Achilles et al., 1993; Achilles et al., 1997/1998). The project STAR team assert that ‘‘small classes provide quality, equality, and equity’’ (Achilles et al., 1997/1998, p. 40). There have been some gaps in information in the STAR project reports, and methodological limitations have been noted in detail (e.g., by British researchers — Blatchford and Mortimore, 1994; Blatchford et al., 1998; Prais, 1996). However, smaller classes appear overall to benefit children with special needs, children from minority groups, and younger children during the first years of school, by facilitating changes in aspects of instructional processes.
714
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
3. The economics of schooling Demographic and political factors have influenced the assumptions made about the research on class size. Critical events have influenced interest in class size as well as the interpretations made of the information about teacher-student ratios in relation to achievement outcomes for students. These events have included: E the rising birth rate in a number of countries during the late 1940s. (Larger classes were justified more strongly when postwar baby boomers were occupying them. For example, experimental studies carried out between 1957 and 1964 in US secondary schools concluded that secondary school students learned as well in classes of 40—50 as those in smaller classes of 20 to 30 [Glass et al., 1982]); E the expansion of teaching technology in the US from the 1960s; E the emergence of professional associations of teachers in the US (Glass and Smith, 1978) and internationally; and, E the economic context, for example the recession, and the influence of Treasury in New Zealand in the 1990s. In the 1980s, debates about the cost effectiveness of reducing class size were clearly evident in the literature (e.g., Ellis, 1984; Jamison, 1982; Levin et al., 1984). Levin et al. used meta-analysis to compare the cost effectiveness of four different educational interventions: peer and adult tutoring, computer-assisted instruction, reductions in class size (from 30 to 25, 25 to 20, and 35 to 20), and increases in instructional time. They reported that peer and adult tutoring was the most cost-effective change, whereas reductions in class size and increases in instructional time were the two least cost-effective measures. Closer scrutiny of Levin et al.’s analyses shows they calculated the cost of class size reduction with allowances for extensive classroom facilities, including new classrooms, physical space, furnishings, energy needs, insurance, and ongoing maintenance. This was clearly a study of classroom size and space and classroom facilities, not simply of teacher—student ratios. However, consistent with Levin et al.’s (1984) findings, class size reductions are likely to be more cost effective if they are combined with changes in teaching processes, including peer tutoring. Hanushek’s (1986) writing on economics and class size effects has had considerable influence on economists’ thinking within New Zealand. In an examination of the research on the economics of schooling, Hanushek (1986) focused on the ‘‘production and efficiency’’ aspects of schools as opposed to the ‘‘ultimate uses of education’’ because he considered that ‘‘human capital’’ had been reviewed adequately elsewhere by economists (p.142). He tabulated data from 112 articles published in the US from the 1960s to the 1980s which included data on expenditure, teacher—student ratios, and students’ performance. On the basis of these tabulations he reported that:
Of the 112 estimates of the effects of class size, only 23 are statistically significant, and only 9 show a statistically significant relationship of the expected positive sign. Fourteen display a statistically negative relationship. An additional 89 are not significant at the 5% level (Hanushek, 1986, p. 1161).
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
715
He challenged the existence and/or magnitude of class size effects on achievement: The results are startlingly consistent in finding no strong evidence that teacher—student ratios, teacher education, or teacher experience have an expected positive effect on student achievement. According to the available evidence, one cannot be confident that hiring more educated teachers or having smaller classes will improve student performance (Hanushek, 1986, p. 1162). Hanushek’s arguments are based on tabulating existing statistical data. However, age-level data are aggregated in most economic re-analyses of class size effects, a procedure which effectively camouflages the situation for young children in junior classes in the primary schools. Almost a decade later Hanushek (1995) continued to dispute whether school resources — including class sizes — and student performance are linked. He did interpret some age-related data: Most studies give no reason to expect a change in student performance as a result of smaller classes. Experimental evidence from Tennessee reinforces these results by demonstrating that small classes at best make a discernible difference in kindergarten but not at later primary grades2 (Hanushek, 1995, p. 61). These comments potentially reflect concern that class size effects may fade over time, but they may also suggest an assumption that outcomes are of less value when children are younger. Hanushek’s conclusions have been criticised from several perspectives, including statistical grounds (e.g., Baker, 1991; Bracey, 1995). Baker (1991) pointed out that 20% of the studies examined by Hanushek actually did show a statistically significant relationship; whereas only 5% could have shown this relationship purely by chance. However, in a subsequent article, Hanushek (1996) reported that only 15 of 277 estimates of the effects of teacher—pupil ratio on student performance were significantly positive (close to 5% and therefore attributable to chance). The robustness of Hanushek’s data was subsequently challenged by statisticians Hedges and Greenwald (1996). Clearly, complexities remain and this debate continues. A different approach to reinterpreting the impact of school spending on students’ achievement is evident in Wenglinsky’s (1997) research at the Educational Testing Service in the US. Wenglinsky explored the possibility that economic resources are linked to student achievement through the impact of class size or teacher—student ratios. He examined his related hypotheses using path analyses (by applying LISREL 8, a structural modelling program, to determine the relationships among a sequence of variables). Wenglinsky’s analyses confirm a significant, positive relationship between: (a) spending on instruction and teacher—student ratios; (b) expenditure on central office administration and teacher—student ratios; (c) teacher—student ratios and school environment and finally (d) school environment and mathematics achievement.
716
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
Wenglinsky attributes the previous lack of agreement on the relationship between school spending and outcomes for student to methodological limitations of earlier studies, including failure to distinguish among different types of spending and to consider variables such as the social environment of schools and learning and teaching processes. Consequently, he concludes that ‘‘the reintroduction of the notion that resources make a difference is warranted’’ (Wenglinsky, 1997, p. 233).
4. New Zealand research and policies In New Zealand in the late 1980s, a 1 : 20 teacher-to-pupils ratio policy was introduced for junior classes. This staffing policy, a commitment of the Labour government, was implemented in stages, with increased allocations in staffing in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1991. The 1 : 20 policy was intended in the shorter term to increase staffing levels in the junior school, to identify appropriate ways in which to allocate staff to schools at each phase, and to develop guidelines for schools about implementation of the policy. The longer term objective of the policy was to enhance learning and teaching (McDonald et al., 1989). Implementation procedures included a restriction on the creation of new classrooms, which led to some initial confusion among teachers and parents. There was also a covert aim of encouraging flexible groups for teaching students and ‘‘more ‘diagnosis’ and ‘treatment’ of individual needs’’ (Wylie, 1989, p. 15). An evaluation of the implementation of the 1 : 20 policy investigated how the policy was translated into practice, who made decisions about the use of additional staffing, and what teachers saw as outcomes of the policy (Renwick et al., 1989). Questionnaires were sent to all schools that were recipients of a staffing allocation, to seek information about the communication of the policy to schools, decisions about the use of the additional staffing, and the extent of communication with parents and the community about the organizational arrangements. The extra staffing provision was used to staff the Reading Recovery program, implemented in 1982 to enhance the reading performance of children with learning difficulties in the area of literacy by providing intensive one-to-one tuition. (More recently the Reading Recovery program has also been implemented extensively internationally — largely through Marie Clay’s influence). Renwick et al.’s (1989) research demonstrated that staff in the schools generally supported the 1 : 20 teacher pupil ratio policy. During the early 1990s, a review of teacher—pupil ratios was commissioned to develop a policy for establishing future teacher—pupil ratios in New Zealand. The report on the review, The Review of the Teacher/Pupil Ratio (c. 1991), recommended that ‘‘The continued implementation of the current 1 : 20 policy should be postponed’’ (p. 14) and further, that ‘‘The current teacher/pupil ratios on which school staffing is based should be suspended’’ (p.18). The review drew on a range of research and policy documents. These included the junior school study by a group of researchers at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (McDonald et al., 1989; McDonald, 1988) and also the pivotal paper from the US by Hanushek (1986). Hanushek’s work clearly influenced the
717
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721 Table 1 Overall teacher : pupil ratios in NZ state primary schools 1983—1996 Year
Overall ratio
1980s
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
21.4
20.9
20.4
20.0
20.0
19.8
19.6
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
19.3
19.8
19.7
20.3
20.4
20.7
19.9
Year
Overall ratio
1990s
Note: Primary and intermediate ratios are based on July rolls. ‘‘Overall ratio’’ includes management, curriculum staffing, attached teaching staff, additional staff, supernumerary staff, beginning teacher release, and teachers paid from locally raised funds and investment income. Source: Ministry of Education, 1997, p. 72; and personal communication, Data Management and Analysis Section, Ministry of Education.
recommendation of the New Zealand State Services Commission that the current (1 : 20) teacher—pupil ratios should be suspended. During the early 1990s, the ratios of students to teachers started to rise in New Zealand primary schools (see Table 1). The teacher—pupil ratio data presented in Table 1 have limitations, for example, the ratios are combined for all age levels in the primary and intermediate schools (from age 5 years up to about 12 or 13 years). In addition, the ‘‘overall ratio’’ includes management and curriculum staffing (Ministry of Education, 1997, p. 72). However, these overall ratios do reflect to some extent the changes in teacher—pupil ratio policies over time, for example, the gradual increase in the ratios of teachers to students during the late 1980s following the implementation of the 1—20 ratio policy in the junior schools, and the subsequent suspension/postponement of that policy in the early 1990s. International comparisons show that in 1994 New Zealand (along with Mexico, the UK, Ireland, Turkey, and Germany) had relatively high pupil-to-teacher ratios in public education at the primary school level (OECD, 1996, p.104; see also in this volume Blatchford et al., Chapter 1). In late 1994, a Ministerial Reference Group (MRG) was established to work on delivery mechanisms for resourcing teaching in New Zealand schools. The report of the MRG proposed a system with several recommendations to improve ratios during the early years of schooling. This system was designed: E to ‘‘enhance the teacher : student ratio’’ for students in Year 1 to Year 3 in the primary school, and E to ‘‘resolve teacher : student ratios anomalies in schools with rolls between 151—230,’’ and large class size issues in larger primary schools (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 7). The core entitlement ratio in Years 1—3 of school, to be effective from 1 February 1996, was to be 1 : 23.
718
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
In the 1995 budget the National government approved the lower student—teacher ratios which were recommended by the MRG. New staffing formulae were introduced in 1996. These developments continued under a Coalition (National and New Zealand First) government. By late 1996 as part of the Ministry of Education’s 1996/97 School Property Works Programme, the planning and delivery of ‘‘approximately 1200 additional classrooms at existing schools’’ was ‘‘well underway’’ (Simpson, 1996). Surveys of primary schools continue to generate data on class size and/or staffing ratios. Some findings on views about class size were reported as part of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research’s most recent national survey monitoring the impact of the ¹omorrow’s Schools reforms (Wylie, 1997). The school reforms, which commenced in 1989, moved major financial and administrative responsibilities away from the central Department of Education (now known as the Ministry of Education) and the regional Education Boards to the staff and trustees of each individual school. According to the 1997 survey, the MRG staffing formula introduced in 1996 had led to an overall decrease in class size. Aggregate data across all levels of primary and intermediate school (years 1—8 of schooling) showed that, among the 355 teachers who completed the questionnaire in 1997, only 23% had classes of more than 30 children. Forty-seven percent of teachers of new entrants and 24% of teachers in the junior school reported having class sizes of fewer than 20 pupils. However, parents and teachers wanted smaller class sizes. In response to a question about suggestions for change to New Zealand education, parents most frequently opted for a decrease in class sizes (35%). Teachers wanted improved funding or resources (21 percent), a decrease in class sizes (19%) and improvement in teacher pay or working conditions (19%).
5. Some issues for current research Following the completion of the study of the teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school (McDonald et al., 1989), ongoing research on learning and teaching in the junior school was carried out by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. One study produced extensive videotaped observations in junior classrooms at 10 primary schools, focusing mainly on curriculum and the grouping of children within classrooms — the amount of time children spent in the whole class group, small groups, and individual groupings (McDonald et al., 1991, 1992a, b). A second parallel study tracked a sample of 32 children from ten schools over three years, reporting on perceptions of achievement and assessment, and on home-school communication (Wylie and Smith, 1995). The teacher—pupil ratio policy study had highlighted the need for further research on classroom processes, and these studies provided extensive, timely information about the processes of learning and teaching in junior school classrooms. Blatchford and Mortimore’s (1994) case for further research, now in progress in the UK, appears to have wide applicability: (Longitudinal research) could profitably be directed at developing guidance on effective teaching and classroom organisation in different sized classes and groups.
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
719
In a rational world — even the explicit market-dominated world of industry — money would likely be spent on such basic research. We surely need sound information in order to inform decisions that affect so basically the lives of all pupils and all teachers. (Blatchford and Mortimore, 1994, p. 426). Concern about staffing ratios in the New Zealand junior schools remains prominent among teacher groups (Podmore, 1997). The current entitlement teacher : student ratio remains at 1 : 23, in keeping with the recommendations of the MRG report. The New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI, the union representing primary, intermediate, and early childhood teachers and staff) has campaigned for reduced student—teacher ratios since the late 1950s (Wylie, 1989). In 1997, the NZEI initiated a new national survey specifically focused on staffing ratios and class sizes in primary schools. The purpose of this postal survey was to obtain further information on class size, how schools organize teaching staff, and how schools use their teaching staff resource to implement the curriculum.
6. Conclusion In summary, two major areas of focus in the literature internationally and in New Zealand during the 1990s have been (1) the impact over time of class size and (2) the economics of schooling. When the research is designed to study children and classroom processes, as opposed to cost effectiveness, interpretations of the data are likely to demonstrate valuing of younger children and their experiences during the first years at school. There are complexities; outcomes are more likely to be equivocal in studies of class size and older students’ achievement. There are some positive findings in studies of teacher—pupil ratios, the intervening variables of teaching and learning processes, and the achievement of children in the first years of school. In New Zealand the introduction of a 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the 1980s led to a series of integrated studies of learning and teaching processes in the junior school. The reduction of teacher—student ratios to less than 1 : 20 appeared to be associated positively, but indirectly through classroom processes, with young children’s learning and achievement.
References Achilles, C. M., Nye, B. A., Zaharias, J. B., & Fulton, B. D. (1993). ¹he ¸asting Benefits Study (¸BS) in Grades 4 and 5 (1990—91): A legacy from Tennessee+s four year (K—3) class size study (1985—1989), Project STAR. Paper presented at the North Carolina Association for Research in Education, Greensboro, North Carolina. Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., & Bain, H. P. (1997/1998). Using class size to reduce the equity gap. Educational ¸eadership, 55(4), 40—43. Bain, H. P., & Jacobs, R. (1990). Project S¹AR research synopsis: ¹he effect of reduced class size on kindergarten reading readiness (ED325235).
720
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
Bain, H. P., Achilles, C. M., Zaharias, J. B., & McKenna, B. (1992). Class size does make a difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 253—256. Baker, K. (1991). Yes, throw money at the schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 628—631. Blatchford, P., & Mortimore, P. (1994). The issue of class size for young children in schools: What can we learn from the research? Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 411—428. Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., & Mortimore, P. (1998). Research on class size effects: A critique of methods and a way forward. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 691—710. Bracey, G. W. (1995). Debunking the myths about money for schools. Educational ¸eadership, 65—68. Ellis, T. (1984). Class size. Eugene, Oregon: Centre for Advanced Technology in Education, University of Oregon (ERIC Document 259454). Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557—577. Gilman, D. A., Swan, E., & Stone, W. (1987). The educational effects of a state supported reduced class size program: A comprehensive evaluation of Indiana’s Project PRIME TIME at the north Gibson School Corporation. Contemporary Education, 59(2), 112—116. Glass, G. W., Cahen, L. S., Smith, M. L., & Filby, N. N. (1982). School class size: Research and policy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Glass, G. W., & Smith, M. L. (1978). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Achievement. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency of public schools. Journal of Economic ¸iterature, 24, 1141—1177. Hanushek, E. A. (1995). Moving beyond spending fetishes. Educational ¸eadership, 53(3), 60—64. Hanushek, E. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter: ¹he effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. (pp. 43—73). Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Hedges, L. V., & Greenwald, R. (1996). Have times changed? The relation between school resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter: ¹he effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. (pp. 74—92). Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Hedges, L. V., & Stock, W. (1983). The effects of class size: An examination of rival hypotheses. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 63—85. Jamison, D. T. (1982). Reduced class size and other alternatives for improving schools: An economist’s view. In G. V. Glass, L. S. Cahen, M. L. Smith, & M. N. Filby, School class size: Research and policy. Beverly Hills: Sage. Levin, H., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1984). Cost effectiveness of four education interventions. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Finance and Governance, Stanford University, Report No 84—A11. McDonald, G. (1988). Class size, promotion and policy. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 23(2), 215—219. McDonald, G. (1989). Pupil progress, reading recovery and the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie, (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G. Clarke, V., & Kidman, J. (1991). A study of classroom containing five-year-olds. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G., Clarke, V., & Kidman, J. (1992a) Five-year-olds and their curriculum. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G., Clarke, V., & Kidman, J. (1992b). ¹he first three years: New entrants to J3. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G., Podmore, V. N., Renwick, M., Smith, L., Vize, J., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (1989). More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Ministry of Education. (1995). Resource entitlement for school staffing: ¹he report of the Ministerial Reference Group. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
721
Ministry of Education. (1997). Education statistics of New Zealand 1997. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Mueller, D. J., Chase, C. I., & Walden, J. D. (1988). Effects of reduced class size in primary classes. Educational ¸eadership, 45(5), 48—50. Nye, B. A. (1994). ¹he lasting benefits study: Seventh grade ¹ennessee report. Nashville: Tennessee State University. OECD (1996). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Podmore, V. N. (1989). Class size: A review of the literature relating to the early years of schooling. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Podmore, V. N. (1990). Junior school class size: Where are we now? set, no. 1, item 8, 1—4. Podmore, V. N. (1997). Class size in the early years: A rising issue for research and policy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, University of Auckland, 6 December 1997. Prais, S. J. (1996). Class size and learning: The Tennessee experiment — what follows? Oxford Review of Education, 22(4), 399—414. Renwick, M., Vize, J., & Smith, L. (1989). An evaluation of the implementation of the 1 : 29 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Simpson, J. (1996). New schools and classrooms: 1996/97 accommodation delivery plan. ¹he New Zealand Education Gazette, 75(21), 1—2. Smith, L. E., & Glass, G. V. (1979). Relationship of class-size to classroom processes, teacher satisfaction, and pupil affect: A meta analysis. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and development. ¹he Review of the ¹eacher/Pupil Ratio. (c.1991). Wellington: Unpublished review. Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effect of school district spending on academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(3), 221—237. Wylie, C. (1989). Fleshing out the bones: The origins and development of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Wylie, C. (1997). Self-managing schools seven years on: ¼hat have we learnt? Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Wylie, C., & Smith, L. (1995). ¸earning to learn: Children’s progress through the first 3 years of school. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Dr Valerie Noelle Podmore, a New Zealander, is a Senior Researcher and leader of the early childhood research group at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). Her tertiary qualifications include: BA (Massey University), BA Hons. (First class), MA (Victoria University of Wellington), PhD (Massey University). She has been employed at NZCER as a researcher/senior researcher for 13 years, and as a guest lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington. In 1992 (April—July) she was a Visiting Fellow at the School of Education, University of Durham, UK. Her research on early childhood education has been published widely. In addition, she is the author of several research articles on class size/teacher—student ratios in the junior school.
Chapter 2
Class size in the first years at school: a New Zealand perspective on the international literature Valerie N. Podmore* New Zealand Council for Educational Research, P.O. Box 3237, Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract During the 1980s, topics evident in the class size research included class size and children’s achievement, children’s behavior and affect, outcomes for different groups of children, teacher satisfaction and stress, the organization of instruction, and cost effectiveness. A New Zealand review tracing through the approaches to class size research indicated that the research methods used to investigate class size had become increasingly complex. In the 1990s, these topics continue to be addressed, with an increasing emphasis on the features and impact over time of smaller classes, and on the economics of schooling. In New Zealand in the late 1980s, a 1 : 20 teacher to pupil ratio policy was introduced for junior classes. The current staffing ratio in junior classes is 1 : 23. This summary review of the literature on class size highlights some issues and complexities arising from the international research and research within the New Zealand context. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
The issue of class size has now been under scrutiny for about a century. During the late 1970s and 1980s numerous research studies and reviews were published on the outcomes of class size. Six major topics were evident in the escalating research on class size effects in the early years of school. These were class size and E children’s achievement, measured on standardized tests or rated by teachers; E children’s classroom behaviour, motivation, and affect; E outcomes for different groups of children, focusing on minority groups; E teacher satisfaction and teacher stress; E the organization of instruction, including grouping of children and learning and teaching processes within classrooms; E cost effectiveness; E the unique characteristics of small classes.
* E-mail: [email protected]. 0883-0355/98/$ — see front matter 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 08 8 3-0 3 55 ( 9 8) 0 0 05 9 - 7
712
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
During the 1990s, these topics have continued to be addressed, with increasing emphasis on the features and impact over time of smaller classes, and the economics of schooling.
1. Class size outcomes for children Most reviews of the class size research point to complexities. A New Zealand review tracing the approaches to class size research showed that the research methods used to investigate class size and children’s achievement have become increasingly complex (Podmore, 1990). There are complexities when interpreting data from both crosssectional and longitudinal studies: Links between small class size and children’s achievement are confounded by variations in classrooms, pupil characteristics, and instructional processes (Podmore, 1989, p. 98). Earlier influential research on class size, carried out in the US by Glass and his team of researchers, used the technique of meta-analysis to aggregate the findings from 77 studies of class size and achievement (Glass and Smith, 1978; Glass et al., 1982; Smith and Glass, 1979). Glass et al. (1982) concluded that the achievement of a student taught for more than 100 hours in a class of 20 children would exceed that of 60% of the students taught in classes of 40. In very small classes of 15 or fewer, achievement gains would be greater (p. 42). These findings have withstood more rigorous statistical re-analysis, for example by Hedges and Stock (1983). Most class size studies in the US have assessed children’s achievement using standardized tests or teacher’s assessments of reading and mathematics. In New Zealand, McDonald (1988, 1989) focused instead on promotion practices as an aspect of children’s progress at school. Her study of Maori (indigenous New Zealanders) and non-Maori children’s promotion from one class to the next suggested that small class size is not associated with improved promotion opportunities for Maori students (McDonald, 1988). The rate of promotion out of the junior school (years 1—3 at school, usually from age 5 to 7 years inclusive) increased for non-Maori children in small schools and classes, but Maori children were not promoted more frequently. On the basis of McDonald’s (1988) findings, decreases in class size need to be combined with changes in promotion practices for Maori children: When class size is reduced, the outcomes for pupils are likely to be influenced by aspects of organisation and instruction in the classroom and in society. Reducing class size is likely to benefit minority group pupils only if this practice is accompanied by, at the macro-level, changing value systems and probably promotion practices, and at the micro-level, altering interaction and instructional processes. (Podmore, 1989, p. 96).
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
713
2. The impact of smaller classes over time Several studies in the United States have continued investigating the features and impact of smaller classes, including Tennessee’s Project STAR, (Bain and Jacobs, 1990; Bain et al., 1992; Finn and Achilles, 1990), and Indiana’s project PRIME TIME (e.g., Gilman et al., 1987; Mueller et al., 1988). Project STAR (Student—Teacher Achievement Ratio) has received considerable attention in the recent research literature, including this issue. The STAR longitudinal experimental study was allocated US$12 million government funding to follow children for 4 years from kindergarten to the third grade (Bain and Jacobs, 1990). The project investigated 7000 students’ achievement and development in three types of classrooms: small classes with 13—17 students per teacher; regular classes with 22—25 students per teacher; and regular classes with 22—25 students, a teacher, and a teacher aide. Inner-city schools, suburban schools, and rural schools were included in the research, and both the teachers and the students were randomly assigned to the different class types (Bain et al., 1992). Within the state of Tennessee, all school systems were invited to take part in the experiment, and each participating class was to remain the same type throughout the four years of the study (Finn and Achilles, 1990). The STAR study focused mainly on specific assessment measures to determine the outcome of the different class size and teacher—student ratio types on student achievement. The reading and mathematics achievement of students in small classes was significantly higher than that of students in regular classes, from kindergarten to grade 3 level (Nye, 1994). Benefits were most notably evident for students from ethnic minority groups, who performed almost equally to other students when in small classes, but much lower than other students when in larger classes. During the course of the 4-year STAR study, over 1000 teachers participated in interviews, held at the end of the school year. Teachers described several main ways in which small class size benefitted learning and teaching processes: E basic instruction was covered in less time, leaving additional time for introducing further material; E there were opportunities to use supplementary texts; E basic content was taught in greater depth; E children had more chances to be involved in ‘‘first-hand learning activities,’’ and E there was increased use of learning centers and of appropriate teaching practices for primary schools (Bain et al., 1992). The results of the STAR project research led to some strong statements about the impact of class size (e.g., Achilles et al., 1993; Achilles et al., 1997/1998). The project STAR team assert that ‘‘small classes provide quality, equality, and equity’’ (Achilles et al., 1997/1998, p. 40). There have been some gaps in information in the STAR project reports, and methodological limitations have been noted in detail (e.g., by British researchers — Blatchford and Mortimore, 1994; Blatchford et al., 1998; Prais, 1996). However, smaller classes appear overall to benefit children with special needs, children from minority groups, and younger children during the first years of school, by facilitating changes in aspects of instructional processes.
714
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
3. The economics of schooling Demographic and political factors have influenced the assumptions made about the research on class size. Critical events have influenced interest in class size as well as the interpretations made of the information about teacher-student ratios in relation to achievement outcomes for students. These events have included: E the rising birth rate in a number of countries during the late 1940s. (Larger classes were justified more strongly when postwar baby boomers were occupying them. For example, experimental studies carried out between 1957 and 1964 in US secondary schools concluded that secondary school students learned as well in classes of 40—50 as those in smaller classes of 20 to 30 [Glass et al., 1982]); E the expansion of teaching technology in the US from the 1960s; E the emergence of professional associations of teachers in the US (Glass and Smith, 1978) and internationally; and, E the economic context, for example the recession, and the influence of Treasury in New Zealand in the 1990s. In the 1980s, debates about the cost effectiveness of reducing class size were clearly evident in the literature (e.g., Ellis, 1984; Jamison, 1982; Levin et al., 1984). Levin et al. used meta-analysis to compare the cost effectiveness of four different educational interventions: peer and adult tutoring, computer-assisted instruction, reductions in class size (from 30 to 25, 25 to 20, and 35 to 20), and increases in instructional time. They reported that peer and adult tutoring was the most cost-effective change, whereas reductions in class size and increases in instructional time were the two least cost-effective measures. Closer scrutiny of Levin et al.’s analyses shows they calculated the cost of class size reduction with allowances for extensive classroom facilities, including new classrooms, physical space, furnishings, energy needs, insurance, and ongoing maintenance. This was clearly a study of classroom size and space and classroom facilities, not simply of teacher—student ratios. However, consistent with Levin et al.’s (1984) findings, class size reductions are likely to be more cost effective if they are combined with changes in teaching processes, including peer tutoring. Hanushek’s (1986) writing on economics and class size effects has had considerable influence on economists’ thinking within New Zealand. In an examination of the research on the economics of schooling, Hanushek (1986) focused on the ‘‘production and efficiency’’ aspects of schools as opposed to the ‘‘ultimate uses of education’’ because he considered that ‘‘human capital’’ had been reviewed adequately elsewhere by economists (p.142). He tabulated data from 112 articles published in the US from the 1960s to the 1980s which included data on expenditure, teacher—student ratios, and students’ performance. On the basis of these tabulations he reported that:
Of the 112 estimates of the effects of class size, only 23 are statistically significant, and only 9 show a statistically significant relationship of the expected positive sign. Fourteen display a statistically negative relationship. An additional 89 are not significant at the 5% level (Hanushek, 1986, p. 1161).
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
715
He challenged the existence and/or magnitude of class size effects on achievement: The results are startlingly consistent in finding no strong evidence that teacher—student ratios, teacher education, or teacher experience have an expected positive effect on student achievement. According to the available evidence, one cannot be confident that hiring more educated teachers or having smaller classes will improve student performance (Hanushek, 1986, p. 1162). Hanushek’s arguments are based on tabulating existing statistical data. However, age-level data are aggregated in most economic re-analyses of class size effects, a procedure which effectively camouflages the situation for young children in junior classes in the primary schools. Almost a decade later Hanushek (1995) continued to dispute whether school resources — including class sizes — and student performance are linked. He did interpret some age-related data: Most studies give no reason to expect a change in student performance as a result of smaller classes. Experimental evidence from Tennessee reinforces these results by demonstrating that small classes at best make a discernible difference in kindergarten but not at later primary grades2 (Hanushek, 1995, p. 61). These comments potentially reflect concern that class size effects may fade over time, but they may also suggest an assumption that outcomes are of less value when children are younger. Hanushek’s conclusions have been criticised from several perspectives, including statistical grounds (e.g., Baker, 1991; Bracey, 1995). Baker (1991) pointed out that 20% of the studies examined by Hanushek actually did show a statistically significant relationship; whereas only 5% could have shown this relationship purely by chance. However, in a subsequent article, Hanushek (1996) reported that only 15 of 277 estimates of the effects of teacher—pupil ratio on student performance were significantly positive (close to 5% and therefore attributable to chance). The robustness of Hanushek’s data was subsequently challenged by statisticians Hedges and Greenwald (1996). Clearly, complexities remain and this debate continues. A different approach to reinterpreting the impact of school spending on students’ achievement is evident in Wenglinsky’s (1997) research at the Educational Testing Service in the US. Wenglinsky explored the possibility that economic resources are linked to student achievement through the impact of class size or teacher—student ratios. He examined his related hypotheses using path analyses (by applying LISREL 8, a structural modelling program, to determine the relationships among a sequence of variables). Wenglinsky’s analyses confirm a significant, positive relationship between: (a) spending on instruction and teacher—student ratios; (b) expenditure on central office administration and teacher—student ratios; (c) teacher—student ratios and school environment and finally (d) school environment and mathematics achievement.
716
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
Wenglinsky attributes the previous lack of agreement on the relationship between school spending and outcomes for student to methodological limitations of earlier studies, including failure to distinguish among different types of spending and to consider variables such as the social environment of schools and learning and teaching processes. Consequently, he concludes that ‘‘the reintroduction of the notion that resources make a difference is warranted’’ (Wenglinsky, 1997, p. 233).
4. New Zealand research and policies In New Zealand in the late 1980s, a 1 : 20 teacher-to-pupils ratio policy was introduced for junior classes. This staffing policy, a commitment of the Labour government, was implemented in stages, with increased allocations in staffing in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1991. The 1 : 20 policy was intended in the shorter term to increase staffing levels in the junior school, to identify appropriate ways in which to allocate staff to schools at each phase, and to develop guidelines for schools about implementation of the policy. The longer term objective of the policy was to enhance learning and teaching (McDonald et al., 1989). Implementation procedures included a restriction on the creation of new classrooms, which led to some initial confusion among teachers and parents. There was also a covert aim of encouraging flexible groups for teaching students and ‘‘more ‘diagnosis’ and ‘treatment’ of individual needs’’ (Wylie, 1989, p. 15). An evaluation of the implementation of the 1 : 20 policy investigated how the policy was translated into practice, who made decisions about the use of additional staffing, and what teachers saw as outcomes of the policy (Renwick et al., 1989). Questionnaires were sent to all schools that were recipients of a staffing allocation, to seek information about the communication of the policy to schools, decisions about the use of the additional staffing, and the extent of communication with parents and the community about the organizational arrangements. The extra staffing provision was used to staff the Reading Recovery program, implemented in 1982 to enhance the reading performance of children with learning difficulties in the area of literacy by providing intensive one-to-one tuition. (More recently the Reading Recovery program has also been implemented extensively internationally — largely through Marie Clay’s influence). Renwick et al.’s (1989) research demonstrated that staff in the schools generally supported the 1 : 20 teacher pupil ratio policy. During the early 1990s, a review of teacher—pupil ratios was commissioned to develop a policy for establishing future teacher—pupil ratios in New Zealand. The report on the review, The Review of the Teacher/Pupil Ratio (c. 1991), recommended that ‘‘The continued implementation of the current 1 : 20 policy should be postponed’’ (p. 14) and further, that ‘‘The current teacher/pupil ratios on which school staffing is based should be suspended’’ (p.18). The review drew on a range of research and policy documents. These included the junior school study by a group of researchers at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (McDonald et al., 1989; McDonald, 1988) and also the pivotal paper from the US by Hanushek (1986). Hanushek’s work clearly influenced the
717
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721 Table 1 Overall teacher : pupil ratios in NZ state primary schools 1983—1996 Year
Overall ratio
1980s
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
21.4
20.9
20.4
20.0
20.0
19.8
19.6
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
19.3
19.8
19.7
20.3
20.4
20.7
19.9
Year
Overall ratio
1990s
Note: Primary and intermediate ratios are based on July rolls. ‘‘Overall ratio’’ includes management, curriculum staffing, attached teaching staff, additional staff, supernumerary staff, beginning teacher release, and teachers paid from locally raised funds and investment income. Source: Ministry of Education, 1997, p. 72; and personal communication, Data Management and Analysis Section, Ministry of Education.
recommendation of the New Zealand State Services Commission that the current (1 : 20) teacher—pupil ratios should be suspended. During the early 1990s, the ratios of students to teachers started to rise in New Zealand primary schools (see Table 1). The teacher—pupil ratio data presented in Table 1 have limitations, for example, the ratios are combined for all age levels in the primary and intermediate schools (from age 5 years up to about 12 or 13 years). In addition, the ‘‘overall ratio’’ includes management and curriculum staffing (Ministry of Education, 1997, p. 72). However, these overall ratios do reflect to some extent the changes in teacher—pupil ratio policies over time, for example, the gradual increase in the ratios of teachers to students during the late 1980s following the implementation of the 1—20 ratio policy in the junior schools, and the subsequent suspension/postponement of that policy in the early 1990s. International comparisons show that in 1994 New Zealand (along with Mexico, the UK, Ireland, Turkey, and Germany) had relatively high pupil-to-teacher ratios in public education at the primary school level (OECD, 1996, p.104; see also in this volume Blatchford et al., Chapter 1). In late 1994, a Ministerial Reference Group (MRG) was established to work on delivery mechanisms for resourcing teaching in New Zealand schools. The report of the MRG proposed a system with several recommendations to improve ratios during the early years of schooling. This system was designed: E to ‘‘enhance the teacher : student ratio’’ for students in Year 1 to Year 3 in the primary school, and E to ‘‘resolve teacher : student ratios anomalies in schools with rolls between 151—230,’’ and large class size issues in larger primary schools (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 7). The core entitlement ratio in Years 1—3 of school, to be effective from 1 February 1996, was to be 1 : 23.
718
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
In the 1995 budget the National government approved the lower student—teacher ratios which were recommended by the MRG. New staffing formulae were introduced in 1996. These developments continued under a Coalition (National and New Zealand First) government. By late 1996 as part of the Ministry of Education’s 1996/97 School Property Works Programme, the planning and delivery of ‘‘approximately 1200 additional classrooms at existing schools’’ was ‘‘well underway’’ (Simpson, 1996). Surveys of primary schools continue to generate data on class size and/or staffing ratios. Some findings on views about class size were reported as part of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research’s most recent national survey monitoring the impact of the ¹omorrow’s Schools reforms (Wylie, 1997). The school reforms, which commenced in 1989, moved major financial and administrative responsibilities away from the central Department of Education (now known as the Ministry of Education) and the regional Education Boards to the staff and trustees of each individual school. According to the 1997 survey, the MRG staffing formula introduced in 1996 had led to an overall decrease in class size. Aggregate data across all levels of primary and intermediate school (years 1—8 of schooling) showed that, among the 355 teachers who completed the questionnaire in 1997, only 23% had classes of more than 30 children. Forty-seven percent of teachers of new entrants and 24% of teachers in the junior school reported having class sizes of fewer than 20 pupils. However, parents and teachers wanted smaller class sizes. In response to a question about suggestions for change to New Zealand education, parents most frequently opted for a decrease in class sizes (35%). Teachers wanted improved funding or resources (21 percent), a decrease in class sizes (19%) and improvement in teacher pay or working conditions (19%).
5. Some issues for current research Following the completion of the study of the teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school (McDonald et al., 1989), ongoing research on learning and teaching in the junior school was carried out by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. One study produced extensive videotaped observations in junior classrooms at 10 primary schools, focusing mainly on curriculum and the grouping of children within classrooms — the amount of time children spent in the whole class group, small groups, and individual groupings (McDonald et al., 1991, 1992a, b). A second parallel study tracked a sample of 32 children from ten schools over three years, reporting on perceptions of achievement and assessment, and on home-school communication (Wylie and Smith, 1995). The teacher—pupil ratio policy study had highlighted the need for further research on classroom processes, and these studies provided extensive, timely information about the processes of learning and teaching in junior school classrooms. Blatchford and Mortimore’s (1994) case for further research, now in progress in the UK, appears to have wide applicability: (Longitudinal research) could profitably be directed at developing guidance on effective teaching and classroom organisation in different sized classes and groups.
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
719
In a rational world — even the explicit market-dominated world of industry — money would likely be spent on such basic research. We surely need sound information in order to inform decisions that affect so basically the lives of all pupils and all teachers. (Blatchford and Mortimore, 1994, p. 426). Concern about staffing ratios in the New Zealand junior schools remains prominent among teacher groups (Podmore, 1997). The current entitlement teacher : student ratio remains at 1 : 23, in keeping with the recommendations of the MRG report. The New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI, the union representing primary, intermediate, and early childhood teachers and staff) has campaigned for reduced student—teacher ratios since the late 1950s (Wylie, 1989). In 1997, the NZEI initiated a new national survey specifically focused on staffing ratios and class sizes in primary schools. The purpose of this postal survey was to obtain further information on class size, how schools organize teaching staff, and how schools use their teaching staff resource to implement the curriculum.
6. Conclusion In summary, two major areas of focus in the literature internationally and in New Zealand during the 1990s have been (1) the impact over time of class size and (2) the economics of schooling. When the research is designed to study children and classroom processes, as opposed to cost effectiveness, interpretations of the data are likely to demonstrate valuing of younger children and their experiences during the first years at school. There are complexities; outcomes are more likely to be equivocal in studies of class size and older students’ achievement. There are some positive findings in studies of teacher—pupil ratios, the intervening variables of teaching and learning processes, and the achievement of children in the first years of school. In New Zealand the introduction of a 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the 1980s led to a series of integrated studies of learning and teaching processes in the junior school. The reduction of teacher—student ratios to less than 1 : 20 appeared to be associated positively, but indirectly through classroom processes, with young children’s learning and achievement.
References Achilles, C. M., Nye, B. A., Zaharias, J. B., & Fulton, B. D. (1993). ¹he ¸asting Benefits Study (¸BS) in Grades 4 and 5 (1990—91): A legacy from Tennessee+s four year (K—3) class size study (1985—1989), Project STAR. Paper presented at the North Carolina Association for Research in Education, Greensboro, North Carolina. Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., & Bain, H. P. (1997/1998). Using class size to reduce the equity gap. Educational ¸eadership, 55(4), 40—43. Bain, H. P., & Jacobs, R. (1990). Project S¹AR research synopsis: ¹he effect of reduced class size on kindergarten reading readiness (ED325235).
720
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
Bain, H. P., Achilles, C. M., Zaharias, J. B., & McKenna, B. (1992). Class size does make a difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 253—256. Baker, K. (1991). Yes, throw money at the schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 628—631. Blatchford, P., & Mortimore, P. (1994). The issue of class size for young children in schools: What can we learn from the research? Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 411—428. Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., & Mortimore, P. (1998). Research on class size effects: A critique of methods and a way forward. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 691—710. Bracey, G. W. (1995). Debunking the myths about money for schools. Educational ¸eadership, 65—68. Ellis, T. (1984). Class size. Eugene, Oregon: Centre for Advanced Technology in Education, University of Oregon (ERIC Document 259454). Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557—577. Gilman, D. A., Swan, E., & Stone, W. (1987). The educational effects of a state supported reduced class size program: A comprehensive evaluation of Indiana’s Project PRIME TIME at the north Gibson School Corporation. Contemporary Education, 59(2), 112—116. Glass, G. W., Cahen, L. S., Smith, M. L., & Filby, N. N. (1982). School class size: Research and policy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Glass, G. W., & Smith, M. L. (1978). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Achievement. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency of public schools. Journal of Economic ¸iterature, 24, 1141—1177. Hanushek, E. A. (1995). Moving beyond spending fetishes. Educational ¸eadership, 53(3), 60—64. Hanushek, E. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter: ¹he effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. (pp. 43—73). Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Hedges, L. V., & Greenwald, R. (1996). Have times changed? The relation between school resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter: ¹he effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. (pp. 74—92). Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Hedges, L. V., & Stock, W. (1983). The effects of class size: An examination of rival hypotheses. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 63—85. Jamison, D. T. (1982). Reduced class size and other alternatives for improving schools: An economist’s view. In G. V. Glass, L. S. Cahen, M. L. Smith, & M. N. Filby, School class size: Research and policy. Beverly Hills: Sage. Levin, H., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1984). Cost effectiveness of four education interventions. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Finance and Governance, Stanford University, Report No 84—A11. McDonald, G. (1988). Class size, promotion and policy. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 23(2), 215—219. McDonald, G. (1989). Pupil progress, reading recovery and the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie, (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G. Clarke, V., & Kidman, J. (1991). A study of classroom containing five-year-olds. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G., Clarke, V., & Kidman, J. (1992a) Five-year-olds and their curriculum. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G., Clarke, V., & Kidman, J. (1992b). ¹he first three years: New entrants to J3. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. McDonald, G., Podmore, V. N., Renwick, M., Smith, L., Vize, J., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (1989). More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Ministry of Education. (1995). Resource entitlement for school staffing: ¹he report of the Ministerial Reference Group. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
V.N. Podmore/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 711—721
721
Ministry of Education. (1997). Education statistics of New Zealand 1997. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Mueller, D. J., Chase, C. I., & Walden, J. D. (1988). Effects of reduced class size in primary classes. Educational ¸eadership, 45(5), 48—50. Nye, B. A. (1994). ¹he lasting benefits study: Seventh grade ¹ennessee report. Nashville: Tennessee State University. OECD (1996). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Podmore, V. N. (1989). Class size: A review of the literature relating to the early years of schooling. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Podmore, V. N. (1990). Junior school class size: Where are we now? set, no. 1, item 8, 1—4. Podmore, V. N. (1997). Class size in the early years: A rising issue for research and policy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, University of Auckland, 6 December 1997. Prais, S. J. (1996). Class size and learning: The Tennessee experiment — what follows? Oxford Review of Education, 22(4), 399—414. Renwick, M., Vize, J., & Smith, L. (1989). An evaluation of the implementation of the 1 : 29 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Simpson, J. (1996). New schools and classrooms: 1996/97 accommodation delivery plan. ¹he New Zealand Education Gazette, 75(21), 1—2. Smith, L. E., & Glass, G. V. (1979). Relationship of class-size to classroom processes, teacher satisfaction, and pupil affect: A meta analysis. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and development. ¹he Review of the ¹eacher/Pupil Ratio. (c.1991). Wellington: Unpublished review. Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effect of school district spending on academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(3), 221—237. Wylie, C. (1989). Fleshing out the bones: The origins and development of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. In G. McDonald, V. N. Podmore, M. Renwick, L. Smith, J. Vize, & C. Wylie (Eds.), More teachers, fewer pupils: A study of the 1 : 20 teacher—pupil ratio policy in the junior school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Wylie, C. (1997). Self-managing schools seven years on: ¼hat have we learnt? Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Wylie, C., & Smith, L. (1995). ¸earning to learn: Children’s progress through the first 3 years of school. (Junior School Study). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Dr Valerie Noelle Podmore, a New Zealander, is a Senior Researcher and leader of the early childhood research group at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). Her tertiary qualifications include: BA (Massey University), BA Hons. (First class), MA (Victoria University of Wellington), PhD (Massey University). She has been employed at NZCER as a researcher/senior researcher for 13 years, and as a guest lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington. In 1992 (April—July) she was a Visiting Fellow at the School of Education, University of Durham, UK. Her research on early childhood education has been published widely. In addition, she is the author of several research articles on class size/teacher—student ratios in the junior school.