The impact of one state's class size reduction legislation on teacher staffing

The Impact of One State's Class Size Reduction Legislation on Teacher Staffing
Gerald M. Eads II, Ph.D. Winifred Nweke, Ph.D. Comfort Y. Afolabi, M.P.A. Cynthia E. Stephens, Ed.D.
Thomas Hall, Ph.D. Katherine Potter, B.Sc.
Division for Educator Workforce Research and Development Georgia Professional Standards Commission

The Impact of One State's Class Size Reduction Legislation on Teacher Staffing
Abstract
In March of 2006 the Georgia legislature passed a K-12 public school class size reduction (CSR) initiative to take full effect at the beginning of the 2007 school year in August of 2006, providing the school systems four months to prepare for the acquisition of the requisite additional teachers and classroom space. This study analyzes the law's impact on teacher staffing using extant individual student and teacher data collected semiannually from all state public schools. While more than 20 states and several countries have adopted various policies to reduce class size (Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran & Willms, 2001; Willms & Somers, 2001), this study may be the first to investigate a statewide CSR implementation since the mid-1990's effort in California. It first documents the methodology used to predict the level of staffing required by the new law, then investigates the impact of the legislation on average class size, incidence of classes over the size limits, and age and experience level of new teachers. The data from a statewide teacher vacancy reporting system begun in the 2006-2007 (FY07) school year are used to study variation among schooling levels and proportions of student enrollment eligible for free and reduced lunch.
Review of Literature
While interest in CSR has remained high in the United States, economics, psychology and education literature also suggests interest in England (e.g. Blatchford, 2005; Blatchford, Basset & Brown, 2005; Dustmann, Rajah & van Soest, 2003; Iacovou, 2002; Pedder, 2006), The Netherlands (Dobbelsteen, Levin, and Oosterbeek, 2002; Levin, 2001), Scotland (Wilson, 2002), and Latin America (Willms & Somers, 2001). The value of CSR has been questioned (e.g., Borland, Howsen, & Trawick, 2005; Dobbelsteen, Levin and Oosterbeek, 2002; Hanushek, 1998, 2003; Levin, 2001; Normore & Ilon, 2006; Office for Standards in Education (OSTED), 1995; Stecher, McCaffrey & Bugliari, 2003). Several authors have criticized the methodologies used by detractors of CSR such as OSTED (Iacovou, 2002) and Hanushek (1998, 2003) (Biddle & Berliner, 2002; Kreuger, 2002, 2003). Kreuger (2002) argued CSR to be a cost effective policy mechanism to improve student achievement. Reichardt (2000) noted that CSR may be one of the more likely reform interventions to succeed because of its simplicity. Evaluations of CSR studies and initiatives (Bohrnstedt & Stecher, 2002; Molnar, Smith, Zahorik, Halbach, Ehrle, Hoffman, & Cross, 2001; Mosteller, 1995) and ongoing analyses of these and other data (e.g., Finn, Gerber, & Boyd-Saharias, 2005; Iacovou, 2002; Nye, Hedges, & Konstantopoulos, 2001, 2002, 2004) have generally supported CSR as an effective policy to improve both student achievement as measured by tests as well as more evocative improvements to education, including long term achievement impacts, reduced dropout and increased graduation rates. Literature reviews (e.g., Biddle & Berliner, 2002; Reichardt,
1

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
2000; Wilson, 2002) tend to support CSR as a viable intervention. The literature also suggests that CSR is likely more effective in the early grades (K-3), but most of the research has focused on the early grades, and very little data exist on the effect of implementing CSR after grade four. Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran, and Willms (2001) concluded that although some research has been convincing, "Class size reduction initiatives presuppose the availability of teachers who are equivalent in quality to existing teachers to staff the extra classrooms."
Implementation difficulties documented from the California CSR initiative were: (1) The increase in demand for teachers resulting in a decrease in teacher quality, (2) an exacerbated difference in teacher quality between schools with low and high proportions of disadvantaged students (low and high socioeconomic status (SES)), (3) greater classroom shortages experienced by low SES districts and (4) insufficient funding for low SES districts to meet class size targets. These consequences may have limited the benefit of California's initiative compared to the well regarded Tennessee CSR experiment (Imazeki, 2003; Jepsen & Rivkin 2003; Reichardt, 2000; and Stecher, Bohrnstedt, Kirst, McRobbie & Williams, 2001).
Introduction
California's voluntary initiative reduced average class size from more than 29 to just less than 20 over three years (Reichardt, 2000). Georgia's mandatory initiative required smaller decreases in class size, but specified that class size must not exceed certain levels for elementary grades and certain middle and high school classes. Georgia classes were already legislated to average 21 in grades 1-3; the new law now specified that class size must not exceed 21 in those grades for mathematics, language arts, science and social studies classes. Similarly, Kindergarten classes must be limited to 18 (20 with an aide). Grades 4-8 academic classes were limited to 28 students; formerly such classes could average 30. High school classes in language arts, social studies, mathematics and foreign language were required to average 30 and must now not exceed 32; science classes were required to average 28 and now must not exceed 30. Although class size limits existed in the previous law and are used for comparison, the size average was the focus of prior law. While districts still must monitor average class size; classes affected by the law must not exceed lower specified size limits.
Based on California's CSR experience, Georgia's predicted increases in staffing demand should require significantly increased recruiting effort to achieve full staffing without concomitant decreases in the experience levels of newly hired teachers. The literature also documents greater difficulties in staffing for schools with greater proportions of disadvantaged students; whether this outcome occurred at the initial implementation of the Georgia law is investigated.
Unlike most previous initiatives focusing on early elementary grades, all Georgia grades are affected, and districts are required by the new law to be fully staffed by
2

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
the fall of 2006, four months after passage of the legislation. The reserve supply of teachers is limited; recently only 20-25% of new teacher demand had been supplied by the state's teacher colleges. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) now requires all teachers to be fully certified ("highly qualified"); California's response to staffing prior to NCLB was to place uncertified teachers in classrooms, which is in Georgia only an option by formal request for exception to the state Board of Education.
This study assesses the impact of Georgia's CSR initiative on staffing and staffing needs. As of this writing, the 2007 Georgia legislature is considering an amendment to delay class size reduction for one or two years in response to school systems' many violations of the maximum class size limitations, and in light of the "temporary austerity reductions" which have reduced school funding below legislated levels for five years.
Methods and Analyses
All analyses were undertaken using tools available in SPSS14.
Analysis of future teacher staffing demands
Numerous curvilinear regression models were compared to twelve years' past state student enrollment. The best fit Gaussian model was used to project enrollment through the 2011-2012 (FY12) school year. The Gaussian regression function determined to best fit the data takes the form b1 * (1 - b3 * exp(-b2 * x **2)) where x in this case is the year of enrollment being predicted beginning with the base year 1995 represented as year 1, continuing through FY12 as year 18. The SPSS nonlinear regression tool iterates the factors b1, b2 and b3 to best fit the existing data. Teacher staffing demand was estimated by multiplying the student enrollment projections by the most recent five-year average gross student/teacher ratio. Separate linear projections provided future annual teacher attrition estimates. Impact of the class size limit legislation was estimated using the midpoint between of the legislated class size average and legislated class size limit for each of the various designated class sizes. The estimated impact of the legislation was treated as a constant rather than allowing it to impact the slope of the regressions. Similarly, the impact of substantial increased enrollment due to immigration from states affected by hurricane Katrina was treated as a constant.
The Gaussian regression model was applied to the current production proportions of the various sources of the state's newly hired teachers to determine demands on each source to meet future full year projected staffing attrition as well as growth to meet student enrollment.
Analysis of changes in class size.
Data collection for class size was available for the fall of the 2005-2006 (FY06) and 2006-2007 (FY07) school years. Earlier data were not available to determine trends in class size variation; comparison could only be made immediately before
3

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
and after the change in legislation. Each school open for both years, excluding closed and newly opened schools, was classified as Elementary, Middle, High or Other. The Other category, representing 154 or 7.1% of the 2,159 schools, including charter, special education, alternative and regular schools combining levels, was excluded from the analysis. The state school free and reduced lunch dataset was used to determine the proportion of students in each school eligible for free or reduced lunch in FY07. Schools were placed in five categories of free/reduced lunch proportions: 0-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80% and 81-100%. A repeated measures analysis of variance used average class size as the repeated measure, School Level (Level) and Free/Reduced Lunch (FRLunch) category as between subjects factors. Because special education class sizes were not changed by the legislation, and would confound the analysis because schools with higher proportions of free and reduced lunch eligible students also have higher incidence of special education classes, those classes were excluded from the analysis.
Analysis of the number of classes over designated class limits
Whether each class in each school exceeded the designated class size limit was also available in the annual datasets and was used in an Overlimit analysis. The proportion of Overlimit classes in each school for the same schools identified in the class size analysis was subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with the proportion of overlimit classes as the repeated measure and school Level and FRLLunch category as between subjects factors.
Analysis of age and experience of teachers hired for enrollment growth and to replace attrition.
The number of teachers hired in each school between the spring (May, FY06)) and fall (October) 2006 (FY07) Certified Personnel Information (CPI) collection dates corresponded to the period during which schools and districts were required to implement the class size limit legislation. The hiring patterns during this period were compared to the previous three comparable periods (Spring FY03-Fall FY06). Two separate repeated measures analyses of variance used four years of average newly hired teacher age by school and four years of average newly hired teacher experience respectively as the repeated measure and School Level (elementary, middle, high) and FRLunch categories as the between-subjects factors.
Analysis of teacher vacancies
The state teacher licensing agency (Georgia Professional Standards Commission, PSC) initiated the Vacancy Reporting System (VRS) in the fall of 2006 to monitor difficulties in hiring certified education personnel. These data were collected by district by teacher certification and the percentage of time for which a teacher is sought, or Full Time Equivalent (FTE). Because the system was initiated after the implementation of the legislation, effect of the class size law could not be
4

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
determined. Instead, an analysis of school district by FRLunch tested whether there was a differential impact of that socioeconomic proxy on vacancies at the 30 day and 90 day collections. A repeated measures analysis of variance used the proportion of vacancies to total number of positions in a school from the 30 and 90 day vacancy reports as the repeated measure, and FRLunch categories at the district level as the between subjects factor.
Data sources
Certified Personnel Information (CPI) data for educator staffing and Full Time Equivalent (FTE) data for student enrollment are collected biannually for all educators and all students in the state. The CPI provides data such as the hiring school, gender and ethnicity, years experience, salary, certification level, subject taught, and percent time employed. The FTE provides student data including enrolling school, gender and ethnicity, grade level, retention status, and dropout and graduation data. The FTE Class Size Report documents the number of students in each class in each school in the state by course, which enables class size and class size limit evaluation. The Certified Staffing Vacancy Reporting System (VRS), a new data collection beginning with the 2006-2007 school year, enables the analysis of educator vacancies at four points during the school year by certificate field at each school in the state. These data will be used to report on differences in vacancies among schools serving different socioeconomic levels as well as population density and geography. These datasets will be utilized to evaluate the impact on staffing of CSR legislation.
Results
Prediction of future teacher staffing levels
Teacher staffing needs for the school years 2006-2007 (FY07) through 2011-2012 (FY12) were estimated from projections of student enrollment predicted on the basis of twelve years' previous enrollment. Fall 2004 enrollment attributed to migration from Gulf of Mexico states as a result of hurricane Katrina was reported at 10,332 students statewide. These students were removed from enrollment figures for regression model development, although they are included in Figure 1. The Gaussian model fit student enrollment relatively well (r2=0.978). Shown at FY07 is the new enrollment for the fall count (October 2006), which was 11,890 students (0.72%) under prediction.
Projections of teacher staffing were derived by determining the most recent fiveyear average gross student-teacher ratio and projecting that ratio from Gaussian model student enrollment estimates. As shown in Figure 2, teacher staffing was projected at 115,250; reported staffing in the fall of 2006 was reported at 114,746.
5

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figure 1. Past and projected Georgia public school enrollment, FY95-FY12.
2,000,000

Number of Students

1,900,000 1,800,000 1,700,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000

1,880,395

1,829,059

Enrollment Upper 95% CI Projected

1,779,000
1,730,652 1,684,498

Lower 95% CI

1,641,047 1,629,157

1,598,461

1,553,437
1,522,611 1,496,012 1,470,634 1,444,937 1,422,941 1,401,291 1,375,980 1,346,761 1,311,126
1,270,948

1,200,000

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
School Year

Figure 2. Past and projected Georgia public school teacher staffing, FY98-FY12

140,000

Number of Teachers

135,000 130,000 125,000 120,000 115,000 110,000 105,000 100,000
95,000 90,000 85,000

132,059 128,454 124,939 121,543 118,302

115,250 114,746
110,135 106,934 104,845 103,350
99,470

Actual Upper 95% CI Projected Lower 95% CI

94,689
91,467 88,757 86,263

80,000

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04 FY05 FY06
School Year

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

Projected teacher staffing includes both attrition replacement and enrollment increase demand. Figure 3 shows past and projected teacher attrition rates from FY93 to FY12. Attrition has been gradually rising since data were first available in 1993, when annual teacher attrition was well under seven percent. The most
6

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

recent three years' attrition were above nine percent. The best fit regression model (r2=.89) projects attrition to exceed 9.8% by FY12.

Figure 3. Past and projected statewide teacher attrition, FY93-FY12

11% 10%

y = 0.0635x0.1459 R2 = 0.8858

Percent Attrition

9%

8%

7%

6%

5% FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Actual 6.59 6.95 7.03 8.03 7.51 8.13 8.41 9.40 8.80 8.70 9.13 9.16 9.12

Prediction 6.35 7.02 7.45 7.77 8.03 8.25 8.43 8.60 8.75 8.88 9.01 9.12 9.23 9.33 9.42 9.51 9.60 9.68 9.76 9.83

UCL

7.11 7.78 8.22 8.56 8.84 9.07 9.28 9.47 9.64 9.80 9.94 10.07 10.2010.32 10.4310.54 10.6410.74 10.8310.92

LCL

5.67 6.34 6.76 7.06 7.30 7.49 7.66 7.81 7.94 8.06 8.16 8.26 8.35 8.44 8.52 8.59 8.66 8.73 8.79 8.85

Figure 4 shows past teacher supply and projected demand from each teacher supply source for Georgia, assuming that each source produces a share equivalent to the most recent year's proportions. Supply from each source in the past has been highly variable. A prior radical increase in staffing demand caused by policy changes in 2002 was fulfilled primarily by recruiting out-of-state teachers.

7

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figure 4. Past new teacher staffing, FY98-FY06 and projected production requirements from each supply source, FY07-FY12

6,000

5,500

5,000

Number of Teachers

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Out of State

901 1,150 1,567 3,072 4,252 5,771 3,068 3,170 3,659 4,505 4,035 4,204 4,368 4,525 4,677

GA IHE Yield 2,974 2,277 2,525 2,725 2,347 2,273 2,421 2,578 3,042 3,754 3,362 3,503 3,640 3,771 3,898

Alternative Prep 441 418 723 1,182 2,316 1,501 1,995 2,281 2,853 3,515 3,147 3,280 3,407 3,530 3,649

Returning

3,071 3,327 3,501 3,427 2,761 2,053 2,051 2,456 2,708 3,339 2,990 3,116 3,237 3,354 3,466

Other

2,450 2,092 2,157 1,655 890 878 1,650 971 687 847 758 790 821 850 879

The state's universities and colleges supply about one quarter of the new teachers required each year. Slightly fewer than 70% of the system's new teachers (not including those who return to earn advanced degrees) actually enter Georgia public school classrooms the following year. Figure 5 depicts this discrepancy and projects the number of teachers the universities may need to produce in order to yield a number of teachers to the classroom equivalent to the proportion they now supply.

8

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figure 5. Past and projected state traditional teacher production and yield, FY98FY12

Number of Teachers

6,000

5,500 5,000

GA IHE Certified GA IHE Yield

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
School Year

Class Size
The effect of the class size legislation on average class size at the school level was analyzed in a 2 x 3 x 5 repeated measures Anova using the repeated measure annual school average class size by school Level (elementary, middle and high) and the percentage of students eligible for free & reduced lunch in a school (FRLunch) categorized into five levels (0-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80% and 81-100%).
Table 1 shows the average class sizes in FY06 and FY07 for schools at each FRLunch category by school Level. Table 2 shows the Anova table for this analysis.

9

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for Average Class Size by Level by FRLunch.

School Level Elementary
Middle
High

FRLunch 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Total 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Total 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Total

FY06 Class Size
20.29 19.52 18.36 18.46 17.13 18.44 19.48 19.51 19.29 18.76 18.22 18.98 20.32 20.01 19.54 19.34 19.01 19.69

School Year

FY07

SD Class Size

1.55

19.35

1.66

18.69

2.34

17.99

5.03

17.60

2.46

16.99

3.31

17.88

2.50

18.68

2.48

19.21

2.25

18.33

2.72

18.01

2.62

17.55

2.56

18.26

4.66

20.01

2.98

20.18

2.85

19.54

2.65

19.36

2.64

18.50

3.17

19.66

SD 1.44 2.13 2.13 2.35 2.29 2.29 2.18 2.54 2.17 2.52 3.55 2.68 4.61 3.33 3.06 2.52 2.50 3.27

N 108 194 289 311 297 1,199
34 67 111 128 76 416 50 70 118 79 13 330

Table 2. Yearly Average Class Size by Level by FRLunch Anova

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Source Class Size Class Size * Level Class Size * FRLunch Class Size * Level * FRLunch Error(Class Size) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Intercept Level FRLunch Level * FRLunch Error

Type III Sum of Squares
113.148 23.018 7.382 35.274
6141.807
696087.253 419.872 656.686 137.629
23724.224

df 1 2 4 8
1930
1 2 4 8 1930

Mean Square
113.148 11.509 1.846 4.409 3.182
696087.253 209.936 164.171 17.204 12.292

F 35.556 3.617 0.580 1.386
56627.707 17.079 13.356 1.400

Sig. 0.000 0.027 0.677 0.198
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.192

Partial Eta Squared
0.018 0.004 0.001 0.006
0.967 0.017 0.027 0.006

The interaction of Yearly Average Class Size and Level was significant at p=.027. The main effect of FRLunch was significant at p<.001. Table 3 shows the posthoc analysis for FRLunch. The 0-20% and 21-40% groups and 41-60% and 6180% groups were not significantly different. The difference between the 21-40% and 41-60% groups, and the difference between the 81-100% group and all others were significantly different. Class sizes are largest for schools with 0-40% free and reduced lunch, and smallest for schools with 81-100% free and reduced lunch.

10

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 3. Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post hoc analysis of FRLunch

Tukey HSD (I) FRLunch 0-20%
21-40%
41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

(I) Mean 19.687
19.520
18.842 18.589 17.901

(J) FRLunch
21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% 61-80% 81-100% 81-100%

Mean Difference (I-J)
0.412 1.155 1.459 2.498 0.743 1.047 2.086 0.303 1.343 1.040

Std. Error
0.225 0.209 0.209 0.219 0.174 0.174 0.186 0.154 0.167 0.167

Sig.
0.355 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.281 0.000 0.000

Table 4 shows post-hoc 2x5 analyses of variance the elementary, middle and high school levels of the analysis. At the elementary school level, the Yearly Class Size x FRLunch interaction was significant (p=.005). At middle school, both Yearly Class Size (p<.001) and FRLunch (I=.002) main effects were significant, but high school showed no significant class size results.

Table 4. Post-hoc Yearly Class Size by FRLunch Anova tables

Source

Type III Sum of Squares

Elementary School

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Class Size

201.486

Class Size * FRLunch Error(Class Size)

58.835 4689.031

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

695113.347

FRLunch

1673.041

Error

12969.342

Middle School

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Class Size

81.134

Class Size * FRLunch Error(Class Size)

9.165 905.727

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

235339.045

FRLunch

190.941

Error

4578.732

High School

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Class Size

1.452

Class Size * FRLunch Error(Class Size)

5.000 547.049

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

144863.316

FRLunch

91.221

Error

6176.150

df
1 4 1194
1 4 1194
1 4 411
1 4 411
1 4 325
1 4 325

Mean Square
201.486 14.709 3.927
695113.347 418.260 10.862
81.134 2.291 2.204
235339.045 47.735 11.140
1.452 1.250 1.683
144863.316 22.805 19.004

F
51.306 3.745
63994.407 38.506
36.817 1.040
21124.704 4.285
0.863 0.743
7622.965 1.200

Sig.
0.000 0.005
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.386
0.000 0.002
0.354 0.564
0.000 0.311

Partial Eta Squared
0.041 0.012
0.982 0.114
0.082 0.010
0.981 0.040
0.003 0.009
0.959 0.015

11

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the elementary, middle and high school results. Elementary school post-hoc F-tests using ms error within showed that the 0-20%, 21-40% and 61-80% FRLunch schools significanty (p<.001) reduced class sizes between FY06 and FY07. The 41-60% and 81-100% schools did not significantly reduce class sizes.

The middle school analysis revealed no interaction. The post-hoc Tukey HSD revealed only the 21-40% and 81-100% school groups were significantly different from one another (p=.002).

Figure 6. Elementary school Yearly Average Class Size by FRLunch

20.5

20.0

Average Class Size

19.5 19.0 18.5

0-20% 21-40%

18.0 17.5

41-60% 61-80%

17.0

81-100%

16.5
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

FY06 20.29 19.52 18.36 18.46 17.13

FY07 19.35 18.69 17.99 17.60 16.99

12

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figure 7. Middle school Yearly Average Class Size by FRLunch

Average Class Size

20.5 20.0 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

FY06 19.48 19.51 19.29 18.76 18.22

21-40%
0-20% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
FY07 18.68 19.21 18.33 18.01 17.55

Figure 8. High school Yearly Average Class Size by FRLunch

Average Class Size

20.5 20.0 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

FY06 20.32 20.01 19.54 19.34 19.01

21-40% 0-20% 41-60% 61-80%
81-100%
FY07 20.01 20.18 19.54 19.36 18.50

13

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Classes over legislated size limit

The effect of the class size legislation at the school level on the incidence of classes exceeding the legislated size limits was analyzed in a 2 x 3 x 5 repeated measures Anova using the repeated measure annual average number of classes over the maximum allowed number of students (Overlimit) by school Level (elementary, middle and high) and the percentage of students eligible for free & reduced lunch in a school (FRLunch) categorized into five levels (0-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80% and 81-100%).

Table 5 shows the mean number of classes over limit by free/reduced lunch category and school level.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for OverLimit by Level by FRLunch.

Elementary Middle High School

Pct Free & Reduced
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Total
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Total
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Total

Average Number Classes Over Limit

FY06

Mean

SD

FY07

Mean

SD

0.54

1.69

0.26

0.96

0.36

1.92

0.48

3.23

0.23

1.14

0.76

3.46

0.50

1.90

0.92

2.96

0.68

2.97

1.39

4.43

0.46

2.07

0.87

3.45

1.44

4.05

1.82

4.03

0.97

2.90

1.45

3.59

0.64

2.82

0.70

2.51

1.05

3.82

1.50

5.40

1.58

3.64

6.13

17.31

1.06

3.43

2.15

8.47

2.78

6.28

1.50

3.55

1.77

4.68

1.93

7.16

2.06

6.50

1.13

3.31

2.44

6.81

1.89

5.50

0.08

0.28

0.08

0.28

2.12

6.07

1.49

4.89

N
108 194 289 311 297 1199
34 67 111 128 76 416
50 70 118 79 13 330

Table 6 shows the Overlimit by Level by FRLunch Anova table. The three-way interaction was significant (p<.001).

14

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 6. Annual OverLimit by Level by FRLunch Anova

Source

Type III Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F

Partial Eta Sig. Squared

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Overlimit

50.798 1 50.798 3.939 0.047

0.002

Overlimit * Level

188.737 2 94.368 7.317 0.001

0.008

Overlimit * FRLunch

162.712 4 40.678 3.154 0.014

0.006

Overlimit * Level * FRLunch

407.768 8 50.971 3.952 0.000

0.016

Error(Overlimit)

24890.112 1930 12.896

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

1649.229 1 1649.229 134.801 0.000

0.065

Level

391.649 2 195.825 16.006 0.000

0.016

FRLunch

72.083 4 18.021 1.473 0.208

0.003

Level * FRLunch

375.183 8 46.898 3.833 0.000

0.016

Error

23612.734 1930 12.235

Post hoc 2 x 5 analyses for each Level of OverLimit by FRLunch were performed and are shown in Table 4. To adjust for the loss of power in this post-hoc approach, a significance level of p<.10 was accepted. At the elementary and middle school levels, both main effects and the interaction were significant. No differences were significant at the high school level.

The interactions at the elementary and middle school levels might suggest that there are two groups at each level. At elementary, schools with 40% or fewer free and reduced lunch eligible students had no difficulty with the new law, while those with more than 40% FRLunch appear to have seen an increase in the number of classes over limit subsequent to the law's implementation. At the middle school level, only those schools with more than 80% FRLunch appeared to have an increase in the incidence of overlimit classes, while there was no change for schools with lower percentages had no increase in difficulty meeting limits.

15

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 7. Post-hoc repeated measures OverLimit by FRLunch Anovas

Source

Type III Sum of Squares

Elementary School

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Overlimit

47.79

Overlimit * FRLunch

49.27

Error(Overlimit)

6,829.05

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

764.47

FRLunch

136.99

Error

12,389.93

Middle School

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Overlimit

236.49

Overlimit * FRLunch

561.17

Error(Overlimit)

13,229.91

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

2009.51

FRLunch

1012.48

Error

19,855.63

High School

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Overlimit

25.78

Overlimit * FRLunch

40.43

Error(Overlimit)

4,831.15

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

925.27

FRLunch

120.16

Error

14,979.91

df
1 4 1194
1 4 1194
1 4 411
1 4 411
1 4 325
1 4 325

Mean Square
47.79 12.32
5.72
764.47 34.25 10.38
236.49 140.29
32.19
2,009.51 253.12 48.31
25.78 10.11 14.87
925.27 30.04 46.09

F
8.36 2.15
73.67 3.30
7.35 4.36
41.60 5.24
1.73 0.68
20.07 0.65

Significance
0.004 0.072
0.000 0.011
0.007 0.002
0.000 0.000
0.189 0.606
0.000 0.626

Partial Eta Squared
0.007 0.007
0.058 0.011
0.018 0.041
0.092 0.049
0.005 0.008
0.058 0.008

16

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figures 9, 10 and 11 portray the two-way interactions at each of the three school Levels.

Figure 9. Elementary school OverLimit by FRLunch interaction.
1.60

Average Number Elementary Classes Overlimit

1.40

81-100%

1.20

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20

61-80% 41-60%
21-40% 0-20%

0.00
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

FY06 0.54 0.36 0.23 0.50 0.68

FY07 0.26 0.48 0.76 0.92 1.39

Figure 10. Middle school OverLimit by FRLunch interaction
7.00 6.00

81-100%

Average Number of Middle Classes Overlimit

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00
1.00
0.00 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

FY06 1.44 0.97 0.64 1.05 1.58

0-20% 61-80% 21-40%
41-60%
FY07 1.82 1.45 0.70 1.50 6.13

17

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figure 11. High school OverLimit by FRLunch interaction.
3.00

Average Number of High School Classes Overlimit

2.50

2.00 1.50 1.00

21-40% 61-80%
0-20%
41-60%

0.50

0.00
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

FY06 2.78 1.77 2.06 2.44 0.08

81-100% FY07 1.50 1.93 1.13 1.89 0.08

Elementary and middle schools were categorized into "Low" and "High" FRLunch groups according to the above criteria and each level entered into a 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis of variance.

Tables 8 and 9 show the average number of classes over limit by free/reduced lunch category and school level and the Anova summary table for the elementary level. Figure 12 shows the interaction between Overlimit and FRLunch as categorized. The interaction indicates that the schools with higher free and reduced lunch proportions (more than 40%) had significantly more difficulty meeting the new class size requirements than did those schools with lower rates of FRLunch.

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for elementary school Overlimit by two-category FRLunch interaction

Pct Free & Reduced
0-40% 41-100% Total

Average Number of Classes Overlimit

FY06

FY07

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

0.47

2.15

1.03

3.67

0.42

1.84

0.40

2.65

0.46

2.07

0.87

3.45

N
897 302 1,199

18

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 9. Post-hoc elementary school Overlimit by two-category FRLunch Anova

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Source

Type III Sum of Squares

Overlimit

33.05

Overlimit * FRLunch Error(Overlimit)

37.22 6,841.11

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept FRLunch

608.35 50.95

Error

12,475.97

df
1 1 1,197
1 1 1,197

Mean Square
33.05 37.22
5.72
608.35 50.95 10.42

F 5.78 6.51
58.37 4.89

Sig. 0.016 0.011
0.000 0.027

Partial Eta Squared
0.005 0.005
0.046 0.004

Figure 12. Elementary school Overlimit by two category FRLunch interaction
1.2

41-100% 1.0

Average Number of Elementary Classes Overlimit

0.8

0.6

0.4

0-40%

0.2

0.0
0-40% 41-100%

FY06 0.421 0.469

FY07 0.404 1.027

Tables 10 and 11 show the mean number of classes over limit by free/reduced lunch category and school level and the Anova summary table for the middle school level. Figure 13 shows the interaction between Overlimit and FRLunch as categorized. The interaction indicates that the schools with more than 80% free and reduced lunch proportions had significantly more difficulty meeting the new class size requirements than did those schools with lower rates of FRLunch.

19

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 10. Descriptive statistics for middle school Overlimit by two-category FRLunch interaction

Pct Free & Reduced
0-40% 41-100% Total

Average Number of Classes Overlimit

FY06

FY07

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

1.58

3.64

6.13

17.31

0.94

3.37

1.26

4.15

1.06

3.43

2.15

8.47

N
76 340 416

Table 11. Post-hoc middle school Overlimit by two-category FRLunch Anova

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Source

Type III Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F

Partial Eta

Sig.

Squared

Overlimit Overlimit * FRLunch

738.46 555.48

1 738.46 1 555.48

23.10 17.37

0.000 0.000

0.053 0.040

Error(Overlimit)

13,235.60 414

31.97

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

3050.44

FRLunch

943.09

1 3050.44 1 943.09

63.38 19.60

0.000 0.000

0.133 0.045

Error

19,925.02 414

48.13

Figure 13. Elementary school Overlimit by two category FRLunch interaction
7.0

6.0

81-100%

Average Number of Middle School Classes Overlimit

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0
0-80% 1.0

0.0
0-80% 81-100%

FY06 0.938 1.579

FY07 1.262 6.132

20

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Teacher age and experience

The effect of the class size legislation on the average age and experience of newly hired teachers at the school level was analyzed in two separate 4 x 3 x 5 repeated measures Anovas using the repeated measure of four years school average new teacher age and experience by school Level (elementary, middle and high) and the percentage of students eligible for free & reduced lunch in a school (FRLunch) categorized into five levels (0-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80% and 81-100%).

Teacher age

Table 12 shows the results of the repeated measures Anova for average Age at the school level for new teachers hired for the four years FY04-FY07. Age and Level were significant (p<.001). Table 13 shows the post-hoc Age contrasts and the post-hoc school Level tests. Figures 14 and 15 show the average new teacher ages over the past four years and the difference in ages among the three school levels, respectively.

It would appear that the class size legislation had no significant effect on the age of newly hired teachers. A significant (p<.001) rise in age occurred between the FY04 and FY05 years, but the post-hoc Helmert contrast showed no significant change in age subsequently. Newly hired elementary teachers are significantly (p<.001) younger than middle and high school new teachers, but middle and high school new teachers are not significantly different in age.

Table 12. New teacher age by Level by FRLunch Anova table

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Type III Sum

Source

of Squares

Tr Age

1194.849

Tr Age * Level

179.470

Tr Age * FRLunch

606.341

Tr Age * Level * FRLunch

904.841

Error(TrAge)

153131.468

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

3814315.316

Level

1887.158

FRLunch

130.994

Level * FRLunch

700.242

Error

66791.977

df 3 6
12 24 4245
1 2 4 8 1415

Mean Square 398.283 29.912 50.528 37.702 36.073
3814315.316 943.579 32.748 87.530 47.203

F 11.041 0.829 1.401 1.045
80806.953 19.990 0.694 1.854

Sig. 0.000 0.547 0.157 0.402
0.000 0.000 0.596 0.063

Partial Eta Squared
0.008 0.001 0.004 0.006
0.983 0.027 0.002 0.010

21

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 13. Post Hoc new teacher age Helmert contrasts and school level Tukey Honestly Significant Difference tests

New Teacher Age

Helmert Test of Within-Subjects Contrasts

Source Tr Age

TrAge FY04 vs. Later

Type III Sum of Squares
1466.304

FY05 vs. Later

67.869

FY06 vs. FY07

99.750

Error(Tr Age) FY04 vs. Later

77427.040

FY05 vs. Later

75566.852

FY06 vs. FY07

89366.572

School Level

Tukey HSD

(I) SchlLvl2 Elementary

(J) SchlLvl2 Middle

Mean Difference (I-J)
-1.063

High

-1.699

Middle

High

-0.636

df
1 1 1 1415 1415 1415
Std. Error
0.225 0.235 0.278

Mean Square 1466.304
67.869 99.750 54.719 53.404 63.157

F
26.797 1.271 1.579

Sig. 0.000 0.260 0.209
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.058

Figure 14. Average new teacher age, FY04-FY07

36.5

Average New Teacher Age

36.0

35.5

35.0

34.5

34.0 Age

FY04 34.477

FY05 35.671

FY06 35.789

FY07 36.152

22

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
Figure 15. Average new teacher age by school level
36.5

New Teacher Average Age

36.0

35.5

35.0

34.5

34.0 Age

Elementary 34.609

Middle 35.659

High 36.299

New teacher experience
Table 14 shows the results of the repeated measures Anova for average Experience at the school level for new teachers hired for the four years FY04FY07. School Level and Free & Reduced Lunch (FRLunch) were significant (p<.001). Table 15 shows the post-hoc Level and FRLunch tests. Figures 16, 17 and 18 show the average new teacher experience for each school year, at each School Level and at the different FRLunch levels, respectively.
It would appear that the class size legislation has so far had no significant effect on the level of experience of newly hired teachers. Independent of the legislation, the average experience of these teachers is not significantly different between elementary and middle schools, but those teachers have significantly less experience than those hired into high schools (Elementary: p=.034, Middle: p<.001). Also independent of the legislation, schools with higher proportions of students eligible for free and reduced lunch (61-80% and 81-100%) hired teachers with less experience than did schools with 21-40% or 41-60% eligible students. Schools with low percentages of free and reduced lunch eligible students appear also to have hired teachers with less experience.

23

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 14. New teacher experience by Level by FRLunch Anova table

Source

Type III Sum of Squares

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Tr Exp

46.784

Tr Exp * Level

85.859

Tr Exp * FRLunch

141.061

Tr Exp * Level * FRLunch

348.259

Error(Tr Exp)

76304.316

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

53683.206

Level

287.471

FRLunch

294.615

Level * FRLunch

168.168

Error

32991.789

df
3 6 12 24 4245
1 2 4 8 1415

Mean Square
15.595 14.310 11.755 14.511 17.975
53683.206 143.735 73.654 21.021 23.316

F
0.868 0.796 0.654 0.807
2302.444 6.165 3.159 0.902

Sig.
0.457 0.573 0.797 0.731
0.000 0.002 0.013 0.514

Partial Eta Squared
0.001 0.001 0.002 0.005
0.619 0.009 0.009 0.005

Table 15. Post Hoc School Level and FRLunch Tukey Honestly Significant Difference tests.

Tukey HSD

(I) Level School Level Elementary Middle FRLunch 0-20%
21-40%
41-60% 61-80%

(J) Level
Middle High High
21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% 61-80% 81-100% 81-100%

Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

0.348 -0.414 -0.761

0.158 0.165 0.195

0.072 0.034 0.000

-0.294 -0.428 0.214 0.298 -0.134 0.508 0.592 0.642 0.726 0.084

0.249 0.234 0.234 0.244 0.197 0.196 0.209 0.177 0.190 0.190

0.763 0.358 0.891 0.739 0.961 0.073 0.037 0.003 0.001 0.992

24

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
Figure 16. Average new teacher experience, FY04-FY07
4.5

Average New Teacher Experience

4.4

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.0 Experience

FY04 4.396

FY05 4.140

FY06 4.254

FY07 4.067

Figure 17. Average new teacher experience at each school level
4.8

Average New Teacher Experience

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6 Experience

Elementary 4.252

Middle 3.781

High 4.609

25

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Figure 18. Average new teacher experience at each level of student free and reduced lunch eligibility
4.8

Average New Teacher Experience

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6 Experience

0-20% 4.020

21-40% 4.455

41-60% 4.571

61-80% 3.985

81-100% 4.040

Teacher vacancies

The vacancy reporting system (VRS) was initiated by the state in the fall of 2006 at the beginning of the FY07 school year. The effect of class size legislation on the number of vacancies per school system cannot be determined from these data. It can be investigated, however, whether school districts with high proportions of students eligible for free or reduced lunch (FRLunch) experienced higher teacher vacancy rates than did those with lower rates.

Table 16 presents the data for the 30 and 90 day teacher vacancy rates grouped by four FRLunch categories. At this school district level of analysis there were six districts with FRLunch ratios 20% or below; these were included with the 21-40% group for this analysis. Table 17 shows the Anova table for this analysis.

Table 16. Descriptive statistics for FY07 teacher vacancy rates by FRLunch

FRLunch 0-40% 41-60% 61-80% 80-100% Total

30 Day Vacancy

90 Day Vacancy

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

N

0.006

0.008

0.003

0.004 27

0.009

0.015

0.008

0.013 61

0.014

0.027

0.012

0.021 75

0.024

0.042

0.035

0.058 17

0.012

0.024

0.012

0.025 180

26

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact

Table 17. Vacancy by FRLunch Anova

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Source

Type III Sum of Squares df

Vacancy

0.000

Vacancy * FRLunch

0.001

Error(Vacancy)

0.014

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Intercept

0.049

FRLunch

0.015

Error

0.180

Mean Square F

Partial Eta

Sig.

Squared

1

0.000

1.958

0.163

0.011

3

0.000

5.486

0.001

0.086

176

0.000

1

0.049 47.414

0.000

3

0.005

4.863

0.003

176

0.001

0.212 0.077

Figure 19 displays the Vacancy by FRLunch interaction. School districts with 80% or fewer students eligible for free or reduced lunch appeared to have less difficulty filling vacancies for the school year, although they made no significant progress overall in reducing vacancies between thirty days after the beginning of their school year and the ninety day monitoring. The few systems with more than 80% FRLunch, however, had a significantly greater number of vacancies at the ninety day point than they did during the beginning of the school year.

Figure19. Vacancy by FRLunch interaction.
0.040

Average Ratio of Vacancies to Teaching Staff

0.035

80-100%

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000 0-40% 41-60% 61-80% 80-100%

30 Day Vacancy 0.006 0.009 0.014 0.024

61-80% 41-60%
0-40%
90 Day Vacancy 0.003 0.008 0.012 0.035

27

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
Summary.
The Gaussian curvilinear regression model developed to predict future staffing underestimated actual fall staffing by 504, or 0.44% of actual staffing in the fall of the FY07 school year. The model was developed to predict the traditional total staffing measure taken in the spring of the FY07 year. The model will be adjusted each year to incorporate each new year's staffing data. Traditional determination of teacher attrition will not be calculated until the end of the school year; comparison to the attrition estimates cannot be yet known. Like many states, Georgia faces a predicted teacher shortage. Determining the persistence of vacancy rates as well as the ability of traditional and alternative preparation routes to fill those vacancies and new demand from rising attrition and persistent enrollment growth must await future data monitoring.
The class size legislation did significantly effect a reduction in average class sizes at the elementary and middle school levels, but the minimal changes in the legislation at the high school produced no significant change. Elementary schools at some levels of free and reduced lunch enrollment did not significantly reduce class sizes, specifically those with 41-60% and 81-100% eligible. At the middle schools all groups were generally successful in reducing class size, although those in the 21-40% would appear to have reduced sizes less than the others.
The effect of the legislation on the number of classes over legislated limits was complex, producing a three-way interaction of Overlimit, School Level and Free & Reduced Lunch. At the elementary school level, schools with 40% or fewer students eligible for free or reduced lunch had no significant difficulty with the law, but those with more than 40% eligible saw a significant increase in the average number of classes reported over the legislated limit. At the middle school, those schools with more than 80% of their students eligible for free or reduced lunch saw a significant increase in the incidence of overlimit classes. There were no differences among the various groupings of high schools.
Findings from the studies of the California CSR initiative would suggest that Georgia would find notable changes in the age and experience of newly hired teachers as the schools struggled to meet the urgent demands of finding enough teachers to fill the new classrooms required by the sudden requirements for decreased class size. Separate analyses of the average age and experience of newly hired teachers over the past four years did not sow a change in either as a function of the new law, although schools with more than 60% of their students eligible for free or reduced lunch did hire teachers with significantly less experience than schools with more than 20% to 60% eligible. Schools with 20% or fewer students eligible for free or reduced lunch those that from previous research we would expect to have the most success hiring the teachers they need hired teachers with an average experience no different from the schools with high percentages of free and reduced lunch eligible students.
28

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
The new teacher vacancy data, being a collection of data begun only after the implementation of the class size legislation, could not be brought to bear on the law's effect. Schools with more than 80% of their students eligible for free or reduced lunch had significantly more vacancies, and their situation worsened significantly from the 30 day to the 90 day into the school year monitoring. The situation for the schools with 80% or fewer free or reduced lunch eligible students showed no change in their vacancy levels between the 30 and 90 day monitorings. The 180 day collection in the spring of FY07 as well as continued monitoring will tell whether the high proportion free or reduced lunch schools continue to have a more difficult time putting certified teachers with their students.
This appears to be the first opportunity since the California initiative to report outcomes and consider implications of a statewide CSR. There were substantial differences between the California and Georgia initiatives, but the conditions appear similar enough to produce some of the same consequences in teacher staffing. It would appear that Georgia schools' effort in responding to the legislation, at least in the short term, was fairly successful. It is clear that schools with high proportions of low socioeconomic status students, as classified by the proxy measure of free and reduced lunch, have had more difficulty in responding to the law.
Although this first study was limited to the first year impact, the research effort will continue for multiple years to measure long-term impacts.
References
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). What research says about small classes and their effects. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Blatchford, P. (2005). A multi-method approach to the study of school class size differences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (3), 195205.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2005). Teachers' and pupils' behavior in large and small classes: A systematic observation study of pupils aged 10 and 11 years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3), 454-467.
Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Stecher, B. M. (2002 September). What we have learned about class size reduction in California. Capstone Report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Borland, M. V., Howsen, R. M., & Trawick, M. W. (2005). An investigation of the effect of class size on student academic achievement. Education Economics, 13 (1), 73-83.
Dobbelsteen, S., Levin, J., & Oosterbeek, H. (2002). The causal effect of class size on scholastic achievement: Distinguishing the pure class size effect from
29

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
the effect of changes in class composition. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64, 17-38.
Dustmann, C., Rajah, N., & van Soest, A. (2003). Class size, education, and wages. The Economic Journal, 113 (485), F99-F120.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A, and Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2 (1), 1-30.
Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., & Boyd-Saharias, J. (2005). Small classes in the early grades, academic achievement, and graduating from high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 214-223.
Hanushek, E. A. (1998 February). The evidence on class size. Occasional Paper Number 98-1. Rochester: W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy, University of Rochester.
Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113 (485), F64-F98.
Iacovou, M. (2002). Class size in the early years: Is smaller really better? Education Economics, 10 (3), 261-290.
Imazeki, J. (2003). Class-Size Reduction and Teacher Quality: Evidence from California. In D. Monk & M. Plecki (Eds.), School Finance and Teacher Quality: Exploring the Connections. (pp. 159-178.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education: Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association.
Jepsen, C. & Rivkin, S. (2003 September). What is the tradeoff between smaller classes and teacher quality? Paper presented at the eighth annual meeting of The Society of Labor Economists, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kreuger, A. B. (2002). Understanding the magnitude and effect of class size on student achievement. In Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (Eds.). The class size debate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Kreuger, A. B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. The Economic Journal, 113 (485), F34-F63.
Levin, J. (2001). For whom the reductions count: A quantile regression analysis of class size and peer effects on scholastic achievement. Empirical Economics, 26 (1), 221-246.
Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Halbach, A., Ehrle, K., Hoffman, L. M., & Cross, B. (2001). 2000-2001 evaluation results of the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University.
30

Statewide class size reduction staffing impact
Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children. Critical issues for children and youths, 5 (2), 113-127.
Normore, A. H., & Ilon, L. (2006). Cost-effective school inputs: Is class size reduction the best educational expenditure for Florida? Educational Policy, 20 (2), 429-454.
Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2001). The long-term effects of small classes in early grades: Lasting benefits in mathematics achievement at grade 9. Journal of Experimental Education, 69 (3), 245-258. Retrieved July 12, 2006 from http://weblinks2.epnet.com.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu:2048
Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2002). Do low-achieving students benefit more from small classes? Evidence from the Tennessee Class Size Experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (3), 201-217.
Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2004). Do minorities experience larger lasting benefits from small classes? The Journal of Educational Research, 98 (2), 94-100.
Office for Standards in Education. (1995). Class size and the quality of education. London: Office for Standards in Education
Pedder, D. (2006). Are small classes better? Understanding relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils' learning. Oxford Review of Education, 32 (2), 213-234.
Reichardt, R. (2000). The cost of class size reduction: Advice for policy makers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Stecher, B. M., McCaffrey, D. F., & Bugliari, D. (2003 November 10). The relationship between exposure to class size reduction and student achievement in California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (40). Retrieved July 10, 2006 from http://epaa.asu.edu.epaa/v11n40
Stecher, B., Bohrnstedt, G., Kirst, M., McRobbie, J., & Williams, T. (2001). Class size reduction in California: A story of hope, promise, and unintended consequences. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (9), 670-674.
Willms, J. D., Somers, Y. M. (2001). Family, classroom, and school effects on children's educational outcomes in Latin America. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12 (4), 409-445.
Wilson, V. (2002 June). Does small really make a difference? A review of the literature on the effects of class size on teaching practice and pupils' behaviour and attainment. Glasgow, Scotland: The Scottish Council for Research in Education, University of Glasgow.
31