Class-size reduction, or CSR, is one of the most popular ideas among parents, teachers and the general public for improving the quality of education in the United States. A recent poll indicated that 77 percent of Americans think that additional educational dollars should be spent on smaller classes rather than higher teacher salaries. In at least 24 states, policy makers have enacted CSR initiatives costing billions of dollars. The number of students per teacher has steadily declined over the past four decades – by 30% in public schools.
But large-scale CSR policies produce benefits that are “modest at best” and “clearly fail any cost-benefit test,” writes Matthew Chingos, in “The False Promise of Class Size Reduction,” after the review of the research. And who is this Matthew Chingos? Is he some small-government, deficit-cutting zealot with the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation? No, he is affiliated with the Center for American Progress. He apparently recognizes, however, education’s claim upon the public purse is not unlimited and sees a need to optimize the resources we do invest in education.
Small classes may be worthwhile in special cases, says Chingos, as in classes with students with learning disabilities, or when a teacher is inexperienced and needs support in developing skills. Conversely, principals may want to assign larger classes to highly effective veteran teachers, perhaps with some extra compensation. “School districts should encourage this kind of creative management.”
Perhaps public schools in Virginia should re-visit their thinking about the value of class size. If Chingos is right, educational resources could be more profitably invested by improving the level of teacher quality.
