Small Class’s Magic A. The question "Are smaller classes better than larger classes" continues to be debated among teachers (and their unions), administrators, and parents as well as in the research community. The issue persists because of the powerful common-sense appeal of small classes to alleviate problems indigenous to our classrooms. B. Small classes are an integral component of nationally subsidized programs including special education classes for disruptive or learning-disabled students and Title I interventions for children living in poverty. Small classes or small groups working with one teacher or tutor also are a key element of programs targeted most often at students at risk, for example, Success for All (Slavin, et al., 1990; Slavin & Madden, 1995) and Reading Recovery (Pinnell, deFord, & Lyons, 1988). C. The issue persists because of the tension between the research findings and the cost of implementation. A great deal of empirical data have been collected. However, they have so far been less than convincing and not consistent enough to justify the expense of the additional classrooms and teachers that would be required. Targeted remedial programs are generally less costly and easier to deploy. They tend to be adopted for a portion of the school day to address learning problems in one or a small number of subject areas. In contrast, maintaining small classes throughout a grade level or school requires pervasive organizational changes. Of course, proponents would argue that the benefits are also pervasive—being realized throughout the school day and affecting the entire range of school subjects—unlike the band-aid approach of experimenting with one targeted program after another. D. Project STAR, the only large-scale, controlled study of the effects of reduced class size, was conducted in 79 elementary schools in the state of Tennessee from 1985 to 1989. E. The design drew heavily upon previous research findings, namely, that any benefits of small classes are likely to be realized in the primary grades, that there may be different outcomes for students based on race or economic disadvantage, and that only substantial reductions in class size are likely to have noteworthy impact. F. Within each participating school, children entering kindergarten were assigned at random to one of three class types: small (S) with an enrollment range of 13 to 17 pupils; regular (R) with an enrollment range of 22 to 26 pupils; or regular with a full-time teacher aide (RA. with 22 to 26 pupils. Teachers also were assigned at random to the class groups. Teachers in the STAR classrooms received no special instructions of any sort, and the duties of teacher aides were not prescribed but were left to the teacher’s discretion. G. Classes remained the same type (S, R or RA. for 4 years, until the pupils were in grade 3. A new teacher was assigned at random to the class each year. Standardized achievement tests (Stanford Achievement Tests or SATs) were administered to all participating students at the end of each school year. Also, curriculum-based tests (Basic Skills First or BSF) reflecting the state’s instructional objectives in reading and mathematics were administered at the end of grades 1, 2 and 3. Finally, a measure of motivation and self-concept intended for young children also was administered to each pupil. In all, about 7,500 pupils in more than 300 classrooms participated in the 4-year longitudinal study. H. The main analysis of STAR outcomes consisted of four cross-sectional analyses, one at the end of each school year. The statistical methods were variations of common confirmatory procedures for evaluating experimental outcomes, for example, analysis of variance, multivariate analysis of variance, and analysis-of-covariance procedures. In addition to tests of significance, "effect size" measures were derived each year for all students and for white and minority students separately. Four primary results were reported consistently across the 4 years of analysis: ·Differences among the three class types were highly statistically significant for all sets of achievement measures and for every measure individually. In every case, the significance was attributable to the superior performance of children in small classes, and not to classes with full-time teacher aides. ·With only minor exception, there was no significant interaction with school location or sex of the pupil. A significant small-class advantage was found in inner-city, urban, suburban and rural schools alike and the advantage of small classes was found both for males and females. ·In each year of the study, some of the benefits of small classes were found to be greater for minority students than for non minorities, or greater for students attending inner-city schools. ·No differences were found among class types on the motivational scales. I. In sum due to the magnitude of the Project STAR longitudinal experiment the design, and the care with which it was executed, the results are clear, a clear small-class advantage was found for inner-city, urban, suburban and rural schools; for males and females, and for white and students alike. The few significant interactions found males, and for white and minority students alike. The few significant interactions found each year indicated greater small-class advantages for minority or inner-city students. Targeting small classes in particular schools or districts may provide the greatest benefits at a cost that is contained, although it, may also mean denying the benefits to other students or cost that is contained, although it may also mean denying the benefits to other students or schools. Four primary results were reported throughout 4 year analyses.