The Teacher's Attention: Why Our Kids Must and Can Get Smaller Schools and Classes

10 Implementation at the State and Federal Levels

T he key contribution of state and federal decision-makers would be to coordinate and fund the critical piece of grouping size reduction : classes of twelve. They can also be critical players in ensuring more funding equality across local school districts and that the largest schools, and those with the most poverty and racial stigmatization, get priority in school and class size reduction. Again, what follows is not a binding prescription. I want to show that the proposal can be done, not to give the final word on exactly how. Funding Inequality It is widely known and discussed that local tax collection based on property values creates severe disparities in the funding of schools. This should be remedied. As we figure out how to fund an increase in the number of teachers and schools, we should simultaneously plan how to equalize funding overall. Funding equality is not integral to the proposal, but an implementation of the proposal would present a political opportunity to put it on the agenda. Some argue for compensatory equity rather than mere equality. Berliner and Biddle write, “Instead of merely demanding strict equality in funding, Americans should spend more money on schools located in communities where the needs are greatest” (1995, p. 292). Two implementation strategies would help turn grouping size 10 Implementation at the State and Federal Levels 164 / Chapter 10 reduction into a prime opportunity for funding equalization as well: (1) central planning from a state and national level, and (2) beginning in the most “disadvantaged” areas. In the worst case, should grouping size reduction not spread to all schools, those it will have helped will at least have been the most in need. Poor and Racially Stigmatized Areas First There is wide agreement that poor and racially stigmatized areas ought to receive the benefits of relationship load reduction first. Jepsen and Rivkin find in their study of the early grade class size reduction program in California in the late 1990s that its major implementation mistake was the failure to start with schools already difficult to staff, which led to a drop in African American test scores. “A better approach to class size reduction would have been to reduce class sizes in a subset of schools each year, starting with low-performing schools serving high-poverty populations” (2002, p. xii). The drawback of not doing so was the flight of experienced teachers from the harder-to-teach-in to the easierto -teach-in schools (Rice 2002, p. 92). Again, by giving the “disadvantaged” schools smaller classes first, the incentive to work there will be drastically increased . Apart from being strategic, of course, the idea is also simply ethically self-evident. This expands the call for closing the racial achievement gap to include closing the racial adult attention gap. Rather than simply calling for no excuses for lower minority test scores, let’s call for no excuses for structures that doom the nonwhite and nonrich to lower everything. A coordinated federal and state grouping size reduction plan could guarantee that implementation happens where it’s most needed first rather than simply in districts with the most resources (Ward and Laine 2000). We’ve already provided small classes to the most deserving students first in that we’ve given them to students with special needs. The next most deserving group that deserves them is students in areas of concentrated poverty, which often correlates with race. After that, we should give them to all students. One Grade at a Time There is wide agreement that the best way to implement class size reduction is to add one grade a year as the first cohort moves through any one school (Achilles 1999, p. 29). “Incremental phasing in of small classes provides time and experience to guide future decisions” (p. 151). What should not be the implementation plan is a gradual, nontargeted reduction of all class sizes nationwide . The effects would be diluted, and the gains would not reach the new teachers in particular as incentive to come and to stay. Classes should drop directly to twelve, one grade at a time, starting at the schools in the poorest Implementation at State and Federal Levels / 165 urban areas and proceeding up the socioeconomic ladder until all kids get the attention they need at school. Again, by starting in schools that are currently least likely to recruit and retain teachers, the incentives will be reversed from the get...