Class-size reduction enjoys bipartisan support but there is little evidence that it will boost student performance. Increased achievement in the state’s public schools will only come through a much tougher issue, improving teacher quality.

Defenders of class-size reductions cannot claim that money is the problem. Since 1996, California has spent close to $4 billion to shrink class sizes from 30 to 20 students in grades K-3. But a major state-sponsored study by George W. Bohrnstedt and Brian M. Stecher of the Class Size Reduction Research Consortium confirms that this massive spending has resulted in, at best, marginal gains for the state’s third graders. For example, students in smaller classes posted test scores of only 2 percent to 3 percent higher than their counterparts in larger classes.

The study also finds, however, that the “surge in teachers hired was accompanied by a disturbing overall decline in teacher qualifications.” The authors conclude that “key among the implications is the need to bolster teaching.”

Other problems persist. Defenders claim that limiting class size allows teachers to spend less time on disciplinary problems, and more time working with individual students. Unfortunately, in order to accommodate smaller classes, schools have taken space and resources from other programs such as libraries, music and special education.

The state provides various incentives to cut class size. Districts that receive more per-pupil funding are able to implement reduction programs more quickly and receive greater amounts of state aid, while districts that have less money fall even farther behind. Poorer districts with high percentages of minority and English-limited students also hire more unqualified teachers.

Despite the problems with class-size reduction, a number of national studies confirm that good teaching has a significant impact on student progress. A recent study conducted by the University of Tennessee finds that students at comparable achievement levels have vastly different academic outcomes depending on the instructors to which they are assigned.

In Texas, a study conducted by the Dallas Independent School District found that a group of beginning third graders in the city’s schools scoring at the 55 percentile level in mathematics, had reached the 76th percentile level at the end of fifth grade after being assigned to three effective teachers. Students who began at the same level in the third grade had fallen to the 27th percentile after being assigned to three less competent instructors.

In Boston, a study released by Bain and Company found that the top third of the city’s public high school teachers was producing six times the learning seen in the bottom third. One frustrated Boston principal claimed, “one-third of my teachers should not be teaching.”

The same conditions may prevail in California, and they are likely to get worse because teaching ranks must expand. During the next 10 years, California will have to hire as many as 300,000 new teachers to accommodate the state’s ever-growing population.

Current studies show that schools all over California have difficulty retaining good teachers. Young instructors who have done well in college have many career options outside teaching. Districts have experimented with a variety of incentives, ranging from merit pay to signing bonuses, to attract and keep these smart young teachers. On the state level, the class-size reduction study concludes that incentive policies need to be re-examined, and underscores the importance of teacher preparation and development.

Peer-review programs, which are preferred by many Democrats and their union allies, do not grant sufficient flexibility to districts. Most arrangements prevent administrators from firing incompetent teachers and make it difficult to implement other performance-based accountability measures.

Both Republicans and Democrats have shown a misplaced faith in class-size reduction as a principal vehicle for improving student performance. Despite the $4 billion price tag, the program has yet to bear the results California’s children deserve.

While supporters claim more time is needed to evaluate its success, there is no reason why bolder reforms that stress attracting and retaining skilled teachers should not also be explored.

Thomas Dawson is a Policy Fellow at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute. He can be reached via email at tdawson@pacificresearch.org.