SACRAMENTO, CA - There's no more popular education program among politicians and teachers than reducing class sizes in kindergarten through third grade. No other program, however, has spent more tax dollars for less result. Now lawmakers are pushing a bill that would fund class-size reduction (CSR) for additional grades.

SB 1133 would spend nearly $3 billion over seven years to decrease class size in fourth through eighth grade down to 25 students. California's current CSR law has spent around $16 billion over the last 10 years reducing class size to 20 students per K-3 classroom. The ultimate goal of the program, says the state Department of Education, is to "increase student achievement, particularly in reading and mathematics." Under this criterion, CSR comes up short.

A state-sponsored consortium of top research organizations analyzed the program and found no association between the total number of years a student had been in reduced size classes and differences in academic achievement. Further, there's no evidence that CSR helps at upper grade levels. Stanford education professor Michael Kirst says that research has focused on elementary grades, not middle-school levels, as SB 1133 would do. Also, that research has examined reducing class sizes to 20 students or fewer, not to 25 students as the
bill would require. Says Kirst, "This is really a dark continent in terms of any research."

In spite of this lack of evidence, some top state education officials believe that SB 1133's minor provisions aimed at improving teacher quality in low-performing schools make the bill worthwhile. Unfortunately, teacher-quality problems in California plunge to a much deeper level. Consider the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) given to prospective teachers in California.

The CBEST was designed, "to test basic reading, mathematics, and writing skills found to be important for the job of an educator," according to the official CBEST website. While teachers should be proficient in these areas, the CBEST sets such low standards that it proves nothing.

One Bay Area teacher who took the test in 2003 described the experience as "a joke" and said: "Compared with other standardized tests like the SAT and GRE, the CBEST is laughable. The math section tests maybe for a fourth-grade skill level, and the verbal sections are hardly better."

As an example, one question from the math section of the online practice test asks: "Which of the following is the most appropriate unit for expressing the weight of a pencil?" Possible multiple-choice answers are: pounds, ounces, quarts, pints, and tons.

Easy test questions are only part of the problem. Low passing standards mean that teachers do not even have to master simple questions like the one above. Scaled scores range from 20 to 80 points for each section, and a paltry score of 41 or higher is considered passing.

Further, the test can be taken repeatedly until a passing score is achieved, and test takers can take one, two, or three sections at any given test administration. Since each session is four hours long, potential teachers have twelve hours to complete the test. And then, of course, if they still fail, they can always take it again. And again. And again.

Good teachers are an essential element of good education. With a smart and effective teacher, students will learn regardless of class size. With an ignorant or incompetent teacher, students won't learn even if there are only five in a classroom. Teachers can't teach what they themselves don't know.

Rather than class-size reduction, Californians should focus on how we educate and produce our teachers. There are plenty of careers available to people who want to weigh pencils in tons or quarts. Teaching should not be one of them.

Lance T. Izumi is Director of Education Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. He can be reached via email at
lizumi@pacificresearch.org.

Rachel L. Chaney  is a Policy Fellow in Education Studies at the Pacific Research Institute She can be reached via email at rchaney@pacificresearch.org.