The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-01-10 BOT Agenda PacketThe Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees will begin immediately following the conclusion of the Board of Trustees Workshop but not prior to the posted start time. Page 1 of 4 WESTLAKE ACADEMY Mission / Vision Statement Westlake Academy is a nurturing, community owned International Baccalaureate Charter School whose mission is to achieve academic excellence and to develop life-long learners who become well-balanced, responsible global citizens. BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING AGENDA November 1, 2010 WESTLAKE TOWN HALL 3 VILLAGE CIRCLE – 2ND FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS/MUNICIPAL COURT ROOM Workshop Session 4:30 p.m. Regular Session 6:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Workshop Session 2. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2010, TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. Page 2 of 4 Develop inquiring, knowledgeable, caring and disciplined young people who use their unique talents to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect Strategic Plan-Desired Outcome: High Student Achievement 3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE STAFF TO STUDENT RATIO TO DETERMINE REASONABLE LEVELS OF THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER CLASS THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT RESEARCH. 4. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS’ ASSESSMENT (ISA). To ensure sufficient, well-managed resources to support and advance the mission of Westlake Academy Strategic Plan-Desired Outcome: Financial Stewardship & Sustainability 5. DISCUSSION OF BOARD OF TRUSTEE GOVERNANCE AS ILLUSTRATED IN DR. BRIAN CARPENTER’S CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD UNIVERSITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO EFFECTIVE CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNANCE; CHAPTERS 8-9. 6. BOARD RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION 7. ADJOURNMENT Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CITIZENS' PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS: This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Board on any matter whether or not it is posted on the agenda. The Board cannot by law take action nor have any discussion or deliberations on any presentation made to the Board at this time concerning an item not listed on the agenda. Any item presented may be noticed on a future agenda for deliberation or action. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below are considered routine by the Board of Trustees and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Board member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence. a. Consider approval of Resolution 10-21, Amendment to the Student Athletic/Extra Curricular Program Academic Eligibility policy. Page 3 of 4 5. BOARD RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION 6. BOARD CALENDAR - Secondary Boundary Parents Meetings (2 remaining) November 2, 2010; 7 pm; Home of Richard & Kimberly DePaolo November 10, 2010; 7 pm; Home of Jim & Christine Smith - Westlake Academy Thanksgiving Holiday November 22-26, 2010 - Town Offices Closed November 25-26, 2010 - Texas Charter Schools Association Conference, San Antonio November 29-December 1, 2010 (contact Ben) - Community Tree Lighting November 30, 2010; 6:30 pm; Westlake Academy campus - Board of Trustees Meeting December 13, 2010 - Annual Westlake Employee Award and Christmas Dinner December 15, 2010; 6:30 pm; Marriott Solana - Westlake Academy Winter Holiday December 20 – 31, 2010 - Town Offices Closed December 24th, 27th and 31st, 2010 7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Any Board member may request at a workshop and / or Board meeting, under “Future Agenda Item Requests”, an agenda item for a future Board meeting. The Board member making the request will contact the CEO with the requested item and the CEO will list it on the agenda. At the meeting, the requesting Board member will explain the item, the need for Board discussion of the item, the item’s relationship to the Board’s strategic priorities, and the amount of estimated staff time necessary to prepare for Board discussion. If the requesting Board member receives a second, the CEO will place the item on the Board agenda calendar allowing for adequate time for staff preparation on the agenda item. - None Page 4 of 4 8. ADJOURNMENT ANY ITEM ON THIS POSTED AGENDA COULD BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS LONG AS IT IS WITHIN ONE OF THE PERMITTED CATEGORIES UNDER SECTIONS 551.071 THROUGH 551.076 AND SECTION 551.087 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. I certify that the above notice was posted at the Town Hall of the Town of Westlake, 3 Village Circle, on October 27, 2010, by 5:00 p.m. under the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary, TRMC If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the Town Secretary 48 hours in advance at 817-490-5710 and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below are considered routine by the Board of Trustees and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Board member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence. a. Consider approval of Resolution 10-21, Amendment to the Student Athletic/Extra Curricular Program Academic Eligibility policy. Westlake Academy Item # 2 – Review of Consent Agenda Items Page 1 of 2 Memo Westlake Academy To: Honorable President and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Jamie Schmitz, Primary Principal/Campus Coordinator Rod Harding, MYP Principal Subject: Board Workshop of November 1st, 2010 Date: October 26th, 2010 Wkshp Discussion of Strategic Plan Desired Outcome: High Student Achievement; specifically, the review of the staff to student ratio to determine reasonable levels of the number of students per class through the presentation and discussion of relevant and important research ITEM Westlake Academy is a nurturing, community owned International Baccalaureate Charter School whose mission is to achieve academic excellence and to develop life-long learners who become responsible, global citizens. WESTLAKE ACADEMY MISSION/ VISION STATEMENT WESTLAKE ACADEMY VALUES Academic Achievement PYP, MYP, DP (IB Continuum) Caring Environment Fiscal Stewardship Communication/Transparency Engaged Stakeholders Maximizing Each Child’s Potential BACKGROUND (including policy implications and options): “High Student Achievement” is one of the five Desired Outcomes contained in the Academy’s Strategic Plan. Specific Outcome 10.0 under this Desired Outcome relates specifically to this agenda item. The portion of the Strategic Plan related to this topic is attached to this agenda memo for the Board’s review, information, and to provide context for the Board’s discussion at this workshop. Also related to this Desired Outcome is a summary of the most relevant and scientifically credible research, which will be reviewed with the Board at the workshop. Items covered will include: • Meta-analysis findings • Research methodology • Significant studies • Teacher quality Page 2 of 2 • Variables under teacher control • Theories and fallacies N/A FUNDING Hear presentation regarding class size and high student achievement and discuss this item within the context of the Board’s Strategic Plan for WA. RECOMMENDATION 1. Class size and teacher quality article-Jennifer Buckingham ATTACHMENTS: 2. Class size and teacher quality article synopsis Buckingham Article Overview Reducing class size is one of the most widely known and intuitively appealing school reforms. It is also one of the most hotly debated. Jennifer Buckingham of the Australia/New Zealand-based Centre for Independent Studies reviewed the research on class size and student achievement, summarizing her results in "Reflections on Class Size and Teacher Quality" (March 2003). She found that the large majority of studies showed no significant relationship between class size and student achievement, and the remainder showed only a small increment of improvement. In a given classroom, teacher quality has a far greater influence on achievement than the quantity of students. Among the several large and small studies that did find achievement associated with smaller class size, Buckingham identified a number of methodological issues that raise questions about the results. Many of these studies were poorly designed. For example, reforms such as curriculum changes were introduced at the same time as class size reduction, making the effect of class size alone impossible to determine. Moreover, in most cases, the persons participating in the experiment were cognizant that they were under scrutiny and motivated to produce positive results-the so-called "Hawthorne Effect." In addition, teacher and student assignments were not fully randomized, many of the studies were simply too brief or too small, and few were independently evaluated. Studies Examined Among the most important studies examined by Buckingham is Tennessee's Project STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio). It is frequently cited as proof that smaller classes are beneficial. However, even STAR's principal researchers attached several caveats to their findings; among them, the above-noted "Hawthorne Effect." In other words, the teachers and students knew they were part of an experiment. In addition, the schools that agreed to participate apparently tended to be the ones with an unusually high interest and enthusiasm for such reforms, perhaps inflating the results. Buckingham also points to certain unanticipated negative effects created by the class size reduction mandates that followed Project Star. In California, for example, attempts to mandate class size reduction forced school districts to hire under-qualified teachers. In Florida, a mandated reduction created an as yet unresolved budget crisis. Buckingham indicates that class size reduction would cost New Zealand an estimated NZ$113 (US$63 million) per year to reduce the pupil/teacher ratio by one student. One of the most prominent features of Buckingham's report is her analysis of the long- running debate between researchers Eric Hanushek of Stanford and Alan Krueger of Princeton. Despite Krueger's contentions regarding certain research methodology issues, the data clearly supports Hanushek: ". . . even when estimates are weighted and manipulated so as to avoid perceived bias toward studies showing no effect of class size-arguably creating bias in the opposite direction-the statistics do not show the 'systematic evidence of a relationship between class size and achievement' claimed by Krueger." As Buckingham makes clear, even if one accepts Krueger's most optimistic assumptions, Hanushek correctly finds that two-thirds of the studies show that smaller classes produce no effect on achievement or a negative effect (i.e., the smaller classes had lower achievement). Moreover, the debate between researchers like Hanushek and Krueger is mainly about whether studies show "statistically significant" effects, i.e., whether the achievement gain was due to class size or just a chance outcome. Statistical significance is the minimum necessary for scientific credibility. More relevant to the interests of policymakers and the public is practical significance, i.e., the matter of whether class size reduction yields an achievement gain that is worth the time, effort, and cost of producing it. As Buckingham makes clear, the tiny gains and high costs associated with class size reduction make it a very cost-ineffective way of improving student achievement. Class Size Conflicts of Interest Buckingham's analysis is particularly useful because she unravels the technical arguments that interfere with lay policymakers and the public arriving at an informed judgment. It also is a refreshing departure from the many studies reported by researchers whose work is supported by and/or written for an audience that has a stake in a particular outcome. Class size reduction may have only a small effect on achievement, but that is not its only impact. Teachers find it appealing because it lightens their workload and eases classroom management-particularly when students are little interested or badly behaved. Teacher organizations like smaller classes because they increase the number of teachers. And parents find class size reduction appealing because it permits more individual attention. However, compared with the achievement gains that can be produced by variables under teacher control, class size is a trivial factor. As Buckingham puts it: "Only one thing comes through loud and clear from all of the research: what goes on in the classroom is more important than how many children are involved." Article Details: Buckingham, J. (2003). Class size and teacher quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2, pp 71–86. EducationalResearchforPolicyandPractice 2:71–86,2003. ©2003 KluwerAcademicPublishers.PrintedintheNetherlands. ClassSizeandTeacherQuality JenniferBuckingham TheCentreforIndependentStudies,POBox92,StLeonardsNSW1590,Australia Abstract The‘VinsonReport’onPublicEducationinNSWhasbecomereceivedwisdom.Thereport’s recommendationonclasssizeshasattractedmoreattentionthananyother.Thisisunfortunate becauseitisonthisissuethattheReportisweakest.Athoroughappraisaloftheresearch onclasssizesrevealsthatmanystudieshavemethodologicalproblemsthatmaketheir applicationinarealworldcontextdoubtful;manystudieshaveintroducedotherreforms suchascurriculumchangesatthesametimeasclasssizereduction,makingtheirindividual effectsimpossibletodetermine;thelargemajorityofstudieshavefoundnosigniﬁcanteffects ofclasssizeonstudentachievement,whiletheremainderhaveshownsmallbeneﬁts,usually onlywhenclasseshavelessthan20students;classsizehaslesseffectwhenteachersare competent;andthesinglemostimportantinﬂuenceonstudentachievementisteacherquality. Researchshowsunequivocallythatitisfarmorevaluable,bothineducationalandﬁscal terms,tohavegoodteachersthanlotsofteachers.Itmustbeensuredthatthecurrentand incomingteachingforceisthebestitcanbe,beforeseekingtoexpandit. KeyWords:childdevelopment,classsize,publiceducation,studentachievement,teacher quality,teachingmethods Introduction In2000,theNewSouthWales(NSW)TeachersFederationinitiatedandfundedan ‘IndependentInquiryIntoPublicEducationinNSW’,chairedbyProfessorTony Vinson.ThisyeartheInquirycommitteepublisheditsreport(hereafterreferredto asthe‘VinsonReport’). Theﬁndingsoftheinquiryandtherecommendationsmadeinthethreevolumes ofitsﬁnalreportreceivedagreatdealofmediaandpoliticalattention,andrightly so.Thereportscontainawealthofinformationintheformofinsightsfromstu- dents,teachersandparents,aswellaspreviouslyunpublisheddatafromtheNSW DepartmentofEducation. Thereare,however,twocentralproblems.First,thecommitteeseemstohave madelittleefforttoseekoutandprovideinformationbeyondthesubmissions received,andonlythemostrudimentaryofliteraturereviewsandinternational comparisonsareoffered.Attemptingtocoveralltheresearchonschoolingwould havemadethereportunwieldyandtime-consuming,butthereareimportantrea- 72 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM sonstobethorough.Issuessuchasclasssize,whereexpertopinionisfarfrom unanimous,requiredetailedanalysisataprimarysourcelevel.Further,themajority ofsubmissionswerefromteachers,whoarearguably(ifunderstandably)biased towardsmallerclasses. Second,theconclusionsdrawnonthebasisoftheinformationpresentedare debatable,andconnectionsbetweenthevarioustroublesinschoolsareoftennot made.Anyonefamiliarwitheducationalresearchandawareofthechallengesthat classroomteachersfaceonadailybasisknowsthatthedifﬁcultiesassociatedwith largeclassesarerelatedtodisciplineproblemsandthewiderangeofabilitiesin eachclassroom.Similarly,whatmattersinaclassroommorethananythingelse, includingthenumberofstudents,isgoodteaching.TheVinsonreportdoesnot maketheseimportantpointsexplicit. Athoroughreviewoftheresearchonclasssizeandstudentachievementshows thatmuchofitisﬂawedinwaysthatmakeitunreasonabletoexpectthesame resultsinareal-worldsituation.Manystudieshaveintroducedotherreformsatthe sametimeasclasssizereduction,makingtheeffectofclasssizealoneimpossi- bletodetermine.Inmostcasesthepersonsparticipatingintheexperimentwere motivatedtoproducepositiveresults.Onlyasmallminorityofstudiesfoundany positiveeffectofsmallerclassesonstudentachievement,usuallyinclassesofless than20,andfewoftheseeffectswerelarge. Theﬁndingsonclasssizesuggestthatthereislittleifanyreasontobelievethat reducingclassesfrom25to20,asrecommendedbytheVinsonReport,willhavean effectlargeenoughtowarrantthecost.Researchtellsusthateffectiveteachingis muchmoreimportantthanthenumberofchildrenintheclassroom.Itis,therefore, muchwisertoinvestinthequalityofteachers,ratherthanquantity. GiventheauthoritytheVinsonReportanditsprincipalauthorhavebeenaf- forded,andthelikelihoodthatthereportwillbereferredtoregularlyinthefuture, itisnecessarytopointoutitsﬂawsandputreservationswithitsﬁndingsonthe publicrecord. ClassSizeandAchievement Intheareaofschoolreform,classsizereductionseemstoholdalltheaces.Itis popularwithacademics,teachers,studentsandparentsalike.Itseemsintuitivethat tohavefewerchildreninaclassisbetter. Researchappearstoconﬁrmthis.Severallargescalestudiesandmanysmaller onesﬁndarelationshipbetweenlearningandclasssize.Butacloserexamination revealscrucialmethodologicalproblemsandgeneralisationsthatmaketheﬁndings farlessthandeﬁnitive,evenmeaningless. Reviewersofthisresearch,whopresentitasevidencefortheimportanceand efﬁcacyofclasssizereduction,ofteneitherignoretheseproblemsoracknowledge theminpassing. CLASSSIZEANDTEACHERQUALITY 73 TheVinsonReporthadthescopeandexpertisetocovertheissueofclasssize thoroughly,butitrelatestheﬁndingsofvariousstudies,oftenfromsecondary sources,withouttheimportantcaveats.Thesecaveatsaresuchthatmuchofthere- searchisinapplicableinothercontexts.Thatis,thesameresultscannotbeexpected underdifferentcircumstances. Thereportdismissestheseproblems.Itconcludesthattheevidenceofare- lationshipbetweensmallerclasssizeandbetterlearningoutcomesisstrongand thattheeffectislargeenoughtowarranttheexpenseofsuchreformsinNSW stateschools.ItrecommendsreducingclasssizesinNSWstateschoolsfroma maximumof25toamaximumof20inKindergartenthroughtoYearTwo(Vinson Report1:85). Althoughclasssizereductionisoneofthemostexpensivereformsproposed bytheVinsonReport,onlysevenpagesaredevotedtojustifyingit.Themeritsof smallerclassesareconsideredself-evidentandinarguable,yetthereport’sliterature reviewisincompleteandinsufﬁcienttoconﬁdentlydrawtheseconclusions. Hundredsofstudiescanbecitedontherelationshipbetweenclasssizeand studentachievement.Ehrenberg,Brewer,Gamoran&Willms(2001a)claimthat: Mosthavefoundsomeevidencethatsmallerclassesbeneﬁtstudents,particularlyintheearlygrades, andespeciallykidsatriskofbeingunderachievers.Unfortunately,mostofthesestudieswerepoorly designed.Teacherandstudentassignmentswererarelysufﬁcientlyrandom;anumberofstudieswere simplytoobriefortoosmall,andtoofewhadindependentevaluation.(p.78) Otherresearchers,suchasHanushek(1998),gofurther,arguingthatmostof thesestudiesarenotonlyﬂawedbutalsofailtoproduceconvincingevidence thatclasssizehasanysigniﬁcanteffectonstudentachievement.Hanushekisnot withouthiscriticsandsomeoftheirpointsofcontentionwithhisresearchare worthconsidering. Hanushek versus Krueger EconomistsEricHanushekofStanfordUniversityandAlanKruegerofPrinceton Universityhaveuseddifferentmethodstoconductmeta-analysesofstudiespro- vidingestimatesofclasssizeeffectsupto1994.Thedebatethathastakenplacein recentyearsbetweenthesetwoeconomistsisveryimportant. Hanushekiswellknownforhisresearchdemonstratingthatthereisnodirect relationshipbetweenﬁnancialresourcesandschoolperformance.Heclaimsthat onlyasmallminorityofstudiesshowasigniﬁcantpositiveeffectofsmallerclasses onstudentachievement. KruegerisbestknownforhisworkonProjectSTAR.Oneofthelargestand mostinﬂuentialstudiesofclasssizereduction,itsresultsarefrequentlycitedas proofofthebeneﬁtsofsmallerclasses. Inameta-analysisof59studiesyielding277estimatesoftheeffectofclasssize onstudentachievement,Hanushek(1997)foundthat14.8%oftheseestimateswere positiveandsigniﬁcant.Thatis,studentsinsmallerclassesshowedsigniﬁcantly 74 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM higherachievementthantheircounterpartsinlargerclasses.Theremainingesti- mateswereeitherinsigniﬁcant(nodifferenceinachievement–71.9%)ornegative andsigniﬁcant(smallerclasseshadlowerachievement–13.4%). Krueger(2002)arguesthatHanushek’smethodofselectingstudies,extracting andcountingtheestimatesisirrationalandhasproducedabiasedresult.Krueger’s maincriticismsare: •ThestudiesfromwhichHanushekdrewthemostestimatesarethosewhich producedinsigniﬁcantornegativeresults. •Whenaninsigniﬁcantorunexpectedresultisfoundbyresearchers,itreduces theirchanceofpublicationsotheyoftenlookfordisaggregatedeffects,separating thesampleintosmallersub-samples. •Thishastwoconsequences.First,anover-representationofinsigniﬁcantand negativeestimates.Second,theseestimatesarelesspowerfulbecausethesample sizeissmaller. •Itis,therefore,erroneoustocounteachoftheeffectestimatesfrommultiple- estimatestudiesandgivethemequalweightaseffectestimatesfromsingle-estimate studies. Kruegerproposesthreealternativemethodsofanalysis: (a)Estimatesshouldbegivenweightsproportionaltothenumberofestimates yieldedinthestudy.Forexample,asingle-estimatestudyshouldbecountedas one,butanestimatefromastudyyieldingfourestimatesshouldbecountedasone quarter. (b)Sincesomestudiesarebetterdesignedthanothers,theseshouldbegivenmore weightintheanalysis.Hissuggestedmethodiscitationfrequency;thatis,stud- ieswhicharereferredtomoreofteninacademicliteraturewouldbegivenmore weight. (c)Becausethesmallersub-samplesinmultiple-estimatestudiesreducetheirsta- tisticalpower,regressionanalysisshouldbeusedtoestimatewhattheeffectesti- matewouldbeifthestudyhadyieldedoneestimateonly. Onlytheﬁrstoftheseisconvincing.IfKruegeriscorrectthatmultipleestimates fromonesamplearebiasedtowardsinsigniﬁcanceandthattheseresultshavea greatermarginoferror,theyprobablyshouldhavelessweightinameta-analysis andthereforelessinﬂuenceontheresults. Proposedmethods(b)and(c)areproblematic.Regardingthesecond,citation frequencyisnotaprovenindicatorofquality.Itmayjustaseasilybebiased towardstudieswithonetypeofresultortheother.Asforthethird,thefurther astatisticalanalysismovesfromtheoriginaldata,themoreroomforerrorandthe lessmeaningfultheresults. HanushekcountersKrueger’scriticismswell. •Hearguesthatmultiple-estimatestudiesprovidemoreinformationthanasingle estimateandshouldnotbeweightedlessinananalysis. •HerespondstoKrueger’sclaimofover-representationofinsigniﬁcantresults frommulti-estimatestudiesbyrestatingKrueger’sownargumentthatinsigniﬁcant CLASSSIZEANDTEACHERQUALITY 75 Table1 Krueger’s(2002)Re-analysisofHanushek’s(1997)Meta-analysis. Result Hanushek:Krueger(1):Krueger(2):Krueger(3): EstimatesEstimatesEstimatesEstimates weightedweightedbyweightedbyderivedfrom equallyinverseofcitationregression numberoffrequencyanalysesof estimatesoriginal instudyestimates Positive&14.8%25.5%30.6%33.5% Signiﬁcant Insigniﬁcant71.9%61.2%62.3%58.4% Negative&13.4%10.3%7.1%8.0% Signiﬁcant Source:Krueger(2002,p.11.) resultsarelesslikelytobepublished,implyingthatthereisabiastowardpositive signiﬁcantresultsintheliterature. •Hedismissestheaccuracyofderivingsingleestimatesfrommultipleestimates onthebasisthatdifferentsub-samplesofstudents(forexample,disadvantaged students)willyielddifferentresults.Thisimportantinformationislostwithaggre- gation. WhetheroneispersuadedmorebythecasepresentedbyHanushekorby Krueger,thestrongestevidenceisinthestatisticsproducedbytheirvariousmeth- odsofanalysis. Table1showsthatevenwhenestimatesareweightedandmanipulatedsoas toavoidperceivedbiastowardstudiesshowingnoeffectofclasssize–arguably creatingbiasintheoppositedirection–thestatisticsdonotshowthe‘systematic evidenceofarelationshipbetweenclasssizeandachievement’claimedbyKrueger (2002,p.31). IfweacceptKrueger’sﬁrstandleastcontroversialproposal–thatmultipleesti- matesfromasinglestudyshouldnotcarryasmuchweightasasingleestimate (whichisdebatableevenso)–onlyoneinfourstudiesfoundthatstudentsin smallerclasseshadachievementratessigniﬁcantlyhigherthanstudentsinlarger classes. 76 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM OtherEvidence Theaboveconclusionisconsistentwiththeﬁndingsofotherliteraturereviews. TheVinsonreportdescribestwonationaldataanalysesandfourliteraturereviews asfollows. Nationaldataanalyses: •Wenglinsky(1997):InYears4and8,‘lowerstudent/teacherratioswereposi- tivelyrelatedtohighermathematicsachievement’(seeVinsonReport1,p.83).In- consistently,thereportdoesnotdismissthisﬁndingduetotheuseofstudent/teacher ratioinsteadofclasssize,butdoessowithregardtotheworkofEricHanushek. •ReesandJohnson(2000):“...noevidencethatsmallerclassesaloneledto greaterstudentachievement”(asabove). Literaturereviews: •Glass&Smith(1979):‘...themajorbeneﬁtsofreducingclasssizeoccurred wherethenumberofstudentswaslessthan20’(asabove). •Robinson&Wittebols(1986):‘positiveeffectswerelesslikelyifteachersdidnot changetheirmethodsandproceduresinthesmallerclasses’(SeeVinsonReport 1,p.84). •Slavin(1990):Foundthatclassesoflessthan20hada‘smallpositiveeffecton studentsthatdidnotpersistaftertheywereremovedfromthesmallerclass’(as above). •Hanushek(1998):‘Theevidenceaboutimprovementsinstudentachievementthat canbeattributedtosmallerclassesturnsouttobemeagreandunconvincing’ (Hanushek1998,citedinVinsonReport1,p.84). Oftheabovesixstudies,threeconcludethatthereisnolastingbeneﬁttostu- dentsofreducingclasssize,twoconcludethatclassesmusthavelessthan20 studentstomakeadifferenceandonefoundthattheeffectofclasssizewas mediatedbyteachingstyle. Aswellasthesereviews,theVinsonReportdetailstheﬁndingsofthreemajor studiestheydescribeas‘trialprogrammesandlargeﬁeldexperiments’–Project STAR,SAGEand‘Prime-Time’.Eachoftheseispresentedasproofpositivethat smallerclassesarebeneﬁcialtostudents.Below,theVinsonReport’scomments willbesummarised,followedbyamoreaccuraterepresentationofthestudies’ ﬁndings. •ProjectSTAR(StudentTeacherAchievementRatio)inTennessee: AccordingtotheVinsonReport: Thisisthe‘mostscientiﬁcallyrigorous’and‘best-designedﬁeldexperimentever’ (VinsonReport1,p.82).Theﬁndingsreportedarethatthepositiveeffectsofsmall classes(13-17students)inK-3onachievementlevelsarecumulative(thelonger thetimespentinasmallclass,thelargertheeffect)andpersistent(theeffectlasts intolatergradeswhenstudentsreturntoregularsizeclasses).Italsoreportsthat gainsweregreaterfordisadvantagedstudents. CLASSSIZEANDTEACHERQUALITY 77 TheVinsonReportacknowledgesthatthenon-randomself-selectionofschools intotheprojectmaybeaproblem,becausesuchschoolsmighthaveagreater interestandenthusiasmforsuchreforms,perhapsinﬂatingtheresults. MissingfromtheVinsonReport: ThesourceoftheVinsonReport’sinformationonProjectSTARisnotclear,but veryrecentanalysesoftheProjectSTARdatabyitsprincipalresearchersisless straightforward.Ina2001article,JeremyFinnandcolleaguesreportedthatthe gainsmadebysmallclassstudentsontheirregularclasspeersdeclinedwhen theyreturnedtoregularclasses,andthatsigniﬁcantenduringeffectsofclasssize occurredonlyforstudentswhohadbeeninasmallclassforthreeorfouryears. Therewasonlyweakandmixedevidenceofalargereffectforminorities(Finn, Gerber,Achilles,Boyd-Zaharias,2001). AnotherstudyfromprincipalresearchersonProjectSTARfoundthatclass- roompracticesdifferedbetweenthesmallclassesthatachievedthelargestand smallestgains(Boyd-Zaharias&Pate-Bain,2000).Thatis,smallclassbeneﬁts weremediatedbythequalityandmethodofteaching. Althoughitmakesanodtoit,theVinsonReportdoesnotexplainthefullrami- ﬁcationsofthefactthatProjectSTARsuffersfromthemethodologicalproblemof the‘HawthorneEffect’.Thisiswheretheparticipantsinanexperimentareaware oftheirroleandthepotentialconsequences.Hoxby(2000)explainsthatthiscauses threeproblems:First,incentiveconditionsarealtered,sothatresultsproduced underexperimentalconditionsmaynotnecessarilybetheresultsinreality.Sec- ond,somepeopletemporarilyincreasetheirproductivitywhilebeingevaluated, especiallyiftheyhaveaninterestintheexperimentsucceeding.Third,people sometimesundotherandomnessoftheexperimentduetoexternalpressures,for instancebyplacingcertainchildreninsmallclassesduetodemandsfromparents. ThemethodologicalproblemsofProjectSTARcannotbedismissedas‘crit- icisms’.TheycreateseriousdoubtoverwhethertheresultsachievedbyProject STARwouldbereplicatedunderdifferentconditions. Evenifthesedoubtscouldbesetaside,theﬁndingsareinconsistentwiththe recommendationsmadebytheVinsonInquiry.SmallclassesinProjectSTARare 13-17students.BarbaraNyeofTennesseeStateUniversity,whohasstudiedthe resultsindetail,hasbeenquotedassayingthat‘thepublicshouldn’tnecessarily expectthesameresultsfromclassesofaround20asthoseof15.It’stakenalong timetogetthatmessageacross’(Jacobson,2001).Itseemsthemessagestillhasa waytogo. NotonlydoestheVinsonReportrecommendthatclasssizesbereducedtoa numberthathasnotbeenshowntohaveanyeffect,italsorecommendsdoingthis inclassesfromKindergartenthroughtoYear2atthesametime.InProjectSTAR, enduringresultswereonlyfoundforstudentswhohadbeeninasmallclassfor threeorfouryears.Thissuggeststhatitwouldnotbeeffectivetoreduceclasses inallyearlevelsatonce,buttostaggerclasssizereduction,beginningwitha kindergartencohort. 78 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM GiventhattheProjectSTARﬁndingscouldbeviewedasirrelevant,itmayseem futiletopointouthowtheyshouldcorrectlybeinterpreted.Butthefactthatthey havebeenreportedinaccuratelyandwithoutsufﬁcientthoughttotheirimplications indicatestheincautiousapproachtakentothisresearchintheVinsonReport. •TheSAGE(StudentAchievementGuaranteeinEducation)inWisconsin: AccordingtotheVinsonReport: UndertheSAGEprogramme,K-3classeswerereducedtoanaverageof15in schoolswhereatleast50%ofstudentswerelivingbelowthepovertyline.Find- ingscitedarethosefroma1999studyshowingthat‘Year1studentsintheSAGE programachievedbettertestresultsthanstudentsincomparisonschoolsinlan- guage,artsandmaths.Resultsfromgradestwoandthreegenerallyfollowthe samepattern’.(VinsonReport1,p.83). MissingfromtheVinsonReport: MorerecentevidencepublishedbyMolnar,Smith,Zahorik,Halbach,Ehrle,Hoff- manandBeverleyCross(2001)conﬁrmsthatstudentsinSAGEschoolsperformed signiﬁcantlybetterthanstudentsincomparisonschoolsonavarietyofmeasures. Mostimportantly,however,thiscannotbeattributedtoreductionsinclasssize. SchoolsinvolvedintheSAGEprogrammeimplementedavarietyofreformsatthe sametime: 1.class-sizereduction 2.alongerschooldayandincreasedcollaborationwithcommunityorganisations 3.amorerigorousacademiccurriculum 4.staffdevelopmentandaccountabilitymechanisms. Inaddition,thesameteamofresearchersdiscoveredimportantdifferencesin teachingstylesbetweenSAGEandcomparisonschools.InstructioninSAGE schoolswaspredominantlyteacher-centredasopposedtostudent-centred.(Molnar etal.,2001).DifferenceswerealsoidentiﬁedbetweenclassroomswithinSAGE schools.Teachersinhigherachievingclassroomsshowedapreferenceforstruc- tured,goal-oriented,explicitinstructionandclassroomswithestablishedroutines wherelearningproceedssequentiallyandataquickpace.Teachersinlowerachiev- ingclassestendedtobelievethattheprimaryadvantagesofreduced-sizeclasses aretheopportunitiestodevelopcriticalthinking,topermitstudentstochoosetheir activitiesandtohavemoreactivitiesandproblem-solvinglessons.Theyalsohada morepermissivemanagementstyleandamorerandomlessonstructure. So,asinProjectSTAR,theaptitudeoftheclassroomteacheristhekey,notthe numberofchildren. •Prime-TimeprojectinIndiana: AccordingtotheVinsonReport: Theinitialresultsofatwoyearstudyin24schoolswhereclasseswerereduced toanaverageof18were‘sopromising’(VinsonReport1,p.83)thatK-3class sizeswerereducedinallIndianastateschools.Oneanalysisapparentlyfound ‘substantiallylargergainsinreadingandmathsachievementforstudentsinsmall classes’(McGivern,GilmanandTillitski(1989)citedinVinsonReport1,p.83). CLASSSIZEANDTEACHERQUALITY 79 TheVinsonReportgivesamoreaccuraterepresentationofthevalueofthis studythanitdoesofSTARandSAGE.Itnotesthatthestudywasnotrandom,that otherchangesinschoolpolicyoccurredatthesametimeandraisesthepossibility thatteachersweremotivatedtoensurethatsmallclassesworked. MissingfromtheVinsonReport: Theextensionofclasssizereductionfromtheoriginal24schoolstoallschools occurredafteronlyoneyear.Evenreviewerswhofavourclasssizereductionhave admitteditwastherefore‘notpossibletocompareresultsforsmallclasseswith acomparablegroupoflargerclasses’(Biddle&Berliner,2002,p.6).Theresults citedintheVinsonReportwereactuallyfromastudyofdatacollectedbefore projectPrimeTimewasinitiated. Severalotherlargescalestudieshavebeenconducted,theresultsofwhichare notpresentedintheVinsonReport.Theyaresummarisedbrieﬂybelow. •CaliforniaClassSizeReductionInitiative: InspiredbyProjectSTAR,K-3classsizesinallCalifornianschoolswerereduced fromamaximumof33(average29)toamaximumof20.Tomeetthisrequirement, schoolswereforcedtohireunderqualiﬁedteachers. TheClass-SizeReduction(CSR)ResearchConsortiumconcludedonthebasis offouryearsofdataanalysisthat‘nostrongrelationshipcanbeinferredbetween achievementandCSR’(Stecher&Bohrnstedt,2002,p.2).Jepsen&Rivkin(2002) foundthatthelargenumberofextrateachersdemandedbyCSRledtoadeterio- rationinteacherqualitywhichinsomecasesfullyoffsetanybeneﬁtsofsmaller classes. •Hoxby’s(2000)PopulationVariationStudyinConnecticut: Inthisstudy,Hoxby(2000)lookedattherelationshipbetweenachievementand changesinclasssizeduetonaturalvariationinagecohortsinthepopulation. Thisobservationalapproachavoidspossibleexperimentalmanipulationeffects. Sheusestwodifferentmethodstocomparetheclasssizeandachievementof adjacentcohorts,takingintoaccountenrolmentdataandmaximumclasssizereg- ulations. Neithermethodshowsthatsmallerclassesproducedachievementgains.Even giventheprecisionofthedataanalysis,whichallowedtinyimprovementstobesig- niﬁcantatthe5%level(theimprovementsfoundinProjectSTARwouldhavebeen signiﬁcantiffoundinthisstudy),theeffectofreducingclasssizewasestimated tobeclosetozero.Further,theresultsdonotsuggestthatclasssizereductionsare moreeffectiveinschoolsthatservelow-incomeorAfricanAmericanstudents(in fact,theonlysigniﬁcantresultwasanimprovementinfourthgradereadingscores ofhigh-incomestudents). •ChristchurchHealthandDevelopmentSurvey: AlongitudinalstudyconductedinNewZealand,althoughnotdesignedtostudy classsizeeffects,hasyieldedinformationthatcanbeusedasanobservational study. 80 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM BoozerandMaloney(2001)ﬁrstcomparedtheresultsofchildrenpermanently insmall(19),medium(29.9)andlarge(33.8)classesbetweentheagesof8to13 years.Onlyasmallnumberofstudentswerepermanentlyinclassesofthesesizes overtheageperiod,andtheresultswereinsigniﬁcant.Theythencomparedstudents whose average classsizeoverthisageperiodwassmall(21.2),medium(29.7)or large(33.2).Theyfoundsigniﬁcanteffectsonlyforchildrenin persistently smaller averageclassesbetweentheagesof8and13,onbothchildhoodtestscoreim- provementsaswellasonearlyadultoutcomessuchascompletededucationand unemployment. •UKNationalChildDevelopmentStudy Inanotherobservationalstudyofexistingdatafromthe1960s,Iacovou(2001) controlledforschooltype/sizeandstreamingtoaccountforthepossibility(and someevidence)thatlessablechildrenaremorelikelytobeallocatedtoasmaller class–whichwouldmakethedifferenceinachievementindifferentsizeclasses internallycreated. Iacovoulookedataverageclasssizeatage7(excludingstudentsinclassesof lessthan20andmorethan45)andfoundthatclasssizewasrelatedtostudent attainmentinreadingbutnotmaths.Asmallereffectpersistedtoage11onlyfor girlsandforchildrenfromlargefamilies.Therewasnoevidenceofgreaterbeneﬁt todisadvantagedstudents. •ThirdInternationalMathsandScienceSurvey(TIMSS) Classsizeeffectsfor18countrieswereestimatedusingmathsandscienceperfor- manceinTIMSSandaverageclasssizedata.WoessmannandWest(2002)found thatclasssizeeffectsvariedgreatlybetweencountries,withlargeeffectsinonly twocountries:GreeceandIceland. Whentheycomparedthesecountrieswiththosewherenoclasssizeeffectwas found,severalthingswereapparent.First,countrieswithlargeclasssizeeffects performedbelowaverageinternationally,whereasthosewithsmallornoclasssize effectsperformedaboveaverageinternationally.Also,countrieswithlargeclass sizeeffectshadlesseducated,lowerpaidteacherscomparedtocountrieswithsmall ornoclasssizeeffects. Fromthistheydrewseveralconclusions.First,classsizeeffectscannotbe imputedfromonecountrytoanotherbecauseschoolsystemsvarysigniﬁcantly. Second,classsizeismoreimportantwhenteachersarelesseffective.Investment infewer,morehighlyeducatedandbetterpaidteachersseemstoresultinhigher studentachievement. AustralianResearch Australianresearchonclasssizesisscarce.AstudybyBourke(1986)inMel- bourneinthe1980sfoundthatsmallerclasseswererelatedtohigherachievement inmaths,butKeeves(1995)hasnotedthatanalysisoftheseresultsattheclass levelrevealedthatclasssizewasalsorelatedtostudentability(sorting)andthat CLASSSIZEANDTEACHERQUALITY 81 controllingforthischangedtherelationshipbetweenclasssizeandachievement. Keevesconcludesthat‘thereislittleclearevidencetosupportthecostlyreductions inclasssize’(Keeves,1995,p.148). ResearchconductedinBrisbanebyJackCambellisoftencitedinsupportof smallerclasses.PublishedinamagazineoftheQueenslandTeachersUnionin 1991,thisstudyisdifﬁculttoobtain.Secondarysourcesdescribeitasﬁndingthat reducingclassesfrom35to26studentsincreasedthe‘timeontask’by22days perschoolyear(AustralianEducationUnion,1995).Whetherthisstudycontrolled forthesortingfactorwhichcausedproblemsinBourke’sstudy,andhowincreased timeontaskmighthavetranslatedintoincreasedstudentachievementisnotknown. TheanalysisofTIMSSresultsdescribedabovedidnotleadtoanymeaningful ﬁndingsforAustralia.TheresearchersfoundthataverageAustralianclasssizes inmathsandsciencewerenotgoodproxiesforactualclasssizes,sodifferences instudentachievementbetweenclassesofdifferentsizescouldnotbeconﬁdently attributedtothesizeoftheclass. Implications TheVinsonReportestimatesthatthereductionofclasssizestoamaximumof20in YearsK-2wouldcost$47milliondollarsperannumindisadvantagedschoolsand $225millionperannuminallschools.Thisisthemostexpensiverecommendation made,theallschoolsﬁgureof$225millionexceedingthetotalcostofallother recommendationsby40%. Eventhisﬁgureunderestimatesthecostofclasssizereductionasitaccounts onlyforextrastafﬁngcosts.Eachadditionalteachernecessitatesanadditional classroom,mustbeeducatedandtrained,willneedextraclassroomresourcesand requireon-goingprofessionaldevelopment.Thecostofmoreclassroomshasbeen conservativelyestimatedbytheNSWOppositiontobeintheorderof$140million initially(LiberalPartyofNewSouthWales,notdated). Notonlyisthecostlarge,buttheﬁndingsofthestudiesdescribedaboveare mixedandweakatbestontheissueofclasssize.Onlyonethingcomesthrough loudandclearfromtheresearch:whatgoesonintheclassroomismoreimportant thanhowmanychildrenareinvolved.Thisisnottosaythatclassroomactivity isunaffectedbythenumberofchildren,butthatprovenandappropriateteaching methodsareparamount. WhatthendoestheVinsonReportmakeofthis?Itrecommendsthatlarge scaleclasssizereductiontakesplaceinstateschools,bringingclasssizesinK- 2toamaximumof20.Thereportsaysthatithasbeenguided‘notonlybythe consistencyoftheﬁndings,butalsothequalityoftheresearchyieldingparticular results’(VinsonReport1,p.84). MuchoftheVinsonReport’sinformationonclasssizeresearchcomesfroma shortliteraturereviewbyBiddleandBerliner(2002),includingtheirconclusions, whicharereproducedverbatim.YetBiddleandBerlinerseemjustasconfusedas 82 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM theauthorsoftheVinsonReport,claimingthat‘Althoughtheresultsofindividual studiesarealwaysquestionable,ahostofdifferentstudies...suggestanumber ofgeneralconclusions’(p.14),namelythatclasssizereductionisbeneﬁcialfor studentsintheshortandlongterminacademicachievementandotheroutcomes. Inotherwords,theseauthorsseemtobesayingthatalargenumberofpoorly designedstudieswithmediocreresultscanbeamassedintostrongevidenceofa signiﬁcanteffect. EvenlessconvincingistheVinsonReport’sattempttojustifytheirrecom- mendationinthefaceoftheevidencetheyhavepresentedtothecontrary.They arguethatpolicymakersshouldnot‘awaitanunlikelytotalconsensus...butto basepolicyonthebestavailableinformation,afterconsideringthestrengthsand limitationsoftheresearch’(VinsonReport1,p.81).Completeagreementfrom researchersmaybetoomuchtoask,butiftheReport’sauthorsfollowtheirown adviceandseriouslyconsidertheevidencepresented,notwithstandingtheevidence theyneglected,theywouldhavetoconcludethatthebestavailableinformation isthatreducingclasssizebytheamounttheyrecommendwouldnotjustifythe expense. TheoriesandFallaciesofClassSizeReduction Thereareseveraltheoriesastowhysmallerclassesshouldbebeneﬁcial: 1.Increasedindividualattentionandinstruction; 2.Greaterscopeforinnovationandstudent-centredteaching; 3.Increasedteachermorale; 4.Fewerdisruptions. Theideathatateachercandevotemoretimetoeachstudentinasmallerclass, therebyincreasingtheamountstudentslearn,isthemostintuitivelyappealingof allthesetheories.Yetsimplecalculationsshowthisappealtobemisplaced. Inasixhourschoolday,approximatelyﬁvehoursisspentintheclassroom. Ifhalfthistimeisspentdirectlyaddressingtheclass,andtheotherhalfonindi- vidualattention,eachchildwouldhypotheticallyreceivesixminutesofindividual instructioninaclassof25and7.5minutesofindividualinstructioninaclassof 20.Thatis,anextra$1150perstudentperannum(VinsonReport,p.86)buysan extra1.5minutesperdayofteacher’stime.Iftwo-thirdsofclassroomtimeisspent onindividualattention,studentsgettwominutesmoreinaclassof20than25. Thesecalculationsmaybesimplistic,butindicatetheinsubstantialchangein individualattentionthata20%reductioninclasssizebrings,atconsiderablecost. AnothercountertotheindividualinstructiontheorycomesfromProjectSTAR. Someoftheregularsizeclasseswereassignedateacher’saide.Eventhoughchil- drenintheseclassespresumablyhadtwiceasmuchindividualattention,therewas nodifferenceinachievementlevelsbetweenregularsizeclasseswithandwithout teacher’saides. CLASSSIZEANDTEACHERQUALITY 83 Thesecondtheory–thatsmallclassesprovidethepotentialformoreeffective teachingstrategies–suggeststhatclasssizemaybeconducivetogreaterstudent achievementbutdoesnotguaranteeit.Italsosuggeststhatsmallclassesalone donotproducegainsinlearning;thattheirbeneﬁtsaremediatedbyteacherqual- ity.Researchdiscussedearlierdemonstratesthattherewerenotabledifferencesin teachingandclassroommanagementstylesbetweenhighandlowachievingsmall classes. Teachersrarelychangetheirteachingandclassroommanagementstyles.Even ProjectSTARdatashowsthis,withfewteachersmodifyingtheirclassroomprac- ticesindifferentsizeclassesafterattendingaprofessionaldevelopmentprogram (Ehrenbergetal.,2001b).Ifthisisthecase,thenreducingclasssizewillhave littleornoeffectwithoutensuringthatteachersadoptinstructionandmanagement practicesproventobeeffectiveinsmallclasses.Thissubstantialinvestmentin professionaldevelopmentonceagainaddstothecostofclasssizereduction,and wouldmorethanlikelybeequallyeffectivewithoutchangingclasssizes. Thelasttwotheoriesofsmallclassbeneﬁtsarerelatedandarethemostconvinc- ing.Smallclassesareoverwhelminglypopularwithclassroomteachersanditisnot difﬁculttounderstandwhy.Schoolsarebeingforcedtocopewith,andattemptto educate,anincreasingnumberofstudentswhoareuninterestedandbadlybehaved. InsomeareasofSydney,schoolshavedifﬁcultyattractingandretainingteachers primarilyforthisreasonandteachersinallareasareﬁndingtheirjobsmoreand moredifﬁcultandstressful. Fewerstudentslikethisinaclasswouldmaketeachingmucheasier.Reducing classsizesmightbejustiﬁableifitcanbeshownthattheincreasedcostofreducing classsizeisoffsetbythedecreasedcostofteacherattrition,stressandsickleave. Itmustbeensured,however,thatanewdemandforteachersdoesnotresultin thesamesituationasinCalifornia,wheretheleastqualiﬁedandleastexperienced teachersweredisproportionatelyemployedinthemostdisadvantagedschools.The mostsimpleandeffectivewaytoavoidthisistoofferﬁnancialincentivesforteach- ersindifﬁcult-to-staffschools,whichmeansdepartingfromrigidwagestructures basedonyearsofservice. Teacherquality Commonsensesaysthatitisbettertohaveagreatteacherinfrontofalargeclass thanamediocreteacherinfrontofasmallone. WritingintheBulletinoftheUSNationalAssociationofSecondarySchool Principals,KaplanandOwings(2002)statethat‘Researchafﬁrmsthatteaching qualityisthesinglemostimportantfactorinﬂuencingstudentachievement’,and citeawidevarietyofsupportingstudies.AccordingtoRonaldFerguson,aHarvard Universityeconomist,researchshowsthatteacherquality,notclasssize,isthemost importantfactorineducation(Matthews&Strauss,1997).Australianresearchhas 84 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM alsoshownthatthelargestdifferencesinachievementbetweenstudentsisthat betweenstudentsindifferentclasses(Rowe,2002). The‘RamsayReport’ontheReviewofTeacherEducationinNSW(Ram- say,2000),providesplentyofevidencetosupporttheprimacyofteacherquality, demonstratingtheimpactofteachersonstudentachievementandthebeneﬁtsfrom investinginteachereducation. Althoughmuchhasbeensaidabouttheimportanceofteacherquality,what makesagoodteacherisyettobeadequatelydeﬁned.Weknowthatsometeach- ersbringabouthigherlevelsofachievementfromtheirstudentsthanothers,but consensusonhowisstillelusive. Acertainproportionofgoodteachingcomprisestemperament,charisma,en- thusiasmandotherqualitiesthatcannotbemeasuredortaught.However,several criteriacanbeidentiﬁed: 1.masteryofsubjectmatterandcurriculumcontent; 2.awarenessoftheindividualabilitiesandcapabilitiesofstudents; 3.classroommanagementskills; 4.useofteachingstrategiesthatareproveneffective; 5.goodverbalcommunicationskills. Eachofthesecapacitiesisnecessarybutinsufﬁcientonitsown.Strongcontent knowledgeiscrucialbutnotenough–teachingalsorequiresasetofprofessional skillsseparatefrombutrelatedtothesubjectbeingtaught(Darling-Hammond, 2000;Haycock,1998;Goldsmith,2002).Theseskillsaresupposedtobegained fromteachereducationcourses. Whatconstituteseffectivepedagogyisbeyondthescopeofthispaper,but thereseemstobeagreementthatteachereducationinAustralianuniversitiesis inadequateinimpartingbothpedagologicalandbehaviourmanagementskillsto teachers.Thereistoomuchemphasisonthetheoreticaloverthepractical–too muchBloomandnotenoughclassroom.Newteachershaveusuallyspentonly afewweeksinteachingpracticum,andsupportforthemintheextremelydifﬁ- cultﬁrstyearinaschoolispatentlyinadequate(Ramsay,2000;VinsonReport3, Chapter11). Anotherproblemisthelackofongoingprofessionaldevelopmentforclassroom teachers.TheNSWDepartmentofEducationundervaluestheneedforteachers tobeawareofnewdevelopmentsinbothcurriculumandpedagogy,andteachers havetoofewincentivestoseekoutprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesfor themselves. Improvingthequalityandeffectivenessoftheteachingforceasabodywillnot beachievablethroughbetterpre-serviceandin-servicetrainingalone.Someteach- erswillbeunaffectedbyanyamountofprofessionaldevelopment.Improvingthe teacherforceinvolvesbothenhancingtheskillsofwillingteachersandremoving incompetentandunwillingteachers. Thisisbestachievedbyallowingschoolstohireandﬁre.Thecentralized stafﬁngofpublicschoolsinNSWisoneoftheirgreatestimpedimentstosuccess. CLASSSIZEANDTEACHERQUALITY 85 Giventhatteachersarethemostimportantinﬂuenceoneducationalachievement, theinabilityofpublicschools,whetherthroughprincipalsorschoolboards,to ‘choosetheirteam’,putsthematgreatdisadvantage. Conclusions Whenitcomestoteachers,qualityisfarmoreimportantthanquantity.Therecom- mendationsonclasssizereductionserveonlytoweakenthecaseformoreurgent andsupportableinterventions,suchasimprovedteachereducationandprofessional development. GiventhatgoodAustraliandataonclasssizeeffectsisnon-existent,andthat researchfromothercountriesisinconclusiveonwhetherthereareevenmarginal beneﬁtsfromclasssizereduction,itisprudentthatgovernmentsseekmoreevi- dencebeforeembarkingonwhatwilleventuallybeamultibilliondollarspending spree. Ultimately,however,decisionsaboutclasssizearebestlefttoschools.Given theopportunitytousetheirfundingallocationastheyseeﬁt,someschoolsmight decidetohaveslightlylargerclasseswithbetterqualiﬁedteachers,orinvestina ‘ﬂoating’teachertrainedinspecialneedseducation.Mandatorymaximumclass sizessetatanarbitraryﬁgureareyetanotherunnecessaryrestrictiononschools’ abilitytousetheirresourcesinwaysthatbestmeettheneedsoftheirstudents. References AustralianEducationUnion(1995).Classsizesdomatter.FactSheetNo.1 [On-line].Available: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/FactSheet1ClassSize.pdf Biddle,B.J.,&Berliner,D.C.(2002).Whatresearchsaysaboutsmallclassesandtheireffects. PolicyPerspectives [On-line].Available:http://www.WestEd.org/online_pubs/small_classes.pdf Boozer,M.A.,&Maloney,T.(2001).TheEffectsofClassSizeontheLong-RunGrowthinReading AbilitiesandEarlyAdultOutcomesintheChristchurchHealthandDevelopmentStudy,Working Paper01/14.Wellington:NewZealandTreasury. Bourke,S.F.(1986).Howsmallisbetter:Somerelationshipsbetweenclass-size,teachingpractices, andstudentachievement.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,23,558–571. Boyd-Zaharias,J.,&Pate-Bain,H.(2000).EarlyandnewﬁndingsfromTennessee’sProjectSTAR’. InM.C.Wang&J.D.Finn(Eds.),HowSmallClassesHelpTeachersDoTheirBest (pp.65–97). Philadelphia:TempleUniversityCenterforResearchinHumanDevelopmentandEducationand theU.S.DepartmentofEducation. Darling-Hammond,L.(2000).Teacherquality andstudentachievement:Areviewof statepolicyevidence.EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives [On-line],8(1).Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1 Ehrenberg,R.G.,Brewer,D.J.,Gamoran,A.,&Willms,J.D.(2001a).Doesclasssizematter? ScientiﬁcAmerican,285,78–85. Ehrenberg,R.G.,Brewer,D.J.,Gamoran,A.,&Willms,J.D.(2001b),Classsizeandstudent achievement,PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest,2,1–30. 86 JENNIFERBUCKINGHAM Finn,J.,Gerber,S.B.,Achilles,C.M.,&Boyd-Zaharias,J.(2001).Theenduringeffectsofsmall classes,TeachersCollegeRecord,103,145–183. Goldsmith,S.S.(2002).Thepedagogyofthesubjectandprofessionaldevelopment.In AConsumer’s GuidetoTeacherQuality:OpportunityandChallengeintheNoChildLeftBehindActof2001. WashingtonD.C.:NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality. Hanushek,E.A.(1997).Assessingtheeffectsofschoolresourcesonstudentperformance:An update.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,19,141–64. Hanushek,E.A.(1998).TheEvidenceonClassSize,OccasionalPaper98-1.Rochester,NY:W. AllenWallisInstituteofPoliticalEconomy,UniversityofRochester. Haycock,K.(1998).Goodteachingmatters.ThinkingK-16,3(2). Hoxby,C.M.(2000).Theeffectsofclasssizeonstudentachievement:Newevidencefrom populationvariation.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics,115,1239–1285. Iacovou,M.(2001).ClassSizeintheEarlyYears:IsSmallerReallyBetter?WorkingPaper 2001-10 [On-line].InstituteforSocialandEconomic Research,EssexUniversity.Available: http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/pdf/2001-10.pdf Jacobson,L.(2001).Research:Sizingupsmallclasses.EducationWeek [On-line],February28, 2001.Available:http://www.edweek.org. Jepsen,C.,&Rivken,S.(2002)Whatisthetradeoffbetweensmallerclassesandteacherquality? WorkingPaper9205.Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch. Kaplan,L.S.,&Owings,W.A.(2002).Thepoliticsofteacherquality:Implicationsforprincipals. NationalAssociationofSecondarySchoolPrincipalsBulletin,86(633),22-41 Keeves,J.P.(1995).ThecontributionofIEAresearchtoAustralianeducation.InW.Bos&R. H.Lehmann(Eds.),ReﬂectionsonEducationalAchievement:PapersinHonourofT.Neville Postlethwaite.NewYork:Waxmann. Krueger,A.B.(2002).Understandingthemagnitudeandeffectofclasssizeonstudentachievement. InL.Mishel&R.Rothstein(Eds.),TheClassSizeDebate.Washington,D.C.:EconomicPolicy Institute. LiberalPartyofNewSouthWales.(notdated).GettingTheBestStart:LoweringK-2ClassSizes. [On-line].Available:www.barryofarrell.com/misc/Getting_the_Best_Start_policy.pdf. Mathews,J.andStrauss,V.(1997).Shouldclassesbesmaller?Asenrolmentrises,issuedivides educators,WashingtonPost,Monday,December15,1997. Molnar,A.,Smith,P.,Zahorik,J.,Halbach,A.,Ehrle,K.,HoffmanL.M.,&Cross,B.(2001).2000– 2001EvaluationResultsoftheStudentAchievementGuaranteeinEducation(SAGE)Program. CentreforEducationResearch,AnalysisandEvaluation,UniversityofWisconsin-Milwaukee. Ramsay,G.(2000).QualityMatters:RevitalisingTeaching:CriticalTimes,CriticalChoices’,Report oftheReviewofTeacherEducation.Sydney:NSWDepartmentofEducation&Training. Rowe,K.(2001).TheImportanceofTeacherQuality.IssueAnalysis22.Sydney:TheCentrefor IndependentStudies. Stecher,B.M.,&Bohrnstedt,G.W.(Eds)(2002).ClassSizeReductioninCalifornia:Summary ofFindingsfrom1999–2000and2000–0.CSRResearchConsortium,CaliforniaDepartmentof Education. Woessmann,L.,&West,M.R.(2002).ClassSizeEffectsinSchoolSystemsAroundthe World:EvidencefromBetween-GradeVariationinTIMSS,ResearchPaperPEPG/02-02 [On-line],ProgramonEducationalPolicyandGovernance,HarvardUniversity.Available: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/pdf/PEPG02-02.pdf) Page 1 of 2 Memo Westlake Academy To: Honorable President and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Rod Harding, Middle Years Principal Subject: Meeting of November 1, 2010 Date: October 26, 2010 Wkshp Presentation and Discussion of International Schools’ Assessment (ISA). ITEM Westlake Academy is a nurturing, community-owned International Baccalaureate charter school whose mission is to achieve academic excellence and to develop life-long learners who become well-balanced, responsible global citizens. WESTLAKE ACADEMY MISSION/ VISION STATEMENT WESTLAKE ACADEMY VALUES Academic Achievement PYP, MYP, DP (IB Continuum) Caring Environment Fiscal Stewardship Communication/Transparency Engaged Stakeholders Maximizing Each Child’s Potential BACKGROUND (including policy implications and options): This particular ISA presentation, discussion and proposed implementation relates directly to the Westlake Academy Strategic Plan under the Desired Outcome category of High Student Achievement and under the following Specific Outcome sections: 1.6 and 1.6.2  1.6 - Review the use and interpretation of college skills readiness exams, which are necessary to gauge the student’s ability to perform at college level  1.6.2 - Explore the use of the program for International Schools’ Assessment (ISA), Progress in International Reading Study (PIRLS), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), iCritical Thinking Certification etc as tools of student progress The International School’s Assessment (ISA) was presented to WA staff in October for comments and its appropriateness for use at Westlake Academy. The staff felt that this was an international assessment that would compare academic results of other like schools (IB) and provide Westlake Academy with a comparable international standard in the areas of Reading, Writing and Mathematical Literacy. Page 2 of 2 Staff proposes that this assessment be administered to Grades 5 and 8 in February 2011. This assessment will replace the use of the Stanford Assessment. The ISA external testing costs are included in the approved 2010-2011 WA budget. FUNDING After the conclusion of the PowerPoint presentation, Staff would like to field any questions or concerns that the Trustees may have regarding the recommended implementation of the ISA assessment and approve administration to Grades 5 and 8, beginning in February 2011. RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS DISCUSSION OF BOARD OF TRUSTEE GOVERNANCE AS ILLUSTRATED IN DR. BRIAN CARPENTER’S CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD UNIVERSITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO EFFECTIVE CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNANCE; CHAPTERS 8-9. Westlake Academy Item # 5 – Board Governance BOARD RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION Westlake Academy Item #6 Board Recap / Staff Direction Westlake Academy Item # 7 – Workshop Adjournment Back up material has not been provided for this item. Westlake Academy Item # 2 – Pledge of Allegiance Texas Pledge: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible." CITIZENS' PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS: This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Board on any matter whether or not it is posted on the agenda. The Board cannot by law take action nor have any discussion or deliberations on any presentation made to the Board at this time concerning an item not listed on the agenda. Any item presented may be noticed on a future agenda for deliberation or action. Westlake Academy Item # 3 – Citizens’ Presentations and recognitions CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below are considered routine by the Board of Trustees and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Board member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence. a. Consider approval of Resolution 10-21, Amendment to the Student Athletic/Extra Curricular Program Academic Eligibility policy. Westlake Academy Item # 4 - Consent Agenda Items Page 1 of 2 Memo Westlake Academy To: Honorable President and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Amanda DeGan, Municipal Court and Special Projects Director Subject: Regular Meeting of November 1, 2010 Date: October 18, 2010 ITEM Regular Consideration of an amendment to the Student Athletic/Extra Curricular Program Academic Eligibility policy for Westlake Academy. Westlake Academy is a nurturing, community-owned International Baccalaureate charter school whose mission is to achieve academic excellence and to develop life-long learners who become well-balanced, responsible global citizens. WESTLAKE ACADEMY MISSION/ VISION STATEMENT WESTLAKE ACADEMY VALUES Academic Achievement PYP, MYP, DP (IB Continuum) Caring Environment Fiscal Stewardship Communication/Transparency Engaged Stakeholders Maximizing Each Child’s Potential BACKGROUND (including policy implications and options): Currently, Westlake Academy participates in the Texas Christian Athletic Fellowship League (TCAF), which has an academic eligibility policy in their bylaws directing member organizations to implement and follow in order to be eligible for participation in their sports competitions. In an effort to comply with the TCAF bylaws and allow for the advanced nature of the coursework at Westlake Academy, the Board approved a policy aimed at developing an action plan which would promote the IB Learner Profile traits of being Principled and Balanced while encouraging extracurricular/sports participation. The policy directed students to maintain a 70% passing rating in all classes in order to remain eligible for extracurricular/sports programs while at the same time providing for the exemption of a maximum of one (1) course from consideration during each nine (9) week grading period. The policy also asked staff to develop a method of tutoring and a supplemental course work program to help students who need additional Page 2 of 2 assistance to reach the minimum passing level. Many sports leagues, (UIL in particular) either provides for this type of allowance or exempts advanced courses from eligibility consideration due to the higher level of performance expected of students who attempt advanced classes. Staff is proposing we amend our policy to comport with the TCAF bylaws as we did not seek approval for the academic waiver from the league and feel it is no longer necessary. N/A FUNDING N/A RECOMMENDATION Resolution ATTACHMENTS: Policy Resolution 10-21 Page 1 of 3 WESTLAKE ACADEMY RESOLUTION NO. 10-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE WESTLAKE ACADEMY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AMENDING THE STUDENT ATHLETIC/EXTRA CURRICULAR PROGRAM ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY POLICY. WHEREAS, The Board of Trustees of Westlake Academy (the “Board”) finds that it is in the best interest of the Town of Westlake residents and persons interested in Westlake Academy (the “Academy”) that the Board shall establish policies governing academic eligibility as it relates to extracurricular programs and athletic participation; and WHEREAS, The Academy participates in the sports league known as the Texas Christian Athletic Fellowship (TCAF) and is required as a member to abide by their bylaws specific to student eligibility; and WHEREAS, the Westlake Academy Board of Trustees finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interests of the Academy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE WESTLAKE ACADEMY: SECTION 1: That, all matters stated in the recitals hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: The Board hereby adopts the amendment to the policy known as the Student Athletic/Extra Curricular Program Academic Eligibility relative designed to reflect the requirements of the Texas Christian Athletic Fellowship attached to this resolution as Exhibit “A”. SECTION 3: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Board hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. SECTION 4: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. Resolution 10-21 Page 2 of 3 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTLAKE ACADEMY, A CHARTER SCHOOL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, ON THE 1st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010. ___________________________________ Laura Wheat, President ATTEST: ________________________________ ___________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Board Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Superintendent APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ L. S tanton Lowry, School Attorney Resolution 10-21 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit “A” TOWN OF WESTLAKE WESTLAKE ACADEMY BOARD OF TRUSTEES POLICY Policy No. 09-20: Date Board Adopted: December 7, 2009 Date Board Amended: October 25, 2010 Effective Date : November 1, 2010 Policy Name : Student Athletic/Extra Curricular Program Academic Eligibility Policy Category : Student Achievement Policy Goal : Uniform Academic Criteria and Guidelines for Determining Student Participation in Westlake Academy’s Athletic/Extra-Curricular Programs Policy Description Westlake Academy offers the rigorous International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) course work as the standard curriculum for students in grades K-12 and values the traits found in the IB Learner profile. In particular, the traits of being Principled and Balanced will be emphasized in our sports and extra-curricular programs. The Academy will offer the students the opportunity to participate in these types of activities in an environment that fosters fairness, justice and respect for the dignity of the individual, groups and communities and also promotes a greater understanding of the importance of intellectual, physical and emotional balance. : Currently, Westlake Academy participates in the Texas Christian Athletic Fellowship (TCAF) League for competitive sports and as such, athletes, teams and coaches must abide by their policies and procedures in order to remain eligible and participate in the team or individual sports program. Staff is directed to periodically review the League’s requirements as it pertains to eligibility and update the Parent/Student Handbook in order to inform the students of the necessary academic performance levels required to participate each year. BOARD RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION Westlake Academy Item #5 Board Recap / Staff Direction BOARD CALENDAR o Secondary Boundary Parents Meetings (2 remaining) November 2, 2010; 7 pm; Home of Richard & Kimberly DePaolo November 10, 2010; 7 pm; Home of Jim & Christine Smith o Westlake Academy Thanksgiving Holiday November 22-26, 2010 o Town Offices Closed November 25-26, 2010 o Texas Charter Schools Association Conference, San Antonio November 29-December 1, 2010 (contact Ben) o Community Tree Lighting November 30, 2010; 6:30 pm; Westlake Academy campus o Board of Trustees Meeting December 13, 2010 o Annual Westlake Employee Award and Christmas Dinner December 15, 2010; 6:30 pm; Marriott Solana o Westlake Academy Winter Holiday December 20 – 31, 2010 o Town Offices Closed December 24th, 27th and 31st , 2010 Westlake Academy Item #6 Board Calendar FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Any Board member may request at a workshop and / or Board meeting, under “Future Agenda Item Requests”, an agenda item for a future Board meeting. The Board member making the request will contact the CEO with the requested item and the CEO will list it on the agenda. At the meeting, the requesting Board member will explain the item, the need for Board discussion of the item, the item’s relationship to the Board’s strategic priorities, and the amount of estimated staff time necessary to prepare for Board discussion. If the requesting Board member receives a second, the CEO will place the item on the Board agenda calendar allowing for adequate time for staff preparation on the agenda item. - None Westlake Academy Item # 7 – Future Agenda Items Westlake Academy Item # 8 – Adjournment Back up material has not been provided for this item.