Critical Issue: Rethinking Learning for Students at Risk

ISSUE: Students identified as being at risk of educational failure often receive a watered-down curriculum that emphasizes the acquisition of basic academic skills. All students-especially those at risk--need to be engaged in interesting and challenging learning that goes beyond basic proficiencies. One of the best ways to ensure meaningful, engaged learning for all students is by developing whole-school programs in which classroom teachers, specialists, administrators, and support staff collaborate to provide improved schoolwide instruction. Supportive instruction within the regular classroom can be provided for those students who need additional help in meeting high academic standards. Strategies for promoting learning for at-risk students can be enhanced by appropriate assessment, ongoing professional development, and parental involvement.

OVERVIEW: Research on programs for at-risk students, particularly Title I-funded programs, has raised many questions about approaches to learning and the content and delivery of educational support efforts. In particular, the following areas are being reconceptualized: High expectations are being recognized as key to the success of all students, especially those at risk. Traditional ability grouping of students often leads to diminished expectations and lower achievement levels for students who are placed in lower tracks. For example, Allington (1995) notes that the traditional placement of first-grade students into three reading groups of high, middle, and low achievement "predicts future educational outcomes with alarming accuracy" (p. 2). By using heterogeneous grouping of students rather than ability grouping, teachers will no longer pace their instruction to the perceived ability level of the class. Instead, accelerated learning will meet the needs of students of varying abilities and interests.

Asa Hilliard, professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta, talks about the importance of holding high expectations for at-risk students and helping them learn skills in critical and conceptual thinking. [476k audio file] Excerpted from the video series Restructuring to Promote Learning in America's Schools, videoconference #9, Reconnecting Students at Risk to

the Learning Process (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1990). A text transcript is available. Title I legislation dictates that all students should receive an education that develops their skills in problem solving and advanced thinking. Yet according to Means and Knapp (1991), the dominant approaches to teaching at-risk students provide "little or nothing to foster the growth of reasoning, problem solving, and independent thinking" (p. 4). The traditional model of focusing on basic skills before providing more challenging materials has produced some modest outcomes but not the positive gains that are necessary for completing complex tasks both in and out of school. Rather than concentrating on basic skills, a more integrated approach with meaningful, authentic tasks is being proposed for at-risk students. These changes are based on current understandings of learning. Research on learning has documented that there is not a clear developmental sequence from literal meaning and skills to more advanced thinking (Means & Knapp, 1991; Palincsar & Klenk, 1991). As students learn, they concurrently use basic skills and higher level thinking skills. All students need to be able to interpret, analyze, solve problems, and make sense of what they are learning. In a thinking curriculum, students are encouraged and expected to use such advanced thinking skills. This more integrated view of learning further challenges a discrete skills and memorization approach to even the basics of reading and mathematics. A recent study on meaning-oriented education in high-poverty classrooms (Knapp & Associates, 1995) concluded that meaning-oriented instruction produces authentic and practical learning and is more effective than traditional skills-oriented practices for at-risk students. Research findings also are helping educators recognize the need for students to take an active role in the learning process. When students are responsible for their own learning, they actively plan, organize, and evaluate their progress. At-risk students can become more active, strategic learners when they develop metacognition, or the ability to think about their own thinking and learning. With metacognitive awareness, students can actively plan how to learn, monitor their progress, and evaluate their own achievements. Cooperative learning allows students of varying abilities and interests to share responsibility for learning as they work together in small groups to research topics, solve problems, and improve their understanding of subject matter. Peer tutoring, which can help both tutor and tutee to take an active role in learning, encourages the development of academic and social skills as students teach other students.

Gerald Dreyfuss, assistant superintendent of Dade County Public Schools in Dade County, Florida, discusses the benefits of cooperative learning for at-risk students. [336k audio file] Excerpted from the video series Reconstructing to Promote Learning in America's Schools, videoconference #9, Reconnecting Students at Risk to the Learning Process (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1990). A text transcript is available. The work of educators such as Caine and Caine (1991) and Brooks and Brooks (1993) supports a constructivist view of learning, which holds that students create their own meaning and interpretations as they learn. Constructivist teaching and learning models emphasize the context

in which an idea is taught as well as the students' prior beliefs and attitudes. Constructivist models enable students to take an active role in their learning. Shifting the role of the learner from a passive to an active one occurs when students have richer units of learning, multiple sources of information, and longer time periods within which to build meaning. It also means that the activities and contexts in which students are engaged should be meaningful to them so they will make connections between school learning and the world beyond school. Recognition of the affective dimensions of learning recently has been underscored in research on learning. Students learn best in an emotional climate that is supportive and marked by mutual respect (Caine & Caine, 1991). Instructional support for at-risk students also is being redefined on the basis of evaluation results from Title I and special education programs. Pulling students out of the regular classroom to receive separate instructional services has negative consequences, particularly the students' loss of esteem by being labeled different, the loss in time and lack of coherence with the regular curriculum, and the lack of communication between teachers. The pull-out model is being replaced with in-class programs, in which special teachers provide additional help for students within the regular classroom setting, and schoolwide programs, in which all teachers team together to provide richer instruction for all students. Schoolwide programs, notes Burnett (1993), "can help schools to eliminate pull-outs completely or to redefine them as an 'as-needed' service instead of as the core of a program." Some educators have suggested extending learning time for disadvantaged students through extracurricular activities, after-school cultural and recreational activities, and community service. Appropriate use of assessments to measure students' development and academic growth is especially important for those at risk. When children first enter school, diagnostic assessments monitor their needs so that support for learning can be provided before failure occurs. Early intervention programs help children overcome any academic deficiencies so that they maintain a sense of success and self-esteem in the classroom. Assessments that recognize incremental improvement are useful in motivating at-risk students. As students progress through school, alternative assessments can focus on improved performance by allowing students to demonstrate what they have learned rather than how well they can take a test. Such new assessment strategies might include oral interviews, science experiments, exhibits, skill demonstrations, and portfolios of the student's work over time. As they support meaningful learning for all students, teachers will understand the keys to motivation to learn. Teachers' knowledge of the learning process and their ability to use strategies to engage at-risk students in meaningful learning are enhanced through ongoing professional development. (Refer to the Critical Issue "Realizing New Learning for All Students Through Professional Development.")

George Brown, principal at North Miami Elementary School in Miami, Florida, describes how teachers can motivate at-risk students by providing individualized attention, academic challenges, and opportunities to achieve success. [336k audio file] Excerpted from the video series Reconstructing to Promote Learning in America's Schools, videoconference #9,

Reconnecting Students at Risk to the Learning Process (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1990). A text transcript is available. The importance of parent and family involvement in schools also has been recognized as a way to improve learning for at-risk students. Menacker, Hurwitz, and Weldon (1988) state: "The power and authority of the school alone are insufficient to ensure the good discipline and motivation necessary for acceptable educational outcomes. Parental support and involvement are needed. ... We must recognize the value of the resulting new synthesis, supported by both research and common sense, that the home and school are interdependent and necessary factors for educational improvement in schools serving the urban poor." (p. 111) Research by Comer and Haynes (1992) indicates that parental involvement contributes to improved academic performance, behavior, and self-esteem of at-risk students. (Refer to the Critical Issues "Supporting Ways Parents and Families Can Become Involved in Schools" and "Creating the School Climate and Structures to Support Parent and Family Involvement.")

GOALS: Many schools serving at-risk students are located in high-poverty, inner-city areas. Compared to their suburban counterparts, these schools often have facilities that are outdated or in disrepair. They also may lack broad curricular offerings, adequate instructional materials, and access to technology for their students. Rates of student mobility and absenteeism may be high. In spite of such conditions, schools can aim toward the following goals to promote learning for at-risk students:

All students have regular opportunities to develop thinking skills in classrooms that provide meaningful and challenging content as well as guidance in thinking. All students are educated with their peers in the regular classroom setting. Schools focus on all students being successful in their learning. If needed, accelerated learning and extended instructional support are provided during the first years of schooling so that all students experience success rather than failure and remediation is kept to a minimum. Schools adopt changes in curriculum, changes in instruction, and changes in assessment to promote learning for at-risk students. Teachers provide meaningful learning experiences for all students. They create bridges between students and the curriculum so that students will understand the purposes and value of learning. Teachers and administrators value professional development in promoting effective strategies for helping at-risk students become successful learners. (Refer to the Critical Issue "Realizing New Learning for all Students Through Professional Development.")

Administrators, school board members, teachers, parents, and the extended school community support the changes needed to provide stimulating and challenging learning for all students. Parents and families of at-risk students are actively involved in the schools and support their children's learning.

ACTION OPTIONS: Administrators and teachers can take the following steps to promote meaningful learning for at-risk students: Administrators:

Establish the expectation that all children will succeed in school. Focus on the school's role in providing meaningful programs and resources for all students. Examine the effectiveness of current programs in supporting at-risk learners. Do students leave instructional support programs within one or two years and function successfully in regular settings? Is there a focus on meaningful learning and thinking? How wellcoordinated are programs with the regular classroom? Which students gain the most from the support services that are now in place? Study alternatives for how best to provide supportive instruction for at-risk students. Explore ways to provide needed supportive instruction within the classroom by teaming classroom teachers with specialists and aides. Read about and visit schools using different configurations of support both within and beyond the classroom. Conduct diagnostic assessments when children enter school. (Refer to the Critical Issue "Assessing Young Children's Progress Appropriately.") Continue to monitor children's needs so support for learning can be provided before failure occurs. Provide early intervention programs so children can maintain a sense of success and selfesteem. Create a curriculum that focuses on meaningful, engaged learning activities and makes connections between what the students are learning and the world beyond the classroom. Ensure that support programs also focus on meaningful learning. Establish a study group of teachers and administrators to explore various programs that aim to develop the thinking skills of at-risk students. Provide professional development opportunities to help teachers incorporate thinking skills and effective learning strategies into the curriculum. (Refer to the Critical Issue "Realizing New Learning for all Students Through Professional Development.")

Help teachers appreciate the strengths, experiences, and cultures of their students so that classrooms can be as comfortable as possible for all students. Develop structures for involvement that encourage parents and families to participate in the school.

Teachers:

Establish a priority on teaching advanced thinking skills to all students. Develop specific frameworks, heuristics, and strategies that engage at-risk students. Acknowledge that students have multiple intelligences and ways of thinking. Recognize that many at-risk students benefit when instruction provides a diverse set of experiences to help students learn by using a range of strengths. Develop a curriculum that provides for multiple ways of learning and knowing. Involve students in planning, organizing, and evaluating their own learning. (Refer to the Critical Issue "Working Toward Student Self-Direction and Personal Efficacy as Educational Goals.") Initiate portfolio assessment to enhance student engagement and self-monitoring. Use thematic or integrated instruction to design in-depth learning around larger units. Give students a longer time frame to construct meaning by working with specific content and ideas and by drawing on a wide range of activities and resource materials. Establish cooperative learning and partner work in the classroom so students can learn with and from each other. Participate in professional development programs that examine the nature of learning. Form teacher-parent partnerships and improve the school-home connection for lowincome parents to promote learning for at-risk students.

IMPLEMENTATION PITFALLS: Several issues need to be addressed as schools move to provide a richer learning experience for at-risk students. First, many teachers, administrators, and parents still maintain traditional concepts of education. They believe that learning is skills-based and sequential and that at-risk students are deficient and need slow, deliberate, skills-based instruction. They also may operate from a traditional view of the teacher as a dispenser of knowledge and right answers who is autonomous in the classroom. Although these concepts are difficult to change, they must be addressed and overcome as part of the shift to more meaningful instruction for all students.

Second, schools traditionally have not worked as focused units. To coordinate instruction and provide more teaming within the instructional staff requires major time and effort. Deliberate attention to teacher cooperation may be needed if teachers are unaccustomed to teaming and working together in classrooms. Third, at-risk students often present challenges to teachers at a basic level of classroom order and management. Teachers need to develop strategies for engaging students in active learning instead of expecting them to sit and listen for long periods of time. Helping teachers develop better classroom management systems underlies any successful effort for more meaningful instruction. As students become engaged, self-regulated learners, the teacher's role changes from maintaining control to modeling effective learning strategies and providing instructional support (McCombs, 1996). Finally, any change effort in the classroom requires that teachers have significant support for study, development of options, experimentation, and communication. (Refer to the Critical Issue "Realizing New Learning for All Students Through Professional Development.") Administrators, parents, and community members need to understand this process and provide support to teachers.

DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW: For students needing support in their learning, American education traditionally has emphasized the acquisition of subskills. According to this viewpoint, students build learning sequences by analyzing the separate components of language and the basic operations of mathematics to determine the underlying subskills. For example, the reading process has been described as a set of skills moving from letter recognition to phonics to word knowledge, from oral reading to literal understanding of details, and finally to locating main ideas. Some initial reading programs require the teaching of all letter names and phonic associations before students are given any stories or materials to read. In mathematics, a similar orientation is the emphasis on students learning computational skills and memorizing addition and subtraction tables before they are introduced to any real-world purposes or problems. Many tests used in schools also reflect this subskill orientation. Traditionalists, such as Hirsch (1987), believe that a specific body of factual knowledge should be transmitted to students. They emphasize the importance of memorizing factual information and being taught a specific curriculum. Some educators believe that schools should emphasize direct instruction and should tailor instructional strategies to students' needs. For example, Sizemore (cited in Raack, 1995) emphasizes instruction as the first priority of effective schools serving low-income, minority children. She states that progressive educational approaches, such as cooperative learning, do not provide the high degree of structure that at-risk students need in order to achieve. Further, she argues against the exclusive use of alternative assessment, noting that it does not equip students with the test-taking skills they will need for admission to college.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at700.htm

Who Are At-Risk Students? How Do We Help Them?

Identifying at-risk students can be a difficult task for instructors and administrators alike. Since the typical class size per teacher continues to grow, it is hard for any instructor to truly "know" their students. Also, many legal issues and battles make teachers quite wary of knowing their students on a personal level for fear of accusations of misconduct. If that is the case, what does it take to identify at-risk students? There are a few simple ways to measure at-risk student behavior in a quantifiable manner. It may not work every time, but it can be as simple as tracking a few numbers and behaviors and keeping some good notes. The first and most obvious metric to observe when looking for at-risk students is grades. What students have started out the semester with low scores? For the students who score low in the beginning, having a conversation with them may be the only help they need. Maybe they just needed motivation, or they might need assistance with study skills, writing skills, etc. Also, keep track of student grades and see which students begin to have decline in scores. This is often a sign of issues outside of the classroom that are affecting the student's work. Again, a conversation might help, or this might be a good time to either alert the administration or to contact the student counselor for assistance. The administration or counselor may have already heard other concerns about that student and have a better understanding of what interventions might be necessary. Another at-risk student behavior that can be easily tracked is tardiness or absenteeism. If a student continues to either be late for class or simply is not attending, this is another opportunity to alert either the administration or the counselor. Finally, disruptive behavior is a sign of an at-risk student that can be easily monitored. If a student is being regularly disruptive, this is probably a time when that student should be forced to see the administration for either discipline or an intervention of some kind, as attempting to intervene in the classroom can cause more disruption for other students. Once the administration or a counselor is alerted about an at-risk student, how can they help? Public schools would be wise to learn from the current trend in institutions of higher education. Many colleges and universities now have what is often called a "risk assessment team" that meets and confidentially discusses the complaints and concerns that teachers, staff, or other students have expressed about particular students. Having such a team allows schools to get a full picture of what might be happening with a student and allows for multiple perspectives on how to proceed. While these strategies are not foolproof and some students might still be at risk without exhibiting such behaviors, using these tactics can give teachers a quantifiable plan of action on how to intervene when attempting to indentify at-risk students. Also, a risk-assessment team can help schools to develop better pictures of the students that might be at risk while working out detailed plans of action.

More Information On At-Risk Students

Alternative Education
1. At-Risk Students Must Believe- A motivational work that address the need for student participation for success. 2. ARISE- "ARISE is a nonprofit educational foundation established in 1986, by the husband and wife team of Susan and Edmund F. Benson. To date, the ARISE group has researched, written, and taught all curricula. They have also trained and certified over 3,000 life-skills instructors who have gone on to teach more than 500,000 at-risk youth for over 2,000,000 (Two Million) documented hours of ARISE Life-Management Skills Lessons across the U.S." 3. Bureau For At-Risk Youth- Over 1000 unique resources for guidance counselors and others working with at-risk youth and their families. Includes videos, cd-roms, curriculum, handouts and more. 4. Class Size and Students At Risk: What is Known? What Is Next?- A discussion of the latest research. 5. Englishton Park: Residential Camp- For children who are experiencing behavior difficulties, emotional trouble, and/ or learning difficulties in school. This 10 day positive camping experience in Lexington, Indiana works to teach skills to help children be more successful at home and school. 6. From At-Risk to Excellence- Articles that try to explain the current state of At-Risk education. 7. Jeff Yalden Motivational Speaker - Aimed at at-risk youth, students in middle school through college with programs in drug, alcohol and violence prevention, through teacher and community groups. 8. Providing Effective Schooling for Students at Risk- Provides research-based examples of successful programs. 9. Reaching All Families: Creating Family-Friendly Schools- Presents accumulated knowledge and fresh ideas on school outreach strategies. 10. Rural Students at Risk: Why Students Drop Out- Discusses perceptions of educators, parents, and students. 11. Tools for Schools: School Reform Models supported by the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students- Provides information for improving the performance of schools with significant at-risk student populations. 12. The Summer Institute for At-Risk Migrant Students - Helping migrant students compensate for absences and partial credits, stay in school, and obtain a high school diploma. 13. UCLA School Mental Health Project- A comprehensive site devoted to pursuing theory, research, practice, and training related to addressing mental helath and psychosocial concerns through school-based interventions. The Project produces their own research, provides technical assistance, interactive discussion, and links to related sites. 14. US Dept. of Education National Institute on Education of At-Risk Students- Supports research and development activities designed to improve students at risk for failure because of limited English language proficiency, poverty, race, geographic location or economic disadvantage. 15. Using Technology to Enhance Engaged Learning for At-Risk Students- A fantastic article on the use of technology with At-Risk learners. http://www.teach-nology.com/edleadership/at_risk/

At-Risk Students Must Believe They Can Change Their Future

"If you can give young people a reason to believe that they can change their future, then it is much easier to deal with violence and substance abuse and teenage pregnancy," Dr. David Satcher, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the New York Times recently. "We've found that those were not the problems; they were the symptoms. When young people don't have any hope for the future, they'll do anything." For at-risk students, the key to success in high school lies in convincing them that a satisfying future is within their grasp, and then showing them how their education relates to their future goals. As Jere Brophy, writing in Educational Leadership, says, "People do not invest effort in tasks that do not lead to valued outcomes even if they know they can perform the task successfully." For the mainstream students in any school, that valued outcome is obvious: to get into college. Those who do not expect to attend college, however, are often confused as to why they should care about getting a good grade in English, or even finishing high school at all. Making High Schools Work, a book published by the Southern Regional Educational Board, concurs: "Students who don't see a connection between high school and future success are doomed to spend their school years in a 'neutral' position," it reports. "The way to turn on turnedoff students is to help them understand the role of high school achievement in reaching their goals in life as well as in education and employment." Career Choices is designed to help students project themselves into the future, to help them believe in themselves, and to show them that, through education, they can live a successful life.
http://www.academicinnovations.com/believe.html

Class Size and Students At Risk: What is Known?...What is Next? - April 1998

Introduction
It is a propitious time with regard to questions about class size. After years of debate, speculation, and research that yielded only partial and less-than-definitive answers, a major longitudinal study provides answers to the question "Do small classes result in greater academic achievement in the elementary grades?" Begun in 1985, Tennessee's Project STAR (StudentTeacher Achievement Ratio) set the stage for asking and answering a number of policy questions that could not be addressed before. The first chapter of this paper reviews the status of research on class size with particular attention to the STAR investigation and to the research spawned by STAR. The conclusiveness of the findings are discussed as well as implications for students at risk and for education policy in general. The second chapter discusses approaches that have been taken to assess the costs and

benefits of reducing class size and proposes additional dimensions that need to be considered; and the third explores the implications of small class size for classroom management and instructional strategies, with particular attention to the need to increase the academic engagement of students at risk. Issues requiring further research are identified throughout the paper. In the last chapter, however, these are summarized as a "research agenda" with priorities for further work. This review and research agenda focus largely on the effects of small classes in the early grades. There are two reasons for this. First, the most current (and best) research to date has been conducted in kindergarten through grade 3. The state of research with respect to small classes in the upper grades is fragmented and even contradictory, leaving little to say that is based on substantive research results. Second, there are good reasons for starting research and intervention projects in the early grades. The assumption that the early years lay the foundation for much that follows is explicit throughout this review and has been substantiated repeatedly by research in the social sciences.
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ClassSize/intro.html

Research on the Academic Effects of Small Class Size

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. 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).

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.

Overviews of Research on Small Classes Over the past 2 decades there have been many summaries of research on the relationship of class size to academic achievement. Three are particularly worthy of note because of their comprehensiveness, and because they planted the seeds for much of the research that followed.

Without doubt the most widely cited review is the classic Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement (Glass & Smith, 1978). The authors collected and summarized nearly 80 studies of the relationship of class size with academic performance that yielded over 700 class-size comparisons on data from nearly 900,000 pupils. The two primary conclusions drawn from this material are:

reduced class size can be expected to produce increased academic achievement (p. iv); and [t]he major benefits from reduced class size are obtained as the size is reduced below 20 pupils (p. v).

Although the extensiveness of the Glass-Smith meta-analysis was commendable, the selection of studies to include was subject to justifiable criticism. A number of studies were of short duration; many compared normal-sized classes to one-on-one tutoring; other studies did not include "realistic" class sizes as their comparison groups; and at least one study related to instruction in non-academic subjects (i.e., tennis). In spite of these deficiencies, however, the two conclusions drawn by Glass and Smith have endured and have received further support. A compilation of studies examined by Educational Research Service (Robinson & Wittebols, 1986; Robinson, 1990) is noteworthy because of its extensiveness--more than 100 separate studies were reviewed. Robinson's (1990) conclusions added an important set of qualifications to the findings of Glass and Smith:
[R]esearch does not support the expectation that smaller classes will of themselves result in greater academic gains for students. The effects of class size on student learning varies (sic) by grade level, pupil characteristics, subject areas, teaching methods, and other learning interventions. (p. 90)

In particular, the review concludes that small classes are most beneficial in reading and mathematics in the early primary grades and that: "[t]he research rather consistently finds that students who are economically disadvantaged or from some ethnic minorities perform better academically in smaller classes" (p. 85). Unfortunately, the wide-ranging review failed to distinguish even the best designed studies from those using the poorest methodology, and thus the conclusions must be viewed as tentative. A third review is noteworthy because of its focus on high-quality research conducted in accordance with accepted scientific standards. Using a procedure termed "best evidence synthesis," Slavin (1989) reviewed only those studies that lasted a minimum of 1 year; involved a substantial reduction in class size, that is, larger classes were compared to classes that were at least 30 percent smaller and had 20 students or fewer; and involved either random assignment of youngsters to class sizes or matching to assure that the groups were initially equivalent.1

Of the research summarized by Glass and Smith (1978) and others, Slavin identified only eight studies that met all three criteria. From these eight studies, Slavin concluded that substantial reductions in class size have a small positive effect on students (the median effect size for the eight studies was only 0.13 ); and the effect was not cumulative and even disappears in later years.2 Slavin's reinterpretation of the Glass-Smith findings is that large effects are not likely to be seen until the class size is reduced to one (e.g., one-on-one tutoring). Other research syntheses. In a brief overview of research, Finn and Voelkl (1994) identified three approaches to studying the issue of class size: the classroom-focus approach, the costrelated approach, and the ecological approach. The reviews by Glass and Smith (1978), Robinson and Wittebols (1986), and Slavin (1989) summarize classroom-focus studies; this research examined the number of pupils in each classroom, the interactions between the teacher(s) in that classroom, and the outcomes that were realized by the pupils in that classroom. It provides the most direct and intensive view of the effects of a small class setting. The cost-related approach examines the actual or potential costs of implementing small classes and weighs them against the benefits that may accrue. This approach is discussed in considerable detail in the next chapter of this paper. The ecological approach views class size in historical or geopolitical perspectives. For example, Tomlinson (1988, 1989) examined the changes in median class size in the United States over several decades and related them to changes in standardized test scores. The analysis does not show performance benefits for smaller classes, and it ignores a multitude of intervening factors, including population shifts and both cultural and institutional changes over the same time period. Likewise, the comparison of class sizes between countries introduces a number of confounding variables including national differences in educational expenditures, educational goals, teacher preparation, and student characteristics, to name a few. Class sizes also may vary dramatically within a country over time or among schools at one point in time (see Finn & Voelkl, 1994). Thus, ecological associations with pupil performance only obscure the effects of having a smaller or larger number of individuals in a particular class setting. Class size is not pupil/teacher ratio. The analysis of pupil/teacher ratios is characteristic of the ecological approach and shares some of the same difficulties. Although the number of pupils can be compared to the number of teaching staff in a single school, the ratio obfuscates the workload faced by a teacher in one classroom, the amount of attention the teacher gives to any one pupil, and dynamics of a small or large class that may impact on pupil participation;3 these interactions may be especially important for students at risk. At the same time, pupil/teacher ratios are often smaller in urban districts (because of Title I programs, special education programs and remedial teachers), while actual class sizes may be larger. One significant study (Boozer & Rouse, 1995) found that average class size--a more direct measure of classroom organization--was more important to academic achievement than the pupil/teacher ratio. Although several studies discussed in this paper did examine pupil/teacher ratios, the emphasis is on classroom-focus research.

Statewide Class-size Studies: PRIME TIME and STAR Indiana's PRIME TIME. In 1984 the state of Indiana funded an initiative to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 to an average of 18 pupils, or to 24 pupils if an instructional assistant was in the classroom. During the initial year, 286 of 303 districts participated to a greater or lesser extent. The main PRIME TIME intervention took place over 3 years, beginning with grade 1 in 1984, adding grade 2 in 1985, and grade 3 (or kindergarten, on option) in 1986.

The outcomes of PRIME TIME are summarized in numerous publications (e.g., Center for School Assessment, 1986; Chase, Mueller & Walden, 1986; Malloy & Gilman, 1989; McGiverin, Gilman, & Tillitski, 1989; Mueller, Chase, & Walden, 1988). In brief:

Positive outcomes were found for small classes on such factors as time on task, individualized instruction, well-behaved classes, and teacher satisfaction; but The results for academic achievement were mixed--at times, small classes were found to have superior outcomes and, at times, the large classes performed better.

Project PRIME TIME is noteworthy because it demonstrates important principles for the research that followed, namely, the feasibility of a statewide class-size initiative and the need to conduct an intervention of this type over a period of years. Virtually all class-size research that preceded PRIME TIME was cross-sectional in nature. However, PRIME TIME was designed as a demonstration project and did not follow rigorous procedures needed for a thorough evaluation in that: no control was implemented to equalize or match smaller and larger classes at the outset; small classes may not have been kept small for the entire school day; different achievement tests were administered in different schools; and other local, state, and federal programs were functioning in some schools but not others simultaneously with the class-size intervention.

More unfortunately, PRIME TIME did not implement a single, well-defined, small-class intervention. While the average class size of 18 pupils was viewed as a target, actual class sizes ranged from 12 to 31; classes of 24 pupils with a teacher aide were considered to be small despite the number of pupils in the classroom. As a result, the evaluations of PRIME TIME cannot be interpreted as confirming or refuting a class-size effect. Tennessee's Project STAR. 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. 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. 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.4

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 (Milchus, Farrah, & Reitz, 1968). In all, about 7,500 pupils in more than 300 classrooms participated in the 4-year longitudinal study. Comments on the design. Before reviewing the outcomes of Project STAR, the particular strengths of this initiative should be underscored. The within-school design was an effective way to control for differences among school settings including, but not limited to, the economic status of the student body, per-pupil expenditures, and the manner in which schools were administered. The value of this type of design cannot be underestimated. The random assignment was monitored carefully by state- level evaluators. A large and diverse population of students was longitudinally tracked over the 4 year period, and the data were collected, cleaned, and collated with a high degree of care. Both norm-referenced and criterion-referenced achievement data were collected. The norm-referenced tests, based on item-response theory, permitted comparisons of achievement levels from one grade to the next. The design of STAR, together with its magnitude and the follow-up research conducted after the 4-year period, led Harvard's Frederick Mosteller to term Project STAR "[a] controlled experiment which is one of the most important educational investigations ever carried out" (1995, p. 113). The primary results. The main analysis of STAR outcomes consisted of four cross-sectional analyses, one at the end of each school year.5 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 (see Finn & Achilles, 1990). In addition to tests of significance, "effect size" measures were derived each year for all students and for white and minority students separately. The results were compiled into a Tennessee State Department of Education report (Word,et al. 1990). 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 fulltime teacher aides. With only minor exception, there was no significant interaction with school location 6 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 nonminorities, or greater for students attending inner-city schools. No differences were found among class types on the motivational scales.7

The results are given in the form of small-class effect sizes in Table 1.8 Each effect size is the mean score for small classes minus the mean score of regular and teacher-aide classes [S (R+A)/2] in standard deviation units. Since they all favor small classes, the researchers referred

to the difference as the "small-class advantage." For the criterion-referenced Basic Skills First (BSF) tests, the difference is computed for the percentage of students exceeding the state's mastery criterion. Table 1. Small-class effect sizes, grades kindergarten (K) through 3, by skills, motivation, and self-concept data
Grade Level Scale Group K Word Study Skills W M ALL W M ALL W M ALL W M ALL W M ALL W M ALL W M ALL W M 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.18 1 0.16 0.32 0.22 0.16 0.35 0.22 0.17 0.37 0.24 4.8% 17.3% 9.6% 0.22 0.31 0.27 3.1% 7.0% 5.9% -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.07 0.05 2 0.11 0.34 0.20 0.11 0.26 0.19 0.13 0.33 0.23 1.6% 12.7% 6.9% 0.12 0.35 0.20 1.2% 9.9% 4.7% -0.03 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.03 3

N/A

Reading

0.16a 0.35a 0.25a 0.17 0.40 0.26 4.0% 9.3% 7.2% 0.16 0.30 0.23 4.4% 8.3% 6.7% -0.01 0.11 0.00 -0.05 0.04

Total Reading

Basic Skills First (BSF) Reading

N/A

Total Mathematics

0.17 0.08 0.15

Basic Skills First (BSF) Mathematics

N/A

Motivation

0.00 0.03 0.01 0.10 0.10

Self-Concept

ALL

0.11

0.7

0.02

0.02

NOTE: The values for BSF Reading and BSF Mathematics represent differences in the percent passing (no standard deviation). All other values are mean differences: Small - (Regular + Aide)/2, divided by the standard deviation of the scale. Standard deviations computed for all students in regular classes, and all white (W) and minority (M) students separately.
a

Total Language scale in grade 3 (not Reading).

In every instance, small classes outperformed the other class types; effect sizes for the total sample (All range from about 0.15 in kindergarten to about 0.25 in grades 1, 2, and 3.9 And like the research that preceded STAR, the small-class advantage was consistently greater for minority students (most of whom were black) than for whites. In most comparisons, the impact on minorities was about twice as large as it was for white students. This resulted in a considerably reduced achievement gap. In reporting this effect, Finn and Achilles (1990) noted that the difference between minorities and whites in mastery rates on the grade 1 reading test was "reduced from 14.3 percent in regular classes to 4.1 percent in small classes" (p. 568). Two additional points should be noted. First, the effect sizes in Table 1 show that small classes present up to a 1/4 advantage compared to larger classes in every subject tested.10 Although the researchers did not devise methods for computing the total impact on achievement, it is greater than any single difference would indicate. Second, the effect sizes in Table 1 actually underestimate the true small-class advantage. An unavoidable phenomenon during the 4-year project was the "drifting" of some classes out of the target size range, as students transferred into or out of a class or school. Preliminary indications are that the effect sizes would be substantially greater if out-of-range classes were removed from the data.11 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:

This research leaves no doubt that small classes have an advantage over larger classes in student performance in the early primary grades.

At the same time, the research leaves behind a wealth of data that have only begun to be analyzed for what they can tell us. The follow-up: the Lasting Benefits Study. After the positive STAR findings, Tennessee authorized a study to see how long the initial benefits of small classes would persist. Although all children were returned to regular-size classes in grade 4, the Lasting Benefits Study (LBS) continued to follow a significant portion of these pupils.12 In the 1995 1996 school year, the majority of STAR students were in grade 10 and were still being tracked. The grade 4 evaluation included standardized and criterion-referenced achievement tests plus a new measure of student engagement in learning activities, the Student Participation Questionnaire (SPQ) (Finn, Folger, & Cox, 1991). The SPQ is a 28-item scale on which each pupil is rated by his or her teacher. It yields reliable, valid measures of student "effort" that the

student allots to learning, "initiative-taking" in the classroom, and "nonparticipatory" behavior (disruptive or inattentive- withdrawn behavior). The grade 4 results (Finn,et al. 1989) showed that, even after the small-class intervention was disbanded:

Students who had been in smaller classes had higher achievement in all academic areas compared to students in regular or teacher-aide classes; The small-class effect size (small to regular) ranged from 0.11 in social studies to 0.16 on the criterion-referenced mathematics test; and Pupils who had been in small classes were rated as expending more effort in the classroom, taking greater initiative with regard to learning activities, and displaying less disruptive or inattentive behavior compared to their peers who had been in regular-size classes.

Positive achievement results continued to be obtained in later grades. The median small to regular difference in grade 5 for the total sample was approximately 0.18 ; in grade 6 it was approximately 0.16 ; in grade 7 it was approximately 0.14 0. As in earlier grades, the differences were statistically significant on all norm-referenced and curriculum-based tests.13 The carry over effects are consistent with findings from other early interventions, for example, the Perry Preschool Project (Berrueta-Clement,et al. 1984). They raise the possibility that small classes in the early grades have significant long-term consequences for all students generally and that they may begin students at risk of educational failure on a positive trajectory that will increase their chances of school success through the years. As of this writing, resources are not available to explore these data in any but the most cursory ways. The data base continues to grow, however. In grade 8, two teachers rated each student on the SPQ and each student completed a self-report "Identification with School" scale (Voelkl, 1996). Achievement test scores have been obtained for grades 8 and 9. In sum, STAR and the LBS have laid the groundwork for building an important data base for examining educational effects longitudinally. Its potential to address both basic and policy-relevant research issues is elaborated in a later section of this report. Other STAR-related studies. Based on the positive findings of STAR and the LBS, Tennessee implemented Project Challenge in 17 of the state's poorest school districts, that is, districts with the lowest per capita income and highest percentages of pupils in the subsidized lunch program. Beginning in 1990, small classes (pupil to teacher ratio of 15:1) were introduced in all schools in these counties in the primary grades; grades 2 and 3 in 1990, grades 1 through 3 in 1991, and grades kindergarten through 3 in 1992 and later years. Project Challenge was not a controlled experiment as was Project STAR, but was a thorough effort to implement small classes in particular targeted districts. The project was assessed through an analysis of district rankings on statewide achievement tests (Achilles, Nye, & Zaharias, 1995). Since Tennessee has 138 districts, a rank of 69 would be considered average. In terms of the mean rankings of the 17 Challenge districts, the results were:

In grade 2 reading, the mean ranking improved from 99 in 1990 (among the lowest) to 94 in 1991, 87 in 1992, and 78 in 1993; and

In grade 2 mathematics, the mean ranking improved from 85 in 1990, to 79 in 1991, to 60 in 1992, and 57 in 1993--that is, from performance below the state average in 1990 to performance above the average in 1992 and 1993.

It is also interesting to note that because of the staggered introduction of small classes, grade 2 students in 1991 had been in small classes for just 1 year, whereas the grade 2 students in 1991 had been in small classes for 2 years (grades 1 and 2), and the 1992 and 1993 grade 2 students had been in small classes for 3 years (kindergarten through grade 2). That is:

Each additional year in the small-class setting was accompanied by further improvement in reading and mathematics.

This study adds non-experimental evidence that small classes are beneficial in the primary grades. The data also indicated that in-grade retentions were reduced when small classes were implemented (Achilles, n.d.). Two smaller studies of class size were conducted in North Carolina pursuant to STAR. In 1991 educators, citizens, and the school board in Burke County, North Carolina began a project to reduce the class size to 15 in grade 1, followed by grades 2 and 3 in subsequent years (Achilles, Harman, & Egelson, 1995; Egelson, Harman, & Achilles, 1996). And in a related effort, the principal of the Oak Hill elementary school in the Guilford County, North Carolina system restructured classes in grades kindergarten through 3 into a small-class format (15 students). The initiative was termed Success Starts Small (Achilles,et al. 1994; Kiser-Kling, 1995). Oak Hill school was fully Chapter 1 eligible, with 78 percent of its students in the subsidized lunch program. Matched comparison groups were used in both studies. The results of both projects favored small classes in academic achievement small-class effect sizes were in the range 0.4 to 0.6 (Achilles,et al. 1994; Achilles, Harman, & Egelson, 1995) 0. Significantly, Success Starts Small included systematic comparisons of teaching behavior in small and regular classes:

Teachers of small classes spent significantly more time on task and significantly less time on discipline or organizational matters compared with teachers of regular-size classes.14

Conclusions. Both Project STAR and the LBS provide compelling evidence that small classes in the primary grades are academically superior to regular-size classes. The findings were confirmed for every school subject tested. Teachers of small classes received no special instructions or training; the outcomes result from class size and from whatever perceptions and advantages accompany having substantially fewer students in a room with one teacher. This is not to say, of course, that the effects could not be accentuated if additional teacher preparation initiatives were provided. A clear small-class advantage was found for inner-city, urban, suburban, and rural schools; for males and females; 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 schools. These studies were based on research suggesting that small-class benefits are most likely to occur in the primary grades. The findings of Project STAR are limited to grades kindergarten through 3--no reasonable extrapolation beyond those grades can be made from these data. At the same time, the LBS results indicate clearly that the effects carry over into later years. The large, diverse database created through STAR, the LBS, and ongoing data collections offers the opportunity to answer a number of significant questions about the long-term effects of small classes on achievement, pupil engagement in school, and student behavior.

At the time of the Slavin analysis, Project STAR had not been completed.

Slavin also commented that while teachers may change their behavior in small classes, the changes are so slight that they are unlikely to make important differences in student achievement. This issues is discussed more fully in a later section of this paper.
3

Of the studies described in the next section, Project PRIME TIME manipulated pupil/teacher ratios but failed to find a significant impact on academic achievement. In contrast, Project STAR controlled the number of pupils in each classroom; this was accompanied by differences in student performance.
4

There was a training component for some teachers in grade 2. The effects on student achievement were found to be negligible. The results reported here do not include classes taught by that subsample of teachers.
5

Several longitudinal analyses have been completed as well, including a K-1 analysis (Finn & Achilles, 1990)and a K-2 analysis (Finn, et al., 1990). Many important longitudinal analyses remain to be conducted.
6

The exceptions did not contradict the finding of a small-class advantage. They indicated that, to some extent, the advantage was greater for students attending inner-city schools.
7

One possible reason for the negative findings may lie in the difficulties in assessing noncognitive characteristics of young children. Of course it is also possible that small classes improved learning but did not affect pupils' motivation or self-concepts.
8

Unpublished table obtained directly from the analyses.

Although precise grade equivalents are not available, these differences correspond to an advantage of about .1 grade equivalents (or about 1 month)by the end of kindergarten, about 0.2 grade equivalents (or about 2 months) at the end of first grade, and somewhat more by the end of grade 2.
10

Including several subtests not listed in Table 1. In the range 0.3* and upward (Zaharias, et al., 1995). Each year (1990-1994) the number of students tested was between approximately 4200 and 6000.

11

12

13

Later follow-ups through grade 11 are being conducted by H.P. Bain and J.B. Zaharias of HEROS, Inc. Preliminary results indicate that the positive effects of small classes persisted at least through grade 10.

14

This finding is discussed further in the later section on instructional practice and student behavior.

Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Smaller Classes

Without exception, the greatest obstacle to widespread implementation of smaller classes is the expense of additional teachers and classrooms. The cost issue is raised by researchers (Tomlinson, 1990) and by state and local policy makers who control the purse strings. They are to be commended for being cautious with tax dollars until the expenditure is of proven worth. At the same time, we do not have any widely-accepted procedures for determining the dollar value of particular increments in school achievement. And most economic analyses of class size to date have been severely limited. However, several approaches to the problem have been taken. Educational Production Functions The production function approach relies heavily on multiple regression analysis to relate a series of inputs (such as cost factors) to an output (such as student achievement). Hanushek (1986) reviewed 112 studies that used educational production functions to examine the effects of instructional expenditures on student achievement, using indicators such as teacher experience, teacher education, and pupil/teacher ratio.15 Pupil/teacher ratio was statistically significant in only 23 of the 112 studies, only 9 of which were significant in the expected direction. This "vote counting" procedure led Hanushek to conclude that pupil/teacher ratio is not an important correlate of student performance. More sophisticated analyses of the same data, however, have led others to conclude that low pupil/teacher ratios (and other cost-related inputs) are associated with increased pupil performance (Hedges, Laine, & Greenwald, 1994; Laine, Greenwald, & Hedges, 1995).

Unfortunately, the production-function approach often fails to consider findings of earlier research on class size. For example, most production-function analyses do not focus on the elementary grades, although two recent exceptions are noteworthy. In an analysis of national survey data at the district level, Wenglinsky (1997) concluded that expenditures to reduce pupil/teacher ratios impact positively on academic achievement at grade 4 but not at grade 8. Ferguson and Ladd (1996) analyzed achievement scores for students in grades 4, 8 and 9 of 131 districts in Alabama. These researchers used average class size in their multi-level regression models instead pupil/teacher ratio, concluding that class size does matter in both the earlier and later grades. Other important differences remain. Most production function analyses include schools and districts with classes within "normal" ranges--22 to 40 students or so--and the results do not answer the question of what the impact would be if classes were reduced substantially.16 Of greater concern, most production function analyses focus on school-wide or district-wide pupil/teacher ratios rather than actual class size.17 For a host of reasons, pupil/teacher ratios do not indicate how many students are enrolled in any given class or interacting with the assigned teachers (see Boozer & Rouse, 1995, for a comparison). Project STAR demonstrated the benefits of a small- class setting and provided some insight into why they occurred. It did not

demonstrate that reducing the pupil/teacher ratio for a school or district would have the same impact, unless actual class sizes decreased at the same time.
Cost Analyses Cost-effectiveness analysis examines both costs and consequences in considering alternatives for decision making. In educational applications, outcomes are typically assessed in terms of school achievement. Levin (1988) illustrated this approach to compare four strategies for educational improvement: cross-age tutoring, computer-assisted instruction, lengthening the school day, and reducing class size. Data on class size were taken from 14 evaluations collected in previous research; effect sizes were expressed as "estimated months of achievement gain" in reading and mathematics. Costs were estimated using an "ingredients approach" which involved the identification of ingredients of each intervention and their respective values, and determination of the overall cost of implementation. For example, the ingredients needed to reduce class size include personnel, facilities, and equipment.

Although the projected annual cost per student of reducing class size by five students was not found to be as great as either lengthening the school day or use of computer-assisted instruction, larger reductions in class size become quite expensive:

With respect to an additional month of mathematics achievement, reducing class size was the most cost effective of all interventions except for peer tutoring; and With respect to reading achievement, reducing class size was estimated to be the least cost effective except for tutoring by adults.

The principles of cost-effectiveness analysis are sound, if fraught with methodological difficulties. The cost of an intervention can often be determined with some degree of accuracy, but the effectiveness side of the equation is more complex. Even in the simplistic applications.given by Levin (1988) a small change in an effect size can have a large impact on the cost-effect ratio. When an intervention has numerous or diverse outcomes (only as different as mathematics and reading), or effects that differ from one population to another, the method provides no clear-cut way to determine cost effectiveness in toto. Introducing small classes into a school or district is at least this complex, precluding any easy answers to the cost-effectiveness question. One analysis of costs is noteworthy even though it did not consider small classes directly. King (1994) compared costs--time and money--associated with three educational interventions: Henry Levin's Accelerated Schools, Robert Slavin's Success for All, and James Comer's School Development Program. Although the Accelerated Schools and the School Development Program have costs that are similar, Success for All is more expensive to implement. The major expense of Success for All--with demonstrated efficacy--is the cost of additional staff members, particularly tutors. It would be useful to compare the costs, benefits, and feasibility of implementing this program with those of reducing class size. The main effective ingredient of Success for All may be the smaller number of students working with a particular teacher or tutor, that is, a small-class arrangement.

Further Work The question posed by cost-effectiveness analysis is entirely appropriate, namely: What benefits are associated with what levels of investment? The current state of knowledge dictates that we evaluate the effectiveness of small classes more completely by documenting the full spectrum of outcomes that are realized, and ask whether the extra investment can be put to best use by directing it to schools where it is needed most, for example, those serving students with poor educational prognoses.

The database created for STAR and the LBS can provide a fuller picture of short- and long-term outcomes. There is a real possibility that attending a small class in the primary grades can begin students on a path that reduces the need for special education, grade retentions or disciplinary measures, and increases the likelihood of high school graduation. Even if there is no further payoff after a student graduates, the cost savings would be appreciable. Economist Alan Odden (1990) explored whether the effects of reducing class size on student achievement could be achieved with other lower-cost interventions, or whether larger effects could be obtained through other interventions at the same cost. He concluded that particular uses of small classes are worthwhile, especially in kindergarten through grade 3. Odden recommended reducing class size for students achieving below grade level and combining individual tutoring with classes reduced to 15 students for language arts-reading instruction. He also proposed that small classes be coupled with a "larger comprehensive set of strategies" shown to be effective for low-income, ethnic and language minority students. Early childhood education is one example. Unfortunately, at this point in time there are no well-established procedures for summarizing diverse effects of any major intervention or, further, for comparing one intervention with another. The effect sizes in Table 1 only begin to indicate the range of outcomes, and even these are not well represented by one or two figures. If outcomes are attained that are conceptually different (e.g., improved behavior) the problem of comparison becomes even more complex. To obtain valid comparisons with other specific instructional strategies, the duration of the intervention also needs to be considered. For example, individualized instruction (tutoring and computer-assisted instruction) and cooperative learning (see Slavin & Madden, 1989; Wasik & Slavin, 1990) are often utilized for a portion of the day to provide support in one or a few school subjects. To compare, the costs and effects should be prorated to ask what the cost-benefit ratio would be if the strategy were implemented all day for all school subjects. Making comparisons with full-scale intervention programs in which small classes, small groups, or tutors are a component (e.g., Success for All) is a slightly different matter. It may be feasible to estimate the effect of this component alone and compare that to overall program effectiveness. In either case, a number of methodological issues need to be resolved before meaningful cost comparisons can be obtained.

15

Note that "indicators" are not the same as actual expenditures, and the relationship between the two may be complex.

16

The step cannot even be taken "in theory" since reductions in class size would change the values of other important inputs as well.
17

Ferguson and Ladd (1996) is an exception.

Instructional Practice and Student Behavior

Two questions may be posed with respect to teaching practices in small classes: 1. How does teacher behavior actually change when there are fewer students in the classroom (and are these changes beneficial)? and 2. What sorts of teaching practices should be implemented to take maximum advantage of a smallclass setting?

Some answers to the first question are available and are summarized below but, to date, the second question can only be answered with additional research. This discussion focuses on the construct "student engagement" on the assumption that a primary objective of instructional practice should be to maximize the engagement of individual students in the learning process. Research is reviewed that addresses three propositions, each of which is discussed in detail:

Student engagement--having both behavioral and affective elements--is essential to learning; Disengagement from learning--in both behavioral and affective forms--is especially problematic among students at risk; and Small classes, by their nature, promote student engagement in learning and provide the conditions for teachers to encourage student engagement further, if they wish.

Student Engagement The phrase "engagement in school" is often cited as an essential component of dropout prevention programs or other interventions for students at risk. However, there have been very few attempts to define engagement behaviorally or to study it as part of the learning process. Finn (1989) presented a model of student engagement with two central components, participation and identification.

Participation, the behavioral component, includes basic behaviors such as the student's acquiescence to school and class rules, arriving at school and class on time, attending to the teacher, and responding to teacher-initiated directions and questions. Noncompliant behavior-for example, inattentiveness, disruptive behavior, or refusing to complete assigned work-represents a student's failure to meet these basic requisites. Other levels of participation include initiative-taking on the part of the student (initiating questions or dialogue with the teacher, engaging in help-seeking behavior), and participation in the social, extracurricular, and athletic aspects of school life.

Identification, the affective component, refers to the student's feelings of belonging in the school setting (sometimes called school membership) and valuing the outcomes that school will provide, for example, access to post-school opportunities. To the extent that it has been studied, the relationship of specific engagement behaviors with academic performance is strong and consistent across populations defined by background characteristics and grade level (see Finn, 1989; Finn, 1993; Finn & Rock, 1997; for summaries). These studies also have shown that positive engagement behaviors explain why some students perform well in school in spite of the adversities they face as members of high-risk populations; that is, they are "academically resilient."
Engagement and Students At Risk Behavioral and affective disengagement from class and school is a particular problem among minority students from low-income homes (Steele, 1992). It may be difficult or impossible for some students to see any advantage to school participation when the immediate rewards are few and relationships with school staff are adversarial. And there is a substantial body of evidence that poor engagement behaviors are more common among students at risk. For example, minority students participate less fully in learning-related activities in class (Finn, Folger, & Cox, 1991; Lamborn, et al., 1992; Treuba, 1983) and exhibit more behavior problems in school (Farkas,et al. 1990; McFadden,et al. 1992; Velez, 1989) in comparison to their non-minority peers.

One form of disengagement--inattentive-withdrawn behavior--is worthy of special note because of educators' failure to recognize the severity of the problem, even though it has been shown to be related to depressed academic performance in the elementary grades (Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995). Exhibited more commonly among minority students, inattentive- withdrawn behavior has been characterized as a "loss of contact with what is going on in class" (Swift & Spivack, 1968, p. 141). Such students generally avoid calling attention to themselves;18 may seem distracted or preoccupied; and, if required to participate in classroom interactions, may give responses that are off-topic. They are even less likely than disruptive students to be directed to constructive learning activities. Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl (1995) found that, although the academic performance of both groups was below par, inattentive-withdrawn students performed significantly lower than disruptive students on all achievement measures. It is established that small classes have a positive impact on academic achievement, at least in the early grades. If small classes also have a positive effect on student engagement, then the effects are likely to be especially profound for minority students and for other students at risk of educational failure. Further, a small class setting may make it difficult for a youngster to withdraw from participating, and make it difficult for a teacher to overlook the needs of particular students. These relationships can be summarized in the form of a diagram: Figure 1. Relationship between class size and academic performance

Although the diagram is intended only to indicate where class size and engagement fit into a larger picture, it serves as a rudimentary model for explaining pupil achievement. The arrow from academic performance to student engagement represents the assumption that positive outcomes tend to reinforce productive behaviors; if this cycle is established, the likelihood that a student will persist in school is also increased.19 Teacher and Pupil Behavior in Small Classes Until recently, the classroom processes that distinguish small from large classes have proven remarkably elusive. For example, a well-designed study of process was conducted in Toronto, Canada (Shapson,et al. 1980), Teachers and students in grade 4 classes were assigned at random to one of four class sizes: 16, 23, 30, or 37 pupils. Students were randomly reassigned in grade 5 and followed for another year. In addition to achievement measures, ratings were made by trained observers that included measures of teacher-pupil interaction, pupil participation, pupil satisfaction, method of instruction, subject emphasis, physical conditions, use of instructional aids, classroom atmosphere, and the quality of classroom activity. Additional questionnaires were administered to participating teachers and pupils.

In spite of the plethora of measures, most of the findings were negative. Teachers expected smaller classes to facilitate more individualized programs and stated later that their expectations were confirmed. They generally had more positive attitudes in the smaller classes and were .pleased with the ease of managing and teaching in a small-class setting. They felt that they had made changes to adapt to the different class sizes. However:
The observation of classroom process variables revealed very few effects of class size. Class size did not affect the amount of time teachers spent talking about course content or classroom routines. Nor did it affect the choice of audience for teachers' verbal interactions; that is, when they changed class sizes, teachers did not alter the proportion of their time spent interacting with the whole class, with groups, or with individual pupils. (pp. 149-150) No differences were found in pupil satisfaction or affective measures, and no differences were found for most teacher activities, subject emphasis, classroom atmosphere, or the quality measures.

We can only speculate about the reasons for the negative findings in such a thorough investigation. One possibility, raised in Project STAR and Project Challenge, is that a small class intervention in later grades (grade 2 and up) is not as effective as an earlier intervention. However, even today, the question of classroom process remains a top priority for further work. Some recent research has begun to reveal differences associated with class size.

A study of teaching practices in year 5 mathematics classes conducted in Melbourne, Australia (Bourke, 1986) produced a list of factors related to class size. The 63 classes studied ranged from 12 to 33 students, with more than 10 percent of the classes having 20 students or fewer. Significant positive correlates of class size included amount of noise tolerated, non-academic management, and teacher lectured or explained. The significant negative correlates were more numerous: use of whole class teaching, amount of homework assigned and graded, teacher probes after a question, teacher directly interacting with students, and positive teacher response to answer from student. The non-experimental nature of the study leaves us with a number of possible explanations for these correlations, and the results may be specific to mathematics. However, the pattern of results suggests that in smaller classes:

Less time is spent on classroom management; and There is more interaction between teachers and individual students, with the interaction more protracted.

Both of these are conducive to increasing the academic engagement of pupils. Several STAR-related studies also support these conclusions. For example, observations were made of mathematics and reading lessons in 52 of STAR's grade 2 classrooms (Evertson & Folger, 1989). Although the amount of observation time was limited, the positive findings included the following.

"Teachers in the small classes devoted an average of an hour to reading instruction, while teachers in regular classes spent an hour and twenty-four minutes" (p. 7). That is, higher average levels of performance were obtained with less time expenditure. In mathematics, students in small classes initiated more contacts with the teacher, for purposes of clarification, giving answers to questions that were open to the whole class, and contacting the teacher privately for help. In reading, small classes had more students on-task and fewer students off-task and spent less time waiting for the next assignment, compared with students in regular classes. Teachers in small classes were rated as better monitors of students' understanding of class material and as more consistent in their management of student behavior.

Interviews conducted with STAR teachers were consistent with the observations. Teachers preferred the small-class setting and felt they were able to provide more individual attention, make greater use of supplemental texts and enrichment activities, and provide more frequent opportunities for pupils to engage in firsthand learning activities (Bain,et al. 1992). In total, it appears that classroom management was more efficient and the quality of teacher-student interaction was improved in smaller classes. North Carolina's Success Starts Small (Achilles,et al. 1994; Kiser-Kling, 1995) provided further support. In this study, trained observers collected over 7,100 "communication events" in the small and matched regular-size classes. Events were classified as personal, institutional, or task oriented. In brief, the study found a greater percentage of on-task events in small classes and a smaller percentage of institutional events (e.g., discipline or organizational) in comparison to

regular-size classes. On-task behaviors increased as a percentage of all behaviors between October and April in small classes, and decreased over the same time span in the larger classes. Further, discipline referrals among grade 1 pupils declined in small classes from 38 to 28 to 14 over the 3-year period. The studies described here indicate that student engagement and the conditions that facilitate engagement are affected positively in a small-class setting. In general, management problems were reduced and instructional interactions were enhanced.
Other Outcomes Short- and long-term benefits in addition to enhanced performance and academic engagement may accrue from small-class participation. Research to date suggests a number of practices that may be impacted, as described below.

Discipline. The STAR grade 4 follow-up (e.g., the LBS) demonstrated that students who had been in small classes were less disruptive than their peers in regular classes. The Success Starts Small project documented that grade 1 disciplinary referrals dropped over successive years in small classes. We have yet to learn whether this pattern persists through the grades. Grade retentions. A dissertation study was conducted from STAR data that focused on pupils who entered kindergarten and grade 1 as retainees (Harvey, 1993). The study concluded that proportionately fewer students were retained in small classes and that pupils in small classes were passed to the next grade with a wider range of scores. The possibility of using small class placement as an alternative to grade retention was raised. To date, no analysis of student retentions through later grades has been performed. Special education. With both academic and behavioral advantages, it is possible that small classes could reduce the need for special education placements. This would, of course, represent an important cost savings. Attendance. The STAR analysis of attendance did not reveal any differences in grades kindergarten through 3. However, younger pupils do not have the autonomy that would permit skipping classes or school. Attendance needs to be monitored through later grades.
Summary Project STAR demonstrated that small classes benefit students in grades kindergarten through 3 academically. That pupil behaviors are affected was shown clearly in the STAR grade 4 follow-up (i.e., the LBS). Ratings of specific engagement dimensions revealed improvements in the expenditure of effort, initiative taking, and reduced disruptive and inattentive behavior in comparison to students in regular classes. Both of these outcomes--enhanced performance and academic engagement--are likely to be beneficial especially to students at risk. Yet results for this population have not been examined closely enough to reveal the extent to which this is so.

Substantially more research is needed to tell us about the connections among teaching practices, engagement behaviors, and academic achievement--particularly for students at risk, and particularly through the later grades.

18

Brophy and Evertson (1981) termed such students "invisible" students.

19

This is not a necessary assumption since no conclusions in this paper rest on it being correct. The cycle depicted here is part of the "participation-identification model" presented in Finn (1989; 1993).

Research Priorities: Five Issues in Need of Further Research

The past decade of research on class size has opened exciting possibilities for improving the performance of students in the elementary grades and, hopefully, in later grades as well. Recognizing the potential of small classes, a number of states are beginning initiatives to reduce class size in some or all districts. At the same time, important questions remain unanswered, especially with respect to students at risk; the most pressing of these are outlined here.

Many of the issues raised in this research agenda can be partially addressed through the use of existing data. Using extant data bases offers unique opportunities and considerable economy. The process is not intrusive and shortens the time required to provide information substantially (Cooley & Bickel, 1986). In this instance, the data base that can be assembled from STAR and related studies is of unusual scope and quality. Mosteller (1995) noted:
Because a controlled education experiment (as distinct from a sample survey) of this quality, magnitude, and duration is a rarity, it is important that both educators and policy makers have access to its statistical information and understand its implications. Thought should be given to making sure that this information is preserved and well documented and that access to it is encouraged. (p. 126) As of this writing, the STAR/LBS data base consists of the original kindergarten through grade 3 data on approximately 7,100 children each year,20 including class placement, demographic information, and achievement scores obtained annually. The LBS follow-up data include achievement tests through grade 9, ratings on the Student Participation Questionnaire in grades 4 and 8, and student responses to the "Identification with School" scale, administered in grade 8. Other STAR data have been collected but are not computerized; these include teacher exit interviews, teacher and teacher-aide time logs, data on a matched sample of comparison schools that did not participate in the small-class experiment, and observations of a sample of grade 1 teachers conducted the year prior to teaching a small class and again during the small-class year. If STAR/LBS data were made available to the research community, their analysis could prove invaluable.

At the same time, new data may be preferable for answering some questions and may be the only way to obtain definitive answers to others. In order to obtain answers, it is important that districts and states undertaking small-class initiatives systematically collect information before, during and after implementation. Not only will problems and successes associated with small-class initiatives be documented, but there is much to be learned of interest to educators generally.
Issue 1: Short-Term and Long-Range Effects of Small Classes for Students At Risk Additional research on the effects of small class size, focused on at-risk students is needed to answer questions such as those discussed below. What are the "true" immediate and continued effects of small classes on the achievement of students at risk?

Immediate outcomes. Project STAR found significant academic benefits for pupils enrolled in small classes. However, as many as 18 percent of the classes drifted out of the ranges defined as "small" or "regular" during the 4-year study when students transferred into or out of participating schools. The Burke County study and Success Starts Small found small-class effect sizes as large as 0.4 and greater. An examination of just those STAR classes that remained in-range may yield effects substantially larger than those in Table 1. A focused analysis of STAR data also could ask whether small classes reduce the achievement gap between minority students or students from low-income homes, and their non-minority peers. Since some students were only in small classes for 1, 2, or 3 years, the reanalysis could also reveal the benefits of small classes to students who are more mobile than others--an issue of particular importance to students at risk. Medium-term outcomes. The LBS documented a continued but diminishing impact of small classes over subsequent years (grades 4 through 9). Again, analyses have not focused on the atrisk population and did not examine the achievement gap between white and minority students. Long-term outcomes. Further data are needed to address the effects on pupil performance through high school.
What are the effects of small classes on non-achievement outcomes among students at risk?

Several studies (e.g., Rand study, Head Start, Project High Scope) suggest that the benefits of some early interventions persevere through and beyond the school years. The LBS documented improved classroom behavior in grade 4 but went no further. Of the negative events experienced disproportionately by students at risk, it is important to ask whether small classes reduce the need for disciplinary action, for special education placement, for in-grade retention, and increase the likelihood of a student graduating from high school.

Issue 2: Teaching Practices to Maximize the Effectiveness of Small Classes Studies to date suggest that small classes create a more personalized environment for teacher and students and that small classes produce a time efficiency by reducing the need for discipline and classroom management and delivering effective instruction in a shorter amount of time. Additional research is needed to answer subsequent questions such as those discussed below. How do the most effective teachers take advantage of a small class setting to deliver more individualized instruction to pupils? and How can other teachers be taught to use these strategies?

Some teachers may use techniques designed to increase the participation of each individual student in classroom interactions. This is important in light of some youngsters' tendency to withdraw from participation--a particularly debilitating strategy.21 Some teachers may be able to increase parents' involvement in their youngsters' schooling. And some may be available to provide extraordinary support (e.g., extra attention; after-school help) for students having difficulty with class material; these "extras" are often lacking in schools serving students at risk (Ralph, 1989).
How do the most effective teachers take advantage of the time-efficiency provided by small-class instruction?

How do teachers in small classes allocate their time to working with individual students, small groups, or the whole class? What kinds of activities can be undertaken when instruction is more efficient? For example, if course material is reinforced, are additional activities implemented to push the students beyond the usual content? Is more focused evaluation and feedback provided?22
Issue 3: School and Classroom Conditions That Interact With Class Size STAR findings showed a disproportionate impact on minority students in some achievement areas each year (kindergarten through grade 3). Further research should examine other characteristics of schools and programs that may interact with class size and address questions such as those discussed below. Can small classes offset some of the disadvantages of attending a large school?

Past research has documented that attendance and participation in academic extracurricular activities are inversely related to school size, that is, larger schools have decreased student participation (Lindsay, 1982; Cockman, Bryson, & Achilles, 1989; Fowler, 1992). There is also a carryover effect: high participants in high school tend to participate actively in post-schooling cultural and community activities (Lindsay, 1984). Most of this research involved high-school students. The mechanisms that explain the association of school size with student participation have not been uncovered, but results indicate that smaller schools are seen as "warmer" and more supportive settings (Finn & Voelkl, 1993);23 that is, they provide a more personalized environment.

Given that large schools are ubiquitous, this research raises questions about the potential benefits of small classes. One study using STAR data (Nye, 1995) concluded that the negative correlation between school size and achievement disappears for students attending small classes. Other questions yet to be addressed include: Does attending a small class--even in the earlier grades-produce higher student attendance and involvement in later grades independently of the size of the school? If so, is this associated with improved student performance and increased likelihood of graduating from high school? Is there an interaction of class size and school size in the elementary grades as well? Is the increased engagement associated with small classes beneficial particularly to students at risk attending large, perhaps more impersonal, schools?
Do small classes accentuate and extend the benefits of other early childhood programs and practices? To date, no analyses have examined the combined impact of small classes with federal, state, or local programs directed at students living in poverty or who are otherwise at risk for school failure (e.g., Title I). Preschool participation and attending full-day kindergarten may also.promote the development of children generally and students at risk in particular. Some states do not have state-mandated kindergarten and, in others, half-day kindergarten is common.24 An analysis of some of the STAR data (Achilles, Nye, & Bain, 1994 1995) indicated a significant "test score value" for children who attended kindergarten. Further work is needed to document the combined impacts of preschool participation, attending kindergarten, and being enrolled in a small class on students at risk. Both short-term and longrange outcomes should be examined. Do small classes accentuate and extend the benefits of other classroom practices?

Several examples illustrate this research question: Cooperative learning has been used to promote the achievement of all students but students at risk in particular. Are cooperative learning techniques less effective or equally effective if the class size is small, or are the benefits accentuated? Heterogeneous small groups and heterogeneous classes have been found to be academically beneficial to at least some students. In a review of the problem of "stratification" in heterogeneous classrooms, Cohen and Lotan (1995) noted that, with appropriate intervention, higher rates of participation can be encouraged among low-status students. No investigation has examined the interaction of class size with class heterogeneity by racial-ethnic, socioeconomic, or primary language characteristics. There are many possible avenues to explore. Teacher aides are a major education intervention (e.g., Title I; special education; some remedial programs). The academic value of teacher aides depends both on their qualifications to provide instruction and on how they are deployed (e.g., for order-keeping, for bookkeeping, or as a true teaching resource). Research should ask whether teacher aides can be utilized to further enhance the benefits of small classes, or whether judicious use of well-prepared teacher aides in regularsize classrooms can produce some of the same benefits as small classes, but at lower cost.

Issue 4: Small Classes and Positive "Long-Term Trajectories" for Students At Risk Educational risk may be described in terms of group status characteristics or in terms of a set of behaviors. If these "risk" behaviors manifest in negative ways, such as not attending to the teacher, not completing required work, and skipping school, they create impediments to learning. On the other hand, if a student exhibits positive behaviors, such as attending and participating (e.g., "engagement behaviors"), the behaviors may serve as "protective" mechanisms to improve the chances of school success in spite of group risk status. While status and behavioral risk factors are often found in the same individuals, risk behaviors may be amenable to influence by parents, school personnel, and school programs.

There is evidence that risk behavior in school and the classroom and its obverse, engagement, is developmental and begins in the early school grades (see Finn, 1989, 1993). Active participation in the early grades, accompanied by some degree of academic success, serves to perpetuate continued participation throughout the school years; this would be a "positive trajectory." When a young student does not participate in the classroom, this may begin a cycle that results in adverse consequences over time. Barriers to success multiply. Risk factors "cluster;" that is, multiple risk factors are likely to occur in the same individual--especially over time. And risk factors "track;" that is, they have early forms that evolve into fully developed forms over time that are increasingly difficult to alter. Thus it is essential that educators identify and understand forms of disengagement from school in the early grades and do all that is feasible to intervene at that point. The central question then is:
Can small classes in the early grades begin students on a positive trajectory that persists through the school years?

Three key issues should be explored further. First, we need to assess the short-run and long-run likelihood of adverse consequences of early risk behavior. The relationship of status and behavioral risk factors in the early grades with absenteeism, suspensions, retention in grade, loss of identification with school and dropping out, and even drug use and contacts with police in later years should be studied carefully. Patterns of tracking and clustering of risk factors should also be documented. Second, we need to understand why some students at risk succeed academically in spite of the obstacles they may face because of group status characteristics. Such students have been termed "educationally resilient" (see Nettles & Pleck, 1994; Rutter, 1990). With respect to resilient students we should ask whether they exhibit positive engagement behaviors beginning in the early grades. What sorts of preschool and early school experiences did they participate in? What sorts of support for learning did they receive from their teachers, parents, peers, and others? Finally, we need to ask whether small classes in the early grades interrupt patterns of disengagement, decrease the likelihood of adverse consequences, and increase the likelihood of positive behaviors (and achievement) over subsequent years.

Issue 5: Assessing the Costs of a Small-Class Initiative Every school, district or state planning to undertake a class-size initiative confronts the budget question. However, the question is not as simple as asking "How much more will additional teachers and classrooms cost?" because associated benefits may produce savings and careful planning may be able to contain the expense. There are a number of related issues, elaborated below, about which there is a small but growing base of knowledge. Additional research is needed to address these questions more fully. Do classes of 15-18 pupils really cost more if weighed against the benefits that accrue?

Researchers have not yet assessed the total impact of small classes, but research has demonstrated academic benefits in all subjects that persist into later grades, and improved learning behavior at least through grade 4. Related studies previously discussed have indicated fewer grade retentions and fewer disciplinary referrals. If, in the long run, the need for remedial and special education teachers is reduced, discipline problems and violence are reduced, and/or fewer students leave school without graduating, then there is a real gain on the output side of the equation. Most of these effects are well-documented while some require further research. It is clear, however, that small classes produce an array of academic and behavioral benefits that have cost-savings value.
How can the costs of implementing small classes be contained?

If hiring more teachers is the only strategy used to reduce class size, a small-class initiative undoubtedly will be expensive. Again, however, it may not be expensive in relation to the benefits that accrue or in comparison to other interventions with an equally broad array of outcomes. Although, at present, there are no prescribed solutions to the issue of cost, a number of districts have found ways to achieve small classes, even within the usual per-pupil expenditures. Some schools have experimented with creative scheduling plans. Others have redeployed staff in order to achieve smaller class sizes; for example, by assigning Title I teachers or specialty teachers to small classes, using supplemental state funds for additional teachers, or allocating part-time teacher aide funds to full-time teaching positions (see also Miles, 1995). While reassignments such as these do challenge people's thinking about "business as usual," initial reactions from these sites indicate that both teachers and administrators are satisfied with the decisions. However, the experiences of these schools and districts must be systematically documented in order for us to obtain further answers to the question of how costs can be contained. Additional field-based research is needed urgently to build a broader knowledge base that educators can use for decision making. Further, a mechanism is needed for compiling the experiences of local sites into a central database that can be tapped by researchers and policymakers alike.

20

The total sample size (approximately 12,000) exceed the number of students for any given year, since it includes pupils who were in STAR classes for 1 or 2 years but not other years.

21

Brophy and Rohrkemper (1989) have produced one of the few lists of strategies to encourage participation by students who are shy and/or withdrawn.
22

Both observational and interview data are needed to address these questions. Since small classes are being implemented in many states and districts across the country, further observational data should be readily accessible.
23

Teachers and administrators may actually behave in warmer and more supportive ways in smaller schools; that is, there may be a factual basis to this perception. This has not been studied.
24

At the time Project STAR began, Tennessee did not require that children attend kindergarten.

References
Achilles, C. M. (no date). Summary of recent class-size research with an emphasis on Tennessee's Project STAR and its derivative research studies. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State University, Center of Excellence for Research and Policy on Basic Skills. Achilles, C. M., Kiser-Kling, K., Owen, J., & Aust, A. (1994). Success Starts Small: Life in a small class. Final Report. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina. Achilles, C. M., Harman, P., & Egelson, P. (1995). "Using research results on class size to improve pupil achievement outcomes." Research in the Schools, 2(2), 23 30. Achilles, C. M., Nye, B. A., & Bain H. P. (1994 1995). "Test-score 'value' of kindergarten for pupils in three class conditions at grades 1, 2, 3." National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal (NFEAS), 12(l), 3 15. Achilles, C. M., Nye, B. A., & Zaharias, J. B. (1995, April). Policy use of research results: Tennessee's Project Challenge. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Bain, H. P., Achilles, C. M., Zaharias, J. B., & McKenna, B. (1992). "Class size does make a difference." Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 253 256. Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. A., & Weikart, D. P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry preschool program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope. Boozer, M., & Rouse, C. (1995, June). Intraschool variation in class size: Patterns and implication. (Working Paper No. 344). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research, Industrial Relations Section. (ERIC document number ED 385935). Bourke, S. (1986). "How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices and student achievement." American Educational Research Journal, 23, 558 571. Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching. New York: Longman.

Brophy, J., & Rohrkemper, M. (1989, October). Teachers' strategies for coping with shy/withdrawn students. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching. (Research Series No. 199). Center for School Assessment. (1986, July). PRIME TIME: The relationship between class size and achievement for first grade students in Indiana 1984 85. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education. Chase, C. I., Mueller, D. J., & Walden, J. D. (1986, December). PRIME TIME: Its impact on instruction and achievement. Final report. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education. Cockman, D., Bryson, J., & Achilles, C. M. (1989). High school size and student participation in school activities: North Carolina, 1988 89. Paper presented to the North Carolina Association of Research in Education Annual Conference, Research Triangle Park. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). "Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom." American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99 120. Cooley, W., & Bickel, W. (1986). Decision-oriented education research. Boston: KluwerNijhoff. Egelson, P., Harman, P., & Achilles, C. M. (1996). Does class size make a difference? Recent findings from state and district initiatives. Greensboro, NC: Southeastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE). Evertson, C. M., & Folger, J. K. (1989, March). Small class, large class: What do teachers do differently? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Farkas, G., Grobe, R. P., Sheehan, D., & Shuan, Y. (1990). "Cultural resources and school success: Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district." American Sociological Review, 55, 127 142. Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). "How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools" in H.F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable. Performance-based reform in education (pp 265 298). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Finn, J. D. (1989). "Withdrawing from school." Review of Educational Research, 59, 117 142. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (NCES 93 470). Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). "Answers about questions about class size: A statewide experiment." American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557 577.

Finn, J. D., Folger, J., & Cox, D. (1991). "Measuring participation among elementary grade students." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 393 402. Finn, J. D., Fulton, D., Zaharias, J., & Nye, B. A. (1989). "Carry-over effects of small classes." Peabody Journal of Education, 67(l), 75 84. Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). "Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders." The Elementary School Journal, 95, 421 434. Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). "Academic success among students at risk." Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221 234. Finn, J. D., & Voelkl, K. E. (1993). "School characteristics related to student engagement." Journal of Negro Education, 62, 249 268. Finn, J. D., & Voelkl, K. E. (1994). "Class size" in T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd edition). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Finn, J. D., Achilles, C. M., Bain, H. P., Folger, J., Johnston, J. M., Lintz, M. N., & Word, E. R. (1990). "Three years in a small class." Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 127 136. Fowler, W. J., Jr. (1992, April). What do we know about school size? What should we know? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1978). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research & Development. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). "The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools." Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141 1177. Harvey, B. (1993, December). An analysis of grade retention for pupil in K-3. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994, April). "Does money matter? A metaanalysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes."Educational Researcher, 23, 5 14. King, J. A. (1994). "Meeting the educational needs of at-risk students: A cost analysis of three models." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(l), 1 19. Kiser-Kling, K. (1995). Life in a small teacher-pupil ratio class. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Laine, R. D., Greenwald, R., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). "Money does matter: A research synthesis of a new universe of education production function studies" in L. O. Picus & J. L.

Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 44 70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lamborn, S. D., Brown, B. B., Mounts, N. S., & Steinberg, L. (1992). "Putting school in perspective: The influence of family, peers, extracurricular participation, and part-time work on academic engagement" in F. M. Newman (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 153 181). New York: Teachers College Press. Levin, H. (1988). "Cost-effectiveness and educational policy." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(l), 51 69. Lindsay, P. (1982). "The effect of high school size on student participation, satisfaction, and attendance." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(l), 57 65. Lindsay, P. (1984). "High school size, participation in activities, and young adult social participation: Some enduring effect of schooling." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(l), 73 83. Malloy, L., & Gilman, D. (1989). "The cumulative effects on basic skills achievement of Indiana's PRIME TIME A state sponsored program of reduced class size." Contemporary Education, 60, 169 172. McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G. E., Price, B. J., & Hwang Y. (1992). "A study of race and gender bias in the punishment of school children." Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 140 146. McGiverin, J., Gilman, D., & Tillitski, C. (1989). "A meta-analysis of the relation between class size and achievement." Elementary School Journal, 90, 47 56. Milchus, N., Farrah, G., & Reitz, W. (1968). The self-concept and motivation inventory: What face would you wear? Preschool/kindergarten form. Dearborne Heights, MI: Person-0-Metrics. Miles, K. H. (1995). "Freeing resources for improving schools: a case study of teacher allocation in Boston Public Schools." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 476 493. Mosteller, F. (1995). "The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades." The Future of Children, 5(2), 113 127. Mueller, D. J., Chase, C. I., & Walden, J. D. (1988). "Effects of reduced class size in primary classes." Educational Leadership, 45(7), 48 53. Nettles, S. M., & Pleck, J. H. (1994). "Risk, resilience, and development: The multiple ecologies of black adolescents in the United States" in R. J. Hagerty, N. Garmezy, M. Rutter & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms. and intervention (pp. 147 181). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nye, K. E. (1995). The effect of school size and the interaction of school size and class type on selective student achievement measures in Tennessee elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tennessee: Knoxville. Odden, A. (1990). "Class size and student achievement: Research-based policy alternatives." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 213 227. Pinnell, G. S., deFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading recovery: early intervention for at-risk first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Ralph, J. (1989). "Improving education for the disadvantaged: Do we know whom to help?" Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 395 401. Robinson, G. E. (1990). "Synthesis of research on effects of class size." Educational Leadership, 47(7), 80 90. Robinson, G. & Wittebols, J. H. (1986). Class size research: A related cluster analysis for decision making. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Rutter, M. (1990). "Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms" in J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Neuchterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181 214). New York: Cambridge University Press. Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G., & Fitzgerald, J. (1980). "An experimental study of effects of class size." American Educational Research Journal, 17, 141 152. Slavin, R. E. (1989). (Ed.). School and classroom organization. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). "What works for students at risk: A research synthesis." Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4 13. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1995). "Success for all: Creating schools and classrooms where all children can read" in Oakes & Quarts (Eds.), Creating New Educational Communities. NSSE Yearbook, Part 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 70 86. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. J., Livermon, B. J., & Dolan, L. J. (1990). "Success for All: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education." American Educational Research Journal, 27, 255 278. Steele, C. M. (1992, April). "Race and the schooling of black Americans." The Atlantic Monthly, 68 78. Swift, M. S., & Spivack, G. (1968). "The assessment of achievement-related classroom behavior." Journal of Special Education, 2(2) 137 149.

Tomlinson, T. M. (1988). Class size and public policy: Politics and panaceas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Tomlinson, T. M. (1989). "Class size and public policy: Politics and panaceas." Educational Policy, 3, 261 273. Tomlinson, T. M. (1990). "Class size and public policy: The plot thickens." Contemporary Education, LXII(1), 17 23. Trueba, H. T. (1983). "Adjustment problems of Mexican and Mexican-American students: An anthropological study." Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 395 404. Velez, W. (1989). "High school attrition among Hispanic and non-Hispanic White youths." Sociology of Education, 62, 119 133. Voelkl, K. E. (1996). "Measuring students identification with school." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 760 770. Wasik, B. & Slavin, R. E. (1990, April). Preventing early reading failure with one-on-one tutoring: A best-evidence synthesis. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989). Reducing the risk. Schools as communities of support. London: Farmer Press. Wenglinsky, H. (1997). When money matters. How educational expenditures improve student performance and when they don't. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center. Word, E., Johnston, J., Bain, H., Fulton, D. B., Boyd-Zaharias, J., Lintz, M. N., Achilles, C. M., Folger, J., & Breda, C. (1990). Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR): Tennessee's K 3 Class-size Study. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of Education. Zaharias, J. B., Achilles, C. M., Bain, H. P., & Fulton, B. D. (1995). "Quality schools build on a quality start" in E. Chance (Ed.), Creating the quality school (pp. 117 124). Madison, WI: Magna Publishing.

Teaching Science and Mathematics to At Risk Students. ERIC Digest.

Increasingly, applicants for the best employment opportunities will need a good grasp of science, mathematics, and computer technology. However,

minorities, women, and other disadvantaged groups have not excelled to the same degree as others in these areas. Why this is so, and what can be done to increase their achievement, are important educational concerns now. Successful attempts to teach science and mathematics effectively have been made recently, and a range of educational policies, programs, and methods have been identified and are now in use. There are a variety of reasons why some students have achievement difficulties, including the following: Cognitive Differences: Individual students process information and approach problem solving in different ways, although research has shown that, in general, individuals who are members of certain groups of students (i.e., minorities and women) process information similarly, but in a way that is different from that defined by educators as the norm. Because it is only this "normal" way of learning that has informed curriculum development, large numbers of students have failed to master science and mathematics coursework. Family Stress: Students whose family life is in turmoil often suffer from lack of parental involvement. Further, the ability of these children to learn is hampered by lowered self-esteem, the result of their internalization of this stress. Prime sources of family stress for children at academic risk are poverty and unemployment, and other problems they engender. Racial and Cultural Bias: Because some teachers believe that certain students cannot excel at science and mathematics, they encourage them to take less challenging, nonacademic courses. Teachers may also believe that, given a history of low minority and female student achievement in technological studies, and possible employment discrimination, it is better to prepare these students for the jobs that will probably be available to them than for jobs usually held only by white males. Parents also can discourage achievement as a result of beliefs

they've come to accept after a lifetime spent in a society which is often prejudiced. Students whose first language is not English, or is a nonstandard dialect, may have difficulty in understanding not only standard English, but also the cultural context of the learning material. Bilingual curriculum is frequently limited to the most basic subjects, so students are not exposed to higher level mathematics and science learning. Other cultural norms, such as the way children are supposed to interact with adults at home, may be at variance with accepted student-teacher interaction; these differences may also hamper students' academic success. Disability: Though technological literacy is particularly important for improving the lives of the handicapped, frequently disabled people are "tracked" out of technical courses because of a misconception that they cannot function safely in a laboratory or could never work in a science setting. Tracking: Students who exhibit any kind of learning difficulty, no matter what the reason, may be counseled to take less challenging classes instead of encouraged to work harder to master the more difficult ones. If tracking begins in the early grades, students never receive the educational building blocks they need for more advanced learning later. Many principles of programs that successfully teach mathematics and science are also aspects of the more general effective schooling principles, while others respond specifically to the needs of minorities and women. A few of the principles are these: High Quality and Long-Term Programs: Programs should emphasize: enrichment, rather than remediation; the personal importance of learning science and mathematics; and hands-on experience. They should begin early and continue throughout the schooling of the targeted groups, drawing on the cooperative efforts of universities, businesses,

and the community. They should be evaluated frequently, and altered accordingly; and should have a diversified funding base to ensure uninterrupted operation. High Quality and Diverse Staff: It is essential to have a strong principal and director, and competent teachers who all believe in students' ability to learn and are committed to removing educational inequities related to sex, race, ethnic background, and disability. Staff members should be recruited from target populations so they can serve as role models, and they should introduce students to other role models of both sexes with backgrounds similar to theirs. Recontextualization: Learning tasks should be created that allow students to master them through use of their innate ways of understanding information. Information to be taught, and problems to be solved, should be embedded in familiar contexts, and should reflect students' cultural and ethnic diversity, so they can make immediate and practical use of what they learn. Relating mathematics and science learning to future careers also enhances student attention, and thus, comprehension and retention. Cultural and Language Sensitivity: Teachers should respect the style of students with a nonstandard way of communicating, and with a culturally different way of interacting in group situations; and they should be sure that students comprehend their teacher's speech. Bilingual advanced science and mathematics classes should be available. Anxiety-Reducing Strategies: A competitive classroom atmosphere can provoke student anxiety. An alternative learning environment--where cooperation, rather than being first with the correct answer, is rewarded--eliminates the stress of competition and the value conflict of some females and minorities who value cooperative social interaction. Instilling in students the belief that they

can succeed also helps reduce anxiety. Improved Programming: Smaller classes, where students can interact more closely with teachers, enhance learning. Increased time on task is also beneficial; developing learning activities that take less time to master, and recontextualization, which often results in more rapid learning, allow more time for mastery of additional material. Cooperative Student Groupings: A hands-on, inquiry-oriented science curriculum, with students divided into small mixed ability cooperative groupings, has been shown to be more effective than traditional teaching methods. Students learn to solve problems independently, and help each other develop skills. It has also been shown that crosssex and mixed ability pairings result in more effective learning than do random pairings. Extracurricular Learning: Science and mathematics achievement can be enhanced through after-school programs run by institutions that provide educational enrichment. Parents can encourage students to take advantage of these, and of the public library, by accompanying them. Finally, the use of increasing numbers of phone-in services which answer students' academic questions can be supported. FOR MORE INFORMATION Cole, M.; and P. Griffin (Eds.). CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN EDUCATION: IMPROVING SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS FOR MINORITIES AND WOMEN. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1987. Malcolm, S.M. EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE: COMPATIBLE GOALS: AN ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS THAT FACILITATE INCREASED ACCESS AND ACHIEVEMENT OF FEMALES AND MINORITIES IN K-12 MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION. Washington, DC: Office of Opportunities in Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science,

December 1984. Marinez, D.; and B. Ortiz de Montellano. TEACHING CULTURALLY LEVANT SCIENCE. Paper presented at the Michigan Hispanic Education Conference, Dearborn, Michigan, May 1983. ED 259 035. Mestre, J. "The Latino Science and Engineering Student: Recent Research Findings." In LATINO COLLEGE STUDENTS, edited by M. Olivas. New York: Teachers College Press, 1986. Wallace, J.M. "Nurturing an 'I Can' Attitude in Mathematics." EQUITY AND CHOICE 11 (1986): 35-40. http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-927/math.htm

At-Risk Students: A Point of Viewing

At-Risk Students: Children who are expected to fail because teachers cannot motivate, control, teach, or interest them using traditional methods and prescribed curriculum. ~ At-Risk Students: Understanding Their Defensive Ploys - Bill Page

A Position Paper by Bill Page Regular contributor to the Gazette December 1, 2008

A point-of-view is how one views something; a point-of-viewing is where one stands while s/he is viewing something. I have been, (and still am), at-risk. I have stood where the troublemakers stood. I have seen the classroom from the bottom end. I have suffered failure and embarrassment. I have felt classroom discrimination, hostility, and injustice. I didnt like it. It hurt. Now, heres my point of viewing: Nothing is more frustrating for teachers than the daunting task of teaching kids who cant, dont, or wont even try to learn, cooperate, follow procedures, or behave. Currently failing students and those at risk of failing are educations number one problem. Furthermore, the collateral damage of failure in the form of dropouts, truants, illiterates, delinquents, and

criminals is a national shame, an economical waste, and an educational travesty. And, the at-risk problem is equally egregious for students, parents, administrators, and society. Twenty-five percent of all students may be at risk of failure. And, fifteen percent of all students qualify as chronically failing and repeating grades, making them at-certain of failure and of dropping out. Traditional remediation strategies and alternative programs for improving achievement of at-risk students have been notoriously ineffective, especially with the hardcore group at the bottom or with middle and secondary students who may have endured years of failure, bad behavior, and bad attitudes. Students who have been retained in grade usually survive school only long enough to reach dropout age, while many marginalized students go through the motions of schooling with no measurable learning achievement. Remedial Procedures Have Not Worked for At-Risk Students Traditional remedial teaching methods have emphasized controlling and modifying the students misbehavior rather than changing failed school policies, examining underlying causes, and acknowledging the ineffective behavior, attitude, and relationship of well-meaning teachers. Student behavior is a manifestation of beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and experiences. Reasons for misbehavior are internal and cannot be manipulated from outside by teachers or by parents. Use of punishment as a remedy treats the symptoms not the causes of misbehavior. Predictably, the misbehavior accelerates to retaliation measures such as vandalism, hostility, apathy, and rebellion creating even greater problems. Beliefs and perceptions must be examined and altered by students so they can change their own behavior. Behavior modifications can be made only by the students themselves. But, since the causal factors that are currently driving them are the same ones necessary for making a change, students cannot be expected to initiate that change on their own. Students need a responsible adult to intercede and advise, but they are reluctant to take advice or counsel from anyone they dont trust, they dont like, or who has already failed to help them. Since these problem students see teachers on a daily basis, it is imperative that a good student-teacher relationship be established before students can be helped to improve and begin to take responsibility for their behavior and success.

Achievement Is the Function of Choice and Commitment Schools cannot change student behavior by compulsion, exhortation, coercion, cajoling, reward, or punishment. Theyve been trying for 100 years! Individual student achievement is the function of choice and commitment; it is never the result of coercion. If sufficiently powerful, coercion can cause a degree of compliance or perhaps cause the student to behave as though complying; but, as schools discovered long ago, coercion can also cause resistance, resentment, hostility, defiance, passive aggression, violence, subversion, vandalism, hopelessness, passivity, and a full range of notorious, disruptive and undesirable behaviors by students at-risk. At-risk students need help seeing themselves in new and different ways, and with renewed hope and possibilities. If they perceive themselves differently, they will behave differently. I am the only one who can change me and only students can change themselves. Change must emanate from inside each individual. Perception cannot be manipulated from the outside. Through a caring relationship with mutual trust and respect, teachers can help students change their perceptions by facilitating a willingness and freedom to examine, question, compare, and consider other possibilities. Until students see themselves as capable, or until the have the desire to change, they cannot acquire the study and learning skills by which they can ultimately improve their behavior and academic achievement.
http://teachers.net/gazette/DEC08/page/index.html

What Teachers Need to Know and Do Teachers are frequently the only adults outside of a students family members who have the position, knowledge, and opportunity to assist students in altering their ambitions, attitudes, choices, and commitment in order to become successful in school. Among factors, which teachers themselves need to consider, recognize, and understand about at-risk students behaviors before they can begin moving toward helping those students succeed are these: 1. At-risk students are likely to have a failure identity, which some wear like a badge of honor. Many see themselves as losers. By their manner of walking, talking, dressing, hairstyle, adornments, friends,

vocabulary, mannerisms, and past success with their identification, they identify with other failing students and separate themselves from successful students and authority figures. 2. Most programs, reforms, and innovations have focused on changing the students instead of changing teachers understanding of the way they need to relate to the at-risk students and deal with the problem of identity. When teachers change their approach, their responses, their emphases, and their part of the teacher-student relationship; the students change accordingly. Teachers, as authority figures, have responsibility for establishing a good relationship and the obligation to initiate changes. But normally, teachers do not know or do not accept that responsibility. 3. In spite of the obvious, direct, profound relationship between students' attitudes toward a subject and their interest, motivation, learning, memory, and achievement, schools have not dealt with the problem of attitude except to talk about it or condemn it. I know of no teacher who has had a course or in-service program on changing or improving student attitudes. If a student says, I hate to write, it would be extremely difficult, probably impossible, to teach him/her to write, practice, and improve his/her writing skills without changing that negative attitude first, or at least simultaneously. 4. Self-concept is crucial to school success, but self-concept is not taught directly. It is inferred by individual students from the attitude, demeanor, and behavior of those with whom they associate and interact. At-risk students figure out or deduce who they are, what they are like, of what they are capable, and what they believe about themselves. Self-fulfilling prophecies, school policies, discrimination,

evaluations, and assessment procedures are constant reminders providing daily reinforcement of the student's loser image. 5. Consistent, predictable, widespread discrimination against at-risk students is well documented and widely accepted. Teachers are apt to treat students who have poor language skills, social skills, and learning skills in a condescending manner. Common characteristics of children resulting from impoverished conditions including limited and inappropriate vocabulary, clothing, hygiene, behavior, discipline, and interpersonal relations, cause negative or lessened attention from teachers. Perhaps the biggest problem is that so much of the discriminatory communication is non verbal. Dr Phil claims that ninety-three percent of the communication in one-on-one interaction is non-verbal. Teachers most likely discriminate, unintentionally, throughout each daily lesson. 6. Students dont spond; they respond. In a teacher controlled classroom, students rarely initiate behavior, but they constantly respond to teacher behaviors. As teachers change their ways of teaching, relating, or acting toward the class as a whole and toward individual students, they find that the students likewise change. A teacher changing his or her own behavior thus causes the student to change his/her own behavior. Recognizing, understanding, and improving the above six elements: 1.) Failure identity, 2.) Focus on teacher behaviors, 3.) Attitude change, 4.) Self-concept, 5.) Non verbal communication, and 6.) Sponding and responding are within the purview of all classroom teachers. Unfortunately, some think that because the elements are in the affective domain, they are nebulous, feel good stuff that lie outside of the behavioral objectives in daily lesson plans, so they ignore the factors that make the most difference for students at-risk. Keys to success

Given these six essential factors for teachers understanding, there are six specific, corresponding areas of change and improvement that must be considered before students at-risk will have an opportunity to achieve personal, academic, classroom, and social success: 1. Failure Identity: To teach at-risk students, teachers must be able to help them learn about acquiring identity characteristics and the ramifications of the choices they are making. Students need to learn that identity is a choice, which should be at a conscious level. Teachers must identify with the students and the students must perceive that they can be like the teacher and the good students. If I dont want to be like you; I wont listen or accept your advice. If I cant be like you or the good kids, why should I try? They must accept a success identity before relinquishing the old failure identity.

2. Focus on nonverbal behavior: The student-teacher relationship makes the crucial difference in a students achievement and the ability of a teacher to influence student behavior. If teachers taught better, students would learn better; if teachers taught more, students would learn more; and if teachers taught the at-risk students, the atrisk students would learn. And, it is the teacher who has the obligation and ability to improve the relationship through which students can improve their learning. 3. Attitude change: Research indicates two primary ways to change attitude -- that is, cause a student to change his/her attitude. Both ways are crucial. First, is the teachers attitude--if the teacher thinks the student can learn, believes the learning to be important, and shows that attitude the student may also believe it. Second, helping the students see themselves and the task differently--if they saw the

task in a different way and saw themselves as capable, they would respond differently. Teachers could break down a task so that students see its importance, its sequential steps, and its meaningfulness, giving them the confidence to try. 4. Self-concept: At-risk students are in the classroom grouping but not necessarily a part of the group. Teachers, through their own personal degree of tolerance, rejection, and acceptance, responses, attitude, group activities and class lessons can and should demonstrate acceptance and understanding. Students who think they wont be accepted by a group -reject the group first. And, once marginalized, they will remain on the fringes, unless specific teaching strategies demonstrate and encourage acceptance of all individuals by all group members. 5. Non verbal communication: Conscious awareness of possible (probable?) discrimination against at-risk students is the first step to reducing it. Safeguards such as consistent timing for responses, calling on students by random selection, collaborating, class discussions, and getting to know more about the students personal lives can be implemented immediately, while feedback and reflection on non-verbal aspects of interaction can be become a priority. 6. Sponding/responding: Teachers, through self-reflection, experimentation and action research can initiate hypotheses about how their own behavior might be changed and how it might affect student behavior. Forms of providing prestigious involvement, positive attitude, more pleasant demeanor, and improved relationship can be tried. If Educators Will Not Change Themselves; They Will Not Change Students Either

Educational excellence is via instructional excellence. At-risk students cannot be expected to increase their achievement unless their teachers improve their teaching effectiveness and willingness. At-risk students cannot change unless and until teachers and schools change. Certainly its a tough job, but if professional educators cant change themselves, they should not expect inexperienced, struggling students to change themselves. Nor should educators continue the failed policies of threats, exhortation, and intimidation by tests, grades, and failure. For many years, dropouts, force-outs, psychological dropouts, failures, over-age students, social misfits, delinquents, and students in categories most at-risk were relegated to the lowest socioeconomic levels when they exited school, and might expect to find menial jobs and a degree of acceptance by society at that low level. But, times have changed. Society no longer expects or accepts failures nor is there a place for them. Every child is expected to be a literate, productive, independent, critically thinking, self-actualizing member of society. If s/he is not, s/he becomes doomed to failure in life just as s/he was in school. Unfortunately, their fate is not in their hands. It is in the hands and hearts of schools and teachers, who have the opportunity and obligation to salvage their lives. We must not let them down. With joy in sharing, Bill Page