| Printable Version

Smaller Class Sizes

Winter 00/01 (v4#3)
NYC’s Use of Floating Teachers Could Determine Success or Failure of Class Size Reduction Initiative

Early-grade class size reduction is one of the most effective school-based reforms to raise student achievement. Research shows that placing children in smaller classes from kindergarten to third grade raises achievement across the board, but children of color and disadvantaged children procure the most significant gains. Ideally, New York City should use state and federal class size reduction (CSR) funding to place every young child in a smaller class, reducing class sizes in the city to the norm in the rest of the state.

The feedback from NYC teachers whose classes have been reduced in the past two years as a result of the CSR initiative has been overwhelmingly positive, enthusiastic, and powerful. In the Educational Priorities Panel’s report Smaller is Better, teacher after teacher reported their smaller class had dramatic effects on the quantity of learning and the quality of teaching taking place in their classrooms.

Unfortunately, it is no secret that many NYC schools are already overcrowded. Although the city is well aware of the need to create adequate classroom space, as of yet, no comprehensive solution has emerged to solve the facilities problem.

Juggling Dollars
The funding to reduce the sizes New York City’s classes comes from both the state Legislature ($88 million) and the U.S. Congress ($66 million). The two "pots" of money have different regulations on how the funding may and may not be spent (see EPP CSR Fact Sheet, p. 9). These stipulations have created unique challenges for New York City.

One of the challenges faced by the NYC Board of Education (BOE) is the state regulation that all state funding must be spent to create distinct, new classrooms. This proposes a vast challenge to half of the community school districts (CSDs) that have no space in their elementary school buildings to reduce class sizes.

Certain CSD superintendents have made finding classroom space a top priority, coming up with creative solutions to make space in their schools. Top Board officials estimate that, two years after the first year of the implementation of the program, 1,563 distinct, new classes have been created. Each newly created class brings down the average size of the other classes in that grade, leading to the "multiplier effect," which has resulted in between 4,500-6,000 NYC classes averaging 20 students. (The BOE is currently conducting an audit of CSD’s implementation of the program and anticipates that more precise numbers should be available by mid January.)

Other CSDs depended on federal funding, because they did not have the classroom space to use the state "pot." The federal "pot" can be used to place two teachers in one classroom all day or to have an extra teacher assigned to two, three, four, or five classrooms for certain periods of the school day. The central Board juggled the two "pots" of funding across community school districts, ensuring that every district was able to utilize their allocated CSR funds–whether it is from the state or federal "pot." At times, this required the Board to swap one overcrowded CSD’s allocation for a new class for another CSD’s allocation for a "floating" teacher. This juggling act enabled the city to make use of all the federal and state funding allocated to New York City.

Anticipating Conflict
The state Legislature has promised to increase the funding for the statewide CSR initiative to $225 million for the 2001-02 school year. As part to the 1997 LADDER initiative, CSR funding originally targeted the schools serving the most high-needs students. The program was slated to expand each year, for a total of three years. This year’s Legislative session will determine if the third year of the state initiative is funded and at what level.

The next Legislative budget session occurs in a non-election year when the budget "knives" are said to be sharper. Last session there were pleas that the state funding be made more flexible by allowing it to be used for "floating" teachers. But questions arose in Albany about the effectiveness and the potential for the misuse of "floating" teachers, so state restrictions were not eased. The same battle will emerge during the state budget negotiations this spring.

Could Class Size Reduction Become Remediation?
EPP fears that CSR federal dollars may end up funding remediation efforts. The Panel has received reports that "floating" teachers have been brought into classrooms for only 45 minutes a day to work with the lowest achievers. This is remediation, not class size reduction. Genuine reduced class sizes in the early grades increases learning and achievement so children do not get to the point where they are targeted for remediation.

A recent study, presented at the Council of Great Schools Conference by Charles M Achilles, compiles the research on class size reduction and clearly warns against likening class size to pupil-teacher ratios (PTR). Pupil-teacher ratios can be misleading as they can be calculated by dividing the number of students by the number of full-time teachers in a school, which may not reflect how many students are in a class, how many teachers are in classrooms, how different classes vary in size, or how many students are assigned to each teacher. The study also warns of the failures of remediation:

"Left unsaid is that PTR change is most often influenced by remedial efforts and ‘projects’ to help at-risk students, projects like Title 1, the nation’s largest ‘remedial education’ effort. Remedial projects and special education efforts seldom produce large test-score gains…"

The duration of the CSR initiative may depend on whether the BOE sets clear standards to prevent the misuse of "floating" teachers.

BOE Guidelines: What They Do Say
In issuing its first written guidelines for the implementation of the program, the Board of Education displayed pragmatism and foresight. This fall, NYC community school district superintendents and principals received Early Grade Class Size Reduction Guidelines 2000-01 that stated that classes reduced in the 1999-00 school year must be maintained, and that the increase in funding should be used to keep children that benefited from the initiative last year in a small class this year.

For the first time, administrators were provided with the results of nationwide studies on the effect that CSR has on student learning and achievement. The Guidelines cites an U.S. Department of Education analysis that finds that CSR raises student achievement and highlights research findings that show smaller classes lead to more time dedicated to learning and less instruction time lost to discipline problems. The BOE’s recommendations include those featured in EPP’s own report, Smaller is Better (Spring 2000), such as placing students in smaller classes as early as possible (kindergarten and first grade, not second or third) and ensuring that those students continue to learn in reduced size classes in the ensuing years.

Now that administrators have been provided with comprehensive research findings, school officials should be able to knowledgeably implement this CSR program to create the optimum environment for students to learn.

What the Guidelines Don’t Say
The Board’s Guidelines neglects to establish a protocol for the use of "floating" teachers, perhaps the most contentious facet of the program.

The Guidelines suggest appropriate instructional models for schools with reduced class sizes and for overcrowded schools that have placed an extra "floating" teacher in a regular classroom to enable small group learning. The Board allows flexibility in allowing schools to implement instructional models that best serve the needs of their students, stressing the focus should be early intervention and literacy.

The Board suggests instructional models facilitated by a second teacher in the room for blocks of time. However, The Guidelines do not go beyond instructional recommendations pertaining to "floating" teachers. There are no stipulations that limit the number of classes a "floating" teacher should be assigned, the training that teacher should receive, the amount of time the second teacher should have in each classroom, or the planning periods that teachers working together should be assigned.

The omission of regulations pertaining to the use of "floating" teachers is a serious oversight. The achievement gains of students in overcrowded schools are contingent on whether "floating" teachers are used effectively. The Guidelines do state that schools should provide students with sustained blocks of time focusing on literacy. However, that is a far cry from providing guidelines on how to most effectively utilize and assign "floating" teachers. Placing a second teacher in a classroom for only a short period of time could easily turn into remediation.

Traditional remediation occurs when a teacher pulls a small group of lower-achieving students out of a class for short periods or, in the "push-in" model, when a teacher comes into the classroom to work with a small group for short periods of time. Remediation is not class size reduction.

At this time, EPP has not been provided with the data as to how many "floating" teachers have been assigned to five classes. We will have a better overall understanding of how "floating" teachers are being used in city schools when we are able to analyze the information gathered in the BOE’s audit of the implementation of the program.

"Floating" Teachers Can Sink
A teacher in Smaller is Better was assigned to so many classes that she reported that she did not even know all of the children’s names. One "floating" teacher reported that she never received professional development training on how to coordinate instruction with other teachers nor did she have time in her school day to meet with the teachers with which she was expected to teach.

Some "floating" teachers have been spread too thinly, assigned to as many as 5 classes, which means that the second teacher is only in each class for approximately 45 minutes. This is a classic example of a floating teacher being used for remediation, not class size reduction.

Some argue that without the federal initiative provision that allows overcrowded schools to hire "floating" teachers in schools without space to create new classes, many NYC students would not be able to benefit from a CSR program. "Floating" teachers that go between two and three classes may be providing some of the benefits of smaller class size. But as EPP has learned from on-site interviews, some NYC schools have assigned "floating" teachers to too many classrooms. These practices put the validity of the program into question. If CSR funds can be used for remediation services, will this end any real effort to further reduce class sizes?

Subscribe