The Class Size Debate

In a previous post, I argued that classroom sizes need to be smaller—and I still stand by that. But as I keep writing, I want to make sure I’m not just sharing my own perspective, but also creating space for readers to think critically and form their own conclusions. My goal isn’t just to push for change; it’s to break down the policies, history, and research so people can educate themselves and engage in meaningful discussions about education reform.

That said, I won’t pretend to be neutral. I’m a public school educator, and I’ve seen firsthand how overcrowded classrooms impact both students and teachers. Whenever I talk to people outside of education about class sizes, I hear the same question: “Well, why can’t we just make them smaller?” On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer—fewer students per class means more individualized attention, better classroom management, and improved learning outcomes. But in reality, it’s not that simple.

This post takes a deeper look at the history of class size reduction, specifically California’s Class-Size Reduction (CSR) Program from the 1990s. The initiative was ambitious, aiming to shrink K-3 class sizes from 30 to 20 students. But despite its good intentions, it came with challenges—funding shortfalls, teacher shortages, and questions about its long-term sustainability.

Fast Forward to Today

We’re still having the same debate. As we head into a new school year, my district has already cut 40 teaching positions due to budget constraints. And it’s not just us—this is happening in large districts across the country. Tenured teachers are being moved back into the classroom, while newer educators—especially in urban areas—are left scrambling for jobs.

So, the big question remains: Do smaller class sizes justify the cost? And if they do, how do we make them work in a way that’s financially sustainable?

Let’s dig into the research, the history, and the reality behind class size reduction. Because if we want better schools, we need to start by understanding what’s worked, what hasn’t, and what needs to change.

A Look Back: The Federal Class-Size Reduction Program

In the late 1990s, the federal government stepped in with a bold plan to shrink class sizes, funding efforts to cap K-3 classrooms at 18 students per teacher. By the 2000-2001 school year, around 25,000 teachers were hired using federal CSR funds, with $1.3 billion poured into the effort.

California was one of the first states to launch its own CSR plan in 1996, capping K-3 class sizes at 20 students per teacher. It sounded great on paper, but there were some big challenges:

• Not enough qualified teachers. Schools scrambled to fill positions, leading to the hiring of under qualified educators with emergency credentials.

• Nowhere to put the students. Schools had to convert libraries, multipurpose rooms, and bring in portable buildings just to fit the new classes.

• Upper grades took a hit. Since K-3 got priority, grades 4-12 saw class sizes balloon.

• It was expensive. California spent about $770 per student on CSR. When the budget crisis hit, funding got cut, and class sizes crept back up.

What the 2004 Federal Report Said

The 2004 Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program by the U.S. Department of Education looked at how the initiative played out. Here’s what they found:

Most of the funding went to hiring new teachers to reduce early-grade class sizes, though some schools that already had small classes used the money for teacher training instead. While the program did lower class sizes, many schools struggled with space limitations and a lack of fully certified teachers. High-need schools had the hardest time filling positions with qualified educators.

Schools that followed the program closely reached the target of 18 students per teacher. Reading scores improved slightly, but math scores showed little change. The biggest gains were seen in disadvantaged and minority student populations, making the case for targeted class size reductions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Is It Worth the Cost?

This is where things get complicated. The famous Tennessee Project STAR study from the 1980s found that smaller class sizes led to big academic gains, especially for students from low-income backgrounds. But more recent research has been mixed.

Some studies show small improvements in reading, but little change in math. A Center for American Progress analysis found that broad, one-size-fits-all class size policies aren’t the most cost-effective. The 2004 federal report backed that up—targeted class size reductions (especially for disadvantaged students) had the most impact.

How This Plays Out for Teachers and Schools

I’ve seen firsthand how tough big class sizes can be. Try managing 32 kindergarteners in one room and tell me smaller class sizes don’t matter. But I’ve also seen the effects of constant budget cuts.

Many of the teachers hired during the CSR push in the early 2000s still haven’t retired, which means in urban areas like Southern California, full-time credentialed teaching positions are still competitive. New teachers struggle to find stable jobs, and those who do walk into overcrowded classrooms with limited support. Schools want to hire more teachers—but the funding just isn’t there.

What Can We Learn from This?

Looking at past class size reduction efforts, here are some key takeaways:

• Shrinking class sizes overnight stretches schools too thin. A gradual approach works better.

• Long-term funding is a must. It’s not enough to fund CSR for a few years and then cut it when budgets tighten.

• Equity matters. Wealthier schools managed CSR better, while high-need schools struggled. Socioeconomic factors play a huge role. Check out my article on- How public school funding works

Where Do We Go from Here?

Class size isn’t just a policy debate—it’s the daily reality for teachers and students, shaping everything from learning outcomes to classroom dynamics. Research proves that smaller class sizes can make a difference, but only if we’re strategic about how we implement them. Blanket policies don’t work; the impact of class size reduction depends on where and how it’s applied. If we’re serious about making it effective, we need to stop treating all districts the same. Not every school requires the same level of funding, so why are we distributing resources as if they do?

What do you think? Should reducing class sizes still be a priority, or is there a better way to improve student outcomes? Let’s talk about it.

Sources:
Millsap, M. A., Giancola, J., Smith, W. C., Hunt, D., Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., & Riehl, L. M. (2004). A Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program: Final Report. U.S. Department of Education. Read the full report.