Teaching mathematics and language arts in reduced size and non-reduced size classrooms

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 313-329

  Stasz, Cathleen ^a   Stecher, Brian M ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040735621     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737022004313     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Anderson, L. (1999, December). Why should reduced class size lead to increased student achievement? Paper presented at the National Invitational Conference on How Small Classes Help Teachers Do Their Best, Washington, DC.
2. Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (1997). Using Maimonides' rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Unpublished manuscript.
3. Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1999). The behavioral effects of variations in class size: The case of math teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 193-213.
4. Blatchford, P., & Mortimore, P. (1994). The issue of class size for young children in schools: What can we learn from research? Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 411-428.
5. Brewer, D., & Stasz, C. (1996). Enhancing opportunity to learn measures in NCES data (RP-581). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6. Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Stecher, B. M. (1999). Class size reduction in California: Early evaluation findings, 1996-1998. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
7. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators (MR-658-NSF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
8. Cahen, L. S., Filby, N., McCutcheon, G., & Kyle, D. W. (1983). Class size and instruction. New York: Longman.
9. Cahir, W. J. (1999, March 1). Riley sparks GOP objections with ode to class size. Education Daily, 52(38), pp. 1-2.
10. Educational Research Service. (1980). Class size reduction: A critique of recent meta-analyses. Arlington, VA: Author.
11. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557-577.
12. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 97-110.
13. Finn, J. D., & Voelkl, K. E. (1992). Class size: An overview of research (Occasional Paper No. 92-1). Buffalo, NY: State University of New York, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology.
14. Glass, G., Cahen, L., Smith, M. L., & Filby, N. (1982). School class size: Research and policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Glass, G., & Smith, M. L. (1978). Meta-analysis of the relationship of class size and student achievement. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.
16. Grissmer, D. (1999). Introduction [Special issue - Class size: Issues and new findings]. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 93-95.
17. Hanushek, E. A. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 143-163.
18. Illig, D. (1996). Reducing class size: A review of the literature and options for consideration. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library.
19. Krueger, A. B. (1997, March). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.
20. Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, P., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K. (1999). Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 165-177.
21. Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G., & Fitzgerald, J. (1980). An experimental study of the effects of class size. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 141-152.
22. Stecher, B. M., McCaffrey, D. F., & Burroughs, D. (1999). Achievement. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & B. M. Stecher (Eds.), Class size and reduction in California: Early evaluation findings, 1996-1998 (pp. 125-143). Palo Alto: American Institutes of Research.
23. Travers, K. (1992). Overview of the longitudinal version of the Second International Mathematics Study. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of Mathematics III: Student growth and classroom practices (pp. 1-27). New York: Pergamon Press.