THE TRUTH ABOUT CLASS SIZE IN GEORGIA

For several years now, the issue of smaller class sizes for Georgia’s schoolchildren has been a hot topic of discussion among educators, politicians, parents, and other interested observers. No one argues that smaller class sizes are a good thing, but misunderstanding of the issues associated with such action abound. For example, most of the research on the effect of smaller class sizes on student achievement leads to the inescapable conclusion that the pupil/teacher ratio would have to be much, much smaller than is affordable for a recognizable student achievement gain to be made as a result of those smaller class sizes. Further, it is clear to all those who fight the daily battles in the great war against ignorance that some children—those in lower grades who struggle to learn—receive a far greater benefit from smaller classes than some others do, but the push continues for smaller class sizes for everyone. Finally, some argue that other positive effects may result from smaller class sizes—improved teacher morale and better student discipline, for example.

The issues listed in the paragraph above, though, are not the focus of this brief paper. The reasons for this document are twofold: (1) to help those unfamiliar with school scheduling and QBE formula funding to make the distinction between funding size and actual class size and understand why there is and must be a difference; and, (2) to debunk the myth that the state is actually paying for the smaller class sizes that are now mandated as a result of the passage of HB1358, the “Truth in Class Size” bill.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this author’s opinion, the best way to illustrate the above is to do so by way of a concrete example. Thus, for purposes of this argument, I choose to use the QBE funding ratio and resulting class size for first grade.

Currently, the funding size for first grade classes is seventeen students for one teacher. To those who have not worked with school funding and do not understand the vagaries and complexities of school scheduling, it could easily be inferred that first grade classes all across the state should have no more than seventeen students in them. To those same people, the fact that individual classes are allowed by statute to exceed the funding size by twenty percent represents largesse on the part of the state. Not so!

In the real world of schooling, here’s how it actually works:

In calculating a local system’s earnings for teachers (using the Full Time Equivalent student counting process under the Quality Basic Education Act), school days are divided into six equal segments of time. While such “segmenting” is based on a traditional high school day with six instructional periods, elementary and middle school FTE counts are done on that same, six-segment basis. So, using the first grade class example chosen earlier, a school system would earn a full teacher for a group of first graders if that teacher taught 17 students each period for all six segments in the day. See the table below for a visual example of how this works:

SEGMENT	1	2	3	4	5	6	TOTAL
NO. 1^ST GRADE STUDENTS	17	17	17	17	17	17	102

The total number of student contacts during the school day (102 in the above example) is key to understanding this issue, since it is upon that total that the earning of a teacher is based and is the very reason that funding size and actual class size must differ.

Those who schedule student and teacher instructional time can quickly see the inherent problems in the above table. Virtually no teacher teaches a full day in which all or some of her students are not absent from the classroom to participate in other instructional programs. For example, what if “Segment 3” of the instructional day is the time when the students in the above table are scheduled to leave the regular teacher’s classroom and go to art, music, or physical education class (or when, in the case of high schools, a teacher planning period must be provided)? The resulting FTE count for the regular teacher for segment three is zero (All students are gone from that classroom and are being counted elsewhere.), dropping the total number of student contacts from 102 to 85 and immediately “earning” the system only 5/6 of a full teacher’s salary. Further, the total student count for the aforementioned teacher drops even more during a normal school day when just one or two or three students are absent from the classroom during various segments to go to other locations in the school (special education, Title I, etc.) as part of their total instructional program.

Thus, the current “20% over the funding size” provision kicks in to try to make up at least some of the difference, and a table with that number might look something like the following (still using the first grade example, and noting that the actual class size for first grade is 21 students per class):

SEGMENT	1	2	3	4	5	6	TOTAL
NO. 1^ST GRADE STUDENTS	21	21	0	21	21	21	105

The total number in the above table (which alleges that the third time segment of the day is when all the students are gone to another instructional location in the building) is slightly greater than the 102 total student contacts needed for a system to earn a full teacher’s salary. However, in the highly likely event that four or more students leave the above teacher’s classroom for one segment of the day, then the local system once again finds itself in the unenviable position of not earning enough state funds to pay a full teacher’s salary. See the table below for an example of how this might play out:

SEGMENT	1	2	3	4	5	6	TOTAL
NO. 1^ST GRADE STUDENTS	21	19 (2 in SPED)	0	19 (2 in Title I)	20 (1 in speech)	21	100

Even the above examples are based on the assumption that first-grade students arrive at elementary schools in neat little bundles of seventeen students who can then be assigned to classes in numbers that always match up with the state’s funding formula. But, what happens if an elementary school just happens to have 45 first graders? By the rules listed above (and as will be mandated under HB1358 beginning in July, 2006), three classes of first graders would be required and three teachers hired to teach them; each class would most likely be comprised of 15 students (couldn’t be higher than 21, so three classes needed), but not a single one of them would be large enough to earn a full state teacher’s salary! This scenario plays out over and over, in school after school, and in system after system each year and is the primary reason that the state’s funding formula simply does not cover the full cost associated with smaller class sizes.

The state’s funding formula makes no provisions for the funding of teacher planning time in elementary or high schools (some money provided for middle school teacher planning time for those schools officially adopting the “middle school model”), so the difference in funding size and actual class size helps to provide for that. Further, the state’s funding formula (which is not all state dollars, but includes local property tax dollars in the form of “required local effort” or “local five mill share”) severely underestimates many of the underlying costs associated with the operation of schools and classrooms (maintenance and operations funds, textbook costs, etc.) and in no way helps to pay other related costs (e.g., employer’s share of Social Security, rental or lease of trailers to be used as classrooms). Many of these arguments have been made time and time again, but they bear repeating when discussing the issue of class size and the financial impact created by severe and inflexible limits on the size of such classes.

As noted at the outset of this paper, state leaders have pushed for hard, fast, and inflexible caps on individual class sizes in schools throughout the state, and with the signing of HB1358, those caps will become a reality beginning next school year. In response to concerns expressed by the leaders of school systems that are experiencing rapid growth, some have even opined that such systems should “start the school year with classes at the funding size” so as to avoid the probability of exceeding those state-mandated caps. It is hoped that this paper has provided ample explanation of just why such an approach is neither practical nor possible, absent almost unlimited local funding.

Herb Garrett

GSSA Executive Director

April 14, 2006