Post on 20-Jan-2020
transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 446 853 PS 028 977
TITLE Class Size Surveys, Spring 2000. Evaluation Report.INSTITUTION Saginaw Public Schools, MI. Dept. of Evaluation Services.PUB DATE 2000-00-00NOTE 60p.
PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative (142) Tests/Questionnaires (160)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Administrator Attitudes; *Class Size; Educational
Attitudes; Grade 1; Grade 2; *Parent Attitudes; PrimaryEducation; School Attitudes; *Small Classes; *TeacherAttitudes
IDENTIFIERS Saginaw City School System MI
ABSTRACTThis study surveyed perceptions of parents, teachers, and
principals concerning reduced class size classrooms (RS) with first andsecond graders versus traditional size classrooms (TS). Participating in thestudy were 63 RS parents, 80 TS parents, 12 RS teachers, 13 TS teachers, and14 principals in the Saginaw, Michigan school district. Response rates for RSgroups were substantially smaller than those for TS groups. The majorfindings indicated that the majority of respondents considered the benefitsof reduced size classrooms worth the extra expenditure (92 percent firstgrade parents, 70 percent second grade parents, 88 percent principals).Overall, parents saw approximately the same amount of student improvement inthe variables under study regardless of class size condition. The largestarea of academic increase seen by parents was in learning to read, regardlessof condition. Principals and teachers reported substantially more improvementin the RS over the TS condition. Teachers at TS sites and principalsrecommended the addition of more reduced-size classrooms. First grade parentsin both conditions and second grade parents in the TS condition wanted moreone-to-one instruction. Parents in the RS condition thought that teachersshould be more sensitive and provide more feedback. Teachers in TS sitesthought their effectiveness was limited because diverse student abilitylevels. Principals were concerned about the possibility of an elite class andthat students most in need of one-to-one instruction might not be placed inRS classrooms. (Four appendices include the surveys used, detailed resultsfrom the surveys by question, and results summarized by respondent groups.)(KB)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice o1 Educational Research and improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
NKThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
O Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stateddocument do not necessarily repofficial OERI position or policy.
CLASS SIZE SURVEYS
Spring, 2000
DEPARTMENT OF EVALUATION SERVICES- PROVIDING ASSESSMENT, PROGRAM EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES -
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
Rc\No.srd. 1\1
e. o'u'5TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
ST R lc
0 it,oN1,67\
O
0NOP.
OF SP's'`
rn
Saginaw, Michigan
In thisesent
BEST COPY MAILABLE2
CLASS SIZE SURVEYS
Spring, 2000
An Approved Report of theDepartment of Evaluation, Testing and Research
ic ard . Claus, 'h.D. u Kilrerka, M.A.Man er, Program Evaluation Research/Evaluation Specialist
Dr. Foster B. Gibbs, SuperintendentSchool District of the City of Saginaw Public Schools
September, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CLASS SIZE SURVEY'S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, SPRING 2000 1
Respondents 4
MAJOR FINDINGS 4
SUMMARY 6
APPENDICES 8
Appendix A: Parent Survey 9Princiapal Survey 12Teacher Survey 18
Appendix B: Results: Parent Survey (First Grade Students) 24Parent Survey (Second Grade Students) 28Teacher Survey 32Principal Survey 40
Appendix C: Summary Response of Part II Questions By Respondent Groups 47
Appendix D: Summary Response of Part III Questions By Respondent Groups 48
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Correspondence of Question Topics Among Class Size Surveys, Spring 2000 3
i
4
Class Size Survey's Executive Summary, Spring 2000
Purpose
A class size survey of parents, teachers, and principals concerning student improvements and changes in classroompractices between reduced class size (grade 1 = 18 or less and grade 2 = 21 or less students) versus traditional class sizesettings was undertaken in April through May, 2000.
Description of Respondents
A total 13.6% (63 of 462) reduced sized classroom parents and 22.1% (80 of 362) traditional sized classroom parentsreturned a completed survey. Approximately 43% (12 of 28) of reduced sized classroom teachers (23 first grade and 5second grade classrooms) and 87% (13 of 15) of traditional sized classroom teachers polled returned a completed survey.A total of 14 of 21 principals (66%) completed the survey. Reviewing the response rates given in the report, it wasapparent that rates among the reduced groups overall were substantially smaller than those of the traditional groups. Thusresulting findings should be considered cautiously in terms of their generalizeability to the entire group sampled. With thatcaution in mind, the major findings follow.
Findings
One important consideration is whether the respondents considered the benefits of reduced class size rooms worth theextra expenditure. Across conditions, the vast majority responded that it was:
92.0% of first grade parents;
70.0% of second grade parents; and
87.5% of the principals responded yes.
Overall, parents saw approximately the same amount of improvement in the variables under study regardless ofwhether the student was in the reduced size or control condition. Conversely, principals and teachers reported substantiallymore improvement in the variables in the reduced over the control condition.
Exception to this among the first grade parents was that those in the reduced size condition perceived moreimprovement than those in the control in the following:
-- Child's interest in learning (85.7% vs. 69.7%);-- Parent/teacher interaction (73.5% vs. 57.2%); and-- Parent involvement (59.2% vs. 31.9%).
Exception to this among the second grade parents were: 1) there was a larger percentage of those in the controlcondition who reported "much improved" in learning to write (58.3%) than reported it in the reduced size reduction(28.6%); and 2) those in the reduced size condition showed more improvement than those in the control in student'sattitude toward school (79.0% vs. 42.9%).
Further, the largest area of academic increase seen by parents was in learning to read (approximately94% of first grade parents and approximately 90% of second grade parents) regardless of condition.
1
5
There were four multiple choice survey questions dealing with the change in student/classroom variables asked of allrespondent groups. The findings to these questions were:
Approximately 73% of all parents (reduced and control) felt that grades improved. Teachers and principals notedgreater improvements to grades received in the reduced size condition (83.3% and 50.0%) than in the controlcondition (15.4% and 11.1%).
Approximately 58.5% of all parents (in both conditions) felt that student interaction improved. Teachers andprincipals saw more student interaction improvement in the reduced size condition (75.0% and 37.5%) than in thecontrol condition (15.4% and 11.1%).
An even 50% of second grade parents (in both conditions) felt that parent/teacher interaction improved. First gradeparents, teachers and principals saw more improvement in the reduced size condition (73.5%, 58.3%, and 50.0%respectively) than in the control condition (57.2%, 15.4%, and 11.1%).
Approximately 47% of first grade parents and 63% of second grade parents (in both conditions) felt that studentability in technology improved. Teacher and principals saw more improvement in the reduced size condition(41.7% and 37.5%) than in the control condition (7.7% and 22.2%).
2
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SAGINAW
DEPARTMENT OF EVALUATION, TESTING, AND RESEARCH
The class size survey was undertaken to obtain the perceptions of parents, teachers, and principals to reduced classsize settings (grade 1 = 18 or less and grade 2 = 21 or less students) or traditional class size settings in the first or secondgrades. Particular experimental (reduced class size rooms) and traditional (control rooms at grade 1 greater than 18 andgrade 2 greater than 21 students) were selected for the study. Parents were mailed a survey on April 20, 2000 and asked fortheir return by May 5, 2000. Teachers and principals received their instruments during April staff meetings and were askedto return them through interoffice mail by May 5, 2000.
The survey instruments contained three types of questions. Part I multiple choice questions dealt with classroombackground questions; Part II multiple choice questions focused on classroom practices/improvements; and Part III open-ended questions dealt with issues like unexpected outcomes, likes and dislikes about reduced class size experiment,suggestions for improvement, etc. Appendix A contains a copy of the instruments. Table 1, below, gives a matrix showingcommon questions asked of the four groups in Part II and Part III.
Table 1
Correspondence of Question Topics Among Class Size Surveys, Spring 2000
Reduced Class Size Surveys
Summary Statement of Question Parent 1' Parent 2d Teacher Principal
Part II
Changes in learning to read Q2 Q2Changes in learning to write Q3 Q3Changes in learning math Q4 Q4Changes in verbal expression Q5 Q5Changes in technology skills Q6 Q6 Q13 Q13Changes in grades Q7 Q7 Q25 Q25Changes in school attitude Q8 Q8Changes in student interaction Q9 Q9 Q16 Q16Changes in interest in learning Q10 Q10Change in parent involvement Q11 Q11Changes in parent/teacher interaction Q12 Q12 Q23 Q23Is it worth the extra money? Q13 Q13 Q24Change in student time on task Q6 Q6Change in monitoring/feedback to students Q7 Q7Change in small group instruction Q8 Q8Change in one on one instruction Q9 Q9Change in hands on instruction Q10 Q10Change in remedial instruction Q11 Q11Change in enrichment activities Q12 Q12Change in attendance Q14 Q14Change in discipline Q15 Q15Change in student/teacher interaction Q17 Q17Change in morale Q18 Q18Change in effectiveness of planning Q19 Q19Change in amount of paperwork Q20Change in teacher interactions Q21Change in administrator/teacher interaction Q22 Q22Change in physical environment Q24 Q21
3
7
Reduced Class Size Surveys
Summary Statement of Question Parent Ist Parent 2"d Teacher Principal
Part III
What do you like best Q26 Q25What do you like. least Q27 Q26What changes would you recommend Q14 Q14 Q28 Q27Any unexpected results Q29 Q28Professional development taken Q30Profession development wanted Q31
Respondents
Recall we surveyed the opinions of principals, teachers, and parents of both reduced (experimental) and traditional(control) sized first and second grade classes.
Response rates to the survey by group and type of site were:
Group Type Of Site Grade Level Sample Surveyed Returned# %
Parent Reduced 1 365 49 13.4Traditional 1 217 56 25.8
Reduced 2 97 14 14.4Traditional 2 145 24 16.6
Teacher Reduced 1 & 2 28 12 42.8Traditional 1 & 2 15 13 86.7
And, of the 21 principals surveyed, a total of 14 (66.7%) completed the survey.
Reviewing the response rates above, one can notice that the rates among the reduced groups are substantially smallerthan those for the traditional group. Also, the traditional rates are low except for traditional teachers. As a result, theresponses of those in the reduced and traditional groups may not be as generalizeable and the resulting findings should beconsidered with some caution. Appendix B contains all the responses of grade 1 parents, grade 2 parents, teachers of firstand second grades, and principals.
Major Findings
In an effort to deal with the complexity of the four respondent groups across common questions, part II findings interms of improvement (much and somewhat combined) were summarized (see Appendix C) and part III findings in termsof open-ended responses were summarized (see Appendix D). The summarized results contained in Appendix C and Drepresent the basis for the major findings that follow.
There were four multiple choice survey questions dealing with change in student/classroom variables asked of allrespondent groups. The findings to these questions were:
Approximately 73% of all parents (in both conditions) felt that grades improved(much and somewhat combined). Teachers and principals saw more improvementto grades received in the reduced size condition (83.3% and 50.0%) than in thecontrol condition (15.4% and 11.1%).
4
Approximately 58 to 59% of all parents (in both conditions) felt that studentinteraction improved. Teachers and principals saw more student interactionimprovement in the reduced size condition (75.0% and 37.5%) than in the controlcondition (15.4% and 11.1%).
An even 50% of second grade parents (in both conditions) felt that parent/teacherinteraction improved. First grade parents, teachers and principals saw moreimprovement in the reduced size condition (73.5%, 58.3%, and 50.0% respectively)than in the control condition (57.2%, 15.4%, and 11.1%).
Approximately 47% of first grade parents and 63% of second grade parents (inboth conditions) felt that student ability in technology improved. Teacher andprincipals saw more improvement in the reduced size condition (41.7% and 37.5%)than in the control condition (7.7% and 22.2%).
One important consideration is whether the respondents considered the benefits of reduced class size rooms worth theextra expenditures. Across conditions, the vast majority responded that it was:
82.0% of first grade parents;
79.0% of second grade parents; and
87.5% of the principals responded yes.
Overall, parents saw approximately the same amount of improvement in the variables under study regardless ofwhether the student was in the reduced size or the control condition. Conversely, principals and teachers reportedsubstantially more improvement in the variables in the reduced over the control condition. (See Appendix B for the resultsby question topic.)
Exception to this among the first grade parents were that those in the reduced sizecondition perceived more improvement than those in the control in the following:
-- Child's interest in learning (85.7% vs. 69.7%);-- Parent/teacher interaction (73.5% vs. 57.2%); and-- Parent involvement (59.2% vs. 31.9%).
Exception to this among the second grade parents were: 1) there was a largerpercentage of those in the control condition who reported "much improved" inlearning to write (58.3%) than reported it in the reduced size condition (28.6%);and 2) those in the reduced size condition showed more improvement than those inthe control in student's attitude toward school (79.0% vs. 42.9%).
Further, the largest area of academic increase seen by parents was in learning toread (approximately 94% of first grade parents and approximately 90% of secondgrade parents) regardless of condition.
Respondents also offered answers to a set of open-ended questions. One question asked of all respondents is whatchanges they would recommend.
Teachers at control sites and principals recommended that more reduced sizeclassrooms be added.
Teachers in experimental sites felt there should be more discipline.
First grade parents in both conditions and second grade parents in control conditionwanted more one to one instruction.
5
9BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Parents in the experimental condition at both grades thought that teachers shouldbe more sensitive and should provide more feedback, particularly with regard tospecial needs children.
Principals and teachers were asked what they liked best. Teachers in experimental sites and principals indicated thatthey saw more time for one to one instruction. Teachers in both conditions agreed they saw less discipline problems.
Teachers in the experimental condition did not express any common dislike while teachers in control sites felt theireffectiveness was limited because there was too much diversity among student ability levels. Principals were concerned forthe possibility of an elite class and that the students most in need of one to one instruction may not be placed in the reducedclass size rooms.
No commonly found negative results were reported by teachers in the experimental condition. Teachers in the controlcondition and principals found less parent involvement and were less able to provide one to one attention.
Summary
A class size survey of parents, teachers, and principals concerning student improvements and changes in classroompractices between reduced class size versus traditional class size settings at grade 1 and 2 was undertaken in April throughMay, 2000. A total 13.6% (63 of 462) reduced sized classroom parents and 22.1% (80 of 362) traditional sized classroomparents returned a completed survey. Approximately 43% of reduced sized classroom teachers and 87% of traditional sizedclassroom teachers polled returned a completed survey. A total of 14 of 21 principals (66%) completed the survey.Reviewing the response rates given in the report, it was apparent that rates among the reduced groups overall weresubstantially smaller than those of the traditional groups. Thus resulting findings should be considered cautiously in termsof their generalizeability to the entire group sampled. With that caution in mind, the major findings follow:
One important consideration is whether the respondents considered the benefits of reduced class size rooms worth theextra expenditure. Across conditions, the vast majority responded that it was:
92.0% of first grade parents;
70.0% of second grade parents; and
87.5% of the principals responded yes.
Overall, parents saw approximately the same amount of improvement in the variables under study regardless ofwhether the student was in the reduced size or control condition. Conversely, principals and teachers reported substantiallymore improvement in the variables in the reduced over the control condition.
Exception to this among the first grade parents where that those in the reduced size condition perceived moreimprovement than those in the control in the following:-- Child's interest in learning (85.7% vs. 69.7%);-- Parent/teacher interaction (73.5% vs. 57.2%); and-- Parent involvement (59.2/5 vs. 31.9%).
Exception to this among the second grade parents were: 1) there was a larger percentage of those in the controlcondition who reported "much improved" in learning to write (58.3%) than reported it in the reduced size reduction(28.6%); and 2) those in the reduced size condition showed more improvement than those in the control in student'sattitude toward school (79.0% vs. 42.9%).
Further, the largest area of academic increase seen by parents was in learning to read (approximately94% of first grade parents and approximately 90% of second grade parents) regardless of condition.
There were four multiple choice survey questions dealing with the change in student/classroom variables asked of allrespondent groups. The findings to these questions were:
Approximately 73% of all parents (reduced and control) felt that grades improved. Teachers and principals notedgreater improvements to grades received in the reduced size condition (83.3% and 50.0%) than in the controlcondition (15.4% and 11.1%).
Approximately 58.5% of all parents (in both conditions) felt that student interaction improved. Teachers andprincipals saw more student interaction improvement in the reduced size condition (75.0% and 37.5%) than in thecontrol condition (15.4% and 11.1%).
An even 50% of second grade parents (in both conditions) felt that parent/teacher interaction improved. First gradeparents, teachers and principals saw more improvement in the reduced size condition (73.5%, 58.3%, and 50.0%respectively) than in the control condition (57.2%, 15.4%, and 11.1%).
Approximately 47% of first grade parents and 63% of second grade parents (in both conditions) felt that studentability in technology improved. Teacher and principals saw more improvement in the reduced size condition(41.7% and 37.5%) than in the control condition (7.7% and 22.2%).
7
APPENDICES
8 12
APPENDIX A
ETR ©April, 2000-Form C/E
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SAGINAWParent Survey
Dear Parents:
We would like your opinions. The number of students in many first and second grade classrooms in theSaginaw Public Schools has been reduced. Other classrooms have maintained a larger traditional size. We wouldlike to know your ideas concerning your child's classroom. This survey will only take a couple of minutes of yourtime to complete and can be returned in the enclosed, post-paid addressed envelope.
Your responses will help us to evaluate and improve our efforts concerning first and second gradeclassrooms. All answers will be kept confidential and only grouped findings will be reported.
Instructions: First, please write the name of your child's first or second grade school. Then, please fill in the blankor circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer. Thank you in advance for sharing your views.
My child attends elementary.
Circle your child's grade level: first second
Directions: Please fill in the blank or circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer.
PART I: A background question.
1. What is the size of the classroom your child attends?a. 25 - 30 studentsb. 21 - 24 studentsc. 15 - 20 studentsd. Less than 15 studentse. Don't know
PART II: These are a few classroom questions.
2. How has your child's learning to read changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
3. How has your child's learning to write changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
913
APPENDIX A
Parent SurveyPage 2
4. How has your child's learning in mathematics changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
5. How has your child's learning to talk and express himself or herself changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
6. How has your child's learning with and about computers and technology changed since last year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
7. How have your child's grades in school changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
8. How has your child's like for school changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
9. How has the way your child gets along with other students changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
10 14
APPENDIX A
Parent SurveyPage 3
10. How has your child's interest in learning changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worse
11. How has your involvement in school as a parent changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
12. How has the communication you have had with your child's teacher changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
13. A reduction in class size is expensive. Do you think the benefits are worth the extra money?a. Yesb. Noc. Don't know
PART III: This is an opinion question.
14. What could have been done differently at school to improve your child's experience?
Thank you for your honest response!
Please put survey in postage-paid envelope provided and return it to the Saginaw Public Schools by May 5, 2000.
ETR ©April, 2000-Form C/E
School:
APPENDIX A
CLASS SIZE SURVEYPrincipal Survey
Introduction: Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to determine theperceptions of principals with regard to either reduced class size (grade 1 = 18 or less, and grade 2 = 21 or less) or traditionalclass size in the first or second grades. Your responses will be used to help us to evaluate and improve our early elementaryefforts. All answers will be kept in confidence and only grouped findings will be reported.
Directions: Please fill in the blank or circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer.
PART I
1. At what grade levels have class size reductions been implemented at your school?a. First grade onlyb. Grades 1 & 2c. Second grade onlyd. None GO TO PART II
2. What is the average number of months, if any, that class size reduction classes have been in operation atyour school?a. Noneb. Less than a monthc. 1-3 monthsd. 4-6 monthse. More than six months
3. What percent of your reduced size classrooms are using a team-teaching format?a. 0% to 20%b. 21% to 40%c. 41% to 60%d. 61% to 80%e. More than 80%
4. What percent of your reduced size classrooms are taught by first year teachers?a. 0% to 20%b. 21% to 40c/0c. 41% to 60%d. 61% to 80%e. More than 80%
5. What percent of your reduced size classrooms are taught by teachers who taught at the same grade level last year?a. 0% to 20%b. 21% to 40%c. 41% to 60%d. 61% to 80%e. More than 80%
12 16
APPENDIX A
Principal SurveyPage 2
PART II: Thinking only of your first grade classrooms (second if you have low class size in that grade), please indicate theextent to which the following factors have changed from last school year to this school year. If you have bothReduced and Traditional classrooms mark the questions in each column. If only Reduced or TraditionalClassrooms mark the questions in the appropriate column.
Reduced Class Size Classrooms6. Student time-on-task.
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
7. Monitoring student progress and providing feedbackto students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
8. Small group instruction.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
9. One-on-one instruction.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
10. Use of hands-on activities and manipulatives.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
11. Effectiveness of remedial activities.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
13
Traditional Class Size Classrooms6. Student time-on-task.
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
7. Monitoring student progress and providing feedbackto students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
8. Small group instructiona. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
9. One-on-one instruction.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
10. Use of hands-on activities and manipulatives.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
11. Effectiveness of remedial activities.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
17
APPENDIX A
Principal SurveyPage 3
Reduced Class Size Classrooms12. Effectiveness of enrichment activities.
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
13. Introducing students to computers and technology.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
14. Student attendance.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
15. Classroom discipline.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
16. Social interaction among your students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
17. Social/personal interactions between the teachersand students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
18. Teacher morale.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
14
Traditional Class Size Classrooms12. Effectiveness of enrichment activities.
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
13. Introducing students to computers and technology.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
14. Student attendance.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
15. Classroom discipline.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
16. Social interaction among your students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
17. Social/personal interactions between the teachersand studentsa. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
18. Teacher moral.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
Is
APPENDIX A
Principal SurveyPage 4
Reduced Class Size Classrooms19. Effectiveness of teacher planning and preparation.
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
20. Quality of contacts with parents.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
21. Physical environment (space, facilities, noise level, etc.)a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
22. Teacher-administrator interaction and support.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
23. Overall academic improvement among students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
Traditional Class Size Classrooms19. Effectiveness of teacher planning and preparation.
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
20. Quality of contacts with parents.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
21. Physical environment (space, facilities, noise level, etc.)a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
22. Teacher-administrator interaction and support.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
23. Overall academic improvement among students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse sine last year
24. Obviously, reductions in class size are an expensive undertaking. Do you think that the benefits of reduced class sizeare worth the expenditures?a. Yesb. Noc. Don't know
APPENDIX A
Principal SurveyPage 5
PART III: If you have reduced class sizes in your building, please write your response to the following questions using thespace provided. If all of your classrooms are of traditional size, please do not answer Part III.
25. What do you like best about class size reduction?
26. What do you like least about class size reduction?
27. What would you change about the class size reduction efforts to improve its effectiveness?
28. What unexpected results have you observed as a result of reduced class size? If appropriate, please mention bothpositive and negative unexpected results.
Positive results:
16
20
APPENDIX A
Principal SurveyPage 6
Negative results:
Thank you for your honest response!
Please return to the Evaluation, Testing & Research Department by Friday, May 5, 2000.
ETR ©April, 2000-Form C/E
School Where You Teach:
APPENDIX A
CLASS SIZE SURVEYTeacher Survey
Introduction: Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to determine theperceptions of teachers with regard to either reduced class size (grade 1 = 18 or less, and grade 2 = 21 or less) or traditionalclass size in the first or second grades. Your responses will be used to help us to evaluate and improve our early elementaryefforts. All answers will be kept in confidence and only grouped findings will be reported.
Directions: Please fill in the blank or circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer.
PART I
1. How long have you been teaching?a. First yearb. 1 2 yearsc. 3 10 yearsd. 11 20 yearse. More than 20 years
2. What grade do you teach?a. Firstb. Second
3. What grade did you teach last year?a. Firstb. Secondc. Thirdd. Upper Elementary
4. How many students are in your class?a. 21 or moreb. 19 - 20c. 17 - 18d. 15 - 16e. 14 or fewer
5. How many months, if any, have you been teaching 18 or few students (2nd grade, 21 or fewer students)?a. Less than a monthb. 1 - 3 monthsc. 4 - 6 monthsd. More than six monthse. I have more than 18 (2nd grade, 21) students in my class
APPENDIX A
Teacher SurveyPage 2
PART II: Please indicate the extent to which the following factors have changed from last school year to this school year.
6. Student time-on-task.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
7. Monitoring student progress and providing feedback to students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
8. Small group instruction.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
9. One-on-one instruction.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
10. Use of hands-on activities and manipulatives.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yearf. Much worse since last year
11. Effectiveness of remedial activities.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
12. Effectiveness of enrichment activities.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
19
23 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
APPENDIX A
Teacher SurveyPage 3
13. Introducing students to computers and technology.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
14. Student attendance.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
15. Classroom discipline.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
16. Social interaction among your students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
17. Social/personal interactions between the teachers and students.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
18. Teacher moral.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yearf. Much worse since last year
19. Effectiveness of teacher planning and preparation.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
20
BEST COPYAVAILABLE
APPENDIX A
Teacher SurveyPage 4
20. The amount of paper and record keeping.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
21. Your interaction with other teachers at your school.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
22. Teacher-administrator interaction and support.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
23. Number and quality of contacts with parents.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
24. Physical environment (space, facilities, noise level, etc.).a. Much improved since last year
b. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
25. Overall academic improvement among students.a. Much improved since last year
b. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last year
21 25
APPENDIX A
Teacher SurveyPage 5
PART III: Using the space provided, please write your response to the following questions.
26. What do you like best about this year's class versus last year's class?
27. What do you like least about this year's class versus last year's class?
28. What would you change to improve classroom effectiveness?
APPENDIX A
Teacher SurveyPage 6
29. What unexpected results have you observed in this year as compared to last year? If appropriate, please mention bothpositive and negative results.
Positive results:
Negative Results:
30. List any professional development activities in which you have participated that would help you to be moreeffective in reduced sized classrooms.
31. List any professional development activities/topics you believe would be helpful in reduced sized classrooms.
Thank you for your honest response!Please return to the Evaluation, Testing & Research Department by Friday, May 5, 2000.
APPENDIX B
ETR ©April, 2000-Form C/E
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SAGINAWParent Survey
(First Grade Students)Dear Parents:
We would like your opinions. The number of students in many first and second grade classrooms in theSaginaw Public Schools has been reduced. Other classrooms have maintained a larger traditional size. We wouldlike to know your ideas concerning your child's classroom. This survey will only take a couple of minutes of yourtime to complete and can be returned in the enclosed, post-paid addressed envelope.
Your responses will help us to evaluate and improve our efforts concerning first and second gradeclassrooms. All answers will be kept confidential and only grouped findings will be reported.
Instructions: First, please write the name of your child's first or second grade school. Then, please fill in the blankor circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer. Thank you in advance for sharing your views.
My child attends elementary.
Circle your child's grade level: first second Experimental (N=49)Control (N=56)
Directions: Please fill in the blank or circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer.
PART I: A background question.
1. What is the size of the classroom your child attends?Experimental Control# % # %
a. 25 - 30 students 4 8.2 33 58.9b. 21 - 24 students 6 12.2 15 26.8c. 15 - 20 students 28 57.1 2 3.6d. Less than 15 students 5 10.2 0 0.0e. Don't know 3 6.1 5 8.9f. No response 3 6.1 1 1.8
TOTAL 49 99.9* 56 100.0
PART II: These are a few classroom questions.Experimental Control
2. How has your child's learning to read changed this year? # % # %a. Much improved 39 79.6 43 76.8
b. Somewhat improved 7 14.3 10 17.8
c. No change 3 6.1 2 3.6
d. Somewhat worse 0 0.0 0 0.0
e. Much worse 0 0.0 0 0.0
f. Don't know 0 0.0 1 1.8
TOTAL 49 100.0 56 100.0
3. How has your child's learning to write changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
*Rounding 24
28
Experimental Control# % #
30 61.2 40 71.416 32.7 11 19.6
3 6.1 3 5.40 0.0 1 1.8
0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 1 1.8
49 100.0 56 100.0
APPENDIX B
First Grade Parent SurveyPage 2
Experimental Control4. How has your child's learning in mathematics changed this year? # %
a. Much improved 30 61.2b. Somewhat improved 14 28.6c. No change 2 4.1d. Somewhat worse 2 4.1e. Much worse 0 0.0f. Don't know 1 2.0
TOTAL 49 100.0
# %41 73.211 19.62 3.60 0.00 0.02 3.6
56 100.0
5. How has your child's learning to talk and express himself or herself changed this year?Experimental Control
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
# % # %23 46.9 22 39.320 40.8 25 44.6
5 10.2 8 14.30 0.0 1 1.80 0.0 0 0.01 2.0 0 0.0
49 99.9* 56 100.0
6. How has your child's learning with and about computers and technology changed since last year?
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
7. How have your child's grades in school changed this year?
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
8. How has your child's like for school changed this year?
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
25*Rounding
29
Experimental Control# % # %
11 22.5 10 17.812 24.5 16 28.615 30.6 23 41.1
1 2.0 1 1.80 0.0 0 0.0
10 20A 6 10349 100.0 56 100.0
Experimental Control# % # %
22 44.9 25 44.615 30.6 14 25.07 14.3 11 19.61 2.0 4 7.22 4.1 2 3.62 4.1 0 0.0
49 100.0 56 100.0
Experimental Control# % # %
24 49.0 21 37.56 12.2 11 19.6
13 26.5 16 28.64 8.2 6 10.71 2.0 2 3.61 2.0 0 0.0
49 99.9* 56. 100.0
APPENDIX B
First Grade Parent SurveyPage 3
9. How has the way your child gets along with other students changed this year?Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved 17 34.7 16 28.6b. Somewhat improved 15 30.6 14 25.0c. No change 14 28.6 24 42.8d. Somewhat worse 2 4.1 1 1.8e. Much worse 0 0.0 0 0.0f. Don't know 1 2.0 1 1.8
TOTAL 49 100.0 56 100.0
10. How has your child's interest in learning changed this year? Experimental Control# % # °A
a. Much improved 34 69.4 23 41.1b. Somewhat improved 8 16.3 16 28.6c. No change 6 12.2 9 16.1d. Somewhat worse 1 2.0 4 7.3e. Much worse 0 0.0 2 3.6f. No Response 0 0.0 2 3.6
TOTAL 49 99.9* 56 100.3*
11. How has your involvement in school as a parent changed this year?Experimental# %
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
13
16
16
3
01
49
26.532.732.7
6.10.02.0
100.0
Control# %6 10.7
12 21.232 57.1
3 5.40 0.03 5.4
56 99.8*
12. How has the communication you have had with your child's teacher changed this year?Experimental Control
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
# % # %22 44.9 16 28.614 28.6 16 28.611 22.5 18 32.10 0.0 4 7.12 4.1 0 0.00 0.0 2 3.6
49 100.1* 56 100.0
13. A reduction in class size is expensive. Do you think the benefits are worth the extra
a. Yesb. Noc. Don't knowd. No response
TOTAL
26*Rounding
Experimentalmoney?
Control# % # %
42 85.7 44 78.64 8.2 4 7.23 6.1 5 8.90 0.0 3 5.4
49 100.0 56 100.1*
30
APPENDIX B
First Grade Parent SurveyPage 4
PART III: This is an opinion question.
14. What could have been done differently at school to improve your child's experience?
Comments Experimental ControlComputer labs/more computers 3 2
Foreign language instruction 1 0
More sports 1 0Better checks for head lice 1 0Introduce Accelerated Reader 2 0
Longer lunch hours 1 0
Smaller class size/more one-on-one instruction 7 16
Aides 1 4Put prayer back in school 1 0
More homework 1 0
Not enough attention to special education needs 2 0
More sensitive/better teachers 6 2
Better discipline 2 1
Parent involvement activities 2 2
Less homework initially 0 2
Better lunch program/better food/better training oflunchroom aides to respect each child 1 1
After school tutoring program/activities 1 3
More emphasis on mathematics 1 0
More field trips 1 0
Better feedback to parents 0 2
More consistency in substitute teachers 0 2
New principal/better principal 0 3
Stop half days twice/month 0 1
Don't agree with reading test 1 1
Compulsory school uniform 0 1
Keep home schools open that have low enrollment topreserve the neighborhood school concept 1 0
Don't like split classes 0 1
Avoid favoritism 1 0
Go back to basics; don't try to teach so much at 1'grade 0 1
Better communication of staff to parents 0 1
Thank you for your honest response!
Please put survey in postage-paid envelope provided and return it to the Saginaw Public Schools by May 5, 2000.
27 31
APPENDIX B
ETR ©April, 2000-Form C/E
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SAGINAWParent Survey
(Second Grade Students)Dear Parents:
We would like your opinions. The number of students in many first and second grade classrooms in theSaginaw Public Schools has been reduced. Other classrooms have maintained a larger traditional size. We wouldlike to know your ideas concerning your child's classroom. This survey will only take a couple of minutes of yourtime to complete and can be returned in the enclosed, post-paid addressed envelope.
Your responses will help us to evaluate and improve our efforts concerning first and second gradeclassrooms. All answers will be kept confidential and only grouped findings will be reported.
Instructions: First, please write the name of your child's first or second grade school. Then, please fill in the blankor circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer. Thank you in advance for sharing your views.
My child attends elementary.
Circle your child's grade level: first second Experimental (N=14)Control (N=24)
Directions: Please fill in the blank or circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer.
PART I: A background question.
1. What is the size of the classroom your child attends?Experimental Control# % # %
a. 25 - 30 students 6 42.8 11 45.8b. 21 - 24 students 4 28.6 7 29.2c. 15 - 20 students 2 14.3 1 4.2d. Less than 15 students 2 14.3 0 0.0e. Don't know 0 0.0 2 8.3f. No response 0 0.0 3 12.5
TOTAL 14 100.0 24 100.0
PART II: These are a few classroom questions.Experimental Control
2. How has your child's learning to read changed this year? # % # %a. Much improved 8 57.1 15 62.5b. Somewhat improved 5 35.7 6 25.0c. No change 1 7.1 2 8.3d. Somewhat worse 0 0.0 1 4.2e. Much worse 0 0.0 0 0.0f. Don't know 0 OM 0 0.0
TOTAL 14 99.9* 24 100.0
3. How has your child's learning to write changed this year?a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
*Rounding 2832
Experimental Control# % # %
4 28.6 14 58.38 57.1 7 29.22 14.3 2 8.30 0.0 1 4.20 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.0
14 100.0 24 100.0
APPENDIX B
Second Grade Parent SurveyPage 2
Experimental Control4. How has your child's learning in mathematics changed this year? # %
a. Much improved 6 42.8b. Somewhat improved 5 35.7c. No change 3 21.4d. Somewhat worse 0 0.0e. Much worse 0 0.0f. Don't know 0 0.0
TOTAL 14 99.9*
# °A9 37.5
11 45.84 16.70 0.00 0.00 0.0
24 100.0
5. How has your child's learning to talk and express himself or herself changed this year?Experimental Control
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
# % # %5 42.8 8 33.36 35.7 9 37.53 21.4 6 25.00 0.0 1 4.20 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0 OM
14 99.9* 24 100.0
6. How has your child's learning with and about computers and technology changed since last year?
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
7. How have your child's grades in school changed this year?
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
8. How has your child's like for school changed this year?
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
29*Rounding 33
Experimental Control# % # %2 14.3 6 25.07 50.0 9 37.53 21.4 4 16.70 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.02 14.3 5 20.8
14 100.0 24 100.0
Experimental Control# % # %3 21.4 10 41.77 50.0 8 33.32 14.3 3 12.5
1 7.1 3 12.51 7.1 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.0
14 99.9* 24 100.0
Experimental Control# % # %4 28.6 10 41.72 14.3 7 29.25 35.7 4 16.72 14.3 2 8.31 7.1 1 4.20 0.0 0 0.0
14 100.1* 24 100.1*
APPENDIX B
Second Grade Parent SurveyPage 3
9. How has the way your child gets along with other students changed this year?Experimental Control
a. Much improved 3 21.4 7 29.2b. Somewhat improved 4 28.6 9 37.5c. No change 5 35.7 5 20.8d. Somewhat worse 0 0.0 1 4.2e. Much worse 2 14.3 0 0.0f. Don't know 0 0.0 2 8.3
TOTAL 14 100.0 24 100.0
10. How has your child's interest in learning changed this year? Experimental Control
a. Much improved 5 35.7 10 41.7b. Somewhat improved 4 28.6 7 29.2c. No change 3 21.4 4 16.7d. Somewhat worse 1 7.1 3 12.5e. Much worse 1 7.1 0 0.0
TOTAL 14 99.9* 24 100.1*
11. How has your involvement in school as a parent changed this year?Experimental Control
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
12. How has the communication you have had with your child's
a. Much improvedb. Somewhat improvedc. No changed. Somewhat worsee. Much worsef. Don't know
TOTAL
# %2 14.35 35.76 42.81 7.1
0 0.00 0.0
14 99.9*
teacher changed thisExperimental
# %4 16.76 25.0
12 50.02 8.30 0.00 0.0
24 100.0
year?Control
5 35.7 6 25.02 14.3 6 25.05 35.7 7 29.22 14.3 3 12.50 0.0 2 8.30 0.0 0 0.0
14 100.0 24 100.0
13. A reduction in class size is expensive. Do you think the benefits are worth the extra money?Experimental Control
a. Yesb. Noc. Don't know
TOTAL
*Rounding30
34
11 78.61 7.12 14.3
14 100.0
19 79.20 0.05 20.8
24 100.0
APPENDIX B
Second Grade Parent SurveyPage 4
PART III: This is an opinion question.
14. What could have been done differently at school to improve your child's experience?
Comments Experimental ControlComputer labs/more computers 2 1
Longer lunch hours 1 0Smaller class size/more one-on-one instruction 1 6Aides 0 1
More homework 1 1
Not enough attention to special education needs 2 0More sensitive/better teachers 1 1
Better discipline 1 1
Better lunch program/better food/better training oflunchroom aides to respect each child 0 1
After school tutoring program/activities 1 2
More music/arts/crafts for express 0 1
Better feedback to parents 2 2
More consistency in substitute teachers 0 3
Stop half days twice/month 0 1
Thank you for your honest response!
Please put survey in postage-paid envelope provided and return it to the Saginaw Public Schools by May 5, 2000.
31
35
ETR ©April, 2000-Form C/E
School Where You Teach:
APPENDIX B
CLASS SIZE SURVEYTeacher Survey
Experimental (N=12)Control (N=13)
Introduction: Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to determine theperceptions of teachers with regard to either reduced class size (grade 1 = 18 or less, and grade 2 = 21 or less) or traditionalclass size in the first or second grades. Your responses will be used to help us to evaluate and improve our early elementaryefforts. All answers will be kept in confidence and only grouped findings will be reported.
Directions: Please fill in the blank or circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer.
PART I
1. How long have you been teaching? Experimental Control%# % #
a. First year 1 8.3 0 0.0b. 1 2 years 0 0.0 3 23.1c. 3 10 years 5 41.7 2 15.4d. 11 - 20 years 2 16.7 3 23.1e. More than 20 years 4 33.3 5 38.5f. No response 0 0.0 0 0.0
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.1*
2. What grade do you teach? Experimental Control%# % #
a. First 8 66.7 10 76.9b. Second 3 25.0 3 23.1c. No response 1 8.3 0 0.0
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.0
3. What grade did you teach last year? Experimental Control# % # %
a. First 7 58.3 7 53.8b. Second 5 41.7 3 23.1c. Third 0 0.0 1 7.7d. Upper Elementary 0 0.0 0 0.0e. No response 0 0.0 2 15.4
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.0
4. How many students are in your class? Experimental Control°A# % #
a. 21 or more 1 8.3 13 100.0b. 19 20 2 16.7 0 0.0c. 17- 18 5 41.7 0 0.0d. 15 - 16 4 33.3 0 0.0e. 14 or fewer 0 0.0 0 0.0f. No response 0 0.0 0 0.0
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.0
*Rounding32
36
APPENDIX B
Teacher SurveyPage 2
5. How many months, if any, have you been teaching 18 or few students (2nd grade, 21 or fewer students)?
a. Less than a monthb. 1 - 3 monthsc. 4 - 6 monthsd. More than six monthse. I have more than 18 (2nd grade, 21)
students in my classf. No response
TOTAL
Experimental Control# % # %1 8.3 3 23.10 0.0 0 0.02 16.7 0 0.06 50.0 0 0.0
3 25.0 9 69.20 0.0 1 7.7
12 100.0 13 100.0
PART II: Please indicate the extent to which the following factors have changed from last school year to this school year.Experimental Control
6. Student time-on-task.a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last yearf. No response
TOTAL
# %10 83.30 0.01 8.30 0.00 0.01 8.3
12 99.9*
# %1 7.73 23.16 46.22 15.40 0.01 7.7
13 100.1*
7. Monitoring student progress and providing feedback to students.Experimental Control
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last yearf. No response
TOTAL
# %9 75.01 8.31 8.30 0.00 0.01 8.3
12 99.9*
# %
0 0.05 38.52 15.45 38.50 0.01 7.7
13 100.1*
8. Small group instruction. Experimental Control
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last yearf. No response
TOTAL
# %
10 83.31 8.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 8.3
12 99.9*
9. One-on-one instruction. Experimental# %
a. Much improved since last year 8 66.7b. Somewhat improved since last year 2 16.7c. No change 1 8.3d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0f. No response 1 83
TOTAL 12 100.0
*Rounding 33
# %
0 0.03 23.15 38.53 23.11 7.71 7.7
13 100.1*
Control# %
1 7.73 23.12 15.44 30.82 15.41 7.7
13 100.1*
APPENDIX B
Teacher SurveyPage 3
10. Use of hands-on activities and manipulatives. Experimental# %
a. Much improved since last year 0 0.0b. Somewhat improved since last year 4 33.3c. No change 1 8.3d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0f. No response 7 58.3
TOTAL 12 99.9*
11. Effectiveness of remedial activities. Experimental# %
a. Much improved since last year 7 58.3b. Somewhat improved since last year 2 16.7c. No change 2 16.7d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0f. No response 1 8.3
TOTAL 12 100.0
12. Effectiveness of enrichment activities. Experimental# %
a. Much improved since last year 7 58.3b. Somewhat improved since last year 3 25.0c. No change 1 8.3d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0f. No response 1 8.3
TOTAL 12 99.9*
Control# %1 7.70 0.07 53.83 23.11 7.71 7.7
13 100.0
Control# %1 7.73 23.14 30.83 23.11 7.71 7.7
13 100.1*
Control# %0 0.04 30.85 38.52 15.41 7.71 7.7
13 100.1*
13. Introducing students to computers and technology. Experimental Control%# % #
a. Much improved since last year 3 25.0 0 0.0b. Somewhat improved since last year 2 16.7 1 7.7c. No change 5 41.7 5 38.5d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 2 15.4e. Much worse since last year 1 8.3 4 30.8f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.1*
14. Student attendance.
a. Much improved since last yearb. Somewhat improved since last yearc. No changed. Somewhat worse since last yeare. Much worse since last yearf. No response
TOTAL
*Rounding
Experimental Control# %2 16.74 33.35 41.70 0.00 0.01 8.3
12 100.0
34
38
# %0 0.00 0.08 61.54 30.80 0.01 7.7
13 100.0
APPENDIX B
Teacher SurveyPage 4
15. Classroom discipline. Experimental Control%# % #
a. Much improved since last year 6 50.0 2 15.4b. Somewhat improved since last year 2 16.7 0 0.0c. No change 3 25.0 7 53.8d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 3 23.1e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 0 0.0f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.0
16. Social interaction among your students. Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 7 58.3 1 7.7b. Somewhat improved since last year 2 16.7 1 7.7c. No change 2 16.7 4 30.8d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 5 38.5e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 1 7.7f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.1*
17. Social/personal interactions between the teachers and students.Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 8 66.7 1 7.7b. Somewhat improved since last year 3 25.0 2 15.4c. No change 0 0.0 5 38.5d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 3 23.1e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 0 0.0f. No response 1 8.3 2 15.4
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.1*
18. Teacher morale. Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 8 66.7 2 15.4
b. Somewhat improved since last year 2 16.7 0 0.0
c. No change 0 0.0 5 38.5
d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 4 30.8
e. Much worse since last, year 1 8.3 1 7.7
f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.1*
19. Effectiveness of teacher planning and preparation. Experimental Control0/0# % #
a. Much improved since last year 8 66.7 2 15.4
b. Somewhat improved since last year 3 25.0 7 53.8c. No change 0 0.0 2 15.4
d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 1 7.7
e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 0 0.0
f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.0
*Rounding 3539
APPENDIX B
Teacher SurveyPage 5
20. The amount of paper and record keeping. Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 5 41.7 1 7.7b. Somewhat improved since last year 3 25.0 1 7.7c. No change 1 8.3 5 38.5d. Somewhat worse since last year 2 16.7 3 23.1e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 2 15.4f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.1*
21. Your interaction with other teachers at your school. Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 0 0.0 2 15.4b. Somewhat improved since last year 5 41.7 0 0.0c. No change 6 50.0 6 46.2d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 2 15.4e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 2 15.4f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 100.0 13 100.1*
22. Teacher-administrator interaction and support. Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 3 25.0 1 7.7b. Somewhat improved since last year 4 33.3 2 15.4c. No change 3 25.0 9 69.2d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 0 0.0e. Much worse since last year 1 8.3 0 0.0f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 99.9* 13 100.0
23. Number and quality of contacts with parents. Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 4 33.3 0 0.0b. Somewhat improved since last year 3 25.0 2 15.4c. No change 4 33.3 7 53.8d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 3 23.1e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 0 0.0f. No response 1 8.3 1 73
TOTAL 12 99.9* 13 100.0
24. Physical environment (space, facilities, noise level, etc.).Experimental Control# % # °A
a. Much improved since last year 6 50.0 1 7.7b. Somewhat improved since last year 3 25.0 0 0.0c. No change 1 8.3 6 46.2d. Somewhat worse since last year 1 8.3 4 30.8e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 1 7.7f. No response 1 8.3 1 73
TOTAL 12 99.9* 13 100.1*
36*Rounding
40
APPENDIX B
Teacher SurveyPage 6
25. Overall academic improvement among students. Experimental Control# % # %
a. Much improved since last year 7 58.3 1 7.7b. Somewhat improved since last year 3 25.0 1 7.7c. No change 1 8.3 8 61.5d. Somewhat worse since last year 0 0.0 2 15.4e. Much worse since last year 0 0.0 0 0.0f. No response 1 8.3 1 7.7
TOTAL 12 99.9* 13 100.0
PART III: Using the space provided, please write your response to the following questions.
26. What do you like best about this year's class versus last year's class?
Comments Experimental Control
Planning time 0 1
Student teacher 0 1
Less students than last year 0 1
Confidence based on teaching the grade before 0 1
Better listeners 0 2Better parents 1 1
More time for one-on-one instruction 6 0Less discipline problems/distractions 5 4More academic success 1 0Better academic achievement 3 1
Better classroom atmosphere 1 1
More time to monitor students 1 0
27. What do you like least about this year's class versus last year's class?
Comments Experimental Control
Too many students/wide range of student abilities 0 5
Lacked materials 0 2
Behavior problems with children 1 3
Irresponsible parents 0 2
More special education students in room 1 0Attendance and tardiness still a problem 1 0Too many "after school" meetings 1 0Text leveling useless unless done in a quiet one-to oneenvironment 1 0
Academically lower then typical students of this grade level 0 2
*Rounding 37 41
APPENDIX B
Teacher SurveyPage 7
28. What would you change to improve classroom effectiveness?
Comments Experimental Control
Lower class size/more teachers so all classes are small 1 8
Hire paraprofessional/aide 0 3
Materials readily available 1 1
Parenting classes 0 1
Stricter requirements for promotion from kindergarten 0 3More individual instruction 0 1
Ways to identify students needing extra help 1 0Fewer benchmarks 0 1
Classroom computers 2 0Science kits arrive in a more timely fashion 1 0More support with discipline/police carried out/betterdiscipline 3 0Keep to compensatory education schedule do not allowchange 1 0Better lead time when changing grades 0 1
Have a team do text leveling to provide consistency 1 0
29. What unexpected results have you observed in this year as compared to last year? If appropriate, please mention bothpositive and negative results.
Positive results:
Comments Experimental Control
Reading and writing improvement 6 4Better student interaction 4 0Increased parent conference attendance/more parentinvolvement 1 0Mathematics improvement 2 1
Time on task increased 2 0
Able to cover more material 1 0Better class environment/happier students 2 0Less stress 1 0Allowed more time to work on problem solving skills 1 0
Negative Results:
Comments Experimental Control
Large class size limits the amount of individual help 0 2Less parent involvement 0 2
Behavior problems with kids 1 1
Too many special education students 1 0Poor attendance 1 0No negative results only positive results 1 0Lack of interest on the part of teachers 0 1
38 42
APPENDIX B
Teacher SurveyPage 8
30. List any professional development activities in which you have participated that would help you to be moreeffective in reduced sized classrooms.
Comments Experimental Control
Four block 3 4Reading Recovery 0 2
Integrated curriculum 1 1
Math/reading inservices for new program 2 1
Strategies to better implement smaller class size 1 0
CLF (Community for Learning) 1 0
ALEM (Adaptive Learning Environments Module) 1 0
First Grade Convention (conference) in Lansing 2 0
More training in use of music, art, drama 0 1
DRA kit meetings 1 0
Parenting classes 0 1
31. List any professional development activities/topics you believe would be helpful in reduced sized classrooms.
Comments Experimental Control
Small group activities/centers 2 1
Cooperative learning 1 1
Class management 0 1
Four block update or expansion 1 2
Text leveling instruction/Reading Recovery 4 0
Individualized instruction 1 0
Math Their Way 1 0
A first grade conference 1 0
Conflict resolution 0 1
More thematic inversion 0 1
Thank you for your honest response!Please return to the Evaluation, Testing & Research Department by Friday, May 5, 2000.
ETR ©April, 2000-Form C/E
School:
APPENDIX B
CLASS SIZE SURVEYPrincipal Survey
(N=14)
Introduction: Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to determine theperceptions of principals with regard to either reduced class size (grade 1 = 18 or less, and grade 2 = 21 or less) or traditionalclass size in the first or second grades. Your responses will be used to help us to evaluate and improve our early elementaryefforts. All answers will be kept in confidence and only grouped findings will be reported.
Directions: Please fill in the blank or circle the letter corresponding to the most appropriate answer.
PART I1. At what grade levels have class size reductions been implemented at your school?
a. First grade only 6 42.8a. Grades 1 & 2 2 14.3b. Second grade only 0 0.0c. None GO TO PART II 6 42.8
TOTAL 14 99.9*
2. What is the average number of months, if any, that class size reduction classes have been in operation atyour school?a. Noneb. Less than a monthc. 1-3 monthsd. 4-6 monthse. More than six months
TOTAL
# 0/0
0 0.00 0.00 0.01 12.57 87.58 100.0
3. What percent of your reduced size classrooms are using a team-teaching format?
a. 0% to 20% 4 50.0b. 21% to 40% 1 12.5
c. 41% to 60% 0 0.0d. 61% to 80% 0 0.0e. More than 80% 3 37.5
TOTAL 8 100.0
4. What percent of your reduced size classrooms are taught by first year teachers?
a. 0% to 20% 7 87.5b. 21% to 40% 0 0.0c. 41% to 60% 0 0.0d. 61% to 80% 0 0.0e. More than 80% 1 12.5
TOTAL 8 100.0
5. What percent of your reduced size classrooms are taught by teachers who taught at the same grade level last year?%
a. 0% to 20% 0 0.0b. 21% to 40% 1 12.5c. 41% to 60% 0 0.0d. 61% to 80% 1 12.5e. More than 80% 6 75.0
TOTAL 8 100.0
* Rounding40 4 4
Prin
cipa
l Sur
vey
Page
2
PAR
T I
I: T
hink
ing
only
of
your
fir
st g
rade
cla
ssro
oms
(sec
ond
if y
ou h
ave
low
cla
ss s
ize
in th
at g
rade
), p
leas
e in
dica
te th
eex
tent
to w
hich
the
follo
win
g fa
ctor
s ha
ve c
hang
edfr
om la
st s
choo
l yea
r to
this
sch
ool y
ear.
If
you
have
bot
h R
educ
ed a
nd T
radi
tiona
l cla
ssro
oms
mar
k th
e qu
estio
ns in
each
col
umn.
If
only
Red
uced
or
Tra
ditio
nal
Cla
ssro
oms
mar
k th
e qu
estio
ns in
the
appr
opri
ate
colu
mn.
Red
uced
Cla
ss S
ize
Cla
ssro
oms
6.St
uden
t tim
e-on
-tas
k.a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rb.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rc.
No
chan
ged.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
re.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
f. N
o re
spon
seT
OT
AL
7.M
onito
ring
stu
dent
pro
gres
s an
d pr
ovid
ing
feed
back
to s
tude
nts.
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
c. N
o ch
ange
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
rf.
No
resp
onse
TO
TA
L
8.Sm
all g
roup
inst
ruct
ion.
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
c. N
o ch
ange
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
rf.
No
resp
onse
TO
TA
L
9.O
ne-o
n-on
e in
stru
ctio
n.a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rb.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rc.
No
chan
ged.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
re.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
f. N
o re
spon
seT
OT
AL
45
#%
450
.01
12.5
225
.00
0.0
00.
01
12.5
810
0.0
#%
562
.50
0.0
00.
02
25.0
00.
01
12.5
810
0.0
#%
450
.02
25.0
112
.50
0.0
00.
01
12.5
810
0.0
#%
562
.51
12.5
112
.50
0.0
00.
01
12.5
810
0.0
Tra
ditio
nal C
lass
Siz
e C
lass
room
s6.
Stu
dent
tim
e-on
-tas
k.a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rb.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rc.
No
chan
ged.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
re.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
f.N
o re
spon
seT
OT
AL
7.M
onito
ring
stu
dent
pro
gres
s an
d pr
ovid
ing
feed
back
to s
tude
nts.
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
c. N
o ch
ange
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
rf.
No
resp
onse
TO
TA
L
8. S
mal
l gro
up in
stru
ctio
na.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rb.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rc.
No
chan
ged.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
re.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
f. N
o re
spon
seT
OT
AL
9. O
ne-o
n-on
e in
stru
ctio
n.a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rb.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
rc.
No
chan
ged.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
re.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
f. N
o re
spon
seT
OT
AL
#%
00.
04
44.4
555
.60
0.0
00.
00
0.0
910
0.0
#%
111
.12
22.2
555
.61
11.1
00.
00
0.0
910
0.0
#%
00.
03
33.3
555
.61
11.1
00.
00
0.0
810
0.0
# 00.
01
11.1
777
.81
11.1
00.
00
0.0
910
0.0
46
Prin
cipa
l Sur
vey
Page
3 Red
uced
Cla
ss S
ize
Cla
ssro
oms
Tra
ditio
nal C
lass
Siz
e C
lass
room
s10
. Use
of
hand
s-on
act
iviti
es a
nd m
anip
ulat
ives
.#
10. U
se o
f ha
nds-
on a
ctiv
ities
and
man
ipul
ativ
es.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
337
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r3
33.3
c. N
o ch
ange
225
.0c.
No
chan
ge4
44.4
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se1
12.5
f. N
o re
spon
se0
0.0
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
999
.9*
11. E
ffec
tiven
ess
of r
emed
ial a
ctiv
ities
.#
%11
. Eff
ectiv
enes
s of
rem
edia
l act
iviti
es.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
337
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r5
55.6
c. N
o ch
ange
225
.0c.
No
chan
ge3
33.3
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se1
12.5
f. N
o re
spon
se0
0.0
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
910
0.0
12. E
ffec
tiven
ess
of e
nric
hmen
t act
iviti
es.
#%
12. E
ffec
tiven
ess
of e
nric
hmen
t act
iviti
es.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
337
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r2
22.2
c. N
o ch
ange
112
.5c.
No
chan
ge3
33.3
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
25.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
22.2
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
999
.9*
13. I
ntro
duci
ng s
tude
nts
to c
ompu
ters
and
tech
nolo
gy.
#%
13. I
ntro
duci
ng s
tude
nts
to c
ompu
ters
and
tech
nolo
gy.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
112
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r2
22.2
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
c. N
o ch
ange
337
.5c.
No
chan
ge5
55.6
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
25.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
22.2
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
910
0. 1
*
* R
ound
ing
47
Prin
cipa
l Sur
vey
Page
4 Red
uced
Cla
ss S
ize
Cla
ssro
oms
Tra
ditio
nal C
lass
Siz
e C
lass
room
s14
. Stu
dent
atte
ndan
ce.
#4)
/014
. Stu
dent
atte
ndan
ce.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
112
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
450
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
year
00.
0c.
No
chan
ge1
12.5
c. N
o ch
ange
555
.6d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
111
.1e.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0e.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0f.
No
resp
onse
225
.0f.
No
resp
onse
222
.2T
OT
AL
810
0.0
TO
TA
L9
100.
0
15. C
lass
room
dis
cipl
ine.
#15
. Cla
ssro
om d
isci
plin
e.#
%a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r2
25.0
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r2
25.0
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
stye
ar0
0.0
c. N
o ch
ange
112
.5c.
No
chan
ge5
55.6
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
year
111
.1e.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0e.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0f.
No
resp
onse
237
.5f.
No
resp
onse
333
.3T
OT
AL
810
0.0
TO
TA
L9
100.
0
16. S
ocia
l int
erac
tion
amon
g yo
ur s
tude
nts.
16. S
ocia
l int
erac
tion
amon
g yo
ur s
tude
nts.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
112
.5b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
year
111
.1c.
No
chan
ge2
25.0
c. N
o ch
ange
555
.6d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
stye
ar0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se3
37.5
f. N
o re
spon
se3
33.3
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
910
0.0
17. S
ocia
l/per
sona
l int
erac
tions
bet
wee
n th
e te
ache
rsan
d st
uden
ts#
%17
. Soc
ial/p
erso
nal i
nter
actio
ns b
etw
een
the
teac
hers
and
stu
dent
s#
%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
450
.0a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
112
.5b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r2
22.2
c. N
o ch
ange
112
.5c.
No
chan
ge4
44.4
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f.N
o re
spon
se2
25.0
f.N
o re
spon
se2
22.2
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
999
.9*
* R
ound
ing
491/
4.50
Prin
cipa
l Sur
vey
Page
5 Red
uced
Cla
ss S
ize
Cla
ssro
oms
Tra
ditio
nal C
lass
Siz
e C
lass
room
s18
. Tea
cher
mor
ale.
#%
18.
Tea
cher
mor
ale.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
450
.0a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
c. N
o ch
ange
00.
0c.
No
chan
ge5
55.6
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
50.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
22.2
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
910
0.0
19. E
ffec
tiven
ess
of te
ache
r pl
anni
ng a
nd p
repa
ratio
n.#
%19
. Eff
ectiv
enes
s of
teac
her
plan
ning
and
pre
para
tion.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
337
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r2
22.2
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
450
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r2
22.2
c. N
o ch
ange
00.
0c.
No
chan
ge4
44.4
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se1
12.5
f.N
o re
spon
se1
11.1
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
999
.9*
20. Q
ualit
y of
con
tact
s w
ith p
aren
ts.
#%
20. Q
ualit
y of
con
tact
s w
ith p
aren
ts.
#%
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
112
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
337
.5b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
c. N
o ch
ange
225
.0c.
No
chan
ge5
55.6
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
rI
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
25.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
22.2
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
910
0.0
21. P
hysi
cal e
nvir
onm
ent (
spac
e, f
acili
ties,
nois
e le
vel,
etc.
)#
OA
21. P
hysi
cal e
nvir
onm
ent (
spac
e, f
acili
ties,
nois
e le
vel,
etc.
)#
°A
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
337
.5a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
112
.5b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
c. N
o ch
ange
225
.0c.
No
chan
ge7
77.8
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
112
.5d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f.N
o re
spon
se1
12.5
f. N
o re
spon
se1
11.1
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
910
0.0
51*
Rou
ndin
g52
Prin
cipa
l Sur
vey
Page
6 Red
uced
Cla
ss S
ize
Cla
ssro
oms
Tra
ditio
nal C
lass
Siz
e C
lass
room
s22
. Tea
cher
-adm
inis
trat
or in
tera
ctio
n an
d su
ppor
t.#
%22
.Tea
cher
-adm
inis
trat
or in
tera
ctio
n an
d su
ppor
t.#
%a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r3
37.5
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
222
.2c.
No
chan
ge3
37.5
c. N
o ch
ange
555
.6d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0e.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0e.
Muc
h w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0f.
No
resp
onse
225
.0f.
No
resp
onse
222
.2T
OT
AL
810
0.0
TO
TA
L9
100.
0
23. O
vera
ll ac
adem
ic im
prov
emen
t am
ong
stud
ents
.#
23. O
vera
ll ac
adem
ic im
prov
emen
t am
ong
stud
ents
.#
a. M
uch
impr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0a.
Muc
h im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r1
11.1
b. S
omew
hat i
mpr
oved
sin
ce la
st y
ear
225
.0b.
Som
ewha
t im
prov
ed s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
c. N
o ch
ange
225
.0c.
No
chan
ge6
66.7
d. S
omew
hat w
orse
sin
ce la
st y
ear
00.
0d.
Som
ewha
t wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
e. M
uch
wor
se s
ince
last
yea
r0
0.0
f. N
o re
spon
se2
25.0
f.N
o re
spon
se2
22.2
TO
TA
L8
100.
0T
OT
AL
910
0.0
24. O
bvio
usly
, red
uctio
ns in
cla
ss s
ize
are
an e
xpen
sive
und
erta
king
. Do
you
thin
k th
at th
e be
nefi
ts o
f re
duce
d cl
ass
size
are
wor
th th
e ex
pend
iture
s?
a. Y
esb.
No
c. D
on't
know
TO
TA
L
53
#%
787
.51
12.5
00.
089
100.
0
54
APPENDIX B
Principal SurveyPage 7
PART III: If you have reduced class sizes in your building, please write your response to the following questions using thespace provided. If all of your classrooms are of traditional size, please do not answer Part III.
25. What do you like best about class size reduction?
COMMENTS NUMBERMore time for one-on-one instruction 8
Teacher morale seems higher 2
Less discipline problems/distractions 2
More academic success 1
More time spent with each child in various activities 2
Fewer student conflicts 1
26. What do you like least about class size reduction?
COMMENTS NUMBERSome resentment from upper grade levels 1
Potentially could be for an "elite" class 2
Possible some students who need a smaller class size will not get it; smallclass size for all 2
27. What would you change about the class size reduction efforts to improve its effectiveness?
COMMENTS NUMBERLower class size/more teachers so all classes are small 4
More parent involvement 1
More individual instruction 1
Ways to identify students needing extra help 1
More hands on activities 1
Identification of ways administration can support low class size teachers 1
28. What unexpected results have you observed as a result of reduced class size? If appropriate, please mention bothpositive and negative unexpected results.
Positive results:COMMENTS NUMBER
Reading and writing improvement 3
Better student interaction 1
Less referral to special education 1
Increased parent conference attendance/more parent involvement 4
Better class environment/happier students 2
Opportunity for teachers to use "Best Practices" 1
Better student attendance 1
Negative results:COMMENTS NUMBER
Large classroom limits the amount of individual help 1
Less parent involvement 1
Need to increase teacher expectations 1
Thank you for your honest response!
Please return to the Evaluation, testing & Research Department by Friday, May 5, 2000
46 55
Sum
mar
y S
tate
men
t of P
art 1
1 Q
uest
ion
Par
ent 1
"
Cha
nges
in le
arni
ng to
rea
dC
hang
es in
lear
ning
to w
rite
Cha
nges
in le
arni
ng m
ath
Cha
nges
in v
erba
l exp
ress
ion
Cha
nges
in te
chno
logy
ski
llsC
hang
es in
gra
des
Cha
nges
in s
choo
l atti
tude
Cha
nges
in s
tude
nt in
tera
ctio
nC
hang
es in
inte
rest
in le
arni
ngC
hang
e in
par
ent i
nvol
vem
ent
Cha
nges
in p
aren
t/tea
cher
inte
ract
ion
Is it
wor
th th
e ex
tra
mon
eyC
hang
e in
stu
dent
tim
e on
task
Cha
nge
in m
onito
ring/
feed
back
to s
tude
nts
Cha
nge
in s
mal
l gro
up in
stru
ctio
nC
hang
e in
one
on
one
inst
ruct
ion
Cha
nge
in h
ands
on
inst
ruct
ion
Cha
nge
in e
nric
hmen
t act
iviti
esC
hang
e in
atte
ndan
ceC
hang
e in
dis
cipl
ine
Cha
nge
in s
tude
nt/te
ache
r in
tera
ctio
nC
hang
e in
mor
ale
Cha
nge
in e
ffect
ive
of p
lann
ing
Cha
nge
in a
mou
nt o
f pap
erw
ork
Cha
nge
in a
dmin
istr
atio
n/te
ache
r in
tera
ctio
nC
hang
e in
phy
sica
l env
ironm
ent
E=
Exp
erim
enta
l (R
educ
ed C
lass
Siz
e)C
= C
ontr
ol (
Nor
mal
Cla
ss S
ize)
94%
impr
ovem
ent
92%
impr
ovem
ent
91%
impr
ovem
ent
86%
impr
ovem
ent
47%
impr
ovem
ent
73%
impr
ovem
ent
59%
impr
ovem
ent
59%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 8
5.7%
; C: 6
9.7%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 5
2.9%
; C: 3
1.9%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 7
3.5%
; C: 5
7.2%
impr
ovem
ent
82%
Yes
AP
PE
ND
IX C
Par
ent 2
nd
90%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 2
8.6%
; C: 5
8.3%
muc
h im
prov
ed81
% im
prov
emen
t62
% im
prov
emen
t63
% im
prov
emen
t73
% im
prov
emen
tE
: 42.
9%; C
: 70.
9% im
prov
emen
t58
% im
prov
emen
t68
% im
prov
emen
t46
% im
prov
emen
t50
% im
prov
emen
t.1
-- 7
9% Y
es
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Tea
cher
E: 4
1.7%
; C: 7
.7%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 8
3.3%
; C: 1
5.4%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 7
5.0%
; C: 1
5.4%
impr
ovem
ent
Prin
cipa
l
E: 3
7.5%
; C: 2
2.2%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 5
0.0%
; C: 1
1.1%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 3
7.5%
; C: 1
1.1%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 5
8.3%
; C: 1
5.4%
impr
ovem
ent
E: 5
0.0%
; C: 1
1.1%
impr
ovem
ent
87.5
% Y
esE
: 83.
3%; C
: 30.
8% im
prov
emen
tE
: 62.
5%; C
: 44.
4% im
prov
emen
tE
: 83.
3%; C
: 38.
5% im
prov
emen
tE
: 62.
5%; C
: 33.
3% im
prov
emen
tE
: 91.
6%; C
: 23.
1% im
prov
emen
tE
: 75.
0%; C
: 33.
3% im
prov
emen
tE
: 83.
4%; C
: 30.
8% im
prov
emen
tE
: 75.
0%; C
: 11.
1% im
prov
emen
tE
: 33.
3%; C
: 7.7
% im
prov
emen
tE
: 62.
5%; C
: 44.
4% im
prov
emen
tE
: 83.
3%; C
: 30.
8% im
prov
emen
tE
: 62.
5%; C
: 33.
3% im
prov
emen
tE
: 50.
0%; C
: 0.0
% im
prov
emen
tE
: 62.
5%; C
: 11.
1% im
prov
emen
tE
: 66.
7%; C
: 15.
4% im
prov
emen
tE
: 50.
0%; C
: 0.0
% im
prov
emen
tE
: 91.
7%; C
: 23.
1% im
prov
emen
tE
: 62.
5%; C
: 22.
2% im
prov
emen
tE
: 83.
4%; C
: 15.
4% im
prov
emen
tE
: 75.
0%; C
: 11.
1% im
prov
emen
tE
: 91.
7%; C
: 69.
2% im
prov
emen
tE
: 87.
5%; C
: 44.
4% im
prov
emen
tE
: 66.
7%; C
: 15.
4% im
prov
emen
tE
: 58.
3%; C
: 23.
1% im
prov
emen
tE
: 37.
5%; C
: 22.
2% im
prov
emen
tE
: 75.
0%; C
: 7.7
% im
prov
emen
tE
: 50.
0%; C
: 0.0
% im
prov
emen
t
57
APP
EN
DIX
D
Sum
mar
y St
atem
ent o
f Pa
rt I
II Q
uest
ion
Pare
nt I
"Pa
rent
2nd
Tea
cher
Prin
cipa
l
Wha
t do
you
like
best
Wha
t do
you
like
leas
t
Wha
t cha
nges
wou
ld y
ou r
ecom
men
d
Any
une
xpec
ted
posi
tive
resu
lts
Any
une
xpec
ted
nega
tive
resu
lts
Pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t tak
en
Pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t wan
ted
E=
Exp
erim
enta
l (R
educ
ed C
lass
Siz
e)C
= C
ontr
ol (
Nor
mal
Cla
ss S
ize)
58
E &
C: M
ore
Ito I
inst
ruct
ion
E: M
ore
sens
itive
/bet
ter
teac
hers
E: I
) B
ette
r fe
edba
ck to
par
ents
2) B
ette
r at
tent
ion
to s
peci
al n
eeds
3) M
ore
com
pute
rsC
: Mor
e I t
o I i
nstr
uctio
n
E: m
ore
time
for
I to
I ins
truc
tion
E &
C: l
ess
disc
iplin
e pr
oble
ms
E: n
o co
mm
on r
espo
nse
Mor
e tim
e fo
r I t
o I i
nstr
uctio
n
I) P
oten
tial f
or a
n el
ite c
lass
C: t
oo m
any
dive
rse
stud
ents
2) M
ost n
eedy
may
not
be
in r
educ
ed
E: M
ore
disc
iplin
eC
: Mor
e re
duce
d cl
asse
s
E &
C: I
mpr
ovem
ent i
n re
adin
gan
d w
ritin
g
E: n
o co
mm
on r
espo
nse
C: 1
) Le
ss p
aren
t inv
olve
men
t2)
Les
s in
divi
dual
atte
ntio
n
E &
C: F
our
bloc
k
E: T
ext l
evel
ing
inst
ruct
ion
C: F
our
bloc
k up
date
/exp
ansi
o
Mor
e re
duce
d cl
asse
s
1) In
crea
sed
pare
nt in
volv
emen
t2)
Impr
ovem
ent i
n re
adin
g an
d w
ritin
g
No
com
mon
res
pons
e
59
Printed by theSaginaw Public SchoolsPrinting Department
60
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
Reproduction Basis
O
ERIC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries it8 own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (3/2000)
Ps og.43,