EDITORIAL: Class sizes

It’s an article of blind faith among many educators and parents that smaller classes translate into student achievement gains. To that end, Nevada lawmakers for two decades have forced state taxpayers to spend billions of dollars to limit the number of kids in kindergarten through third grade classrooms.

The program costs more than $300 million for the current biennium, alone. The results, to say the least, have been underwhelming. Test scores for Nevada third graders continue to lag and lawmakers last year even implemented a specific program to ensure children know how to read before they’re promoted to fourth grade.

Given the “minimal return on investment” from these efforts, “why are states so fervently attached to the program?” asked Nancy E. Brune and Megan K. Rauch of the Kenny Guinn Center for Policy Priorities in a recent Review-Journal opinion piece.

One reason, as Ms. Brune and Ms. Rauch note, is that class-size reduction is highly popular with parents. The other reason is apparent in a Sunday Review-Journal story on the Clark County School District’s progress in closing a teacher shortage as classes begin this week.

While there are numerous factors affecting the teacher count, reporter Neal Morton writes, district officials estimate that they eliminated the need for about 300 positions by slightly increasing class sizes in higher grades.

Class-size reduction is, in fact, just a back-door means for teacher union interests to beef up their ranks and generate more dues-paying members.

Nobody advocates for classrooms crammed with 50 or 60 students. But there’s scant evidence after years of study that class-size expenditures have any significant effect on student performance or that they are the most cost-effective way of fostering a positive learning environment.