112

CHILD
INDICATORS

Class Size
Eugene M. Lewit
Linda Schuurmann Baker

H
aving fewer children in a class is attractive to both parents and
Eugene M. Lewit, Ph.D.,
is director of research teachers. One recent national poll found that 70% of adults
and grants for econom- believe that reducing class size would result in big improvements
ics at the Center for the in public schools.1 Fewer than 10% believed that it would make no improve-
Future of Children. ment at all. A 1997 Education Week survey found that 83% of teachers and
Linda Schuurmann 60% of principals agree that class size in elementary schools should not
Baker, M.P.H., is a exceed 17 students, compared with a national average of 25 students per
research analyst at the
Center for the Future of class.2 Teachers feel that smaller classes encourage increased student-
Children. teacher interaction, allow for more thorough evaluation of students, and
promote greater teaching flexibility.3 However, because of the additional
teachers and facilities required, reducing class size is costly. In California, for
example, school districts claimed nearly $1 billion in state funds for class size
reduction in 1996–97 alone.4
Recent publicity and legislative action in several states have fueled inter-
est in smaller classes, particularly in the lower grades. Although research
and debate on class size are not new, some of the increased attention comes
from an evaluation of a Tennessee demonstration project. The study found
that students in grades K–3 did significantly better on achievement tests
when they were in classrooms with 13 to 17 students per teacher than when
they were in standard-size classes (22 to 25 students) or in standard classes
with a teacher and an aide.5 Children from the smaller classes continued to
perform better than children from the larger classes, even in subsequent
years when all children were in standard-size classes. The value of class size
reduction is still being debated, however, because of the high resource costs
of widespread efforts to reduce class size and uncertainty as to whether
results comparable to those achieved in Tennessee can be replicated on a
large scale.6 For reasons of space, this article does not review the literature
on the effects of class size reductions on student achievement.7
When class size reduction is a policy goal, measuring class size consis-
tently is important. Staffing decisions play a major role in class size because
the administrative and instructional relationships between teachers and
pupils result in part from the amount and type of staff hired by a school dis-

The Future of Children FINANCING SCHOOLS Vol. 7 • No. 3 – Winter 1997

 113

trict. There are several ways that the relationship between the number of
students and staff can be measured, and the statistic chosen can determine
whether schools faced with a mandate to decrease class size add teachers,
build classrooms, or reassign existing staff and space. This Child Indicators
article examines the measurement of class size and a related measure, the
pupil-teacher ratio. It also looks at variations across states in the number
of students per classroom and long-term trends in class size and pupil-
teacher ratios.
This article finds that pupil-teacher ratios are consistently lower than aver-
age class size because class size statistics do not reflect the use of specialized
teachers or teachers who work in multiple classrooms. Because the utilization
of school facilities is not included in either statistic, class size and pupil-
teacher ratios do not provide any information about the adequacy of the
physical environment for education. Moreover, averages of either statistic do
not provide information about the range of classes of different sizes within a
state, district, or school. Class size varies widely within states, and average class
size in a state is not a good predictor of the prevalence of large classes in that
state. Despite the differences between the two statistics, over the long term the
trend has been toward both smaller classes and lower pupil-teacher ratios.

Definitions and reported as average class size. In the SASS

Measurement
Two different statistics are used to describe
the relationship between the number of stu-
dents and the number of professional staff
members in an educational setting: class size
and the pupil-teacher ratio. Class size is an
administrative measure typically defined as
the number of students for whom a teacher
is primarily responsible during a school year.
The teacher may be responsible for most of
the instruction of the students (as in a self-
contained classroom) or just for instruction
in one subject (as in a departmentalized
program in which teachers are assigned to
several classes of different students). In
the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS),
conducted by the National Center for
Education Statistics, this class size measure is
obtained by simply asking teachers how
many students are enrolled in their classes.8
The average of all of the teacher responses is
1993–94 report, classes taught by special
education teachers (which tend to be very
small) are excluded from the calculation of
average class size. This is true with regard to
the estimates of class size from the SASS
shown in Figure 1.
Although small classes may be associated
with self-contained classrooms, the types of
space used for education vary widely from
fully enclosed classrooms to portable build-
ings to large open spaces (such as converted
cafeterias or gymnasiums) which may be
occupied by one or several classes at a time.
Most class size statistics do not address the
nature or adequacy of the physical space
used for instruction. In the SASS, for exam-
ple, there are no questions about the amount
or type of space used for instruction.9
Pupil-teacher ratios are typically calcu-
lated by dividing the number of enrolled
114
students in an educational unit—school, dis-
trict, or state—by the number of full-time-
equivalent (FTE) teachers assigned to that
unit. Pupil-teacher ratios are available from
the SASS and from the National Survey of
Salaries and Wages in Public Schools
(NSSW), which is conducted annually by
the Educational Research Service. NSSW
respondents in school systems are asked to
report their fall enrollment and the number
of FTE employees in 27 positions.10 These
figures include special education students
who are in grades K–12 and special educa-
tion teachers who have a class assigned to
them. Teachers who pull students from reg-
With a set budget and student body, if more
regular classroom teachers are hired, classes
can be smaller; if more specialty teachers are
hired, classes will be larger.
ular classrooms for a few hours each day are
not included in these teacher-pupil ratios.11
By contrast, pupil-professional ratios include
all teachers, as well as librarians, nurses, and
administrative staff, and thus provide a
broader picture of the staffing resources per
pupil. The pupil-teacher ratios from both
surveys are shown in the middle portion of
Figure 1, and the pupil-professional staff
ratio from the NSSW is in the bottom part of
Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows that, because of the addi-
tional staff included in pupil-professional
ratios, these ratios (15.4 pupils per FTE staff)
are lower than pupil-teacher ratios (17 to
18.4 pupils per FTE teacher). In addition,
the pupil-teacher ratios are lower than aver-
age class size (23.2 to 25.2 pupils per class).
There are several reasons for the difference
between the pupil-teacher ratio and average
class size. Class size is larger than the pupil-
teacher ratio because class size does not
include teachers who work either in multi-
ple classrooms (such as music teachers), or
in specialized settings (such as special edu-
cation teachers), nor does it include teach-
ers who do administrative work and do not
interact with students. For example, a study
of teacher workloads in Boston revealed that
9% of certified teachers for elementary
schools and an additional 30% for sec-
ondary schools were full-time substitute
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – WINTER 1997
teachers whose primary assignment was to
release teachers from their classrooms so
that they could take part in professional
training, assume administrative duties, or do
classroom planning (see the article by
Monk, Pijanowski, and Hussain in this jour-
nal issue). This routine use of a large share
of the teaching staff as substitutes does not
affect the size of the classes that children
experience but is reflected in pupil-teacher
ratios and would account for some of the dif-
ference between pupil-teacher ratios and
average class sizes.
Other staffing decisions also play a large
role in determining average class size and
student-teacher ratios. With a set budget
and student body, if more regular classroom
teachers are hired, classes can be smaller; if
more specialty teachers are hired, classes will
be larger. The Boston study found that more
than 40% of teachers in the Boston Public
School system worked in areas other than
general education (for example, in special
education or bilingual programs).12 These
programs have relatively small numbers of
students per teacher, and in some instances,
teachers work individually with students.
Hiring such a large proportion of teachers
to work with small numbers of students pro-
vides special services to many students but
leaves regular classroom teachers with larger
classes. As mentioned above, in some statisti-
cal reports, these small specialized classes are
excluded from class size calculations, which
would bias mean class size upward. If the fac-
ulty members who teach these classes are
included in the staff count used to calculate
pupil-teacher ratios, the difference between
these ratios and class size may be particu-
larly great. In that same Boston area district,
the districtwide pupil-teacher ratio was 13.2
students per teacher, but most classes had
more than 23 students per teacher.
Neither average class size nor pupil-
teacher ratios provide information about the
distribution of classes of different sizes. Take,
for example, two schools with an average
class size of 20. School A has 10 classes, 5
with 10 students and 5 with 30 students.
School B has 10 classes, all with 20 stu-
dents. The average class size and the school-
wide pupil-teacher ratios are the same in
both schools, but the number of classes of
each size is very different. These differences
within schools can result from different
CHILD INDICATORS: Class Size 115

Figure 1

Average Class Sizes, Pupil-Teacher Ratios, and Pupil-Professional

Ratios in Public Schools, 1993 to 1994

Class Sizes
Self-contained
classrooms
Departmentalized
classrooms
Pupil-Teacher Ratios
Students per full-time
teacher
Students per full-time-
equivalent teacher
Pupil-Professional Ratios
Students per building-level
professional staff

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Students

National Survey of Salaries and Wages in Public Schools (NSSW)

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

Data are from the National Survey of Salaries and Wages in Public Schools (NSSW) and the Schools
and Staffing Survey (SASS). In the NSSW, building-level professional staff includes principals,
teachers, counselors, librarians, and school nurses. Teachers in the NSSW include only full-time
teachers. In the SASS, departmentalized classes mainly represent secondary schools, and self-
contained classes mainly represent elementary schools. Special education classes, which are much
smaller on average than regular classes, are excluded from the calculations of average class size.
n Pupil-teacher ratios and average class size give different pictures of the educational environ-
ment. Pupil-teacher ratios are lower than average class size because the ratios include spe-
cialized teachers along with regular classroom teachers.
n Students in self-contained classrooms, most often elementary students, have the highest
average class size, 25.2 students per class.
n Average class size does not provide any information about the range of class sizes or the
resources spent by schools on students.

Source: Educational Research Service. School staffing ratios, 1993–94. Arlington, VA: ERS, 1994; National Center for Education Statistics.
Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1993–94. NCES 96-124. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, 1996, p. 3, Table 1.2.

educational programs in the schools (for
example, more small specialized classes in
one school) or from union contracts and
other management practices which stipulate
a maximum class size. For example, the
union contract in the Boston school district
referred to above stipulated a limit on class
sizes based on school level and program
areas.13 Often, classes were added to a grade
when necessary to avoid exceeding the max-
imum class size. This practice resulted in
considerable variation in class sizes across
grades and schools.
Geographic Variations
Measures such as average class size can
obscure the wide variation in class sizes
across schools, districts, and states. Statistics
that provide information about the distribu-
tion of class sizes or pupil-teacher ratios,
116
such as medians or the proportion of classes
under or above a certain size, are helpful in
determining the extent to which students
are actually in classes of different sizes. The
proportion of classes with 30 or more stu-
dents is one such measure which happens to
focus on larger classes.
Data about average class size and the per-
centage of classes with 30 or more students
in grades K–6 in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 illustrates that, although no state
has an average class size of more than 30, the
percentage of large classes in grades K–6 in
1993–94 varied widely and that average class
size is not a good predictor of the prevalence
Despite recent increases in enrollment, the
pupil-teacher ratio is smaller today than at
any time since data have been reported.
of large classes in a state. For example,
Arizona and North Carolina had approxi-
mately the same average class size, but the
percentage of classes with more than 30 stu-
dents was more than twice as high in
Arizona. Only six states (Arizona, California,
Maryland, Nevada, New York, and Utah)
had more than 30% of their classes with 30
or more students in 1993–94. Of those six
states, California, Nevada, and Utah have
enacted class-size reduction legislation since
the survey data were collected.14
Considering data only at the state level
gives an incomplete picture of the distribu-
tion of class sizes or pupil-teacher ratios.
Substantial variations in class sizes and pupil-
teacher ratios can be found at the district,
school, and even classroom level, and these
are closely linked to per-pupil expenditures.
A 1993 study of pupil-teacher ratios in 4,000
districts found, not surprisingly, that districts
with higher expenditures per pupil had
lower pupil-teacher ratios.15 For example,
districts that spent from $1,500 to $1,999
per pupil had an average of 19 pupils per
teacher, while districts that spent more than
$6,000 per pupil had an average of 10 pupils
per teacher. The study concluded that, on
average, a district that is given a 10%
increase in funding will spend 4% on
decreasing the pupil-teacher ratio.
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – WINTER 1997
Trends
As shown in Figure 3, the trend over the past
century is toward smaller classes and lower
pupil-teacher ratios. Despite recent increases
in enrollment, the pupil-teacher ratio is
smaller today than at any time since data
have been reported.6 In the 1901–02 aca-
demic year, the average pupil-teacher ratio
in elementary and secondary schools was
36.3, and it has since declined steadily to its
present level of about 17.16 Between 1961
and 1991, the average number of pupils per
class in public schools, as recorded by the
National Education Association’s survey
entitled “The Status of the American Public
School Teacher,” declined from 29 to 24.17
Changing enrollment and staffing pat-
terns are two major causes of the decline.
The article by Guthrie in this journal issue
discusses the changes in enrollment from
1949 to the present during the baby boom,
baby bust, and baby boom echo periods that
drove the ratios down. Even when enroll-
ment was booming during those periods,
rapidly expanding school faculties out-
stripped the growth in the number of stu-
dents. Between 1972 and 1986, enrollment
declined, making it easier for class sizes and
pupil-teacher ratios to decline. Now, how-
ever, when enrollment is on the rise, reduc-
ing class size is more of a challenge, and the
decline in pupil-teacher ratios has stalled.
Changes in program have also contributed
to the rapid decline of pupil-teacher ratios.
Schools have added special education and
other specialty teachers to better address the
specific needs of students and enrich their
curricula.18 As noted earlier, these additional
staff members can cause a reduction in
pupil-teacher ratios even when class size
does not change.
This decline in class size and pupil-
teacher ratios suggests that, although class
size is currently a topic of great interest to
policymakers, this interest does not stem
from a national increase in average class size
or pupil-teacher ratios over the long term.
Conclusion
The national data reviewed in this article
document several important points about
the utilization of professional staff in educa-
tion: (1) mean class sizes have been declin-
ing over time and appear to be at an all-time
low, yet class sizes are still significantly above
CHILD INDICATORS: Class Size 117

Figure 2

Public School Average Class Size and Percentage of Classes

with 30 or More Students by State, Grades K–6, 1993 to 1994

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Utah
Arizona
New York
Maryland
California
Nevada
Colorado
Indiana
Florida
Oregon
Georgia
Minnesota
West Virginia
Delaware
Tennessee
North Carolina
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
United States
Hawaii
Alaska
Alabama
Kansas
Virginia
New Hampshire
Idaho
Louisiana
Ohio
Michigan
Illinois
Oklahoma
Iowa
Missouri
Montana
Washington
Wyoming
South Carolina
Nebraska
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Texas
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Rhode Island
Maine
District of Columbia
North Dakota
Arkansas
Kentucky
Connecticut
New Jersey
Vermont

Average class size

Percentage of classes with 30 or more students

Note: Data for this figure come from the 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Public School Teacher
Questionnaire. Teachers of grades K–6 were asked the number of children in their classes. Average class
size masks the large differences in the distribution of classes of different sizes in different states. Nevada,
California, and Utah have recently taken action to decrease class size.

Source: DeMello, V., and Broughman, S. SASS by state, 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Selected state results. NCES 96-
312. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996, p. 131, Table 4.1.
118 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – WINTER 1997

Figure 3

Average Class Size and Pupil-Teacher Ratios in Public Schools, 1901 to 1997

40
▲ ▲▲▲
35 ▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲▲▲
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
▲
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
30 ▲ ▲
▲ ▲ ▲ ■
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ■
▲ ▲ ▲ ■
▲ ▲
25 ▲
▲
■ ■
■ ■
▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲●
20 ▲▲●● ●
▲▲▲▲●●●●●●●
▲▲▲ ●●●●●●
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲

15

10

0
1901
1905
1909
1913
1917
1921
1925
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
Year

▲ Pupil-teacher ratio

● NSSW: Average number of pupils per teacher

■ NEA: Average number of pupils per class

Data for this figure come from three separate sources, all representing public elementary and secondary
schools in the United States. The National Education Association survey, “The Status of the American
Public School Teacher,” shows the average number of pupils enrolled in a class as reported by the teachers.
NSSW data are reported on the district level and show the average number of pupils per teacher. The pupil-
teacher ratio data come from federal surveys of the states and are simply the total state pupil enrollment
divided by the total number of full-time-equivalent teachers.
n Each of the surveys shows a declining trend in average class size and pupil-teacher ratios until recent
years.
n Pupil-teacher ratios have declined faster than average class size, largely because of the specialized
staff members who have been added to the public schools.

Source: Educational Research Service. School staffing ratios, 1993–94. Arlington, VA: ERS, 1994; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement. Digest of education statistics 1996. NCES 96-133. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1996, p. 79, Table 68; U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics, 1993, pp. 46–48, Table 14.

levels regarded as “ideal”; (2) mean class size Together, teaching staff and facilities
measures can mask considerable variability make up at least 70% of the resources that
in actual class size, and it appears that many are typically spent on schools, so decisions
children are still being taught in classes with about class size can have a big impact on
more than 30 students; and (3) student- how resources are allocated.19 If a school
teacher ratios, which are generally below board decides to decrease class size, it could
class size ratios, are also at all-time lows. What do so without adding to its budget by
the data do not reveal, however, are the increasing spending on regular classroom
resource implications implicit in specific pol- teachers and classrooms and decreasing
icy decisions regarding class size and class spending on other aspects of education such
size reductions. Some key issues are as specialized teachers and facilities. A
reviewed below. school district with many specialized teach-
CHILD INDICATORS: Class Size 119

ers and facilities, for example, could use the
funds designated for special education or for
at-risk children to serve those children in
reduced-size regular classroom settings
rather than on special classes.13 Many class
size reduction efforts, however, have kept
spending on the other aspects of education
relatively constant and, thus, require signifi-
cant additional resources. Because, as noted
above, instructional costs make up the
majority of school budgets, a school with
one teacher for every 30 students would
have to nearly double its budget to have one
teacher for every 15 students (which is the
number recommended by the National
Education Association).20
Specific requirements of class size
reduction initiatives, such as maximum
allowable class size and facilities require-
ments, can affect both the costs of reducing
class size and the educational environment
reflected in class size statistics. For example,
the maximum allowable class size require-
ment of 20 pupils per class included in the
recent California class size reduction initia-
tive will result in an average class size below
20 among participating schools in the state
and will substantially reduce the variability
in class size and the prevalence of large
classes in the state. California’s space
requirement that each class be in a self-con-
tained space or in a “space that provides the
same average square footage per pupil
enrolled in the same grade levels at the
school site” as in 1995–96 (before the class
size reduction program began)21 means
that schools may not simply add teachers to
existing classrooms and declare that class
sizes have been reduced. Because of the
space requirement in California, recent
reductions in class size have meant that
1,400 computer labs, music rooms, and
child care facilities permanently lost their
space, even though the state’s class size
reduction program added funding to the
educational system.22
In Virginia, legislation passed in 1995 set
up an initiative program for grades K–3
which provided schools with extra funding if
they reduced both pupil-teacher ratios and
maximum class size for poor children.23
Most states other than California which have
enacted legislation to reduce staffing ratios
have done so by focusing on pupil-teacher
ratios without maximum class size or facili-
ties requirements.24 These differences in
strategy will have direct implications for the
route schools take to implement class size
policy as well as the associated costs and ben-
efits of the changes. Reducing class size can
be accomplished without providing new
facilities by dividing existing classrooms, and
pupil-teacher ratios can be reduced by
adding teachers anywhere in the school sys-
tem—no additional facilities or even sepa-
rate classrooms are required.
Whether the benefits from current
efforts to reduce class size in the elementary
grades will justify their considerable cost is
an empirical question that cannot yet be
answered. Results of this major educational
reform may depend as much on the way
teaching staff and students are organized as
on the validity of the science behind the
push for smaller classes. Current national
data on overall pupil-teacher ratios or aver-
age class size provide only limited informa-
tion about the actual size of the classes expe-
rienced by young children during the very
early school years. Attention will need to be
paid to both the educational and cost impli-
cations of actual class size, staffing ratios, and
space requirements before it will be possible
to determine if the current push to reduce
class size is working and worth the cost.
The authors thank Steven Broughman of the
National Center for Education Statistics, Victor
Bandeira de Mello of the American Institutes of
Research, and Brooke Whiting of the National
Education Association for their comments and
helpful explanations of data.

1. Hart and Teeter Research Companies. NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, question 108.
March 1997.
2. Edwards, V.B., ed. School climate. Education Week (January 22, 1997) 16,17 (supplement):48.
Available online at http://www.edweek.org.
3. Finn, J.D., and Achilles, C.M. Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment.
American Educational Research Journal (Fall 1990) 27,3:557–77.
4. Schwartz, J. Class size reduction. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Office, State of California,
February 12, 1997, pp. 7–8. Available online at http://www.lao.ca.gov/class_size_297.html.
120 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – WINTER 1997

5. For a discussion of the Project STAR results, see Mosteller, F. The Tennessee study of class size
in the early school grades. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1995) 5,2:113–27; Word, E.,
Johnston, J., Bain, H.P., et al. Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR): Tennessee’s K–3 class size
study. Final Summary Report 1985–1990. Nashville: Tennessee Department of Education,
1990, p. 35.
6. Tomlinson, T.M. Class size and public policy: Politics and panaceas. Educational Policy (1989)
3,3:261–73.
7. For a review of the class size literature, see Blatchford, P., and Mortimore, P. The issue of class
size for young children in schools: What can we learn from research? Oxford Review of
Education (1994) 20,4:411–28. For a discussion of the Project STAR results, see note no. 5,
Mosteller.
8. The SASS was conducted in 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94. In the future it will be admin-
istered at five-year intervals. Broughman, Steve. Statistician, National Center for Education
Statistics. Personal communication, April 23, 1997; National Center for Education Statistics.
Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1993–94. NCES 96-124. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
1996, p. 1.
9. See note no. 8, Broughman.
10. Educational Research Service. School staffing ratios, 1994–95. Arlington, VA: ERS, 1995, p. 2.
11. Brown, Melinda. Director of Salary and Compensation Studies, Educational Research Service.
Personal communication, May 22, 1997.
12. This does not include substitute teachers. Miles, K.H. Freeing resources for improving
schools: A case study of teacher allocation in Boston public schools. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis (1995) 17,4:476–93.
13. See note no. 12, Miles.
14. Education Commission of the States. Class size: State legislation grid. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States, April 7, 1997.
15. Picus, L.O. The allocation and use of educational resources: District level evidence from the Schools and
Staffing Survey. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, January
1993, p. 67.
16. These ratios come from state reports of the number of teachers and student enrollment.
They include special education students and teachers, with the exception of severely disabled
students enrolled in state-run schools in some states. Snyder, T.D., ed. 120 years of American
education: A statistical portrait. NCES 93-442. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, January 1993, pp. 46–48, Table 14; National Center
for Education Statistics. Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1993–94.
NCES 96-124. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, 1996, p. 3, Table 1.2.
17. This survey of public school teachers at all grade levels has been conducted every five years
since 1956. Whiting, Brooke. Senior Professional Associate, National Education Association.
Personal communication, April 25, 1997.
18. Lewit, E.M., and Baker, L.S. Child indicators: Children in special education. The Future of
Children (Spring 1996) 6,1:139–51.
19. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Digest of
education statistics, 1996. NCES 96-133. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, 1996, p. 160, Table 163.
20. McKenna, B. Some philosophical, organizational, and definitional considerations. In Class
size. Reference and Resource Series. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1977,
pp. 8–15; Whiting, Brooke. Senior Professional Associate, National Education Association.
Personal communication, May 1997.
21. California SB1414. Education code Section 52123(g), see question numbers 92, revised 15,
revised 16, and revised 28.
22. See note no. 4, Schwartz, pp. 12–13.
23. Schools with 20% to 49% of the students in the free lunch program must bring their ratio to
an average (per building) of 20 to 1 with a maximum class size of 25. Schools with 50% to
69% of students receiving free lunches must bring their ratio down to 18 to 1 with a maxi-
mum class size of 22, and schools with 70% or more students receiving free lunches must
bring their ratio to 15 to 1 with a maximum class size of 20. Virginia Omnibus Educational
CHILD INDICATORS: Class Size 121

Act of 1995. Code of Virginia, §§ 22.1–199.1A. Enacted 5/95; see note no. 14, Education
Commission of the States, p. 5. Atkinson, Diane. Principal Policy Analyst, Division of Policy
and Public Affairs, Virginia Department of Education. Personal communication, April 21,
1997.
24. Mississippi, for example, mandates only pupil-teacher ratios in education accreditation
requirements. See Burnham, T. Accreditation requirements of the state board of education. Bulletin
171, 12th ed., rev. Jackson: Mississippi Department of Education, August 1996, p. 33.