• Share

September 1998 | Number 14
Reducing Class Size

When Politics Meet Practice

Erik W. Robelen

Efforts to shrink class size in the early grades are winning increased support from policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels. President Clinton unveiled a $12 billion proposal this year that would help schools cut class size by hiring 100,000 new teachers. California is now spending more than $1 billion annually to reduce K-3 class sizes by one-third. Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin are among a growing list of other states pursuing policies to lower the number of students per classroom.

Advocates of smaller classes cite a host of benefits: increased student achievement, fewer discipline referrals, more personalized attention to students, higher teacher morale, and more time for teachers to focus on instruction rather than on classroom management. They point to research, especially a well-known class-size experiment in Tennessee, to back their claims for the advantages of smaller classes.

Skeptics, on the other hand, argue that there is not enough evidence to merit the sizable investment needed to cut class size on a broad scale. In fact, they caution that trimming class size–which requires more teachers and more space–is one of the most expensive education reforms, and suggest that other reform measures may hold more promise at less cost.

National polls, media reports, and surveys in local school districts reflect strong backing for class-size reduction (CSR) among educators and the general public. In one example, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted in March 1997 found that 70 percent of the public believes smaller classes would improve the nation's public schools ("What's Wrong—and Right—With Our Schools" 1997).

Politicians have been quick to capitalize on the issue. Some observers say the president's call for 100,000 new teachers has political echoes of an earlier Clinton plan to put 100,000 new police officers on the beat. More than 100 California lawmakers have promoted their votes on class size in campaign literature (Bell 1998). CSR is an easy political sell. It makes sense to the public and is much easier to quantify than, say, efforts to improve teacher quality and classroom instruction.

As policymakers grapple with class size, they must confront difficult questions:

• Given funding limitations, is reducing class size the best method to improve education?
• What approaches to class-size reduction are likely to prove most effective? What factors might enhance the effectiveness of smaller classes?
• How can policymakers handle some of the challenges of lowering class size, such as ensuring a qualified teacher pool and managing classroom space shortages?
• What impact does class-size reduction policy have on equity in education?

What Does the Research Reveal?

Whether the research on the effects of class size provides clear answers is a subject of considerable debate. A new U.S. Education Department report confidently makes the case that lowering class size to fewer than 20 students in the early grades leads to higher student achievement (1998). Many policy analysts charged with providing information to states are more skeptical. Eric Hirsch with the National Conference of State Legislatures suggests caution in moving forward with CSR policies. "Although over 1,100 studies examine the relationship between class size and student achievement, no definitive conclusions have been reached," he says (1998). A recent publication from the Education Commission of the States reaches a similar conclusion (1998).

Some of the most widely known class-size data comes from Project STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio), a unique experimental study in Tennessee that documented substantial gains in student achievement and behavior as a result of smaller classes. Project STAR is frequently cited by policymakers to support their CSR proposals. The project randomly assigned K-3 teachers and students to one of three types of classrooms: a small class containing 13 to 17 pupils, a regular-size class with 22 to 26 pupils, and a regular-size class with an instructional aide. Teachers were not given any special training for the smaller classes. The longitudinal experiment involved roughly 7,000 students in 79 schools and lasted from 1985-89. Follow-up research, the Lasting Benefits Study, still continues (Finn and Achilles 1998).

The STAR researchers found that students in smaller classes consistently outperformed their peers in larger classes in all achievement categories, and that the greatest gains occurred for minority students in urban schools. The Lasting Benefits Study documents a continued advantage for those students who attended smaller classes, though that advantage has diminished somewhat over time. The STAR research also found improvements in student engagement. The results suggested that students in smaller classes put more effort into learning, took the initiative to go beyond minimal requirements (i.e., stayed after class, used a dictionary), and showed less "nonparticipatory behavior," such as being disruptive or withdrawn (Finn and Achilles 1998).

During the 1996-97 school year, Wisconsin inaugurated its Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program, which seeks to improve education for children in poverty by reducing the student-to-teacher ratio to 15 to 1 in K-3 classrooms. Schools participating in the pilot program must develop rigorous academic curriculums, become "lighted schoolhouses" that are open for extended hours, and implement staff development plans. A first-year evaluation has shown impressive results, suggesting that SAGE 1st grade students have a consistent achievement advantage over 1st grade students in comparison schools. According to an executive summary of the report, the data suggest that the lower student-to-teacher ratio in SAGE classrooms "mitigates the negative achievement consequences of poverty." The study also found that "little time is required" for classroom management or discipline, "much time is spent on instruction," and a large portion of the instruction is individualized, though the type of instruction is still mainly teacher-centered. The researchers stress, however, that the first-year data are preliminary and must be interpreted cautiously (Maier et al. 1997).

A "meta-analysis" conducted by researchers Gene Glass and Mary Lee Smith in 1978 suggested that smaller classes lead to higher student achievement than large classes and that "major benefits" occur when the size is lower than 20 students. The analysis combined the results of 77 empirical studies, examining the relationship between class size and student achievment (1978). In 1989, Robert Slavin, an education professor at Johns Hopkins University, revisited the studies selected by Glass and Smith, choosing eight that met more stringent criteria for a "best-evidence synthesis." He found that substantial reductions in class size had a positive, but small, effect on student achievement, and that this effect did not appear to persist when students returned to larger classes. Slavin's analysis noted a dramatic impact only through one-on-one tutoring (1989).

A "cluster analysis" conducted by Glen Robinson and James Wittebols of Educational Research Service concluded that class size alone is unlikely to produce much benefit. The analysis examined all class-size research done from 1950-85, grouping the studies into clusters considered important for class-size decisions such as grade level and student achievement. Describing the findings, Robinson writes, "research does not support the expectation that smaller classes will of themselves result in greater academic gains for students." He says the effects on learning vary by grade level, pupil characteristics, subject areas, teaching methods, and other learning interventions (Robinson 1990).

Economists have examined pupil-to-teacher ratios to better understand the impact of class size, sometimes reaching conflicting conclusions. Eric Hanushek, an economics professor at the University of Rochester, insists that the evidence to support smaller classes is "meager and unconvincing." He says, "Over the period that student achievement data are available (the past quarter century) there are no discernible improvements in performance even though there have been large and steady declines in [pupil-to-teacher] ratios." Hanushek also summarizes the available econometric evidence about class size, which incorporates almost 300 different estimates of the effect this variable has on achievement. This evidence "gives no indication that general reductions in class size will yield any average improvement in student achievement," he says (1998). In 1997, Harold Wenglinsky, a researcher at Educational Testing Service, concluded a study of 20,000 4th and 8th grade students nationwide that matched students' scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics to pupil-to-teacher ratios and other factors. He found that students in small classes performed better than those in large classes for both grade levels. According to the study, 4th graders benefitted more than 8th graders, and inner-city students showed the strongest gains (Wenglinsky 1997). However, some experts urge caution in examining the pupil-to-teacher ratio, which compares the student population in a school or district to the total number of teaching professionals, pointing out that the actual number of students in a classroom may be significantly higher than the overall pupil-to-teacher ratio indicates.

Making the Most of Small Classes

There are two primary theories as to what goes on in smaller classes, according to RAND social scientist Brian Stecher. The first is the "more" view, which suggests that smaller classes simply allow more individual contact, more opportunity for teacher feedback to students, and more contact with parents. This theory holds that teachers can "do what they've done better, and do more of it," Stecher says. Second is the "different" view, which suggests that in smaller classes teachers can provide individualized instruction, move from teacher-directed to student-directed learning, and engage in different types of learning activities.

Many educators argue that simply to do more of the same is a wasted opportunity. Richard Allington, a reading specialist at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany, says personalized instruction is critical to taking advantage of smaller class size. "The key to successful reading and writing is teachers who know a fair amount about where the students are, what difficulties they're having, and how best to intervene," Allington says. H. Jerome Freiberg, Moores University Scholar at the University of Houston, says, "Why are you changing size? To allow people to interact in different ways." He points to cooperative learning and project-based learning as examples of approaches that work especially well in smaller classes.

Only a handful of studies in recent years examine what actually happens in smaller classes. Nikola Filby, coordinator of the regional laboratory program at WestEd, helped conduct an observational study in the early 1980s of four small classrooms. Asked whether the teachers did things differently, she says, "yes and no." According to Filby, individual attention to students definitely increased. "Lines were shorter, teachers could check on kids [more often] and [student] time on task increased." However, individualized instruction was another matter. "By and large, they were working through the same curriculum in pretty much the same way," Filby says.

New research conducted jointly by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and WestEd in several urban California districts offers some insights into smaller classrooms. "Pace of instruction and classroom climate were two areas where most teachers report substantial changes," the study says. Nearly two-thirds of teachers surveyed said they work more regularly with small groups of children and have changed their instructional approach. "But when we asked about the nature of their specific classroom practices, they were more likely to characterize such differences in terms of increasing—not improving per se," the report says. And one-third of teachers reported no change in instructional approach at all (Wexler et al. 1998).

Jeremy Finn, an education professor at SUNY-Buffalo, says most observational studies reveal that smaller classes pose fewer classroom management problems and permit more time for direct instruction. "The key question is, What should [teachers] do to take advantage of that?" He says no research exists to adequately address this issue.

Helping Teachers Adjust to Small Classes

Adequate professional development is considered essential to maximize the benefits of smaller classes. "Teachers do not necessarily change their behavior when they move to smaller classes," according to a new U.S. Education Department report, which warns that a considerable body of research shows that changing teachers' classroom behavior is not easy. The report says teachers "will need to have professional training and support to enable them to utilize more fully the advantages of smaller classes" (1998). Bob McCord, deputy assistant superintendent for Clarke County School District in Nevada, argues that more investment in training teachers is critical. This is especially so in Nevada, he says, where the CSR law allows schools either to reduce class sizes or to institute team teaching. Also, McCord says teachers need training to employ more "diagnostic techniques" with individual students.

Teacher educators Dorothy Rubenstein and Arlene Simmonds at California State Polytechnic University-Pomona recently surveyed 75 teachers entering CSR classrooms in 13 urban and suburban school districts. They warn that many teachers "may not comprehend fully both the opportunity and the responsibility associated with the CSR initiative" relative to improved student achievement. "It is, therefore, incumbent upon administrators to formulate those expectations and support faculty discussion of those goals" (1997).

The California Experiment

California has implemented what many view as the most ambitious CSR effort to date. The billion-dollar program, launched in 1996, offers school districts $800 per student (in the first year, the funding was $650 per student) in additional funding for K-3 public school classrooms that keep within a 20-student ceiling. Before the initiative, California's class sizes were among the highest in the nation, averaging 28.6 students in K-3 classrooms (Wexler et al. 1998).

California's program has proven popular with families and educators, but the scope of the new law and the unique conditions in the state have produced considerable difficulties. California's law has led school districts to hire thousands of new teachers, creating a teacher shortage. This situation also has drained the substitute teacher pool. A 1997 report from the California Legislative Analyst's Office suggests that the rush to find new teachers may diminish teacher quality. "The approximately 18,400 teachers hired for CSR have less teaching experience, fewer qualifications, and a lower skill level, on average, than teachers hired in previous years," the report says (Schwartz 1997). Concerns about teacher quality are of paramount importance. As Finn observes, "Small classes are not, and were never intended to be, a remedy for poor teaching" (1998).

Teacher preparation programs are also feeling some effects from the CSR initiative. Teacher educators Steve Turley and Karen Nakai argue that the initiative may have long-term implications for the future of preservice preparation, since it has enticed many graduate students to abandon a portion of their formal teacher preparation to pursue teaching positions through the state's emergency permit program. They suggest that California's policy is creating pressure to institutionalize emergency permit teaching as an option for the culminating field experience in teacher preparation (1998).

The California Legislative Analyst's report also found implementation problems due to space demands. "An unintended side effect of CSR has been conversion of some spaces used for other purposes into classrooms," the report says. About 8 percent of classrooms for CSR were created by converting existing spaces. "These facilities include libraries, computer and science labs, teacher lounges and prep rooms, gymnasiums and cafeterias, and child care facilities, among others" (Schwartz 1997).

Exactly what lesson California's ambitious experiment with CSR will offer for other states is unclear, given the unparalleled scope of the program and the unique economic and social conditions in the state. Nevertheless, policymakers and educators will likely have their eyes on the Golden State experiment during the next few years. And researchers are hoping to provide some insights. A consortium of education research organizations in the state is working to produce a comprehensive statewide evaluation of the California CSR effort.

Looking at the Equity Question

In some states, efforts to reduce class size are aimed primarily at low-income students. New Michigan legislation funds class-size reductions in schools with sizable at-risk populations. Wisconsin's SAGE program also focuses on at-risk students in

both urban and rural settings. These policies may help on the equity front, targeting students who need the most assistance.

Improvements in teacher morale could also promote equity for low-income students. Ken Kickbusch, a consultant for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, argues that diminished classroom management difficulties in smaller classes boost teacher morale. "[Morale] is really important in urban areas" where teacher retention is more difficult, he says, "because that's one of the things that drives folks out."

However, some fear that broad programs, such as California's, that seek to reduce class size for all children in the early grades may leave schools in poorer areas at a disadvantage. Michael Kirst, an education professor at Stanford University, says that the uniform funding approach in California "may accentuate inequities in educational resources and services across the state" as some districts will need to redirect funds from other budget lines to cover the additional costs of CSR. "Early data suggest that the larger and more urban districts, as well as those faced with the highest enrollment growths, may have already reached space limits." Urban schools also may have a tougher time attracting high-quality teachers. Kirst observes that with many new teacher openings and a statewide shortage of experienced staff, "veteran teachers are transferring from lower- to higher-paying districts, possibly exacerbating resource differentials between the poor and the rich" (1997).

The Trade-offs of Cutting Class Size

Class-size reduction is an expensive education reform that may require substantial trade-offs. California's program costs more than $1 billion annually. Even states exploring more targeted approaches are finding that smaller classes do not come cheap. Unfortunately, there is little research on the cost-effectiveness of various education reform alternatives, experts say.

Economist Eric Hanushek urges policymakers to resist the political temptation of CSR, insisting that there are other more proven methods to improve education. "Bad policy drives out good policy," he says. "There are clear limits to the amount of funds and attention available for education." Hanushek argues that variations in teacher quality have a much greater impact on student achievement than class size. In fact, a report from the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future maintains that the "single most important strategy for achieving America's educational goals" is creating a "blueprint for recruiting, preparing, and supporting excellent teachers in all of America's schools" (1996).

Allan Odden, a professor of administration and policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, argues that policymakers may be setting the public up for disappointment if they spend large sums of money on CSR efforts. Odden says the instructional program is at the heart of improved student learning. "Kids learn because of what they're taught and how they're taught. . . . If neither what nor how is changed, the other variables are very low." He suggests that programs like Success for All, which incorporate several teaching strategies, such as one-on-one tutoring and smaller classes for reading, lead to stronger results.

Of course, the political will behind reducing class size has helped to furnish the large sums of money to pay for it. "Just because you could get a billion dollars for class-size reduction doesn't mean you could get it" for some other intervention, observes Douglas Mitchell, an education professor at the University of California-Riverside. "The political coalitions that are necessary to spend a billion dollars on anything are hard to put together."

Eastern Michigan University Professor Charles Achilles and Jeremy Finn emphasize that smaller classes produce benefits that cut costs. They say there are savings associated with improved student behavior–especially if discipline problems and violence are reduced–and with improved academic performance if the need for special education referrals and retentions in grade is reduced (1998).

Henry Levin, an education professor at Stanford University and director of the Accelerated Schools Project, is currently finalizing research that takes a different approach to weighing the costs and benefits of smaller classes. "We estimated the value of a decrease in class size [measured] through student achievement, and compared it with the cost," he says. Levin explains that with improved achievement through smaller classes, students tend to pursue more schooling and earn higher wages. He says preliminary results from his research suggest that a reduction of class size comparable to that accomplished in Tennessee's Project STAR "would [ultimately] lead to higher productivity and higher earnings," producing an overall economic benefit roughly double the cost of smaller classes.

Consideration of alternative forms of CSR can dramatically affect the cost of this reform. Policymakers can examine the organization of staffing and instruction to affect the size of instructional groups. David Illig, a researcher at the California Research Bureau, suggests that one option is to have part of the class arrive an hour early. "At the end of the day the 'early arrival' students go home and the 'late' arrivals remain for an hour in a smaller class setting," he says (1997). Another option is to hold one-on-one or small-group tutoring sessions that "pull out" poor performing students to assist them with reading or math, according to Illig.

Some experts say class-size research suggests that the most effective intervention is in kindergarten or 1st grade, that one or two years of small classes might achieve similar results to a K-3 or K-4 program at far less cost. Eugene Paslov, Nevada state superintendent from 1985-94, says that in certain instances keeping classes at 22 students while providing in-depth training for teachers might be preferable. But the focus on the "numbers game" frustrates Arnold Fege, former government relations director for the National PTA. He argues that debate over which number of students is exactly right for a class misses the point. Learning environments should be tailored to meet children's needs, he says, "rather than making the decision about class size before you even know the needs of the kids."

A Few Early Lessons Learned

Educators and researchers who have experience with reducing class size offer a wide range of suggestions to those considering smaller classes.

Implement Gradually: Carl Cohn, superintendent of Long Beach Unified School District in California, suggests giving districts sufficient time to prepare for CSR. "This would have been a much, much better program if the governor had given us a year to get ready for it," he says, arguing that it takes time to educate parents, train teachers, work with higher education, and make other preparations. Alex Molnar, an education professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, also advocates a gradual approach. In a new report for Pennsylvania policymakers, he writes, "To make for a smooth transition and avoid teacher and classroom shortages of the kind observed in California, [CSR] should be phased in over time." He suggests targeting the program first at schools most in need, and building the approach gradually, starting with kindergarten the first year, 1st grade the second, and then creating an experimental program for 2nd and 3rd graders (Molnar 1998).

Creating more classroom space in a short period of time is especially difficult. "Space was a real problem, and continues to be," says James E. Ray, superintendent of Flint Community Schools in Michigan, whose district has been reducing class size under a state program for several years. He cautions policymakers to look at capacity up front.

Conduct Comprehensive Research: Many experts urge states to help fund comprehensive research when starting a program. Former Nevada State Superintendent Eugene Paslov laments that his state has collected little data on its program. "The legislators never gave us funding to do a deep evaluation of the [program's] progress," he says. "It's a kind of meat and potatoes operation, and the spinach on the side did not catch their attention." Pepper Sturm, a research analyst with the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, says, "It's frustrating because states don't establish any baseline data before they even start."

Some states, however, are becoming more willing to fund research. Wisconsin's SAGE program includes money for a five-year evaluation. Michigan will spend $250,000 to conduct an evaluation of its pilot CSR program. New Florida legislation includes money to help the state conduct a one-year assessment of its program.

Be Flexible: Lisa Carlos, director of policy studies at WestEd, cautions that strict ceilings on class size can cause unintended hardships for schools because students come and go. "It's tough to have neat little packages of 20 kids," she says in reference to California's 20-student ceiling. To remedy this, she suggests setting a class-size average in a school or district. The California Legislative Analyst's Office has found inflexibility to be expensive. Some California schools have sought to maintain their ratio one student below the ceiling, increasing per pupil costs by as much as 21 percent (Schwartz 1997).

Beware of the One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Some researchers suggest that policymakers should not look for a model class size approach. H. Jerome Freiberg says, "We're trying to standardize reform, but different places have different needs." Adds Michael Kirst, "The debate is too generic... . A lot of the policy discussion is decontextualized, and a lot of the research is decontextualized." Kirst points to a host of factors that change the context of CSR, such as the original size of classes, the number of limited-English proficient students, the budget, and the number of teachers and classroom space available.

Small Classes: A Big Bet?

The politics of class size are proving irresistible to many legislators, governors, and President Clinton. Some observers note that policymakers seem charmed more by the support of parents and teachers than by what the research indicates. For instance, while most data suggest class sizes of 15-17 are optimal, some state programs, such as California's and Florida's, never make this a goal. Of course, parent and teacher support for class-size reduction may have its own rewards. Smaller classes may be just the incentive to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. And there are some hints that parental support for CSR is translating into stronger overall backing for public education. In California, for example, there have been reports of parents returning their kids to public schools as a result of CSR (Schwartz 1997).

But the bottom line is realistic expectations. Allan Odden warns, "It's a big bet on one kind of intervention that doesn't necessarily change a lot." Many educators stress that there is no magic bullet to improve education. Even strong advocates for reducing class size recognize that other factors, especially ensuring teacher quality, are essential to educational improvements. Current levels of public enthusiasm for shrinking class size will be sustained only as long as parents remain convinced their children are getting a better education. Poorly planned or implemented programs that spend large sums of money to no avail threaten to embitter the public and undermine already wavering levels of support for public education.

State Class-Size Programs at a Glance

Where ASCD Stands

References

Bell, J.D. (1998). "Smaller=Better?" State Legislatures, 24, 6: 14-18.

Education Commission of the States. (1998). "Small Class Sizes: Discussion, Rationale, Evidence." ECS Clearinghouse Notes. Denver, CO: Author.

Finn, J.D. (April 1998). Class Size and Students at Risk: What is Known? What is Next? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Finn, J.D. and C.M. Achilles. (April 1998). "Tennessee's Class-Size Study: Questions Answered, Questions Posed." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Glass, G.V. and L.S. Smith. (1978). Meta-analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class Size and Achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

Hanushek, E.A. (February 1998). "The Evidence on Class Size." Occasional Paper Number 98-1: W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy, University of Rochester.

Hirsch, E. (1998). "Does It Work? The Research is Mixed." State Legislatures. 24, 6: 16.

Illig, D.C. (April 1997). Early Implementation of the Class Size Reduction Initiative. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau.

Kirst. M.W. (Oct. 20, 1997). A Plan for the Evaluation of California's Class Size Reduction Initiative. Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Maier, P., A. Molnar, S. Percy, P. Smith, and J. Zahorik. (1997). First-Year Results of the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Molnar, A. (1998). Smaller Classes, Not Vouchers, Increase Student Achievement. Harrisburg, PA: The Keystone Research Center.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York: Author.

Robinson, G. (1990). "Synthesis of Research on the Effects of Class Size." Educational Leadership 47, 7: 80-90.

Rubenstein, D., and A. Simmonds. (1997). "Preparing Teachers for Reduced Class Sizes." Thrust for Educational Leadership 26, 4: 12-15.

Schwartz, J. (Feb. 12, 1997). Class Size Reduction. Sacramento, CA: California Legislative Analyst's Office. Available at http://www.lao.ca.gov/class_size_297.html.

Slavin, R.E. (1989). "Achievement Effects of Substantial Reductions in Class Size." In School and Classroom Organization, edited by R.E. Slavin. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Turley, S., and K. Nakai. (1998). "Coping with Class Size Reduction in California." Educational Leadership 55, 5: 40-43.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know? Washington, DC: Author.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). A Policy Information Memorandum–The Effect of Class Size on Achievement: What the Research Says. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wexler, E., J.I. Izu, L. Carlos, B. Fuller, G. Hayward, and M. Kirst. (March 1998). California's Class Size Reduction: Implications for Equity, Practice and Implementation. San Francisco/Berkeley, CA: WestEd/PACE.

"What's Wrong—and Right—With Our Schools": American Opinion [Special section]. (March 14, 1997). Wall Street Journal, R1-8.

Resources

ASCD
Enter the ASCD web site at http://www.ascd.org for more information on education policy issues.

WestEd
730 Harrison Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415-565-3000 Web site: http://www.wested.org/policy.
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-830-2200 Web site: http://www.ncsl.org.

Education Commission of the States
707 17th Street, Suite 2700
Denver, CO 80202-3427
Phone: 303-299-3600 Web site: http://www.ecs.org.

Copyright © 1998 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development