Not exact matches
Vouchers versus
class size The statistics reported in Dan Goldhaber's otherwise thoughtful article (see «
Significant, but Not Decisive,» Research, Summer 2001) inadvertently tilted the comparison between vouchers and
class -
size reduction in favor of vouchers.
This includes planning for across the board layoffs,
significant program cutbacks, and the rollback of reform programs, such as
class -
size reductions.
As in the case of preschool, there is some research evidence that suggests
class -
size reduction can yield
significant gains in student achievement in the early grades.
Moreover,
reductions in
class size are at times encouraged by the state through
significant financial support, as in California.
Currently the funding is used to pay for
reductions in
class size and conventional professional development; neither has been proven to have a
significant or sustainable impact on student achievement.
In his budget proposal for 2017 — 19 biennium, Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal underscored the importance of investing in teachers, noting, «Student success from the state's increased investment in full - day kindergarten, K — 3
class size reduction, and other... basic education components depends on making
significant changes in Washington's ability to attract and retain qualified teachers.»
As the nation's second largest school system, Los Angeles Unified's staggering growth coupled with a statewide
class -
size -
reduction program is having
significant implications for facilities.
Simply force - hiring more teachers isn't going to improve outcomes, and it will reinforce the «good money after bad» mantra about public education when the results of
class size reduction aren't as
significant as expected.
Every controlled study of the California
class size reduction program — and there have been at least six so far — have shown
significant gains from smaller
classes.