Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

EEPA Call for Papers

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stasz, C.
Right arrow Articles by Stecher, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

Teaching Mathematics and Language Arts in Reduced Size and Non-Reduced Size Classrooms

Cathleen Stasz and Brian M. Stecher

RAND

The California Class Size Reduction initiative, adopted in 1996, reduced all K-3 classes to a maximum of 20 students. Despite the political and research support for reducing class size, relatively little is known about how class size affects instructional practices. This paper draws on data from a statewide survey of Grade 3 teachers and from case studies of 16 teachers. Although teaching practices in reduced and non- reduced classes were quite similar, the analysis identified a few important differences. Teachers in reduced size classes spent more individual time with students they had identified as poor readers and more time discussing students 'personal concerns; they spent less time disciplining students.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 4, 313-329 (2000)
DOI: 10.3102/01623737022004313


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSISHome page
G. J. Palardy and R. W. Rumberger
Teacher Effectiveness in First Grade: The Importance of Background Qualifications, Attitudes, and Instructional Practices for Student Learning
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, June 1, 2008; 30(2): 111 - 140.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSISHome page
G. D. Borman and G. M. Hewes
The Long-Term Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Success for All
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 2002; 24(4): 243 - 266.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSISHome page
S.-l. Pong and A. Pallas
Class Size and Eighth-Grade Math Achievement in the United States and Abroad
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 2001; 23(3): 251 - 273.
[Abstract] [PDF]



AER home page RER home page EPA home page JEB home page RRE home page