In this editorial, the Contra Costa Times steps out on a limb, suggesting that one of the California Teacher Association's (CTA) most revered programs, Class Size Reduction (CSR) might not be the best use of our limited fiscal resources.

The question facing our leaders in Sacramento is not whether to reduce K-12 spending, but where to make the least damaging cuts.

That determination should be based on an objective assessment of the cost effectiveness, not necessarily the popularity, of school programs. Those that are costly but do not deliver proportional measurable benefits should be the ones to cut first.

Unfortunately, the education program that offers the greatest potential savings with the least harm to students is one of the most popular — class-size reduction, or CSR. The program, which was approved in 1996, helps fund K-3 class size reduction to no more than 20 students. School districts get about $1,000 per student in smaller classes if they meet the state's criteria. Today, more than 90 percent of the state's K-3 students are in classes of 20 or fewer children.

Smaller class sizes do offer benefits. They allow teachers to give more individual attention to students, make discipline easier and reduce the workload for teachers. Moreover, class-size reduction is much liked by parents, students and teachers.

However, the measurable benefits of smaller classes are small, according to several independent studies. The CSR Research Consortium, composed of five leading think tanks, concluded that the relationship of California's class-size reduction to student achievement was inconclusive.

The study found that smaller classes tend to benefit children in poorer school districts and those with special needs, but appear not to make a huge difference with most other students.

Another study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that a 10-student reduction in class size, which is the average for the state, has a minimal academic impact.

I thought the most interesting study mentioned was this one:

Research by economist Edward P. Lazear at the Hoover Institution also estimated that there is about a 4 percent increase in academic performance by students in a class of 20 versus one of 30. Yet there is a 30 percent increase in the cost of lowering class sizes from 30 to 20.

Lazear concluded that blanket class-size reduction was inefficient and wasteful and that it should be limited to disadvantaged and special-needs children.

I don't think there are many people who would try to argue that CSR has no positive impact. It just seems to make sense that if a teacher had more time to spend with each child there should be a positive impact on achievement. Similarly, if there are fewer students, it should reduce the administrative workload on the teacher, thus providing more time to develop new lessons and evaluate student performance.

I think the problem is that those positive impacts are being viewed at the individual classroom level. When you implement CSR widely, the impact is measured at a much higher level. The positives in those individual classrooms are outweighed to a large part by increased costs of bringing on additional teachers and adding classrooms, books, desks, computers and all the other resources required to equip a classroom. The benefits in some classrooms are cancelled out by negative impacts in others.

In California, we implemented CSR across the entire state within in a very short period of time. Because of the demand for new teachers, some districts had to lower their standards in order to get enough "warm bodies" to fill those classrooms. I'd much rather my children were in a larger classroom with a great teacher than in a small classroom with a mediocre one. CSR's benefits can be quickly diminished depending on teacher quality.

The Lazear research raises the critical question. With only a 3% increase in achievement but a 30% increase in cost, is CSR really the best use of our limited taxpayer funds? I suggest that taking that additional money and using it to reward effective teachers would be a better use. It would provide financial rewards to the good teachers, raising their job satisfaction. It would also provide a financial incentive for other teachers to improve. Other than those that are self-imposed, what incentives do teachers have to improve once they've achieved tenure?

The really sad part about this discussion is that teacher unions such as CTA and CFT and their locals are so "married" to CSR that they would never even consider letting it go. To the unions, CSR is a major source of new funding. More teachers means more dues paying union members.

I don't believe our weak-kneed legislators in Sacramento would be willing to risk CTA/CFT's ire by raising this issue even with the political cover of the financial crisis. As with so many other issues in education reform in California, it is a non-starter without the willingness of the unions to consider it.