Meeting Summary

 

Some of the points discussed in this meeting are as follows—

p  Economic costs:

ü  CSR obviously adds additional costs in districts that do not alter other policies and approaches. 

ü  But districts can (to varying degrees) rethink staffing and program priorities (e.g., eliminate teacher aids, reduce number of specialists).

ü  Districts have reallocated local, state, Title I and other Federal funds to CSR.

p  Opportunity costs:

ü  What opportunities are lost when limited funds are used for CSR? Full-day K? Pre-school? Healthcare?

ü  Economists focus on teacher quality, as have some local educators.

p  The Tennessee and Wisconsin studies enjoyed tremendous internal validity: based on the methods, their findings are quite credible.

p  But external validity remains in question: to what extent are findings from these studies applicable to other policy contexts and conditions?

p  Suggests local research initiatives?  Should we be looking at doing Utah studies?

p  CSR is intuitively appealing and has strong face validity: the causal links make sense.

p  CSR is easily measured and monitored.

p  Politicians can provide solid evidence of their efforts.

p  Large-scale efforts have been non-targeted.

p  CSR does not (necessarily) question deeply embedded notions of teaching and learning.

p  Considerable theoretical and empirical support for reducing class-sizes for disadvantaged students: positive and lasting.

p  CSR has potential to reduce racial/ethnic and income gaps in achievement.

p  Less evidence for state-wide universal CSR programs…

 

 Further information is available in the documents located below.

Article passed out by Senator Bell:
Roberts, Shayln. "After three years, classes smaller." Davis County Clipper 17 Jul, 2008: <http://www.clippertoday.com/link.asp?smenu=19&sdetail=27864&wpage=1>