special education student to teacher ratio

Wrightslaw Way

Special Education Law and Advocacy

special education student to teacher ratio

Class Ratios: TEACHER TO STUDENT RATIOS IN SPECIAL ED CLASSROOMS

Catherine: Our high school just reduced the number of SPED classrooms, while cutting staff, and are adding more students. What is the legal limit for the amount of students they can put in a classroom, and how many adults do they need to have? I strongly believe they can’t meet FAPE with the way the classes are now arranged.

I work in a daycare, and I work in a classroom that is supposed to be for 1 1/2-year-old children. My ratio for my class is 9:1 (kids:teachers) and I have 3 autistic children in my class also. 2 out of the 3 is at the high-end of the spectrum. Me and the A.M. teacher have been pushing for another teacher to be with us throughout the day for about a year now because on top of those 3 autistic kids, we have 2 biters, and 4 kids that like to push and hit. Our directors don’t put our mental health first they put their needs before anything else. They’ve been firing staff left and right, getting new kids and now other kids are waitlisted and they complain about being understaffed. I want to know what the legal ratio for children on the spectrum is (no matter how mild the severity is) to teacher.

God bless all stressed and burnt out teachers out there.

A formal complaint was filed and upheld against my district for not offering a continuum of services and identifying service minutes based on school schedules. The remediation remedy has been to place students in a study skills class. They will receive math one semester and reading the next. Previous to the complaint, they were receiving 1 hour 15 minutes daily for each. The sped teacher in the study skills class is banned from accessing the IEP and from attending IEP meetings because she filed the complaint. Is this legal?

Federal rules (IDEA) say a parent can invite anyone to an IEP meeting that they feel can be of help. That would include this teacher. This is a question for your state education agency or special ed attorney. Your state parent training and information project, or disability rights office may also be of help. http://www.parentcenterhub.org/find-your-center

Hi, I have 19 students in self-contained 2nd grade classroom with 8 being on IEPs and a few others on 504’s with “push in” support of 1.15 hours a day- (when not pulled to sub., work on IEPs or attend meetings). Needless to say, it’s not a smooth year and I’m doing my best with trying to keep the kids progressing, however, I’m struggling as the they are “acting out” on me and each other. I know the ESE kids need mostly 1.1 instruction but can’t do it with being mostly alone with them throughout the day. What is the ratio for this type of “inclusion”?… or is it really a SPED class with lack of necessary support? Thank you

Hi Linda, Just now seeing this, so I hope you will receive the notification.

I am a special ed teacher in KY. I teach resource social studies, so it’s a 10:1 ratio and up to 11, if needed. After 11 students, I receive a stipend per diem for each student.

It sounds like you are in a co-teaching situation where you would have a special education teacher teach alongside you and give the federally mandated special education services your students with IEPs need. The ONLY one legally allowed to provide Specially Designed Instruction to your IEP kids is the certified special ed teacher!! No offense, unless you are certified to teach spec ed, you should not have the responsibility. No wonder you are feeling overwhelmed! You really need to check the LRE (least restrictive environment) on the IEPs. This explains in what learning environment the student will receive their services. Nowadays, it seems that ALL teachers have to provide accommodations and modifications to every student because of the fallout after the pandemic….ugh. I applaud your efforts.

First thing, read those IEPs!! Then find out the LRE and how many minutes they should receive on said service. That will tell you if you should really be teaching them. There are many special ed students totally,100% mainstreamed however, they should have in the very least, a caseworker monitoring and collecting data to report progress every six weeks! Find who this person is in your building. Hopefully, you’ll get the answers you need! Best of luck and let me know how it turns out, I hope that your situation has improved since last year.

Take care! Julia in KY

Is it legal to have middle and high school EBD students in a classroom together? I work at an alternative school in Kentucky and I feel as though having a 6th grader and a 10th grader in the same classroom together will not turn out well, especially when both students can be aggressive.

Is there a limit to the number of IEP students that can be assigned to one general education classroom teacher (in Ohio)?

Your state education agency, or parent training & information project would be the ones to ask.

In NYS. What is the percent of IEP students allowed in a general Ed class with only that general Ed teacher in it?

Lance, you need to check your state education regulations to find an answer. If this is covered, it is likely to vary from state to state.

IN FLORIDA?

You need to research the class ratio issues in your state. As Chuck suggested, your state Parent Training Info (PTI) Center can help. This page has links to all PTIs: https://www.parentcenterhub.org/find-your-center/

Is it legal to have grades k-6 in one contained special education classroom?

That would depend on state laws, and rules. Depending on the impact on individual students, it could be a violation of FAPE.

The legal question is whether each child in this K-6 self-contained classroom is receiving a free appropriate education that is tailored to the child’s unique needs. Hard to imagine that this is possible.

If there are 120 students in 4 classrooms, how many students are there in 1 class room. (Hint: think proportions)

30 and 29 of the students are in special education. By putting the one general education student in the class they can call it co-taught.

what if there is no coteacher in the class. How many speds can be in a collaborative setting or monitored setting before another teacher or aid needs to be in the class

If there is a limit, it would be set by the state education agency.

30. Are you asking how many kids are in a special education classroom or a general education class?

I will be starting my transition class (18 to 21 year olds) next fall with 21 students. They cognitively range from 31 year to almost at level. 2 have severe behavior issues, 1 parent who sues the district and accuses teachers constantly, several need toileting and feeding and we’re supposed to have them out in the community in job experiences. I can’t even imagine how I can give any of these students the help they need, which makes me feel terrible. Are there any limits or help I can get.

I suggest starting with the campus, & district special ed leadership. IEPs can & should list the supports staff need to implement it. Ask to meet with staff who are knowledgeable of transition in general, staff who are knowledgeable of these students. Nationally, & probably at the state level their should be information on transition. Also explore what is available thru the state vocational agencies.

I co-teach in a CWC with an excellent special ed teacher. Each year, though, the counselors are putting more and more students with IEPs in our class. This year, we have 63% of the students in the CWC with IEPs. Does anyone know if there is a Missouri law/standard for the ratio of reg ed students to those with IEPs?

24% of my classes are listed as needing Special Education services. What are the best practices for me to teach them successfully in a Foreign Language classroom?

IDEA rules say that the IEP must address the supports that the staff need to implement the IEP, & its goals. If that is not happening, you can request that the district provide help to learn best practices.

Esteban, Chuck’s advice is good.

We have an article on Wrightslaw about this: “Support For School Personnel and Parent Training: Often Overlooked Keys To Success” is at https://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/support.bardet.htm

If you share the article with your supervisor and/or principal, you may get the support you need.

I teach in Georgia. I am the regular education teacher with a co-teacher in all my classes. Some of my classes have more special education students than regular education students. Is there a ratio of regular ed students to special ed students that constitute inclusion? I feel that with classes that are heavy with special education students, more so than regular education students, is illegal according to IDEA. I’m not sure of the law so I want to double check before I question. For example, one of my classes has 12 special education students and 6 regular education students.

Many districts in GA have waivers for class sizes and I believe most co-taught classes are like you described (more special education students than general education students). It’s not helpful for any student but because of the waivers with the state, they seem to be able to get away with it.

This is two years later, but I am a high school ELA teacher, and I have an English III class with 15 IEPs and 7 gen ed students. I don’t think that’s fair to the students.

Is there a law prohibiting general ed students with no Iep to attend a resource room with special ed students?

Regular education students should never be a special education classroom. Part of an IEP states this and when a parent signs, they are agreeing their students can be in a special education classroom.

IDEA, the federal special ed law, does not address the issue of general ed students in a resource room where kids with IEPs go to get special education services.

Do you know — for a fact — that general ed students are going to a resource room although they don’t have IEPs and don’t receive special ed services?

Using “incidental benefit” I have been taught the students with an IEP can access the instruction occurring within a sped setting if it’s something they need and “there is room”

What is the legal amount of student with disabilites in a mild/mod classroom to adult ratio in a public school in California? Thank you!

I work in a California middle school as a paraprofessional with 4 Special Ed students who fall under my responsibility. We have no SDC teacher or classroom at this school. Is this illegal? Is the school out of compliance?

Your state education agency would have to answer that, if the district or teacher associations won’t tell you.

I am a middle school art teacher with general education classes. Some of my classes have rosters of 34 and 35 learners including self-contained students with no aide. Last year our district Art Office required an increase in reading in Art. This year our district Art Office requires that we increase writing in Art classes. I feel bad that I have been unable to meet my wonderful students’ unique needs. I recognize that IDEA’s erroneous classification of visual art as “non-academic” caused these incorrect policies to be adopted. I had hoped ESSA would help art education but my class size has increased and all aide support has disappeared since it was passed. Unfortunately, our union is not allowed to discuss class size, I am told. Is there any other suggestion to correct rostering policies?

In such situations like this I feel that the best approach is to focus on the situation at your campus with your student & not district policies. You can try to find supporters at your campus & community to develop a plan to improve the situation for your students. Are parent volunteers allowed on your campus?

It’s so disappointing that we all seem to be in different levels of the same boat. I have 27 special education students at this time. Collectively, they have 10 hours of resource minutes included in their IEPs and I have six hours of possible classroom time to support them. My schedule overlaps so much that some students are only receiving assistance from me for 10-15 minutes each day, regardless of the fact that their IEPs require 30-90 minutes of resource help each day. I am fortunate that I have four paraprofessionals who cover all of the inclusion minutes that are on top of the students’ resource minutes. Power on, friends, and know that you do make a difference even if no one acknowledges it!

I am literally in the same boat! I had 27 now 29. I am fortunate enough if I even get to spend a full 15 minutes with them. How do you handle this if you don’t mind me asking. Love to pick your brain!

Not every state education agency has rules or laws regarding this. Other sources of “caseload limits” or “class size” may be in the teacher’s or classified staff’s collective bargaining agreements. And it’s also important to remember, ratios may reflect “best practices” advisories from the state education agency, but not be actual citations of law.

There are legal limits to the number of special education students per teacher or aide as well as legal limits to classroom totals. These ratios are determined by the students’ placement.

Andrea, The student-teacher ratios are usually different from one state to another. In most if not all states, the ratios are determined by the State Department of Education. Many states give guestimated student-teacher ratios so it can be next to impossible to get a firm number.

From everything I have read, there are no laws protecting special day class teachers for classroom or caseload. CA has recommendations from the SELPA and everything else, in our district anyway, is negotiated to amend our contract. I sent a letter to the state because I was providing all our resource services and special day class simultaneously. The state is aware this SHOULD be addressed, but still nothing has been done.

Is there a law for teacher to student ratio for kindergarten? I have 2 students width Down syndrome and one with autism makes a total of 19 without any one on one teachers aid or no help.

Is there a law i ref/ to the total class load limit for a teacher in sp. ed for SC? I have no more than 8 per class but I have a total of 37. Austistic spectrum and LD and ADHD. TY

In Ca resource teachers cannot have more than 28 unless the district files a waiver, which requires more aide support and the Ed specialist is to agree to the terms, more than 32 is never allowed in a resource specialist’s caseload

Is 28 student limit this for elementary, middle, or high school?

I teach preschool, I have 20 students in my classroom. I currently have 4 IEP’s with another 3 who are being evaluated and will also qualify. My question is how many students can be in a classroom, how many children total and then how many IEP’s?

If there is a rule on this, it would be made by your state education agency. They or teacher associations should be able to tell you.

this year at our school all of the special needs students in the middle school have the same schedule, some of the day they are with a special ed teacher which is fine but the classes (science, social studies, etc) that they are not i they have one para for all of the students. Is this legal?

Depending on their IEP, maybe. If the IEP says co-taught for the full segment for 5 days a week then a special education teacher needs to be in there. However, if the IEP only says co-taught for a smaller amount of time, then a para is legal. Many students don’t need specialized instruction for the whole time and a para is an excellent option for the remainder of the time.

When I started the school year, I had 23 students on my caseload, but now I have 38. I know that is 10 over the limit, but I also want to point out that there are 65 students on our campus, and I have over half of those students whereas the other teachers have less than 30 altogether. If they are not going to provide any assistance, should I be paid more? I think the only reason they are doing this is that the district was just sued for over 800K for an issue not related to Special Education

Does California have a law that limits the number of students with IEPs in a general education classroom? Is there a ratio of gen Ed v special Ed students that if reached the class is no longer a gen Ed class?

We are in a teacher shortage crisis at my school in TN. I am not doing the job I was hired for because their was not a low incidence teacher hired. I am the only teacher right now that can write IEP’s which means, I am expected to case manage low incidence and inclusion, and we are getting new students everyday needing an IEP in 30 days. that will put me well over 40 students alone. Is this legal to put teachers in this situation?

hello, what is the maximum number of students with IEPs allowed in a resource class room in Michigan

what is the ratio for integrated special ed classroom between teacher and aid in california

middle school life skills unit i have 10 students 2 on wheel chairs 4 on diapers 3 runners some attend class with para assistance weekday is the ratio

In the state of texas

What is the teacher to student ratio needed for an aide in a special education classroom in Illinois?

I teach in Arizona. I have a class of 26 students with 15 classified as special needs or on an IEP. There is no way to partner up helpers and I don’t have any aides or para support. My question is there a law that says what percentage of the class can be special education. There are 3 other classrooms that the students can be split evenly but because the district cut support they put them all in one room and then provided me with NO support.

I need the same information for the state of Florida

Did you ever get an answer?

I have 38 students 14 ESE and the rest Esol level 1 and reading levels at 1… I have 5 classes with high numbers and my 6th class with 14 Resource Autistic… I leave work tired and my back on fire. What has education become?

Hi. In Virginia, can anyone tell me how many SPED students must a school have to get one full time SPED teacher? For example, let’s say you have students from varying mild disability areas such as LD, ED, OHI, and maybe one ID. If you have a small class size, can you get a full-time teacher or would you have to settle for a part-time teacher?

Google “how many special education students are needed to earn state funding in VA” These resources sound like they will answer your question. You can also contact the state education agency.

Hi. I am a special ed teacher in NYS. I have a class ratio labeled 12:1:2. Are two TAs still required if I have less than 12 students?

In Missouri it seems self contained classrooms at the elementary level can have a 9:1 ratio of students to teacher. We are moving to get rid of the self contained classroom by moving to class with a class/Co teaching system. However, the numbers of LD students in the regular ed classroom is going up. Is there a limit of IEP students that can be in the COTeaching Classroom, as their is in the self contained class?

How many students with IEP’s can a general education class have before it no longer is considered a general education setting?

That would be based on the state’s rule. Some states have no rule on this.

Where would I find this for Florida?

It may be on the FL dept of Ed website, but you might need to call them or your state parent training and information project should know. http://www.parentcenterhub.org/find-your-center

I am a self-contained primary specialized learning disability teacher in Nevada. I have 15 students in my class and no aid. Is this legal? My admin has not hired anyone even though they have known since August that there is no aid for this class.

That is considered a 15:1 and it is totally legal as long as the students IEP says they are to be in a 15:1. If it says 12:1:1 or 6:1:1, then there should be an aid.

Special class staffing ratios

Special classes offer different levels of staffing intensity depending upon the intensity of a student's academic and/or management needs. Special class maximum sizes may range from six to 15. Staffing for classes will be one teacher and up to four paraprofessionals. Students recommended for a more intensive student to staff ratio require more intensive and constant adult supervision to engage in learning. When a student is recommended for special class services, the IEP must state the number of students who will be in the class and the specific ratio of special education teachers and paraprofessionals.

Special Class Staffing Ratio 12:1 (elementary and junior/middle levels in NYC only) and 15:1 (high school)

no more than 12 or 15 students per class depending on level
one full-time special education teacher

Serves students whose academic and/or behavioral needs require specialized/specially designed instruction which can best be accomplished in a self-contained setting.

Special Class Staffing Ratio 12:1:1

no more than 12 students per class
one full-time paraprofessional

Serves students whose academic and/or behavioral management needs interfere with the instructional process, to the extent that additional adult support is needed to engage in learning and who require specialized/specially designed instruction which can best be accomplished in a self-contained setting.

Special Class Staffing Ratio 8:1:1

no more than eight students per class

Serves students whose management needs are severe and chronic requiring intensive constant supervision, a significant degree of individualized attention, intervention and intensive behavior management as well as additional adult support.

Special Class Staffing Ratio 6:1:1

no more than six students per class

Serves students with very high needs in most or all need areas, including academic, social and/or interpersonal development, physical development and management. Student's behavior is characterized as aggressive, self-abusive or extremely withdrawn and with severe difficulties in the acquisition and generalization of language and social skill development. These students require very intense individual programming, continual adult supervision, (usually) a specific behavior management program, to engage in all tasks and a program of speech/language therapy (which may include augmentative/alternative communication).

Special Class Staffing Ratio 12:1:4

one additional staff person (paraprofessional) for every three students

Serves students with severe and multiple disabilities with limited language, academic and independent functioning. These students require a program primarily of habilitation and treatment, including training in daily living skills and the development of communication skills, sensory stimulation and therapeutic interventions.

Upon application and documented educational justification to the State Education Department, approval may be granted to exceed the special class sizes. The class size may not be exceeded unless and until the State Education Department grants the variance.

State Regulations: 8 NYCRR § 200.6(h)
DOE Continuum of Special Education services - (Also can be found on DOE Info Hub - login required to access )

Meet Our Staff
Privacy Practices

Dr. Laurie H.C. Philipps & Associates We are a Family Practice that provides solutions for children, adolescents, and adults. School Consultation and Advocacy is our strength.

(847) 558-6986

Neuropsychological Testing for Adults
Pediatric Neuropsychological Testing
Forensic (Legal) Assessments
ADHD Testing
OCD Treatment
Dyscalculia (Mathematics Learning Disorder)
Learning Disorder (Written Expression)
Executive Dysfunction
Trauma and Abuse
Learning Disorder (Reading)
Oppositional Defiant Disorder/Conduct Disorder
Couples Counseling
Behavioral Parental Training
School Consultation & Advocacy
School Accommodations
IEPs and 504 Plans
SAT/ACT Extended Time
Accommodations for College Students
College Application and Admissions Consulting
Academic Probation Advocacy
Concussion Assessment
Pediatric Concussion Assessment
TBI Assessment
Biofeedback

0 comments

How Many Students With IEPs Can Be in a Regular Classroom?

By NeuroHealth Arlington Heights

February 3, 2021

As school starts and students settle into their routines, teachers take the time to learn about each of their students. This includes monitoring behaviors, noting progress or lack of progress on assignments, and reading data from standardized assessments. For some teachers, it may be time to reassess students in order to make decisions about placement for those with special needs .

One of the options for specialized instruction of students with special needs is to keep them in the regular education classroom either with or without a special education co-teacher. What is the allowed ratio of students with special needs to regular ed students? Does it change if there is a co-teacher present? NeuroHealth Arlington Heights invites you to learn more about the IEP (individualized education plan) process, placement options for special education students, and how a robust co-taught classroom may be the best option for some students with special needs.

What Is an IEP?

An IEP is an educational plan that’s put in place for students who have been identified with a disability that impacts their education. The educational plan consists of annual goals, supplementary aids and services, related services, times for specialized instruction, and present levels of performance.

A team that must consist of a regular education teacher, parent/guardian, an LEA (local education agency, generally a school administrator), and a special education teacher meets annually to discuss the strengths and concerns in regards to that student. Based on the input from every team member and the data collected, the team will formulate an educational plan for that student.

What Is Specialized Instruction?

Specialized instruction is instruction provided to students with disabilities . This instruction can adapt the methodology, delivery, or content a teacher uses to help disabled students have equal access to the regular education curriculum. Some students require specialized instruction in order for them to make progress and close the gap in their education. Without this specialized instruction, they could potentially fall further behind their peers.

Students with disabilities can receive specialized instruction in many different ways, including in the general education classroom with proper support and modifications or accommodations, using check-ins and check-outs, through a resource room, in a co-taught classroom, in a special education classroom, at a separate school, within a residential facility, or in a homebound or hospital setting. The IEP determines the least restrictive environment for the child to receive the specialized instruction they need to make educational gains and close the gap between a general education student and the student with special needs.

What Is a Co-Taught Classroom?

A co-taught classroom consists of a general education teacher and a special education teacher delivering instruction together in a general education classroom. In this type of setting, it’s the responsibility of both teachers to plan instruction, know every student’s needs, share responsibilities and roles, and implement learning opportunities for all students. This method of teaching can be very impactful if implemented with integrity.

How Many Students With IEPs Should Be in a General Education Classroom?

The number of students in a classroom will vary. Ideally, a smaller class size is always preferable. In a typical classroom, the number of students ranges from 15 to 22 with one general education teacher. In a special education classroom where students receive specialized instruction in a small group setting, class sizes typically range from 3 to 10 students. This classroom will have one special education teacher and possibly a paraprofessional. Class size can change when providing specialized instruction in the general education setting for students with IEPs.

In a typical classroom setting, the rule of thumb is to have no more than a 70/30 split between students with and without disabilities. This rule is a guideline. In some cases, it may be as close to a 50/50 split. The students with disabilities in these classrooms may or may not be pulled out to receive specialized instruction throughout the day. The needs of the students should be the determining factor in how many students with IEPs are in a general education classroom with no support.

Students with disabilities will stay in the general education classroom and receive their specialized instruction from special education and regular education teachers. In this type of co-taught classroom setting, the number of students with IEPs could be slightly higher. However, it’s important to have a good mix of students. This allows some students to act as role models or leaders for those students who might struggle in certain areas.

With two teachers in the general education classroom, it’s possible to increase the total number of students, but closely maintaining the 70/30 split is ideal. Again, the needs of the students should determine how many students with an IEP are in the co-taught classroom.

Why Should a Student With an IEP Be in the General Education Classroom?

Students who have a disability have the right to a free and appropriate public education in a nonrestrictive environment. This means that a student with a disability should be placed with their same-aged peers as much as possible but still have their educational needs met. Students with disabilities can bring a new perspective to the classroom, and they learn so much from their peers who model appropriate behavior and academic readiness.

Peers that do not have a disability can also learn from their peers who have a disability. They can learn how to interact with them appropriately and better understand who they are as a person. Having the opportunity to have a child with an IEP be a part of the general education setting can be a powerful thing, especially when a dynamic co-teaching environment is established.

The number of students with an IEP in a general education classroom can vary between school districts and states. You’ll want to use caution when more than 30% of the class comprises students with an IEP. If the numbers are too high, all students could potentially suffer, as their educational needs may not be met. Sticking to the 70/30 split is a highly recommended guideline.

If you feel your student could benefit from the specialized instruction of an IEP and aren’t sure where to start, contact the experts at NeuroHealth Arlington Heights or call us at ( 847) 754-9343. School consultation and advocacy are our strengths, regardless of age or ability.

Schedule A Consultation

NeuroHealth Arlington Heights

About the author

For over 20 years, NeuroHealth Arlington Heights has been offering neuropsychological and psychological assessments and treatments for people of all ages. These assessments and treatments address Behavioral, Emotional, & Social Issues, Neurocognitive Functions, and Neurodevelopmental Growth.

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

Student-to-teacher ratio, public schools

The student-to-teacher ratio is equal to the number of students who attend a school divided by the number of teachers in the school. In public schools, the ratio has hovered around 16 students for every teacher in the past two decades.

Data Adjustments

How much does the government spend on education?

Related Metrics

Preprimary enrollment

4.39 million

K-12 enrollment

56.28 million

Public School Staff

6.63 million

Explore Student-to-teacher ratio, public schools

Interact with the data, state display, sign up for the newsletter, data delivered to your inbox.

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

TEACHER/STUDENT RATIO IN SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSES

WHEREAS, special education is an individualized instructional system; and

WHEREAS, the special education instructor must evaluate all of the pupils assigned to his/her class on an individual basis; and

WHEREAS, the special education instructor must provide the teaching and non-teaching personnel with the appropriate information and materials necessary for proper instruction; and

WHEREAS, the decrease of one or more pupils does not diminish the total instructional operation involved:

RESOLVED, that the AFT strive to have the special education teacher/student ratio remain the same when a teaching assistant and/or other personnel is assigned to the classroom or to an individual students/students within the instructional framework of special education.

Please note that a newer resolution, or portion of a resolution, may have superseded an earlier resolution on the same subject. As a result, with the exception of resolutions adopted at our most recent AFT convention, resolutions do not necessarily reflect current AFT policies.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Campbell Syst Rev
v.19(3); 2023 Sep
PMC10346380

The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well‐being in special education: A systematic review

Anja bondebjerg.

1 VIVE—The Danish Centre for Social Science Research, Copenhagen Denmark

Nina Thorup Dalgaard

Trine filges, bjørn christian arleth viinholt, associated data.

Class size reductions in general education are some of the most researched educational interventions in social science, yet researchers have not reached any final conclusions regarding their effects. While research on the relationship between general education class size and student achievement is plentiful, research on class size in special education is scarce, even though class size issues must be considered particularly important to students with special educational needs. These students compose a highly diverse group in terms of diagnoses, functional levels, and support needs, but they share a common need for special educational accommodations, which often entails additional instructional support in smaller units than what is normally provided in general education. At this point, there is however a lack of clarity as to the effects of special education class sizes on student academic achievement and socioemotional development. Inevitably, such lack of clarity is an obstacle for special educators and policymakers trying to make informed decisions. This highlights the policy relevance of the current systematic review, in which we sought to examine the effects of small class sizes in special education on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being of children with special educational needs.

The objective of this systematic review was to uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of small class sizes on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being of students with special educational needs. We also aimed to investigate the extent to which the effects differed among subgroups of students. Finally, we planned to perform a qualitative exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education.

Search Methods

Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches in bibliographic databases, searches in grey literature resources, searches using Internet search engines, hand‐searches of specific targeted journals, and citation‐tracking. The following bibliographic databases were searched in April 2021: ERIC (EBSCO‐host), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO‐host), EconLit (EBSCO‐host), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO‐host), SocINDEX (EBSCO‐host), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Web of Science (Clarivate, Science Citation Index Expanded & Social Sciences Citation Index). EBSCO OPEN Dissertations was also searched in April 2021, while the remaining searches for grey literature, hand‐searches in key journals, and citation‐tracking took place between January and May 2022.

Selection Criteria

The intervention in this review was a small special education class size. Eligible quantitative study designs were studies that used a well‐defined control or comparison group, that is, studies where there was a comparison between students in smaller classes and students in larger classes. Children with special educational needs in grades K‐12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in special education were eligible. In addition to exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education from a quantitative perspective, we aimed to gain insight into the lived experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education contexts, as they are presented in the qualitative research literature. The review therefore also included all types of empirical qualitative studies that collected primary data and provided descriptions of main methodological issues such as selection of informants, data collection procedures, and type of data analysis. Eligible qualitative study designs included but were not limited to studies using ethnographic observation or field work formats, or qualitative interview techniques applied to individual or focus group conversations.

Data Collection and Analysis

The literature search yielded a total of 26,141 records which were screened for eligibility based on title and abstract. From these, 262 potentially relevant records were retrieved and screened in full text, resulting in seven studies being included: three quantitative and five qualitative studies (one study contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data). Two of the quantitative studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have a critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta‐analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The third quantitative study did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effect size and standard error. Meta‐analysis was therefore not possible. Following quality appraisal of the qualitative studies, three qualitative studies were judged to be of sufficient methodological quality. It was not possible to perform a qualitative thematic synthesis since in two of these studies, findings particular to special education class size were scarce. Therefore, only descriptive data extraction could be performed.

Main Results

Despite the comprehensive searches, the present review only included seven studies published between 1926 and 2020. Two studies were purely quantitative (Forness, 1985; Metzner, 1926) and from the U.S. Four studies used qualitative methodology (Gottlieb, 1997; Huang, 2020; Keith, 1993; Prunty, 2012) and were from the US (2), China (1), and Ireland (1). One study, MAGI Educational Services (1995), contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data and was from the U.S.

Authors' Conclusions

The major finding of the present review was that there were virtually no contemporary quantitative studies exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education, thus making it impossible to perform a meta‐analysis. More research is therefore thoroughly needed. Findings from the summary of included qualitative studies reflected that to the special education students and staff members participating in these studies, smaller class sizes were the preferred option because they allowed for more individualised instruction time and increased teacher attention to students' diverse needs. It should be noted that these studies were few in number and took place in very diverse contexts and across a large time span. There is a need for more qualitative research into the views and experiences of teachers, parents, and school administrators with special education class sizes in different local contexts and across various provision models. But most importantly, future research should strive to represent the voices of children and young people with special needs since they are the experts when it comes to matters concerning their own lives.

1. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

1.1. little evidence exists on the effects of small class sizes in special education.

Despite carrying out extensive literature searches, the authors of this review found only seven studies exploring the question of class size in special education. The authors therefore call for more research from quantitative and qualitative researchers alike, such that practitioners and administrators may find guidance in their endeavours to create the best possible school provisions for all children with special educational needs.

1.2. What is this review about?

While research on the relationship between general education class size and student achievement is plentiful, research on class size in special education is scarce, even though class size issues must be considered particularly important to students with special educational needs. This systematic review sought to examine the effects of small class sizes in special education on the academic achievement, socioemotional development and well‐being of children with special educational needs.

Furthermore, the review aimed to perform a qualitative exploration of the views of children, teachers and parents concerning class size conditions in special education.

A secondary objective was to explore how potential moderators (e.g. performance at baseline, age, and type of special educational need) affected the outcomes.

What is the aim of this review?

The objective of this Campbell systematic review was to synthesise data from existing studies to assess the impact of small class sizes in special education on students' academic achievement, socioemotional outcomes and well‐being.

1.3. What studies are included?

This review included seven studies, of which two were quantitative, four were qualitative, and one was both quantitative and qualitative. It was not possible to perform a meta‐analysis, nor a qualitative thematic synthesis. The included studies were critically assessed, coded for descriptive data, and narratively summarised.

One quantitative study was assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality following risk of bias assessment. Unfortunately, it was not possible to extract an effect size from this study since it did not report the required information and the study authors could not be contacted.

Three qualitative studies were assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality following qualitative critical appraisal.

1.4. What are the main findings of this review?

There are surprisingly few studies exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education on any outcomes. The included qualitative studies find that smaller class sizes are the most preferred option among students with special educational needs, their teachers and school principals. This is because of the possibilities afforded in terms of individualised instruction time and increased teacher attention to the needs of each student.

1.5. What do the findings of this review mean?

The impact of small class sizes in special education is under‐researched both within the quantitative and the qualitative literature.

Future research should aim to fill this knowledge gap from diverse methodological perspectives, paying close attention to the views of parents, teachers, administrators and, most importantly, the children and young people whose everyday lives are spent in the various special education provisions.

1.6. How up‐to‐date is this review?

Searches in bibliographic databases and EBSCO OPEN Dissertations were performed in April 2021, while the remaining searches for grey literature, hand searches in key journals, and citation tracking took place between January and May 2022.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. description of the condition.

Class size reductions in general education are some of the most researched educational interventions in social science, yet researchers have not reached any final conclusions regarding their effects. While some researchers point to small and insignificant differences between varying class sizes, others find positive and significant effects of small class sizes on, for example, children's academic outcomes. In a previous Campbell Systematic Review on small class sizes in general education, Filges ( 2018 ) found evidence suggesting, at best, a small effect on reading achievement, whereas there was a negative, but statistically insignificant, effect on mathematics.

While research on the relationship between general education class size and student achievement is plentiful, research on class size in special education is scarce (see e.g., McCrea, 1996 ; Russ, 2001 ; Zarghami, 2004 ), even though class size issues must be considered particularly important to students with special educational needs. These students compose a highly diverse group, but they share a common need for special educational accommodations, which often entails additional instructional support in smaller units than what is usually provided in general education. Special education class sizes may vary greatly, both across countries and regions, as well as across different student groups, but will usually be small relative to general education classrooms. In most cases, placement in special education, as opposed to, for example, inclusion in general education, is based exactly on the child's need for close adult support in a smaller unit, where instruction can be tailored to the needs of each child and a calmer, more structured environment can be created. Following this, one may assume that there are advantages to small class sizes in special education, in that children are placed in a suitable environment with the support they need to thrive and learn (for a discussion of perceptions on the benefits of special education, see e.g., Kavale, 2000 ). However, there may also be challenges to small class sizes, for example, in terms of the opportunities available for building friendships.

It should be noted that class size in special education is connected to other structural factors such as, for example, student–teacher ratio and type of special education provision. In this review, we focus on class size since our main interest lies in exploring the specific mechanisms behind being in a smaller group. However, we have paid close attention to the relatedness and potential overlap between class size and concepts such as student/teacher ratio or caseload (for more about these concepts, see Description of the intervention). When it comes to the type of special education provision, we have included all types of settings where children with special educational needs are grouped together for instruction (i.e., segregated schools/classes/groups/units to which only students with special educational needs attend).

Finally, class size issues, both in general and in special education, are associated with ongoing discussions on educational spending and budgetary constraints. Hence, in school systems imposed with financial constraints, small class sizes in special education settings may be deemed too expensive. As a result, children with special educational needs may be placed in larger units with potential adverse effects on their learning and well‐being. At this point, there is however a lack of clarity as to the effects of small class sizes in special education on student academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being. Inevitably, such lack of clarity is an obstacle for special educators and policymakers trying to make informed decisions. This highlights the policy relevance of the current systematic review, in which we examined the effects of small class sizes in special education on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being of children with special educational needs. In working towards this aim, we planned to apply an approach consisting of both a statistical meta‐analysis (if possible from the studies found through our searches) and an exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education, as reported in qualitative studies. We chose to include studies applying a qualitative methodology because the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods had the potential to provide a deeper insight into the complexity of class size questions in special education, including the voices of children and teachers who spend their everyday lives in special education contexts.

2.2. Description of the intervention

Special education in this review refers to educational settings designed to provide instruction exclusively for children with special educational needs. In such settings, both the instructional and physical classroom environment may be adjusted to accommodate the specific needs of the student group, as in the use of individual work tables and visual aids (pictograms) for children on the autism spectrum. We have included studies of all kinds of special education settings that are attended only by children with special educational needs (i.e., segregated special education settings as opposed to inclusion settings where children with and without special educational needs are taught together). We have included both part‐ and full‐time special education provisions (with an example of a part‐time provision being resource rooms attended by students with specific learning difficulties within one or more academic subjects). Furthermore, no limits have been imposed concerning the placement of special education provisions, that is, we have included both separate special schools and special education classes, units or resource rooms lodged within mainstream schools. We acknowledge that significant variations exist in special education provisions across time (e.g., due to new developments in pedagogical approaches and learning aids) and between (as well as within) countries, just as we are aware of the diversity between special education provisions, for example, in terms of how they are staffed and to which degree they are specialised to work with particular student groups. Our approach has therefore been to be inclusive in our search and screening process by not imposing limits on publication date or study location and by defining special education as all kinds of provisions where children with any type of special educational need are grouped together for instruction for any given amount of time (for our definition of what constitutes a special educational need, see Types of participants).

In this review, it is important to distinguish between the following terms: class size , student–teacher ratio , and caseload . Class size refers to the number of students present in a classroom at a given point in time. Student–teacher ratio refers to the number of students per teacher within a classroom or an educational setting. Furthermore, some studies may apply the term caseload which is typically defined as the number of students with individual education plans (IEPs) for whom a teacher serves as ‘case manager’ (Minnesota Department, 2000 ). In this review, the intervention is a small class size. Thus, studies only considering student–teacher ratios or caseloads are not eligible.

Our rationale for focusing on class size is based in the belief that although class size and student–teacher ratios or caseloads in special education are related, they involve somewhat different assumptions about how a small class size as opposed to a larger one might change the opportunities for students and teachers. With class size, the mechanism in play is based on assumptions about the dynamics of a smaller group and the belief that with smaller groups, teachers are better able to develop an in‐depth understanding of student needs through more focused interactions, better assessment, and fewer disciplinary problems (Ehrenberg, 2001 ; Filges, 2018 ). The size of the group in itself will often be of specific importance to students with special educational needs, for example, students diagnosed with sensory processing disorders, making them sensitive to noise and movement, or students with ASD who struggle with reading social cues in larger groups. For such students, being in a larger class would likely feel overwhelming and stressful, no matter the student–teacher ratio.

Student–teacher ratio and caseload are also of great importance, but do not take in the specific mechanisms of being in a smaller group which we find to be central in special education. We acknowledge the relatedness of these concepts to class size and are aware that terms may in some cases overlap. We paid attention to this when searching for studies by adding a search term for student–teacher ratio and when screening the studies.

It is possible that the intensity of the intervention, that is, the size of a change in class size and the initial class size from which this change is made, can play a role in determining the intervention effect. For intensity, the question is: how small does a class have to be to optimise the advantage? In general education for example, large gains are attainable when class size is below 20 students (Biddle, 2002 ; Finn, 2002 ), but gains are also attainable if class size is not below 20 students (Angrist, 1999 ; Borland, 2005 ; Fredriksson, 2013 ; Schanzenbach, 2007 ). It has been argued that the impact of class size reductions of different sizes and from different baseline class sizes is reasonably stable and more or less linear when measured per student (Angrist, 2009 ; Schanzenbach, 2007 ). Other researchers argue that the effect of class size is not only non‐linear but also non‐monotonic, implying that an optimal class size exists (Borland, 2005 ). Thus, the question of whether the size of a change in class size and the initial class size from which the change is made matters for the magnitude of intervention effects is still an open question. For this reason, we planned to include intensity (size of change in special education class size and initial class size) as a moderator if it was possible given the information presented in the included studies.

2.3. How the intervention might work

Due to the specialised and varied nature of special needs provision, issues of class size in this area are likely to be complex (Ahearn, 1995 ). However, small class sizes may promote student engagement and instructional individualisation, which is of particular importance to students with special educational needs. A research report from 1997 evaluating increases in resource room instructional group size in New York City public schools may serve to illustrate the importance of individualisation in special education (Gottlieb, 1997 ). The report indicated that increases in instructional group sizes from 5 to at most 8 students per teacher led to decreases in the reading achievement scores of resource room students. Resource room teachers reported diminished opportunities for sufficiently helping students. Furthermore, observations revealed little time spent on individual instruction.

Small class sizes may be better suited to address the potential physical and psychological challenges of students with special educational needs, for example, by providing closer adult‐child interaction, better accommodation of individual needs, and a more focused social interaction with fewer peers. Thus, smaller class sizes in special education may have a positive impact on both academic achievement and socioemotional development as well as on student well‐being at school.

On the other hand, small class sizes may limit the possibilities for finding compatible peers with whom to build friendships, hence leading to adverse effects on student's social and personal well‐being at school. This may also impact on the options available for building social skills, which are vital to, for example, students with autism‐spectrum‐disorders. Furthermore, small class sizes may lead to decreased variation in academic and social skills within the class, limiting the potential for positive peer effects on student academic learning and socioemotional development (e.g., learning from peers with more advanced academic skills).

As reflected in the above discussion about the potential benefits (or lack thereof) pertaining to smaller class sizes in special education, the effects of any given change in class size may occur both within the realm of academic achievement as well as across socioemotional domains (covering children's psychological, emotional, and social adjustment, as well as mental health) and in terms of student well‐being (defined as children's subjective quality of life, pleasant emotions, happiness, and low levels of stress and negative moods); each of these domains (academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being) are therefore included as key outcomes in the present review.

2.4. Why it is important to do this review

As previously noted, there is a lack of clarity as to the impact of small class sizes in special education on student academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being, making it difficult for special educators and policymakers to make informed decisions. Furthermore, class size alterations are associated with ongoing discussions on educational spending and budgetary constraints, highlighting the policy relevance of strengthening the knowledge base through a systematic review of the available literature.

Few authors have tried to review the available literature on special education class sizes, and these reviews have not followed rigorous, systematic frameworks, such as that applied in a Campbell systematic review. McCrea ( 1996 ) conducted a review on special education and class size including a sample of American studies. These studies pointed to some effects of class size on the learning environment in class as well as on student achievement and behaviour, especially at the elementary level. Furthermore, in an article exploring the class size literature, Zarghami ( 2004 ) examined the effects of appropriate class size and caseload on special education student academic achievement. The authors were not able to identify a single best way to determine appropriate class and group sizes for special education instruction. However, they pointed to the existence of well‐qualified teachers as an important factor in increasing student achievement. Finally, Ahearn ( 1995 ) analysed state special education regulations on class size/caseload in the U.S. and reviewed research on class size in general education and special education. The report showed that state requirements for class size/caseload in special education programmes were much more specific and complicated than those for general education, and that the specialised nature and variety of the services delivered to students with special educational needs, combined with the restrictions attributable to specific student disabilities, contributed to those complications. In line with the article by Zarghami ( 2004 ), Ahearn ( 1995 ) concluded that there was no single best way to determine class sizes for special education programmes, adding that the information available was inadequate.

The above mentioned reviews did not apply the extensive, systematic literature searches and critical appraisals that are performed in a Campbell systematic review. Furthermore, they date back 15 years or more, which means that they do not include newer developments in special education research. Therefore, we find that the present review fills a research gap by providing an up‐to‐date overview of what (little) research is available exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education and the views of children, parents, and teachers who experience different issues related to special education class size. In this sense, the main contribution of the review lies in shedding light on the fact that more research is still needed to gain knowledge into the complexities of class size in special education.

3. OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of small class sizes on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being of students in special education. We also aimed to investigate the extent to which the effects differed among subgroups of students. Furthermore, we aimed to perform a qualitative exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education.

4.1. Criteria for considering studies for this review

4.1.1. types of studies.

The screening of potentially eligible studies for this review was performed according to inclusion criteria related to types of study designs, types of participants, types of interventions, and types of outcome measures, all of which are described in the following sections (for the screening guide, see Supporting Information: Appendix 2 ). These criteria were also specified in the published protocol (Bondebjerg, 2021 ).

To summarise what is known about the possible causal effects of small special education class sizes, we included all quantitative study designs that used a well‐defined control or comparison group, that is, studies that compared outcomes for groups of students in smaller versus larger special education classes. This is further outlined in the section Assessment of risk of bias in included studies , and the methodological appropriateness of the included quantitative studies was assessed according to the risk of bias.

The quantitative study designs included in the review were:

1. Randomised and quasi‐randomised controlled trials (allocated at either the individual or cluster level, for example, class/school/geographical area etc.),
2. Non‐randomised studies (where allocation had occurred in the course of usual decisions, was not controlled by the researcher, and included a comparison of two or more groups of participants, that is, at least a treated group and a control group).

For non‐randomised studies, where the change in class size occurred in the course of usual decisions (e.g., due to policies mandating class size alterations), we assessed whether the authors demonstrated sufficient pre‐reatment group equivalence on key participant characteristics.

Studies using single group pre‐post comparisons were not included. Non‐randomised studies using an instrumental variable approach were also not included—see Supporting Information: Appendix 1 ( Justification of exclusion of studies using an instrumental variable (IV) approach ) for our rationale for excluding studies of these designs. A further requirement to all types of studies (randomised as well as non‐randomised) was that they were able to identify an intervention effect. Studies where, for example, small classes were present in one school only and the comparison group was larger classes at another school (or more schools for that matter), would not be able to separate the treatment effect from the school effect.

The treatment in this review was a small class size. To investigate the effects of small class sizes, we included studies that compared students in smaller classes with students in larger classes. This meant that we included both studies where the intervention consisted of a reduction in class size and studies where there was an increase in class size, since both types of studies (if robustly conducted) would allow us to compare the outcomes of children in smaller classes with those of children in larger classes. We only included studies that used measures of class size and measures of outcome data at the individual or class level. We excluded studies that relied on measures of class size and measures of outcomes aggregated to a level higher than the class (e.g., school or school district).

In addition to exploring the causal effects of small class sizes in special education through an analysis of quantitative studies meeting the criteria above, we aimed to gain qualitative insight into the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education contexts. To this end, we included all types of empirical qualitative studies that collected primary data and provided descriptions of main methodological issues such as informant selection, data collection procedures, and type of data analysis. Eligible qualitative studies may apply a wealth of data collection methods, including (but not limited) to participant observations, in‐depth interviews, or focus groups.

If we found mixed‐methods studies combining qualitative and quantitative data collection procedures, we assessed whether the quantitative data were eligible for inclusion in the quantitative part of the review (i.e., the quantitative data met the criteria imposed on studies exploring causal relationships), and whether the qualitative data met the criteria imposed on qualitative studies. If a study contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data, it was included for both quantitative and qualitative quality assessment and data extraction and was counted in both categories. If there were only eligible quantitative data, the study was included only in the quantitative part of the review, and vice‐versa for qualitative studies. That is, mixed methods studies were not treated as a separate category, but were included if either their quantitative or their qualitative research components met the inclusion criteria for quantitative or qualitative studies, respectively.

4.1.2. Types of participants

The review included studies of children with special educational needs in grades K‐12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in special education. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were accepted from all countries. In this review, we excluded children in home‐ or preschool as well as children placed in treatment facilities.

Some controversy exists regarding the definition of what constitutes a special educational need (Vehmas, 2010 ; Wilson, 2002 ). In this review, we were guided by the definition from the US Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in which special needs are divided into 13 different disability categories 1 :

specific learning disability (covers challenges related to a child's ability to read, write, listen, speak or do math, e.g., dyslexia or dyscalculia),
other health impairment (covers conditions limiting a child's strength, energy, or alertness, e.g., ADHD),
autism spectrum disorder (ASD),
emotional disturbance (may include e.g., anxiety, obsessive‐compulsive disorder and depression),
speech or language impairment (covers difficulties with speech or language, e.g., language problems affecting a child's ability to understand words or express herself),
visual impairment (covers eyesight problems, including partial sight and blindness),
deafness (covers instances where a child cannot hear most or all sounds, even with a hearing aid),
hearing impairment (refers to a hearing loss not covered by the definition of deafness),
deaf‐blindness (covers children suffering from both severe hearing and vision loss),
orthopaedic impairment (covers instances when a child has problems with bodily function or ability, as in the case of cerebral palsy),
intellectual disability (covers below‐average intellectual ability),
traumatic brain injury (covers brain injuries caused by accidents or other kinds of physical force),
multiple disabilities (children with more than one condition covered by the IDEA criteria).

While the above listed criteria provided useful guidance, we were fully aware that they should not be conceived as exhaustive, nor as clear‐cut definitions of what constitutes special educational needs. Therefore, we did not restrict ourselves to only include studies that defined their participants with these terms or which provided detailed information about types of special educational needs. Rather, we included all studies where the participating students received instruction in segregated special education settings (since we took placement in such settings to necessarily indicate a need for specialised educational support) and planned to explore the potential variation between different groups of students, if possible from the included studies.

4.1.3. Types of interventions

In this review, we were interested in investigating whether small class sizes in special education resulted in better academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being for students in special education when compared to larger class sizes. To answer this question, we included studies where special education class size was altered either as a result of a deliberate experiment (where class size was directly manipulated by researchers) or as a result of a naturally occurring change in class size arising due to, for example, the implementation of a new class size policy. This meant that the intervention of interest to this review was a change in special education class size allowing for a comparison between students in smaller classes versus students in larger classes. That is, the question of the effect of small class sizes could be investigated both by looking at studies where class size was reduced and where class size was increased, provided that the studies used a control or comparison group of students in smaller or larger special education classes than the treated group.

The more precisely a class size is measured, the more reliable the findings of a study will be. Studies only considering the average class size measured as student–teacher ratio within a school (or at higher levels) were not eligible. Studies where the intervention was the assignment of an extra teacher (or teaching assistants or other adults) to a class were not eligible. The assignment of additional teachers (or teaching assistants or other adults) to a classroom is not the same as changing the size of the class, and this review focused exclusively on class size. We acknowledged that class size can change per subject or eventually vary during the day, which is why the precision of the class size measure was recorded if possible.

Special education refers to settings where children with special educational needs are taught in classes segregated from general education students. These classes may be composed of children with similar special educational needs (such as classes specifically for children with ASD) or they may consist of mixed groups of children with diverse special educational needs. In such settings, the instructional environment is adjusted to accommodate the specific needs of the student group. In the present review, special education was thus defined as any given group composition consisting of only children with special educational needs. In some studies, special education was also referred to as, for example, segregated placement or resource room . Special education could be full‐time or part‐time (e.g., in the form of resource rooms attended by students for parts of the day). We included studies of all kinds of special education.

4.1.4. Types of outcome measures

For quantitative studies, only valid and reliable outcomes that had been used on different populations were eligible.

Primary outcomes

Academic achievement (measured with e.g., the Woodcock‐Johnson III Tests of Achievement, Mather, 2001 ), socioemotional development and adjustment (measured with e.g., The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [SDQ], Goodman, 2001 ), and well‐being (measured with e.g. The Perceived Competence Scale for Children, Harter, 1982 ) were categorised as primary outcomes.

Secondary outcomes

In addition to the primary outcomes, we considered school completion rates as a secondary outcome. Furthermore, we included validated measures of student classroom behaviour, such as structured observations of student engagement, on‐task behaviour, and disruptive behaviour (measured with e.g., The Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic Response [CISSAR], Greenwood, 1978 ).

Studies were only included if they considered at least one of the primary or secondary outcomes.

Duration of follow‐up

The review aimed to include follow‐up measures at any given point if meaningful based on the objectives for the review. However, none of the included studies reported outcomes past the end of the intervention.

Qualitative outcomes

For the qualitative analysis, we were interested in exploring the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with special education class sizes, as they presented themselves through, for example, in‐depth qualitative interviews or participant observations. Relevant data could stem from, for example, interviews with teachers on their perceptions of childrens' academic achievement and well‐being in small versus large special education classes, or their experiences with ensuring student engagement and attention under different class sizes. We did not define a list of outcomes in advance, but remained open to what presented itself as important to children, teachers, and parents concerning special education class sizes.

Types of settings

In this review, we included studies of children with special educational needs placed in any special education setting. We excluded studies of children in home‐ or preschool as well as children placed in treatment facilities.

4.2. Search methods for identification of studies

Relevant quantitative and qualitative studies were identified through searches in electronic databases, grey literature resources, and Internet search engines, as well as through hand‐searches in specific targeted journals and citation‐tracking. We searched for both published and unpublished literature and screened references in English, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian.

Locating qualitative research presents the reviewer with particular challenges since existing search strategies have largely been developed for and applied to the quantitative literature (Frandsen, 2016 ). As of yet, not all databases have implemented rich qualitative vocabularies or specific structures tailored to accommodate qualitative literature searches. Furthermore, screening on title and abstract may prove challenging since titles and abstracts in qualitative studies are sometimes more focused on content than on issues of methodology (Ibid). Attempts have been made to develop tools specifically designed for qualitative literature searches as an answer to the perceived difficulties in using such existing tools as the PICO(s) framework ( P opulation, I ntervention, C omparison (or control), O utcome, and S tudy design and type). Cooke ( 2012 ), for example, present the SPIDER search strategy which attempts to adapt the PICO components to make them more suitable for qualitative research. The SPIDER strategy contains the following components: S ample, P henomenon of I nterest, D esign, E valuation, and R esearch type. In the study by Cooke ( 2012 ), two systematic searches are performed, using first the PICO framework and then the SPIDER tool. The results show that the PICO search strategy generates a large number of hits, while the SPIDER tool leads to fewer hits, with the potential advantage of greater specificity. This means that the SPIDER tool may be more precise and easier to manage in terms of the amount of references for screening, however carrying the risk of missing studies.

In this review, we applied elements of the PICO(s) framework to search for both quantitative and qualitative studies by adding both quantitative and qualitative methodological terms in the search string, as well as by carefully looking for both types of studies in our grey literature and hand‐searches. By choosing this strategy, we prioritised the breadth and comprehensiveness of our search (sensitivity) which seemed the most appropriate choice given the anticipated low number of studies exploring class size effects particular to special education. Given the low number of studies found in the searches, we are convinced that our comprehensive approach was the best choice for this particular review topic.

4.2.1. Electronic searches

The following bibliographic databases were searched in April 2021:

ERIC (EBSCO‐host, 1966–2021)
Academic Search Premier (EBSCO‐host, 1931–2021)
EconLit (EBSCO‐host, 1969–2021)
APA PsycINFO (EBSCO‐host, 1890–2021)
SocINDEX (EBSCO‐host, 1895–2021)
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest, 1951–2021)
Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest, 1952–2021)
Web of Science (Clarivate, Science Citation Index Expanded, 1900–2021, and Social Sciences Citation Index, 1956–2021)

Description of search string

The search string was based on the PICO(s)‐model, and contained three concepts of which we developed three corresponding search facets: population, intervention, and study type/methodology. The search string includes searches in title, abstract, and subject terms for each facet. To increase the sensitivity of the search, we also searched in full text for the intervention terms. The subject terms in the facets were selected according to the thesaurus or subject term index on each database.

Example of a search string

The search string below from the ERIC database exemplifies the search which followed this structure:

Search 1–4 covered the population,
Search 5–9 covered the intervention,
Search 10–16 covered the study type/methodology terms,
Search 17 combined the three aspects.


S17	S4 AND S9 AND S16
S16	S10 OR S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15
S15	DE (‘Qualitative Research’ OR ‘Ethnography’ OR ‘Case Studies’ OR ‘Evaluation Methods’ OR ‘Field Studies’ OR ‘Focus Groups’ OR ‘Interviews’ OR ‘Mixed Methods Research’ OR ‘Naturalistic Observation’ OR ‘Participant Observation’ OR ‘Classroom Observation Techniques’ OR ‘Observation’ OR ‘Action Research’)
S14	AB (qualitative* OR ethnograp* OR ‘case stud’ OR evaluation OR ‘focus group’ OR interview OR ‘mixed method’ OR observation)
S13	TI (qualitative* OR ethnograp* OR ‘case stud’ OR evaluation OR ‘focus group’ OR interview OR ‘mixed method’ OR observation)
S12	DE (‘Effect Size’ OR ‘Control Groups’ OR ‘Experimental Groups’ OR ‘Experiments’ OR ‘Matched Groups’ OR ‘Quasiexperimental Design’ OR ‘Randomized Controlled Trials’ OR ‘Comparative Testing’ OR ‘Intervention’)
S11	AB (effect* OR trial* OR experiment* OR ‘control group’ OR random OR impact* OR compar* OR difference*)
S10	TI (effect* OR trial* OR experiment* OR ‘control group’ OR random OR impact* OR compar* OR difference*)
S9	S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8
S8	DE (‘Class Size’ OR ‘Small Classes’ OR ‘Teacher Student Ratio’)
S7	TX (group* OR class) N5 (size)
S6	AB (group* OR class) AND AB (size OR ratio*)
S5	TI (group* OR class) AND TI (size OR ratio*)
S4	S1 OR S2 OR S3
S3	DE (‘Special Needs Students’ OR ‘Special Schools’ OR ‘Residential Schools’ OR ‘Educationally Disadvantaged’ OR ‘Developmental Delays’ OR ‘Students with Disabilities’ OR ‘Special Classes’ OR ‘Special Education’ OR ‘Self Contained Classrooms’ OR ‘Resource Room’)
S2	AB (special) AND AB (need OR education OR child* OR student* OR pupil*)
S1	TI (special) AND TI (need OR education OR child* OR student* OR pupil*)

Limitations of the search string

We did not restrict our searches based on publication date or language. In screening and processing the references found, we were however limited by the language proficiencies available on the review team which allowed us to consider studies published in English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish.

4.2.2. Searching other resources

Hand‐search.

We implemented hand‐searches in key journals to identify references that were poorly indexed in the bibliographic databases and to ensure coverage of references that were published, but had not yet been indexed. We hand‐searched individual tables of content of respective issues of the chosen journals going back to 01/01/2015.

Our selection of journals to hand‐search was based on the frequency of journals identified in our pilot searches during the design phase of the search string. The following journals were selected:

Behavioral Disorders
Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders
Exceptional Children
Learning Disability Quarterly
International Journal of Disability, Development & Education
Remedial and Special Education
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
British Journal of Special Education
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
European Educational Research Journal

Searches for unpublished literature

Most of the resources searched for unpublished literature contained multiple types of unpublished literature. For the sake of transparency, we have divided the resources into categories based on the most prevalent type of literature in the resource.

Searches for dissertations and theses in English:

EBSCO Open Dissertations (EBSCO‐host)

Searches for working papers and conference proceedings in English:

Google Scholar— https://scholar.google.com/
Social Science Research Network— https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/
OECD iLibrary— https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
NBER working paper series— http://www.nber.org
American Educational Research Association (AERA)— https://www.aera.net/

Search for Reports and on‐going studies in English:

Google searches— https://www.google.com/
Best Evidence Encyclopaedia— http://www.bestevidence.org/
Social Care Online— https://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/

Searches for dissertations, theses, working papers and conference proceedings in Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian:

Forskning.ku—Academic publications from the University of Copenhagen— https://forskning.ku.dk/soeg/
AAU Publications—Academic publications from the University of Aarhus https://pure.au.dk/portal/da/organisations/8000/publications.html
SwePub ‐ Academic publications at Swedish universities— http://swepub.kb.se/se/
NORA ‐ Norwegian Open Research Archives— http://nora.openaccess.no/
DIVA—Swedish Digital Scientific Archives— http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/
Skolporten—Swedish Dissertations— https://www.skolporten.se/forskning/

Searches for reports and on‐going studies in Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian:

CORE—research outputs from international repositories ‐ https://core.ac.uk/

Search for systematic reviews

We searched for systematic reviews through the following resources:

Campbell Journal of Systematic Reviews— https://campbellcollaboration.org/
Cochrane Library— https://www.cochranelibrary.com/
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Databases— https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/
EPPI‐Centre Database of Education Research— https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/webdatabases/Intro.aspx?ID=6

Citation‐tracking and snowballing methods of systematic reviews

We performed citation‐tracking on systematic reviews identified in the protocol stage and through the search process to identify additional relevant references. The following reviews/research overviews were processed using both forward and backward citation‐tracking: Ahearn, 1995 ; McCrea, 1996 ; Zarghami, 2004 .

Citation‐tracking and snowballing methods of individual references

We had planned to select the most recently published and the most cited key references for citation‐tracking, with the expectation that we would select approximately 20 references (10 recent, 10 most cited). This approach was made impossible by the low number of relevant references found during the search process. We therefore chose to perform citation‐tracking on the included references: Forness, 1985 ; Gottlieb, 1997 ; Huang, 2020 ; Keith, 1993a ; Metzner, 1926 ; Prunty, 2012 . It was not possible to perform citation‐tracking on the study from MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 since it did not contain a reference list.

Contact to experts

We had planned to contact study authors if we found references to or mentions of ongoing studies in screened publications, but this did not occur during the search and screening process. Furthermore, the searches did not locate any particular individual experts or institutions that we could reach out to for more information on published or unpublished studies covering the subject matter.

A complete overview of the search strings used and the resulting references found for each electronic database, as well as search terms and hits for the grey literature resources, and results from the hand‐searches can be found in the appendix. Database searches were performed in April 2021. Searches for grey literature, hand‐search in key journals, and citation‐tracking took place between January and May 2022 (with the exception of the search in EBSCO OPEN Dissertations which was performed in April 2021, simultaneous with the database searches).

4.3. Data collection and analysis

4.3.1. selection of studies.

Under the supervision of review authors, two review team assistants first independently screened titles and abstracts to exclude studies that were clearly irrelevant. Studies considered eligible by at least one assistant or studies where there was insufficient information in the title and abstract to judge eligibility were retrieved in full text. The full texts were subsequently screened independently by two review team assistants under the supervision of the review authors. Any disagreement of eligibility was resolved by the review authors. Screening on both title/abstract and full text was performed using EPPI‐Reviewer 4 software (Thomas, 2022 ). Exclusion of studies that otherwise might be expected to be eligible was documented (see Excluded studies).

None of the review authors were blind to the authors, institutions, or journals responsible for the publication of the articles.

4.3.2. Data extraction and management

Two review authors independently coded and extracted data from included studies. Coding sheets for quantitative and qualitative studies were piloted and revised as necessary. For the included quantitative studies, data was extracted regarding school setting and location, participant characteristics (for children: type of special need, age, ethnic/cultural/language background, SES, gender, and for teachers: education and experience), study design, class size information (including size and duration of class size alteration), type and format of data, outcome measurement, sample size, and effect size information (see Table 1 for the full data extraction sheet filled out with data from the included quantitative studies). From the included qualitative studies, we extracted information pertaining to the school setting and location, class size conditions, study design, theoretical perspective of the study, research objectives, student information (age, gender, SES, type of special need), and teacher and parent characteristics, if relevant (see Table 2 for the full data extraction sheet filled out with data from the included qualitative studies).

Data extraction: Quantitative studies.

Author	Title	Language	Outlet (journal name/other outlet/dissertation/unclear)	Year	Study location	Type of school and educational setting	Type of special need	Child age (mean and range)
Metzner (1926)	Size of class for mentally retarded children	English	The Training School Bulletin	1926	Detroit, U.S.	Type of school not specified, but setting is probably half‐time.	Mental retardation	Approximately an average of 10.8, range not reported.
Forness (1985)	Effects of class size on attention, communication, and disruption of mildly mentally retarded children	English	American Educational Research Journal	1985	California, U.S.	Not specified, but it is probable that all students spent more than half their day in special class, and that regular class integration was limited to non‐academic classroom periods during the afternoons.	Mildly mentally retarded (educable)	Mean age in small classes 12.3; medium classes 11.0; large classes 11.2; overall 11.3.
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	Results of a Statewide Research Study on the Effects of Class Size in Special Education	English	Class Size Research Bulletin	1995	New York, U.S.	Modified Instructional Services (MIS) I classes which covered classes for students who required instructional services in a special class with opportunities for mainstreaming. Students could supposedly spend both full‐time or less in these classes, depending on pull‐out services or involvement with mainstream classrooms.	The majority of MIS I students were classified as learning disabled.	Not reported, but both elementary and secondary students.

Author	Child ethnic, cultural, and language background	Child SES	Child gender	Teacher education and experience	Study design	Class size	Intensity (size of reduction)	Duration of class size reduction
Metzner (1926)	Not specified	Not specified	Varies between 47.5% and 71.1% boys in treatment groups; in control group 64% boys.	Not specified		Treated are three classes with 15 students, three classes with 20 students, three classes with 25 students, and three classes with 30 students; controls are 12 classes with 22 students.	A reduction of 2 and 7 and an increase of 3 and 8.	180 days
Forness (1985)	Not specified	Not specified	Small classes: 50% male; medium classes 58% male; large classes 56% male; overall 56% male.	Not specified		5 small classes (10–13), 14 medium classes (14–16), and 7 large classes (18–21).	Mean difference between small and medium classes is 2.5 students, and between medium and large classes 4 students.	Not specified, but presumably most subjects had been in EMR (special education) classes for at least several months.
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Quasi‐experimental observation study	Students and teachers were randomly selected from two class size options: 12:1 and 15:1. Actual number of students observed in the classrooms was generally much lower than the number of students registered.	Formally an increase in some classrooms from 12:1 to 15:1 (so an increase of 3).	Not specified

Author	Type of data (Independent observation/Questionnaire/Other)	Format (Continuous/Categorical/Dichotomous)	Number of measures and timing	Type(s) and name(s) of outcomes (Academic Achievement/Socioemotional outcomes/Wellbeing/Student classroom behaviour (please state name of outcome, e.g. SDQ))	Sample size	Means/regression coefficients/t‐ and F‐statistics/Other	Standard deviations
Metzner (1926)	Pressy first grade reading test was given to those who had done no academic work beyond first grade, and the Stanford Achievement Test for grade 2 and 3 was given to the remaining.	Continuous	Experiment lasted 180 days, tests taken before and at the end.	Reading. Pressy Reading Test and Stanford Achievement Test.	Treated are three classes with 15 students, three classes with 20 students, three classes with 25 students, and three classes with 30 students (total: 270); controls are 12 classes with 22 students (total: 264).	Pre‐test scores and gain scores, Tables and .	No SD's reported.
Forness (1985)	The outcome (behaviour) was recorded on each child in specific categories of classroom functioning using an observation system described in detail in Forness, 1983 (available on request from the senior author, i.e. not published).	Percentage of time with a specific behaviour.	Data gathered in April, year not reported.	Behaviour divided into four pre‐determined categories: (a) communication‐ task‐oriented verbal or gestural response (e.g., pupil asks or answers a question, recites or raises hand); (b) attend‐ eye contact to teacher, task materials, or peer who is reciting; (c) not attend‐ eye contact not directed to teacher, task materials, or pupil who is reciting; and (d) disrupt‐behaviour incompatible with on‐task activities (e.g., talks to another pupil when not permitted, speaks out of turn, hits classmates, or throws objects).	26 classes and 393 students. 5 small classes (10–13) with 61 students, 14 medium classes (14–16) with 202 students, and 7 large classes (18–21) with 130 students.	Outcome reported as percentages. The total for each behaviour was computed across all response conditions for each subject. The percentage of time each child received a response from teachers was computed across all types of behaviour as a measure of time the teacher appeared to be involved with each subject, and the same was computed for classmate as a measure of the relative amount of time each subject appeared to interact with peers. Mean percentage by group is reported and overall mean and SD. Table .	Table
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	Two standardised observational instruments were used.	Percentage of time with a specific behaviour.	Not specified	Classroom behaviour observed with: The Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic Response (MS‐CISSAR), and The Instructional Environment System (TIES II).	753 elementary and secondary students and 203 teachers were randomly selected from the two class size options (12:1 and 15:1).	Percentage of time engaged in different classroom behaviours.	Not reported

Data extraction: Qualitative studies.

Author(s)	Title	Outlet (journal, dissertation, report)	Year	Type of special education setting (e.g., resource class, special school)	Class size information	Study location	Study design
Gottlieb (1997)	An evaluation Study of the Impact of Modifying Instructional Group Sizes in Resource Rooms and Related Service Groups in New York City	Report	1997	Resource rooms and speech services	In elementary school: 16,26 in 1994‐1995, and 24,39 in 1995‐1996.	New York City, U.S.	Evaluation design using questionnaires, interviews observations, and achievement data.
					In middle school: 20,02 in 1994–1995, and 30,21 in 1995–1996.
					No accurate data for high schools.
Huang (2020)	Special education teachers’ perceptions of and practices in individualising instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in China	Dissertation	2020	Special education schools	Class size ranged from five to 14 students ( = 9,4).	Shanghai, China	Interview study
Keith ( )	Special Education Program Standards Study. Commonwealth of Virginia. Final Technical Report	Report	1993	Special education classes	Not specified	Virginia, U.S.	Mixed‐methods evaluation study using interviews, observations, document review, and a survey
Prunty (2012)	Voices of students with special educational needs (SEN): views on schooling	British Journal of Learning Support	2012	Special schools or special education classes in mainstream schools	Not specified	Ireland and England	Interview study (focus groups, and individual interviews)
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	Results of a Statewide Research Study on the Effects of Class Size in Special Education	Class Size Research Bulletin	1995	Modified Instructional Services (MIS) I classes which covered classes for students who required instructional services in a special class with opportunities for mainstreaming. Students could supposedly spend both full‐time or less in these classes, depending on pull‐out services or involvement with mainstream classrooms.	Class size was increased from 12 to 15 students.	New York, U.S.	The study consisted of a descriptive part and an experimental/observational part. Focus here is on the descriptive study which used a number of complementary data collection methods including document review, public hearings, focus groups, surveys of key informants, and record review.

Author(s)	Theoretical perspective	Research objectives	Student age and gender	Characteristics of student group (e.g., category of special needs, SES)	Teacher education and experience	Parent characteristics (e.g., SES)	Overall quality appraisal
Gottlieb (1997)	Not specified	To evaluate the impact of increased group size on the quality and availability of resource rooms and related service instruction.	Not specified	Not specified	Participants were resource room teachers (representing all levels of schooling), speech therapists, and general education teachers (who had resource room students enroled in their classes).	Not specified	Include for analysis. No philosophical or theoretical perspectives presented and not a lot of information on methods and analytical procedures. However, the paper works well as an evaluation report, and the design chosen is appropriate for an evaluation. The conclusions drawn flow from the descriptive data presented.
Huang (2020)	Critical realism	To investigate and describe Chinese special education teachers’ perceptions and practices related to individualising or adapting instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.	Grades 1–6	Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, covering both autism, physical impairments, and intellectual disabilities. Other types of disabilities were less frequently represented.	The participating teachers were Chinese language arts and math special education teachers with an average of 14,6 years of experience teaching students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (range was three‐26 years). All but two participants held Bachelor's degrees as their highest educational level.	Not specified	Include for analysis. Class size is not the main topic of the study, but it is touched upon. The study is well‐performed and clearly reported.
Keith ( )	Not specified	To investigate Virginia special education program standards, focusing on local applications of the standards for class size and class mix and the effects of varying class sizes and mix on student outcomes.	Students were from preschool, elementary, middle, and high school. Boys made up 70% of the students in the special education programmes	Students with educable mental retardation, severe emotional disturbance, and specific learning disabilities.	Teachers had worked an average of 6,5 years in their current job, and had worked an an average of 11 years in the field of special education. Almost half the teachers had a Bachelor's degree as their highest educational level, while another 49% held Master's degrees.	Not specified	Exclude from analysis. No philosophical or theoretical perspective stated, very limited description of data collection, and the approach to qualitative analysis is not described. It is unclear in what way the site visits and interview material was used. The paper functions well enough as an evaluation report, but as a qualitative research study, it is inadequately reported and therefore not suited for inclusion.
Prunty (2012)	Perspective of the child	To explore the views of children and young people on their schooling	Not specified	Not clearly presented, but some had physical disabilities, while others had mental disabilities	Not specified	Not specified	Include for analysis. This study is not about differences between different special education settings, but more about differences between mainstream/inclusion and special education. Nonetheless, there are points made here that carry relevance to the issue of special education class size. In terms of methodological quality, the study is well performed and transparently reported.
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	Not specified	To examine class size effects on students, service providers, parents, and school districts.	Students were from elementary and secondary grades.	The majority of students were classified as learning disabled.	Not specified	Not specified	Exclude from analysis. No philosophical or theoretical perspective stated, very limited description of data collection, and the approach to qualitative analysis is not described.

4.3.3. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We did not locate any randomised studies. Therefore, included quantitative studies were assessed for risk of bias using the model ROBINS–I, developed by members of the Cochrane Bias Methods Group and the Cochrane Non‐Randomised Studies Methods Group (Sterne, 2016a ). We used the latest template for completion (which was the version of 19 September 2016). The ROBINS‐I tool is based on the Cochrane RoB tool for randomised trials, which was launched in 2008 and modified in 2011 (Higgins, 2011a ).

The ROBINS‐I tool covers seven domains (each with a set of signalling questions to be answered for a specific outcome) through which bias might be introduced into non‐randomised studies:

(1) bias due to confounding;
(2) bias in selection of participants;
(3) bias in classification of interventions;
(4) bias due to deviations from intended interventions;
(5) bias due to missing outcome data;
(6) bias in measurement of the outcome;
(7) bias in selection of the reported result.

The first two domains address issues before the start of the interventions and the third domain addresses classification of the interventions themselves. The last four domains address issues after the start of interventions and there is substantial overlap for these four domains between bias in randomised studies and bias in non‐randomised studies (although signalling questions are somewhat different in several places, see Sterne, 2016b and Higgins, 2019 ).

Non‐randomised study outcomes are rated on a ‘Low/Moderate/Serious/Critical/No Information’ scale on each domain. The level ‘Critical’ means that the study (outcome) is too problematic in this domain to provide any useful evidence on the effects of the intervention and is excluded from the data synthesis.

We discontinued the assessment of a non‐randomised study outcome as soon as one domain in the ROBINS‐I was judged as ‘Critical’. ‘Serious’ risk of bias in multiple domains in the ROBINS‐I assessment tool could also lead to a decision of an overall judgement of ‘Critical’ risk of bias for that outcome, leading the study to be excluded from the data synthesis.

Confounding

An important part of the risk of bias assessment of non‐randomised studies is consideration of how the studies deal with confounding factors. Systematic baseline differences between groups can compromise comparability between groups. Baseline differences can be observable (e.g., age and gender) and unobservable (to the researcher; e.g., childrens’ motivation and ‘ability’). There is no single non‐randomised study design that always solves the selection problem. Different designs represent different approaches to dealing with selection problems under different assumptions, and consequently require different types of data. There can be particularly great variation in how different designs deal with selection on unobservables. The ‘adequate’ method depends on the model generating participation, that is, assumptions about the nature of the process by which participants are selected into a programme.

As there is no universally correct way to construct counterfactuals for non‐randomised designs, we looked for evidence that identification was achieved, and whether the authors of the primary studies justified their choice of method in a convincing manner by discussing the assumptions leading to identification (the assumptions that made it possible to identify the counterfactual). Preferably, the authors should make an effort to justify their choice of method and convince the reader that the special needs students exposed to different class sizes were comparable.

In addition to unobservables, we identified the following observable confounding factors to be the most relevant for this review: performance at baseline, age of the child (chronological age and/or developmental age, if reported), category of special educational need and functional level, and socioeconomic background. In each study, we assessed whether these factors had been considered, and in addition we assessed other factors likely to be a source of confounding within the individual included studies.

Importance of pre‐specified confounding factors

The motivation for focusing on performance at baseline, age of the child, category of special educational need and functional level, and socioeconomic background, is outlined below.

Performance at baseline is a highly relevant confounding factor to consider, since students with special educational needs constitute a highly diverse population. There may be large achievement differences between children in special education classes, even when the children are of equal age and enroled in similar special education classes at the same grade level. This is true both when comparing children with different special educational needs profiles and children diagnosed with similar functional levels. This highlights the need for researchers to pay close attention to the risk of confounding due to achievement differences present at baseline.

The reason for including age as a pre‐specified confounder is that the needs of children change as they grow older. Young children are often more dependent on stimulating adult‐child interactions and have higher support needs, both academically and in terms of behavioural/emotional support. Therefore, to be sure that an effect estimate is a result from a comparison of groups with no systematic baseline differences, it is important to control for the students' age. In this review, it is important to both consider chronological age and developmental age, if this is reported.

As can be seen in the definition of special educational needs, the categories cover a very broad range of disabilities and functional levels. It is possible that special education students with some diagnoses or degrees of impairment require, for example, an increased need for individual support and close adult‐child interaction, or they may have an inability to cope in larger groups of children due to difficulties in sensory processing. Therefore, the special needs category and impairment level are important confounding variables.

Finally, a large body of research documents the impact of parental socioeconomic background on almost all aspects of childrens' development (e.g., Renninger, 2006 ), which is why we find it to be common place to include this as a potential confounding factor.

Effect of primary interest and important co‐interventions

We were mainly interested in the effect of actually participating in the intervention (in this case, receiving instruction in a smaller as opposed to a larger special education class), that is, the treatment on the treated effect (TOT). The risk of bias assessments were therefore carried out in relation to this specific effect. The risk of bias assessments considered adherence to intervention and differences in additional interventions (‘co‐interventions’) between intervention groups. Important co‐interventions we considered were other types of classroom support available to children with special educational needs, for example, software packages for children suffering from dyslexia. Furthermore, additional teachers or teacher aides in a classroom were considered an important co‐intervention.

At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each relevant outcome from the included studies (see Table 3 for the risk of bias assessment of included quantitative studies).

Risk of bias assessment of included quantitative studies (ROBINS‐I).

Author	Title	Overall comment	Overall judgement	Confounding bias	Judgement	Selection bias	Judgement	Classification bias	Judgement
Metzner (1926)	Size of class for mentally retarded children	This is a well‐performed study, but unfortunately, SD's are missing and are not possible to retrieve or calculate.	Moderate risk of bias	The authors term it an experiment, but only report that groups of mentally retarded students (four treated and one control) were ‘formed’. Treated are three classes with 15 students, three classes with 20 students, three classes with 25 students, and three classes with 30 students; controls are 12 classes with 22 students. Gender is highly imbalanced, mental age and age in years are reasonably balanced, IQ is reasonably balanced, and SES is not reported (Table ). Nothing is controlled for.	Moderate risk of bias	8%–10% were replaced due to drop‐out (p. 242), otherwise all children from the initial sample are followed from start to finish. Replacements took the same pre‐tests as students in the initial sample, but the size of the class they attended before they were included as replacements and the timing of the replacement is not reported.	Moderate risk of bias	Nothing of concern	Low risk of bias
Forness (1985)	Effects of class size on attention, communication, and disruption of mildly mentally retarded children	The study is given a rating of critical risk of bias in the confounding domain and the rest is therefore not assessed.	Critical risk of bias	Only age and gender considered (Table ). There is some imbalance on gender (between small classes vs. medium and large) and a relatively large imbalance on age (between small classes vs. medium and large). All students are characterised as mildly/educable mentally retarded (IQ range of 50–70). Nothing is controlled for.	Critical risk of bias
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	Results of a Statewide Research Study on the Effects of Class Size in Special Education	The study is given a rating of critical risk of bias in the confounding domain and the rest is therefore not assessed.	Critical risk of bias	No confounders considered.	Critical risk of bias

Author	Deviation bias	Judgement	Missing data	Judgement	Measurement bias	Judgement	Reporting bias	Judgement
Metzner (1926)	Eight percent of the control group and 10% of the treated (not reported separately by the four treatment groups, but reported that the range was 8%–13%) dropped out and were replaced. The size of the class they attended before they were included as replacements and the timing of the replacement is not reported.	Moderate risk of bias	Eight percent of the control group and 10% of the treated (not reported separately by the four treatment groups, but reported that the range was 8%–13%) dropped out and were replaced. Data only shown for those who were in the study by the end of the experiment.	Moderate risk of bias	No mentioning of blinding, otherwise tests are standardised tests (Stanford‐Binet and Pressey reading test)	Moderate risk of bias	No pre‐specified plan of analysis, but otherwise nothing to indicate selective reporting biases	Moderate risk of bias
Forness (1985)
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)

4.3.4. Measures of treatment effect

Continuous outcomes.

For continuous outcomes, such as standardised reading tests, we planned to calculate effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals, where means and standard deviations were available. If means and standard deviations were not available, we intended to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) from F ‐ratios, t ‐values, χ 2 values, and correlation coefficients, where available, using the methods suggested by Lipsey, 2001 . Hedges' g would be used for estimating SMD. If insufficient information was reported in the studies, we had planned to request this information from the principal investigators. However, the only study where it was relevant to calculate an effect size lacked the information necessary for us to perform calculations; and since the study was from 1926, it was not feasible to contact the principal investigators for more information.

Dichotomous outcomes

For dichotomous outcomes, such as children passing or failing a test, we had planned to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. However, none of the included studies contained dichotomous outcomes.

4.3.5. Unit of analysis issues

We planned to take into account the unit of analysis of the studies to determine whether individuals were randomised in groups (i.e., cluster‐randomised trials), whether individuals may have undergone multiple interventions, whether there were multiple treatment groups, and whether several studies were based on the same data source.

Cluster‐randomised trials

There were no cluster‐randomised trials.

Multiple intervention groups and multiple interventions per individual

There were no studies with multiple intervention groups or multiple interventions per individual.

Multiple studies using the same sample of data

There were no studies using the same sample of data.

Multiple time points

There were no studies reporting on multiple time points.

4.3.6. Dealing with missing data

Missing data and attrition rates in individual studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool. If summary data was missing, it was our plan to contact the study authors; this however turned out not to be feasible, since the only study where it was relevant to derive missing data was from 1926. Our options were therefore limited to reporting the study results in as much detail as possible based on the information available in the publication itself.

4.3.7. Assessment of heterogeneity

We were unable to assess heterogeneity among primary outcome studies as no meta‐analysis could be performed.

4.3.8. Assessment of reporting biases

Reporting bias refers to both publication bias and selective reporting of outcome data and results. Selective reporting was dealt with in the risk of bias assessment. Had we found sufficient studies, we would have used funnel plots for information about possible publication bias (Higgins, 2011b ).

4.3.9. Data synthesis

In the protocol for the review (Bondebjerg, 2021 ), we proposed a quantitative data synthesis based on standard procedures for conducting systematic reviews using meta‐analytic techniques. Studies that were coded ‘critical risk of bias’ were not included in the data synthesis. There were no studies to include in a meta‐analysis.

We aimed to use findings from qualitative studies to address and extend questions related to our effectiveness review, broadening the scope of the review to also include the lived experiences of children, teachers, and parents who spend their everyday lives in special education settings under different class size arrangements. As detailed in the review protocol (Bondebjerg, 2021 ), we planned to perform a thematic synthesis following the procedures presented in Thomas, 2008 , but due to the limited number of studies, this was not a feasible approach. We therefore chose to present findings from each included study separately in the form of study abstracts.

4.3.10. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

No studies were available for a meta‐analysis.

4.3.11. Sensitivity analysis

Treatment of qualitative research.

We included all types of empirical studies that collected qualitative data and provided descriptions of main methodological issues such as informant selection, data collection procedures, and type of data analysis. If an included quantitative study contained relevant qualitative data, these were treated in the same way as other qualitative studies and were considered for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis.

Critical appraisal of qualitative studies

All qualitative studies were appraised by two reviewers to assess whether or not they should be included in the thematic synthesis. Studies were double‐coded, after which the two reviewers discussed their assessments and reached a final conclusion on whether to include a given study in the synthesis. We only included studies for synthesis that paid sufficient attention to qualitative research standards for credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Hannes, 2011 ). We critically appraised qualitative studies using an adapted version of the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017 ; Lockwood, 2015 ). This checklist includes 10 questions that lead to an overall appraisal of ‘Include’, ‘Exclude’, or ‘Seek further info’. The 10 questions take integral parts of the qualitative methodological process into consideration, such as the congruity between the choice of research methodology and the research objectives, the influence of the researcher on the research, and the flow of conclusions from the analysis or interpretation of data. In the original checklist, the questions are checked in boxes indicating ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Unclear’ or ‘Not applicable’. In this review, reviewers were further required to justify their choice of ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Unclear’ or ‘Not applicable’ in a comment box. This was done by importing the checklist into EPPI‐Reviewer 4 (Thomas, 2022 ) and adding comment boxes. Reviewers were also required to justify their overall appraisal assessment. The reason for demanding justifications in addition to ticking the boxes was founded on a wish to both ensure high methodological rigour and detail in the assessment. All critical appraisals of qualitative studies were performed in EPPI‐Reviewer 4 (Ibid.) and the full consensus ratings are shown in Table 4 .

Quality appraisal of qualitative studies (JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research).

Study	Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology?	Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives?	Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data?	Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data?	Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results?	Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?
Gottlieb (1997)	Although a philosophical perspective is not cited or described, the research design seems appropriate and in line with the evaluative nature of the study aims.	Uses questionnaires, interviews, observations, and achievement data to evaluate changes in resource room group size, in line with the evaluation design.	There is limited information about the questionnaires, interview schedules, and the approach to the qualitative analysis of parental responses. It would have been preferable with a more detailed methodological section.	The authors present data from each source separately. Not much analysis in terms of interpretation or theoretical discussion ‐ descriptive summation only.	The study is purely descriptive.	No theoretical perspectives presented, purely descriptive study.
Huang (2020)	Critical realism is well presented and the author reflects on the congruity between this perspective and the study methodology.	Yes, qualitative interviews are appropriate for exploring the research questions.	Yes, the study methodology and methods are well aligned.	Yes, the analysis reflects the use of qualitative interviews through statements from interviews backing up the analytical points.	Yes, as stated in previous section.	Yes, the study is placed in the Chinese context and within a clear philosophical and methodological tradition.
Keith ( )	No philosophical or theoretical perspectives presented.	The research method (mixed methods approach with interviews, survey, and test results) seems appropriate for an evaluative study.	Yes, this is a straightforward evaluation design.	There is very limited description of the collection of qualitative data and the approach to qualitative analysis is not really described.	To some degree, although the study is descriptive and correlational and findings are sometimes phrased as if they were causal in nature.	The study is situated in Virginia. No theoretical or philosophical perspectives presented.
Prunty (2012)	The authors are concerned with the right of children to be heard and the imperative for research to let children's voices be heard and this is reflected in the research methodology where children are active participants in focus groups interviews.	Yes, the research question concerning children's views on schooling is well answered through the use of interviews and focus groups with children.	Yes, since the methodology is centred around child participation and the authors use interview methods designed to elicit the views of children.	Yes, the analysis is centred around statements from children, in line with the research focus on child participation.	Yes, in that children's voices are allowed to take centre‐stage in the analysis and no interpretations are made which are not in sync with the statements made by the participating children.	Yes, children's perspectives and developments towards including and emphasising children's rights are central to the study, with reference to key governance documents and previous research.
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	The authors do not state a philosophical perspective and there is hardly any description of the research design and data collection methods.	This is not possible to determine based on the limited information given in the study.	This is not possible to determine based on the limited information given in the study.	This is not possible to determine based on the limited information given in the study.	This is not possible to determine based on the limited information given in the study.	No, apart from information about where the study took place (New York).

Study	Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice‐versa, addressed?	Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?	Is the research ethical according to current criteria or recent studies, and is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body?	Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data?	Overall appraisal
Gottlieb (1997)	No such considerations made.	This is difficult to say, since this is less of a research study in the traditional sense and more of a descriptive report summing up key points. It is stated that some school leaders/administrative staff/teachers refrained from participation due to insecurity, meaning that the results most likely constitute a best case scenario.	The authors do not touch upon issues of ethics, but mention that some schools refrained from participation due to insecurities (which authors believe may have skewed the results to only show ‘the best case scenario’).	Yes, the conclusions flow from the data, but are only descriptive (not based on data interpretation).	Include for analysis. No philosophical or theoretical perspectives presented and not a lot of information on methods and analytical procedures. However, the paper works well as an evaluation report, and the design chosen is appropriate for an evaluation. The conclusions drawn flow from the descriptive data presented.
Huang (2020)	The researcher reflects on her preconceptions and potential biases.	Yes, through statements from the semi‐structured interviews.	Yes.	Yes, there is a clear connection between the analysis and empirical findings presented and the conclusions made in the study.	Include for analysis. Class size is not the main topic of the study, but it is touched upon. The study is well‐performed and clearly reported.
Keith ( )	No.	The description provided of the interview material is too limited to determine this.	The research does not seem unethical, however, n ethical reflections are described.	The conclusions flow from the descriptive data presented, but this is mostly true for the survey data, as it is unclear in what way data from the site visits and interviews was used.	Exclude from analysis. No philosophical or theoretical perspective stated, very limited description of data collection, and the approach to qualitative analysis is not described. It is unclear in what way the site visits and interview material was used. The paper functions well enough as an evaluation report, but as a qualitative research study, it is inadequately reported and therefore not suited for inclusion.
Prunty (2012)	Not discussed, but the authors describe measures taken to make the focus groups/interviews comfortable and safe for the children.	Yes, in line with the focus on making children's voices heard.	Yes, children's voices are valued and authors describe taking measures to make the interviews safe and comfortable for children to participate in.	Yes, the conclusions drawn are clearly founded in the empirical data presented in the analysis.	Include for analysis. This study is not about differences between different special education settings, but more about differences between mainstream/inclusion and special education. Nonetheless, there are points made here that carry relevance to the issue of special education class size. In terms of methodological quality, the study is well performed and transparently reported.
MAGI Educational Services, Inc. (1995)	No.	Some participant statements are presented, but it is not possible to determine whether these statements are representative for the participants as a whole, as there is no information on how the data were analysed (and thus how excerpts from different sources of data were selected).	No ethical considerations, but there is nothing to indicate problems.	Not possible to assess, since it is unclear how data were collected and there is no description of the approach to qualitative analysis.	Exclude from analysis. No philosophical or theoretical perspective stated, very limited description of data collection, and the approach to qualitative analysis is not described.

5.1. Description of studies

Despite the comprehensive searches, the present review only included seven studies published between 1926 and 2020. Two studies had eligible quantitative data (Metzner, 1926 ; Forness, 1985 ) and were from the U.S. Four studies used qualitative or mixed methods methodology and contained eligible qualitative data (Gottlieb, 1997 ; Huang, 2020 ; Keith, 1993a ; Prunty, 2012 ); these studies were from the U.S. (2) China (1) and Ireland (1). One study, MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 (from the U.S.) contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data and was therefore included as both a quantitative and a qualitative study. Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the main characteristics for the seven included studies.

5.1.1. Results of the search

Figure 1 shows a flow diagram for the search. Nine international bibliographic databases + EBSCO Dissertations were searched in April 2021. In addition, extensive searches for grey literature in international and Nordic resources, hand‐searches in 11 core journals, and citation‐tracking and snowballing were performed in the period from January to May 2022. All searches performed are documented in Supporting Information: Appendices 3–6 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is CL2-19-e1345-g001.jpg

Please note that one study (MAGI Educational Services, year) was included as both a quantitative and qualitative study and is therefore counted in both categories.

After excluding duplicates, we found 26,141 potential records (bibliographic databases: 15,909, grey literature: 6955, hand searches: 6513, and citation‐tracking/snowballing: 499).

All 26,141 records were screened based on title and abstract, and 262 records were retrieved and screened in full text. Of these, 255 did not fulfill the screening criteria and were excluded.

Seven studies (reported in seven papers) met the inclusion criteria and were quality appraised and data‐extracted by the review authors. Descriptive details for the seven included studies are given in Tables 1 and 2 .

5.1.2. Included studies

The two studies containing only eligible quantitative data were published in 1926 and 1985, respectively. Metzner ( 1926 ), was an experimental study in which children with mental retardation received instruction in classes of varying sizes (treated were three classes with 15 students, three classes with 20 students, three classes with 25 students, and three classes with 30 students; controls were 12 classes with 22 students). Outcomes included the Pressy Reading Test and the Stanford Achievement Test for Grades 2 and 3. Forness ( 1985 ) explored the effects of class size on attention, communication, and disruptive behaviour of children with mild mental retardation. The children attended five small classes (10–13 students), 14 medium classes (14–16 students), and seven large classes (18–21 students). Outcomes consisted of observations of classroom behaviour in four categories: communication, attention, no attention, and disruption.

The four qualitative or mixed methods studies which contained only eligible qualitative data were published between 1993 and 2020 and had diverse research objectives, research designs, and types of data. Gottlieb ( 1997 ) was a mixed methods evaluation study using questionnaires, observations, interviews, and student achievement data. The research objective was to assess the impact of increases in instructional group sizes in resource rooms and speech services in the New York City Public Schools. Huang ( 2020 ) was a dissertation based on semi‐structured interviews with 32 special education teachers in China. The research objective for this study was to investigate Chinese special education teachers' perceptions and practices related to individualising or adapting instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including their perceptions of potential barriers to such adaptation (of which large class sizes was one). Keith ( 1993a ) was a mixed methods research report that investigated Virginia special education program standards, focusing on local applications of the standards for class size and class mix and the effect of varying class size and class mix on student outcomes. The report was based on interviews, observations, document reviews, and survey data. Prunty ( 2012 ) was a qualitative study based on focus group and individual interviews with 38 children and young people with special educational needs eliciting their views on mainstream and special education placement.

Finally, MAGI Educational Services, Inc. ( 1995 ) was an article containing both eligible quantitative and qualitative data from the New York Class Size Research Study. MAGI Educational Services, Inc. ( 1995 ) reported on two different studies: one was a descriptive mixed‐methods study based on data from 17 randomly selected upstate districts and 10 randomly selected New York City Community School Districts, with data collection consisting of document review, focus groups, public hearings, and surveys of key informants. The second study referred to as the observation study was a quasi‐experimental study in which students with special needs within segregated special education were observed in two class size conditions (12:1 and 15:1). Two standardised observational instruments were used: The Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic Response (MS‐CISSAR), and The Instructional Environment System (TIES II).

5.1.3. Excluded studies

10 studies were initially included, but were later excluded with reasons. A list of these late‐stage excluded studies can be found in Excluded studies, with reasons for exclusion provided.

5.2. Risk of bias in included studies

No studies reported on randomised trials. Three studies were assessed using the ROBINS‐I tool: Metzner ( 1926 ), Forness ( 1985 ), and MAGI Educational Services, Inc. ( 1995 ) (the quantitative part of the study). The full risk of bias assessment of the three studies is shown in Table 3 . The overall assessment of the three studies resulted in one ‘moderate risk of bias’ assessment (Metzner, 1926 ) and two ‘critical risk of bias’ assessments (Forness, 1985 , and MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 ). Metzner ( 1926 ) was assessed to be a well‐performed study and rated with ‘moderate risk of bias’ across all domains, except for classification bias, which was rated ‘low risk of bias’. Forness, 1985 , was assessed as having an overall ‘critical risk of bias’ due to a ‘critical risk of bias’ rating in the confounding domain, after which the rating was stopped. The same was true for MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 , which also received a ‘critical risk of bias’ in the confounding domain. In both cases, the reason for judging the confounding domain as ‘critical risk of bias’ was a lack of controls for any confounding factors within the studies.

5.3. Effects of interventions

5.3.1. quantitative studies.

As noted, two quantitative studies were given a ‘critical risk of bias’ rating corresponding to a risk of bias so high that the findings should not be considered in the data synthesis (Forness, 1985 ; MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 ). One study (Metzner, 1926 ) received a ‘moderate risk of bias’ rating. Unfortunately, Metzner, 1926 , did not report SD's and it was not possible to derive them from other values or to retrieve information from the study authors due to the age of the study. Therefore, it was only possible to perform a descriptive data extraction, which is shown in Table 1 .

5.3.2. Qualitative studies

Only five qualitative or mixed‐methods studies containing eligible qualitative data (including MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 , which was also counted as a quantitative study) were found in the searches. Of these five studies, three were given an overall quality appraisal of ‘Include’ (Gottlieb, 1997 ; Huang, 2020 ; Prunty, 2012 ), whereas two were given an ‘Exclude’ appraisal (Keith, 1993a ; MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 ). With only three eligible studies, two of which contained only limited data specific to special education class size, it was not feasible to perform a thematic synthesis, as we had planned and described in the protocol. Instead, we will present the quality appraisal of the five studies and provide short summaries of the main findings from the three studies that were given an overall appraisal of ‘Include’.

Of the five qualitative or mixed methods studies containing eligible qualitative data, three studies were given an overall appraisal of ‘Include’: Gottlieb ( 1997 ), Huang ( 2020 ) and Prunty ( 2012 ). Gottlieb ( 1997 ) was found to implement an appropriate design for an evaluation report and reviewers noted that there was a clear link between the conclusions drawn and the descriptive data presented. The study by Huang ( 2020 ) was not mainly concerned with class size in special education, but there were a few findings relevant to this review. In terms of methodological quality, the study was well‐performed and transparently reported. Finally, Prunty ( 2012 ) mainly explored differences between mainstream/inclusion settings and special education. Nonetheless, there were some findings carrying relevance to special education class size, and as was the case with Huang ( 2020 ), the study was transparent and applied a consistent methodological approach.

Two studies were given an overall appraisal of ‘Exclude’, meaning that they were not eligible to be included in a thematic analysis: Keith ( 1993a ), and MAGI Educational Services, Inc. ( 1995 ). Both studies were excluded due to a lack of transparency in the reporting of data collection methods and analytical procedures.

The full critical appraisals of qualitative studies can be found in Table 4 .

Summary of qualitative findings

In the following, the three qualitative or mixed methods studies given an overall appraisal of ‘Include’ are individually summarised with a focus on findings of relevance to special education class size.

Gottlieb ( 1997 ) explored the impact of increases in instructional group size in resource rooms in the New York City Public Schools by examining increases in 45 public elementary, middle, and senior high schools. The empirical data were gathered through both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Teachers, administrators and principals were interviewed alongside 31 h of observations in resource rooms. Furthermore, questionnaires were distributed to parents and analyses of standardised reading and arithmetic achievement data were performed.

Findings indicated that the increases in instructional group size economically saved the resource room program around 26 million dollars. However, there was a substantial decrease in the reading achievement scores of resource room students, especially at the sixth grade level. Math scores also declined, but not significantly. Furthermore, interviews with resource room teachers suggested that the increase in instructional group size reduced teachers' ability to help students. This was in line with the independent observations which revealed that teachers spent very little time on individual instruction and more time on group instruction and accompanying students to and from their classrooms.

Finally, 25 school principals were interviewed and the conclusion drawn from these interviews was ‘…that principals did not think increases in the instructional group size was a good idea’; in fact, one principal was quoted for saying: ‘You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this (increased instructional group size in resource rooms) was a bad idea’ (Gottlieb, 1997 , p.20). Based on the findings of the study, authors made the recommendation that no more than five students should receive resource room instruction at one time.

Huang ( 2020 ) aimed to investigate Chinese special education teachers' perceptions and practices related to individualising or adapting instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Specifically, the investigation focused on teachers who taught elementary Chinese language arts and math in public special education schools for students with IDD in Shanghai. A qualitative research design based on in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with 31 teachers from six schools was utilised. Teachers reported using strategies of dividing students into smaller groups within the classroom based on the students' intellectual abilities to provide students with individualised instruction. Even though the teachers wanted to address student differences, they admitted that it was difficult to provide adaptations to fully meet the students' individual needs and described specific challenges and barriers associated with this. Here, more than half of the participants emphasised that school contextual factors such as large class size and/or insufficient personnel helping out in the classrooms had an influence on teachers' ability to pay attention to the individual needs of students. Therefore, many participants pointed out that having one or more teaching assistants or smaller classes would be helpful.

Prunty ( 2012 ) mostly explored the perspectives of students with special needs on segregated special education versus mainstreamed/inclusive settings in Ireland and England. The empirical material was gathered through six focus group interviews and four individual interviews with children and young people with special educational needs. Some of these children had experiences from both mainstream and special education settings. Findings suggested that many students preferred segregated placement because of smaller classes and easier access to one‐on‐one instruction with teachers. Especially literacy support and diverse teaching styles for math were valued among the students. As an example, one student gave the following reason for preferring special class over mainstream placement: ‘… more adult help and smaller classes and stuff’ (Prunty, 2012 , p. 30).

6. DISCUSSION

6.1. summary of main results.

The major finding of the present review is that there are very few contemporary studies exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education. It was not possible to conduct a meta‐analysis nor a thematic qualitative synthesis from the studies found in this review, despite the breadth and comprehensiveness of the search strategy. It follows that there is no basis for broader interpretations regarding the effects of small class sizes in special education based on the studies located in this review. However, findings from the included qualitative studies show that smaller class sizes in special education are the most preferred option among the students, teachers, and school principals participating in these studies due to the possibilities afforded in terms of providing individualised and targeted instruction to each student.

6.2. Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

We performed a comprehensive electronic database search, combined with extensive grey literature searches, hand‐searches of key journals, and citation‐tracking. All references were screened by two independent screeners from the review team (JER, MHC, MWK), and at least one review author (AB, TF, NTD) assessed all included studies against inclusion criteria.

We believe that all publicly available quantitative studies on the effects of small class sizes in special education up to the censor date were identified during the review process. As can be seen from the included qualitative studies, class size was not the sole research focus of the studies; in fact, two of the included studies (Huang, 2020 ; Prunty, 2012 ) presented findings of relevance to the present review, despite the fact that the research objectives in these studies did not specifically target class size issues. It is possible that there are other qualitative studies where findings may be of relevance to the present review which we have not managed to locate despite our comprehensive search efforts.

23 references were not obtained in full text and one study provided insufficient information to permit us to calculate an effect size.

6.3. Quality of the evidence

Three studies containing eligible quantitative data were assessed using the ROBINS‐I tool. As a result, two studies were given a ‘critical risk of bias’ rating (Forness, 1985 , and MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995 ). One study (Metzner, 1926 ) received a ‘moderate risk of bias’ rating; unfortunately, this study did not report SD's and it was not possible to derive them from other values or to retrieve information from the study authors.

Five studies containing eligible qualitative data were rated using an adapted version of the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017 ; Lockwood, 2015 ). Of these five studies, three were assessed to be of sufficient quality and two were assessed to be of insufficient quality due to lack of transparency and methodological clarity.

6.4. Potential biases in the review process

We are unable to comment on the possibility of publication bias as no meta‐analysis could be conducted. Thus, we cannot rule out that there are still some missing studies.

We believe that there are no other potential biases in the review process as two members of the review team independently coded the included studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Further, decisions about inclusion of studies were made by two members of the review team and one review author. Assessment of study quality and numeric data extraction was made by the review authors (AB, TF, NTD) and checked by a second review author.

6.5. Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

As noted in the background section, few authors have previously tried to review the available literature on special education class sizes, and these reviews have not followed rigorous, systematic frameworks, such as those applied in the current review. Previous studies have pointed to the lack of evidence surrounding special education class size, but it was our hope that by applying extensive, systematic literature searches that were up‐to‐date with the latest developments in special education, we would reach a conclusion extending further than simply a call for more research. Nonetheless, this is exactly where we are left: calling for more research and hoping that the coming years will bring an increased interest in special education to the benefit of students, teachers, administrators, parents, and systematic reviewers alike.

7. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

7.1. implications for practice.

The research literature to this day provides little guidance on what the optimal class size is for students with special educational needs in segregated special education settings. Only three studies, published between 1926 and 1995, contained eligible quantitative data and were included in the review. Following assessment with the ROBINS‐I tool, two of these studies were given a ‘critical risk of bias’ rating; the last study was given ‘a moderate risk of bias’ rating, but no standard deviations could be derived. Therefore, it was not possible to perform meta‐analysis. Findings from the review of qualitative studies were also limited; out of five studies, three were assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality and were individually summarised, since it was not feasible to perform a thematic synthesis.

Until further research evidence is available, decision‐makers, parents, and teachers are best guided by relying on individual assessments of children and local best practice experiences in determining the optimal class size arrangements for different groups of children with special educational needs. As with all educational interventions, the effects of different class sizes in special education will likely be influenced by a host of contextual factors linked to the workings of different local and national educational systems. Adding to this contextual diversity is the fact that special needs provision, even within local contexts, is of a varied and specialised nature, often encompassing multiple types of provision for children and young people with very diverse special educational needs. What is evident is therefore that designing high‐quality special education classroom environments is a task that requires specialist knowledge about different types of special educational needs, insight into local types of school provision, and the ability to observe individual children and take their needs into consideration.

7.2. Implications for research

Findings from the present review suggest that there is an urgent need for more research on the effects of different class sizes in segregated special education using robust estimation techniques to, as far as possible, isolate the class size effect. From both a practical and an ethical standpoint, performing randomised trials within this area of research would likely not be feasible. However, a possible route would be to exploit the opportunities afforded by natural experiments where alterations to special education class sizes occur due to, for example, policy changes. Furthermore, there is also a need for more qualitative research on the way in which students, teachers, and parents experience different class sizes in special education, as they are the ones whose lives are most directly affected by the conditions surrounding different special education provisions. Such research could also look into the interplay between class size and other structural conditions (such as student–teacher ratio). Future qualitative research should be particularly concerned with providing a safe place for children and young people with special needs to voice their perspectives since it is the right of every child to be involved in decisions concerning his or her life and wellbeing. This imperative is reflected in the following statement from Prunty, 2012 : ‘As important decisions are being made with regard to legislation, policy and practice on educational provision for students with special educational needs, it is crucial that the views of the key players, the children, continue to be heard and considered’ (Prunty, 2012 , p. 29‐30).

CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS

Content: Anja Bondebjerg, Nina Thorup Dalgaard

Systematic review methods: Trine Filges, Anja Bondebjerg, Nina Thorup Dalgaard

Statistical analysis: Trine Filges

Information retrieval: Bjørn Christian Arleth Viinholt (information specialist)

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None of the review authors or assistants have conflicts of interest related to this review.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW

We stated in the protocol that we would search Open Grey (now Dans Easy). However, we chose to refrain from searching this resource on advice from information specialist Elizabeth Bengtsen (VIVE), who informed us that Open Grey/Dans Easy contains a lot of items that researchers and students can import by themselves without formal quality control. This is opposed to resources such as EBSCO Open Dissertations which contain only approved dissertations. We therefore chose to remove Open Grey/Dans Easy from our list of references to avoid unneccesary ‘noise’, focusing instead on resources with a higher degree of quality control.

Furthermore, we had planned to perform grey literature searches on the website of The European Educational Research Association (EERA). However, this website turned out to be very limited in terms of search functions, which is why we chose to perform separate hand‐searches in EERA's journal, European Educational Research Journal, instead. These searches are documented alongside the other hand‐searches in Supporting Information: Appendix 4 .

In the protocol, we stated that we would perform searches in ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest), but we were unable to do so due to lack of access. Nonetheless, we believe that our other searches were comprehensive enough to secure adequate coverage of dissertations (which are also included in several of the other databases and grey literature resources included in the search).

We planned to conduct a data synthesis using standard techniques for meta‐analytic reviews. There were, however, no studies to be included in a meta‐analysis and therefore no studies for moderator analysis to be performed and we were unable to comment on the possibility of publication bias. Similarly, due to the limited number of qualitative studies, we did not conduct a thematic synthesis of findings, but chose to summarise findings from each study separately.

PUBLISHED NOTES

Characteristics of excluded studies
Bloom ( )
	Compares students from one district to students in another district (unit bias)
Dykstra ( )
	This study investigates issues related to instructional group size, not class size.
Furno ( )
	Class size is measured as: the pupil's median class size over a period of 4 years, or, in particular, the school years 1959–1960, 1960–1961, 1961–1962, and 1962–1963. Only outcomes averaged over the six school years:1959–1960, 1960–1961, 1961–1962, 1962–1963, 1963–1964, and 1964–1965 are analysed.
Hart ( )
	Not about class size: A total of 33 children with ADHD were randomly assigned within days to either small‐group instruction, whole‐group instruction, or independent seatwork. The effects of instructional contexts on on‐task behaviour during instruction and on‐task behaviour and work productivity during testing were examined.
Keith ( )
	No numbers reported.
Patterson ( )
	Compares self‐contained classrooms to inclusion and mainstream. Also has a class size component specifically by placement type, but there is no variation in self‐contained classroom sizes (only 1–10), see Table 6.
Snart ( )
	Investigates student/teacher ratio, not class size. Also, the outcome in this study is not a validated measure of student classroom behaviour. Furthermore, authors state the following on p. 293: ‘Limited research access to the classrooms discussed within this study resulted in a confounding of condition with classroom, since we had agreed to spend only one full day per classroom’ (unit bias).
Steinbrenner ( )
	The classrooms analysed served between six and ten students (i.e., a varying number), but the analysis is not about class size, but instructional group size.
	Large groups is the whole class: The classrooms all used some large group instruction (e.g., morning group, academic instruction).
	Small group: A few of the classrooms also had small group times, in which the classroom staff worked with dyads or triads on academic tasks such as worksheets or book reading. The observations were planned to be conducted during two one‐to‐one sessions, two small group sessions (i.e., 2–3 students) and two large group sessions (i.e., 4 or more students) when possible. However, many classrooms did not have regularly scheduled small group sessions; therefore, additional large group sessions were observed for students who did not participate in small group sessions
Thurlow ( )
	Does not investigate class size, but how many teachers pr. student in instructional group, where the same students can be in more than one grouping.
Thurlow ( )
	Does not investigate class size, but how many teachers pr. student in instructional group, where the same students can be in more than one grouping (see p. 310 and Table 2).

SOURCES OF SUPPORT

Internal sources

VIVE, The Danish Centre for Social Science Research, Denmark

External sources

No sources of support provided

Supporting information

Supporting information.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to extend special thanks to our team of talented review assistants: Juliane Esper Ramstedt (JER), Malene Wallach Kildemoes (MWK), and Maluhs Haulund Christensen (MHC). Juliane contributed to the review by screening on first and second level, carrying out hand‐searches and searches for grey literature, performing descriptive coding of qualitative studies, and by creating qualitative study summaries. Malene Wallach Kildemoes and Maluhs Haulund Christensen contributed to the review by screening on first and second level and by performing hand‐searches and searches for grey literature.

Bondebjerg, A. , Dalgaard, N. T. , Filges, T. , & Viinholt, B. C. A. (2023). The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well‐being in special education: A systematic review . Campbell Systematic Reviews , 19 , e1345. 10.1002/cl2.1345 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

1 For more information on the IDEA Act disability categories, go to: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8 (the U.S. Department of Education's Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) website)

INCLUDED STUDIES

Forness, 1985

* Forness, S. R. , & Kavale, K. A. (1985). Effects of class size on attention, communication, and disruption of mildly mentally retarded children . American Educational Research Journal , 22 ( 3 ), 403–412. [ Google Scholar ]

Gottlieb, 1997

Gottlieb, J. , & Alter, M. (1997). An evaluation study of the impact of modifying instructional group sizes in resource rooms and related service groups in New York City. Final report. Revised . http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED414373&site=ehost-live

Huang, 2020

* Huang, S. (2020). Special education teachers' perceptions of and practices in individualizing instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in China [Dissertation, Boston University].

Keith, 1993a

* Keith, T. Z. (1993). Special education program standards study. Commonwealth of Virginia. Final technical report . Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State Department of Education.

MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995

*MAGI Educational Services, Inc . (1995). Results of a statewide reasearch study on the effects of class size in special education . Class Size Research Bulletin , 1 ( 1 ), 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]

Metzner, 1926

* Metzner, A. B. , & Berry, C. S. (1926). Size of class for mentally retarded children . Training School Bulletin , 23 , 241–251. [ Google Scholar ]

Prunty, 2012

* Prunty, A. , Dupont, M. , & McDaid, R. (2012). Voices of students with special educational needs (SEN): Views on schooling . Support for Learning , 27 , 29–36. [ Google Scholar ]
EXCLUDED STUDIES

Bloom, 1992

* Bloom, J. A. (1992). Effect of student‐teacher ratio on student achievement and teacher reported burnout in special education [Dissertation, Hofstra University].

Dykstra, 2013

* Dykstra, J. R. (2013). Student engagement in self‐contained classrooms serving students with autism spectrum disorders [Dissertation, ProQuest LLC].

Furno, 1967

* Furno, O. F. , & Collins, G. J. (1967). Class size and pupil learning. Baltimore City Public Schools . U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
* Hart, K. C. , Massetti, G. M. , Fabiano, G. A. , Pariseau, M. E. , & Pelham, Jr., W. E. (2011). Impact of group size on classroom on‐task behavior and work productivity in children with ADHD . Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders , 19 ( 1 ), 55–64. [ Google Scholar ]

Keith, 1993b

Keith, P. B. (1993, February 18). Others. investigating the influences of class size and class mix on special education student outcomes: Phase one results . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Clearwater, FL.

Patterson, 2016

* Patterson, D. (2016). A comparative study on academic performance of students with Asperger's syndrome in different classroom formats . ProQuest LLC.

Snart, 1985

* Snart, F. , & Hillyard, A. (1985). Staff ratios and allocated instructional time for multihandicapped students . Exceptional Children , 51 ( 4 ), 289–296. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Steinbrenner, 2015

* Steinbrenner, J. R. D. , & Watson, L. R. (2015). Student engagement in the classroom: The impact of classroom, teacher, and student factors . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 45 ( 8 ), 2392–2410. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thurlow, 1988

* Thurlow, M. L. , Ysseldyke, J. E. , & Wotruba, J. W. (1988). Student and instructional outcomes under varying student‐teacher ratios in special education (Research Report No. 12). Instructional Alternatives Project.

Thurlow, 1993

* Thurlow, M. L. , Ysseldyke, J. E. , Wotruba, J. W. , & Algozzine, B. (1993). Instruction in special education classrooms under varying Student‐Teacher ratios . Elementary School Journal , 93 ( 3 ), 305–320. [ Google Scholar ]
OTHER REFERENCES
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Achenbach, 2000

Achenbach, T. M. , & Ruffle, T. M. (2000). The Child Behavior Checklist and related forms for assessing behavioral/emotional problems and competencies . Pediatrics in Review , 21 ( 8 ), 265–271. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Ahearn, 1995

Ahearn, E. M. (1995). Caseload/class size in special education: A brief analysis of state regulations. Final report . National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Angrist, 1999

Angrist, J. D. , & Lavy, V. (1999). Using Maimonides' rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 114 ( 2 ), 533–575. [ Google Scholar ]

Angrist, 2009

Angrist, J. D. , & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion . Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]

Asher, 1984

Asher, S. R. , Hymel, S. , & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children . Child Development , 55 , 1456–1464. [ Google Scholar ]
Bell, R. M. , & McCaffrey, D. F. (2002). Bias reduction in standard errors for linear regression with multi‐stage samples . Survey Methodology , 28 ( 2 ), 169–181. [ Google Scholar ]

Biddle, 2002

Biddle, B. J. , & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Small class size and its effects . Educational Leadership , 59 ( 5 ), 12–23. [ Google Scholar ]

Bondebjerg, 2021

Bondebjerg, A. , Dalgaard, N. T. , Filges, T. , Thomsen, M. K. , & Viinholt, B. C. A. (2021). PROTOCOL: The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being in special education . Campbell Systematic Reviews , 17 ( 2 ), e1159. 10.1002/cl2.1159 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Borenstein, 2009

Borenstein, M. , Hedges, L. V. , Higgins, J. P. T. , & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta‐analysis . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]

Borland, 2005

Borland, M. V. , Howsen, R. M. , & Trawick, M. W. (2005). An investigation of the effect of class size on student academic achievement . Education Economics , 13 ( 1 ), 73–83. [ Google Scholar ]

Brown, 1991

Brown, L. , & Alexander, J. (1991). Self‐esteem index examiner's manual . PRO‐ED. [ Google Scholar ]

Cooke, 2012

Cooke, A. , Smith, D. , & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis . Qualitative Health Research , 22 ( 10 ), 1435–1443. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Donner, 2001

Donner, A. , Piaggio, G. , & Villar, J. (2001). Statistical methods for the meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trials . Statistical Methods in Medical Research , 10 ( 5 ), 325–338. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Ehrenberg, 2001

Ehrenberg, R. G. , Brewer, D. J. , Gamoran, A. , & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement . Psychological Science and the Public Interest , 2 ( 1 ), 1–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Europe, 2006

Europe, T. K. G. (2006). The Kidscreen questionnaires: Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents . Pabst Science Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]

Filges, 2018

Filges, T. , Sonne‐Schmidt, C. S. , & Nielsen, B. C. V. (2018). Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools . Campbell Systematic Reviews , 2018 ( 10 ), 107. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Finn, J. D. (2002). Small classes in American schools: Research, practice and politics . Phi Delta Kappan , 83 ( 7 ), 551–560. [ Google Scholar ]

Fisher, 1983

Fisher, D. L. , & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Validity and use of Classroom Environment Scale . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 5 , 261–271. [ Google Scholar ]

Frandsen, 2016

Frandsen, T. F. , Christensen, J. B. , & Ølholm, A. M. (2016). Systematisk søgning efter kvalitativ litteratur kan styrkes . Ugeskrift for Læger , 178 ( V06160384 ), 60–63. [ Google Scholar ]

Fraser, 1998

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications . Learning Environments Research , 1 , 7–34. [ Google Scholar ]

Fredriksson, 2013

Fredriksson, P. , Öckert, B. , & Oosterbeek, H. (2013). Long‐term effects of class size . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 128 ( 1 ), 249–285. [ Google Scholar ]

Goodman, 2000

Goodman, R. , Ford, T. , Richards, H. , Gatward, R. , & Meltzer, H. (2000). The development and well‐being assessment: Description and initial validation of an integrated assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 41 ( 5 ), 645–665. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Goodman, 2001

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire . Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 40 ( 11 ), 1337–1345. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Gough, 2012

Gough, D. , Thomas, J. , & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods . Systematic Reviews , 1 , 28. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Greenwood, 1978

Greenwood, C. R. , Delquadri, J. , & Hall, R. V. (1978). Code for instructional structure and student academic response: CISSAR . University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Childrens Project. [ Google Scholar ]

Hannes, 2011

Hannes, K. (2011). Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In Noyes J., Booth A., Hannes K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., & Lockwood C. (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions (p. 2011). Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. [ Google Scholar ]

Harden, 2005

Harden, A. , & Thomas, J. (2005). Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 ( 3 ), 257–271. [ Google Scholar ]

Harter, 1982

Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for children . Child Development , 53 ( 1 ), 87–97. [ Google Scholar ]

Heckman, 2006

Heckman, J. J. , Urzua, S. , & Vytlacil, E. (2006). Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity . The Review of Economics and Statistics , 88 ( 3 ), 389–432. [ Google Scholar ]

Heckman, 2010

Heckman, J. J. , & Urzua, S. (2010). Comparing IV with structural models: What simple IV can and cannot identify . Journal of Econometrics , 156 , 27–37. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Hedges, 2004

Hedges, L. W. , & Pigott, T. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta‐analysis . Psychological Methods , 9 ( 4 ), 426–445. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Hedges, 2007a

Hedges, L. V. , & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group randomized trials in education . Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 29 ( 1 ), 60–87. [ Google Scholar ]

Hedges, 2007b

Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster‐randomized designs . Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics , 32 ( 4 ), 341–370. [ Google Scholar ]

Hedges, 2007c

Hedges, L. V. (2007). Meta‐analysis. In Rao C. R. (Ed.), The handbook of statistics (pp. 919–953). Elsevier. [ Google Scholar ]

Hedges, 2010

Hedges, L. V. , Tipton, E. , & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates . Research Synthesis Methods , 1 , 39–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins, 2003

Higgins, J. P. , Thompson, S. G. , Deeks, J. J. , & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses . British Medical Journal , 327 ( 7414 ), 557–560. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins, 2011a

Higgins, J. P. T. , Altman, D. G. , Goetzsche, P. C. , Juni, P. , Moher, D. , Oxman, A. D. , Savovic, J. , Schulz, K. F. , Weeks, L. , Sterne, J. A. C. , & Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group . (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials . BMJ , 343 , d5928. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins, 2011b

Higgins, J. P. T. , & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Wiley‐Blackwell, The Cochrane Collaboration. [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins, 2016

Higgins, J. P. T. , Sterne, J. A. C. , Savovic, J. , Page, M. J. , Hrobjartsson, A. , Boutron, I. , Reeves, B. , & Eldridge, S . (2016). A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials . In Chandler J., McKenzie J., Boutron I., & Welch V. (Eds.), Cochrane methods (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016. Issue 10 . (Suppl. 1) 10.1002/14651858.CD201601 [ CrossRef ]

Higgins, 2019

Higgins, J. P. T. , Savovic, J. , Page, M. J. , & Sterne, J. A. C. (editors on behalf of the ROB2 Development Group Revised). (2019). Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2): Detailed guidance , updated 15 March. Retrieved May 2, 2019, from http://www.riskofbias.info

Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017

Joanna Briggs Institute . (2017). JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research . Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_AppraisalChecklist_for_Qualitative_Research2017_0.pdf

Kavale, 2000

Kavale, K. A. , & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate . Remedial and Special Education , 21 ( 5 ), 279–296. [ Google Scholar ]

Konstantopoulos, 2006

Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Fixed and mixed effects models in meta‐analysis (IZADP No. 2198).

Lipsey, 2001

Lipsey, M. W. , & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta‐analysis . Applied Social Research Methods Series , 49 , 247. [ Google Scholar ]

Lockwood, 2015

Lockwood, C. , Munn, Z. , & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta‐aggregation . International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare , 13 ( 3 ), 179–187. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Mather, 2001

Mather, N. , Wendling, B. J. , & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Essentials of WJ III [TM] tests of achievement assessment. Essentials of psychological assessment series . John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]

Mathur, 2020

Mathur, M. B. , & VanderWeele, T. J. (2020). Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta‐analyses . Applied Statistics , 69 ( 5 ), 1091–1119. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

McCaffrey, 2001

McCaffrey, D. F. , Bell, R. M. , & Botts, C. H. (2001, August 5–9). Generalizations of biased reduced linearization . Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association.

McCrea, 1996

McCrea, L. (1996). A review of literature: SpecialSpecial education and class size (Michigan State Board of Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED, 407 387).

Minnesota Department, 2000

Minnesota Department, Children, Families & Learning . (2000). Issues in special education caseload/class size policy. Report summary . https://mn.gov/mnddc/past/pdf/00s/00/00-ISE-MDE.pdf
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications . Jossey‐Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
Moos, R. H. , & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale manual . Consulting Psychologists Press. [ Google Scholar ]

Noyes, 2011a

Noyes, J. , & Lewin, S. (2011). Chapter 6: Supplemental Guidance on Selecting a Method of Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, and Integrating Qualitative Evidence with Cochrane Intervention Reviews. In Noyes J., Booth A., Hannes K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., & Lockwood C. (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions (p. 22). Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. [ Google Scholar ]

Noyes, 2011b

Noyes, J. , & Lewin, S. (2011). Chapter 5: Extracting qualitative evidence. In Noyes J., Booth A., Hannes K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., & Lockwood C. (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane Systematic reviews of interventions (p. 24). Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. [ Google Scholar ]

Noyes, 2019

Noyes, J. , Booth, A. , Cargo, M. , Flemming, K. , Harden, A. , Harris, J. , Garside, R. , Hannes, K. , Pantoja, T. , & Thomas, J. (2019). Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence . In Higgins J. P. T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M. J., & Welch V. A. (Eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019) (p. 18) . Cochrane.

Oxman, 1992

Oxman, A. D. , & Guyatt, G. H. (1992). A consumers guide to subgroup analyses . Annals of Internal Medicine , 116 ( 1 ), 78–84. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Project FORUM, 2000

Project FORUM . (2000). Special education issues in caseload/class size . National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). [ Google Scholar ]

Project FORUM, 2003

Project FORUM . (2003). Caseload/class size in special education . National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). [ Google Scholar ]

Renninger, 2006

Renninger, A. , Sigel, I. E. , Damon, W. , & Lerner, R. M. (2006). Handbook of child psychology, child psychology in practice . John Wiley & Sons Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
Russ, S. , Chiang, B. , Rylance, B. J. , & Bongers, J. (2001). Caseload in special education: An integration of research findings . Exceptional Children , 67 ( 2 ), 161–172. [ Google Scholar ]

Sanchez‐Meca, 2003

Sanchez‐Meca, J. , Marin‐Martinez, F. , & Chacon‐Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect‐size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta‐analysis . Psychological Methods , 8 ( 4 ), 448–467. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Satterthwaite, 1946

Satterthwaite, F. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components . Biometrics , 2 , 110–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Schanzenbach, 2007

Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). What have researchers learned from Project STAR? Brookings Papers on Education Policy . Brookings Institution. [ Google Scholar ]

Snilstveit, 2018

Snilstveit, B. , Stevenson, J. , Langer, L. , Polanin, J. , Shemilt, I. , Eyers, J. , & Ferraro, P. J. (2018). Protocol: Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector: A mixed‐methods systematic review of the effectiveness of payment for environment services (PES) on environmental and socio‐economic outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries . The Campbell Collaboration. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]

Snilstveit, 2019

Snilstveit, B. , Stevenson, J. , Langer, L. , Tannous, N. , Ravat, Z. , Nduku, P. , Polanin, J. , Shemilt, I. , Eyers, J. , & Ferraro, P. J. (2019). Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector ‐ the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review . Campbell Systematic Reviews 2019 , 15 , e1045. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Sterne, 2005

Sterne, J. A. , Becker, B. J. , & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In: Rothstein H. R., Sutton A. J., & Borenstein M. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta‐analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75–98). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]

Sterne, 2016a

Sterne, J. A. C. , Hernan, M. A. , Reeves, B. C. , Savovic, J. , Berkman, N. D. , Viswanathan, M. , Henry, D. , Altman, D. G. , Ansari, T. G. , Boutron, I. , Carpenter, J. R. , Chan, A.‐W. , Churchill, R. , Deeks, J. J. , Hróbjartsson, A. , Kirkham, J. , Jüni, P. , Loke, Y. K. , Pigott, T. D. , … Higgins, J. P. T. (2016). ROBINS‐I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non‐randomized studies of interventions . BMJ , 355 ( i4919 ), i4919. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Sterne, 2016b

Sterne, J. A. C. , Higgins, J. P. T. , Elbers, R. G. , & Reeves, B. C. (2016). The development group for ROBINS‐I. Risk Of Bias In Non‐randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS‐I): Detailed guidance , updated 12 October. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from http://www.riskofbias.info

Tanner‐Smith, 2014

Tanner‐Smith, E. E. , & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS . Research Synthesis Methods , 5 ( 1 ), 13–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Psychological Corporation, 1990

The Psychological Corporation . (1990). Stanford Achievement Test Series: Technical data report . Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. [ Google Scholar ]

Thomas, 2008

Thomas, J. , & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 8 , 45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thomas, 2022

Thomas, J. , Graziosi, S. , Brunton, J. , Ghouze, Z. , O'Driscoll, P. , Bond, M. , & Koryakina, A. (2022). EPPI‐Reviewer: Advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis . EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.

Tipton, 2015

Tipton, E. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta‐regression . Psychological Methods , 20 ( 3 ), 375. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Vehmas, 2010

Vehmas, S. (2010). Special needs: A philosophical analysis . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 14 ( 1 ), 87–96. [ Google Scholar ]

Whittemore, 2014

Whittemore, R. , Chao, A. , Jang, M. , Minges, K. E. , & Park, C. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview . Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care , 43 ( 5 ), 453–461. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wilson, 2002

Wilson, J. (2002). Defining “special needs” . European Journal of Special Needs Education , 17 ( 1 ), 61–66. [ Google Scholar ]

Ysseldyke, 1986

Ysseldyke, J. E. , Christenson, S. L. , McVicar, R. , Bakewell, D. , & Thurlow, M. L. (1986). Instructional environment scale: Scale development and training procedures . University of Minnesota, Instructional Alternatives Project. [ Google Scholar ]

Ysseldyke, 1988

Ysseldyke, J. E. (1988). Student‐teacher ratios and their relationship to instruction and achievement for mildly handicapped students. Final Project Report . University of Minnesota.

Zarghami, 2004

Zarghami, F. , & Schnellert, G. (2004). Class size reduction: No silver bullet for special education students' achievement . International Journal of Special Education , 19 ( 1 ), 89–96. [ Google Scholar ]

-->

Internet:

The teacher-pupil ratio in special education is determined by each state. Some states have statewide policies on class size; some states have no policy; and a few states let the local education agency (LEA) determine class size. Staffing ratios are usually based on the disability category and educational placement of the student, with classes for children with severe disabilities usually having fewer students. Some states are reexamining their policies to better support students in inclusive settings. As they revise their policies on the teacher-student ratio, they are looking at the intensity of services needed and the amount of time required for the specially designed instruction.

Following are selected citations from the ERIC database and the search terms we used to find the citations.

(http://ericae.net/) (http://www.eduref.org/).

The full text of ERIC documents (for example, EDxxxxxx) is available: .

The full text of citations beginning with an EJ number (for example, EJxxxxxx) is available for a fee from: : 800.422.4633; , : 800.296.2221; ,

ED439574 EC307753
Special Education Issues in Caseload/Class Size. Quick Turn Around (QTS) Forum.
Publication Date: March 2000
6p.
Available from: Project FORUM at NASDE, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 320, Alexandria, VA 22314. Tel: 703-519-3800 (voice); Tel: 703-519-7008 (TDD) (available in alternative formats).
EDRS Price: MF01/PC01 Plus Postage
Language: English
Document Type: REPORTS (141)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Virginia
Journal Announcement: RIESEP2000
This issue brief provides an update on state regulations on caseload/class size in special education. The regulations from 27 states were reviewed and characteristics of state regulations are explained. Findings indicate that no two states have the same regulations on class size/caseload for special education. The size of the regulation varies from as short as one sentence to a very detailed eight pages. Two general types of regulations exist: those that are prescriptive on the basis of various elements and those that are nonprescriptive or general in nature. Among the prescriptive states, some use one criterion, while others use a combination. Limits are given in different forms; some are specific numbers while others use a range. In addition, some states use maximums and others use averages. States using single-criterion regulations use type of program, type of staff, and type of disability to set pupil-teacher ratios. Those states which have multiple criteria regulations use the following categories: by disability and program type, by disability and grade level, by program type and grade level, by teacher license and grade level, and by program type, grade level, and disability.
Descriptors: *Class Size; *Criteria; *Disabilities; Elementary Secondary Education; *Special Education; Specifications; *State Regulation; State Standards; *Teacher Student Ratio; Elementary Secondary Education; Specifications; State Standards

EJ630911 EC627972
Teachers' Perceived Needs To Become More Effective Inclusion Practitioners: A Single School Study.
Edmunds, Alan
Exceptionality Education Canada; v10 n3 p3-23 2000
ISSN:1183-322X
Language: English
Document Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE (080); RESEARCH REPORT (143)
Journal Announcement: CIJFEB2002
Sixty-one junior and senior high school teachers responded to measures of perceptions of inclusion, needs for effective inclusion practice, and knowledge of inclusion. Teachers felt inadequately prepared for inclusion and indicated their primary need was for more specific inclusion training. They also believed that reducing workloads would be of particular benefit.
Descriptors: *Class Size; *Disabilities; *Inclusive Schools; *Knowledge Base for Teaching; *Teacher Attitudes; *Teacher Education; Foreign Countries; Professional Development; Secondary Education; Teacher Competencies
Identifiers: Canada

ED390193 EC304457
Caseload/Class Size in Special Education: A Brief Analysis of State Regulations. Final Report.
Ahearn, Eileen M.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Alexandria, VA. Dec. 12, 1995
66p.; Prepared by Project FORUM.
Sponsoring Agency: Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.
Contract No: HS92015001
EDRS Price - MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: PROJECT DESCRIPTION (141)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Virginia
Journal Announcement: RIEMAY96
Target Audience: Policymakers
State special education regulations on class size/caseload in special education programs and services are analyzed, and regulations from 21 states are excerpted. Research on class size in general education and special education is reviewed. While there are hundreds of studies reported for general education, there have been very few studies focused on class size and special education. Characteristics of some state regulations that govern student-teacher ratios are addressed. State requirements for class size/caseload in special education programs and services are more specific and complicated than those for general education. It is suggested that there is no single best way to determine appropriate class and group size for special instructional programs and services. However, there is a need for more research to identify factors involved to support the policymaking process. Regulatory information is presented for the following states: Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia.
Descriptors: *Class Size; *Disabilities; Educational Policy; Elementary Secondary Education; *Special Education; Special Education Teachers; *State Regulation; *Teacher Student Ratio; Teaching Load

EJ461283 EC605515
Caseloads of Teachers of Students with Behavioral Disorders.
Algozzine, Bob; And Others
Behavioral Disorders, v18 n2 p103-09 Feb 1993
ISSN: 0198-7249
Language: English
Document Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE (080); RESEARCH REPORT (143)
Journal Announcement: CIJAUG93
Caseloads of teachers of students with serious emotional disturbances/behavior disorders were examined to compare current service delivery across states. Caseloads ranged from 3 to 35 students per teacher. Evaluation of hypothetical relations between caseload and predicted student achievement showed that predicted achievement decreased as caseload increased.
Descriptors: *Academic Achievement; *Behavior Disorders; Class Size; Elementary Secondary Education; *Emotional Disturbances; National Surveys; *Teacher Student Ratio

ED319206 EC230896
Class Size Reduction Policies: Survey Results.
Butler, Shirley E., Comp.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Washington, D.C. Aug 1989; 33p.; For related document, see EC 230 894. Best copy available.
EDRS Price - MF01/PC02 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: STATISTICAL MATERIAL (110); LEGAL MATERIAL (090); RESEARCH REPORT (143)
Geographic Source: U.S.; District of Columbia
Journal Announcement: RIEOCT90
This survey gathered data from 36 state directors of special education as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and American-controlled principalities regarding their area's regulations (or lack thereof) for reduction of class sizes in regular education classes when disabled students are mainstreamed into those classes. Only Massachusetts and Hawaii were found to have such regulations, and their programs are described. Five of the others allowed such regulations to be assigned on a local level, while in other areas such matters were managed through provisions of teacher contracts. Details on all states' provisions are given.
Descriptors: *Class Size; *Disabilities; Elementary Secondary Education; Eligibility; Faculty Workload; Handicap Identification; *Mainstreaming; *State Legislation; State Programs; *State Standards; State Surveys; Teacher Qualifications; *Teacher Student Ratio

ED355708 EC301956
Investigating the Influences of Class Size and Class Mix on Special Education Student Outcomes: Phase One Results. Keith, Patricia B.; And Others
18 Feb 1993; 7p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association (Clearwater, FL, February 18, 1993).
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), Washington, DC.
Contract No: M159A10002
EDRS Price - MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: CONFERENCE PAPER (150); RESEARCH REPORT (143)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Virginia
Journal Announcement: RIEAUG93
This study investigated students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), serious emotional disturbances (SED), and educable mental retardation (EMR) to determine if class size and class mix influence educational outcomes. A total of 110 students in 12 classrooms were included in the sample, which included classes with waivers (classes out of compliance with Virginia standards) for class size or class mix; waivered classes with SLD, SED, and EMR students; and classes in compliance with Virginia standards (non-waivered classes). Four academic achievement areas and nine affective areas were used as educational outcomes in the quantitative and qualitative research. Results indicated that student achievement is affected by class size; students in single disability classes appeared to have higher reading, math, and social studies achievement than students who were mixed with other disabilities; students in non-waivered classes had better general behavior and were making more progress toward their educational goals than students in waivered classes; student self-concept, motivation level, time on task, educational aspirations, liking of special education classes, and awareness of special education placement were not significantly different in waivered versus non-waivered classes; and teaching methods were not significantly different.
Descriptors: Academic Achievement; Affective Behavior; *Class Size; Elementary Secondary Education; *Emotional Disturbances; *Grouping (Instructional Purposes); *Learning Disabilities; *Mild Mental Retardation; Outcomes of Education; *Performance Factors; Student Behavior
Identifiers: Virginia

ED369207 EC302936
Special Education Program Standards Study. Commonwealth of Virginia. Final Technical Report.
Keith, Timothy Z.; And Others
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg.; Virginia State Dept. of Education, Richmond. 25 Aug 1993 261p.; Sponsoring Agency: Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Contract No: N159A10002
EDRS Price - MF01/PC11 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: RESEARCH REPORT (143); TEST, QUESTIONNAIRE (160)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Virginia
Journal Announcement: RIESEP94
Government: State
This federally funded study investigated Virginia special education program standards, focusing on local applications of the standards for class size and class mix and the effect of varying class size and class mix on student outcomes. The study concentrated on students with educable mental retardation, severe emotional disturbance, and specific learning disabilities. The research model involved interviews, observations, and document reviews at three local education agencies and a survey of over 1,000 special education teachers and administrators. The study found that: (1) Directors of Special Education and special education teachers consistently recommended smaller resource classes than current standards allow; (2) teachers believed that manageable class sizes with paraprofessionals were not much larger than manageable class sizes without paraprofessionals; (3) students in larger classes achieved at a lower level than students in smaller classes, with reading achievement affected more than mathematics and with elementary students affected more than secondary students; (4) smaller classes had no effect on students' self-concept, behavior, level of motivation, work habits, or interpersonal skills; (5) Directors supported mixing students with different disabilities in the same class while teachers did not; (6) mixing students with different disabilities had no effect on academic achievement, motivation, self-concept, work habits, or interpersonal skills; and (7) most Directors support noncategorical placement and integration into regular education. Appendices provide copies of the survey forms and various program administration materials. Descriptors: Academic Achievement; *Administrator Attitudes; Classroom Environment; *Class Size; *Disabilities; Elementary Secondary Education; Emotional Disturbances; Learning Disabilities; *Mainstreaming; Mild Mental Retardation; Outcomes of Education; Special Education Teachers; *State Standards; *Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Student Ratio
Identifiers: *Virginia

ED407387 SP037303
A Review of Literature: Special Education and Class Size.
McCrea, Linda D.
30 Sep 1996; 32p.
Sponsoring Agency: Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing.
EDRS Price - MF01/PC02 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: REVIEW LITERATURE (070)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Michigan
Journal Announcement: RIESEP97
This review has two parts: the first concerns class size and general education; the second, class size and special education. The general education review is in four sections: (1) foundational class size research; (2) critiques of the foundational works; (3) extended research; and (4) five studies in class size research conducted by states. The second part (on special education) reviews representative samples from an ERIC search of approximately 387 articles. These studies were: a national survey conducted by the University of Minnesota (1989) to document student to teacher ratios; also at the University of Minnesota (1993) an investigation of ratios of less than 15:1; a study conducted by the Virginia State Department of Education (1994) on special education program standards; another study in Virginia (1993) that investigated whether class size and class mix influenced educational outcomes; a New York State Education Department study to evaluate the impact of larger class size on those involved in the special education delivery system; and a study of individual caseloads. The review of these special education studies found that: (1) the maximum student to teacher ratio in special education is usually 15:1; (2) students are generally grouped by academic performance, not by their educational and management needs; (3) smaller classes provide better environments for learning, especially at the elementary level; (4) student achievement and behavior are affected by class size; (5) class size is impacted by other variables, including use of paraprofessionals and teacher experience; and (6) there is no one best teaching methodology to assure students success.
Descriptors: Academic Achievement; *Class Size; Disabilities; Educational Policy; Educational Research; Elementary Secondary Education; *Small Classes; *Special Education; Special Education Teachers; State Regulation; *Teacher Student Ratio

EJ458139 PS520132
Instruction in Special Education Classrooms under Varying Student-Teacher Ratios.
Thurlow, Martha L.; And Others
Elementary School Journal, v93 n3 p305-20 Jan 1993
ISSN: 0013-5984
Language: English
Document Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE (080); RESEARCH REPORT (143)
Journal Announcement: CIJJUN93
Compared instructional variables for first through sixth grade special education students who received instruction under different student-teacher ratios. There were significant differences in measures of qualitative and quantitative aspects of instruction, with nearly all favoring lower student-teacher ratios.
Descriptors: *Class Size; Comparative Analysis; *Disabilities; Elementary Education; *Elementary School Students; *Elementary School Teachers; Instructional Effectiveness; *Special Education; Special Needs Students; *Teacher Student Ratio; Teacher Student Relationship
Identifiers: *Instructional Variables

EJ390643 EC212893
State Recommended Student-Teacher Ratios for Mildly Handicapped Children.
Thurlow, Martha L.; And Others
Remedial and Special Education (RASE), v10 n2 p37-42 Mar-Apr 1989
Language: English
Document Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE (080); EVALUATIVE REPORT (142)
Journal Announcement: CIJOCT89
Thirty-nine states provided guidelines on student-teacher ratios for mildly handicapped students receiving special education services. Extreme variation was found in state recommended ratios and how ratios were defined. Ratios varied by special needs category, level of service, grade level, and age range; some states used weighted mathematical formulas.
Descriptors: *Class Size; Elementary Secondary Education; *Mild Disabilities; *Public Policy; Special Education; *State Standards; *Teacher Student Ratio; Teaching Load

ED304814 EC212504
Student and Instructional Outcomes under Varying Student-Teacher Ratios in Special Education. Research Report No. 12. Instructional Alternatives Project.
Thurlow, Martha L.; And Others
Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Aug 1988
37p.; Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), Washington, DC.
Grant No: G008630121
EDRS Price - MF01/PC02 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: RESEARCH REPORT (143)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Minnesota
Journal Announcement: RIEAUG89
The study examined the impact of varying student-teacher ratios on task completion and success, student instructional time, and quality of instruction in special education classes for mildly handicapped students. Subjects were 139 mainstreamed elementary students (grades 1-6), most of whom were categorically labeled as learning disabled (n=114). Students were observed during their special education time, within student-teacher ratios that varied from less than 1:1 (one student with two teachers) to over 15:1. Using grouped ratios represented by 1:1, 3:1, 6:1, 9:1, and 12:1, students' academic engaged time, task completion, and task success, as well as the qualitative nature of their instruction were compared. Targeted student behaviors were recorded by trained observers using rating scales and observational instruments. Data from structured interviews with students and teachers were also used. Significant differences were found in measures of both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of instruction, with nearly all favoring the lower student-teacher ratios. Lack of observed differences in task completion and task success rates (which were very high for all students in all student-teacher ratio groupings) was attributed to task content during special education instructional time.
Descriptors: *Academic Achievement; Class Size; Elementary Education; *Grouping (Instructional Purposes); *Learning Disabilities; Mainstreaming; *Mild Disabilities; Outcomes of Education; Teacher Effectiveness; *Teacher Student Ratio; Time on Task

EJ393699 EC220409
Special Education Student-Teacher Ratios for Mildly Handicapped Children.
Ysseldyke, James E.; And Others
Journal of Special Education, v23 n1 p95-106 Spr 1989
Language: English Document Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE (080); EVALUATIVE REPORT (142) Journal Announcement: CIJDEC89
A survey of 141 elementary and 79 secondary teachers of students with mild handicaps found that the average student-teacher ratio was 4.7:1, with a range of 1:1 to 15:1. Minor differences were found as a function of the students' categorical designations and elementary versus secondary level.
Descriptors: Class Size; Elementary Secondary Education; *Grouping (Instructional Purposes); *Mild Disabilities; *Teacher Student Ratio

ED306720 EC212783
Student-Teacher Ratios and Their Relationship to Instruction and Achievement for Mildly Handicapped Students. Final Project Report. Monograph No. 9. Instructional Alternatives Project.
Ysseldyke, James E.
Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Dept. of Educational Psychology. Aug 1988
45p.; Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), Washington, DC. Grant No: G008630121
EDRS Price - MF01/PC02 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: PROJECT DESCRIPTION (141)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Minnesota
Journal Announcement: RIEOCT89
This project report describes major features of the 2-year Student-Teacher Ratio Project, including objectives, personnel, activities, findings, and resulting products. The project's purpose was to conduct an analysis of the efficacy of current practices in student-teacher ratios for providing special education services to mildly handicapped students. Results of current research on student-teacher ratios within regular education remain inconclusive. The first of four studies revealed great variability in current special education student-teacher ratios, which were examined through an analysis of state guidelines and a national survey. In a second study, observations of 139 mildly handicapped elementary students under different student-teacher ratios (1:1, 3:1, 6:1, 9:1, 12:1) revealed differences in the qualitative nature of instruction and student academic response time, but no significant differences for task completion and task success. Next, a case study analysis revealed that the special education categorical label assigned to the student was unrelated to the effectiveness of different student-teacher ratios. A fourth study examined opinions about optimal student-teacher ratios for both student learning and teacher instruction. Results indicated that parents and teachers tended to prefer smaller group sizes, while administrators preferred larger group sizes. Project products, references, and a list of related research reports are appended. Descriptors: Academic Achievement; *Class Size; Educational Environment; Educational Quality; Elementary Education; *Grouping (Instructional Purposes); *Instructional Effectiveness; Labeling (of Persons); *Mild Disabilities; *Teacher Student Ratio

ED304816 EC212506
A Case Study Analysis of Factors Related to Effective Student-Teacher Ratios. Research Report No. 14. Instructional Alternatives Project.
Ysseldyke, James E.; And Others
Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Aug 1988
85p.; Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), Washington, DC.
Grant No: G008630121
EDRS Price - MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.
Language: English
Document Type: RESEARCH REPORT (143)
Geographic Source: U.S.; Minnesota
Journal Announcement: RIEAUG89
Case study analyses of nine mildly handicapped elementary students were conducted to identify factors related to gains in achievement and to higher active academic responding times (ART) in relation to different student-teacher ratios. Six learning disabled and three educable mentally retarded students (grades 3-5) were observed in special education settings under different student-teacher ratios. Information was collected on each student in the areas of aptitude, achievement gains during a one-year period, behavior, the nature of home, school, and community learning environments, methods of instruction, and the student's academic engaged time (and other times) under different student-teacher ratios. Results indicated considerable inter-individual and intra-individual variability in all factors examined, but few consistent trends. Among conclusions discussed is that ART changes in relation to several variables, particularly the content area of instruction, the nature of the task, and environmental distractions. The data also seemed to indicate that the special education categorical label assigned to a student does not determine the effectiveness of different student-teacher ratios. Results suggested that ART is higher when the method of instruction is some form of direct instruction.
Descriptors: Academic Achievement; *Achievement Gains; Case Studies; Class Size; Elementary Education; *Grouping (Instructional Purposes); *Instructional Effectiveness; Labeling (of Persons); *Learning Disabilities; *Mild Mental Retardation; *Teacher Student Ratio; Time on Task
Identifiers: Direct Instruction

-->

Click on before you visit your favorite on-line stores including )-->and many more of your favorite stores. Thanks for making Hoagies' Gifted community possible!

Your donations help keep Hoagies' Gifted Education Page on-line.

best links, also visit

best products, also visit

is a non-profit organization recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.

Toggle Accessibility Statement
Skip to Main Content

July 26, 2010 DO 93, s. 2010 – Revision to DepEd Order No. 77, S. 2010 (Guidelines on the Allocation/Deployment of New Teaching, Teaching-Related and Non-Teaching Positions for FY 2010)

1. Item Nos. 2.a, and 1.c, d and e of DepEd Order No. 77, s. 2010 are hereby revised and should read as follows:

Exceptionality	One Grade Level	Multi-grade/Multi-level
Gifted/Fast Learners	30:1 – 35:1	15:1 – 20:1
Intellectual disability	8:1 – 15:1	5:1 – 8:1
Autism Spectrum Disorder	5:1 – 8:1	3:1 – 6:1
Visual impairment	7:1 – 10:1	5:1 – 6:1
Hearing impairment	7:1 – 15:1	6:1 – 8:1
Physical disabilities and health improvement	10:1 – 15:1	7:1 – 10:1
Multiple diabilities	3:1 – 5:1	2:1 – 3:1

SPED Teachers to be hired must be degree holders of the following courses: 1. Bachelor of Elementary Education specializing in Special Education; 2. Bachelor of Science in Elementary or Secondary Education, major in Special Education; 3. Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education or Secondary Education plus 18 units in special education in the graduate level; 4. Bachelor of Science in Elementary or Secondary Education plus 16 units in special education with 2 years of very satisfactory teaching experience in the regular schools; 5. Bachelor of Science in Elementary or Secondary Education plus 14 units in special education with 4 years of very satisfactory experience in the regular schools; and 6. Bachelor of Science in Elementary or Secondary Education plus 12 units in special education with 6 years of very satisfactory experience in the regular schools.

Furthermore, priority shall be given to teachers who have handled a SPED program for more than ten (10) years and still occupying Teacher I plantilla item.

c. Alternative Learning System (ALS) classes/centers . The allocation shall be at least one (1) Teacher I (Mobile Teacher) per district. The ALS Mobile Teachers to be hired must be holders of Bachelors degree in Education and LET passers. They must be willing to be assigned in the Community Learning Centers (CLCs) within the district”.

2. Immediate dissemination of and compliance with this Order is directed.

Everything You Need to Know About Student-Teacher Ratios

Infographic

Imagine teaching in front of a sea of children, desks stacked so closely together you have to creatively maneuver yourself to move about the classroom. With an abundance of students, it's difficult to find the capacity or time to truly focus on each individual's strengths and weaknesses, tailor teaching according to their needs, or know how to push each one uniquely toward success.

On the other side of the coin, picture a smaller sized classroom. Instead of a large group of students, you teach just a handful in one topic. You know not just their names and faces, but their goals, strengths, and academic challenges. You can encourage their unique voices and meet their needs. This dichotomy is often the difference between a high and a low student-teacher ratio — and for many students, the right ratio can be a significant contribution to their success.

What Is a Student-Teacher Ratio?

The student-teacher ratio refers to the number of students for every teacher in a school. This number is about more than just class size — although the two statistics are often tied. The student-teacher ratio reflects the teacher's workload and how available they are to offer services and care to their students. Many students and teachers find that the lower the number, the better the educational process and learning will be.

Why Do Student-Teacher Ratios Matter?

The student-teacher ratio has been found to be one of the strongest indicators of student success and engagement. Logically, it's little wonder why. The fewer students each teacher works with, the more closely they're able to adapt their teaching to the specific learning styles. They're also able to develop healthy one-on-one mentoring relationships and offer insight and help in ways that would be impossible in a larger classroom. Additionally, a lower ratio will lighten the workload for teachers, enabling them to focus on the quality rather than the quantity of their teaching and grading.

In a smaller group, students are more likely to feel comfortable voicing their opinions, asking questions, and making their needs known. This setup also provides added care for students who may be struggling with learning obstacles in any given subject. Rather than falling through the cracks in a larger classroom or one with a higher student-teacher ratio, students benefit from the fact that teachers are able to notice and offer tailored assistance more effectively.

This benefit may also be true of students who excel and need an added challenge to harness their full potential. With a lower student-teacher ratio, teachers have the capacity to address this situation, offering the student extra materials and helping them succeed to the best of their abilities. The teacher will also have a higher bandwidth to go above and beyond in communicating this area of strength with the student's parents and considering the next best steps.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Lower student-teacher ratios have been found to leave their mark , creating a ripple effect that includes:

Better test scores
Fewer dropout students
Higher graduation rates

What Is a Good Student-Teacher Ratio?

There is no standard perfect number for what constitutes a good student-teacher ratio. The number will vary according to budgeting, as smaller class sizes and more teachers cost the school more to staff and train. You'll also often find differences in the student-teacher ratio according to the type of school. Public schools, for example, tend to have a higher student-teacher ratio than private day schools or boarding schools, which typically offer smaller class sizes.

A good rule of thumb to follow: The smaller the student-teacher ratio, the better!

Classroom sizes across the U.S. have generally been on a declining trajectory, from an average student-teacher ratio of 22:1 in 1970 to 15:1 in 2008. This trend is a positive one indicating that educational systems recognize the importance of reducing the ratio as much as possible.

The more one-on-one attention and individualized teaching students can glean, the higher the quality and personalization of their learning. While there's no magic number for this ratio, you'll find that a lower ratio tends to indicate a more positive and tailored teaching approach.

The Average Student-Teacher Ratio in New Jersey

New Jersey's average student-teacher ratio varies depending on type of school. Nationwide, public schools typically have larger classroom sizes and higher ratios compared to private day schools and boarding schools. Boarding schools in particular are found to have the lowest ratios of all due to their specialized emphasis on quality education and vigorous academics. Here are some differences:

Public schools: With an average student-teacher ratio of 12:1 , NJ public schools often find themselves limited by budgeting constraints. Decreasing class sizes or hiring more teachers can be a challenge in a state-funded public school setting, creating a system whereby students who struggle with learning difficulties or are particularly gifted may not be able to access the one-on-one tailored attention they need.
Private day schools: While plenty of private day schools do offer lower ratios, the average private day school student-teacher ratio in New Jersey is 11:1.
Boarding schools: According to data compiled from the top boarding schools in the state, New Jersey's average boarding student-teacher ratio is 7:1. This number reflects a concerted effort to provide students with the best education possible. An important part of this vision is allowing for one-on-one teaching opportunities, smaller class sizes and tailored learning programs that meet students' specific needs.

Inquire About The Hun School of Princeton to Learn More

The Hun School of Princeton has been a leading New Jersey private boarding school since 1963. Our emphasis on an innovative, hands-on learning environment is brought to life by our expert teachers and faculty. With a student-teacher ratio of 5:1 , we go above and beyond the New Jersey average to offer the ultimate engagement and active learning experience for our students. The Hun School also offers a low student-counselor ratio of 48:1, helping us to care for our students' needs on every level.

Interested in learning more about our programs and unique culture? Feel free to submit an inquiry today !

Request More Information

SEARCH Pennsylvania Bulletin Pennsylvania Code Search Tips

Pennsylvania Code

No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Code website reflects the Pennsylvania Code changes effective through 54 Pa.B. 1806 (March 30, 2024).

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

Previous Doc
Chapter 405 Contents
Title 22 Contents
Full Screen

§ 405.43. Class size and student/staffing ratio. (a) Program class enrollments are limited to at most 20 students with at least one teacher and one aide in the classroom, however, for high quality programming a maximum of 17 students is recommended. (b) If a Program class has ten or fewer students, there shall be one teacher in the classroom and an aide must be available onsite to assist the teacher as needed. (c) Whenever the enrollment in a class exceeds 20, the class shall be divided into two classes so that each class individually does not exceed 20 students. Each class must be properly staffed and, if space is to be shared, that space must be divided by a barrier that adequately separates the spaces for instructional purposes. No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit. This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

My Favorites

You have successfully logged in but...

... your login credentials do not authorize you to access this content in the selected format. Access to this content in this format requires a current subscription or a prior purchase. Please select the WEB or READ option instead (if available). Or consider purchasing the publication.

Education at a Glance: Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators

copy the link link copied! Indicator D2. What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?

On average across OECD countries, there are 15 students for every teacher in primary education and 13 students per teacher in lower secondary education. The average school class has 21 students in primary education and 23 students in lower secondary education.

At tertiary level, the student-teacher ratios in public and private institutions are similar on average across OECD countries, with about 15 students per teaching staff member in public institutions and 16 students per teaching staff member in private institutions. The difference in student-teacher ratios across public and private institutions is larger in partner countries.

The average primary school class in OECD countries in 2017 had 21 students in public institutions and 20 students in private institutions. The difference in class size between public and private primary institutions varies substantially across OECD countries.

Figure D2.1. Ratio of students to teaching staff in tertiary education, by type of institution (2017)

1. Tertiary includes programmes outside tertiary level - see Annex 3 for further details.

Countries are ranked in descending order of the ratio of students to teaching staff in tertiary public institutions.

Source : OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2019), Education at a Glance Database, http://stats.oecd.org/ . See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes ( https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en ).

StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933979804

Class sizes and student-teacher ratios are much-discussed aspects of education and are among the determinants of the demand for teachers, along with students’ instruction time (see Indicator D1), and teachers’ working time and the division of teachers’ time between teaching and other duties (see Indicator D4). Together with teachers’ salaries (see Indicator D3), age distribution (see Indicator D5) and instruction time (see Indicator C7), class size and student-teacher ratios also have a considerable impact on the level of current expenditure on education (see Indicators C6 and C7).

Smaller classes are often seen as beneficial, because they allow teachers to focus more on the needs of individual students and reduce the amount of class time needed to deal with disruptions. Yet, while there is some evidence that smaller classes may benefit specific groups of students, such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Piketty and M. Valdenaire, 2006[1]) , overall evidence of the effect of class size on student performance is mixed (Fredriksson, Öckert and Oosterbeek, 2013[2] ; OECD, 2016[3]) .

The ratio of students to teaching staff is an indicator of how resources for education are allocated. Smaller student-teacher ratios often have to be weighed against measures such as higher salaries for teachers, investing in their professional development, greater investment in teaching technology, or more widespread use of assistant teachers and other paraprofessionals, whose salaries are often considerably lower than those of teachers.

Other findings

Across OECD countries, the numbers of teachers and students have grown at an average annual rate of 1% between 2005 and 2017.

On average across OECD countries, the student-teacher ratio in lower secondary education is slightly lower in private institutions than in public institutions. The difference is most striking in Mexico, where at the lower secondary level there are more than twice as many students per teacher in public institutions as in private institutions.

Class size in primary education varies significantly across countries, ranging from 15 students per class in Costa Rica to 31 students per class in Chile.

Student-teacher ratios

The ratio of students to teaching staff compares the number of students (full-time equivalents) to the number of teachers (full-time equivalents) at a given level of education and in similar types of institutions. This ratio does not take into account the amount of instruction time students have compared to the length of a teacher’s working day, or how much time teachers spend teaching. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted in terms of class size (Box D2.1).

On average across OECD countries, there are 15 students for every teacher at primary level. The student-teacher ratio ranges from 10 to 1 in Norway to 27 to 1 in Mexico. It is even higher in some partner countries, reaching 33 to 1 in India (Table D2.2).

On average, there are fewer students per teacher at secondary level (13 students per teacher) than at primary level. This reduction in the student-teacher ratio from primary to secondary level may result from differences in annual instruction time (as instruction hours tend to increase with the education level, so does the number of teachers) or from differences in teaching hours (teaching time decreases with the level of education as teacher specialisation increases). There are also wider variations across countries at secondary level than at primary level, from 8 students per teacher in Lithuania to 29 students per teacher in Mexico.

On average, the student-teacher ratio is about the same in lower secondary and upper secondary education (13 students per teacher). In some countries, however, it varies widely between these two levels. This is the case in Finland, where there are at least twice as many students per teacher at the upper secondary level than at the lower secondary level.

At the upper secondary level, the difference in student-teacher ratios between general and vocational programmes also varies across countries. On average, the ratio of students to teaching staff in upper secondary vocational and general programmes are similar (14 to 1 and 13 to 1). While the difference between the two is negligible in a few countries, there are in fact as many countries where the ratio is greater in vocational programmes as there are countries where it is lower. In Latvia, there are twice as many students per teacher in vocational programmes (17 to 1) as general programmes (8 to 1). In the United Kingdom, there are 25 students per teacher in vocational programmes and only 14 per teacher in general programmes. These large differences may be due to the fact that in some countries, vocational programmes are significantly work based, so vocational students spend considerable time outside the school. As a result, schools need fewer teachers, which may translate into higher student-teacher ratios (OECD, 2017[4]) . In other countries such as Brazil, which has the largest difference between programmes of all OECD and partner countries with available data, the difference is reversed: there are twice as many students per teacher in general programmes (26 to 1) as in vocational programmes (13 to 1). In this case, this may reflect the fact that students in vocational education typically need greater instructor attention, especially as they have access to more sophisticated equipment. Vocational students require more careful supervision as skill specificity rises. This may in turn have important implications for the cost of vocational instruction, as advanced vocational training requires both specialised machinery and a greater level of human resources (Klein, 2001[5]) .

At the tertiary level, there are on average 16 students per teaching staff member. The student-teacher ratio ranges from 9 to 1 in Norway to over 25 to 1 in Colombia, Indonesia and Turkey. The difference in student-teaching staff ratios across short-cycle tertiary and bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent level varies across countries with available data. These results should be interpreted with caution, however, as the student-teacher ratio remains a limited measure of the level of teaching resources at tertiary level (Box D2.2). Moreover, the relatively low enrolment in short-cycle tertiary in some countries limits comparability across tertiary levels (see Indicator B1).

The two indicators therefore measure very different characteristics of the educational system. Student-teacher ratios provide information on the level of teaching resources available in a country, whereas class sizes measure the average number of students that are grouped together in classrooms.

Given the difference between student-teacher ratio and average class size, it is possible for countries with similar student-teacher ratios to have different class sizes. For example, at the primary level, Israel and the United States have similar ratios of students to teaching staff (15 students per teacher, Table D2.2), but the average class size differs substantially (21 students per class in the United States and 27 in Israel). This may be explained by the fact that teaching time in the United States is considerably higher than in Israel, meaning that American teachers can teach more classes during the day and thus students can be taught in smaller classes (see Indicator C7).

Student-teacher ratios in public and private institutions

On average across OECD countries with available data, the ratios of students to teaching staff are slightly higher in public institutions than in private institutions at the lower secondary level and about the same at upper secondary level (Table D2.3).

At lower secondary level, the largest difference between public and private institutions is found in Mexico, where there are more than twice as many students per teacher in public institutions as in private institutions. However, only 10% of lower secondary students are enrolled in private institutions in Mexico (Education at a Glance Database). In contrast, the student-teacher ratio is lower in public institutions than in private institutions in some countries. This difference is most pronounced in Chile, where the student-teacher ratio is 16 to 1 in public institutions, compared to 24 to 1 in private institutions (Table D2.3). In Chile, almost 60% of lower secondary students are enrolled in private institutions (Education at a Glance Database).

At the upper secondary level, the student-teacher ratio is larger in public institutions than in private institutions in 14 countries, smaller in public institutions in 15 countries, and similar for both sectors in 4 countries. Mexico is once more the country with the largest difference in student-teacher ratios at this level, with 25 students per teacher in public institutions and 16 students per teacher in private institutions. (Table D2.3). This mixed pattern in upper secondary education may, in part, reflect differences in the types of programmes offered in public and private institutions. For instance, in Norway, few private schools offer vocational programmes, in which the student-teacher ratio is slightly lower than the ratio in general programmes (Education at a Glance Database and Table D2.2).

At tertiary level, there is little difference between public and private institutions on average across OECD countries, with 15 students per teaching staff member in public institutions and 16 in private institutions (Figure D2.1). In a few OECD countries, such as Austria and Italy, there are over five more students per teacher in public institutions than in private institutions. In these countries, however, less than 20% of tertiary students are enrolled in private institutions (see Indicator B1). The difference between public and private institutions is larger in some partner countries: in India, there are over twice as many students per teachers in public institutions (42 to 1) as in private institutions (19 to 1). The largest difference in student-teacher ratio between public and private institutions is in Brazil where, interestingly, the ratio is much higher in private institutions, which enrol 73% of tertiary students, than in public institutions, which are more selective. In Brazil, students thus face either a performance barrier to accessing free but highly selective public institutions, or a financial barrier to accessing private institutions, which could limit their opportunities and raises significant equity concerns (Figure D2.1).

The student-teacher ratio measures the teaching resources that are available in a given country. When the student-teacher ratio is low, students are more likely to receive more support and attention. However, at tertiary level, the interpretation of this indicator is affected by the definition and function of academic staff. Some may have limited teaching responsibilities and could for example spend most of their time doing research. In such cases, the student-teacher ratio would not be representative of the level of support and attention students receive in the classroom.

Currently the available data do not allow hours spent teaching to be distinguished from hours spent doing research. Specifically, the UNESCO-UIS, OECD and Eurostat (UOE) manual defines academic staff as personnel employed at the tertiary level of education whose primary assignment is instruction or research, with no further distinction. Other authoritative sources on tertiary academic staff, including the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2016[6]) and the European Tertiary Education Register (ETER[7]) also lack such distinction.

Eurydice’s 2017 report on academic staff at tertiary level across Europe (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017[8]) is one of the first attempts to map the different attributes of academic staff onto a harmonised segmentation. The report draws on several data sources. It is based mainly on qualitative data gathered from the Eurydice National Units and has been complemented by a range of research reports and databases from other international organisations. In line with the UOE definition of instructional staff, the data collection concentrated on tertiary staff primarily responsible for teaching and/or research, including both academic staff and teaching/research aides. While this data collection did not specifically consider the number of hours spent teaching and the number of hours spent doing research, it included information on staff’s primary responsibilities, thus providing a first attempt to distinguish between teaching and research.

Outside European countries, other OECD countries also collect data on the function of staff: instruction, research, or a combination of both. However the definition of each differs across countries. For example, Australia defines instruction staff as “teaching only” based on their formal job requirements. For these types of staff, “work involves only teaching and associated activities […], or the management and leadership of teaching staff and of staff who support teaching staff. There is no formal requirement that research be undertaken” (Australian Government[9]) . In contrast, the classification of instructional staff by function in the United States is broader. Instructional staff includes faculty whose role is either primarily instructional or instruction combined with research and/or public service (NCES National Center for Education Statistics, 2018[10]) . Neither Canada nor New Zealand separate out instruction staff from research staff. In Korea, instructors are only required for teaching, whereas professors usually have both teaching and research responsibilities.

Overall, these attempts remain limited. Further efforts are needed to more accurately collect data on the number of hours spent teaching and the number of hours spent doing research, in order to refine the calculation of the student-teacher ratio in tertiary education.

The number of students per teacher remains an important concern, even though tertiary education may involve more self-learning than primary and secondary education. Although student-teacher ratios are difficult to measure at tertiary level, they could still shed some light on the level of available resources in higher education. In fact, the student-teacher ratio is considered to be a proxy of quality in higher education (McDonald, 2013[11]) , which warrants efforts to improve the calculation of this indicator (Box D2.2).

Trends in the number of students and academic staff in tertiary education

Comparing the average annual growth rates of the numbers of tertiary students to the average annual growth rates of the numbers of academic staff between 2005 and 2017 could shed light on the changes in human resources over this period.

On average across OECD countries, the number of academic staff and students grew at an average annual rate of 1% between 2005 and 2017. These averages, however, mask large disparities across countries. The largest changes in the number of academic staff are found in Norway and Estonia: Norway recorded the highest average annual growth rate in the number of teachers (+6%) and Estonia and Greece the lowest (-3%). The highest average annual growth rate in the number of students is found in Mexico and the Netherlands (+5%) and the lowest in Latvia (-4%; Figure D2.2).

In the majority of countries with available data, the number of academic staff and students have changed in a similar way: both either increased or decreased between 2005 and 2017. However, the pace of change varies widely. For example in Norway, the number of academic staff grew three times faster than the growth in the number of students. In contrast, in Hungary and Lithuania, the decline in the number of students was at least three times greater than the decline in the number of academic staff. In other countries, such as Finland and Portugal, the pace of change was similar for students and academic staff. In Latvia, Korea, Poland and Slovenia, however, the number of academic staff has on average increased every year, although the number of students fell over the same period (Figure D2.2). This may reflect the difficulties in reducing the number of teachers in academia following demographic shifts.

Figure D2.2. Average annual growth rates of the numbers of students and teaching staff in tertiary education (2005-17)

Note: This figure cannot be interpreted as student-teacher ratio. Enrolment data coverage is not adjusted to personnel by level of education, programme orientation, type of institution, and intensity of participation, as it is the case when calculating the student-teacher ratio (see Methodology section).

1. Year of reference is 2010 instead of 2005.

2. Tertiary includes programmes outside tertiary level - see Annex 3 for further details.

Countries are ranked in descending order of the average annual growth rate in the number of teachers in tertiary education, between 2005 and 2017.

Source: OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2019), Education at a Glance Database, http://stats.oecd.org/ . See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes ( https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en ).

StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933979823

Monitoring the number of students and academic staff at tertiary level could provide valuable insights into the way education systems are responding to the changing demand for tertiary education. On average across OECD and partner countries, tertiary attainment has been growing over the past 20 years, and it is expected to continue growing in the next decade (OECD, 2018[12]) . This increase reflects the rise in demand for skilled labour, in part driven by technological changes (OECD, 2017[13]) , and governments effort to promote access to tertiary education, including through a variety of financial support policies (OECD, 2017[4]) . In countries with the largest increase in demand (see Indicator A1), the challenge is to limit the impact of such growing demands on the quality of tertiary education systems and invest in human resources accordingly.

Average class size in primary and lower secondary education

The indicator on class size is limited to primary and lower secondary education. Class sizes are difficult to define and compare at higher levels, as students are often split into several different classes at these levels, depending on the subject area.

At the primary level, the average class in OECD countries has 21 pupils. There are fewer than 28 pupils per class in nearly all of the countries with available data, with the exception of Chile (31 pupils) (Table D2.1).

At the lower secondary level, the average class in OECD countries has 23 students. Among all countries with available data, the number varies from fewer than 20 students per class in Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and the Russian Federation to more than 30 students per class in Costa Rica and Japan (Table D2.1).

The number of students per class tends to increase between primary and lower secondary education. In Costa Rica, this increase corresponds to almost 18 students. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, Australia, Chile, Estonia, Finland, Hungary and the Russian Federation, the number of students per class falls between these two levels of education (Table D2.1).

Class size in public and private institutions

Class size is one factor that parents may consider when deciding on a school for their children. Hence, the difference in average class size between public and private schools (and between different types of private institutions) could influence enrolment.

Differences in class sizes between public and private institutions are similar to those observed for student-teacher ratios. In most OECD countries, average class sizes do not differ between public and private institutions by more than two students per class in both primary and lower secondary education. However, in some countries (including Brazil, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland and the Russian Federation), the average class in public primary schools has more than five additional students compared to the average class in private schools (Table D2.1). However, with the exception of Brazil and Colombia, the private sector is relatively small in all of these countries, representing at most 5% of students at the primary level (see Education at a Glance Database). In contrast, in Chile, Greece, Korea, Luxembourg and Spain, the average class in private institutions is larger than in public institutions by at least four students.

At the lower secondary level, where private institutions are more prevalent, the comparison of class size between public and private institutions shows a more mixed picture. The average class in private lower secondary institutions is larger than in public institutions in 9 countries, smaller in 16 countries and the same in 7 countries. The differences, however, tend to be smaller than in primary education.

Trends in average class size

Between 2005 and 2017, class size has remained about the same at primary level and fallen at lower secondary level on average across OECD countries (Table D2.1). While 19 out of 27 countries with available data at the lower secondary level experienced a decrease in average class size, this was the case for only 12 out of the 27 countries at the primary level (Figure D2.3).

At the lower secondary level, the average class size fell by 6% between 2005 and 2017. These averages mask considerably larger changes in individual countries. In Estonia and Korea, for example, the average class size in lower secondary education has decreased by about 20% over the past decade. In Korea, classes at the primary level are also, on average, 29% smaller than in 2005 – the largest decrease among OECD countries in the past decade. This could reflect the declining number of students. Other countries, however, saw an increase in average class sizes in primary schools: by 20% in Mexico, 14% in Portugal and 29% in the Russian Federation. At the lower secondary level, average class sizes increased by 8% in Denmark, the largest increase among OECD countries.

Figure D2.3. Average class size in primary education (2005 and 2017)

Countries are ranked in descending order of the average class size in primary education in 2005.

Source: OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2019), Table D2.1. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes ( https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en ).

StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933979842

Definitions

There are two categories of instructional personnel (teachers):

Teachers’ aides and teaching/research assistants include non-professional personnel or students who support teachers in providing instruction to students.

Teaching staff refers to professional personnel directly involved in teaching to students. The classification includes classroom teachers, special-education teachers and other teachers who work with a whole class of students in a classroom, in small groups in a resource room, or in one-to-one teaching situations inside or outside a regular class. Teaching staff also include departmental chairs whose duties include some teaching, but exclude non-professional personnel who support teachers in providing instruction to students, such as teachers’ aides and other paraprofessional personnel.

Academic staff include personnel at tertiary level whose primary assignment is instruction or research.

Methodology

Class size is calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled by the number of classes. In order to ensure comparability among countries, special-needs programmes are excluded. Data include only regular programmes at primary and lower secondary levels of education, and exclude teaching in subgroups outside the regular classroom setting.

The ratio of students to teaching staff is obtained by dividing the number of full-time equivalent students at a given level of education by the number of full-time equivalent teachers at that level and in similar types of institutions. At tertiary level, the student-teacher ratio is calculated using data on academic staff instead of teachers.

For the ratio of students to teachers to be meaningful, consistent coverage of personnel and enrolment data are needed. For instance, if teachers in religious schools are not reported in the personnel data, then students in those schools must also be excluded.

For more information, please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications (OECD, 2018[14]) and Annex 3 for country-specific notes ( https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en ).

Data refer to the academic year 2016/17 and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/EUROSTAT data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2018 (for details, see Annex 3 at https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en ).

Note regarding data from Israel

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

[9] Australian Government (2019), HEIMSHELP , https://heimshelp.education.gov.au/resources/glossary/glossaryterm?title=Function .

[7] ETER (2019), ETER , https://eter-project.com/#/home .

[8] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2017), Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: Academic Staff – 2017 , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/40f84414-683f-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 18 October 2018).

[2] Fredriksson, P., B. Öckert and H. Oosterbeek (2013), “Long-Term effects of class size”, Quarterly Journal of Economics , Vol. 128/1, pp. 249-285, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/qje/qjs048 .

[5] Klein, S. (2001), Financing Vocational Education: A State Policymaker’s Guide , RTI, http:// www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/financing_vocational_education.pdf .

[11] McDonald, G. (2013), “Does size matter? The impact of student-staff ratios”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , Vol. 35/6, pp. 652-667, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1360080X.2013.844668 .

[10] NCES National Center for Education Statistics (2018), IPEDS 2017-18 Data Collection System , https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/UseTheData/ArchivedSurveyMaterialPdf?year=2017&fileName=package_1_43.pdf .

[12] OECD (2018), “How is the tertiary-educated population evolving?”, Education Indicators in Focus 61, https://doi.org/10.1787/a17e95dc-en .

[14] OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications , OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en .

[13] OECD (2017), “Future of works and skills”, Paper presented at the 2nd Meeting of the G20 Employment Working Group, Hamburg, 15-17 February 2017 , http:// www.oecd.org/els/emp/wcms_556984.pdf.

[4] OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators , OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en .

[6] OECD (2016), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development (Korean version) , Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning, Seoul, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en .

[3] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools , PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en .

[1] Piketty, T. and M. Valdenaire (2006), “L’impact de la taille des classes sur la réussite scolaire dans les écoles, collèges et lycées français”, Les Dossiers: Enseignement scolaire, No. 173, http:// www.education.gouv.fr/cid3865/l-impact-de-la-taille-des-classes-sur-la-reussite-scolaire-dans-les-ecoles-colleges-et-lycees-francais.html&xtmc=piketty&xtnp=1&xtcr=1 (accessed on 6 June 2019).

Table D2.1 Average class size, by type of institution (2017) and index of change between 2005 and 2017

Table D2.2 Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions, by level of education (2017)

Table D2.3 Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2017)

Cut-off date for the data: 19 July 2019. Any updates on data can be found on line at https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en . More breakdowns can also be found at http://stats.oecd.org/ , Education at a Glance Database.

StatLink: https://doi.org/10.1787/888933981210

Average class size, by type of institution (2017) and index of change between 2005 and 2017


1. Primary education includes pre-primary programmes.
OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2019). See section for more information and Annex 3 for notes ( ).

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933979747

Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions, by level of education (2017)


1. Primary includes pre-primary education.
2. Upper secondary includes programmes outside upper secondary level - see Annex 3 for further details.
3. For France, public and government-dependent private institutions only for all levels. For Ireland and Switzerland, public institutions only for all levels. For Israel, public institutions only for upper secondary education and all secondary.
4. Tertiary includes programmes outside tertiary level - see Annex 3 for further details.
5. Year of reference is 2016 instead of 2017.
OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2019). See section for more information and Annex 3 for notes ( ).

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933979766

Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2017)


1. Includes only general programmes in lower and upper secondary education.
2. Upper secondary includes programmes outside upper secondary level - see Annex 3 for further details.
3. Year of reference is 2016 instead of 2017.
OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2019). See section for more information and Annex 3 for notes ( ).

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933979785

Metadata, Legal and Rights

https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions .

Do you want to open the publication page on OECD-ILIBRARY for more details on:

available formats

purchase of a print copy

or to publication metadata?

Why Special Education Teachers Quit—and What Schools Are Doing About It

Solutions to the perennial crisis of special education staffing must extend beyond training and recruiting more teachers to the more complex work of retaining educators who’ve already entered the field, experts say.

Twenty-one percent of public schools reported that they were not fully staffed in special education at the start of the 2023-24 school year, higher levels of reported shortages than for any other teaching specialty, federal data show. And about 8 percent of teachers who work with children who qualify for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are not fully certified .

All teachers juggle layers of practical and pedagogical responsibilities, but special education teachers carry an unusually complex workload that involves case management, teaching students in multiple grades and subjects, and cooperating with fellow teachers to help students meet educational goals.

“I just felt like I couldn’t meet all of my students’ needs with the resources and support that I had, no matter how hard I worked,” said Elizabeth Bettini, an associate professor of special education at Boston University who previously taught special education in K-12 schools.

Here are three ways states and districts are trying to keep current special education teachers on the job—and to improve their chances of retaining new recruits.

1. Districts experiment with higher pay for special education teachers

When special education teachers leave their roles, they aren’t always leaving teaching altogether, said Roddy Theobold, the deputy director of the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Rather, special education teachers with multiple teaching endorsements often shift into another position, like elementary education, he said.

To quantify the trend, Theobold and other researchers analyzed 10 years of Washington state data collected from 2009 to 2019. They found that, in every year studied, the number of certified special education teachers in the state exceeded the number of teachers actually working in special education positions by more than 50 percent. They also found that dual-certified teachers were less likely to remain in special education placements than their peers who only carried special education credentials, according to a 2021 study published in the journal Exceptional Children .

Districts like Detroit have sought to recognize the challenges of the special education role by providing annual incentive pay of up to $15,000 for special education teachers.

But it can be politically challenging to pay teachers different salaries depending on their role, and it can require changing teacher contracts. Plus, researchers are still identifying what incentive structures could best move the needle on staffing challenges.

Starting in 2020, Hawaii’s statewide school district offered a $10,000 bonus for special education teachers, with larger bonuses for those who teach in schools deemed hard to staff. That’s on top of a base salary of $50,000.

Theobold and fellow researchers studied that state’s 2022 data. They found that, after the bonuses started, special education vacancies continued to increase alongside teacher vacancies in general, but they made up a lower proportion of total unfilled positions than they had before. They largely attributed the shift to teachers who were motivated by the incentive to move from general education classrooms to special education placements, not by increased retention of existing special education teachers.

While Hawaii’s special education teacher shortage hasn’t been erased, students within special education programs are now more likely to be taught by qualified teachers because of the bonuses, they concluded.

2. States and districts prepare new special education teachers with retention in mind

Advocates for grow-your-own programs and teacher apprenticeships—which allow candidates to earn teaching credentials while learning on the job—say the approach may allow new special education teachers to enter the role with a greater awareness of the challenges they will face. And that may help schools retain them longer.

Many participants in the University of North Dakota’s Special Education Resident Teacher Program complete their training at schools where they will later work full time, director Amy Jacobson said. The program allows candidates to earn a master’s degree in special education while working with a mentor in a partner district as well as a mentor at the university to learn the ropes.

Organizers recently developed an option that allows candidates without four-year degrees to get a bachelor’s and a master’s degree simultaneously. That opened the door for paraprofessionals, who often have years of hands-on experience in special education, to become full-time teachers.

“They are already vetted by the school districts, and they have an interest and a passion to work in special education,” Jacobson said.

Similarly, a unique teacher residency program led by the Washington Education Association draws former paraprofessionals and emergency substitute teachers with experience in special education classrooms, organizers recently told Education Week.

The program rotates participants through four different special education settings, including teaching alongside general education teachers, to better prepare them for a variety of potential roles.

“When you become a special ed. teacher, there’s so much variety within that, and you don’t know what you don’t know,” Annie Lamberto, the special populations coordinator for WEA, told Education Week. “We wanted our residents to be able to find not just what they’re good at and what their strengths are, but what they’re passionate about.”

3. Administrators combat special education teachers’ workplace isolation and burnout

Special education teachers are usually stressed because they lack the support and resources to do their jobs well, not because of the students they serve, Bettini said.

They have fewer in-school peers than their general education colleagues, and they are often led by principals without experience in special education, she said. That can lead to a feeling of isolation.

A lack of special education funding, inadequate support staff and school psychologists, and other systemic problems can lead teachers to feel like they are failing the very students they want to help, Bettini said.

Administrators can address these stressors by seeking their own professional development on how to support special education teachers and by inviting regular feedback about how to include special education teachers in curriculum purchasing decisions, planning schedules, and schoolwide policy conversations, she said.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Grades 6-12
School Leaders

100 Last-Day-of-School Activities Your Students Will Love!

What Is Special Education? A Guide for Educators and Families

It’s a service, not a place.

Students who are blind are provided with braille books. An autistic student uses a visual schedule. A student with a learning disability receives additional reading instruction. These students all receive special education services.

Special education provides services that meet the unique needs of each student. This means that special education can include:

An individualized curriculum that is different than general education peers’
A curriculum that is modified for a student
A combination of both

Here’s a roundup of everything you need to know about special education, plus our best special education articles.

What laws are involved in special education?

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law that explains how states must address special education. The IDEA definition of special education is: specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. It includes physical education, related services (e.g., speech therapy, occupational therapy), vocational education, and travel training. Essentially, special education is how students with disabilities have their needs met in the public education system.

What about state laws?

IDEA sets the standard at the federal level, but the process and system are set up at the state level. So what special education looks like varies from state to state.

Visit your state’s Department of Special Education website or check out the parent resource center (every state has one) for information related to special education aimed at parents.

Find your state’s parent resource center in this list from Center for Parent Information & Resources .

How is special education not a “place”?

Special education can occur in many different settings, from the general education classroom to a hospital or separate school. Where a child receives services depends on their needs as determined by the IEP team, which includes the parents.

What are the main components of special education? (What do the acronyms stand for?)

Image: Pathfinder Services of ND

FAPE is Free Appropriate Public Education. This essentially means that students with disabilities must be provided with their education at no cost to the parents, just like any other student.

Accommodations and Modifications

Image: The Bender Bunch

Accommodations and modifications are ways that SDI is delivered and how the curriculum is individualized for a child; ways that the child receives access to the general education curriculum. In short, accommodations change how the material is being presented in a way that helps the child overcome or access through the disability. Modifications change what a child is taught or how the child works at school. So, an accommodation would be: allowing a child to record rather than write their answers, or reading aloud a question rather than having them read it. A modification would be providing a child a text with visuals instead of the general education text, or providing a test with two answer choices instead of four.

Read more: Accommodations vs. Modifications: What’s the difference?

Bookmark: 80+ Accommodations Every Special Ed Teacher Should Bookmark

More IDEA terms are defined at Parent Center Hub .

Which students can receive special education and who decides?

Special education is provided to students who fall under one of 13 disability categories:

Developmental delay
Specific learning disability
Speech impairment
Other health impairment
Traumatic brain injury
Autism spectrum disorder
Vision impairment
Hearing impairment
Deaf-blindness
Emotional disability
Orthopedic impairment
Intellectual disability
Multiple disabilities

In order to receive special education services, a student must be found eligible. This means that they have one of the 13 disabilities and that it impacts them in the school setting. If the child cannot make progress in the general curriculum without SDI, they are eligible for special education services. (If they can make progress but still have an outside diagnosis, they may have a 504 plan in place instead.)

What is in an IEP?

The IEP includes all the information that the team needs to educate a child with a disability. It only addresses the aspects of a child’s disability that impact them throughout the school day. The sections of an IEP are:

Present levels: How the child is currently doing in school and how the disability impacts them in class.
Annual goals: Goals that the child will work on through SDI.
Objectives: Students who take alternate assessments will also have objectives towards their goals.
Measuring and reporting progress: Ways that the child’s progress is going to be measured and how it will be reported to parents.
Specially designed instruction: A statement about how special education and related services will be provided.
Related services include any therapies (speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy).
Supplementary aids and services provide access to participation across academic, extracurricular, and nonacademic settings.
Program modifications for school personnel, which include things that school personnel need to know in order to work with this student (for example, how to use an assisted communication device).
Extent of nonparticipation is the explanation of how much, if any, the child will be outside of general education, and why the team made that decision.
Accommodations that the student will be provided during classroom instruction.
Accommodations that a student will receive during district and state testing.
Service delivery includes when, where, and how long a child will receive SDI (for example, 30 minutes 1x/week in special education).
Transition planning for life after secondary school starts no later than a child’s 16th birthday (and can start earlier).
Age of majority: An IEP must include a statement about how the student understands their rights as they graduate from the IEP.

What happens in an IEP meeting?

There are many different reasons to come together around an IEP, but every year, each student who has an IEP will have an annual review. During an annual review meeting, the team (parent, teachers, a district representative, therapists) discuss the child, their progress, and next steps. Everything in the IEP should be based on data, so it’s important to bring information (e.g., work samples, test data) to review.

Any decision regarding an IEP is a team decision, and team members don’t always agree. If the meeting cannot resolve a concern, schools or parents can follow procedures to reach an agreement.

When does special education start and end?

A child can receive early intervention or special education services if they have a disability diagnosed before age 3 (such as Down syndrome) or if they are at risk of a delay.

What is NOT special education?

There are misconceptions about special education. Some things that special education is not:

A specific program, like Orton-Gillingham
Differentiated instruction
An inclusive classroom

What else should I know?

Here are more of our favorite special education resources:

What Is Inclusion in Education?

27+ Best Autism Resources for Educators

If you’re still using these five words for students with disabilities, it’s time to stop.

New Ways To Empower Students Who Have Learning Differences or Dyslexia

How Teachers Can Support Twice-Exceptional Students

The IEP From A to Z: How To Create Meaningful and Measurable Goals and Objectives by Diane Twachtman-Cullen and Jennifer Twachtman-Bassett

10 Critical Components for Success in the Special Education Classroom by Marcia Rohrer and Nannette Samson

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs by Peter Wright, Pamela Wright, and Sandra Webb O’Connor

Do you teach special education? Connect with other teachers on the WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook .

For more articles like this one, subscribe to our newsletters..

Special education is a service, not a place. Here’s everything you need to know about it, plus plenty of resources for educators and families.

What Is “Least Restrictive Environment” and How Does It Impact Students?

It’s not just about where you’re sitting. Continue Reading

COMMENTS

Special Education: Definition, Statistics, and Trends
In 2016, there were 17.1 special education students for each special education teacher in the United States. That's higher than the overall student-teacher ratio of 16.2 students per teacher.
Class Ratios: TEACHER TO STUDENT RATIOS IN SPECIAL ED CLASSROOMS
Bookmark the permalink . Haleigh G. on 12/17/2023 at 2:13 AM said: I work in a daycare, and I work in a classroom that is supposed to be for 1 1/2-year-old children. My ratio for my class is 9:1 (kids:teachers) and I have 3 autistic children in my class also. 2 out of the 3 is at the high-end of the spectrum.
Special class staffing ratios
Special Class Staffing Ratio 12:1 (elementary and junior/middle levels in NYC only) and 15:1 (high school) no more than 12 or 15 students per class depending on level. one full-time special education teacher. Serves students whose academic and/or behavioral needs require specialized/specially designed instruction which can best be accomplished ...
Fast Facts: Teacher characteristics and trends (28)
In 2021, the pupil/teacher ratio in public schools was 15.4, while the ratio in private schools was 12.5. The total pupil/teacher ratio across public and private elementary and secondary schools was 15.0. Public and private elementary and secondary school pupil/teacher ratios: Selected years, fall 1970 through fall 2021. Year.
PDF Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios
The pupil/teacher ratio in public schools decreased over time from 26.9 students per teacher in 1955 to 17.9 in 1985, and then further declined to 15.3 in 2008. In the most recent years, the pupil/teacher ratios in 2010, 2011, and 2012 (all 16.0) were higher than the ratio in 2009 (15.4). Of the 6.2 million staf members in public elementary and ...
How Many Students With IEPs Can Be in a Regular Classroom?
In a typical classroom, the number of students ranges from 15 to 22 with one general education teacher. In a special education classroom where students receive specialized instruction in a small group setting, class sizes typically range from 3 to 10 students. This classroom will have one special education teacher and possibly a paraprofessional.
Student-to-teacher ratio, public schools
The student-to-teacher ratio is equal to the number of students who attend a school divided by the number of teachers in the school. In public schools, the ratio has hovered around 16 students for every teacher in the past two decades. Student-to-teacher ratio, public schools Table Explorer.
Teacher/Student Ratio in Special Education Classes
RESOLVED, that the AFT strive to have the special education teacher/student ratio remain the same when a teaching assistant and/or other personnel is assigned to the classroom or to an individual students/students within the instructional framework of special education. (1973)
NCES Blog
Thus, the pupil/teacher ratio declined in school year 2020-21 by a relatively large 0.5 pupils per teacher, from 15.9 to 15.4 pupils per teacher (figure 1). This is the largest 1-year decrease in more than 4 decades. In comparison, the pupil/teacher ratio for private schools was 11.4 in 2019-20 (the latest year of actual data available).
Special Education Teacher Shortage: Differences Between High and Low
In measuring differences between medians of high (Mdn H = 16.5) and low (Mdn L =14.8) shortage states on student to special education teacher ratio, a rough proxy for caseload, we again found no statistical differences, U =17, p = .19, although a difference of nearly two students per case load may be of some import depending on the nature of ...
Special Education Data
The special education team collects and processes data on special education programming required in Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 115, and for reporting requirements under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 and as required under the No Child Left Behind Act. Much of the student-specific data is collected through the Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES).
The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement
For such students, being in a larger class would likely feel overwhelming and stressful, no matter the student-teacher ratio. Student-teacher ratio and caseload are also of great importance, but do not take in the specific mechanisms of being in a smaller group which we find to be central in special education.
Teacher-Pupil Ratio in Special Education
A survey of 141 elementary and 79 secondary teachers of students with mild handicaps found that the average student-teacher ratio was 4.7:1, with a range of 1:1 to 15:1. Minor differences were found as a function of the students' categorical designations and elementary versus secondary level.
July 26, 2010 DO 93, s. 2010
The ideal pupil-teacher ratio is 25:1 (per Executive Order No. 349). ... Education (ECE), or Bachelor's degree in Education with 18 units in ECE. b. SPED classes/centers. The ideal pupil/student-teacher ratio for SPED classes as contained in the SPED Handbook is as follows: ... Bachelor of Science in Elementary or Secondary Education plus 16 ...
Everything You Need to Know About Student-Teacher Ratios
Our emphasis on an innovative, hands-on learning environment is brought to life by our expert teachers and faculty. With a student-teacher ratio of 5:1, we go above and beyond the New Jersey average to offer the ultimate engagement and active learning experience for our students. The Hun School also offers a low student-counselor ratio of 48:1 ...
22 Pa. Code § 405.43. Class size and student/staffing ratio
Class size and student/staffing ratio. § 405.43. Class size and student/staffing ratio. (a) Program class enrollments are limited to at most 20 students with at least one teacher and one aide in the classroom, however, for high quality programming a maximum of 17 students is recommended. (b) If a Program class has ten or fewer students, there ...
PDF EC 303 569 TITLE The Effects of Student- Teacher Ratios on Student 816
Student and Instructional Outcomes Under Varying Student-Teacher Ratios in Special Education and A Case Study Analysis of Factors Related to Effective Student-Teacher Ratios. August, 1988. 35 pp. and 82 pp., respectively. Martha L. Thurlow, James E. Ysseldyke, and Joseph W. Wotruba. Instructional Alternatives Project,
What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?
Other findings. Across OECD countries, the numbers of teachers and students have grown at an average annual rate of 1% between 2005 and 2017. On average across OECD countries, the student-teacher ratio in lower secondary education is slightly lower in private institutions than in public institutions.
Instruction in Special Education Classrooms under Varying Student
In this study, instructional variables were compared for students observed under different student-teacher ratios. Elementary school students in grades 1-6 (N = 139) and 54 teachers participated; students were receiving special education services in 8 school districts. Observations were collected during scheduled special education time using 2 ...
The Effects of Student-Teacher Ratios on Student Performance in Special
Subjects were 139 elementary special education students. Results indicated that under lower student-teacher ratios, students spent more time in active academic responses and academic engaged time; teachers more often checked for student understanding and provided greater task relevance, more feedback, and more adaptive instruction.
Pupil/teacher ratios in public and private elementary and secondary
NOTE: The pupil/teacher ratio is the number of full-time-equivalent students divided by the number of full-time-equivalent teachers, including teachers for students with disabilities and other special teachers. All data in this table were calculated using International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011.
Special Education Student-Teacher Ratios For Mildly Handicapped
A national survey of special education teachers was conducted to document current student-teacher ratios (STRs) and instructional arrangements used for students with mild handicaps. For this study, students with "mild handicaps" were those who received some instruction in the mainstream classroom.
PDF TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
The following standards shall take effect in the 2002-2003 school year. 2. School systems shall establish class size based upon the instructional needs of the students. Special education class size shall not exceed the limits specified for average class size pursuant to TCA §49-1-104(a). In addition to certified instructional personnel ...
Why Special Education Teachers Quit—and What Schools Are Doing About It
Starting in 2020, Hawaii's statewide school district offered a $10,000 bonus for special education teachers, with larger bonuses for those who teach in schools deemed hard to staff. That's on ...
What Is Special Education? A Guide for Educators and Families
The IDEA definition of special education is: specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. It includes physical education, related services (e.g., speech therapy, occupational therapy), vocational education, and travel training. Essentially, special education is how students with ...
PDSES Student Eligibility Criteria
The application will open again on February 3, 2025, as the Parent-Directed Special Education Services (PDSES) application. The PDSES program has specific eligibility criteria please make sure that you have verified that your student meets the eligibility criteria by reviewing the Eligibility Requirements below.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
The March 2024 School Pulse Panel (SPP) U.S. Outlying Area data release provides information on student and staff mental health, students with traumatic brain injuries, and the upcoming hiring cycle, as reported by school staff in public schools in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.