Why eliminating a second‑grade position crosses a line the research has
already drawn.
A forty-year record of randomized trials, long-run follow-ups, and replicated studies says the
same thing: what happens in a K–3 classroom of 15–19 is meaningfully different from what happens in a classroom
of 25 — and the difference shows up in reading scores, in graduation rates, and in adult earnings.
Today
22
→
Next Year
25
This is not a nudge. It places 2nd grade at the top of Project STAR's "regular-class" range (22–25) — the
group that finished 3rd grade about three months of learning behind their small-class peers — and matches the
loosest figure in Ohio's K–4 staffing rule, with no district-wide averaging to soften it for the kids in
the room.
A district eliminating a second-grade position is rarely framed as an educational decision. It is framed as a
budget decision — one section folded into the others, a line item balanced. But the research community has
been
studying exactly this question, in exactly this grade band, for forty years. And the answer it has returned —
through the single largest randomized trial ever conducted on American class size, through replications in
Wisconsin, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and through follow-up studies that tracked children into
adulthood — is strikingly consistent.
Early-grade class size matters. It matters more than most education-policy levers available to a local
district. And it matters most for the students a board is most responsible for protecting.
Tennessee's STAR experiment, conducted from 1985 to 1989, randomly assigned ~11,600 K–3 students to one of
three conditions: small classes (target 13–17), regular classes (target 22–25), or regular classes with a
full-time teacher's aide — and kept them in those assignments through third grade. It is, to this day, the
benchmark every serious class-size conversation returns to.
~3 mo
additional learning for small-class students by the end of 3rd grade, relative to
regular-class peers (Brookings' translation of Krueger's 0.22 SD effect on achievement tests).
Krueger · QJE · 1999; Brookings · 2011
+4 pctl
test percentile gain in the first year of small-class assignment, with roughly
+1 percentile per year of additional small-class exposure.
Krueger · QJE · 1999
0.15 – 0.20
standardized effect size on reading and math by the end of 3rd grade, with larger
effects after multiple years and for disadvantaged subgroups.
Krueger · QJE · 1999; Nye et al. · 2000
STAR's results have been reanalyzed by Princeton economist Alan Krueger, replicated by Nye and colleagues
across multiple journals, and treated as the reference point in every major meta-analysis of the field. The
American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and Florida's constitutional class-size
amendment all cite it. It is not a fringe study.
Small classes appear to benefit all kinds of students, but the benefits are about twice as large for Black
students and for students on free lunch.
— synthesizing Krueger (1999), Finn & Achilles (1990), Nye et al.
(2004)
The most persuasive research for a board audience is not the test-score research. It's what Harvard economist
Raj Chetty and colleagues found when they linked the original STAR participants to IRS tax records twenty-five
years later.
Chetty et al. · QJE 2011
Kindergarten classroom → adult outcomes
Small-class assignment produced a 1.8 percentage-point increase in
college enrollment at age 20, and durable gains in home ownership, retirement savings, and neighborhood
quality at age 27.
Dynarski, Hyman & Schanzenbach · JPAM 2013
College attendance by subgroup
+2.7 pts overall. About +5–6 pts for Black students. +4.4 pts for
free-lunch students. Up to ~+7 pts for students in the poorest third of schools.
Krueger & Whitmore · Econ Journal 2001
Closing the testing gap
Small classes narrowed the Black–white gap in college-entrance-exam taking
by 54% — one of the largest measured effects of any K–12 intervention on racial achievement gaps.
Finn, Gerber & Boyd-Zaharias · JEP 2005
High school graduation
Four years in small K–3 classes more than doubled the odds of on-time
high-school graduation for free-lunch-eligible students (odds ratio ≈ 2.5). The graduation effect
was concentrated in the free-lunch subgroup — for higher-income students it was not statistically
significant.
The pattern is striking: test-score advantages from small early-grade classes partially fade by middle school,
but non-cognitive measures — effort, persistence, engagement with school — persist into adolescence
and remain predictive of the adult outcomes Chetty found. Chetty's work is the strongest evidence in the
field that what happens in a second-grade classroom does not stay in a second-grade classroom.
⸺ The Equity Dimension
When class size grows, the cost is not borne equally.
Every rigorous study that disaggregates the results finds the same thing: larger classes fall hardest on the
students with the least margin for error. Peter Blatchford's UK observational research documented the mechanism
directly — lower-attaining pupils spent more than twice as much time off-task in classes of
about 30 as in classes of about 15, while the difference for higher achievers was far smaller. Adult attention
is a finite resource, and its dilution matters most for children whose home resources are thinnest.
2×
The size of test-score effects for Black students and free-lunch students,
relative to the overall average.
11 → 26%
Lesson time spent off-task by lower-attaining pupils — classes of ~15 vs. ~30
(Blatchford, UK).
~+7 pts
Approximate increase in college attendance for students in the poorest tail of
schools (Dynarski et al., JPAM 2013).
Second grade sits at the hinge of elementary literacy. It is the year when Matthew effects
(Stanovich, 1986) — the compounding divergence between strong and struggling readers — become
increasingly hard to reverse. Hernandez's longitudinal
analysis for the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Double Jeopardy, 2011) found that students not reading
proficiently by the end of third grade fail to graduate from high school on time at four times the
rate of proficient readers. Among children who spent at least one year in poverty and were
not reading proficiently by 3rd grade, 26% failed to graduate on time — more than six times
the 4% rate among proficient readers overall.
Second grade is also the year when small-group reading instruction becomes structurally critical. The
evidence-based delivery mode — used by teacher-preparation programs nationwide — calls for teachers meeting with
three to five flexible reading groups per week, with struggling readers seen more often and in smaller groups.
The arithmetic is unforgiving:
In a typical 60–90 minute reading block with three teacher-led rotations,
a class of 20 yields groups of 6–7 students; a class of 25 pushes groups to 8–9 students
— beyond the 4–6 the guided-reading literature (Fountas & Pinnell) calls a small group. Going to
four rotations to keep groups smaller cuts each group's direct-instruction time by 25%.
Running records, DIBELS, and Acadience benchmarks — the formative assessments that
identify struggling readers — take 3–10 minutes per child for benchmarks (longer for diagnostic
follow-ups), three times a year. Every additional student is real instructional time lost across
the whole class.
Within the STAR data, the on-time graduation effect became statistically
significant at four consecutive years in small classes (Finn, Gerber &
Boyd-Zaharias 2005), and test-score gains accumulated roughly one percentile per additional year
(Krueger 1999). Disrupting K–2 continuity reduces total dosage in the grade band where the evidence
is strongest.
The threshold the research has actually identified
The honest version of this argument is not that smaller is always better. Research identifies thresholds —
nonlinear ranges where benefits emerge or erode. Glass and Smith's 1979 meta-analysis, which has held up for
45 years of subsequent work, fit a logarithmic curve to the literature: small effects above 20, with gains
accelerating sharply below 20 students and rising into the 0.20–0.30 SD range for the smallest classes.
What this means for a class going from 22 to 25:
The current average (22) sits at the upper edge of the range where teachers can still
run effective small-group reading instruction and identify struggling readers early.
The new size (25) sits at the top of Project STAR's regular-class band
(22–25) — the comparison group that ended 3rd grade about three months of learning behind
small-class peers, per Brookings' translation of Krueger's 0.22 SD effect. Filges et al.'s (2018)
Campbell systematic review screened 127 studies from 41 countries; the 10 studies meeting their
meta-analytic criteria yielded a small positive reading effect (≈ 0.10 SD) and a non-significant math
effect. Linear extrapolations of STAR's effect (0.22 SD over 7 students) imply roughly
0.10–0.15 SD per 5-student increase; Glass & Smith's logarithmic curve suggests
the effect in the 22–25 band is at the lower end of that range (Angrist & Pischke 2009;
Schanzenbach 2007).
A 25-student 2nd grade class is an outlier against national
averages (NCES NTPS 2020-21: 19.1 students in self-contained elementary classes), AFT guidance
(15–19), and Florida's constitutional cap (18 in K–3). It would exceed the per-classroom cap
in eight states (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Texas) and equal the cap in three more (Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia) — though
Texas and Georgia allow district-level waivers that are widely used in practice.
For the primary-source review of how all
50 states govern K–3 class size — the statutes, constitutions, and administrative codes behind the numbers
above — see How 2nd-grade class size is governed in all 50
states.
The strongest skeptics of class-size investment are Eric Hanushek, Caroline Hoxby, and Matthew Chingos. Their
work is real, peer-reviewed, and worth taking seriously. Here's how it actually applies — and where it
doesn't.
What the skeptics actually argue
Hanushek's 1986 JEL review of 277 econometric estimates drawn from 59 studies
found inconsistent class-size effects and argued teacher quality dominates (his 1997 update extended the
dataset to 377 estimates from 90 studies, with the same headline conclusion). Hoxby's Connecticut study
(2000) found no class-size effects on 4th and 6th grade test scores. Chingos found
Florida's universal class-size amendment produced no detectable gains despite costing roughly
$20 billion over eight years, with continuing costs of $4–5 billion annually thereafter
(Chingos, Economics of Education Review, 2012; cost figures from Chingos's companion Brookings
analyses).
These critiques apply most forcefully to rushed, statewide mandates — California's 1996 reduction,
which forced the hiring of nearly 29,000 additional K–3 teachers within the first three years (about
18,400 in year one alone) and pushed the statewide share of uncredentialed K–3 teachers from under 4% to
14% (and to ~21% in the lowest-income schools); Florida's universal cap, which contributed to staffing
strains and a rising share of out-of-field teachers. None of that describes a district decision to cut a
single existing second-grade position.
Krueger's 2003 Economic Journal reanalysis also showed Hanushek's conclusions depend on an unusual
weighting method. Re-weighted by study rather than by coefficient, the same literature yields significant
positive effects.
The marginal cost of keeping one second-grade teacher — verified against Sycamore's own 2025–26 Certified Salary Schedule and the forecast's 37.8%
benefits-to-wages ratio — runs roughly $90,000–$120,000 in total compensation. Cutting the
position takes Montgomery from five 2nd-grade sections to four. With next year's projected
cohort of ~100 second graders, that's the difference between five classrooms of 20 and
four classrooms of 25 — every child in 2nd grade gets five more classmates as a direct
result of the cut. The per-student "savings" works out to just $900–$1,200 annually. And
within next year's K–4 sequence at Montgomery, every other grade sits between 17.8 and
21.2 students; only 2nd grade jumps to 25 — a structural spike at exactly the
grade where the research is most conclusive.
Against that figure: Krueger's (2003, Economic Journal) estimated ~6% internal rate of
return on STAR-scale reductions; Chetty et al.'s (2011, QJE) finding that assignment to an
experienced kindergarten teacher (>10 years) is associated with roughly $1,100 higher earnings at
age 27 — about 7% of mean income — and that a one-standard-deviation increase in classroom quality
is associated with meaningfully higher adult earnings (≈ $1,520/year); Fredriksson's Swedish data showing long-run wage gains
large enough to pass a cost-benefit test. Even if the local effect is half the magnitude documented in STAR,
the present value of lifetime-earnings impacts exceeds per-student costs by a wide margin — particularly for
the subgroups where effects are concentrated.
And the math excludes a second-order cost. The RAND State of the American Teacher 2024 survey found
teachers report burnout at roughly twice the rate of comparable professionals. The Learning Policy Institute
(Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017) cites annual US teacher-turnover costs at more than
$8 billion (originally estimated by NCTAF, 2007). Class size is a documented driver of retention.
A cut that raises class sizes this year makes positions harder to fill next year.
Every figure below is pulled directly from Sycamore Community Schools' own October 2025 Five-Year Forecast, filed with the Ohio Department of
Education and Workforce, and from Ohio Department of Education and Workforce reporting. Nothing here is projection or opinion — these are the numbers on the table.
⸺ The frame for everything below
The district has done the hard work — capping growth, joining a regional health-insurance consortium, signing a
14-year energy contract, stretching the 2016 levy a decade past its five-year promise. The pressure now is
coming from Columbus, not from Sycamore. The November 2026 levy is what
refills the runway. The April 29 question is narrower: which margin to balance on between now and then
— and we're asking the board not to balance on the grade band where the research on class size is most
conclusive.
−14.31
certified (teaching) FTE already cut between 2024–25 and 2025–26 — before
this year's 2nd-grade teacher cut. Over the same span, administrative FTE went up by
one (36 → 37).
less for Ohio public schools over the FY26–27 biennium under HB 96House Bill 96 · June 30, 2025Ohio's FY26–27 biennial budget, signed by Gov. DeWine. Froze the Fair School Funding Plan at outdated 2022 base-cost inputs, abandoning the bipartisan six-year phase-in. Same bill budgeted ~$2.4B for vouchers — roughly a 16–20% increase over the prior biennium. The Senate completed the Item-66 veto override on Oct 1, 2025, eliminating replacement and emergency school levies (effective Jan 1, 2026).Read the FSFP deep-dive →, versus what the Fair School Funding PlanFSFP · 2021Ohio's bipartisan school funding overhaul — the legislature's first serious attempt to comply with the four DeRolph rulings (1997–2002) that found the state's funding system unconstitutional. A six-year phase-in tied to actual cost-of-education inputs (teacher salaries, class size, technology). HB 96 (2025) abandoned the phase-in by freezing inputs at 2022 figures.Read the full breakdown → phase-in would have provided. Sycamore's state aid is flat in nominal dollars and shrinking in real terms.
Ohio's voucher spending in FY25 — tripled in two years after HB 33House Bill 33 · 2023Ohio's FY24–25 biennial budget. Made EdChoice vouchers universally eligible regardless of family income, starting school year 2023–24. EdChoice Expansion enrollment alone jumped from 23,272 to 82,946 in one year (and reached ~100,941 in 2024–25); total recipients across all five Ohio voucher programs reached 166,589 in FY25. Voucher spending nearly tripled from ~$354M (FY23) to $1.095 billion (FY25). Funded from the same K–12 General Revenue Fund pool that funds the FSFP.Read the chronological context → (2023) made EdChoiceOhio's voucher programsState-funded scholarships that pay private-school tuition. After HB 33's universal expansion, in 2023–24 Ohio issued ~70,000 new EdChoice Expansion vouchers (gross awards, including renewals reclassified into Expansion) but private-school enrollment grew by fewer than 4,000 students — Policy Matters Ohio estimates ~65,000 went to families already in private school. The share of voucher recipients from low-income families dropped from 67% to 17%. On June 24, 2025, a Franklin County court ruled the program unconstitutional under the same Article VI, Section 2 clause as DeRolph.Read the court ruling → universal regardless of income. Roughly 65,000 of the new vouchers went to families already in private school.
Derived from Sycamore's own 2025–26 Certified Salary Schedule and the forecast's 37.8%
benefits-to-wages ratio, total compensation for one elementary teaching position runs roughly
$90,000–$120,000. Against the district's own numbers, that figure represents:
0.1% of the FY26 $104 million operating budget.
~80% of one year's Athletic Fund transfer ($135,000/year, slide 5) —
redirecting a single year of that transfer would more than cover one full teaching position.
~2.7% of one year's Permanent Improvement transfer ($4.1
million/year, slide 5).
10–14% of the $866,000/year that frees up in FY27 when three existing
General Fund debts (Energy Conservation, Blue Ash Elementary, District Office) mature in December 2025
(slides 2, 5).
⸺ The assumption that doubles the problem
In FY27, instructional coaches go away.
The forecast's own expenditure assumption reads, verbatim: "8% Increase in
Purchased Services (2026), −4.3% (2027 — Instructional Coaches go away), 3.5% (2028–2030)" (slide 5).
Instructional coaches are the full-time positions whose job is to help classroom teachers model lessons, plan
curriculum, and implement effective K–3 literacy instruction. Eliminating them in the same two-year window as
the 2nd-grade teacher shrinks support from both ends — precisely in the grade band where the research says
class size matters most.
The cash-balance concern, fairly stated
The forecast projects the General Fund cash balance sliding below the board's 25% policy floor in FY28 (to 19%)
and turning negative by FY30 (−10%). That pressure is real, and the levy is the answer to it. One piece of
context worth pairing with the slide: the October 2025 forecast pushes the predicted negative-balance year from
FY29 (May 2025 forecast) to FY30
(slide 19, verbatim). The trajectory is improving, not worsening. The forecast's own assumptions show where the
pressure that remains is coming from — and it isn't salaries:
Forecast · the story behind the cash balance
A reserve built deliberately, spent deliberately, and now running out — exactly when Columbus turned hostile.
The 2016 operating levy was promised to last five years. The board stretched it ten by capping growth, joining a regional health-insurance consortium, signing a 14-year energy contract, and drawing down a $58M reserve rather than coming back to voters or cutting programs. The cliff isn't a Sycamore failure — it's the runway running out, narrowed faster by three Ohio statutes that compressed school revenue while costs ran on contract.
Buildup · 2016 levy fills the reservePeak · ~$58M (FY21–22)Drawdown · actuals (FY23–25)Forecast · projected (FY26–30)
§ Era 01 · Buildup
2015 — 2019
Voters said yes. The board kept the lid on.
Voters approved the 2016 operating levy after Ohio ended TPP reimbursementsTangible Personal Property taxOhio's tax on business equipment, eliminated by HB 66 (2005) with a phase-out. State "replacement payments" to districts were largely phased out by FY17, costing Sycamore approximately $9M/year permanently — about 12% of the operating budget at the time.Read the full history →. The board capped budget growth, joined a regional health-insurance consortium, and signed a 14-year energy contract. By FY20, the reserve had grown into the low-$50M range and the levy was clearly outperforming its 5-year promise.
§ Era 02 · Peak
2020 — 2022
$58M peak — a decade of discipline.
Three successive treasurers, several boards, and a 2016 levy stretched twice past its design life — all to avoid asking voters or cutting programs. No building closed, no academic program eliminated, no transportation route cut.
§ Era 03 · Drawdown
2023 — 2025
Columbus narrows the runway.
HB 33 (2023) makes EdChoice vouchers universal — Ohio voucher spending triples to $1.095B. HB 96 (June 2025) freezes the Fair School Funding Plan — $2.86B less for Ohio public schools over the biennium. Federal ESSERElementary & Secondary School Emergency ReliefFederal pandemic aid through three rounds (CARES, CRRSA, ARP) totaling roughly $190B nationally. Ohio districts received the funding through FY22–FY24; the ESSER III obligation deadline ended September 30, 2024. The cliff after ESSER expiry is visible in most Ohio districts' FY25 budgets — federal share of K–12 revenue rose to a 13.7% peak in FY22 (the highest since the early 1980s) before falling back toward the long-run 8–10% range.Read the ESSER analysis → ends Sept 2024. HB 920House Bill 920 · 1976The single most consequential statute in Ohio school finance. Caps existing operating levies at their original dollar yield: when property values rise in a reappraisal, the millage rate automatically rolls back so revenue stays flat. The 2016 Sycamore levy generates the same dollar amount in 2026 as it did in 2017 — across a span where U.S. consumer prices rose roughly 35%. Sycamore stays above the 20-mill floor, so it captures none of the inflation lift other Ohio districts get.Read why HB 920 is decisive → (1976) prevents reappraisals from delivering normal inflation revenue.
§ Era 04 · Forecast
2026 — 2030
A November 2026 levy is the answer.
A continuing operating levy on the November 3, 2026 ballot refills the runway. Three General Fund debts mature December 2025, freeing $866K/year. The forecast assumes no new operating revenue — passing the levy is what changes the trajectory.
Wages: +3% base + 2% step — predictable and modest (slide 5).
Insurance: +10% every year of the forecast (slide 5).
Purchased Services: up 32.5% over three years, driven by a 79% rise
in Professional & Technical Services (slide 8).
Permanent Improvement + Athletic transfers: $4.2 million every year,
all five forecast years (slide 5).
Ohio's revenue side has been compressed deliberately. HB 920 (1976) prevents reappraisals from delivering normal inflation revenue on existing levies. HB 33 (2023) made EdChoice vouchers universal — statewide voucher spending tripled in two years to $1.095 billion, money that would have funded public schools. HB 96 (June 2025) froze the Fair School Funding Plan, costing Ohio public schools $2.86 billion over the FY26–27 biennium versus what the phase-in promised (Policy Matters Ohio; levy page · Columbus context).
A November 2026 levy is already on the calendar (slide 19), with filing deadlines in July and
August. Three General Fund debts mature in December 2025, freeing $866,000/year starting in FY27.
The state-revenue compression is real and largely outside any local board's control. The November 2026 levy is the instrument that addresses it. The narrower question for April 29 is: does the gap between now and that levy have to be closed on the 2nd-grade margin specifically — the single grade band where the research on class-size effects is most conclusive?
Three questions to leave with the board
Public comment is capped at three minutes. Pick one — don't try all three.
Question 01 · Bridge to the levy
Nine months and one teacher
"A continuing operating levy is on the November 3, 2026 ballot — the first new operating-revenue ask Sycamore voters have faced since 2016. Three General Fund debts mature this December, freeing $866,000 a year starting in FY27. The marginal cost of holding one 2nd-grade section is roughly $90,000 to $120,000 in total compensation. Has the board considered other bridge mechanisms — short-term carrying capacity, redirection of a single year's discretionary General Fund transfers, board-level advocacy on the state revenue side — that would carry K–3 class sizes through to the levy without cutting at the grade band where the research is most conclusive?"
Question 02 · Instructional coaches
Two layers of support, shrinking at once
"Your own FY27 expenditure assumption is that Purchased Services drops 4.3% because
instructional coaches go away. Coaches are there to help classroom teachers implement effective instruction.
Cutting a 2nd-grade teaching position and the coaching capacity in the same two-year window removes support
on both ends. Specifically: how does the board plan to maintain K–3 literacy outcomes when both layers of
support shrink at the same time?"
Question 03 · Levy timing
Nine months before the ask
"A November 2026 levy is already on the calendar, with filing deadlines this July
and August. Three General Fund debts mature in December 2025, freeing $866,000 per year starting in FY27.
The marginal cost of keeping one 2nd-grade teacher is about $90,000 to $120,000 in total compensation. Why
is that teaching position being eliminated nine months before the community is asked to approve new
operating revenue, and before the debt-maturity savings show up in a full fiscal year?"
The meeting runs 6:00–8:00 PM at the Kenwood Learning Commons. Four things any parent can
do — attend and speak, email the board, bring a printed brief, or forward this page to a neighbor. Each is
pre-written below.
01 · Public Comment
A 90-second script
Most boards cap public comment around two to three minutes. This version runs
about 90 seconds at a normal speaking pace. Read it as-is or rework it in your own voice.
My name is [your name] and I'm a parent of a [grade] grader at
Montgomery Elementary. I'm asking the board to use its authority to keep five 2nd-grade sections at
Montgomery next year — and to make smaller K–3 class sizes a district priority.
The research community has been studying this exact question — K–3 class size — for forty years. Tennessee's
Project STAR, the only large randomized trial ever conducted on American class size, followed ~11,600 K–3
students and found students in classes of around fifteen were about three months of learning ahead by the end of
third grade, compared to classes of twenty-two.
Economists at Harvard, Berkeley, and Northwestern later linked those same students to tax records into their
mid-to-late twenties. They found higher college attendance, home ownership, and retirement savings. Across
the class-size literature — Krueger 1999, Dynarski 2013 — these effects are consistently about twice as
large for Black students and students on free lunch.
Montgomery is going from five 2nd-grade sections to four — one classroom's worth of children redistributed
across every remaining room, pushing every section to 25 students. That is the loosest figure in Ohio's
K–4 staffing rule — a number the state writes as a district-wide average, applied here to a single
classroom. The annual savings per affected student is about $1,000. The estimated lifetime earnings
impact, based on Krueger's ~6% internal rate of return on STAR-scale reductions, is many multiples of
that.
I'm asking the board to keep this position. Thank you.
02 · Email the Board
A ready-to-send letter
Written to stand on its own if you can't attend. Add one line about your own
child's experience in the bracketed paragraph — specificity carries more weight than volume.
Subject: Please keep five 2nd-grade sections at Montgomery
Elementary
Dear members of the Board of Education,
I'm writing as a parent of a Montgomery Elementary student to ask the board to use its authority to keep
five 2nd-grade sections at Montgomery next year. With a teacher resigning and no plan to backfill, the
projected 2nd-grade class size jumps to 25 students — the loosest figure in Ohio's K–4 staffing rule, a
number the state writes as a district-wide average and we are applying to a single classroom.
[One or two sentences about your child — their teacher, their class this year, what has worked.]
The research on K–3 class size is unusually clear. Tennessee's Project STAR — a randomized trial of ~11,600
children followed through third grade — found that small-class K–3 students were about three months of learning
ahead by the end of third grade. Chetty et al.'s long-run follow-up (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2011)
linked those same children to tax records into their late twenties and found a 1.8 percentage-point increase
in college attendance. Across the class-size literature (Krueger 1999, Dynarski 2013), these effects are
consistently about twice as large for Black and low-income students.
Moving 2nd-grade classes from an average of 22 students this year to 25 next year places them at the
top of Project STAR's regular-class band (22–25), the group that finished 3rd grade about three months
of learning behind their small-class peers. Krueger's ~6% estimated internal rate of return on
STAR-scale reductions implies the present value of lifetime earnings losses substantially exceeds the
per-student savings — particularly for the subgroups where effects are concentrated.
I will be at the April 29 meeting at 6:00 PM at the Kenwood Learning Commons. I hope the board will act
to keep all five 2nd-grade sections.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]
The page has a print stylesheet that produces a clean serif brief. Press
⌘ P (Mac) or Ctrl P (Windows), choose Save as PDF, and
bring a few copies. Board members are more likely to read a document in their hands than one sent in
advance.
04 · Forward to a Neighbor
Share this page
The argument only works if the seats are filled on April 29. Pick a network
below for one-click sharing — or copy the pre-written message and paste it into a text or email.
Montgomery Elementary is eliminating a 2nd-grade position for
next year. The research on K–3 class size is unusually clear — here's a short brief. Next chance to push
back is Wed Apr 29, 6 PM, Kenwood Learning Commons.
https://keepourteachers.org
05 · File a Public-Records Request
Ask for the numbers the district hasn't posted
Sycamore's Five-Year Forecast operates at the district level. Per-building allocations — including what Montgomery Elementary actually receives — are not publicly posted. Under Ohio's Public Records Act (Ohio Revised Code § 149.43), any Ohio resident can request them. Even if the request is denied or incomplete, the absence itself becomes a question for the board: why isn't this public? Treasurer/CFO Brody Burson is the custodian.
The Sycamore Community Schools Board of Education is five elected members. Emails and
one-line context below — a personal note to an individual member, written in your own voice, is worth more than
ten form emails to the group address.
All five at once[email protected]Best when you can't tailor to each member
President
Victor Harris
Retired Sycamore Jr. High social studies teacher, 33 years in the district. Now teaches
intervention at Seven Hills. Elected Nov 2023 · term ends 2027.
Retired Sycamore Superintendent. 33 years in the district as teacher, administrator,
and Superintendent. Educational consultant. Elected Nov 2023 · term ends 2027.
If this is your first board meeting, these are the practical things parents wish they'd known:
Arrive by 5:45Find Brody Burson in the entryway — he keeps the public-comment
sign-up sheet on-site. Meeting starts at 6:00 PM sharp. Seats fill.
Bring the briefPrint this page (⌘ P / Ctrl P → Save as PDF) and
bring a few copies. Board members are more likely to read a document in their hands than one sent in
advance.
Don't rehearseRead from notes. The 90-second script in §08 works as-is. You're not being graded
— specificity matters more than polish.
After you speakBoard members typically don't respond directly during public comment. They listen
and your comment is entered into the record. Applause from the audience is normal.
You can leave earlyNon-agenda public comment is at the start. Speak, sit down, listen as long as you
like — or go. Being present at the start is what matters.
How to speak at the meeting
Sycamore's public-participation rules are specific. The short version:
Who can speakResidents, parents or guardians of Sycamore students, alumni, district employees,
district business owners, and elected officials with jurisdiction over the district.
Non-agenda items3 minutes per speaker, taken at the beginning of each regular
meeting.
Agenda itemsSpeak when that item is being discussed — after the motion and second, before the
vote.
Total cap30 minutes total for public comment per meeting. Seats fill —
arrive early.
To sign upEmail Treasurer/CFO Brody Burson at [email protected] in advance, or complete the sign-up form at the meeting before it
begins.
Can't attend in person
The meeting is live-streamed on Zoom. Meeting ID 937 6301 0127, passcode 654692.
Full agendas are posted in advance at BoardDocs.
A November 3, 2026 levy is already on Sycamore's calendar (Forecast slide 19). It was
scheduled before this brief existed and will appear on the ballot regardless of how the April 29 meeting ends.
This page is built around two yeses — keep the 2nd-grade teacher on April 29, and
vote yes on the levy in November. They are not bargaining chips against each other. The state has compressed
district revenue while costs run on contract; the levy is the only local instrument that addresses that.
April 29 is the narrower question of which margin to balance on between now and then.
The timeline
July 26, 2026 Resolution of Necessity filed in advance of the 90-day deadline so the auditor can certify in time.
August 5, 2026 County Auditor's certificate and Resolution to Proceed filed with the Board
of Elections (90-day deadline).
November 3, 2026 Election Day.
Three things to watch on April 29
Whether the position is kept. A board that intervenes — directing
the administration to maintain five 2nd-grade sections — signals willingness to listen. A board that
doesn't is signaling that budget balancing overrides research-backed educational judgment, at the grade
band with the strongest evidence base.
How the three §07 questions are answered. The bridge-to-the-levy
question, the instructional-coaches question, the levy-timing question. Full answers help future yes
voters defend the levy in the fall — evasive answers leave us empty-handed at the doorstep.
Whether the board commits to publishing per-school budget data.
Per-building allocations are not currently posted publicly. Publishing them strengthens the levy case in
November — voters who can see exactly where each dollar goes are voters who can defend the ask to skeptical
neighbors.
What to do with this
Every Sycamore voter weighs these themselves. The board faces an impossible position created in Columbus,
and parents showing up on April 29 are the same people who will be knocking doors for the levy in October.
Showing up tonight, then voting yes in November, is how the community holds both ends of the rope.
The question to leave with the board
Which second graders does the board believe a class of 25 won't hurt — and what's the
evidence?
