class size

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Dear Rory,

Smaller class-sizes do matter, whatever the research says. You will find that most of the research cited to prove that it doesn’t matter, at least enough to justify the cost, is flawed (didn’t reduce class sizes enough, didn’t last long enough, involved too many variables or too small a sample size to be statistically significant… and on and on). Unfortunately, most people don’t have the sort of diligence and - ironically - education it takes to understand the standards of meaningful research and to screen results accordingly so they are sitting ducks for such phrases as “research says” or “experts have shown.”

But I won’t go on about the research because, in truth, it doesn’t take “scientific” research for any parent, teacher, or student to know that smaller classes are best for all involved, which researchers, generally, are not. This is true not just with respect to academic achievement, but also, crucially, for student well-being and attitudes toward school. I’ve had children in private school classes of 22 with two head teachers (wonderful); in a public school class of 16 students (flukey and marvelous); and in public school classes of 28 and 32 (the teachers were valiant - when not beaten down - but it’s heart-breaking). No matter what data Bill Gates is currently buying and flogging - his children, not incidentally, attend a school with average class sizes of 15 - I know which of these classes was best for my kids by a long shot. This is why I laughed when I read in Cecil’s post about the researchers scratching their heads over the mystery of the benefits of small class sizes. Hmm. What could it be? We’ll have to do another study. Oh for god’s sake.

And if class size matters to the bright children of this upper-middle-class, white, well-educated, employed, intact couple it matters even more to the children of the 20% (and growing) of our nation’s families who live in poverty with all the obstacles that come with it.

So, Rory, if you can get your kindergartener into a school with small class-sizes, by all means do it. And if not - or even if you do - work to counter in popular opinion the bogus notion that class-size reduction isn’t worth the cost, and to lower class sizes for all public school students. To do so is both a moral imperative and, as a matter of enlightened self-interest, essential to creating a country we will not feel scared to leave to our children.

And, please, for once, somebody, ask a teacher.

Here is a link to an interesting bit from The New York Times blog:
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/does-class-size-matter/

Good luck. Thanks for listening:)

Zara

2

I am appalled that a teacher would discount scientific evidence in favor of anecdotes. Is that what you teach your kids? Surely you know why one is acceptable in science and the other is not?
Powers &8^]

3

Is this related to this column? (Trying to be helpful.)

4

Appalled? That’s ridiculous. Scientific evidence is all well and good, and SUPPORTS the point being made here.

Quite frankly, if you can’t use a little common sense and basic observational skills to draw the conclusion that, “Hey, the fewer students there are, the more individual attention each will get” then all the scientific evidence in the world won’t help you with your rectal-cranial inversion.

5

But that’s not the only consideration. If a system has to hire more teachers then they are probably forced to hire less-qualified teachers, which could negate any benefit of fewer students while increasing cost. Increasing cost for teachers might require other areas be cut, further decreasing the effectiveness for smaller classes.

This is exactly why we need good “scientific” studies and can’t rely on just common sense.

6

Well, aren’t you a little ray of sunshine?

Aside from Deeg’s astute point above, you’ll note that the opening poster was not merely suggesting that students get more individual attention when they have fewer classmates. No, she said that smaller class sizes are “best for all involved” – presumably meaning students, teachers, administrators, board members, parents, and taxpayers. As you’ll see if you actually read Cecil’s column, that’s far from a universal truth.
Powers &8^]

7

Well, to be fair, one could infer that you were discrediting the OP’s capacity as a teacher… As well as picker’s ability to read in this post. A little hostile, perhaps passive aggressive response to a heart-felt (if perhaps misguided) post.

Anyway, if you read this thread: here you’ll see that it ain’t necessarily so. Achieving the same results as a classroom with 15 children in a classroom with 30 children requires a teacher who is in the 85th percentile in terms of proficiency. Thus, a teacher would have to be in the bottom 15 percentile to teach a classroom of 15 as poorly as a normal teacher (50th percentile) taught a classroom of 30. With that given, what are the alternatives? One proposed was to increase the qualification requirement of teachers, at no cost. However, as there are already a dearth of teachers, this would just serve to increase class sizes. Another is to hire assistants that may not be as adept as the teacher, but this improves the student to adult ratio in the class (at a cost). However, I don’t think a relationship between performance and student:adult ratio has been demonstrated, while there is some evidence that smaller class sizes are important (i.e different rooms). One solution discussed in the article linked in the above thread is creating the incentive to work as a teacher (for a massive cost), interviewing hundreds for a single position. However, if there is a single specific factor behind teaching ability, it could be that all those that are in receipt of it are already teaching. If there are many factors, this would be a worthwhile (if costly) endeavour, but may detract from other industries… Of course, that’s the whole point of competition. It would be a bit difficult to say whether public healthcare or public education should receive which share of “brilliant” individuals. The final option would be possible if proficiency is an transmittable idea that can be worked on, which would be giving teachers more training and making them attend more workshops. Again, that wouldn’t be cheap.

8

Erp, speaking of slipping standards. “… a transmittable idea” of course.

9

Is there a shortage of teachers? In my neck of the woods, openings get dozens or scores of applicants, or so I’ve heard.
Powers &8^]

10

In general, yes, there is a shortage of teachers. Prior to the Great Recession, many parts of the country had to really work to get enough qualified applicants.

In particular at this point in time, no, there is no shortage of teachers. A very large number of teachers have had to be laid off as part of reductions in force, necessitated by the declining tax revenues of the recessionary economy. Still, in some content areas, there can be shortfalls. For example, my school had difficulty finding a qualified Spanish teacher for this fall.

11

I’m familiar with a lot of the economics-of-education literature. I’m also a teacher, though I do it at the college level rather than elementary, middle, or high school. I’d appreciate it if you would go into some detail about the problems with the research.

12

Well, the article points out that qualifications aren’t necessarily a good predictor of teacher proficiency and thus classroom success.