Class-Size Limits Targeted for Cuts, p. 1
As schools cope with budget shortfalls, some are considering increasing class sizes. This would be a step in the opposite direction from the long-term national trend. Nationally, average class size has gone from 17.6 in 1980 to 15.8 in 2008. These figures may be deceptive, however, in that they include special education classes and other specialized classes, the number of which have increased since 1980 and which typically have small classes. The U.S. Department of Education estimates actual class size to be closer to 25 students.
Those who push for smaller class sizes argue it is the simplest way to increase student achievement. A 1984 study in Tennessee that tracked over 7,000 K-3 students over four years compared students who were placed in classes of 13-17 students vs. those in classes of 22-25. It showed higher student performance in the smaller classes, including poor and minority students. Follow up studies years later indicated that the small-class students went to college, got married, and bought houses at higher rates than their large-class peers. Results like this make small classes a popular idea with teachers and parents.
When other states have tried to replicate Tennessee’s experiment, however, there have been mixed results, leading to skepticism on the part of some researchers and policy makers. Some critics contend that small class sizes are too expensive for the minimal improvement in achievement. Japan and South Korea both have higher average class sizes than the U.S., although their students out-perform American students. Federal funding for reducing class sizes, common in the 1990’s, was left out of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has proposed that targeted increases in class sizes could be combined with programs such as varying class sizes by teacher expertise, or bringing in part-time staff to help with larger classes. Some school districts have experimented with different approaches. One of the more interesting approaches is the one tried at New York’s Generation Schools Network, where instructors where hired to fill some administrative positions. Each morning, almost everyone jumps in to help teach 90-minute blocks of basic courses, keeping the class sizes small. In the afternoon, the regular teachers concentrate on electives, with larger class sizes. Overall, teacher loads are smaller than at other New York schools, while operating costs are slightly cheaper.
Some school districts have accepted larger class sizes simply to maintain existing programs in tight times, such as music programs. Some schools have willingly traded smaller class sizes to find funding for other reforms. In the Nogales school district in Arizona, for example, they have added more math and reading specialists as class sizes rose, and test scores have risen each year in spite of larger classes.
[My thoughts: tight budgets may require us to become more experimental and innovative, which can be a good thing in itself. But how much better to have both small classes and innovative programs. I cannot help but think that, although the public has to re-think its priorities in tough times, education has got to be at the top of anyone’s priority list. Our children’s futures are at stake.]
I would have thought that smaller classes being more effective would be obvious. I agree with you that we need re-think our priorities at all times if we want to make sure our students are getting the best education.
ReplyDelete