What's the impact of smaller classes?
I noticed a report that came out last month from the John Locke Foundation (a policy group focusing on North Carolina) which makes the claim that, at least from the standpoint of test scores, reducing class size has had no measurable effect in N.C.:
The report also notes the contention of well-known scholar Eric Hanushek that the evidence for smaller class size's positive effects are grounded somewhat more in rhetoric than hard science.
It's difficult to get an objective read on this, but a 1999 paper on the federal Department of Education website entitled "Reducing class size: what do we know?" suggests that "not all the questions about the impact of class size reductions have been answered, nor have all the debates been settled. Overall, however, the pattern of research findings points more and more clearly toward the beneficial effects of reducing class size." The document goes on to cite specific research.
I'm willing to cede that the theory of increased achievement caused by class size reduction is not as solid as, say, gravity, but here's my thought: It should work. Logically and rationally, giving a teacher 15 students instead of 25 should allow that teacher to better concentrate his or her attention, better customize his or her lesson plans, better identify and support student deficiencies and generally have a better grasp on each student's portfolio of personality and learning. I can't fathom -- and I would love to hear one -- a logical explanation for why more students would be better for authentic achievement, or why less students wouldn't help.
If, however, it is true that smaller class sizes don't always yield positive results, then I would argue there's a big problem with the classroom. For instance, my friend tells of his 8th grade civics class where the teacher literally had them copy down overheads for the bulk of class. Certainly, this style of ill-concieved direct instruction should have more or less the same impact whether there are 50 students or 5, since there are marginal amounts of dynamic engagement. However, a classroom where students are actually learning how to think and are engaged in a constant, fluid exchange of learning with the teacher should work measurably better with less students.
The very fact that there's a debate over whether a smaller student-to-teacher ratio is better should be frightening to every actor in the educational world. Something has to be going terribly wrong with the pedagogy and/or assessment system for that to even be a point of contention.
UPDATE: I hadn't even seen Jay Mathew's column on the issue Tuesday!
[T]he final report of the High Priority Schools Initiative assessed one of the state’s most important educational initiatives, a four-year (2001-05), $23 million class-size reduction program targeting low-performing and low-income elementary schools. The report’s findings are even more important as the North Carolina Lottery Commission will distribute part of an estimated $213 million in lottery revenue for class-size reductions in early grades. Is this a good investment? The answer is “no.” By the final year of the program, the performance of students in high priority (HP) schools declined significantly. From the first to the fourth year of the program, fewer schools met their ABC growth targets and even fewer made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In addition, small class sizes failed to produce significant gains in reading performance. In brief, there is no statistical evidence that smaller class sizes in high priority schools raised student achievement.
The report also notes the contention of well-known scholar Eric Hanushek that the evidence for smaller class size's positive effects are grounded somewhat more in rhetoric than hard science.
It's difficult to get an objective read on this, but a 1999 paper on the federal Department of Education website entitled "Reducing class size: what do we know?" suggests that "not all the questions about the impact of class size reductions have been answered, nor have all the debates been settled. Overall, however, the pattern of research findings points more and more clearly toward the beneficial effects of reducing class size." The document goes on to cite specific research.
I'm willing to cede that the theory of increased achievement caused by class size reduction is not as solid as, say, gravity, but here's my thought: It should work. Logically and rationally, giving a teacher 15 students instead of 25 should allow that teacher to better concentrate his or her attention, better customize his or her lesson plans, better identify and support student deficiencies and generally have a better grasp on each student's portfolio of personality and learning. I can't fathom -- and I would love to hear one -- a logical explanation for why more students would be better for authentic achievement, or why less students wouldn't help.
If, however, it is true that smaller class sizes don't always yield positive results, then I would argue there's a big problem with the classroom. For instance, my friend tells of his 8th grade civics class where the teacher literally had them copy down overheads for the bulk of class. Certainly, this style of ill-concieved direct instruction should have more or less the same impact whether there are 50 students or 5, since there are marginal amounts of dynamic engagement. However, a classroom where students are actually learning how to think and are engaged in a constant, fluid exchange of learning with the teacher should work measurably better with less students.
The very fact that there's a debate over whether a smaller student-to-teacher ratio is better should be frightening to every actor in the educational world. Something has to be going terribly wrong with the pedagogy and/or assessment system for that to even be a point of contention.
UPDATE: I hadn't even seen Jay Mathew's column on the issue Tuesday!
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 7:14 PM.
|
