The New York Times reported this weekend on a question that has been causing school reformers to scratch their heads: how much does class size matter for students in urban environments? The story focuses on San Diego, a district that has capped class sizes at 17 students per class for grades kindergarten-third in the 30 poorest schools in the district. The district has shown gains in reading standardized test scores in the last several years (45% proficient to 56% proficient in three years), and the school board president believes that these gains are due, at least in part, to the smaller class sizes. The article then goes on to explain that heavy budget cuts on all levels may cause this cap to be removed: as teachers are cut to satisfy budget requirements, class sizes will necessarily increase. Parents, teachers, and administrators alike are worried about how the increase in class size might negatively affect learning for the youngest learners in the poorest schools.
I believe that the school board's president's claims that class size reduction leads to better test scores should be taken with a grain of salt---correlation does not imply causation, and the article cites no specific evidence to prove any relation between class size and test scores. However, I think that the comments made by parents and teachers in the article do shed some light on the more qualitative benefits of small class size in urban schools, especially in the younger grades. Students with special needs (both academic and health-related) are given more personal attention. Teachers are able to more effectively monitor student progress, attend to health and safety problems, and care for students' emotional and physical needs. I think that the rhetoric of reformers needs to be careful about placing too much value on shaky data surrounding test score/small class correlations (data that could be easily picked apart by those who want to cut budgets and increase class sizes), and focus on getting more data on both the quantitative and qualitative advantages to small classes for young students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I found your post extremely interesting, especially since I taught a very small class all year. It’s terrific that test scores went up but you are right, there is no evidence to prove the relationship between the small class size and an increase in test scores. I believe there is more then just one component that is needed for success on standardized test. A small class combined with a good teacher and the right curriculum, now that is a recipe for success.
Teaching my class of 13 this year was both rewarding and challenging. I was fortunate to be able to really get to know all of my students on a personal and academic level. As a result, I was able to make a lot of gain with them but instruction was not always so easy. When one or two students were off for the day, my entire class was off. The less students you have, the more those “destroyers” are really capable of destroying a classroom.
My small class slowly throughout the year became a large family. We made a tremendous amount of gain and I do owe a lot of that to the size of the class. As I got to know my students, I became better at putting out those small fires and instruction became much easier.
I've seen the benefits of a small class first hand. Teachers are able to better meet the needs of their students, especially our lower students who need more attention. Test scores aside, a small class is certainly ideal for both instructional purposes and student growth, both academically and personally.
I too found this commentary poignant, especially considering our recent discussion in class regarding class size. I think that it is important to focus on the fact that this study was done in an urban environment where, as the article explains, at least one of the schools int his project had 100% of students qualify for FARMS. In class, we have spoken greatly about the demanding needs of our students here in Baltimore from food to health care to assistance with homework which prevent them from succeeding in school. Another thing that I would argue prevents my children from being successful is emotional and developmental problems. Many of my students had trouble both understanding and controlling their emotions which ultimately has a huge affect on their behavior, ability to learn and motivation in the classroom. While we have a social worker at my school, she is EXTREMELY overwhelmed and overworked. Her caseload was constantly full and at most points in the year, she was unable to take on new students due to the simple fact that she did not have enough time during the day to treat the students she was already assigned. I wonder what difference it would make, both qualitatively and quantitatively, if we increased the presence of social workers and psychologists at schools. While in many ways, this is different that reducing class size, I think that it might provide some of the similar benefits at a lower cost, clearly something that is an interest in most districts. By paying more attention to one of the greatest obstacles that I see to some of my student's success, we might be able to have more efficient classrooms with less behavior problems and more time for the teacher to focus on instruction.
I have always been perplexed by the studies that prove class size does not matter. In my own very narrow experience as a teacher, I have had a class of thirty, which, I honestly think could have been increased to 40 or even 45 without any real implication on student learning. I only say that because this was my higher tracked class; they were not a lot of behavior issues and those that were could be managed. However, my other class had 25 students, only 5 less than the other class. This class needed to be split into two, or preferably three different class. Between IEP's, 504's, and ELL's, the students in this class needed a smaller environment.
Every teacher has experienced that day when half the class decides not to show up. The few times it has happened to me, it was a complete change from the norm (for the better, and it was wonderful). The best part about these debates is that they don't really matter for anything, at the end of the day the budget of any school district could not sustain the smaller class sizes we dream of.
The debate concerning class size continues to be a controversial topic in the field of education. I found the articles approach of focusing on the effectiveness of smaller class sizes in urban schools interesting. Smaller classes do provide a reasonable amount of advantages; however, similar to your argument, I do not believe that an increase in test scores is directly correlated to class ratio. From my experience, I believe that an educator’s method of management in the classroom plays a larger role to student success.
As a first year teacher, I was fortunate enough to have a paraprofessional in my class throughout the school year who provided an extra set of eyes while instructing. What I found most interesting was that in the absence of my paraprofessional, students continued to stay focused when I effectively managing my class. I have witnessed instances where a teacher has 30 plus students in a class, and students are engaged in small groups, attentive, and proactively participating. In my opinion, this is directly correlated to preparation and establishing an effective management system. On the contrary, I have also seen teachers with less than 20 students struggle with management.
Although I do recognize that smaller classes provide an opportunity for teachers to personalize and spend more time with each student, this is also attainable in any classroom structure; regardless of the number of students when both the teacher and student make an effort.
Post a Comment