jon kelland wrote:
> Go to:
>
> http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html
>
> and look under research on class size.
>
> Any of us who know better would not claim that there
> is definitive evidence either way, but there is
> probably more research that would back up the position
> that smaller class sizes (and more importantly, school
> sizes) do matter.
Thank you for this reference. This report was prepared
by the U.S. Department of Education under Secretary Riley,
who I consider to be an educational liberal. I find the
report to be somewhat slanted, but even with being slanted,
it shows that the evidence is equivocal. Consider just the
report's conclusion:
"Reducing class size to below 20 students leads to
higher student achievement. However, class size
reduction represents a considerable commitment of
funds, and its implementation can have a sizable impact
on the availability of qualified teachers. Strengthening
teacher quality also leads to higher student achievement.
There is more than one way to implement class size
reduction, and more than one way to teach in a smaller
class. Depending on how it is done, the benefits of
class size reduction will be larger or smaller."
I'd like to make several points about these conclusions.
First off, it fails to specify that most of the evidence
they report applies only to first through third grades. In fact, the
report states that, "Researchers are more cautious about
the question of the positive effects of class size reduction
in 4th though 12th grades." Secondly, as I had tried to point
out in previous posts, you need to consider how large of an effect
on student achievement reductions in class sizes will have because
other alternative changes maybe more cost effective and result in
even greater gains in achievement. The report acknowledges
this: "Strengthening teacher quality also leads to higher
student achievement." And, that the size of the effects
can vary dramatically , "Depending on how it is done, the benefits of
class size reduction will be larger or smaller."
The most important point that I have been trying to make
is that changes in educational philosophy or administrative
polices can be much more cost effective and have a greater
impact. Consider one endemic problem cause by
legislative mandate. Because of the Disabilities Services
Act, students who have emotional problems must be
allowed in regular classrooms regardless of the fact
that they maybe disruptive. Next, consider how reducing
class sizes might impact this problem. If you reduce
class sizes from say 30 to 15 the probability of having
a disruptive student in a classroom is much lower, so
fewer classrooms will have disruptive students. Although
reducing class sizes is a solution to this problem, it is
not a cost effective one. The more effective solution is
to remove students with emotional problems who are
disruptive and place them in special education classes
with teachers who are trained to deal with them. If you
are interested there's an interesting essay on this topic
by a classroom teacher:
"The Dismantling of the Great American Public School"
by Karen Agne, Spring 1998, Educational Horizons
I would also like to point out that by changing
teaching methods, educator's attitudes and student's
behavior you can achieve much the same or better results
as spending enormous sums of money to reduce class sizes.
Consider the following from, "Lessons From Abroad: How Other
Countries Educate Their Children," by Richard P. McAdams.
"Class sizes in Japanese elementary school average about
forty. A teacher's primary expectation is that students
will be engaged in their work, not that they will necessarily
be quiet or docile. Most American teachers would find
the decibel level in Japanese elementary classrooms
unacceptable. These large class size imply expectations
for pupil behavior and teacher role that would be foreign
to American teachers and parents. As Joseph Tobin suggests,
'The Japanese teacher delegates more authority to children than
we find in American schools; intervenes less quickly in
arguments; has lower expectations for the control of noise
generated by the class; gives fewer verbal clues; organizes more
structured group activities, such as morning exercise; and, finally,
makes more use of peer group approval and control and less of
the teacher's direct influence. In general, children are less often
treated on a one-to-one basis, and more often as a group.'"
The success of the Japanese educational system is well known.
I reiterate my comment that administrators in Minneapolis need
to think outside of the box.
Mike Atherton
Prospect Park
Ward 2
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~athe0007
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
