I took the time (and it did take time) to read Michael Atherton's oft-referenced Scientific American citation. Since Sci American charges for archives, I found the full paper that the article was based on at: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp14.pdf
The following gets long and somewhat weedy - but that is the nature of academia, where people can pettifog over details through a tenured career. I think Michael is overstating the authors' conclusion when he wrote, "There is plenty of evidence that reducing class sizes is very expensive and has questionable returns. Please see the Scientific American article." Fundamentally, the authors DO NOT deny a link between lower class size and higher student achievement. They acknowledge the validity of the Tennessee study (which generally supports lower class sizes) writing, "Suppose that we take at face value the findings from the Tennessee experiment that appear to indicate that class size reductions in the early grades have a long-lasting impact and that this impact is greatest for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. **Our review of findings from large-scale quasi-experimental studies from other countries tends to support the Tennessee results.** (emphasis mine) The authors' gripe, however, is that given all the other circumstances that can affect student achievement, there should be MORE studies around the nation to support the nationwide adoption of the lower class size argument. Michael's question to Joseph Erickson - to explain "why the authors of the Scientific American article did not find this study to be conclusive evidence" - is not that the research is wrong (they specifically say it is probably right and confirmed by studies in other countries). The authors merely don't like that such a sweeping policy change has relied on one localized study. (Though I assume the 2-sigma research Erickson cites might make that 2 studies.) The authors conclude that their class size discussion is meant sound a "cautionary note" - not the blatant negativity inferred by Michael's argument. Their biggest concern - something Michael has echoed - is whether class size reductions are the optimum taxpayer expenditure. They mention concerns that "new" teachers could be of poor quality - though I would challenge Michael, if this is a problem of Minneapolis's policy, to document it. Significantly, the authors do not specify an alternative course, except to bring up other studies that - at least according to the cites - appear no more numerous or conclusive than the Tennessee one. There are lots of good ideas there - some that Minneapolis may also be doing. Personally - anecdotally - I think there should be skepticism about whether small class sizes work. But fundamentally, the authors cite so many mitigating variables in their paper that it's hard for me to believe that outside studies would ever be conclusive. So where does that bring us? To a localized experiment - trying something where certainty doesn't exist but there is at least some evidence that the policy works (as in class size reduction, which, by the way, the authors note was more potent for those with lower incomes in Tennessee). Parents, educators and community members are watching the results of this experiment right now. Many of them pay closer attention to this than anything else government does, because it is more meaningful to their families than anything government does. Let's not dismiss eyewitness experience out of hand and insist on for a certainty that will probably never exist. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
