Moderators
Delegates
Recent Caucuses
Search
Class sizes
Schools are likely to have larger classes next fall because of budget cuts. In a recent article on New York's budget crisis, researcher Frederick M. Hess says teacher quality is more important than small classes to raise achievement. What do you think of Hess' claim? Are small classes worth the cost?
Yes, small classes are worth the cost. Here in Chicago we have schools that are closing and "Turn Around" schools that are attempting to address the low academic achievement of the students.
With this proposal to increase the class size the school system is creating a situation where there are more students in the class rooms making the educational and instruction process difficult and challenging for teachers who are already working with students that have academic defencies. Teachers in some of the poor performing schools are dealing with students that have social and emotional problems that makes teaching challenging. With the increase in class size their challenge will increase with the possibility of continued poor performance by the students.
This porposal does not create an enviornment that will help children all it does is address the financial crisis that the students did not cause.
Our children deserve better and the the board of education should their be advocate and supporter. Not attemtping to balance a budget problem on the backs of the students.
Unless the legislature comes through with some decent school funding, we are all but assurred an increase in class size to 37 students. Conservative business groups like the Chicago Civic Committee, are encouraging more teacher firings and deeper program cuts without regard for expanding class sizes. They claim it's better to have fewer, but better teachers, even if it means class sizes swell. Of course their own children never have to choose between good teachers and smaller classes.
Right-wing think-tankers like Fordham's Mike Petrilli, claim that:
"Schools usually compensate for losing teachers by raising class size and giving the teachers who are left more kids to handle." Petrilli puts it this way: "Districts need to learn to live with less.”
But with class sizes in L.A. high schools soaring to 50 per class and Brooklyn kids being squeezed into classrooms with a shoehorn, a lot of that talk has suddenly died down, mostly out of embarrassment, I suppose.
There is an abundance of research to show the benefits of smaller, more personalized learning environments and the harm caused, especially to students from low-income families, by large-scale anonymity. Any classroom teacher will confirm that.
But without adequate funding, all the education research in the world won't mean a thing. We've got to put more pressure on Madigan, Gov. Quinn and the rest of our pols to do their job and pass a school budget that brings class size down to a reasonable level.
A teacher friend of mine once said "Most of the problems in schools could be solved if we just had 12 kids in a class." She is an ESL teacher in a working-class suburb, and says many of her kids just need extra attention, not only for learning but to help them socially and emotionally. She is willing to provide this attention, but can't do it in a class with 30 kids. I am of the opinion that, despite the teacher-bashing that is prevalent these days, most teachers care about their students and would be willing to go the extra mile with them when needed--but can they be expected to in classes of 35+? It would be nice to think that extra pressure on legislators to come up with more resources will do the trick, but I don't think so--future behavior is best predicted by past actions.
I whole-heartedly agree with Mrs. Forte. This is a logic problem. Why would having more students with academic deficiencies in a classroom be okay? More personalized, caring and hands-on classrooms are more humane and effective --> even if existing data does not measure all the ways it makes a difference.
Unfortunately because of section 4.5 of the school code, our union cannot negotiate around class size. This is a travesty. Educators know how critical it is to have the ability to evaluate our students constantly, and smaller class sizes allow for that consistently. Parents are also worried. I spoke to parents at Penn Elementary last week who committed to attend the 4,000 person rally yesterday because of their concerns.
Ultimately, CPS, our tax system in Illinois and skewed national priorities are responsible. Instead of targeting teacher salaries we need to look at unaccountable TIF slush-funds that siphon money away from schools, unproven charter and turnaround expansion and a flat tax in Illinois that punishes low income districts.
CPS boasted of smaller schools, as a means of managing students...developing better relationships with the students. I always felt that smaller schools weren't the answer, but smaller classrooms. I'd prefer a larger school which could offer more options ( arts, sports, trades, etc.) than smaller schools with limited focus. Larger schools could operate more efficiently, which could the provide the revenue for smaller classrooms and more teacher assistants.
Children are not cattle and should not be treated as such. Although I do believe that an effective teacher will be just as effective with 15 or 35 students, there are circumstances that can thwart even a superior teacher's capabilities such as 25 of the 35 students being learning disabled or students not having the necessary supports at home to be successful. We know that in high poverty school districts such circumstances as these are more likely to be a reality. I agree with Edith Crigler, the budget should not be balanced on the backs of the children or at the expense of the children. Why should the children or the classroom teachers be punished for a deficit in which they did not create.
What I find fascinating about this subject of class size being unimportant is the amount of press, educational scurrying, and political posturing produced by one short article in the New York Daily News (5/7/10). Dr. Hess has published many books and articles and, if one is familiar with his work, it should come as no surprise that he is the top education policy wonk at a conservative think tank known as the American Enterprise Institute.
Rather than getting bent out of shape over one short article, and one man’s politically biased findings, I prefer the kind of research that meta-analysis delivers – all the relevant research about a topic wrapped up in neat, valid packages (teachers are not against data as long as it has integrity and is useful). That research shows that smaller class sizes do have a positive impact on academic achievement, as well as favorable affects on teacher and student attitudes.
That doesn’t mean that high quality teachers don’t matter, for research also bears out that truth. Unlike Dr. Hess, however, I can admit that both small class size and quality teachers are important – but then my agenda is not to set politically motivated national policy, but more simply to help my students learn.
Class Size and Achievement:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5057065/k.E...
Class Size and Teacher/Student Attitudes:
http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/419
Hess is obviously correct. Class size is a minor factor in education, a fact proven by the millions of boomers who rec'd a better public education in classes of 30 than today's kids do in classes of 20.