Hey Ed (Schultz),
Keep putting pressure on Romney for his dumb “class size doesn’t matter” statement. Most advocates of the “class size doesn’t matter” camp only point to the negligible correlations between test scores and class size. This is a distraction.
Class size matters in so many qualitative ways–time available for each student to communicate with teachers, time available for teachers to devote towards assessing classroom work, time to build a sense of a caring community that is essential for learning. None of this is possible with large class sizes.
Also, tests scores are really a poor argument concerning class size. In fact, test scores on high stakes standardized achievement tests are not really evidence of “learning.” Measuring learning requires multiple forms of assessment (observation,portfolios, teacher made tests, etc). When people understand this then class size really does matter. Too many students in a classroom does not allow teachers the time to truly assess learning.
Most importantly ask any of the “class size doesn’t matter” people this question. Would they send their kids to a school with 30 -35 students in a room? Ask them if class size matters when they choose their elite private schools. Investigate the schools of Romney, Duncan and Gates (all class size doesn’t matter advocates). Look at their (the schools of the elite) advertising literature. They all boast about small class sizes.
So, I guess class size only matter to the powerful and elite?
Regards,
Tim
“Too many of our kids today are not prepared to participate effectively. Students are unruly, disruptive, disrespectful and disrespectful and that has an effect on the entire class. Whether there are 15/20/30 kids in the class, just a few undisciplined students can ruin the learning environment for everyone.”
This is a result of several factors: poverty, family life and society. Another: testing culture. We are pushing down 1st and 2nd grade skills to kindergarten. Back in our day, what did we learn: social skills, cooperating with other, etc, etc. Kids today need that more than ever before. Screen time is breaking down the social skills of our society.
The last couple of years I have had to use the term “middle school behavior” more and more to my 7th grade students. There is a lack of interpersonal skills that we are not teaching our kids, both at home and in the early grades.
While Corinne makes some valid points, even if class size is reduced throughout the US, discipline is NOT the only issue.
I have a relatively small classroom size this year – 20 2nd graders. This includes 9 ESL students (7 of whom have no one in their home who speaks English), 2 EC (exceptional children – special needs) students, 5 students who are receiving counseling through social services, 2 students who have lived off and on in homeless shelters, 1 student with severe anger issues and a 5 page behavior plan, 5 students who live in more than one household (3 of those in more than 2 households), 3 students who have been prescribed medication for ADD/ADHD (and are inconsistently medicated), 3 gifted and talented students, 13 students in RTI tiers (Responsiveness to Instruction — also called Response to Intervention) and 1 with a serious health condition.
Obviously these student “sub-groups” overlap.
I have no assistant and am overwhelmed with caring for all of the special needs of these wonderful children. Paperwork to support all their issues is time-consuming.
As you might imagine, the varied issues that come up in the classroom throughout the day prevent optimal learning for each child. Discipline – although it is challenging – is only one of dozens and dozens of concerns. You could remove discipline issues from the equation and my day would not be much different.
I consider myself lucky to have such a small class. The likelihood of having a class this small next year is very low. We typically have 24 students in our K-2 classes.
And the make-up of each of the classes at my Title I public elementary school is similar. Of course in 3rd through 6th grade the numbers are higher – 26-30.
I would dare ANYONE criticizing public education in this country to spend, not a day, but a week or more in a REAL classroom as a teacher, not an observer.
Thank you and written like a real teacher who is in the classroom. We need to hear from more and more teachers from the classroom about the real issues in school. Good work.
In a sense, Romney has a point, but he’s not fully articulating it. Classroom size matters much less than we are led to believe. If you look at the general data, you’ll see that our class sizes, on average, have been shrinking continually over the past 30 years. Yet, our kids’ academic achievement has NOT increased at all over that same period. Yes, there are other factors — it’s not just class size, but the dream of “individualized attention” is not coming true..
While we do need time to focus on students individually, the bigger problem is that teachers are not able to effectively to the GROUP. Too many of our kids today are not prepared to participate effectively. Students are unruly, disruptive, disrespectful and disrespectful and that has an effect on the entire class. Whether there are 15/20/30 kids in the class, just a few undisciplined students can ruin the learning environment for everyone.
And, what’s even worse is that in an economy where we are already strapped for funding, where do you think we’ll get the money to build additional schools, hire more teachers, pay for more infrastructure if we want smaller classrooms? Just ain’t gonna be, folks. The BEST thing we can do is improve the classroom maangement/discipline aspect where teachers ARE able to manage and teach the larger classrooms. We just are NOT going to get to that “nirvana point” where teachers are able to have classrooms of 12-16 in our public schools. When the group cooperates and behaves, there is ample time, energy and attention to teach more children. But even Romney isn’t talking about that…
For more on this discussion including references to research and data, please visiti http://corinnegregory.com/blog/2009/08/03/its-not-the-size-of-the-classroom/ While we can continue to reduce class sizes as much as practical, we have to deal with this other part of the classroom size issue if we’re going to get anything done.
- Corinne Gregory
Author, “Education Reform and Other Myths”
http://www.corinnegregory.com
I think folks have been making the argument that “these kids today” and so forth for centuries. The older generation always sees the younger generation as disrespectful, uncouth, undisciplined, rude, and so forth. That’s no different today, so is that really the purview of educators in the classroom?
Well, it BECOMES the purview of the educators when it impedes their ability to get things done. And, the teachers are the ones getting “blamed” for poor classroom behavior. It’s not a generational thing: I don’t recall teachers putting up with losing 30% or more of teaching time to kids acting out when I was in school (no, it wasn’t THAT long ago), but it’s today’s student’s reality. True, parents and caregivers share a lot of the blame, but it’s not always PARENTS fault either if there is a unruly classroom. Just one or two kids can ruin the learning for everyone.
Maybe this would be useful. If widely distributed, it could help counter the widespread view that educators oppose high-stakes testing simply because they don’t want to be held accountable.
HIGH-STAKES TESTS: Some Unaddressed Problems
Standardized, machine-scored tests:
- can measure only “lower level” thought processes, trivializing true learning
- provide minimal to no useful feedback to classroom teachers
- are keyed to a deeply flawed curriculum adopted in 1893
- lead to neglect of physical conditioning, music, art, and other, non-verbal ways of learning
- unfairly advantage those who can afford test prep
- hide problems created by margin-of-error computations in scoring
- penalize test-takers who think in non-standard ways (which the young frequently do)
- radically limit teacher ability to adapt to learner differences
- give test manufacturers control of the curriculum
- encourage use of threats, bribes, and other extrinsic motivators
- use arbitrary, subjectively-determined pass-fail cut scores
- produce scores which are manipulated for political purposes
- assume that what the young will need to know is already known
- emphasize minimum achievement to the neglect of maximum performance
- create unreasonable pressures to cheat
- reduce teacher creativity and the appeal of teaching as a profession
- are unavoidably culturally biased
- lessen concern for and use of continuous evaluation
- take inadequate account of individual, ethnic, and regional differences
- have no “success in life” predictive power
- unfairly channel instructional resources to learners at or near the pass-fail “cut score”
- are open to massive scoring errors with life-changing consequences
- are at odds with deep-seated American values about individuality and worth
- create unnecessary stress and negative attitudes toward learning
- perpetuate the artificial compartmentalization of knowledge by field
- waste money
- inevitably allow the profit tail to wag the education dog
- negate the vast, creative potential of human variability
- block all innovation that can’t be evaluated via machine
- unduly reward mere ability to retrieve secondhand information from short-term memory
- undermine a fundamental democratic principle that those closest to and therefore most knowledgeable about problems are best positioned to deal with them
National Academy of Sciences, 2011 report to Congress: Standardized tests “have not increased student achievement.”
“When you’re in a hole, stop digging.”
Marion Brady