Class Size
Imagine, for just a moment, how much you could achieve with a smaller class size. Now, imagine how much money you could save on stress treatments if your class size was below, say, fifteen children. Does this sound like something that should be implemented immediately? Should teachers become politicians or lobby for such things?
Much research has confirmed that smaller class sizes increase the quality of education. One piece of research that outlined the benefits of this movement was a statewide project started in the 1970s in Tennessee, nicknamed STAR. A similar research project that had comparable results was conducted in Wisconsin called the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE). The documents from those sources are cited by many people making arguments for or against the issue. People who are for reductions in class sizes have even gained the attention of the federal government. Indications of this are evident with restrictions placed on class sizes in recent years. (Check your state’s laws here) The federal government initiated a class size reduction plan in the year 2000 that carried over into the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act in 2001. So that’s it. Problem solved right? Wrong. Opinions on class size differ in many ways, and a recent economic downturn has forced many to look again at the issue.
People making arguments for class size reduction are citing research, like the documents listed above, to show that smaller class sizes increase achievement for minorities and children living in lower socio-economic classes. Another positive argument is that one-on-one instruction allows a teacher to spot student weaknesses and encourage student strengths. Also, a teacher of a smaller class can spend more time on developing instruction rather than on behavior modifications and the intricacies of classroom management. Another major benefit to smaller class sizes could be better access to technology. It is much easier to supply twelve students with laptops than it is with twenty-two students.
While everyone agrees more one-on-one instructional time is beneficial to students, we have to ask at what cost it can be done. In the current 2011 – 2012 school year, many schools are facing a substantial budget crisis. Current research puts the cost of making smaller class sizes at billions of dollars for a single state, and sustainability would cost even more. This is a major drawback. Many schools are struggling to meet budget demands. In doing so, they are finding ways around federal funding set aside for class size reduction, and spending it on other immediate needs. Another major drawback to implementing class size reduction is the need for new teachers. Many argue that trying to rapidly increase the number of teachers to meet these demands will put under qualified teachers in the classrooms. This will undermine the quality of education. There is also the possibility that more teachers mean more classes, and the current infrastructure of many schools is already strained. Building more classrooms and newer schools will once again stretch already limited budgets.
Presently, many argue that that the problem is not the size of the class, but the quality of the teacher. They also claim students in a smaller class do not always achieve higher scores. Most research shows that while not everyone benefits from a smaller class size, students from lower socioeconomic classes do improve in achievement. However, ambiguous research provides a good argument for those who oppose spending more money on class size reduction.
Many people who argue against class size reductions do not work in a school. In fact, most of them are trying to devalue unions or promote political agendas. Reforms like race to the top do not support a smaller class size. The reforms push to increase the quality of teachers in the classroom, but most teachers would argue that their instruction would suffer with more students in the classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment