Districts abandoning class-size reduction
An excellent report by California Watch, a new investigative team of reporters created by the Center for Investigative Reporting, should prompt discussion in Sacramento on the future of California’s class-size reduction program.
The report found that most large school districts had already abandoned the 20:1 student-teacher ratio that was the hallmark of class-size reduction when Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature created it 13 years ago for grade K-3 and some 9th grade classes. Some districts have expanded early-grade classes to as large as 30 students.
Even with classes that size, districts have continued to get some money from the state. Districts get the full subsidy of $1,017 per student, up to 20 students, if they keep class size at 20 or smaller. For up to 25 students, they get 80 percent of the subsidy and 70 percent for up to 30.
But even the full subsidy generally doesn’t fully cover the cost of a small class; as a result, many districts have decided they can’t afford to keep it.
Small class sizes have always been popular with teachers and parents. But studies of its effectiveness have been mixed. A 2002 study of California’s class size reduction program found no evidence that it had improved student performance. But that was early in the program, after the state had hired thousands of inexperienced teachers needed to met the ratio.
Class size reduction is one of most expensive reforms, costing the state $1.8 billion per year. Some superintendents would rather have flexibility to extend the school day or have Saturday classes, or keep middle and high school classes from mushrooming to 35 or 40.
With more cuts to school budgets likely, the Legislature should consider giving them that flexibility.
Click here for a discussion on KQED-FM of the class-size reduction with Louis Freedberg, director of California Watch and co-author of the report; Norton Grubb, professor of the Graduate School of Education at UC-Berkeley; and Sheila Jordan, Alameda County superintendent of schools
Tom Campbell’s website is proposing that class size reduction should be a key element of education reform in California. He cites some of the more promising studies which examined class sizes between 10 and 15 students instead of 20. Any chance you can interview him so that we can see how he thinks about the different evidence?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Those studies, in particular, Tennessee STAR http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm (a four-year longitudinal class-size study which used random assignment, the gold standard for measuring effects for this kind of research), found that positive effects from class size reduction didn’t come in to play until you got down to 10 or 15 students. Therefore, Mr. Muench, they can’t be compared to the study that found no evidence of improvement when reducing class sizes to 20. Not to mention, as Fensterwald acknowledges, the research was done “early in the program, after the state had hired thousands of inexperienced teachers needed to met the ratio.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As a politician Tom Campbell will have to make decisions on whatever information is available and I’d like to hear more about what he thinks.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
December 6, 2009
For me, how beginning reading is taught is more important than class size.
For teaching “at risk” students in first grade, my suggestion is that teachers, principals, etc. go to http://www.OnlineReadingTeacher.com and study my favorite reading teacher, Mary Pecci. Four screens explain her method. Ms. Pecci has just completed writing a reading series for first grade.
Her book, AT LAST! A READING METHOD FOR EVERY CHILD! is in its fifth edition.
Marian
P.S. I did receive a reply from Jack O’Connell when I asked for a pilot study to be done on Ms.Pecci’s method. He wrote that he would keep Ms. Pecci’s reading method in mind.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m a Virgo!
I did not have the exact information yesterday.
In my letter of October 16, 2007 to Superintendent Jack O’Connell I wrote:
I FEEL THAT SOME GROUP SHOULD DO A PILOT STUDY WITH “AT RISK” CHILDREN USING MS. PECCI’S METHOD AND HER PRE-PRIMERS.
Jack O’Connell wrote in his letter of December 3, 2007:
“Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as we continue to work towards closing the achievement gap.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity