Join the conversation

We need a new word for "class size," "school size," and "total student load" taken together.

I guess Garrett Delavan has written a book about it and calls it "relationship load."

http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1986_reg.html

So well said. Thanks for a jewell of a post.

The size of the classroom means a lot - the room needs to be big, bright and tidy as well as kids want to study there.

I agree with Tom--it's really more about student load (or relationship load--I like that) than class size. There are also subject and instructional models that are amenable to bumping up class sizes; my own average class size was generally in the 60s--total student load around 300/day--but I taught instrumental and choral music, so those class sizes were fine.

It's the one-size-fits-all class size language in many school contracts that muddies the waters and limits flexibility. There are optimum class sizes for different age levels and disciplines, and when a total student load is factored in, we do have the ability (contrary to what some people think) to tailor class sizes considerably more than we do. We can establish optimum numbers for different situations.

Even the Tennessee STAR study (considered the gold standard in support for smaller class size) showed that teacher quality trumped class size by significant margins. I would far rather have my second grader in a class with 32 kids and a great teacher than 18 kids and a mediocre teacher or rank novice.

Class size doesn't matter until it does. I was a pretty effective teacher of 17 kids. I was a reasonably effective teacher of 24. I was an ineffective teacher of 34. But even those numbers are misleading. I could probably could have been an effective teacher 34 if I had strong administrative support on discipline and all promised services were delivered. I would have struggled with 12 if discipline problems went unchecked.

Tom, thanks for the link, which puts the issue in a much more useful light.

"Purchase essay"--Your comment was simply priceless, so I decided to leave it.

Nancy--As usual, you put things into excellent perspective. The research that supports smaller class sizes points to no magic number, and I'm inclined to agree with your point that I'd take a wonderful teacher in a large class over a struggling teacher with a small class.  Still, as I watch my high school English teacher wife devote hours to grading essays, writing careful comments, meeting with students to discuss the comments, assigning revisions so that students will understand and act on comments, grading revisions, etc., I'm fairly certain that larger class sizes would make it difficult for her to do her work well. One of the reasons why she's a wonderful teacher, and why parents love her, is that she devotes that much time to each student....

Robert--Would support and smaller class sizes have made you all the more effective?

Of course, Claus. My point is simply that class size, like so many other factors, cannot be viewed in isolation.

The photograph of the old desks brought back memories for me. I started first grade in a parochial school in Brooklyn where sixty little girls were herded into each classroom. In order for the teacher to maintain order and ensure safety, the children had to remain in their seats at all times. What else could we do? I still remember the teacher's teaching style: she would model something on the blackboard (such as the numeral 8) and then ask us to practice writing it in our notebooks. Next she would walk up and down the aisles checking each girl's work. After she got to the last child, she would instruct us to stop and then we'd go on to the next skill.

When we moved to New Jersey I was enrolled in a fourth grade class at a public school. I immediately noticed the advantages of having only 25 students in the room. Suddenly the teacher had time to talk to me. In addition to freedom of movement (just as important to a child as it is to the rest of us) the class activities were very different. Now there was time for class projects, plays, small reading groups and discussions.

Did my test scores improve? I have no idea but I can tell all of you that my love for school and for books started at Lincoln School in Bergenfield, NJ. Anyone who says class size doesn't count is either a former rich kid who went to private school or a resentful taxpayer who has never been a teacher. Also, why would anyone think that test scores even begin to tell us about a good education? Much of what happens in school can't be measured by a multiple choice test. That should be obvious to everyone.

Class size makes a huge difference with small children particularly when they are struggling with language. Kindergarten students are still developing auditory discrimination. In a small group setting an effective teacher can hear the specific sounds that may be giving a particular child difficulty and immediately provide linguistic intervention as needed. In larger groups, these same students are likely to go unheard. I've had several students over the years who do not like to speak and in larger group settings will "lip synch".
While I can get similar results by working with smaller groups within a larger classroom setting (given effective classroom management and/or support) a smaller student:teacher ratio maximizes instructional time.

Class size and total student load are absolutely a significant factor in my ability to teach effectively. Once again, it's the limitations of research based on state tests that lead us into silly debates. Yes, I said silly. It's like we're dealing with a scientist who only has a scale, and refuses to do experiments involving temperature changes.

Is it not well established that prompt feedback is a key component in the effectiveness of the feedback? Now, if I have 125 student essays to grade, vs. 175, it's impossible to handle the two loads the same way. I must sacrifice either promptness of feedback or depth of feedback.

My state standards say that I'm supposed to teach students the use of computer tools for writing and presentations. If my class size exceeds the capacity of the computer lab, then what? (More computers, eventually, but for now?) Also, how much time can I give to each student or group as they practice these new skills? Now, which state test is it that measures how effectively students build and deliver presentations?

I teach students to deliver oral presentations (per state standards). They present in class. How much more instructional time is consumed by working through 35 presentations rather than 25? Or sitting through 7-8 groups instead of 4-5? So I have less instructional time for other purposes (including some that will be tested!), or, less practice for students because it takes longer to cycle through.

I could go on and on - we're not even getting into issues of building relationships in the classroom, for example. But please, if anyone's tempted to offer evidence against CSR that is only based on state tests, don't even bother citing it. They don't test most of what I'm supposed to teach. Every English teacher I know would be insulted. We know about our daily practice and interaction with students, and it will certainly be affected when one of the most significant classroom variables is changed in a significant way.

Of course smaller classes make it easier to deliver good instruction to children. I don't think that's the question, though. What we need to tease out is, how hard should we try to decrease class size (or in middle and high school, relationship load; great term!) relative to how hard we try to have strong teachers for each child, etc.
It's pretty clear from the California experience that going for broke on class size had unintended consequences on the teacher quality side. And certainly on the expense side.

Robert--thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we agree.

Linda/Retired Teacher--60 per class? That was indeed the industrial model. My experience in elementary was similar to your experience in NJ--My MI public school afforded me lots of individual attention.

KinderTeacher and David--Thanks for the vivid front-line perspective on this issue. Your experience confirms the experience of my wife. There are just so many different things--sophisticated work--that the assessments don't catch, and that's my worry about a lot of education research.

Anonymous--You make a good point. Like anything else, CSR has to be weighed against so many other priorities, and the CA experience wasn't a particularly good one, due in large measure to teacher shortages, failure to support the new teachers in their classrooms, and lack of strategy for using small classes to best effect. As Robert makes clear, simply calling for smaller classes isn't particularly visionary in itself. My bigger concern is that the current economic crisis could lead to ever larger class sizes, and much of the current rhetoric about class size suggests that that simply isn't a problem. That strikes me as a risky precedent.

One more point:

I was a California teacher during class size reduction. Yes, it is true that many unqualified teachers were hired to fill these new positions. However, for me as a first-grade teacher, it was like winning the lottery. Suddenly I had only twenty six-year-olds instead of 33. This made a huge difference in my ability to teach the way that I thought best for young children. Most important, I was able to meet with each child daily, if only for a few minutes. Having only twenty students definitely changed my teaching for the better; it made possible the "active participation" and immediate feedback that is so important in the early grades. The children had many more opportunities to speak. Instead of three or four disciplinary problems, I had only one or two and they were so much easier to help. Each day I was able to hear each child read and respond to his or her writing.

And yes, with fewer children, school was more relaxed and "fun" for everyone. Achievement seemed higher to me, but I know that wasn't the case for all students in California. My students seem to love school more than at any other time in my teaching and that was very affirming for me. Teachers know how critical attitudes toward learning can be.

To me, this is just a common sense issue. If you were a Boy Scout leader without an assistant, would you rather have twenty scouts or 33?

Just one more thing I meant to add - there is such a thing as too small a class size as well. One of the essential elements of effective and engaging education is varied and well-developed discourse, and I've found that when a high school English class dips below 20, it can begin to lose a little energy, a spark that helps energize discussions, debates, class projects etc. I'd say the sweet spot is around 24-26, and I start to worry when a class gets over 30. I've taught high school English classes with class sizes anywhere from 14 to 36.

So many are making good points. In addition, I've long thought that it's pointless to talk about optimum class size without specifying the age group, and the level of out-of-class feedback work that the subject requires. The obvious example is, at the high school level, English versus Math. My high school math classes operated on the principle that we corrected our own or a classmate's homework, in class, each day as a springboard to that day's instruction (then handed it in); therefore, no time at all for the teacher to spend on grading. S/he then spent time before and after class helping individual students, but did not take home a huge stack of papers to struggle with. This allowed for pretty large class sizes. Finally, we all recognize that if one aspect of students presence in school is therapeutic, as it is for many students with IEP's, there should be a corresponding reduction in class size.

Linda and David--Thanks for the clarifications. Despite the disappointing results of California's CSR efforts, your experience is instructive, Linda. It offers an example of what smaller classes can achieve if the teacher in that class is effective and well supported. David, your experience reflects my own. I used to teach English classes and found that 17-20 students in the class would feed off of each other's energy. Fewer students could actually make things low-key. More, and students got lost.

Anonymous--My wife, the English teacher, often looked at her colleagues in math with some envy, because she thought they spent less time grading. They begged to differ. Still, you're right about optimal class sizes and their variability from grade level to grade leve, class to class. My biggest concern is that the current to ignore class size as a factor in student achievement could lead us to far from optimal sizes in most subjects. So I'm not necessarily writing about CSR. I'm more concerned about continual Class size expansion.

As the mother of four children in Ca, I am torn between sending my children to public v. private school. We have kept our Kinder daughter in private school this year- with great results in a class of 15! She is reading well, enjoying every minute of school, and we are happy to send our son to the same class next year. We are discouraged when friends talk of only 1/3 of their child's kinder class is reading, children come home with coloring for homework and don't like school because it's boring. How sad it is that legislators (who typically don't send their kids to public school) are making the judgement calls for our kids! I'm hoping to win the lottery so I can continue to invest in my childrens' education because I can't rely on the government to do so.

If class size didn't matter, then why do colleges and universities take such pains to STRESS that not all of their classes have 600 students in them? Because colleges and universities know that class size is really important. And so do the people that run public schools. In Texas, there is a requirement for the primary levels...classes can't be larger than 21 students. However, in middle and high school no such mandate exists. As a matter of fact, when campuses in Texas calculate average class sizes, they divide the number of students by the total number of certified staff in the building (whether they teach a class or not). So that ratio is reduced by counselors, administrators, and other non-classroom staff. Why is that?

I have classes of varying sizes due to balancing issues and the fact that I teach an upper level course that students can self-remove or be removed from. As a result, I have classes of 30+ and classes of 20. I am infinitely more connected to the students in my smaller classes. I am able to interact with every student in a class period. As a class, they are more comfortable with each other...it's like a family environment. They trust each other. That is an infinitely harder thing to accomplish in a class of 30+.

And let's not talk about the grading. Any teacher will admit to you that they alter the types of assignments that they assign because of the grading load. If classes were smaller, teachers would be more inclined to implement more projects and writing because you would have time to grade it.

Another observation....if size didn't matter, why is there such a push for "small schools"?
SIZE DOES MATTER.

As a student from a moderately-sized public school who has experienced both small class (<10) and large classes (>25), I can say that small doesn't necessarily mean better. Personally, I learn better in large classes--I can focus on the material instead of worrying that the teacher is going to call on me and there are more voices to add to the discussion. When classes get to a certain point, they can become unruly and unconducive to learning. But I would take a class of 20-30 students any day over one with less than 15 students.