Join the conversation

Last week Education Secretary Arne Duncan gave a speech on the “new normal”—the challenging fiscal circumstances that public schools and districts will face over the next several years. He also called attention to concerns with the quality of our public education system. In other words, he asked us to do more with less.

Unfortunately, he is right. All of our schools don’t work for all of our students. And as high a priority as education is, state and local budgets (which provide the vast majority of funding for our public schools) are in a world of hurt. While education funding is desperately important, will it increase any time soon?

So yes, we have to do more with less. But how? According to Duncan, we have to do more of what works—and less of what doesn’t. He suggests we be smarter about how we use technology in learning. How we pay teachers. How we support our neediest schools. And how we reduce class sizes.

Duncan’s comments on class size reduction can be taken a couple of ways. He first points out that, “up through third grade, research shows a small class size of 13 to 17 students can boost achievement.” He then suggests, “in secondary schools, districts may be able to save money without hurting students, while allowing modest but smartly targeted increases in class size.”

So there is some good news here for proponents of class size reduction. Duncan’s comments clearly remind us that increasing class size in our lower grades is not a good way to balance a budget. Check out the research on this topic if you need more convincing. To me, it clearly indicates that increasing these class sizes, particularly for the low-income and minority youth that our system has typically underserved, would likely result in doing less with less...much as we have typically done in times of fiscal crisis. We cannot take this (relatively) easy route if we want real reform.

Now, some might be concerned that Duncan suggests modest increases in class size at the secondary level, as we should be “shifting away from class-sized based reduction that is not evidence-based.” As a former secondary school teacher, I certainly don’t think increasing class sizes at that level is a good idea. I think it would lead to more multiple choice tests, fewer writing assignments, less attention to each child, more lectures. And while this speech implied that research on class size reduction at this level shows it does not have a great impact, I wonder how often it has truly been studied, especially using the indicators that matter most (not just test scores, but high school graduation rates, dropout rates and college-going rates. Please let me know if I missed these studies).

So where does this leave class size reduction during this time of fiscal crisis? Ultimately, of course, it is a local decision. But from where I sit, it appears the Secretary is advising against increasing class sizes, at least at some levels. And hopefully localities will take that into consideration in making hard choices.

[A note to those who are looking for my contribution to the National Day of Blogging for Real Education Reform. As someone who is not in the classroom, but who sits in Washington looking at research and policy most days, I don't think I am the target for this effort. Today is a day for me to listen and learn (though I would like to think I do that every day). Check back tomorrow for some of what I take away]