William J. Mathis has drawn together the research on class size to explain why it matters.
It is costly to reduce class size, but it is very likely the most effective intervention to help students who are struggling.
It also happens to be the single reform that parents want most. When class size was put on the ballot in Florida, it was overwhelmingly approved. Despite numerous attempts by Jeb Bush and his allies to get rid of it, the caps on class size have remained intact.
Reformers disregard the research on class size because they don’t want to spend more money to do what works. They prefer changes in governance, like charter schools, vouchers, mayoral control, state takeovers–anything but reducing class size. They claim that reducing class size benefits unions because it requires more teachers. But the biggest benefit of reducing class size is to the children, who get the attention and time they need to learn.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They also are spending billions on ed tech – both 1:1 devices and software, instead of reducing class size. Please don’t forget about this.
Correct. And there is a PR push now from Teach Strong.org and Opportunity Culture.org to put one “great” teacher in charge of the “performance outcomes” of 400 students. This feat is marketed by people who think that: (a) a “great teacher” is anyone who can produce one and a half year’s of “growth” in standardized test scores with one or several classes and (b) that teacher can be just as effective if put in charge of 400 students. How? Just put the stellar score-enhancing lessons put into modules that students at computers “process” (with a little help from low-pay assistants who monitor student performance on data dashboards).
Yes.
In 2010 Bill Gates suggested ending efforts to reduce class size and paying teachers more to take on larger classes.
He also argued that “good” teachers COULD take on larger classes simply because they were “good.” Those are the type of magical teachers which he, and other reformers in his corner, have been selling to the nation in their never-ending game of blame and replace.
Every teacher and parent understands that class size matters. The fact that smaller classes are especially important for poor minority students should result in urban schools having smaller classes. However, the way we fund schools through real estate taxes usually results in the opposite. Our neediest students often attend schools with the largest class sizes and the least amount of supports and resources. We don’t need a parallel school system to solve the problem, especially one that hires minimally trained novice personnel. We need to change how we fund urban schools so that more resources to address the complex issues associated with poverty. Instead, our funding design often systematically under funds the neediest students.
Even middle class students do better with a lower teacher to student ratio. If you are old enough to remember the ‘I Luv Lucy’ show in which Lucy and Ethel work in a bakery boxing up cakes. When they speed up the conveyor belt, and they have more cakes to load, the cakes start smashing on the floor. If we do not want students to fall through the cracks, we need to create realistic class sizes for our students so they can get the attention they require to do their best. Strong public education will create a better tomorrow for all of us.
I thought it was Lucy and Ethel wrapping chocolates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPzLBSBzPI
I recall two episodes when they decided to get jobs, and they were working against the odds with a fast conveyor belt, cakes and candy.
Correction: If you are old enough to remember the ‘I Luv Lucy’ show in which Lucy and Ethel work in a bakery boxing up cakes, you will appreciate the comparison to class size.
For oce school year, I actually taught a class load of 20 students in my 9th grade English classes. It was heaven compared to the average class size of 34 I had taught for the previous 20 years. The only reason this happened was a one time, one year grant to see if a lower class size made a difference.
It did. By the end of the year, there were more passing grades, more As and Bs and fewer failing grades. All the other teachers who also had this class load reduction had an incredible teaching experience that year, because we had more time to spend with the students that needed it most and with fewer students there were a lot less behavior problems and disruptions.
The more crowded a classroom is, the more disruption and behavior problems there usually are to deal with. More noise too.
Even with those results and the glowing reports by the teachers, class size skyrocketed back to 34 or more in each class the following year.
There can be no question that class size matters and that Bill Mathis has done us a real service with this informed summary of the research. One thing that I do not think is discussed enough is that class size reduction not only makes teaching and learning easier, but it also allows more innovative, student-centered instruction. I think that as educators rightly argue for lower class sizes, we should also talk about instructional designs that can take full advantage of smaller classes. After all, it makes no sense to seek smaller classes, if the major instructional mode is lecture and and worksheet completion.
I’ve taught classes that had 10 students and ones that had 45 and I can say with certainly that class size matters — and anyone who claims otherwise is just clueless.
If the class is smaller, of course you have more time to help each student. That’s just common sense, which appears to be woefully lacking among our politicians.
It’s not only time and attention, it’s the ability to allow children to work quietly in class and to be attentive to the lesson. There’s a natural noise level in larger groups of people, whether children, youth or adults.
There’s some group dynamic issues that come into play that are being ignored.
Smaller classes come to attention sooner because there’s not so many distractions.
So there’s more teaching time.
A larger class in a room designed for a smaller number of students creates an obstacle course of backpacks and bodies when students need to move into groups or even to leave to go to the restroom. It’s difficult to get students out quickly in a fire drill.
In a larger group when the teacher will be working with a small group–there’s lots of other students who will take advantage of the lack of oversight in order to interrupt and disturb the work of other students.
It’s more difficult to group desks so students are able to work together when the number of desks forces the elimination of space between groups. When there are groups, the noise from the next group interrupts and distracts many other groups of students.
When handing things out and collecting there’s so many possible reasons for disruption.
Such configurations are really insulting to the students. They are constantly subjected to interruption by others. They are constantly reminded that they are not important and that their learning opportunities don’t matter.
Aren’t they entitled to more?
Florida has eased up on the class size amendment. Instead of having a single class class size restriction, we now see an “average”. My High school English classe sizes have soared to 28-30, right where they were before the public voted TWICE to keep them at 24.
That’s right T. Good. Florida has built in, through legislation, some important loop-holes to the constitutional class size amendment. It allows ‘schools of choice’ to calculate the class size at the school average rather than the class average. So, for instance, a kindergarden class capped at 18 by the constitution can, without penalty, have many more children in it if other classes in the school have fewer than their cap. The district I live in has designated 98% of its schools as ‘schools of choice’ to avail themselves of this flexibility. Some districts have 100% of schools with this designation. This is occurring even after the amendment was subjected to a 2nd vote where that very question of class average vs school average was on the table and the vote confirmed that the class size caps in this amendment should be calculated at the class level, not the school-wide level.
Unfortunately the Mathis papep did what so many others have done: he speaks in broad sweeping generalities. If one looks at the research he references, almost universally the resulting differences between 16-21 are marginal at best. No one has unequivocally identified, with any certainty, exactly what the “happy number” should be as class size is only one variable in a complex system of variables affecting outcomes. And you can not apply sweeping generalizations, as he did throughout his thesis, which sadly appears as an editorial. While we seem very comfortable with statements like “everyone knows” and “the research says”, and “it was found” he never really supported his argument with the actual data based results.
Andrew, it’s not clear. Are you for small class sizes or against them.
If you are against small class sizes and don’t think they make a difference, explain why Lakeside School has an average class size of 16. This is the expensive, private school that Bill Gates attended and where he sends his children while he bribes everyone he can to create factory schools with class loads of 50 or more.
In fact, let’s look at the k50 best private elementary schools in the U.S.
http://www.thebestschools.org/rankings/best-american-private-elementary-schools/
Then there is Why Class Size Matters from Parents Across America.org.
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/what-we-believe-2/why-class-size-matters/
As T.Good says above, Florida has built in, through legislation, some important loop-holes to the constitutional class size amendment. It allows ‘schools of choice’ to calculate the class size at the school average rather than the class average. So, for instance, a kindergarden class capped at 18 by the constitution can, without penalty, have many more children in it if other classes in the school have fewer than their cap. The district I live in has designated 98% of its schools as ‘schools of choice’ to avail themselves of this flexibility. Some districts have 100% of schools with this designation. This is occurring even after the amendment was subjected to a 2nd vote where that very question of class average vs school average was on the table and the vote confirmed that the class size caps in this amendment should be calculated at the class level, not the school-wide level.
“Reformers disregard the research on class size because they don’t want to spend more money to do what works. They prefer changes in governance, like charter schools, vouchers, mayoral control, state takeovers–anything but reducing class size. They claim that reducing class size benefits unions because it requires more teachers. But the biggest benefit of reducing class size is to the children, who get the attention and time they need to learn.”
On the other hand, charter school funding can look either high or low depending on how it compares to the district’s per-student spending. A massive spending initiative aimed at class-size reduction would create a lot of fodder for arguments that charter school funding formulas should be revised to match the increased district spending.