Class size: Can it Impact Learning?
By Jill Jenkins
According to a recent article in the Salt Lake City Tribune, Judi Clark, the executive director of Parents for Choice in
Education stated, “Class size is really irrelevant in this day and age
in education. It’s not about how many children you have in the classroom. It’s
about how you’re leveraging technology to deliver one-on-one
instruction." Charter schools in
this state can limit the number of students they have in each class, but public
schools cannot. Although the state’s pupil
to teacher ratio is 22.8, that is not the same thing a class size. Pupil-teacher ratio takes the total number of
credentialed people: counselors, special education teachers and librarians divided
by the total number of enrolled students. Actual class size means that actual
number of students in a class. In Utah some classes in academic areas have as high
as 52 students. Physical
Education classes can have over 80 students. As a former teacher I can verify these
numbers. The largest number I ever had
enrolled in one Language Arts Class was 62 tenth grade students and after three
days of having every desk filled and students sitting along counters or
standing, the counseling staff removed 1/3 of my students and reassigned them
to the teacher next door. Ten years
later I was called to jury duty and one of those students who was sent next door was
there. She was still angry that, “I had
given her away.” However, most of my classes ranged from 35 to 40 students in
Language Arts classes and I taught seven periods a day. How do large classes really affect the
learning of students?
According
to the article, “Class size and Student Achievement” by Ronald G. Ehrenberg,
Dominic J. Brewer, Adam Gamoran, and J Douglas Willms from Cornell Higher
Education Research Institute at Cornell University, there are a number of
disadvantages of large class size: first,
it can reduce the amount of time students can actively engage with each
other; second, it can increase the
disruptive behavior in the classroom; third, it can reduce the amount of time
the teacher can spend working with each
individual student; fourth, it can reduce the material the teacher can cover;
fifth, it can eliminate many methods of assessing students i.e. open-ended
assessments and writing assignments; and sixth, it can reduce the learning by
reducing the kind of teaching methods that the teacher can employ in her
classroom. What evidence is there that this actually reduces the learning in an
over-crowded classroom? According to the
Tennessee STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Research) completed between
1985-1989, random students from kindergarten to third grade were placed in
classes, some with small classes and some with large classes. The students in smaller classes, 13 to 17
students, performed .015 to .020 or about 5% higher on standardized tests in
both math and reading. Furthermore, According
to the article, “Class size and Student Achievement” by Ronald G. Ehrenberg,
Dominic J. Brewer, Adam Gamoran, and J Douglas Willms from Cornell Higher
Education Research Institute at Cornell University further states, the Coleman report
suggests that students from lower-social economic groups, at-risk students and
English Language Learners (E.L.L.) benefit the most from smaller class sizes. Others argue that this only seems true
because first, students from higher-economic group often come better prepared for
school; second, their more affluent parents select schools with better teaching
staffs where students earn higher test scores; and third, they attend schools
with more resources. Since salaries of
teachers have grown slower than those in jobs requiring similar education
levels, it becomes more difficult for district to attract the best and the
brightest to become teachers, especially to teach in the most disadvantaged
areas that have fewer resources for the teacher to use to instruct students and more problems. Other
research shows that the teachers with high verbal ability also improve
students’ achievement. If all of this is
true then all students would benefit from smaller class sizes. Four other
studies: one in California, one in Wisconsin, one in Great Britain and one in
Canada showed increased test scores with smaller classes, but their growth were
inconsequential in middle school and high school; however,
this could mean that the teachers did not change their teaching
methodology. Lecturing is a highly
ineffective method of teaching. A more
student centered approach is possible in smaller classes usually has more
positive results.
Most of
the effort to reduce class size has been in the grades kindergarten to third
grade, but students even in middle schools and high schools could benefit from
lower class size. Research indicates that reducing the class
size reduces the discipline problems.
Furthermore, reducing the class size increases the opportunities for
more interactive learning situations which especially benefit the struggling
students. For secondary schools there
are two goals: lowering the drop-out rate and increasing the standardized test
scores. Lowering the class size does
both. Ironically, in each of these studies, the goal
was to reduce class size from 30 students per class to below 20 students per
class, but in Utah the class sizes in the upper grades is between 40 and 52 in
academic classes and well above 80 in classes like band, physical education or
choir. What does that mean in
performance? Look at the results of the
recent SAGE test with most schools scoring in the “D” or “F” range. These grades are understandable when one
considers that often there are not enough working computers for such large classes
which mean students have had little chance to complete enough practice writing
activities or computer-based learning.
In my
own experience, I use less group activities, pair-and share and project based
assignments when my classes rise to 40 and above simply because with forty
students, desks, backpacks and growing teenagers, it becomes difficult for
students to conduct themselves and hear what was going on without disrupting
classrooms nearby. Students who are
kinetic learners need to be able to move, but in many situations movement
becomes dangerous or impossible with that many students in a classroom. For example, I love to allow students to play
“Fly-Swatter” tag to review vocabulary or literary terminology. The game consists of writing terms on the
board and allowing sets of two or three students run to the board armed with a
flyswatter and slap the appropriate word when given the definition then
rewarding the winning student with a piece of candy. With forty students in the room, there is not
enough space to do this without a student tripping. Furthermore, speeches and group presentations become almost impossibility
because if every student gives a three to five minute speech, it will take
nearly two weeks to complete the entire class.
Correcting research papers or any writing assignment and returning them
in a timely fashion becomes more than difficult. Smaller class sizes would give students
opportunities to write more, speak more, interact more and create more project
learning. To answer Judi Clark’s
argument that with enough technology the class size becomes immaterial, I say
“hog wash”. If a classroom has 52 large,
teenagers with their bag packs smashed into 52 desks all using I-Pads, the room
is too full for the teacher to effectively wander around and interact with the
students while they work, so like all teenagers, they will begin to go to
inappropriate websites and the time will become totally wasted. Guess again Judi, tight budgets means the
schools have purchased less expensive computer, so many of them do not
function. Most middle schools also lack the band-width for all of them to be
using computers at the same time. So,
your dream of computer run schools is just a myth.
With the new SAGE tests comprised of students
synthesizing information from essays into an argumentative essay and an
informative essay, students need a more engaged form of education than
lecturing. Having fewer students in each
class would allow teacher to provide that kind of learning environment. Students who are engaged in their own
learning retain more of what is taught. It would allow teacher to provide more
individualized instruction to those struggling students. It could increase both
reading and math scores and reduce the drop-out rate. If charters schools are allowed to have a
enrollment limits, then the regular public schools should be able to do the
same. Ideally no classroom should be above 20 students, but in this age of
economic uncertainly lets at least say no class should exceed 30 students. How do we do this? We will need to build more schools and hire
more teachers which will cost money.
Will the taxpayers willingly pay the higher costs? According
to the New York Times, it costs $167,731 per year to house one inmate. Without a good education, people are unable
to earn enough money to support themselves and their family. often end up in our penal system. The public is
already paying the price of poorly educated students. Would they rather pay for schools or prisons?
It is not enough to give birth to a lot
of children; we need to provide them with a quality education and making
classes smaller is the beginning of doing that.
