Classroom Size and Education "Gaps"

A recent CABE email newsletter included an update of one of my favorite subjects - class size. In my research, the American high school is often misrepresented on the subject.

The latest controversy - that class size benefits everyone equally or even disproportionately doing nothing to alleviate the mythical achievement gap:

Class Size and the Achievement Gap: Reducing class size has been a popular policy among parents, teachers, and lawmakers as a way to increase student achievement. For 20 years, a large study of class size in Tennessee, known as Project STAR, has raised hopes that reducing class size in inner-city classrooms to 17 or fewer would yield significant increases in achievement, reports Jay Mathews for the Washington Post. However, Spyros Konstantopoulos, a Northwestern University researcher, contradicts assumptions that class size reduction might have a significant effect on the gap between rich and poor students and concluded that high achievers benefited more from the smaller classes than low achievers. By looking closely at the same data as Project STAR on thousands of students from kindergarten through third grade in 79 schools, Konstantopoulos found that decreasing class size might drive some achievement (on average) yet it does not appear to reduce achievement gaps within classes.

Project STAR, short for Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio, launched in 1985, was paid for by the Tennessee legislature and involved roughly 7,000 students from 79 schools. In the study, children were randomly assigned to small classes (13 to17 students per teacher), regular-size classes (22 to 25 students per teacher) or regular classes (22 to 25 students) with a full-time aide for each teacher. Classroom teachers were also randomly assigned, giving the study a scientific validity rarely found in educational research. After four years, researchers found a significant relationship between smaller classes and higher academic achievement. Follow-up studies have shown that children who were in the smaller classes continued to outperform those from larger classes.

Researcher Konstantopoulos stated, "Given that class size reduction is an intervention that benefits all students, it's tempting to expect that it will also reduce the achievement gap." He suggests that higher achievers, perhaps, are better at taking advantage of the opportunities or teacher practices that take place in small classes.

This latest review of the Project STAR data will likely generate discussion among supporters of class-size reduction policies. Since this large study, research on the effects of class size reduction has been limited. Even those who differ over the implications of the research agree that more scientific research on class size is necessary.

Sources: "Class-Size Reductions Seen of Limited Help On Achievement Gap," by Linda Jacobson appearing in the February 27, 2008 issue of Education Week.

"Smaller Classes Don't Close Learning Gap, Study Finds," by Jay Mathews appearing in the March 10, 2008 issue of the Washington Post.

Let me interject that there are lots of studies of class size who argue that as you progress through school class size becomes an irrelevant and in many cases wholly wasteful expenditure. Yet, these studies never seem to be cited by a self-serving and intellectually insulated academic community.

See my previous observations on the subject:

The Multi-million Dollar Scam

The Money Spigot

The Class Size Scam

Search for class size in this blog for related material.

Class Size, Part 1 - Prelude to a Multi-million Dollar Myth

I have spent the last few weeks investigating class size documentation and what I am finding without looking very hard is a frightening history of exaggerated claims, reckless spending of public funds, and an intellectual dishonesty that makes creationist fiction writers look like honest brokers.

With this the first entry in a multi-part series that I will continue periodically, I want to discuss the state of the arguments about class size and why it is such a hot-button issue.

First the popular myth believed whole-heartedly by the majority of parents, teachers, and administrators is that Small Class Size (SCS) is always desirable and, furthermore, that the mantra of Small Class Size applies to every grade. Let's think of these people as the sleep-walking consumers of the concept. Whether or not these consumers are being sold a bad bill of goods or whether they want to buy any bill of goods that's expense and feels good, or whether they are just intellectually too lazy to care is inconsequential. Lemmings are more likely to question their preconceptions than these consumers. And nobody, I mean nobody, is brave enough to give these people a dose of truth, the white lie is far to profitable to derail.

Certain politicians like this argument as well because instead of having to draft thoughtful legislation or fund meaningful programs, the act of shopping and throwing millions of dollars at a solution that all of these people like is oh, so tidy (I, politician, am good and noble). In fact, some politicians think that they've been elected largely to shop for their constituencies. Small Class Size is the shiny, very expensive item in their shopping cart.

The teacher unions also like this idea. Very, very much. And teachers unions also promote this argument in three ways. First, through teachers as advocates, secondly through thinly disguised special interest research groups who predominantly consist of former educators,and finally by overwhelming representation on educational governing bodies - BOEs, State Associations, and so on. They even seed most search engines with their point of view. Try searching on "Small Class Size". You will get a parade of NEA, AFT, and special interest web pages advocating proof positive research papers on the joys of small class size.

And society and politicians have bought in. They can't write checks big enough, fast enough, or with more sincere empathy. Everybody is broke but happy forevermore.

Sigh!

Um, there's a few problems with all of this of course and it will not sit well with the meek of spirit or those feeling bamboozled.

I have read dozens of research papers on this topic, most from scholarly journals, all of which cite dozens more research artifacts. Not a single credible source agrees with the consumers, buyers, and advocates of this myth. Not one.

The studies worth reading - those that demonstrate some intellectual veracity - all lament the lack of adequate research especially in the classes higher than fourth grade, the fuzzy quality of existing studies, and the inability to isolate even under ideal conditions the actual effect of SCS on student achievement.

In this series, I will cite only studies that pass my own sniff test of credibility. You are welcome to add counterpoint in the comments.

And it is fair to ask, Why bother? Although discussions on class size are referred to as debates, these are debates which have been acted upon under false pretenses using precious private lives of children and public resources.

The result?

After thirty years of dwindling class sizes in American public education, no significant academic achievement is to be found on a national scale. This is not to say, that SCS is wholly without merit - there are notable and important places where it is worth pursuing.

But in California that not only legislated SCS but coupled class size to per pupil physical space, resource rooms, art rooms, music facilities, and more were dismantled to accommodate the government mandate.

In Florida, teacher shortages threaten the quality of education.

With a rush to hire ever more teachers, school systems are saddled with more and more poor teachers who become impossible to replace.

Most troubling is that educational, scientific research has become a parody of itself. I have encountered disturbing examples of Master's Thesis papers that conclude that there is no positive effect of small class sizes as advertised but dismiss the conclusion in summary to end with a fictional happy ending proclaiming what society needs is smaller class sizes! Honest self-evaluation may get you drummed out of the profession.

Worse still, University published research often suffers from what I'll call apologetic research conclusions. The authors will find no credible evidence that class size matters and will say so closely followed by "but we really think it should make a difference and if you don't like this conclusion blame the data or rearrange the algorithm or...".

It is as if both science and math have no factual basis in educational research.

The academic dishonesty really needs to stop. It distorts public policy and undermines the credibility of educational evangelists with better ideas.

In coming segments, I'll try to sort out the truth from the inertia of lies.

- Frank Krasicki

Digg It! | Add to Del.icio.us | Add to Technorati

Bleh, The Class Size Scam

The Region19 budget passed on Tuesday. In many ways it is obscene. Bloated by over $200K, taxpayers may as well burn dollars in barrels during the winter for heat.

There's really no excuse for this kind of over-spending. As a liberal, I believe responsibly managing the resources and budget is what will keep public schools healthy and keep the politics from swinging back into the arms of the lunatic fringe the Bush administration ushered into office.

Throwing money at ineffective educational pedagogy is nothing new but pointless nonetheless. It is also corrosive. Conservative Republicans can, in good conscience, complain about budgets like this and Democrats should listen. Education budgets like this are shining examples of tax dollar spending run amok.

Last Tuesday, I questioned whether the tiny and temporary rise in class size that reducing our staff by two positions would in fact affect academic performance at all. I was showered with a litany of BOE members, former teachers, present teachers, administrators and who-not that OH MY GOD, OF COURSE CLASS SIZE MATTERS! - YOU IDIOT!

So, for the past week I have been researching the class size literature and the fact of he matter is that the one thing that the experts agree on is that the kind of class size fluctuation we were discussing HAS ZERO EFFECT ON STUDENT ACADEMIC PROGRESS.

ZERO. [Yes, I know, I know, somewhere there is a cosmically co-incidental example of a student actually raising their grade in a one or two pupil smaller class! Riiiiiiiiight.]

It seems to me that when there's a national whining about math and science education, one would thing that teachers would take the math and science of their own profession into consideration - just to set a good example, you know.

I mean, I happen to think its embarrassing when the certified personnel are oblivious to the conclusions of the research about the affect of class size on learning. Not only that but they spend their time convincing the community to over-spend on already low classroom sizes.

Finally, it hurts the BOE when so many members are tightly coupled to teaching and also are so oblivious to the assumptions and special interest indoctrinations they introduce to business decisions about the school.

In future years, taxpayers are unlikely to believe the Board and it is the expensive fictions like these that will make them think twice.