Referencing one article and one survey from 2011, an opinion piece in the New York Times, here, suggests a compromise on class size that, by the author’s own admission, isn’t likely to please anyone.
On the one hand, the author, Sara Mosle, says the only competent study in the last quarter-century to look at class sizes showed, without a doubt, that for economically disadvantaged students, as class sizes got smaller, educational outcomes improved. She therefore recommends that “reformers” accept smaller class sizes in the country’s poorest schools.
Then, by omission, the article implies outcomes don’t improve (as much, perhaps) when class sizes get smaller for students who attend schools in affluent neighborhoods. What Ms Mosle suggests in these schools is that we pay teachers more money if they’re willing to accept bigger class sizes.
Consider first the poor schools. The problem isn’t so much our understanding that making class sizes smaller would help students, as we reported last week in our interview of principal Bob Dahm at the Alternative Day School in Belleville, Ill. We know smaller class sizes benefit economically disadvantaged students, and that’s because teachers can give each student more attention, which is what they need. It’s almost common sense, at least for anyone who has ever stood in front of classrooms of varying sizes.
The problem with this side of the compromise, rather, is that as hard as we try, we can’t get enough teachers into these disadvantaged schools to have any appreciable effect on class sizes. Our ability is only decreasing as we count student performance more in teacher evaluations, since all teachers know test scores are closely correlated with socioeconomic status. Since fewer teachers who want to remain teachers apply for jobs in disadvantaged schools, all the compromises policymakers suggest could yield only a minimal effect on actual class sizes for years to come.
Teach For America and similar programs might be able to direct teachers into disadvantaged schools, but many Teach For America recruits end up leaving the profession after their two-year commitment runs out. It does solve the problem of getting enough staff into poorer schools, but the solution is temporary. Kids can sense that in a teacher, and any fly-by-night response will not give them the “education” they need in the long run. Besides, seeking short-term profits when long-term strategies were needed is what got us into all this budgetary mess in the first place.
Next consider the other side: paying teachers in affluent schools more to work with larger class sizes. Let’s do the math first. In a simplified scenario of one school with a thousand students and 50 teachers, we would have an average class size of 20. Suppose we pay those teachers $100,000 each, making our total salary expense for teachers, in a simplified scenario, $5 million. Now, propose teachers get a raise of $11,000 for accepting a larger class size.
First, how big would the average class size have to be? We would have (about) the same $5 million salary expense with 45 teachers, each earning $111,000. That gives us an average class size of 22 students. Bigger, but no savings were generated.
Solve, then, for the other variable: Suppose for the additional $11,000 in pay, teachers accept a class size increase of five students, resulting in an average class size of 25. We would only need 40 teachers, and our salary expense would be $444,000. With the $56,000 in savings, we could theoretically support additional staff at a disadvantaged school, making the class sizes at that school lower.
So, if schools were spreadsheets and students were cells in those spreadsheets, that would be fine. But they’re not. Parents whose kids attend schools in affluent neighborhoods might not be too happy about bigger class sizes and would certainly protest the increase. These parents tend to be “helicopter parents” at a much higher rate than those at disadvantaged schools. If you’re an outsider, the idea looks good on paper, but put yourself in the shoes of an actual parent at one of these schools and your perspective grows dismal.
Although smaller class sizes improve the educational outcomes for economically disadvantaged students more than they do for affluent students, the effect of smaller class sizes on affluent students isn’t exactly zero. Why would anybody agree to a plan that will, on purpose and knowingly, reduce achievement for their own kids? They’ll start sending them to other schools after a certain amount of that happens.
And if enough of that happens, schools start becoming “underutilized,” and districts shut them down. How much more of this debate do we have to endure before we just put the deadbolts on the doors?
