(portions published in the May 9, 1999 Plain Dealer in
response to the May 1 editorial “Simple, yes; Effective, no”)
May 1, 1999
Dear Editor,
I was pleased to read that
your editorial staff recognized in its May 1 editorial “Simple, yes; Effective,
no” that “the problems [of raising student achievement] are complex.” However, I am greatly disappointed at the
simplistic and even contradictory stance the editors took. The headline blared, “Smaller classes would
create logistical problems without improving achievement” even though the
article admitted, “It is true that when early elementary classes dip below a
certain number … student achievement improves.”
Research is very clear that
reducing actual class sizes (not just student/teacher ratios) to 20 or below
leads to real and sustained improvements in student achievement. This gain is most dramatic for urban, male,
minority, and disadvantaged students.
The editorial, however, suggests that “achievement also improves,
markedly, when the teacher in front of a class is qualified and competent” as
if it were an either…or scenario.
The research still shows that elementary students with a qualified and
competent teacher in a class of 17 outperform elementary students with a
qualified and competent teacher in a class of 25. Besides, isn’t it remotely possible that most teachers are
qualified and competent?
While cost is a major concern
in implementing such change, an April
1998 U. S. Department of Education report concludes that the two approaches
used thus far to estimate costs (production function analysis and
cost-effectiveness analysis) have been “fraught with methodological
difficulties” such as confusing class size with student/teacher ratio. In addition, the report highlights that
“researchers have not yet assessed the total impact of small classes…If, in the
long run, the need for remedial and special education teachers is reduced,
discipline problems and violence are reduced, and/or fewer students leave
without graduating, then there is a real gain…of academic and behavioral
benefits that have cost-savings value.”
Yes, there is a serious space
crunch; yes, schools are overcrowded; yes, reducing class size may mean more
teacher salaries and benefits. But
these are investments in our children we must make now and which have proven
long-term returns.