In their ongoing war against the BC Teachers Federation (which has recently launched a campaign to reduce class size), the Vancouver Sun ran an editorial on May 9 claiming that “good teachers” matter more than class size.
Teachers are key to good education. But, class size does matter because good teaching and learning requires the right conditions.
The Sun frequently endorses policies intended to create (what they consider) positive conditions for the economy. See, for example, their May 10 editorial touting the BC Liberal Party in which they claim “governments cannot create a vibrant economy, but they have a vital role to play in helping the private sector to create the revenue, jobs and taxes that underpin it.” The same logic applies to the classroom.
It’s one thing to argue against policies to lower class size and quite another to misrepresent what the research says about the issue. Unfortunately, The Sun chose the latter course in their May 9 editorial that says “researchers have been unable to consistently demonstrate that reducing class size yields an increase in student performance.” The Sun is patently wrong on this.
Today’s paper runs three letters, including a heavily edited letter by yours truly intending to correct The Sun‘s claims. Read on for those letters and see my blog entry for April 21, 2005 for more on the class size debate in BC.Vancouver Sun
Research and observation link class size to learning
Letter
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Re: Regardless of class size, good teachers are the main factor in education, Editorial, May 9
The research evidence on the impact of class size is clear, consistent and powerful. Smaller classes allow for changes in teachers’ classroom practices that help students learn more. Teachers in smaller classes spend more time teaching and less time managing behaviour. They know more about the needs and interests of their students and give them more attention.
All research studies are not equal. To support The Sun’s claim about class size research, the editorial cites economist Eric Hanushek at the conservative Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Hanushek consistently fails to acknowledge studies that contradict his own analyses and, more importantly, does not provide experimental evidence to counter the results of the most acclaimed experiment in the history of educational research, the Tennessee class size study known as STAR.
Moreover, poorly implemented class size policies — as in California, where the rush to implement reductions failed to consider the shortage of teachers and classrooms needed to meet the mandate — do not negate the fact that small class size has been shown to have a causal connection to sustained increases in academic achievement.
Reducing class size is not a cure-all for low academic achievement, but it’s clearly a powerful tool in improving the effectiveness of schools.
E. Wayne Ross
Acting Head
Department of Curriculum Studies
University of B.C.
==========
Letter
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
I’m a teacher with 30 years experience, 15 of them as a learning assistance teacher. My own observation is that when class sizes were reduced significantly, the teachers I supported did change their teaching approaches to much more individualized instruction. Many of the students whom I supported achieved successes that I attributed directly to those smaller classes and to that individual help they received. I saw the results myself.
Christina Schut
Vancouver
==========
Letter
May 11, 2005
If class size has no impact on student learning, why do virtually all private schools use smaller class size as a selling point in their advertising literature?
Michele McManus
White Rock
=================
Editorial
Vancouver Sun
Monday, May 09, 2005
Regardless of class size, good teachers are the main factor in education
The impact of class size on student performance is one of the most studied issues in education. But for every study that concludes smaller classes improve learning, another finds no statistically significant correlation between class size and student achievement.
Nevertheless, the B.C. Teachers’ Federation has launched a campaign focused on class size, releasing with some fanfare data obtained through a freedom-of-information request showing that some classes exceed limits of 30 students for English and social studies and 26 for science.
CLASS SIZES NEARLY THE SAME
The BCTF lost the power to negotiate class size when the provincial government enshrined limits in legislation. Individual classes could not exceed 22 students in kindergarten and 24 in Grades 1 to 3. District-wide class size averages were restricted to 19 students in kindergarten, 21 students in Grades 1 to 3 and 30 students in Grades 4 to 12.
Forced by the media to disclose what it called the “shocking” result of its findings, the BCTF sheepishly revealed that about 16 per cent of 267,000 secondary students were, for certain subjects, in classrooms that could, at times, have as many as 32 students.
The BCTF claims class size has grown since the Liberal government removed class size caps from the collective agreement. In fact, average elementary class sizes have remained virtually unchanged for a decade (23.2 in 2004-05 and 23.5 in 1995-96.)
Even if the BCTF had a strong case that smaller class size was the principal factor in improving education outcomes, its latest exercise in numeracy is pure spin and should earn a failing grade.
As to the merits of the more fundamental argument, that smaller classes lead to better learning, the evidence is inconclusive.
Researchers have been unable to consistently demonstrate that reducing class size yields an increase in student performance, surely the only valid reason to invest in hiring additional teachers and building more classrooms.
In fact, what research has found is exactly the opposite of the desired result. In one study, when class size was radically reduced, it created a demand for teachers for which the system was unprepared, so qualifications for teachers were dropped, and the performance of schools, particularly those serving disadvantaged students, actually declined.
Stanford University professor Eric Hanushek argues persuasively that accountability and teacher quality do more to improve student performance than small class size or increasing overall spending.
Of 277 estimates Hanushek used to attempt to capture the effects of either teacher-pupil ratios or class size reductions on student performance, only 15 per cent were positive. The remainder, 85 per cent, were either statistically insignificant or negative, suggesting that raising the teacher-pupil ratio or lowering class size did not improve student performance.
TEACHING DOESN’T CHANGE
The claim that teachers have more time to give to each student and can use more innovative instructional approaches has not been borne out by observation, which has revealed that teachers tend to use identical methods whether they are teaching a class of 16 or 30 students.
Regrettably, New Democratic Party leader Carole James has picked up class size as a campaign theme, ensuring that the myths will continue to be promulgated.
While the benefits of class size are difficult to pin down, common sense tells us that good teaching is the main factor in student performance. If we invest in training and retaining the very best teachers, the result will be engaged, high-achieving students.