Why do unsubstantiated remedies-like smaller class sizes-gain such traction in the world of education? Rather than adhering to rigorous research standards, we resort to sweeping generalizations and sentimental stories about children's lives. Not that there is anything wrong with sentiment. After all, I used to be a kindergarten teacher and will admit that trusting my instincts about my students'??learning was often far more appealing than seeking out empirical research. But what is it about the portrait of a hard-working, compassionate educator that makes us drops our weapons of substantiation ?
Take for example, an article from USA Today discussing the inevitable relationship between shrinking budgets and growing class sizes, and another from the Huffington Post (cleverly titled "What Frank McCourt Could Teach Joel Klein and Arne Duncan ").
USA Today cites a survey by the American Association of School Administrators, who cautions that 44% of school districts are expected to increase class sizes due to financial woes. Understandably, parents and teachers are upset by the prospect of larger class sizes. Parents think their children will get less , and teachers fear they will have to give more . What is disappointing is the inconsistency with our politicians and policy-makers--those of us who are in the position to be objective about decisions affecting children; parents can hardly be expected to be--weigh in with evidence that calls into question the notion that class size has any correlation whatsoever to student achievement. (You can watch our first Fun Fact Friday! video for a light-hearted yet research-based look at this topic.)
Even worse, we read articles like this one that quote Frank McCourt, the late American author and educator who is so beloved and iconic that one almost feels guilty to disagree. The author references McCourt's suggestion to "cut the school day... and cut the size of classes, because they're monstrous." While McCourt's tales of teachings are near and dear to many of our hearts (in a similar vein: Jonathan Kozol), this doesn't mean that his policy recommendations are sound. The question isn't whether or not we feel badly or upon hearing anecdotes of overcrowded classrooms and the tireless commitment of the likes of McCourt, but whether or not the research is conclusive in this area. It isn't. See here , here , and here .
The Huffington Post article continues by stating that "over 90% of teachers regularly respond that the best way to raise the quality of education would be to reduce class size." The author then uses a medical analogy, arguing, "If 95% of doctors... proposed a certain reform as the best way to improve our medical system, would they be brushed off so easily?" In keeping with the same theme, how about another question: would 95% of doctors trust medical solutions that did not conform to the highest standards of scientific experimentation and evaluation? Of course not.
The USA Today article rightly points out that most of the evidence cited in support of small class sizes comes from only one experiment in the 1980s (Tennessee STAR ). And yet our politicians not only rally behind efforts to diminish class sizes, they make sweeping statements about its effectiveness.??Ohio Speaker Armond Budish was recently quoted by the Columbus Dispatch as saying, "the evidence shows that smaller class sizes generate a better education for our kids... [these] are the sorts of things we will be funding under the evidence-based model." Such woolly thinking, in fact, is a centerpiece of Governor Strickland's school funding fix.
Basing spending decisions on reforms with such scant proof that it helps students achieve is unwise and incredibly costly. Doing so during a budget crisis is even more foolhardy. Appealing to the compassion and sentiment of parents, teachers, and citizens to get political support for a policy??like class size reduction--well, that's just manipulative.
