In 1998, President Clinton sparked a debate when he “proposed the first national effort to reduce class size in the early grades.” People who supported this proposal argued that the result of smaller classes (especially in the younger grades) would be more effective teaching and learning and higher student achievement. Critics say reducing class size is costly and that decreasing class size does not mean that teacher effectiveness will improve, and other less expensive alternatives could be used that might achieve the same educational goals. Today, this debate continues. To say every district should reduce class sizes is wrong. Each district is different and has different needs, but one goal all districts share is to maximize teaching and learning in their schools.
If a district believes reducing class size is the best way to achieve this goal, and they have the money, the facilities, and the teachers, reducing class size should be done, but if a district believes the money that would be spent on reducing class size could be better spent on alternatives to achieve this goal, reducing class size should not be done. Critics mainly oppose reducing class size because of the shortage of buildings and quality teachers and the conflicting research that has been done. Decreasing class size means more classrooms need to be built, and more teachers need to be hired. In some districts, this could be a problem because they have a problem hiring quality teachers as it is, and they might not have the money to hire more teachers and build more classrooms to support smaller classes.
The Research paper on Critique: Effects of Class Size and Instruction on Kindergarten Achievement
Introduction This article discusses some very important points that will affect many children as they begin the first steps of their education. It is fairly clear that the authors have done quite a bit of research on the effects of the classroom size and the achievement of kindergarten students. Both authors are affiliated with the same school, the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In reviewing the ...
Research on smaller class sizes produces contrasting results. University of Rochester economist Eric Hanushkek examined 277 separate studies on class size, and he found that only 15% of the studies suggested there is a “statistically significant” improvement in achievement, 72% found no effect at all, and 13% found that reducing class size had a negative effect on achievement. With such different results among research, districts must evaluate whether or not the investment to reduce class size will be worth it and positively affect student learning. While research shows different results, “common sense suggests that smaller classes give teachers an opportunity to devote more time to each student and enhance the learning process.” Teachers generally like smaller class sizes because they have fewer discipline problems, so they can focus more time on teaching. STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio), a study that looked at students in grades K-3 in different areas across Tennessee, found that students in smaller classes scored higher on basic skills tests than students in larger classes. This was true with students from inner-city, urban, and suburban schools.
A smaller class size especially in the early grades can have its benefits for students and teachers. Reducing class size is not easy for districts to do; they must first have the money, the extra classrooms, and the teachers. The investment is a risk because the benefits are unknown and not guaranteed. The debate over class size will not end any time soon. Both sides of the issue have valid reasons why reducing class size should or should not be done, so the decision must be left to school leaders who know their students best and know what methods will work most affectively to maximize teaching and learning in their schools. If reducing class size is the best method, it should be done, but if school leaders feel other alternatives would be better, they should take advantage of those..
