2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > April > 30 > Entry
Maybe class size doesn’t matter
Andrew Rotherham, the author of the Eduwonk blog, argued in a column in Sunday’s New York Daily News that a smaller class size by itself will not help kids learn. He says the class size debate has distracted us from the real issue, which is the need for more high quality teachers.
Rotherham, formerly of the Progressive Policy Institute, is part of a movement of Democrats (Bill Clinton was prominent among this group) who have broken with the traditional view that the primary problem with public schools is underfunding and have favored Republican-backed solutions like standards and school choice. Regardless of your political orientation, you’ll probably find Eduwonk an interesting read most of the time. It’s also worth reading The Quick and the Ed, a sister blog to Eduwonk written by the policy team at Rotherham’s Education Sector think tank.
Rotherham’s solution to the teacher quality problem involves pushing aside unions, who catch most of the blame in his Daily News piece for the problems of hiring, firing and nurturing new teachers.
Teacher quality is, indeed, a major issue, and one that has gotten more attention with the No Child Left Behind requirement that all teachers be “highly qualified.” And while reducing class size is not cheap, it is a simpler problem to solve than finding a way to get more smart, motivated folks to become teachers. And in education, it’s usually the easy road that our policy makers choose.
So I wonder, how could the money now being spent to reduce class size in many school districts be better spent to somehow improve teacher quality? And can teacher quality be improved without near impossible approach of simply vaporizing unions?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Teaching and Learning
Comments
By KDeRosa
May 2, 2006 8:20 AM | Link to this
Close Old Prof. parental education and educational attitude is merely a proxy for student IQ which is the largest determinant, 2. in 2006 school funding is not an issue (though mismangaement is), class size by itself does not exert a significant influence in the absence of sound instruction, classroom disclipine is important 3. administration is tangentially related to classroom performance of teachers, 4. these factors are irrelevant. What about effective teaching practices and instructional programs? These come right after your point 1. I’d put the educational output factors in order as a. student IQ, b. instructional program and teacher ability (which subsumes classroom management and instructional group sizing), and c. sufficient funding (which is a non-issue in 2006 unless the school is mismangaged).By Oldprof
May 1, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this
So we think that eliminating unions will improve teacher quality? Please remember that unions became popular in the McCarthy years, when good teachers got fired regularly for not seeming politically correct. Improve teacher quality? Fine—you get what you pay for. Pay up, Eduwonk. Especially since most edu-pundits wouldn’t know teacher quality if it walked up and bit them on the ear. Look: in order of importance, the educational outcome for a student will depend on: (1) family [a] attitude toward education [b] educational level of parents. (2) A mix of school funding [no student respects school if the building is a dump, etc.], class size, discipline in the school [which improves with smaller size] (3) right-sized administration and oversight [so that teachers aren’t buried in documentation and micromanagement] (4) those vaguely seductive notions about alternative schools, “choice” [which really isn’t], edu-theory, punditry, and the alphabet soup of failed management innovations. Try to remember that order when some special-interest pundit weighs in.By Mary
May 1, 2006 7:29 PM | Link to this
Dave,please note the parentheses in my original message. Maybe I just discuss the class size issue with men more than women. I loved your comment about being house broken and tying shoes. Who taught your kids how to tie shoes and go potty?By Dave
May 1, 2006 2:42 PM | Link to this
Mary, Please don’t paint all men with the same brush, just because some columnist mis-uses the facts (quality teachers are most important) to push an agenda (don’t bother to fund schools). Some of us are housebroken and can even tie our own shoes.By Mary
May 1, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Actually, it seems to me it is mostly men (not all men or only men)who do not seem to think class size matters. Maybe it is the same type who does not help with childcare and homecare duties or are just incredibly stupid about the complexities of those things. Meanwhile, the same people do not seem to question why schools and colleges need a coach and at least an assistant coach for 15 basketball players and a multitude of coaches for 80 football players. Why is learning a child’s game so much more complex and intensive than teaching a child math, reading and physics? I agree with the teacher quality issue and the union influence. Problem is the union influence and power has been codified into laws because of political contributions. It shows up in rigid rules that promote education majors over math majors and scientists, and limits who is credentialed to teach in the system. I believe it was also a New York Daily News reporter who pointed out in “Cheating our kids” that students in the educaiton field are generally from the bottom third of the college admissions. Before I am stoned to death by the powerful teachers union for pointing this out, I recognize there are also many bright and dedicated students who go into education.