[Speed Gibson,
Thursday December 4, 2008 at 8:04am]
CEO challenges Class Size dogma
Lou Gestner Jr came over from a tobacco company to rescue IBM not quite twenty years ago. The once invincible diadem of American industry needed such an outsider when its bureaucracy and heretofore internal succession had posted its first loss in decades. Of late he has been dabbling in education reform, writing a piece in the Wall Street Journal recently.
I didn't find it very compelling overall, especially the parts about nationalizing K-12 by all but eliminating local districts. Personally, I think the article's best contribution to the debate is rather casually included in his four point agenda for change.
Clearly there is a limit to how efficient, let alone effective a large class can be, even with adequate space and creative technology. Less clear I think is that classes can also be too small for both teachers and students, for reasons I'll save for another time. But within that range, say 15 to 35 students, does class size truly matter?
Certainly, obviously, say the districts. It's part of every operating levy referendum, the concern for overly large classes and the relief the referendum will bring.
Critics like Jay Greene contend that there's just no significant evidence to support the large additional expense of smaller classes. Plus, he argues, going significantly deeper into the labor pool means hiring less capable teachers.
More than once I have surfed the web looking for such evidence on class sizes. If there is compelling evidence out there, I couldn't find it. There's a little, but I think it's pretty thin soup on which to manage a school district. I also note the finding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that smaller schools should be the goal.
Large districts with declining enrollment are increasingly having to ask which to value more: neighborhood schools or smaller classes. So far, the latter seems to be winning every time while school after school is closed.
This should be a good campaign issue for those running for School Board, maybe the most important of all.
I didn't find it very compelling overall, especially the parts about nationalizing K-12 by all but eliminating local districts. Personally, I think the article's best contribution to the debate is rather casually included in his four point agenda for change.
This is a complex problem, but countless experiments and analyses have clearly indicated we need to do four straightforward things to bring fundamental changes to K-12 education:Did you see it? Smaller class sizes do not matter.Everything else either does not matter (e.g., smaller class sizes) or is supportive of these four steps (e.g., vastly improve schools of education).
- Set high academic standards for all of our kids, supported by a rigorous curriculum.
- Greatly improve the quality of teaching in our classrooms, supported by substantially higher compensation for our best teachers.
- Measure student and teacher performance on a systematic basis, supported by tests and assessments.
- Increase "time on task" for all students; this means more time in school each day, and a longer school year.
Clearly there is a limit to how efficient, let alone effective a large class can be, even with adequate space and creative technology. Less clear I think is that classes can also be too small for both teachers and students, for reasons I'll save for another time. But within that range, say 15 to 35 students, does class size truly matter?
Certainly, obviously, say the districts. It's part of every operating levy referendum, the concern for overly large classes and the relief the referendum will bring.
Critics like Jay Greene contend that there's just no significant evidence to support the large additional expense of smaller classes. Plus, he argues, going significantly deeper into the labor pool means hiring less capable teachers.
More than once I have surfed the web looking for such evidence on class sizes. If there is compelling evidence out there, I couldn't find it. There's a little, but I think it's pretty thin soup on which to manage a school district. I also note the finding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that smaller schools should be the goal.
Large districts with declining enrollment are increasingly having to ask which to value more: neighborhood schools or smaller classes. So far, the latter seems to be winning every time while school after school is closed.
This should be a good campaign issue for those running for School Board, maybe the most important of all.
There will be system resistance, yet I'm more concerned about how to get Minnesota citizens to give up their local control and force the politicians to move forward on this. A lot of history a pride goes with those district boundaries, towns and buildings.
Still a bit fuzzy on the class size topic, I'd like to get my 2nd graders class down to ~25, my 5th graders down to 28 &my 8th grader's down to 35. Hopefully next year.
This piece should be Exhibit A on why big business is no friend to anybody who wants to avoid big government solutions and have increasingly less say in their lives. Minneapolis' recent rejiggering of their school board to make the school board geographically based rather than at large acknowledges that people are tired of saying yes and supporting the schools while getting little say in what the priorities are. "Economies of Scale?" What are we talking about, factories making widgets or children? Charter schools, Magnet Schools, Alternative schools are all acknowledgments of the fact that one size fits all no longer works, if it ever did.
One of the basic school funding problems is that levies can't get passed the way that they used to. School Districts have found that if they actually do outreach to the community and give compelling reasons for why they need the money, the levies get passed more frequently. And explanations like "it's for the children" with data saying that it's not going into classrooms isn't good enough anymore. Removing accountability altogether or putting it entirely in the hands of some technocrat who will look at spreadsheets is a joke. NCLB has tried to do this to just establish a base line for FAILURE and the results are pretty mixed. And Gerstner wants the Feds to take it all over? That's just great.
Look all you want, but you will not find a study that clearly shows that class size matters above the third grade, and there are scant few of even those. Most districts can't even tell you what their class sizes are. They will publish an "average class size" number, but just divide the number of students by the number of teachers and you get a much smaller number than that. And in all the class size reductions that we've funded, has education ever improved by it?
Gerstner is correct on one count. The largest single factor in student achievement, according to studies, is teacher pay. And if you put a few more students in each class, teacher pay could go up without costing any more in total!
So yes, he's way off the mark in thinking the Feds will suddenly be a force for good in Education. Were it not for the money, I think everyone involved would send them packing. In fact, the idea of the Federal Government setting standards and the curriculum should scare any civil libertarian, left or right.
I suppose I should have hit Gerstner harder for this, but I thought it obvious enough and the section I quoted isn't really dependent on nationalization.
As to AG's class of 37 students, I think most of us would agree that's too high, that getting it down to maybe 30 is worth discussing. But the class size zealots are thinking much smaller, more like 15 And where did you find these (credible) studies about the positive effects such change would bring? Union publications don't count.
What about having citizens and educational representatives create ~10 school types/curiculums that are offered across all states. The advantages would be numerous. (ie free up big $'s for the classroom, simplify school administration, simplify transfers between schools/states, provide for 10 styles of learning or content variations, common comparison across all states, common opportunity in all states, etc)
From my perspective, I would like the framework set. And the creativity and money being used during the "teacher and student" interaction.
The administration by district, like township governments were very necessary when travel and communications were slow and costly. Now that communication is fast and efficient, I am not sure why we continue wanting so many politicians and managers. Until we are willing to change our paradigms regarding this, the tax bill will keep rising fast.
Lets face it, the big cost driver here is not pencils and books or even teacher salaries, it's the cost of health care. Until we solve this problem across the board, it will affect every level of government. Salaries are only a problem because they are lopsided. We don't attract and keep talented people because it's a seniority based system.
And unless we go to the other extreme of free choice and great variability (ie J's favorite topic), the kids in the district all get roughly the same curriculum today. (ie not student specific) Whereas if there were ten "pre-approved" curriculums/methods, a school may offer 2 or 3 based on their student body w/o the low volume penalties or development costs.
As for health care and all the other people costs, there is huge money to be saved in larger groups. There is no excuse that Minnesota's districts are not collectively negotiating for typical services. Except that each acts as its own kingdom / clique today, either due to the system or the community's choices.
The engineers I work with are very resistant to common processes and methods. They feel it will limit their creativity. The trick to save money and achieve better results is to have processes that drive consistency and allow creativity where it matters. This way the engrs can spend their creative energies where it pays. Also, when problems occur, the root cause can be found and the process can be fixed.
I really want the teachers and educators, teaching and adjusting slightly to meet each child's individual needs, rather than continually looking for the new mouse trap.
Grace, Mr. GERSTNER is of an age where his 5th grade class might easily have had 50 students in it. The difference was they had a teacher who was effective, and there was a strong discipline policy in place. I can NOT find any studies saying that small class size matters. If YOU can, feel free to cite it. What common sense tells me is that once you get past above 12 kids in the class, your teaching technique has to change, and that technique is good on up to maybe 50 or so. My common sense tells me there isn't a dime's worth of difference between teaching 22 and teaching 23, yet we spend thousands of dollars just to achieve such a "class size reduction." My biggest complaint continues to be that we want to measure academic achievement by how many dollars we throw at it, rather than by measuring academic achievement and deciding how to make it better, and what that might cost.
Give, there are economies of scale to be had in the "school industry," yet you are the one always pointing out that children are not "widgets." The thought of any national control or curriculum ought to scare the bejeebers out of any right-minded citizen. If you want an analogy of what you're proposing, let me suggest that we could save a great deal of money by establishing a half-dozen state-approved menus, which all restaurants in the state would have to choose from, backed by large buying groups for the ingredients. It would save a fortune, right?
Whereas educational efficiency and effectiveness certainly is critical. Therefore establishing consistent best practices that are proven to succeed may be worth giving up some "choice".
By the way, I don't think I ever implied kids aren't "widgets", I just want to make sure that none of them get dropped. As for widgets, at birth we start in the same place with different capabilities and needs. When we graduate High School there is a common goal that we are ready to be "good" productive citizens, and continue our studies or begin working. So we are probably more like widgets than most of us would want to admit. The trick is to create common systems and processes that allow for individual needs, capabilities and goals.
Here's one example of small class improves the learning environment. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/528972
Although it is definitely not the end all, just going through teacher's conferences and speaking with my children's teacher, her task is daunting to say the least. She is very well organized and is managing with the big increase this year (25 to 37 students). But seriously, do we need to provide our underpaid teachers even more of a challenge? Have you ever tried to effectively teach divison of decimals to 37 10- and 11-year olds? Smaller classes, 25-30 kids, just makes sense. In addition, when are we as a society going to get our priorities straight? We use uber businessmen and athletes as our role models... While female-dominated professions, nurse, teacher are paid squat while providing society a much more neccessary service.
And I don't hear anyone here proposing that.(Unless it is an exception for the young most at risk youth) I mostly hear parents want K:~20 3rd: ~24 6th:~28 9th:~33. Seem like good numbers to me.
J., Now there you go thinking of kids as widgets again. Since they are unique and the most challenging cost significantly more, the larger sized classes get a much lower amount of money. (~$5000 total X 65% to class = $3250/hd) Therefore total is ~$113,750 in 35 student class room. Of which the teacher gets a portion. It'd be nice to increase that 65% to 80%...
Note: If you have not heard it before: I am guesstimating at kid's cost by need $'s. Avg ~$10K, Normal students: ~$5k At Risk Students: ~$12k Special Needs students:$25K+. It helps me remember why there isn't $350K in the typical 35 student classroom. It's not meant to be perfect.
Fair or not, the Special Ed cost is pretty well documented. ~12%(~1500) of the students cost 22%(~$27mil) just for their Special Ed services, this does not include their likely larger share of Pupil Support(~$13mil)or Regular Instructuctional(~57mil) services. So we know for sure they cost more than $18k/yr/student in RAS.
Now, what do we do about it as citizens and parents? Keeping in mind that each of us could have had kids that needed this extra help... I just thank God I did not have to face this particular challenge myself.
wheather it be looking for basic jobs or carrers. Now that most schools have type of shop classes anymore it is harder for them to learn a trade. So all in all you have to peak their interests or you will lose them and that is where the faiure begins.