Parents United has some interesting links regarding class size research on their home page right now.
TC Daily Planet: Push for smaller class sizes
Class Size Matters
WP Wonkblog: Size doesn't matter
PU Class Size archive
My view is that class size does matter. The first question is when, where and how much compared to the other factors? The second question is it better to spend money on this or something else.
Thoughts?
RDale gives an excellent demographics and class size presentation if you want to use it for discussion / examples. As many of my long time readers know, I actually started blogging in order to support an RDale school referendum back in ~2009. Over the years we have thought of moving to a school district with fewer challenges. (ie wealthier with less diversity) Yet my girls love their schools, friends, and I believe a community only succeeds if some us "very lucky" people stay and support it. (ie not selfishly fleeing to Wayzata, Edina, Orono, etc...)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
I do think class size matters, though if I was a superintendent I would try to use available $ to extend the school year. I would also hire more teachers for small group intervention before I would use the money for class size reduction (unless the classroom were overly crowded)
Not to challenge your fundamental good feelings about yourself, but there is nothing whatsoever "selfish" about expecting a school system that promises to "educate every child to their full potential" to do so for YOUR child, and to move elsewhere if they aren't doing so. I cannot imagine any parent keeping a child in a school that doesn't work unless they are trapped there by economic circumstance. Which of course explains why inner city schools are terrible hell-holes for many kids. We already offer "school choice" for those "lucky" parents that can afford to move to "an area with better schools." I think it should apply to EVERY kid.
No wonder North Mpls is the screwed up mess that it is, since most people do see the world through your lens.
I imagine that at sometime N Mpls was a thriving community and a great place to live. It had a broad mixture of people who likely had good jobs.
Then I assume the demographics started to head the wrong way, maybe crime increased some and the kids in school became a little rougher to handle. Maybe this was triggered because the houses were too small / old, so the affluent folks moved out.
At this time the folks dedicated to saving their community got together and started to fight back, the "self centered / best for my family" folks started to move out of the community, and the folks willing to move into the community were questionable at best since the "best and brightest" sure wouldn't move to a slipping community with small / old houses.
Now this cycle would continue over and over for decades...
Now I don't disagree that people should do what is good for their family. And yet at what cost to their community?
If one good community minded family runs it isn't a problem. If 10,000 good community minded families run, it is a disaster.
Then folks like yourself who live in the far suburbs stand back and throw rocks at those that are struggling to improve communitees where most of us would not even think of moving into even if we had our kids in Private school.
Granted I think the schools can improve, but to deny the demographic challenges in these communitees is silly,especially from South of the MN river. Though those communitees apparently have their own issues.
Urban vs. suburban matters little when it comes to student test scores, Pioneer Press analysis finds
My kids high school, which has about 30% of kids receiving free or reduced lunch, has made the list of best schools for many years. If I lived in Mpls or St. Paul I would try to get them into the best of the urban high schools.
I agree with the article in some ways, while also thinking they were very careful with which comparisons they made. By using the "proficient" stats, they avoided showing some of the huge benefits that schools like Wayzata have.
That is their ability to take kids much further than "proficient". Having large groups have gifted kids allows them to offer multiple levels of calculus, languages, etc. And things have to be better if there are fewer disruptive kids in the school.
I still remember what the Orono Principal said when we visited. He mentioned that he was friends with the Principal of a Middle School in RDale. When we asked what he thought of PMS, he simply said that his friend had to deal with many issues that he did not need to.
And Lord knows those do occur in these more diverse and challenging schools / classrooms.
As I have noted before, if only 10% of Wayzata students provide a challenge then there are only 3 of them in a classroom for the Teacher to address.
Where as if 35% of the RDale students provide a challenge, there are 10 of them in the classroom for the Teacher address.
Imagine a school community with 70%, that means 21 students in a class of 30 may require additional TLC, discipline, etc....
The old saying in golf is "play the ball from where it lies." That means schools have to teach the students they have. If you tell me that poor kids (or black kids) are destined to fail in your school, and then prove it by letting them fail in school, the fault lies with the school, UNLESS the student has been allowed a CHOICE of another school where they might do better. In other words, if you can't teach the kid, let the kid go somewhere that can.
I will sympathize somewhat with schools with demographic challenges, and I am willing to grant more money to attract good teachers, establish innovative programs and evaluate new approaches and best practices. But I don't think we should be funding failure.
Now, if discipline in these schools requires smaller class sizes during a transition period, OK. Otherwise, there is simply no substantial evidence that class size matters beyond the third grade.
My school has low class sizes and a very low pass rate on the MCA's. I think the schools that are doing well with a demographically challenging student population require their teachers to work a 10 hour day (and an extended school year.)
Laurie,
if teachers at your school are already putting in the extra effort, which is commendable, why do you think results have not improved? What else could the school be doing to improve results and what would be required to do those things?
And why are the class sizes low? Is it for discipline reasons? If it is to improve instruction, why has it not succeeded? Lastly, what grades are we talking about, and how long has the average student been in this small-class-size environment? (I don't expect miracles. :-)
Our class sizes vary, but most are between 15 and 20. Last year many classes were full at 23, which is a tight fit in our small classrooms.
Our student population is 95-100% poverty and English language learners. Also, Somali students are typically more talkative and active than your average student, so even teaching a class of 15 is very demanding.
We have a seven hour day. I don't know if those schools with the 10 hour day have trouble getting teachers. Maybe a good reputation attracts hard workers. I don't think they could pay that much more.
I think we are able to keep our class sizes relatively low because we are paid less than traditional districts. One teacher from my school is starting with Mpls public schools tomorrow and reports he is getting a big raise in his salary.
I'm curious did he have "years served" there that let him start higher on the steps and lanes?
Or do they have some flexibility on where they start folks?
districts definitely have flexibility in paying steps. I think most will give steps up to a point. This teacher was at my school for about 8 yrs. I don't know his teaching history before that. I bet he got at least step 9 on the salary schedule.
It's funny (but not ha,ha) that we are still highly affected by NCLB. My school started an after school program today, targeted at kids that need a boost to pass the MCA. If you are too far below and have no chance of passing, tough luck. Kids get extra help during the school day based on this criteria as well.
I am not sure that is due to NCLB.
It may just be good marketing. Now that "school performance" is so visible, it is hard for someone to say they have a great school when most of the kids are not passing the basic skills tests.
there are still sanctions for the lowest performing schools. My school was required to make an improvement plan based on inadequate progress for students with their English language proficiency. Worst case scenario is we all get fired and only some will be hired back. I think that is at least a couple of years down the road if we don't improve
Does that make sense to you or not? Rationale?
I agree that MN Dept of Ed and the community need to support the needs of that community / school / Teachers, and set attainable goals. Yet what do you think should be done with schools that have "unacceptable" results / improvement?
Hopefully they don't disband the school push these students into bigger diverse schools where the problems of those particular students are hidden in the larger numbers... (ie numbers games)
I applaud NCLB's "teeth" and wish they had been applied, but they haven't. That required "failing schools" to either offer what were essentially vouchers to find another school, or that the school be "reconstituted." The former has had a mild success in Florida (under state, not federal initiative), and the latter has been occasionally mandated by the courts in response to parent lawsuits. For reconstitution to be successful, though, the new principal must be given supreme authority to hire and fire, impose discipline, and ignore state and federal mandates, while directing equal or added funding to strictly academic priorities. That doesn't often happen, but it should.
The best solution would be for the State government to impose BOTH solutions, because schools will not and can not do so voluntarily. And if you are a poor teacher, sorry. If you're a good teacher in a failing system, this is the better way.
Please explain...
"ignore state and federal mandates"
I think students may be better off in a more diverse school (not 100% Somali) We have only 3 ELL teachers to serve nearly 300 students and typically it is the newcomers who get direct service.
Students with more advanced English skills might get better service in a suburban school, with a small percentage of ELL students. I don't know how much service they would get in Mpls. public schools, which have their own set of challenges.
Of course it is the parents that choose the school. Parents of charter school students frequently change schools, which of course had a downside for the child.
Right now what is taught, when it is taught, to whom and by whom are tightly constrained by all sorts of rules and regulations. For example, schools might be required (I don't know this, just an example) to introduce sex education in 3rd grade, and that it consist of thus and so, or that algebra not be taught until 9th grade (or be taught in 7th grade). Then there are rules about what your racial composition must be, and "diversity" rules about who can teach, not to mention lack of pay for performance for teachers or even (thanks to the DFL) no performance evaluation at all.
Hi Laurie,
Personally I think it is better for "new citizens" to get their kids immersed in diverse "American" schools ASAP. They already are often challenged by having many non-English speakers at home and in their community.
Of course I am sure it is scary, especially if the parents have some strong cultural or religious beliefs that they want to instill in their kids.
Hi Jerry,
I think you are quite a ways off base. Apparently 7th grade is acceptable for sex ed based on the experience with my daughters. And I know a little 5th grade girl who is well into algebra. She is actually taking it via a virtual class through the U of MN.
From what I can tell, most of the mandates have to do with special ed, title 1 funding, etc. Of course maybe the "new rules" you recommend include turning away special ed, ELL and poor kids. That of course would do wonders for test scores.
I don't know what you must think of me, to accuse me of wanting to deny a good education to anybody. Besides, the schools are already doing that job superbly.
Your examples point out exactly WHY one-size-fits-all mandates have no place in education. I know private schools that pay no attention to the fact that some of their 2nd and 3rd graders routinely get into 4th or 5th grade math work. And I think you are overlooking all of the mandates on what classes are to be taken, how state funds are to be spent (you would be amazed), how budgets are to be reported, what tests are to be given, and on and on. Back to the original subject, I challenge PU or anybody else to offer a conclusive study proving lasting academic gains from (reasonably) smaller class sizes and not explained by other factors.
Now, you know what is interesting? If I were recommending class size limits, I would recommend class sizes LOWER than what the teachers want for the "challenged" students, for EVERY kid in K-3, but would escalate faster, so essentially no limit in the 10-12 grades except physical classroom capacity.
Laurie, your experience is very instructive, and if you have that many Somalis lower achievement levels are understandable. I suspect there may be better ways of reaching these kids but have no real knowledge to make a suggestion. "Culture specific" would sound like a liberal idea, but we do know that it can work in such cases. Again, I don't know what that means here.
John is right that "immersion" is key to ESL (my daughter teaches ESL classes) but it is also one of those "other factors" that class size might help but can't fix.
I don't think you intentionally want to deny anyone a good education. However as we always say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
If the world was ideal and all parents were responsible and capable, your philosophies would be great!!! Unfortunately our real world has a lot of dead beat, incapable and/or over whelmed parents. And for better or worse our public schools have been tasked with trying to compensate for this real world problem.
Your denial of the reality that it costs a lot more to educate students in poor neighborhoods is the biggest flaw in your usually rational perspectives.
I totally agree that things need to change in the Public School system, however I also understand that reality has them doing a whole lot more than teaching the 3R's.
Remember your support for vouchers... Which make it even easier for better off families and "easy to teach" students to run from the unlucky, special ed and ELL student bodies. Therefore leaving the high cost students concentrated in the schools that have to take them due to the rule of law.
Just like when all the successful self centered families run from their old challenging communities instead of fighting for them.
Of course your answer regarding the schools left with the children no one wants would be...
"Those schools and Teachers are failing and they are too expensive." Kind of like what you say today about inner city schools and teachers.
G2A Vouchers Promote White Flight
I had the hardest time finding this so I just renamed it....
G2A The Magnet School Model? 2 and 7
"Unfortunately our real world has a lot of dead beat, incapable and/or over whelmed parents."
So, how many are there? 10%, 30%, 70%? For how many kids are you going to insist that demography is destiny and deny them even the opportunity of an education??? Why don't we find the best way of reaching ALL the kids, and then work out something else for that tiny fraction of parents who don't want the best for them? It's just shameful to blame parents for not taking advantage of opportunities that you never offered them.
"Your denial of the reality that it costs a lot more to educate students in poor neighborhoods is the biggest flaw in your usually rational perspectives."
I don't deny that reality at all. If it costs twice as much to educate a poor child as it does a "lucky" one, so be it. But that's not the reality. The reality is that we SPEND twice as much to get HALF the results! If I were king, I would say every kid gets $8500 from the state (I would make it a voucher, but ignore that for now). Then I would ask every school to come forward with proposals to raise student achievement, and what the cost of those proposals were. Most would be granted in the first few years (annual evaluations, of course). After that schools that did not perform would be reconstituted or vouchered out of business, rather than harm more children.
"I also understand that reality has them doing a whole lot more than teaching the 3R's."
Yes, and why should they be off on all this other necessary and desirable stuff-- music, art, history, languages-- until they can teach the basics successfully? Third graders that cannot read at grade level are not ready word problems in math! Schools and teachers should have the flexibility to do it right.
"Remember your support for vouchers... Which make it even easier for better off families and 'easy to teach' students to run from the unlucky, special ed and ELL student bodies."
Since most voucher programs are aimed at poor students exclusively, and my program would be "universal"-- i.e. everybody-- what it would do is to give poor kids, the ones now trapped in urban schools, the same opportunities as the rich kids have by buying a new house. It's MORE equality of opportunity, not less.
Of course your answer regarding the schools left with the children no one wants would be...'Those schools and Teachers are failing and they are too expensive.'"
That's not what I would say at all, and if we had universal vouchers it wouldn't be true, either. Those schools that failed to educate would simply "go out of business," regardless of their clientele, just as it should be. Oh, and that assumes that we would offer a true voucher based on the cost of each individual child. Right now the difference between a special ed kid and a "regular" one can be 10:1, which isn't fair to either of them. Give out a "true" voucher and private schools will spring up to teach the special ed kids, just the same or better.
I would say based on test scores that the percentage varies directly with respect to the free and reduced lunch program... Not sure what the ratio is. And of course their are some irresponsible, incapable and/or overwhelmed parents in the other financial groups.
Fortunately many of them can hire tutors, and they live in neighborhoods where many of their peers are a good influence...
Problem solved as I said. The
"G2A The Magnet School Model? 2 and 7" model would work wonders.
And all Americans are free to move to new neighborhoods if they want to. The parents just have to care enough to move to the burbs. As Conservatives say being poor is not an excuse and we citizens should not be forced to support them with special programs. I mean the public education system for all its flaws seems to work just fine in many communities for many citizens.
Unfortunately most "alternative schools" don't seem to be making any huge difference when everything else is equal. Please give me examples of these successful schools if you disagree. However you know I'll be asking for demographics, expulsion policies, etc next.
Remember that my favorite success story is the Harlem Childrens Zone. However it requires a whole lot more early intervention than Conservatives would be comfortable with. Besides, they can boot anyone that violates the rules.
Maybe vouchers would work if family income criteria were used to ensure only the poor qualified. It is kind of like my Magnet proposal. However if middle class folks get the vouchers and can add their personal wealth to it then it is not an equalizer, it is an escape hatch...
As I noted above, the system and schools for all their flaws work great for many students and families. And yet when it fails in the inner cities you blame the system. I see no reason to see that changing even if vouchers were available.
And fixed value vouchers are DOA. As we have discussed before, maybe if vouchers based on need were proposed.
"I would say based on test scores that the percentage varies directly with respect to the free and reduced lunch program..."
So, 98% of parents at ACADEMIA CESAR CHAVEZ CHARTER school in St. Paul are irresponsible, deadbeat, and incapable? They CHOSE a charter school! (and I'm hazarding a guess it is "culture specific." Nothing wrong and some right with that.) I'm going to hazard a guess, too, that the kids in this school do better there than they would in the regular public school, especially if they were not already "damaged" by their time in the public school. And yes, that IS the word I would use.
I repeat: it is grossly unfair to blame parents for not taking opportunities never presented to them. Somebody making $18,000 a year with two kids is NOT going to qualify for the $200,000 loan to buy a house in the suburbs!
"As I noted above, the system and schools for all their flaws work great for many students and families. And yet when it fails in the inner cities you blame the system. I see no reason to see that changing even if vouchers were available."
And yet when vouchers are available parents flee the public schools, and the argument is that both the students who left and the students that stay do better. It MUST be, though highly dependent on the exact nature of the program. That is why "universal vouchers," IMHO, are the preferred method. This gives every parent a choice, not just the lucky lottery winners, and forces the public schools to actually compete for students rather than having a captive clientele. Your example, and I'm sure countless others, show that kids in the same demographic can do better than their peers in the public schools. Why do you insist it is the fault of the parents when the parents are the same in both cases? Sure, start early if you want. Have effective discipline, absolutely. Set high expectations on both students and staff because it's essential. And get rid of ANY hidebound rule that doesn't further the education of the kids. You get what you expect; if you expect the kids to fail because of their demographic, guess what.
The other point about universal vouchers is that they are good at the PUBLIC schools as well. This provides a necessary transition period for failing (inner city) schools to get better before alternatives can be organized and constructed. It also allows suburban families that LIKE their public schools to keep them.
The parents at ACADEMIA CESAR CHAVEZ CHARTER and other similar Magnets will have a much lower irresponsible and incapable percentage.
Remember those parents have already taken the effort that many don't from that demographic.
Ala my "public magnet" proposal.
Do you know if the ACC charter can expel kids that don't behave or do their homework?
Yes, parents who get to choose their school are more responsible than those not given any choice at all (or are they?) So why not give EVERY parent a voucher and let them choose ANY school, public, private, parochial, home?
And no, I don't know anything about ACC; I picked them as an example because they were first in the list. Should they have the right to deny service to disruptive students? Absolutely, and so should the public schools. That, too, might be the result of universal vouchers. You may want your kid here, but we won't take your voucher; it will cost you more money to find him a school that will put up with his nonsense. Incentives.
"it will cost you more money to find him a school that will put up with his nonsense"
And that is exactly the point... My opinion is that the worst students have the parents who least likely able or willing to pay extra funds...
And that is exactly MY point. If you don't want to (or cannot) afford the extra expense, then your kid needs to behave himself. Suspending or expelling kids is terrible discipline policy, because it gets them what they want-- away from having to put in the effort to learn. Having Mom tell them to shape up ought to work better. Just the act of having to sign over a check to a school is going to make Mom more mindful-- and responsible-- than she might otherwise be.
I lost track of what we were talking about. :-) So, in re-reading the thread, I came across Laurie's link about how middle-class kids do just fine in the St. Paul schools, and that suggests to me a solution to our problem. That is, the "system" is obviously geared towards teaching well-behaved, motivated, middle-class white kids, and everybody else gets "left behind." It isn't racism or anything else, it just is the way the system works. SO... if we were to offer school choice and allowed schools like Cesar Chavez to spring up and offer an education geared to individual, self-selected subsets of students other than middle-class white kids, wouldn't a thousand flowers bloom?
"act of having to sign over a check to a school is going to make Mom more mindful"
Can't get blood from a turnip...
Did you not note that CC has an "improvement plan"? Meaning they are not meeting expectations even with everything benefitting them... The flowers don't seem to be blooming...
Really? You give someone an opportunity where before they had none, and you do not think that will make any difference? Perhaps I am just a lot more optimistic about human nature.
Yes, ACC has an improvement plan for increasing academic achievement. Can you tell me if the St. Paul public school these kids would otherwise attend has an improvement plan that would benefit them?
"Opportunity" implies that ACC is more effective than the other St Paul schools when all factors are equal.
Unless you mean giving them the "opportunity" to escape all those unlucky kids with dead beat, irresponsible or frazzled parents. That is kind of like giving free busing to the Mahtomedi or St Anthony Village public schools.
US News Best MN HS
"'Opportunity' implies that ACC is more effective than the other St Paul schools when all factors are equal."
No, it doesn't. It says that parents with a universal voucher will have a choice that they never had before, and may exercise it according to their own metric of what is "best" for their kid. By that logic, parents of ACC should never have chosen it at all, and probably should have been denied the choice altogether. Can you explain how that would help these kids get a better education?
The Parents choose schools because they are perceived to be better. Many factors go into this including the Teachers, curriculum, facility, offerings and the student body demographics.
I am happy that MN offers parents choices, including many public schools via open enrollment, charter schools, private schools and PSOE. I personally don't support vouchers in the form you propose. I think they would do more damage than good.
My question would be why you support school choice (very wise) for some but not for everybody? And what is PSOE? If every parent had a voucher, they could choose one of these options, or others including homeschool, which is the best possible "class size" situation, yes?
I'll post my rationale as a new post in a few days.
As for PSEO.
Post a Comment