Does Size Matter?

We've had a lot of discussion about issues of "size" at School Committee meetings this year -- school size (largely focused on whether eliminating Marks Meadow, the small of our elementary schools, is a bad pedagogical idea) and class size (largely focused on how many kids we should try to target per class in the middle school and high school). Thus, during this week of school vacation, and hence no School Committee to report on, I thought I would do a blog posting on both of these issues of size.

First, in terms of issues of an ideal school size, it is hard to draw very conclusive findings. There are many studies, but the findings are very hard to interpret because children are (obviously) not randomly assigned to attend a small or large school. And because large schools tend to be located in urban areas, and small schools tend to be located in rural areas, any differences between outcomes seen in large/urban schools and those in small/rural schools could be due to location and/or type of student instead of size of school. This is the classic research issue of determining whether a study shows causation -- meaning whether size of school CAUSED the difference in achievement -- or correlation -- meaning whether two variables are associated, but it isn't clear whether one variable (such as school size) CAUSED the other variable (such as ACHIEVEMENT).

Most research on school size acknowledges, however, that school districts need to consider cost efficiencies in making decisions about school size. Thus, recommendations tend to focus on the balance of having small schools and the cost-efficiencies inherent in large ones. The most common conclusion I've read describes schools of 300-500 as “moderately” sized, and those that “balance economies of size with the negative effects of large schools." (http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/Publications/Revisiting_Economies.pdf). Similarly, the 2005 Master Plan for the District of Columbia (http://www,k12.dc.us/mater/MEP.final.pef) gives a "recommended elementary school size of between 300 and 500 students." This plan also notes that "One way schools have continued to operate with lower enrollments has been to eliminate educational offerings; for example, elementary schools have cut staff for art, music, physical education and libraries." In other words, schools that drop below this 300 number are often forced to cut other offerings to pay for their small size. Sound familiar?

I find this research encouraging -- because if Marks Meadow is closed, we'll have 1300 students to educate in 3 buildings, which should mean 3 schools of between 300 and 500 in each (closer to 300 in Crocker Farm, and closer to 500 in Fort River and Wildwood). Sounds like a good way to balance the importance of small learning communities with the realities of always scarce school budgets.

Second, in terms of class size, there is quite a lot of research on this issue (and thanks for my fellow Amherst blogger Gavin Andresen (http://gavinthink.blogspot.com/) for sending along a lot of good information on this topic. This research suggests that small class sizes can be beneficial, especially in the early years (see http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html AND http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1533647/k.3B7C/Class_size_and_student_achievement.htm for good reviews). In particular, this research suggests that:

• Smaller classes in the early grades (K-3) can boost student academic achievement


• A class size of no more than 18 students per teacher is required to produce the greatest benefits;


• A program spanning grades K-3 will produce more benefits than a program that reaches students in only one or two of the primary grades;


• Minority and low-income students show even greater gains when placed in small classes in the primary grades.

In sum, the research on class size suggests that class size should be very low in kindergarten and first grade (ideally 13 to 17 in a class), and that class sizes of this level are especially beneficial for low income and minority students. However, there is less evidence supporting the positive effects of class size reduction in 4th through 12th grades. Thus, I believe the schools (including the Superintendent and the School Committee) should consider decreasing our class size averages at the very youngest grades (certainly K and 1st grade, and ideally 2nd and 3rd grade as well), and then increasing the class size average targets 5th through 12th. This seems like a good way of allocating limited resources (teachers, classrooms) in a way that is in line with current research findings about when you "get the most bang for your buck" in terms of class size.

So, one question becomes how do you pay for so many teachers (to allow for small classes)? The answer in part would be to increase class sizes in the later grades (which of course is easier to implement in a K to 12 district than in the Amherst district in which the elementary K to 5 budget is separate from the regional 7 to 12 budget). However, there is another possibility: the research I've read suggests one way is to move intervention teachers to regular classroom teachers: "Extra teachers in a school who do not have regular class assignments are costly and may not have the same positive impact on achievement as shrinking class size." (www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Research_Points/RP_Fall03.pdf). This raises a very important point for me -- should we be reducing support staff in our schools (e.g., intervention teachers) and increasing the number of class room teachers? We currently have 11 intervention teachers in the four elementary schools. That would mean we could gain 2 to 4 classroom teachers at each of the schools if we were to move intervention teachers to classroom teachers -- and that could mean an extra class at 2 or 3 or even 4 grade levels in a building (which would have a dramatic increase on class size for all the kids at that grade in a given building). I don't know the costs of doing this (e.g., are there kids who particularly need pull out intervention support), but this idea of reallocating staff to different roles in a building strikes me as one that should at least be seriously considered.