Thursday, November 11, 2010
School panel seeks advice on class sizes
This is an interesting article on class sizes in Brookline, and in particular addresses the Brookline School Committee's interest in making research-based decisions on how to best allocate district resources (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/11/brookline_school_panel_seeks_advice_on_growing_class_sizes/?page=2). Steve Rivkin, who was asked to present information to the Brookline School Committee, describes his own research on the benefits of small class sizes for particular students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
students in smaller classes were more likely to attend college, attend a good college, and earn more than peers in larger classes.
I have a real problem with this being the definition of K-12 success. "Earning more money" falls into the same illogical fallacy as pay equity when you look to the number of women who (a) choose not to earn as much as they could and the growing trend of (b) women opting to take the "mommy track" and to stay home with their children by choice.
If you believe in free choice, it rapidly becomes apparent that earning potential is not the sole means of success for all women. This is true of men too -- Jonah Goldberg once told me of the number of "highly successful" lawyers who contact him expressing an interest in quitting the law and instead writing for his magazine.
Nor should we mindlessly fall into the trap that the State of Maine has where you can not obtain your high school diploma without applying for admission to at least one college. Partially it is the Griggs v. Duke Power SCOTUS decision (401 U.S. 424) and partially it is the fact that everyone else has a college degree, but we have a lot of kids in college only because they have to be there as a prerequisite to apply for a job and I don't see this continuing much longer.
And then what defines a "good" (and thus a "bad") college? 15 years ago I would have said "library" and ability to be in the presence of great minds, but IT has leveled both of those gaps. And we are getting to the point where some of commercial CATV (eg History Channel) is of an instructional quality beyond the resources of the most elite college.
Four decades of politicized curriculum and "tenured radicals" have further served to destroy the instructional quality of many once-great institutions while the bulk of undergraduate instruction increasingly goes to both adjunct faculty and even more poorly trained graduate teaching assistants.
It will be 30 years before we can document this, but a lot of people are currently paying a lot of money for a college education that neither is really that good nor is preparing them for a successful life (however defined).
And as we go into the depths of the second great depression, with the economic shakeups still occurring, we do not even yet know who will be (and won't be) successful when this all sorts itself out. Beyond that, one's value as a human is not a financial figure...
1 of 2
students in smaller classes were more likely to attend college, attend a good college, and earn more than peers in larger classes.
I have a real problem with this being the definition of K-12 success. "Earning more money" falls into the same illogical fallacy as "pay equity" when you look to the number of women who (a) choose not to earn as much as they could and the growing trend of (b) women opting to take the "mommy track" and to stay home with their children by choice.
If you believe in free choice, it rapidly becomes apparent that earning potential is not the sole means of success for all women. This is true of men too -- Jonah Goldberg once told me of the number of "highly successful" lawyers who contact him expressing an interest in quitting the law and instead writing for his magazine.
Nor should we mindlessly fall into the trap that the State of Maine has where you can not obtain your high school diploma without applying for admission to at least one college. Partially it is the Griggs v. Duke Power SCOTUS decision (401 U.S. 424) and partially it is the fact that everyone else has a college degree, but we have a lot of kids in college only because they have to be there as a prerequisite to apply for a job and I don't see this continuing much longer.
And then what defines a "good" (and thus a "bad") college? 15 years ago I would have said "library" and ability to be in the presence of great minds, but IT has leveled both of those gaps. And we are getting to the point where some of commercial CATV (eg History Channel) is of an instructional quality beyond the resources of the most elite college.
2 of 2
Four decades of politicized curriculum and "tenured radicals" have further served to destroy the instructional quality of many once-great institutions while the bulk of undergraduate instruction increasingly goes to both adjunct faculty and even more poorly trained graduate teaching assistants.
It will be 30 years before we can document this, but a lot of people are currently paying a lot of money for a college education that neither is really that good nor is preparing them for a successful life (however defined).
And as we go into the depths of the second great depression, with the economic shakeups still occurring, we do not even yet know who will be (and won't be) successful when this all sorts itself out. Beyond that, one's value as a human is not a financial figure...
Having said all of that -- the STAR findings are interesting -- see http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm -- although I would want to see investigation into possible variance from other factors.
Two other thoughts -- and I say this with the caveat that it is outside my field of expertise:
First, did anyone else notice how they seem to rule out the effectiveness of aides? Second, how they almost appear to say that class size is more significant than teacher quality?
I am going to provoke a firestorm by saying this, but like a former President of Harvard College, I am just asking here: is a small student/teacher ratio in the early grades more important than the qualifications and abilities of the individual teachers in those grades?
Historically, prior to unionization, we paid elementary school teachers less than those in the secondary schools -- they usually only had a 2-year "normal" degree and the rationale was that the human contact and nurturing was more important than the teacher's knowledge of subject matter. (In this context, it is OK to have 74% of your teachers flunking the math exam...)
Should we abolish "teacher" positions in the early grades and have classes of 10-12 taught by an aide -- with an aide's education and at the aide's lower salary? The NEA/MTA is going to argue having classes this small but taught at teacher salaries which we simply can't afford -- should we sacrifice teacher quality for quantity?
It is an either/or question because financial resources are finite (sorry folks, the taxpayers will eventually revolt) and if we could go with one or the other, which should it be?
Should elementary school teachers be more numerous but lower paid than in the secondary schools? Like Larry Sommers, I am just tossing this out for speculation....
How do you explain the huge class sizes in Catholic schools? They have 35 to 40 kids in a class and they produce well educated, college-bound students.
Anon 11:16, I think the key in the Catholic schools is behavior management, something that is sorely lacking in our schools. If you have a classroom full of kids who are engaged and well-behaved, you can accomplish a lot. My kids' experience in Amherst is that you have smaller class sizes but little behavior management and some kids who are extremely disruptive. In some years, the majority of the teacher's time has been spent trying to control a few kids and very little teaching is done. Catholic schools can expel children who do not behave. Our schools, apparently, cannot since my kids are still in school with those same disruptors many years later.
Just wanted to address a different subject ... Catherine, I am really opposed to having the 6th graders move to the middle school. I have many reasons for this position -- one is that the middle school needs to get its house in order before anyone contemplates adding another grade to the student body. However, if the task force concludes that this move should occur, do you have a sense of what the timeframe might be?
1 of 2
I think the key in the Catholic schools is behavior management
No, it is more than that. First, there is a shared set of values, the first of which is a respect for authority. And it starts with the teachers and principals. You would never EVER see a Catholic school principal do what Mark Jackson did to Catherine Sanderson last year -- he would have been fired on the spot.
We have a teaching cadre that openly defies authority -- that is openly disrespectful to authority (although in the above instance, I more am along the lines of "what part of not hitting girls do you not understand, Mr. Jackson?").
Children learn and repeat the behavior they see modeled in front of them. When they see adults behaving badly -- when they see those adults who behave badly rewarded for their bad behavior -- they model said bad behavior.
SPED is real, there are some children with very special needs, ADHD is quite real (even if overdiagnosed, often inappropriately for devious reasons). What you will see a good Catholic school doing are the very sorts of things -- not behavioral management as much as behavioral reward -- that the very good (and uber-expensive) SPED outplacement schools do.
We can joke about "Sister Mary Brutality" and there are a lot of very bad things that were done in the past, but I think you will find that most of the people teaching in these schools today (both ordained and lay) are there for an inner calling. If they are in it for the money, they can instead teach in Amherst and make a whole lot more money....
2 if 2
Children initially disrupt the classroom for one or more of three reasons: (a) boredom, sheer utter boredom and desire for stimulus, (b) inability to keep up with the class and disrupting the class stops the class from going even further beyond the child, and (c) unmet social and emotional (nurturing) needs. Now once they start doing this and learn the effectiveness of it, it becomes something else, but this is where it starts.
Now the first two reasons are directly related to this asinine concept of heterogenious grouping -- the belief that all students are equal *in ability* (as opposed to in value as human beings) and thus you literally get to the point I did once where I had a 16-year-old (already accepted to Harvard but staying in high school in hopes the school could win a cross country running championship) and a SPED student with an IQ of maybe 90.
The only way to teach a class like that is to reduce class size to the point where you are no longer teaching to a group but to the individuals qua individuals -- hence the pressure for smaller class sizes.
Otherwise, all you can do is exactly what I wound up doing -- teach to the middle with the gifted student being bored out of his mind and the struggling student hopelessly lost.
In the lower grades, both children will be disrupting your classroom. What was done with the bright child (and this would never happen in Amherst) was a sorta deal where if he helped the struggling kids, he would be permitted to come into the teacher's room and be treated as a quasi teacher and join in the teacher's discussion of the subject matter and then come spring there was a public debate of him versus the entire social studies department.
But otherwise, he would be bored out of his mind, thinking of ways to cause trouble just to maintain his sanity. And how many times have we heard complaints of children not being challenged????
Then as to nurturing and such, what does the Catholic school have that Fort River does not? Not just the Priest, but the entire social network of the parish. This is relevant.
And the other thing is that the Catholic school is structured. I am not saying authoritarian (some are, some aren't) but *structured.* A lot of SPED children, those with ADD/ADHD and the various dyslexias in particular, thrive in the structured environment. If your inner mind is chaotic and scrambled (and that is what these disabilities are), the outside structure enables you to function.
So you "bless the hour" by making a religious gesture at the start of every hour -- or you do what I do -- leave the clock that plays Christmas Carols at the top of the hour up year-round. Either gives you a perspective of time that you otherwise do not/will not have -- and which is so very important to anyone with an attention deficit issue.
So the authoritarian school has a rigid school-wide policy on things like where a student's name should go on the paper -- this is no more authoritarian than every teacher having her own (which othewise happens) and the dyslexic child can do his work without trying to remember which teacher wants him to do what because it is all the same.
Yes, the disruptive child will be expelled, but how many children don't become disruptive in the first place? If we re-instituted ability grouping (not tracking) and started respecting authority a bit better, we would have less disruptive children....
2 of 3
Children initially disrupt the classroom for one or more of three reasons: (a) boredom, sheer utter boredom and desire for stimulus, (b) inability to keep up with the class and disrupting the class stops the class from going even further beyond the child, and (c) unmet social and emotional (nurturing) needs. Now once they start doing this and learn the effectiveness of it, it becomes something else, but this is where it starts.
Now the first two reasons are directly related to this asinine concept of heterogenious grouping -- the belief that all students are equal *in ability* (as opposed to in value as human beings) and thus you literally get to the point I did once where I had a 16-year-old (already accepted to Harvard but staying in high school in hopes the school could win a cross country running championship) and a SPED student with an IQ of maybe 90.
The only way to teach a class like that is to reduce class size to the point where you are no longer teaching to a group but to the individuals qua individuals -- hence the pressure for smaller class sizes.
Otherwise, all you can do is exactly what I wound up doing -- teach to the middle with the gifted student being bored out of his mind and the struggling student hopelessly lost.
In the lower grades, both children will be disrupting your classroom. What was done with the bright child (and this would never happen in Amherst) was a sorta deal where if he helped the struggling kids, he would be permitted to come into the teacher's room and be treated as a quasi teacher and join in the teacher's discussion of the subject matter and then come spring there was a public debate of him versus the entire social studies department.
But otherwise, he would be bored out of his mind, thinking of ways to cause trouble just to maintain his sanity. And how many times have we heard complaints of children not being challenged????
3 of 3
Then as to nurturing and such, what does the Catholic school have that Fort River does not? Not just the Priest, but the entire social network of the parish. This is relevant.
And the other thing is that the Catholic school is structured. I am not saying authoritarian (some are, some aren't) but *structured.* A lot of SPED children, those with ADD/ADHD and the various dyslexias in particular, thrive in the structured environment. If your inner mind is chaotic and scrambled (and that is what these disabilities are), the outside structure enables you to function.
So you "bless the hour" by making a religious gesture at the start of every hour -- or you do what I do -- leave the clock that plays Christmas Carols at the top of the hour up year-round. Either gives you a perspective of time that you otherwise do not/will not have -- and which is so very important to anyone with an attention deficit issue.
So the authoritarian school has a rigid school-wide policy on things like where a student's name should go on the paper -- this is no more authoritarian than every teacher having her own (which othewise happens) and the dyslexic child can do his work without trying to remember which teacher wants him to do what because it is all the same.
Yes, the disruptive child will be expelled, but how many children don't become disruptive in the first place? If we re-instituted ability grouping (not tracking) and started respecting authority a bit better, we would have less disruptive children....
Anon 4:10
Can you clarify for me the difference between "ability grouping" and "tracking" which you say are different in your last paragraph.
Thanks.
@sam i am
I am not anon 4:10...but to answer your question here is how I understand the difference between tracking and ability grouping. Tracking is when there is no mobility between levels. Students are tracked into honors, college bound, business, vocational, etc. It is like this in the Europe today, and in most places in the US years ago. All of a students classes are at the same level, and it is very difficult to move between levels.
In contrast ability grouping can be much more flexible. Students may be in honors in one subject area and in college level in another. But all of the students in a particular class have a similar ability and preparedness level, thereby reducing the amount of differentiated teaching that needs to happen in the classroom. There is a lower chance that the less prepared student gets lost and feels stupid, or that the more prepared student gets bored.
For example, in my previous town the schools started offering leveled classes in math in the 6th grade. Students were placed according to their 5th grade teacher’s assessment of their ability and knowledge. The groupings were very flexible with children often changing levels each year, or even in the middle of the year. In the high school it is common for students to take Honors English and college level math or vice versa.
As long as the school system assures that ability groupings are not carved in stone, and does not send a message that students at one level are any more valuable or important than students at another level, ability grouping seems like a win for everyone.
To Anon 9:24's concern about sixth grades being moved to the middle school:
I fear that the rationale for this move will be seen as analogous to the rationale for closing Mark's Meadow, that is, essential as an economy move.
But just who has been unhappy with their child in the sixth grade and thinks he/she would have been better off at ARMS? Where is the demand for this among parents?
There's a bigger discussion about the development of sixth graders here that hasn't taken place, and won't if simple dollars become the paramount issue.
I guess I'm confused -- there is a panel examining whether this move should occur. Anyone can apply to be on this panel (pro/con/neutral). It seems like a very reasonable thing to consider, since it is something that every superintendent has favored (Alberto, Jere Hochman, Helen/Al, etc.), every superintendent candidate favored in our 2008 search, and every MS principal (current and former) favored. It is also the norm in most other schools. So, I totally, 100% agree that we should study this to figure out if this makes sense.
However, there is NO DECISION. I have no idea whether it would be beneficial financial. I have no idea what the decision of the panel would be, and I have no idea whether the superintendent would recommend that change (as I believe this is likely to be something that the superintendent would have to decide and/or at least support). So, I'm not sure why there is opposition now to studying it ... gathering information.
I know there are people who are opposed to moving the 6th grade. And I know there are people who are in favor of moving the 6th grade. But I would hope, as I continue to hope about so many things in our district, that we as a community are all in favor of examining pros/cons of various options and gathering data. I would also hope that before people come to a decision about whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, they could wait to hear what the data suggests (financial, educational, etc.).
Sure, let’s study the middle school issue. I hope as part of that study will be consideration of the following:
1) the fact that the middle school hasn’t had consistent leadership the last several years
2) many parents have “trust” issues with the middle school deriving from last fall’s major scheduling snafu/Glenda Cresto’s departure one week into the school year
3) the math program at ARMS has come under serious (and legitimate) attack from many quarters
I agree with Anon. 9:24 -- let ARMS sort itself out and STABILIZE before we even think about adding another grade to the school.
From my perspective (parent with a child at MS who went through FR/k-6) it's the elem schools that need to get their houses in order (esp in regard to math). I think that a lot of parents see the elem schools as cozier places and the MS as more mysterious. But without even knowing how 6th grade would be organized at the MS, it seems premature to oppose it. There are significant academic advantages to having 6th graders taught in a MS environment: specialized subject-area teachers, earlier exposure to foreign languages, team sport participation (which DOES enhance intellectual development), and better curricular alignment. When my child was in elem school I had similar biases against moving 6th graders, but having a child there has changed my mind. I would encourage parents to be open minded about moving 6th graders to the MS.
Sorry to be off-topic. Thanks for link to article about SR at Brookline. I am glad we have him on our SC - his perspective is valuable to our own district too -- esp in addressing our achievement gap issues. Too bad that a few people have tried to undermine his influence because they don't agree with him on supt issue. Their behavior is unbecoming (especially of a teacher!).
I don't think people ought to even have 6th grade moving to the MS on their radars. It isn't going to happen in your child's school years. It cannot happen without the REGION agreeing to it. There is NO way that S/P/L will move their 6th graders to the MS. It isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Really, end of story. Sure, form a committee to examine the problem, and it might recommend moving the 6th graders (with extremely compelling reasons) but that is where it will end.
Abbie - just FYI. The Amherst SC could vote to rent space in the MS for their 6th grade, and move the AMHERST 6th grade without changing the regional agreement (and w/o the small towns choosing to do the same). We have a letter from our attorney describing how that would work.
In addition, there is movement already in Shutesbury at least to pull their MS students and form a K to 8 district (with Leverett and Pelham), which is also a possibility. If those towns moved their own 7th/8th graders, we'd have a VERY empty MS and I think we'd (as in Amherst) would have to seriously considering moving the 6th grade or else losing tons of stuff (e.g., 4 language options, orchestra/band, etc.).
CS,
I still believe any changes will take MANY years. Can Shutesbury really make those changes you indicate without all the regional members agreeing (which they wouldn't)? I thought ANY regional changes requires ALL members to agree. Changes to the regional agreement will take YEARS.
There are 2 distinct issues.
1. Could Amherst as a SC vote just to move the Amherst 6th graders to the MS w/o changing the regional agreement? Yes. That could happen -- probably not for next year, but for the following year.
2. Could Shutesbury, etc., change the regional agreement and get their own (and Leverett and Pelham) 7th and 8th out of ARMS? To do that, it would have to pass all Town Meetings, but if this is something the small towns wanted (which it may well be, especially if this change was recommended by the SCs in each town), I believe it would pass those town meetings (and I believe both Shutesbury and Pelham have plans to present some plan for voting this May). Now, Amherst TM could refuse to let those towns out of the regional agreement ... although I'm not sure why people in Amherst would want to block that?
CS,
there are lots of reasons for Amherst to block it, some of which you listed in a previous post (we would lose resources to maintain big programs, and might need to cut languages and music programs). I think more importantly, it would mean that preparation of kids for HS would then be highly disparate. Essentially, it is kicking the can further down the road. If L/P/S have issues with the education their kids are getting at the MS, why the hell don't their SC members bring it up at regional school committee meetings? Or is their motivation ENTIRELY bases on keeping their ESs in the face of falling enrollment? It doesn't seem very logical from a pedagogical view.
It *seems* like the voice of S/L/P SC members at regional meetings is very different from their interests in their home territories. I don't get how our SC takes a blistering amount of heat while S/L/P are essentially discussing ripping apart entirely the Regional system.
Personally, I wouldn't move my daughter to the MS at 6h grade, not even sure we will for 7th grade. The fight required this year to minimally alter the 7th grade math program indicates to me a deep-seated ideology that is extremely resistant to change. I hope time will prove me wrong.
" Rivkin told Brookline school officials that class size matters the most in the lowest grades, and gradually diminishes in importance until high school, for which few studies exist. It also matters more in higher poverty schools, in classrooms where the teacher isn’t highly skilled in managing children, and for high-achieving children, he said.
In addition, class size has the most effect on math achievement, which Rivkin speculated could arise because more schools opt to hire reading teachers and specialists rather than math specialists.
The issue has drawn particular attention in Brookline’s school system, where a continuing surge in young students and a short supply of additional classrooms to accommodate them have pushed the numbers this year to an average of 21.5 in kindergarten through Grade 2, and 20.5 for grades 3 to 5, up from 18.9 and 19.5 five years ago, said Superintendent Bill Lupini...."
Dear Back to the Point:
And the point of your post is?????
In our previous town, each of my kids started middle school in 5th grade. They are FINE.
You can talk about all the data you want. I know my kid was better off at her neighborhood elementary school in sixth grade, than she would have been at the Middle School.
You say, "there is a panel examining whether this move should occur. Anyone can apply to be on this panel."
Maybe I'm mistaking your "there is" for something already in action, but just in case (for the sake of transparency) I ask,
How long has this panel been meeting? How was the membership of the panel determined? What specific efforts were taken to ensure that those in the parent community who have questions about the move were included in the conversation? What specific efforts were taken to ensure that
6th grade teachers who have questions about the move were included in the conversation?
1. I've had parents say to me (in the last week) moving 6th grade is a TERRIBLE idea, AND I've had parents say to me this is a GREAT idea and can we do it for next year. I imagine it depends on the kid, their K to 5 experience, etc. But as I've said repeatedly, I hope we as a district will stop making decisions based on anecdote, and start making decisions based on data. That's why I'm really glad there is a task force studying this issue and presenting pros/cons across various dimensions.
2. The task force is being formed now -- I believe there is an announcement on the ARPS website. So, apply if you'd like to be on. Irv and Steve (chair and vice chair) worked with the superintendent to come up with how many people and who (I don't know the particulars), but I do know they have asked for representation from MS, HS, and elementary school (parents and teachers). I believe Irv/Steve will choose the parents and community members, and Maria will likely choose the staff/teachers. I'll be the SC representative on this task force. The task force has yet to be formed, and so there haven't been any meetings. I don't believe people are asked to express a view (pro or con) prior to their selection ... they just have to be people who are interested in studying this issue and then reporting back to the SC. I would hope (perhaps naively) that people would be interested in gathering data and THEN forming an opinion based on that data.
To the Anon with all of the questions about the panel looking into moving 6th grade to the MS and what efforts were made to include certain groups...News Bulletin: No one is going to knock on your door and give you a detailed update of SC business that might affect you personally and invite you onto a panel. You have to pay attention.
"I would hope ..."
How does that mesh with the MS principal's announcement in the August 26th Gazette that a "6th grader is a middle schooler"?
Is the community expected to believe that the outcome of this decision is based on data or
preconceived opinions?
Now, Amherst TM could refuse to let those towns out of the regional agreement ... although I'm not sure why people in Amherst would want to block that?
I personally would like to think that the equity issues that harm Amherst would have to be addressed before Amherst would agree to this. Although I am increasingly starting to think along two options.
Option 1 -- Amherst withdraws completely from the district -- all districts -- and the other towns are told "if you want your own middle school, have your own high school too."
Option 2 (also involving Amherst withdrawing from the district) -- which exists in Maine in the relationship between MSAD 48 and MSAD 38 -- is that the three towns form their own district, run their own middle school(s), and then contract for high school. Either as MSAD 38 does and simply pays tuition to everyone to go to what would become "Amherst High School" or what MSAD 65 does and just let the parents decide -- chip in a set figure and the parents can send their kids to Amherst or pay more and send them wherever they damn please.
The problem with tracking is not that the courses are taught to different ability levels but that once a student is put into a certain track -- often in the 4th grade -- it is impossible for him/her/it to get out of it. Each subject department (math, science, etc) in the upper grades then decides which level class the child will be in the next year.
The difference is that a child who finally decides to start getting serious about school is able to go from the non-college to college or Advanced Placement courses if he/she/it is willing to do the extra work (and has the ability although it is more willingness to work) while in a tracked system the child is locked on the other track notwithstanding.
You can't move about in math and science, tracking or not. You either have the basics that you learned in earlier years in school, or you have to do some very intense summer school work, or extra tutoring to be able to move up. You can't just decide you're serious about calculus, when you don't have the basics down. It's not a matter of anyone deliberately holding kids back. You can't just decide your junior year, you're serious about math and want to get into a good college, and decide you want to take AP math courses.
You can't just decide your junior year, you're serious about math and want to get into a good college, and decide you want to take AP math courses.
Yes, you can -- I did it.
You can take Geometry concurrently with Algebra II instead of before it. This enables you to jump ahead and then into taking calculus in high school.
There is a lot of work involved, but neither course really requires the other first so you can take both at the same time...
My daughter's 4th grade class has 24 kids (down from 25). I disagree with Steve that large class size does not influence achievement. Her teacher is doing her best and has never complained. There has been a student teacher in the class but she leaves this month. I would suggest that Steve spend a day sitting at a desk crammed in close quarters with 23 other kids and spending a lot of that time needing to think hard. I suppose the whip could come down but we experienced a classroom last year where discipline was harsh and frequent and that also created problems for the kids- rampant anxiety.
I cannot imagine the cost to these kids if next year their class is this big.
Post a Comment