Smaller class size certainly helps, especially in situations with high-needs students, who require extra individual attention and teacher involvement. This is particularly important with students who are performing below grade level, lack parental support, have emotional or behavior problems, or have learning disabilities.

I take exception to the idea that students will learn just as well in larger classes, as long as we have “qualified” teachers. In my experience, good teachers AND class size both play a part in student learning.

I believe that the importance of class size varies with the type of student. In my experience, I found it much easier to teach a class of 30-plus honors 9th grade students than to teach a class of seven or eight students (also 9th graders) with learning disabilities and behavior problems, from low-income homes.

Increasing class size, especially with low-performing and special needs students, will only create more educational problems for our students.

Of course teacher quality is important — but there is no proven way to improve it, whereas class size reduction is one of only four evidence-based strategies that through rigorous research, according to the Inst. of Education Sciences, have been shown to increase student achievement.

Moreover, the argument that somehow there is a conflict or contradiction between improving teacher quality and reducing class size is a canard. In fact, we only know two objective correlates to teacher effectiveness — one is smaller classes, and the other is a higher experience level. And there is now quite a bit of research indicating that our best hope of lowering rates of teacher attrition is to reduce class size. In fact, teachers themselves commonly respond in surveys that smaller classes would be a far better incentive to draw them to high-needs schools, and keep them working there longer than salary enhancements, more professional development, or anything else.

In fact, the evidence for smaller classes is much stronger than any of the other reforms continually touted by Eduwonk and other inside the beltway groups — such as charter schools, more testing and “data” analysis, or merit pay,which probably is the reason they oppose it so vociferously.

The international data on this is also telling:

http://jaypgreene.com/2008/04/25/indiana-jones-and-the-teacher-quality-crusade/

Matthew Ladner

And it would be nice to see links to the research that “proves” teacher quality matters more than class size reduction.

It is also interesting that the cost argument is used when it comes to class size reduction, the real reason teacher quality is the hot new thing in rejecting calls for a serious investment in education equal to say, Bear Sterns bailouts or wars.

A recent presentation at Columbia U about the Tennessee study on class size impact also took some aspects of teacher quality into account and came up with the opposite conclusion.

The “research” on teacher quality – based on what factors, by the way – as is the teacher survey – it’s about a political agenda, not education reform. How disappointing to the Education Sector that the onslaught going on against teachers due to the “reforms” being pushed by them has resulted in teachers feeling a greater need for a union.

We’ll expound more at ednotes on how the survey was designed to seek out making inroads into the teaching corps to push this agenda.