The Real Reasons that Class Size Matters
by Mike Davis, Ph.D.
Over the break, it was great to spend some leisure time reading the paper and catching up on some articles that I had saved for further reflection. There was a very interesting article by Valerie Strauss in the Washington Post titled "Class Size Matters A Lot, Research Shows." On a common sense level, this headline doesn't sound like ground-breaking news. It should be self-evident that smaller class sizes would result in a higher quality academic program. After all, small class sizes mean closer student-teacher interaction, more opportunities for teachers to engage students in class, and more individualized approaches to student learning. But, most reporting about this question has repeated a small body of research that has argued that class size doesn't matter. As Strauss notes, figures like Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, and Malcolm Gladwell "will say something about why class size isn't really very important because a great teacher can handle a boatload of kids." Even the National Association of Independent Schools has pointed to a few studies that attempt to argue that class size doesn't affect learning outcomes to encourage schools to increase class size to reduce costs. When I have spoken to other independent school educators about this question, there is a universal skepticism about the claims that class size doesn't matter. Aside from the reasons quoted above, it should be obvious that an upper school teacher with a total student load of 60 students (15 students in four sections) will do more with his or her students than a teacher with 100 (25 students in four sections).
Strauss's article points to a review of research by Northwestern University Associate Professor Diane Witmore Schanzenback who argues, "The evidence suggests that increasing class size will harm not only children's test scores in the short term, but also their long-run human capital formation." As someone who is not a friend of high-stakes testing, I am less concerned about the impact on testing (although I recognize that tells us something about what students actually learn). But, as a believer in the important role schools like Colorado Academy play in promoting character, intellectual curiosity, and emotional intelligence, I am convinced that small class sizes promote a culture of engagement. The report states "The mechanism at work linking small classes to higher achievement includes a mixture of higher levels of student engagement, increased time on task, and the opportunity small classes provide for high quality teachers to better tailor their instruction to students in the class." The report notes that small classes had an impact on "life outcomes" for students long after the small class size experiment was completed.
When we talk to and survey our alumni, we know the power that mentor teachers have in a small class setting. Those personal relationships promote a passion for learning that will last a lifetime in positive, long-term ways.
Back
Over the break, it was great to spend some leisure time reading the paper and catching up on some articles that I had saved for further reflection. There was a very interesting article by Valerie Strauss in the Washington Post titled "Class Size Matters A Lot, Research Shows." On a common sense level, this headline doesn't sound like ground-breaking news. It should be self-evident that smaller class sizes would result in a higher quality academic program. After all, small class sizes mean closer student-teacher interaction, more opportunities for teachers to engage students in class, and more individualized approaches to student learning. But, most reporting about this question has repeated a small body of research that has argued that class size doesn't matter. As Strauss notes, figures like Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, and Malcolm Gladwell "will say something about why class size isn't really very important because a great teacher can handle a boatload of kids." Even the National Association of Independent Schools has pointed to a few studies that attempt to argue that class size doesn't affect learning outcomes to encourage schools to increase class size to reduce costs. When I have spoken to other independent school educators about this question, there is a universal skepticism about the claims that class size doesn't matter. Aside from the reasons quoted above, it should be obvious that an upper school teacher with a total student load of 60 students (15 students in four sections) will do more with his or her students than a teacher with 100 (25 students in four sections).
Strauss's article points to a review of research by Northwestern University Associate Professor Diane Witmore Schanzenback who argues, "The evidence suggests that increasing class size will harm not only children's test scores in the short term, but also their long-run human capital formation." As someone who is not a friend of high-stakes testing, I am less concerned about the impact on testing (although I recognize that tells us something about what students actually learn). But, as a believer in the important role schools like Colorado Academy play in promoting character, intellectual curiosity, and emotional intelligence, I am convinced that small class sizes promote a culture of engagement. The report states "The mechanism at work linking small classes to higher achievement includes a mixture of higher levels of student engagement, increased time on task, and the opportunity small classes provide for high quality teachers to better tailor their instruction to students in the class." The report notes that small classes had an impact on "life outcomes" for students long after the small class size experiment was completed.
When we talk to and survey our alumni, we know the power that mentor teachers have in a small class setting. Those personal relationships promote a passion for learning that will last a lifetime in positive, long-term ways.
© 2023 Colorado Academy
