In his article “One Size Does Not Fit All” (1999), Chester Finn suggests the idea of smaller class size as automatically beneficial is little more than a passing fad. He supports his idea with a number of observations:
- There is little research supporting the idea that smaller classes – children learn more.
- Class sizes have been shrinking for decades with no clear benefit.
STAR research illustrates the benefits of smaller class sizes in kindergarten, but results do not transfer into the higher grades:
- There is precedent for disbelief of state claims regarding how best to reform schools.
- Every school has its own unique characteristics, meaning there is no single cure that will address every school’s needs.
- Reducing class sizes led to quality teachers leaving inner-city schools for the suburbs, leading to severe reductions in learning in the cities.
- Zavala Elementary School in Austin customized dictates to reduce class sizes by reducing sizes in early grades and leaving higher grades alone, showing a significant increase in proficiency scores within a few years.
In making his case, Finn acknowledges some of the reasons why smaller class sizes might be desired:
- The late 1990s saw fiscal overhead that would naturally be ear-marked toward the nation’s ‘number one domestic issue’ – education reform.
- There is a widespread assumption that fewer students will equate better education.
- Reducing class sizes can be universally applied with less expense than charter schools, vouchers, or other ideas.
The author does provide some suggestions for solutions:
- Allow school districts to make their own changes based on their own unique needs.
- Base changes on what research supports rather than approaching a blanket approach.
Daniel de Vise also indicates in his article “Smaller Class Sizes Come in Small Steps” (2008) that smaller hasn’t necessarily meant better education for the nation’s students. To illustrate his point, he takes a closer look at a study conducted in the Montgomery County schools during the 2000s.
The facts of the study include:
- $139 million was dedicated to reducing class sizes in 2000.
- Classroom sizes were reduced to 15 students in kindergarten classes and 17 students in 1st and 2nd grades while class maximums in other grades were reduced to 28.
- Other class types were reduced as well, such as multiple grade classes and special needs classes.
Results of the study revealed:
- The costs of reducing class size are very high, adding $28 million/year to the budget.
- Average class size in elementary school has been reduced by approximately one student.
- There have been improvements in student proficiency in first grade and minority students.
- Parent complaints have been reduced.
Examining the results, de Vise notes:
- “The impact of class-size reduction is most obvious when comparing the 62 disadvantaged ‘focus’ schools to the rest of the county.”
- Class sizes have not been reduced significantly in the middle schools or high schools, but the funding is not present to extend the program.
In this study, the author illustrates the major failing point of reducing class sizes – the expense exceeds the available resources.
He also reinforces one of the claims made by Finn, which is that there remains insufficient research to indicate that smaller class sizes will translate to higher grades for upper-level students.
Works Cited
de Vise, Daniel. “Smaller Class Sizes Come in Small Steps.” Washington Post. (2008). Web.
Finn, Chester E. Jr. “One Size Does Not Fit All.” Teacher Magazine. Thomas Fordham Institute, (1999). 2008. Web.