Large Class Sizes Mirror the Magnitude of Teachers’ Struggles

As California school districts anticipate a significant increase in state money coming their way, there’s obviously a lot of interest in how it will be spent. Naturally, secondary teachers would love to see some of that revenue finally go toward reducing their class sizes.

When I look out over the sea of 38 faces in my senior AP English class, I can’t help dreaming of some relief. After all, it already has happened at the primary level, so why not junior high and high school as well? Despite all the reasons this would make sense, there are factors operating against any significant reductions.

Lowering the number of students in a large high school district like mine, for example, is frightfully expensive. A district official recently told my faculty that it would cost close to a million dollars to lower class size by just one student. So moving from 35 students per class to 30 would come to a whopping $5 million. And because it is so costly, the educational establishment wants to ensure that it’s getting maximum bang for the buck in terms of increased student achievement. Hence, the need to conduct studies to determine if such reductions are truly effective.

Contrary to what we might expect, there is a body of research that says lowering class size does not necessarily increase student achievement. The evidence is often described as “inconclusive” or “statistically insignificant.” Kids learn just as well in a big class as in a small class. Why, then, do I and my colleagues continue to argue so passionately for reducing class size?

First of all, let’s consider some reasons why reducing class size may not always show promising results. Some class-size reduction experiments simply do not reduce class size enough to make much of a difference. If a teacher drops from 35 students per class to 30, but still sees a total of 150 students per day, the gains are going to be minimal.

Second, reducing class sizes does not guarantee that teachers will change the way they teach. After 10 or 15 years of huge classes, many teachers have developed survival techniques that are now ingrained: very little essay writing or class discussion, a reliance on objective tests, and limited personal contact with students. Rather than a major change in teaching style, a teacher’s first reaction to reasonable class sizes might be a sigh of relief. It takes time to adjust to the smaller classes and the new strategies that then can be considered.

*

So, after that sigh of relief, I ask myself what I would do differently to take advantage of lower class sizes and be a better teacher.

Above all, my students would write more and get more feedback on that writing. Right now, I have 180 students, exactly what my contract will allow. My biggest class has 38 students, my smallest 33. Every class writes something every week, but seldom enough to ensure any sort of real mastery. When I do assign writing, I make comments and give grades. This takes days to do well, and thus the papers aren’t returned in what I consider a timely fashion.

With smaller numbers, my students would also talk more! An inevitable casualty of large numbers is class participation and the frequent chance it provides me to see whether students really understand the material. I’d love to call on all my students every day, not just the hand-raisers. Currently, if every student has the opportunity to speak out in class twice a week, I feel a sense of accomplishment. Twice a week!

True, my students make progress every year, but I know it’s not nearly as much as they could. With honors students, I suppose some of these issues aren’t as critical; they tend to do well despite the inadequacies of the system. But with non-honors students, especially those who have fallen behind, the lack of individual attention is telling.

Finally, I know in my heart that I would “be there” for more students if there were not so many to “be there” for. Last week, a girl in my college prep English class failed a test, but on the test she wrote a note explaining what her family was currently going through. I tried to catch her before she left class, but there were five students who needed my immediate attention and the young lady slipped away.

I’d like to be able to talk to most of my students every day, just to check on them, but the task is overwhelming. Is it any wonder that so many kids feel school is like an impersonal factory? We’ll get you out in four years, but don’t expect much more. Fewer students would mean fewer fall through the cracks.

So, is reducing class size worth it? Other states clearly think so. Right now districts and administrators in California can ask very little of their teachers because no matter what they ask, teachers can blame almost any failure on the size of their classes.

With large student numbers, lazy teachers have a perfect excuse to do nothing and dedicated teachers burn out trying to do too much. If the state and local school districts were to significantly reduce daily student loads at the secondary level, they would have every right to expect an equally significant change in teaching methods. Administrators could require that teachers produce results and teachers would have to deliver.

Would I be willing to teach differently by assigning more writing, returning papers faster, including every kid in class discussion, and paying closer attention to all aspects of learning in exchange for a real decrease in my class sizes? In a heartbeat. So would most teachers I know.

And would such a profound change result in a better education for the students of California? I can’t think of money better spent.

*

Christine Baron is a high school English teacher in Orange County. You can reach her at educ@latimes.com or (714) 966-4550.