Does Size Matter?

Idaho State Superintendent of Schools proposes reducing the number of teachers in Idaho by some 700+, which will mean larger average class sizes:  the number of students divided by the number of teachers. Average class size will go from 18.2 to 19.8, as reported in The Idaho Statesman. That is less than two students more, and yields a class size smaller than most of us remember. So, why all the fuss?

This number is misleading, because not all persons under contract as “teachers” are actually assigned to classroom duties. We are actually including virtually all non-administrative certified personnel: counselors, librarians, speech therapists, “teachers on assignment” who report to the district office to write curriculum and other tasks, “student deans” who work in the school office in a quasi-administrative role but are under contract as teachers etc. etc. are all included when figuring average class size. True classroom sizes are necessarily larger.

Class sizes vary, sometimes widely, from one to the next, being greater or less than “average,” according to the vagaries of scheduling, or unevenness of enrollment. Classes such as German 3 or Calculus or even Physics will not be as heavily enrolled as English or Algebra I, or U. S. History. Furthermore, a small school will likely have more small classes than a large school. Therefore, the actual average class size in most schools will be more than 19.8. The largest classes in many schools are considerably more.

The practical question is how large a class can be before its effectiveness begins to suffer. That depends; not all classes are created equal. I have found that when a class is too small, it often does not work well. Perhaps it is too relaxed and no one takes it as seriously. But too small is seldom a problem in most schools.

What size is workable can depend on physical facilities. If there are more bodies than there are seats or if the room is claustrophobically stuffed, or if there are more students than books or other necessities, the best teacher in the world is going to have problems.

There is a density beyond which teaching becomes an exercise in classroom management, and classroom management becomes more like kid-herding. Teaching methods that involve discussion and other classroom activities become impractical. Teachers will resort more and more to teacher-centered lecture and such dubious devices as work sheets, not because they are better, they certainly aren’t, but simply because they are easier to manage under crowded conditions.

Desirable class size depends… On age, for one thing. Class size matters most in the lower grades where the groundwork is laid for all that comes after, basic skills upon which all more advanced skills are built. It is much easier to do here, at the outset, than to remediate later. The child’s relationship to school gets established here; here he bonds to school or doesn’t. If you try to stack ‘em deep and teach ‘em cheap at this age (well, at any age, for that matter), some will certainly be lost with little certainty that they will now be found. Arguably, class size becomes less of an issue as the children grow older.

Workable size can depend on subject. I suppose some subjects are more amenable to large classes than other. It always seemed to me that “entry-level” math classes often get crammed to 30, 35, even 40 students. I could never quite see the logic to this, but perhaps math is easy to teach to large classes. Seat them in straight rows. Lecture. Assign problems. Give test on Friday. Students, keep your mouths shut. If you have questions, come back after school. How hard can Algebra I be, after all? And, if some of them fail, it’s their fault. Besides, it gets the numbers down, so the “more important” advanced classes can be kept small.

Or English? If we want to teach our children to pass the standardized tests, we need to teach them to punctuate and parse, both of which can be measured by multiple-choice bubble sheet tests. Class sizes can be relatively large, but if we want to teach them to write, that is a different matter. The way we do that is to assign lots of writing – and I mean real essays, not efficient little skill-building sentences or paragraphs. Weekly essays, or close to it, not one or two a semester, which must be read and critiqued. If there is a quick and easy way to do this, I don’t know of it. The problem is total paper load. Fewer students can be assigned more writing; more students will end up being assigned less.

History and U.S. Government are often taught by lecture and tested by multiple choice. I am not suggesting that this is the best method, but in such a class, numbers are relatively unimportant. But larger classes will discourage the use of more discussion, the assigning of more explanatory essays, and greater use of essay tests.

Imagine a chemistry class with more students than there are laboratory stations for. Any chemistry teacher who has had such classes will tell you that large numbers impose practical limitations on what can be accomplished in the laboratory and what can be adequately supervised. I remember a shop teacher who pleaded with the administration as the number of squirrelly 10^th grade kids in a first-year shop class topped 40. Power tools require close supervision, and that becomes problematical in a crowded class – an accident waiting to happen he argued. Before the year was out, a young man, while showing off to his peers, cut off some of his fingers.

And so it goes. Cutting teachers and resulting larger classes may be necessary or at least expedient. Increased deployment of technology may make up the difference, although I am skeptical.  But for all the Reformist mantras of Politicians, Pundits, Polemicists, and even Professors Who Should Know better that class size has no effect on learning, size does matter.