The Truth in Class Size

The class size debate is heating up, especially in NYC, (see here and here). While I find the back and forth accusations of alterior political motives interesting and slightly amusing, I was more struck by Arthur Levine's comments about "few educators would argue the benefits of reduced class size,"...

hmmm, maybe, but many education researchers would argue that there's been a lack of evidence demonstrating the impact of class size reduction related to student achievement and outcomes. While research has found some benefits of class size, they are specific aspects of class size reduction such as; targeting low income and high poverty areas, reducing only in younger grades, and reducing numbers below 20 students for any of it to even work (without using pupil teacher ratios). And like any production function education relationship, even with these findings, it all depends on other factors such as teacher quality. For example, a lack of qualified teachers can completely negate the effects of smaller classes, as was found in the case of California.

I wish Arthur Levine, as an education researcher, would rely on what he knows- research. His editorial would have been much more powerful using the research to argue his case against class size, instead of taking political shots at the unions. It would also be beneficial, because class size reduction research is challenging to understand and someone needs to disseminate the issues and what has been learned, to the public, so that education groups, teachers, parents, and unions alike, can make the best decisions for our kids. While class size reduction supporters have the best intentions, according to research, these policies may end up causing more harm than good.