Archive for December, 2010

Reducing Class Size: Not So Cut and Dry

Thursday, December 30th, 2010

Class sizes are booming across the country, but not everybody agrees that obese classrooms are a bad thing.

According to Education Week (www.edweek.org), the average number of students per classroom is inching its way up as school districts struggle to deal with their budget woes.

From the 1980s until 2008, the ratio of students per teacher fell from 17.6 to 15.8 students per public school teacher. Those numbers are misleading, however. They include special education and other classes that typically have fewer students. That skews the numbers down. A better estimate given by the U.S. Department of Education is that current class sizes average about 25 students per teacher. That number will probably be rising in the near future.

The conventional wisdom is that large class sizes are a bad thing and small class sizes are good. That wisdom is supported by some studies. However, the way schools implement class size reductions plays a large role in whether education is improved. For instance, a school may cut class sizes down by one or two students. But one of the main studies supporting the idea of lowering class sizes used classrooms of 13 to 17 students. Cutting one or two children from a 25-student class would hardly be enough. Plus there are schools in high performing nations that sometimes have class sizes greater than in American schools. Smaller class sizes are good, but they are not everything. And schools have to weigh the cost of shrinking classes to the benefits gained. As it turns out, cutting classroom size is one of the most expensive ways of improving a classroom.

Some schools are experimenting with classrooms that far exceed the national average. The New American Academy in New York City has classes of 60 students with four teachers. The school manages to save money and still get the job done. Still other schools use novel approaches like having teachers also run school administration, thus freeing up manpower to teach classes and reduce class size.

What it comes down to is this: Smaller class sizes are probably better, but they aren’t the only answer. And with the economy the way it is, reducing class sizes may not be the most feasible way of improving education. That doesn’t mean that schools shouldn’t look for ways to reduce class sizes; they should. But class size shouldn’t be the main arbiter of perceived school quality. Improving school education is more complicated than just saying, “Reduce, reduce, reduce.”

Check out the Education Week article to get a more detailed look at the issue.

Merit Pay Snafu

Monday, December 27th, 2010

The Prince William County school system plan to institute a merit pay program in some of its schools may have hit a snag. The Federal Department of Education provided the school system with an $11.1 million grant to pay for the five-year Teacher Incentive Performance Award pilot initiative, but it turns out that the taxpayers will still end up footing some of the bill.

At a school board meeting, Prince William County officials found out that the school system will have to pay 20 percent of the program’s cost the first year. Then the percentage the school system pays will go up 20 percent every year until it is taking care of 80 percent of the tab in the 2015-2016 school year.

The idea is that the school system should demonstrate its ability to continue to fund the program beyond the life of the grant. Unfortunately, school board members who were so keen on the merit pay program didn’t realize when they voted for it that taxpayer money was going to have to pay for some of the program in the near term.

This news comes in the midst of a poor economy and a sour outlook for the school system’s budget. It was cut $25.6 million from last year. At the same time, enrollment increased by 2,460 students.

While it looked like this experiment in merit pay was going to be free for county schools, the reality is that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The taxpayers must pony up.

For those that don’t remember, the merit pay program is a system where well-performing teachers will get extra compensation for their efforts in the classroom. Nobody’s salary would be affected negatively by the program, but some teachers will end up making more money than their peers. The program is planned only for the poorest schools in the system. The hope is that by offering merit pay, teachers will be inspired and student achievement will rise as a result.

The only “question” left now is how willing are taxpayers to start paying for this experiment in the near term? Everybody thought the monetary burden was going to be delayed, but instead it’s immediate, and in a tough economic time, painful.

It is generally recognized that something must be done to help students in the poorest and lowest performing school systems. Merit pay is just one experiment that is being conducted in an effort to improve the quality at such schools. Eventually, if they are to have a real chance of succeeding, taxpayers at the local level are going to have to pay. Of course, since the grant came from federal funds, the taxpayers are already paying, but the impact is less immediate.

If merit pay is effective, then it might be worth the cost. If it’s not, then the county could just be throwing money away. Time will tell which outcome is true.

To read more about this, go to Washington Examiner.