Increase class size while improving student achievement - it can be done

Eric Hanushek writes that if schools were allowed to lay off teachers based on effectiveness instead of based on LIFO (seniority rules mandated by New York State) they would be able to save money by increasing class sizes while improving student achievement levels.  Maybe it IS true that schools can "do more with less" and that a "leaner school system might just be a better one".

The economic downturn across the country has a lot of people talking about class size reduction. By and large, people are saying bigger classes would be a calamity for public schools. These discussions, while ever-tinged by politics, ignore both basic facts and research evidence....

This situation has led to hysterical news media coverage about enormous classes and testimonials about how it has simply become impossible to teach with so many students in one class. It has also prompted the class size reduction lobbyists to quote back their evidence with the twist of how this is the worst thing that could happen to schools....

But increasing class size means that some current teachers must be laid off, and here the schools have an advantage. They know how effective their teachers are, so they are not forced to lay off an average teacher. They can in fact lay off below average teachers.

When budget shortfalls necessitate reductions in force, laying off the weakest teachers would lead to dramatic improvements in student achievement. As I have described elsewhere, replacing the worst 5-8 percent of our teachers with average teachers would be expected to move student outcomes near to if not at the top of the international league tables for math and science performance. And this would have enormous benefits for the U.S. economy and for the students who now have greater skills when they enter the labor force.

But wouldn't the increased class sizes offset any gains? In simplest terms, no. The evidence has been rehashed many times. The latest Brookings study, for example, concludes once again that the small class size increases from the current fiscal pressures would be virtually undetectable. Part of the confusion over the outcomes arises from the unwillingness or inability of schools to make decisions based on the effectiveness of teachers. By applying last in, first out rules (LIFO for short) to any dismissals, schools almost completely eliminate the chance to improve the learning for our children. When you use seniority as the determining factor in layoffs, you let some of your best teachers go. And, because their salaries are lowest, you have to lay off a greater number of new teachers (as opposed to more senior teachers).

Follow-up: results of New Rochelle schools survey

I previously posted about this survey designed to gauge voter sentiment regarding school priorities to be considered in developing next year's budget.  No surprise about the results, but the choices offered to respondents were limited.  For example, there were no questions about whether taxpayers wanted union contracts reopened and renegotiated to rein in the cost of benefits.

More than half of the respondents to an online survey by school district officials said maintaining small class sizes was their most important priority.

New Rochelle school district administrators had posted the six-question survey to the district's website for a week last month.

Their aim was to learn what parents, residents and taxpayers thought they, the administrators, ought to be focusing on as they crafted the budget for the 2011-12 school year.

Of the 528 respondents, two-thirds said they are parents or guardians of school-age children.

Keeping class sizes from ballooning was the top concern, with 53.2 percent of the respondents selecting it.

After that, 44.4 percent said preserving advanced placement and other honors classes was most important.

About one-third of the respondents cited having the latest technology in classrooms as their top priority.

"I am not surprised to learn that class size is of critical importance to most people (who) responded to the survey," Superintendent of Schools Richard Organisciak said. "That has historically been the case in this district."

Also, 57.2 percent of the people who answered the survey said it was concerns for programs being added, reduced or eliminated that drove them to the polls to vote on the budget.

A bit less than a quarter of the respondents said it was the prospect of their taxes increasing or decreasing that motivated them to vote.

This assessment of the community's education priorities comes as school officials face daunting challenges in crafting their budgets.

As costs continue to rise, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed cutting $1.5 billion in state aid to schools.

New Rochelle stands to lose $4.3 million if the cuts are enacted.

Discussing the governor's proposal recently, Organisciak said the loss of state aid, combined with other factors, could cost the district some jobs.

"We're going to lose good people," he said.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20110310/NEWS02/103100325/1024/NEWS08/New-Rochelle-parents-rate-small-class-size-AP-courses-technology-priorities 

Kristof argues for higher teacher pay

In a NY Times editorial, Nicholas D. Kristof says we should raise teacher salaries.

We all understand intuitively the difference a great teacher makes....
One Los Angeles study found that having a teacher from the 25 percent most effective group of teachers for four years in a row would be enough to eliminate the black-white achievement gap.
Recent scholarship suggests that good teachers, even kindergarten teachers, increase their students’ earnings many years later. Eric A. Hanushek of Stanford University found that an excellent teacher (one a standard deviation better than average, or better than 84 percent of teachers) raises each student’s lifetime earnings by $20,000....
A teacher better than 93 percent of other teachers would add $640,000 to lifetime pay of a class of 20, the study found. 

Here's a problem.

Look, I’m not a fan of teachers’ unions. They used their clout to gain job security more than pay, thus making the field safe for low achievers. Teaching work rules are often inflexible, benefits are generous relative to salaries, and it is difficult or impossible to dismiss teachers who are ineffective. 

It appears to be a chicken and egg situation.  What should come first?  Should we pay all teachers more now, and then hope that reforms will help match pay with performance in the future?  Or, should we institute pay for performance standards now as the way to reach that end?  Either way is bumpy, but what can we actually afford?

And what about class size?  Increasing class sizes could free up money to pay top teachers the salaries they deserve.  Remember, the money has to come from somewhere and in this dismal economy taxpayers are just about tapped out.

Indeed, it makes sense to cut corners elsewhere to boost teacher salaries. Research suggests that students would benefit from a tradeoff of better teachers but worse teacher-student ratios. Thus there are growing calls for a Japanese model of larger classes, but with outstanding, respected, well-paid teachers.

ADDED:  Kristof is getting bashed in the blogosphere for insulting teachers with this:

These days, brilliant women become surgeons and investment bankers — and 47 percent of America’s kindergarten through 12th-grade teachers come from the bottom one-third of their college classes (as measured by SAT scores).

Arne Duncan, class size and champion teachers

David Brooks writes that Arne Duncan espouses the idea of "Gold Star" teachers.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan gave a superb speech in November called the New Normal. He observed that this era of austerity should be an occasion to increase productivity and cut the things that are ineffective. Duncan is a fountain of ideas to make more with less.
For example, he says, if we have to increase class sizes, we should put more kids in with the best teachers and then we should pay those teachers more to compensate for the extra load. Most of us parents would rather see our kids in a class of 30 with a great teacher than a class of 25 with an average one.

As a parent, I agree. But I don't think our schools can do this now, because they will not acknowledge that some teachers are better than others are.

Bill Gates on how to get more value from our education dollars

Bill Gates wrote in the Washington Post:

Over the past four decades, the per-student cost of running our K-12 schools has more than doubled, while our student achievement has remained virtually flat. Meanwhile, other countries have raced ahead. The same pattern holds for higher education. Spending has climbed, but our percentage of college graduates has dropped compared with other countries.
To build a dynamic 21st-century economy and offer every American a high-quality education, we need to flip the curve. For more than 30 years, spending has risen while performance stayed relatively flat. Now we need to raise performance without spending a lot more....

Schools keep doing things that don't work.

The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It's reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that's not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.
Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.
Perhaps the most expensive assumption embedded in school budgets - and one of the most unchallenged - is the view that reducing class size is the best way to improve student achievement. This belief has driven school budget increases for more than 50 years. U.S. schools have almost twice as many teachers per student as they did in 1960, yet achievement is roughly the same.

One proposal is similar to the "Gold Star Teacher" idea:

What should policymakers do? One approach is to get more students in front of top teachers by identifying the top 25 percent of teachers and asking them to take on four or five more students. Part of the savings could then be used to give the top teachers a raise. (In a 2008 survey funded by the Gates Foundation, 83 percent of teachers said they would be happy to teach more students for more pay.) The rest of the savings could go toward improving teacher support and evaluation systems, to help more teachers become

When he addressed the National Governors Association a few days ago, Bill Gates gave copies of Stretching the School Dollar: How Schools and Districts Can Save Money While Serving Students Best to audience members.  Many of the ideas are here.

Class size and proficiency level grouping

Here are edited excerpts from a letter I wrote to our local school district last year.

Class Size 

I was pleased to hear our superintendent’s recent remarks shedding some light on the mistaken notion that when it comes to class size, smaller is always better.  This is consistent with my own observations after reading about class size reduction (CSR) research.

There is no clear-cut evidence that smaller class size significantly improves academic achievement.  Even the studies most often cited to defend smaller class sizes only showed minimal and questionable benefits when class sizes were reduced to 15-17 pupils, certainly not a goal seriously contemplated by our school district or by most others in Westchester. 

While I empathize with other parents who find small classes intuitively desirable, I agree with the board that budget decisions should be based on the principle of doing the best for our children and not simply on what feels good.  I disagree that increasing class size to 27 students is, as I heard one parent say, reverting to “mediocrity” since research consistently shows that it is the other components of an educational program that have the greatest impact on academic excellence.

Proficiency Level Grouping

When our superintendent made the point that budget restrictions could be an opportunity to make creative, valid changes to program design, it occurred to me that if class sizes are going to increase then it would also be a good time to introduce proficiency level grouping. 

Like many parents I know, my preference is for my children to be taught in an academic class group where the pace and the instruction are most appropriate for their needs and one that provides the most efficient use of their time in school.  While differentiated instruction within one classroom has been vigorously promoted as an innovation capable of addressing the needs of all students in a mixed-proficiency group, I have found it hard to understand how it really works best for my children.  Moreover, the individualized attention needed for differentiation would seem to become even more challenging for a teacher as class size increases.  In a class of 27 with a one-hour long period, this “individual attention” works out to less than three minutes per child.  I cannot see how this is good for either the teacher or the students.

In consideration of the above, our school district should consider instituting proficiency level grouping for core academic subjects at all grade levels, not just in the upper grades as is currently the practice.

This change could benefit all students, but would probably help the academically talented and the struggling learners the most.  These quotes from Karen Rogers' Re-Forming Gifted Education recently caught my eye and made me consider how many academically talented students may not be reaching their potential because of their placement in heterogeneous classrooms.

Third and fourth grades seem to be the trouble spots for many gifted children. By the fourth grade, they have experienced several years of coming to school, putting forward very little effort, and getting amply rewarded for it. . . . Many times, these bright children look around and notice that their classmates, who are working more slowly, are not having to do as much work as they do. Therefore, as a first step toward underachievement, they slow down their pace. . . . The second stage of underachievement often follows quickly. If they are frequently told how "good" their work is, even when they know they didn't put out their best effort, these children become less committed to doing their best work.

Conversely, struggling learners in our school district are constantly pulled out of class for the extra help they need.  While I understand that the school does its best to coordinate these sessions, pull-outs can create learning disruptions that affect both the individual student and other class members.  Ironically, being pulled out sometimes mean the student misses critical classroom instruction and/or interaction that then requires more remedial assistance.

“The Efficient Use of Teachers”, a presentation made at “A Penny Saved: How Schools and Districts Can Tighten Their Belts While Serving Students Better” provides some additional details about class size and proficiency level grouping. on pages 1-12.  Many other valid ideas that were presented at this conference can be accessed at the link.