Editor:
Michael A. Stagliano, Ph.D.
While perusing an educational newspaper recently, a commentary piqued my interest that ran counter to most recent beliefs about educational practices. The idea, while not entirely novel, was compelling enough to share with this audience for their feedback. The idea postulated by Saul Cooperman, former New Jersey commissioner of education and president of Citizens for Better Schools, challenges the notion that small class sizes may not be good public policy.Before the cornucopia of overripe cabbages and tomatoes begin to descend on my keyboard let's dissect what Mr. Cooperman's reasons are for going out on a limb with this kind of statement. First, this writer and most well-read educators agree that the research literature is mixed and thin on the subject of class size: our local school district hotly debated this same issue a few years back, some studies cite smaller is better while others cite just the opposite. At the very least the statistical differences in academic achievement and other variables measured in these studies did not rise to the level of being significant or meaningful. Cooperman goes on to say that if as a society we extol teachers as important and capable of making informed research based classroom decisions commensurate with their rigorous road to certification and training, multi level and ongoing professional development, then we should allow these outstanding teachers to teach with one important caveat: pay them more to teach larger class sizes. How large? The author goes on to suggest class sizes of 30-35 students per grade with the exception of early elementary grades. By following this logic, teacher shortages would decrease and learning would increase at no additional cost to taxpayers. No one is suggesting that this far-flung (but not unreasonable) notion would immediately take root, but it is worthy of serious consideration. When one does the math showing that a medium size school district of say, 1000 students would only need to employ 33 teachers if class size were capped at 30 per class, with the exception of the earlier grades, then conversely if class sizes were 20 in this same hypothetical district of 1000 students, then the Board of Education would need to hire 20 more teachers or a total of 50 at a considerable cost to district taxpayers. Depending on what the district's salary schedule dictated for beginning teachers, the cost savings could be considerable. Thirty-three teachers times $27,000 (central Illinois average) vs. fifty (50) teachers times $27,000. The savings in this instance would be $459,000. Not pocket change in these fiscally conscious times! The above scenario has its detractors who claim that smaller classes allow for individualization of instruction, increase in achievement through increase student-teacher contact time and an improvement in socialization skills, which would result in fewer discipline problems. Yet, educational policy makers and researchers still ponder whether smaller is better. It is less expensive, for sure, but are children short-changed in the process? As a veteran educator and administrator, I can tell you first-hand that I have witnessed very few differences in how individual teachers ply their trade whether the class size is considered small or large. Seriously. I would like to believe that the money school districts budget for professional development translates into measurable increases in achievement in children, but I won't go out on a limb in this instance either.
|
Now here is the part that would be hard to swallow for some Boards of Education and the general public. The savings accrued to smaller class sizes could be used to pay teachers more. Many agree that money is a great motivator. The increase in teacher salaries would presumably attract a better cadre of teaching professionals. Data has shown that many newly minted and highly qualified teachers leave the classroom after only a few years of teaching to pursue higher paid professions. There is a lot to digest and discuss in this editorial, which is only a snapshot of the larger debate on the direction of public education policy. Education is the foundation for success in life. It is also the lynchpin in preservation of a free and democratic society. We owe it to our children and society at large to have the best and the brightest individuals teaching our children. Nothing less will do. Teaching is a profession as important as medicine, law and science. I, along with a handful of others, have no doubt that teacher associations and forward thinking school districts will come on board with a plan similar to what Mr. Cooperman envisions. Before this happens teacher preparation institutions, educational associations, educational leaders and Boards of Education must agree on sound practices of evaluation and supervision criteria that are data driven and recognize and identify effective teaching practices and teachers. In my years in education I have participated in scores of debates and read countless educational research articles on the very substance described in this brief article. Over the years merit pay has come and gone in many districts, while teacher pay has more or less remained pitifully low in comparison to the demands of the profession. The debate will continue until enough informed and concerned individuals step forward to seize the opportunity to make a difference. Educators and Boards of Education, the conservative lot that they are, must strive to divest themselves from worry and condemnation for fearing the reception of their cutting edge ideas that have promise and put their ideas to the test. Only through trial and error, pilot testing programs with promise and confidence in success will our children be given the quality education they deserve.
|
To reply to this editorial please send your comments to
Your letter will be published in the email section. Viewers
are welcome to submit a guest editorial.
|
|