I voted yes. Increasing class size might help financially. My only concern would be that the needs of the students in a larger size class...would they still be met as successfully?
School Board just needs to sell all the land that they have been sitting on for years when they wanted a new Elm School the land on East Main St Rd and River St.? Happy that that one was never built. They need to Sell the land and use the rooms that BOCES rents from them at High School. All every one has talked about is this will save them money how when you add in the added bussing and moving all the equip. and the staffing I can not see how there will be a savings. OR Sell the land fix the board building and be done with it.
I think the larger the classroom the less attention each child gets. If they were to do this my concern would be is my child's needs being met, is that teacher able to spend enough time with my child if they ask for help or do not understand something. CLassrooms are already so fast paced now a days and some children might have problems understanding certain subjects when they move so fast. If this were to happen i would hope they would add a teacher's aid that could be of help to students as well incase the teacher is too busy. I also think this is going to hurt grades in general. Bigger isn't always better.
I was never in a class in elementary school that had fewer than 35 students. That was in California in the 1960s, when California was considered to have the best education system in the country.
I agree Howard. I always had 30 plus in my class.
If a particular school has six 2nd grade classes, with 20 students per classroom, I don't see five classes at 24 per classroom as that big a deal.
Of course, I'm not in a teachers union. They are the ones that will have a problem with this idea. Not because of education quality, but because jobs will be cut.
Chalk me up as a 3rd that had school classes in excess of 25 kids. And didn't the news article yesterday about the school merger indicate that studies were presented by a parent suggesting that class size doesn't have much of an impact in grades?
"'Small classes are more engaging places for students because they're able to have a more personal connection with teachers, simply by virtue of the fact that there are fewer kids in the classroom competing for that teacher's attention," says Adam Gamoran of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"Researchers closely watched students' behaviors in 10-second intervals throughout class periods and found that in smaller classes in both elementary and high school, students stayed more focused and misbehaved less. They also had more direct interactions with teachers and worked more in small groups rather than by themselves.
"For more than two decades, class-size reduction has been a key improvement strategy in several states, most notably in California, which since 1996 has spent billions of dollars to ensure that students get small classes in primary grades. Researchers at Northwestern University released data from a long-term class-size reduction effort in Tennessee showing that smaller classes improve achievement overall, but they seem to benefit high-achieving students more than low achievers."
-From "Size Alone Makes Small Classes Better" Greg Toppo, USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-03-24-small-classes_N.htm
"...(T)here is one significant difference between large and small classes that appears consistently in the research. When it comes to the attainment of higher-order academic skills such as problem solving, written expression, and critical thinking, students in smaller classes do acquire more of these skills than do students in larger classes. Thus, while the literature demonstrates that large classes prove no obstacle to the acquisition of specific, course-related, factual knowledge, students in larger classes are at some disadvantage in developing an ability to think better by using skills beyond the basic acquisition of information." Minnesota State University http://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingresources/articles/classsize.html
People have been discussing the benefits of class size reduction programs for many years.
Such programs are credited with improving the achievement of students in the early grades and in particular those considered to be at risk.
Unfortunately, people often mean different things when they use the term class size reduction. Some define it as a reduction in the average number of students per teacher school wide. Others say it means a reduction in the number of students in a particular classroom.
Class size reduction programs are popular with the public. In the last 10 years, 40 states have implemented such programs. Class size reduction seems to enhance the social experiences of both teachers and students. Teachers who are effective with small classes know how to individualize teaching. They have clear expectations, they are less distracted by discipline problems, and they balance teacher-directed and child-centered teaching.
Terminology is used loosely in some research, too. Some researchers conflate three related but distinct terms: class size reduction, pupil-teacher ratio, and class size.
UW-Madison education professor Beth Graue and colleague Erica Rauscher recognize that such blurring of meanings poorly serves the needs of education policymakers and stakeholders. To sort out the terminologies, they interviewed scholars who have worked on the topic and began unpacking the assumptions used in research, policy, and practice.
Let’s consider a hypothetical school with 30 certified staff members and 300 K–2 students—a 10:1 ratio. One might think a pupil-teacher ratio the appropriate tool for understanding class size and its impact on instruction. But wait—the pupil-teacher ratio approach is actually intended for economic analyses, not for analyzing instructional effectiveness. The pupil-teacher ratio addresses staff expenditures, including those for both classroom and specialist teachers. In our hypothetical school, the 10:1 ratio represents the average of lower special education ratios and higher general education ratios—not the actual number of students per teacher in every child’s classroom. Thus, a school’s pupil-teacher ratio says little about what actually happens in a classroom and how human resources are allocated.
It isn’t surprising that problems arise when (a) implementations of class size reduction programs rely on data from pupil-teacher ratio studies, (b) data that describe class size and pupil-teacher ratio are used to support (or undermine) class size reduction programs, and (c) tools to evaluate class size reduction programs use the assumptions underlying pupil-teacher ratios.
Teaching and group size
The logic of class size reduction implies a chain of effects: Smaller groups mean more intimate learning relationships, which then provide more in-depth knowledge. Instruction becomes more responsive to student needs, yielding greater achievement. This logic also implies that teachers in class size reduction contexts actually know how to create these changes in their classrooms, or that they are provided with the support necessary to achieve these goals.
But research has often found the opposite: that teachers use the same strategies regardless of class size. While teachers claim to provide more individualized instruction in smaller classes, observations of teaching practice don’t bear this out.
Graue points out that investments in class size reduction need to be accompanied by support for teacher change. States and districts should make proportional investments in professional development so that educators have the tools they need to make the most of smaller classes.
Instruction and professional development
Student outcomes are difficult to interpret when class size reduction is not clearly described or enacted. To better understand the outcomes, Graue says, we need to better understand the nature of instruction in varied instructional contexts. That will require a two-pronged approach:
1.Use the growing body of research on best practices to build a framework for instructional strategies that capitalize on the benefits of smaller class size. Class size reduction requires specific actions by teachers to change the learning opportunities available to students.
2.Provide professional development for teachers and administrators. Next-generation efforts to implement and research class size reduction should focus on the knowledge educators need to use class size reduction effectively and on models of education that develop that knowledge.
The bigger picture
To ask two related and larger questions: Is class size reduction intended to close the achievement gap? Or is it a tool to boost achievement for all students? If the former, a targeted approach is called for; if the latter, a universal approach.
Graue says that questions about class size reduction point to the basic inequality of schooling in the U.S. What investments are we as a society willing to make to put success within reach of all children? What mechanisms might reduce existing inequalities?
Class size reduction alone cannot undo the damage done to children by poverty, violence, or inadequate child care, Graue says. Benefits aside, class size reduction is enacted in an institutional context of high-stakes testing, crumbling infrastructure, increasing numbers of children with high needs, and competition from other programs for teacher attention and effort. Committing resources to class size reduction is a good first step toward correcting the inequities that form the foundation of schooling. But alone, it’s not enough.
The biggest problem I've seen, particularily at the middle school, is how they deal with disruptive students.
A child with ADHD,or learning disabled, or handicapped are in the same classes as regular students.I have seen a child with ADHD generate over 50 behavior referrals, yet was never evaluated further to assure the child was able to keep pace with the non problem students. How can the rest of the students learn anything with this much disruption. I also wonder how many PINS petitions were filed by the Batavia Middle School over the past 5 - 10 years, as this is how they seem to handle students with handicapping conditions.
I voted yes. Increasing class
I voted yes. Increasing class size might help financially. My only concern would be that the needs of the students in a larger size class...would they still be met as successfully?
School Board just needs to
School Board just needs to sell all the land that they have been sitting on for years when they wanted a new Elm School the land on East Main St Rd and River St.? Happy that that one was never built. They need to Sell the land and use the rooms that BOCES rents from them at High School. All every one has talked about is this will save them money how when you add in the added bussing and moving all the equip. and the staffing I can not see how there will be a savings. OR Sell the land fix the board building and be done with it.
I think the larger the
I think the larger the classroom the less attention each child gets. If they were to do this my concern would be is my child's needs being met, is that teacher able to spend enough time with my child if they ask for help or do not understand something. CLassrooms are already so fast paced now a days and some children might have problems understanding certain subjects when they move so fast. If this were to happen i would hope they would add a teacher's aid that could be of help to students as well incase the teacher is too busy. I also think this is going to hurt grades in general. Bigger isn't always better.
I was never in a class in
I was never in a class in elementary school that had fewer than 35 students. That was in California in the 1960s, when California was considered to have the best education system in the country.
I agree Howard. I always had
I agree Howard. I always had 30 plus in my class.
If a particular school has six 2nd grade classes, with 20 students per classroom, I don't see five classes at 24 per classroom as that big a deal.
Of course, I'm not in a teachers union. They are the ones that will have a problem with this idea. Not because of education quality, but because jobs will be cut.
Chalk me up as a 3rd that had
Chalk me up as a 3rd that had school classes in excess of 25 kids. And didn't the news article yesterday about the school merger indicate that studies were presented by a parent suggesting that class size doesn't have much of an impact in grades?
"'Small classes are more
"'Small classes are more engaging places for students because they're able to have a more personal connection with teachers, simply by virtue of the fact that there are fewer kids in the classroom competing for that teacher's attention," says Adam Gamoran of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"Researchers closely watched students' behaviors in 10-second intervals throughout class periods and found that in smaller classes in both elementary and high school, students stayed more focused and misbehaved less. They also had more direct interactions with teachers and worked more in small groups rather than by themselves.
"For more than two decades, class-size reduction has been a key improvement strategy in several states, most notably in California, which since 1996 has spent billions of dollars to ensure that students get small classes in primary grades. Researchers at Northwestern University released data from a long-term class-size reduction effort in Tennessee showing that smaller classes improve achievement overall, but they seem to benefit high-achieving students more than low achievers."
-From "Size Alone Makes Small Classes Better" Greg Toppo, USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-03-24-small-classes_N.htm
"...(T)here is one significant difference between large and small classes that appears consistently in the research. When it comes to the attainment of higher-order academic skills such as problem solving, written expression, and critical thinking, students in smaller classes do acquire more of these skills than do students in larger classes. Thus, while the literature demonstrates that large classes prove no obstacle to the acquisition of specific, course-related, factual knowledge, students in larger classes are at some disadvantage in developing an ability to think better by using skills beyond the basic acquisition of information." Minnesota State University http://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingresources/articles/classsize.html
Class Size Reduction: What It Is, and Isn't
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/news/coverstories/2009/class_size_reduction.php
Beth Graue November 2009
People have been discussing the benefits of class size reduction programs for many years.
Such programs are credited with improving the achievement of students in the early grades and in particular those considered to be at risk.
Unfortunately, people often mean different things when they use the term class size reduction. Some define it as a reduction in the average number of students per teacher school wide. Others say it means a reduction in the number of students in a particular classroom.
Class size reduction programs are popular with the public. In the last 10 years, 40 states have implemented such programs. Class size reduction seems to enhance the social experiences of both teachers and students. Teachers who are effective with small classes know how to individualize teaching. They have clear expectations, they are less distracted by discipline problems, and they balance teacher-directed and child-centered teaching.
Terminology is used loosely in some research, too. Some researchers conflate three related but distinct terms: class size reduction, pupil-teacher ratio, and class size.
UW-Madison education professor Beth Graue and colleague Erica Rauscher recognize that such blurring of meanings poorly serves the needs of education policymakers and stakeholders. To sort out the terminologies, they interviewed scholars who have worked on the topic and began unpacking the assumptions used in research, policy, and practice.
Let’s consider a hypothetical school with 30 certified staff members and 300 K–2 students—a 10:1 ratio. One might think a pupil-teacher ratio the appropriate tool for understanding class size and its impact on instruction. But wait—the pupil-teacher ratio approach is actually intended for economic analyses, not for analyzing instructional effectiveness. The pupil-teacher ratio addresses staff expenditures, including those for both classroom and specialist teachers. In our hypothetical school, the 10:1 ratio represents the average of lower special education ratios and higher general education ratios—not the actual number of students per teacher in every child’s classroom. Thus, a school’s pupil-teacher ratio says little about what actually happens in a classroom and how human resources are allocated.
It isn’t surprising that problems arise when (a) implementations of class size reduction programs rely on data from pupil-teacher ratio studies, (b) data that describe class size and pupil-teacher ratio are used to support (or undermine) class size reduction programs, and (c) tools to evaluate class size reduction programs use the assumptions underlying pupil-teacher ratios.
Teaching and group size
The logic of class size reduction implies a chain of effects: Smaller groups mean more intimate learning relationships, which then provide more in-depth knowledge. Instruction becomes more responsive to student needs, yielding greater achievement. This logic also implies that teachers in class size reduction contexts actually know how to create these changes in their classrooms, or that they are provided with the support necessary to achieve these goals.
But research has often found the opposite: that teachers use the same strategies regardless of class size. While teachers claim to provide more individualized instruction in smaller classes, observations of teaching practice don’t bear this out.
Graue points out that investments in class size reduction need to be accompanied by support for teacher change. States and districts should make proportional investments in professional development so that educators have the tools they need to make the most of smaller classes.
Instruction and professional development
Student outcomes are difficult to interpret when class size reduction is not clearly described or enacted. To better understand the outcomes, Graue says, we need to better understand the nature of instruction in varied instructional contexts. That will require a two-pronged approach:
1.Use the growing body of research on best practices to build a framework for instructional strategies that capitalize on the benefits of smaller class size. Class size reduction requires specific actions by teachers to change the learning opportunities available to students.
2.Provide professional development for teachers and administrators. Next-generation efforts to implement and research class size reduction should focus on the knowledge educators need to use class size reduction effectively and on models of education that develop that knowledge.
The bigger picture
To ask two related and larger questions: Is class size reduction intended to close the achievement gap? Or is it a tool to boost achievement for all students? If the former, a targeted approach is called for; if the latter, a universal approach.
Graue says that questions about class size reduction point to the basic inequality of schooling in the U.S. What investments are we as a society willing to make to put success within reach of all children? What mechanisms might reduce existing inequalities?
Class size reduction alone cannot undo the damage done to children by poverty, violence, or inadequate child care, Graue says. Benefits aside, class size reduction is enacted in an institutional context of high-stakes testing, crumbling infrastructure, increasing numbers of children with high needs, and competition from other programs for teacher attention and effort. Committing resources to class size reduction is a good first step toward correcting the inequities that form the foundation of schooling. But alone, it’s not enough.
The biggest problem I've
The biggest problem I've seen, particularily at the middle school, is how they deal with disruptive students.
A child with ADHD,or learning disabled, or handicapped are in the same classes as regular students.I have seen a child with ADHD generate over 50 behavior referrals, yet was never evaluated further to assure the child was able to keep pace with the non problem students. How can the rest of the students learn anything with this much disruption. I also wonder how many PINS petitions were filed by the Batavia Middle School over the past 5 - 10 years, as this is how they seem to handle students with handicapping conditions.