Public education in all of Canada’s provinces, with the exception of Alberta, seems to be entering a new “Age of Austerity.” Education is front page news with headlines screaming some familiar lines: Budget Cuts! Teacher layoffs! Bigger classes! With Education Cuts on the agenda and shrinking enrollments in many provinces, it’s not surprising that parents are worried about the impact on their children’s schools. The current “Austerity Drive,” exemplified by Don Drummond’s Ontario report on Public Services (February 15, 2012), has also put the critical question of class size back on the public agenda and sparked intense debate, particularly in Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba.
Former bank economist Don Drummond addressed the matter of Class Size and contended that class size reductions are costly and do not significantly improve student learning. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/chapters/ch6.html#ch6-f As a key component of his Education Restructuring Plan, he urged Ontario to revisit the 2003 Class Size Reduction Initiative and to increase class size without compromising student learning:
The critical passage from the report explains the reasons for that recommendation:
“The [Ontario] government has emphasized the importance of smaller classes in promoting improved education outcomes. Since 2003, the government has maintained that smaller classes yield better results through greater teacher-student interaction. In its “2011 Progress Report,” the government said that “[s]tudents in smaller classes get more individual attention from teachers and other educators, helping improve literacy and numeracy and are more likely to succeed.” Indeed, Ontario’s recent improvements on provincial assessments and quality indicators have coincided with the government’s efforts to reduce class sizes.
“Empirical evidence of the benefit of smaller class sizes on education outcomes presents a more complicated picture. A review of Ontario’s primary class-size policy by the Canadian Education Association notes that class-size reductions typically yield at least modest quality improvements, but questions of “what size class is ‘small enough,’ how and why reducing class size works, and under what conditions it works, are all under-explained.” Research by the C.D. Howe Institute suggests that “no solid evidence exists to show that smaller classes improve student achievement in the later primary and secondary grades in Canada.”
“International evidence of the educational benefit of smaller class sizes offers similar conclusions. Studies have suggested that positive and negative impacts of class sizes were observed in the same proportion of classes (14 per cent each), while nearly 72 per cent of results showed no statistically significant impacts. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has shown that “[a]mong systems with comparatively high levels of spending on education that prioritize small class size, performance patterns are mixed.” This evidence suggests that small class sizes are not a key determinant of educational outcomes, and certainly small class sizes alone are an insufficient measure to achieve these outcomes
“The debate over the impact of smaller class sizes continues to this day, with conflicting conclusions and no definite outcome. However, evidence suggests that, in terms of value for money, investments in lower class sizes do not provide the greatest possible benefit. The PISA finds that “raising teacher quality is a more effective route to improved student outcomes than creating smaller classes.” Similarly, the C.D. Howe Institute notes that resources devoted to class-size reduction could have a greater impact if reallocated elsewhere in the education system.
“While it is true that Ontario’s recent improvements on provincial assessments and quality indicators have coincided with the government’s efforts to reduce class sizes, there is no evidence of causality. Even if the reduction of class sizes had some impact on outcomes, the evidence suggests that investments in smaller classes do not offer the most efficient means of improving results in the education system.
“Given the lack of convincing empirical evidence to support a policy of reduced class sizes, the Commission believes that scarce resources should not be applied to this goal.”
The Drummond report’s call for larger school classes flatly rejected the Ontario Ministry of Education-financed research of Dr. Nina Bascia (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) widely disseminated by the Canadian Education Association. http://www.cea-ace.ca/publication/reducing-class-size-what-do-we-know Little wonder, because those studies all start with the assumption that “smaller class sizes are an intuitively good idea” and are primary based upon opinion research, drawn mainly from teacher surveys and samplings of parental perceptions. You will also find the OISE “Small is Good” research dutifully posted on the People for Education website.
Teacher unions are in the forefront in the defense of class size reductions. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), representing 78,000 teachers, continues to staunchly defend the OISE research, while recommending significant cuts to Ontario’s testing and accountability programs. http://www.etfo.ca/Publications/BriefstoGovernmentAgencies/Documents/SubmissionJan%202012.pdf Manitoba Teachers’ Society president Paul Olson reacted strongly to Drummond’s report targetting his proposal to increase class sizes. “What does an Ontario economist know about class size?” he asked in a March 5, 2012 Opinion piece for the Winnipeg Free Press. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/what-does-an-ontario-economist-know-about-class-size-141397833.html
Most of the education research in support of Small Class Size is decidedly mixed and Drummond’s analysis is reasonably sound. Yvon Guillemette’s research report for the C.D. Howe Institute, released in August 2005, remains the most authoritative Canadian study. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_215.pdf That report does tend to support the claim that reducing class sizes below 20 in Kindergarten and Grade 1 does make a difference for student achievement, but noting — that’s where it stops. “Many provinces are spending millions on class size reduction initiatives,” he concluded, “with no solid evidence that they raise student achievement. The money could better be spent elsewhere.”
Class size research in the United States simply confirms these findings. Education columnist Andrew J. Rotherham, the widely-respected c0-founder of Bellwether Education, claims ( Mar. 3, 2011, TIME.com) that “smaller isn’t always better when it comes to class size.” Two Harvard NBER researchers, Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer, have now analyzed 35 New York charter schools, allowing greater flexibility in terms of school structure and strategy., and confirmed that class size made little difference, compared with new performance criteria. “Frequent teacher feedback, the use of data to guide instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and high expectations — explain approximately 50 percent of the variation in school effectiveness.” http://nber.org/papers/w17632
Reducing school class sizes was once touted in most Canadian provinces as a kind of panacea, urged on by teacher unions. After a decade or more of implementation, targeting the elementary grades, the independent research is now coming forward. What is the real advantage of smaller class sizes — and who really benefits? Where’s the sound research to support lower class sizes above Grade 1 or Grade 3 in Canadian schools? When it comes to class sizes and student performance, why is it that smaller is not always better?
Oh goodness, not again. This drum beat of ‘the research into class-size is unconvincing’ is so thin it’s painful to run across … again and again. Allow me to be succinct: Class size matters. Period. The end. Thus, you’re helping to subvert public education. Think on that.
The Drummond Report isn’t based on education research but ideology – what Michael Apple might call, ‘conservative modernization’. Anyway, here’s some study material to help pull you aright:
This study is also forwarded as ‘evidence’ for “class size doesn’t matter” – http://ow.ly/9p2ED It wasn’t peer reviewed – http://ow.ly/9p2PM
Here’s a thorough evisceration of Dobbie & Fryer – http://ow.ly/9p2S6 And another – http://ow.ly/9p2SS
Otherwise:
Class size research literature review – full text => http://ow.ly/9p3hB
Cheng (2010) Effects of class size on alternative ed outcomes across disciplines – http://ow.ly/9p3rp
Correa (1993) An economic analysis of class size and achievement in education – http://ow.ly/9p3tG
Cuseo (2004) The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on teaching, learning, retention – http://ow.ly/9p3mm
Dustmann, Rajah & van Soest (2003) Class size, education, & wages – http://ow.ly/9p2WX
Finn et al (2003) The “why’s” of class size: Student behavior in small classes – http://ow.ly/9p3Ap
Hattie (2006) The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes – http://ow.ly/9p3p6
Kelly + (2008). Where class size really matters: Class size & student ratings of instructor effectiveness – http://ow.ly/9p38M
Lee (2008). Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small- and large- class university lecture intros – http://ow.ly/9p3ce
Pate-Bain, et al. (1992). Class size does make a difference – http://ow.ly/9p2Zy
Peevely, Hedges & Nye (2005). The relationship of class size effects and teacher salary – http://ow.ly/9p31U
Wilde et al (2011) Effects of class size in grades k-3 on adult earnings, employment & disability status – http://ow.ly/9p3wC
Zahorik (1999). Reducing class size leads to individualized instruction – full text => http://ow.ly/9p34S
Class Size does generate immediate and overheated responses, Tobey.
You are far too quick to dismiss Will Dobie and Roland Fryer’s 48-page detailed National Bureau of Economic Research paper on the basis of short critiques on two education blogs, Gotham Schools and Bruce D. Baker’s SchoolFinance101.
Philissa Cramer’s Gotham Schools review is fair and balanced, noting in passing that the NBER paper, written by two Harvard scholars, was not “peer reviewed.” That is likely what upset Dr. Bruce D. Baker (School of Education, Rutgers) and prompted both of his attempted “eviscerations.”
Click to access b-baker-vitae-january9_2012.pdf
You make no reference whatsoever to the best known Canadian studies, namely Dr. Nina Bascia’s OISE research (2008, 2009, and 2010). Why the glaring omission? Is that because Dr. Bascia was attempting to evaluate her own initiative? Or is it because you too have problems with her “Small is Good” research?
Your list of Required Reading on School Class Size is an intriguing one. It is one of which Michael Apple would heartily approve, since it omits any and all research that has a whiff of the dreaded “neo-liberalism” that has spread like a virus and is now abroad in the land.
By the way, I compared your Reading List with that posted on the BC Teachers Federation website as “Class Size Research.” The BCTF includes all of Dr. Nina Bascia’s work, naturally, but makes no reference to Will Dobie and Roland Fryer, even though it was updated in February 2012. What else is conspicuous by its absence?: The 2005 C.D. Howe research report focusing directly on the critical policy issue.
Isn’t it about time we stopped playing games with education research? “You show me yours and I’ll show you yours” is what’s wearing mighty thin. It makes a mockery of the term “education research.” It also tends to support those who discredit all education research on the grounds that it is all politically-driven and therefore suspect. Let’s raise our game and have an adult intellectual conversation.
“Isn’t it about time we stopped playing games with education research? “You show me yours and I’ll show you yours” is what’s wearing mighty thin. It makes a mockery of the term “education research.” It also tends to support those who discredit all education research on the grounds that it is all politically-driven and therefore suspect. Let’s raise our game and have an adult intellectual conversation.”
Well said — and you’re exactly correct.
I count your post as the actual first post on this thread actually. If I wanted to cherry-pick a biased list I could do so myself…we all could.
Ah, we should all be calm while thin analysis is trotted out as meaningful research? While students suffer? Especially those who are already marginalized?
Nah. I’m not interested in ‘debating’ you re. class size. It’d be about as useful as flogging a dead horse.
Don’t forget Eric Hanushek’s work on class size. He actually looked at the research. The abstract in the paper below says it all.
Click to access Class%20Size%206.pdf
and further in this paper:
Click to access class%20size.ppi6_.revised.pdf
On another point, post-Drummond, People for Education have changed their tune on class size. To quote their reaction to the Drummond report, “There is little evidence that small changes in class sizes affect students’ chances for success.”
It appears P4E are catching up with what various contributors here, and elsewhere, have been saying all along. You can’t compare the benefits of minor changes in class size to those possible emanating from comparing very big classes to very small classes. What we do know is that Dalton’s arbitrary “no more than 20 kids” scheme is costing enormous cash for what he’s been unable/unwilling to justify by any credible evidence.
Then there’s the issue of whether the cost of making minor reductions in class size is justified by the, alleged, benefit. Instituting Dalton’s class reduction scheme required putting thousands of additional teachers on the public payroll at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. What won’t we be spending that money on?
As to “debating” the issue feel free not to debate if you’re uncomfortable doing so.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/class-size/7-class-size-myths—-and-the.html
This piece destroys most anti class size Myths
Four ideas to consider
1. Private schools often use smaller classes as a selling point
2. Class size research is ambiguous because it does not factor well changes in teaching methodology.
3. If high school classes exceed 30 it does have a negative effect.
4. Does reduced class size get you the bang for the buck? This may depend on what teachers do with the smaller classes.
Drummond quotes CD Howe and Hanuchek P-L-E-A-S-E two far right sources. The overwhelming weight of evidence is pro class size reduction.
The Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Education has concluded that class size reduction is one of only four, evidence-based reforms that have been proven to increase student achievement through rigorous, randomized experiments — the “gold standard” of research. (The other three reforms are one-on-one tutoring by qualified tutors for at-risk readers in grades 1-3; life-skills training for junior high students, and instruction for early readers in phonics – and not one of the policies that the corporate reformers are pushing.
http://www.thelittleeducationreport.com/classsize.html
There is no ‘debate’ to be had re. waterboarding: It is torture and a warcrime, and any who would naturalize its usage are complicit.
There is no ‘debate’ to be had re. neoliberal reorganization schemes: They subvert democracy, aggravate inequity, and inhibit the realization of social justice.
There is no ‘debate’ to be had re. class size: Larger class sizes = narrowed educational outcomes, increased in-school conflict, enhanced teacher stress and aggravated teacher burn-out. It leads to fabricated and coercive relationships among policy actors, contributes to the instrumentalization/de-professionalization of teaching, institutionalizes anomie and atomization, etc. ad nauseum. It matters. The end.
There are class composition limits in canine obedience schools. For good reason.
The references I provided are taken from my research. I’m writing a thesis on ed policy in BC. If the BCTF has used similar references – good on them. Regardless, with a few hours of devoted work in the databases I could add dozens and dozens more to that list. But there’s no point. Because it’s a dead topic.
The Answer Sheet (October 27, 2010) post, Doug, is actually written by a committed partisan — Leonie Haimson, executive director of the nonprofit Class Size Matters, and founder of the NYC Public School Parent blog.
The Six Myths that she attempts to discredit are as follows:
1. Class size is an unproven or ineffective reform.
2. There is a threshold that has to be reached before class size reduction provides benefits.
3. Large scale programs such as class size reduction in California didn’t work.
4. Class size reduction lowers the quality of teachers.
5. Class size matters, but only in the early grades.
6. Even if class size matters, it’s just too expensive.
Much of Haimson’s analysis reads like a piece cobbled together from the STAR Project research in Tennessee and a variety of other studies.
Her real agenda is made apparent at the end of the post. Somehow Small Class Sizes at the Harlem Zone School and a few select private schools are thrown into the mix, in an attempt to discredit those she labels “corporate education reformers.”
The Answer Sheet post concludes with a quotation from none other than John Dewey: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children.”
“If education is really the civil rights issue of our era, ” she writes,”it is about time those people making policies for our schools begin to provide for other people’s children what they provide for their own.”
In short, Leonie Haimson is anything but objective and, like Annie Kidder, a cheerleader for public education, favouring more funding with no questions asked.
One wonders if a group called “Class Size Matters is a good source for thoroughly researched and unbiased analysis of the issue of class size.
Quoting a piece from one’s own ezine appears a little tacky, rather like declaring oneself an expert on something. The larger issue would be how others perceive you.
There’s no disincentive for teachers not to want smaller classes. They, ike any other worker, would naturally prefer a lower workload.
As Steve Paikin noted smaller classes create a demand for thousands of more teachers so you know the unions will love them.
As to it being a “dead topic” that’s more an issue for participants and/or Paul to determine. Frivilous or unproductive spending on smaller classes, largely as a job creation scheme is certainly an issue for those paying the freight. Those who don’t choose to contribute are certainly welcome to abstain, right?
“Class Size Matters” is not an unbiased source John L.
I agree that it’s another way to bolster union membership and pretty much no other benefit to students.
A good teacher is a good teacher with 5 students, 15 or 25.
A not-so-good teacher is not-so-good similarly.
I say reward those good teachers and let them decide on how many students is too many for them to be effective.
The STAR Project, from Tennessee, was done in an educational environment vastly different from Ontario. There’d be a need to allow for all sorts of variables in order to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
There seems to be something of a pattern of quoting studies done of constituencies wildly dissimilar to Ontario and claiming the results are directly applicable to Ontario. I think the phrase is “junk science”, often by people who should know better.
The Star Research has been duplicated and peer reviewed endlessly. The American Dept Of Education considered the “Gold Standard” of education says class size is one of very few reforms that actually works.
In short, Leonie Haimson is anything but objective and, like Annie Kidder, a cheerleader for public education, favouring more funding with no questions asked.
CD Howe and Eric Haneschek are objective LOL, come on now. Eric appears on all the far right sites like Education next. He is from Hoover insitute right. That tells you everything you need to know.
John L there is something you need to understand. All legitimate researchers comment on whether their research is applicable. You pull the same faulty reasoning on every site. Tennessee is hardly alone, there is class size research from California, Wisconsin Europe and across the world that class size matters and is one of the only things that do matter.
John Party A runs on small class size
Party B runs on large class size. Parents want small classes so Party A wins.
Please tell Tim Hudak to run on raising class sizes. We would all love it.
Better to refer to class size studies done in similar jurisdictions, preferably Canadian, but then I’m sure you know that. Do some research and report back.
You’ll also note that some of the research quoted above on the dubious value of smaller classes is based on research done by the OECD, one of the bodies routinely quoted as the be all and end all on the issue of educational quality around the world.
As Paul points out selectively quoting from sources gets tired
Our friend Stephen Hurley over at Teaching Out Loud has, once again, made a constructive contribution to the public discussion of this “knotty issue”:
http://teachingoutloud.org/2012/03/13/why-class-size-is-such-a-knotty-naughty-issue/
As a seasoned teacher, he offers a fresh viewpoint and one well worth considering. It explains why teachers generally favour smaller classes, but acknowledges that samall classes alone will not make a difference for students.
Exactly what’s needed if you ask me fresh viewpoints, not old standby talking points.
John L this is your constant refrain Finland doesn’t count, Tennessee doesn’t count, California doesn’t count, Wisconsin doesn’t count, this is all total nonsense. The research community understands the profound nature of the STAR and other reports. Class size matters K-PhD everywhere on Earth.
Pretty hard to rebut such a thoughtful post. No doubt there are all sorts of jurisdictions dealing with far more pressing issues in education than minor changes in class size.
I have had many discussions with teachers in China about teaching methods in the west. They all say that sounds so good but we cannot do it with these huge classes, We cannot ask them to write essays or do oral presenttions seminars or debates with class sizes like these.
As a result the teacher lectures, the students try to understand, little time for questions it all is decided on the exam. There are even some here who would prefer a system like that but educators know it is poor system.
The Chinese kids come to Canadian schools and cannot do a class presentation or write a report or essay.
Smaller Classes have become a lightening rod in British Columbia and are now at the centre of the education sector labour strife. The Globe and Mail’s Gary Mason (March 13, 2012) takes on the issue in today’s column:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason/smaller-classes-dont-necessarily-make-a-difference/article2367288/
I can only imagine Tobey Steeves’ face when he opened today’s edition of The Globe out in BC.
Interior monologue: Curses! Another journalist afflicted with the “neo-liberal” virus, and obviously a “corporate-style reformer.”
Indeed, one who makes Educhatter look like a push-over. (Smile)
Small class sizes, “smaller classes yield better results through greater teacher-student interaction.” as Paul Bennett states at the top of his blog post. As Stephen Hurley writes in his blog, “For me, I’ve always thought of class size as a working condition and not a learning condition. Smaller class sizes has always meant less paperwork, fewer classroom management challenges, fewer report cards to write and an easier time with parent communication. The difference between a class of 22 and 32 students can mean hours in terms of extra work. I know this because I’ve experienced both. In the years where my class numbers were high, I was always the last one to the pub after parent/teacher interviews!
I can’t honestly say, however, whether or not students in my grade seven class of twenty-two ended up doing any better in life than students in my class of thirty-two.”
http://teachingoutloud.org/2012/03/13/why-class-size-is-such-a-knotty-naughty-issue/
Honest discussion, class sizes is such a knotty issue because what is left out of the equation is closing the achievement gaps of students, especially the at risked students of the various sub-groups of students. Small classes may yield better results in teacher-student interaction, but does it lead to closing the achievement gaps of students? I would say no, after years of looking at the achievement stats, including my local area, the research studies and reports and the over riding theme, small class sizes has little impact on actual achievement of students, and closing the achievement gaps of students who are and have been considered to be high risk for low achievement. What matters the most is the teacher, their training, the curriculum and other education policies that impacts students’ education directly other than class size.
Such things as the physical space, that Stephen Hurley has stated. “New mandates to differentiate teaching according to the needs of the learner demand flexibility of space. A teacher planning learning activities for all students in the class needs to be able to engage those students in a wide variety of activities, many which require changes to the physical layout of the classroom. A teacher responsible for drama and dance programming is going to need to occasionally push back the furniture to get students up on their feet. The shift from a text-book based program to a learner-active environment requires space for students to actually be…well…active!”
Back when I went to school, 42 kids from grade 1 to grade 8, and very large classrooms, where there was enough space to set up the desks in circles and other configurations, which happen from time to time, instead of the usual 6 rows of 7 desks. In the 21st century, these schools are being closed down for having excessed capacity, where having 20 to 25 students in a class or 30 students in a classroom that has the capacity to fit 42 students without looking like a sardine can. Every square inch of capacity must be accounted for, and these days in the 21st century classroom, a class of 23 to 25 students looks very much like a can of sardines. As Stephen pointed out, difficult to teach when there is no flexibility in the space using modern day 21st century technology and practices. To which I often wonder as a parent, when I walk into my children’s schools, and a class of 25 students, there was no excess capacity even back in the 1980s, and has worsen since then, with the additional computer technology, gear and equipment that has now become part of the 21st century classroom. A few weeks ago, I read a series of articles from the health field, how classroom capacity and square footage have shrunk, and are now impacting the physical and mental health of students. I do agree, and more so with students at risked,when their personal space in the classroom is shrinking, the number of students makes no difference, if it does nothing to lift up achievement and closing the achievement gap and now their personal health is at risk.
But no matter the voices of teachers such as Stephen Hurley are ignore by the stakeholders of the public education system, as well as the John Ms’ of the education ivory towers, Instead class sizes is another political football just like the achievement gaps of students as well as increasing the wages and salaries creating busy busy work for one and all, and in the end using the final outcomes of students to pushed the agendas and best interests within.
Whatever the class size, it would not have made a difference for my youngest child, because it was the curriculum, instruction methods, the education policies that impacted her achievement. Despite the small class sizes of 23 students or so, for a good part of the primary grades to grade 7, a teacher can only do so much according to his or her training and knowledge base. Yes, the teachers did the best they could do for my child, and the other students, but as John M. has stated in one of his posts, “, Does reduced class size get you the bang for the buck? This may depend on what teachers do with the smaller classes.”
As for the advocates of small class sizes, the smaller the better, all union people pushing for small class sizes and other policies that always means double to triple the teaching work force. And in the end, the ordinary garden variety learning struggles will still exist, and parents will still have to pay their hard earned money to tutoring lessons on the 3 Rs as well as spending long nights at home helping their children, if they want their children to be successful and achieved in their academic schooling. If not, they become the causalities of the agendas and best interests of the stakeholders.
To which, I would like to see more Stephen Hurleys’ in the classrooms, because teachers like him, know that no matter the class size, if students do not have a firm foundation to stand on, their academic achievement will suffer no matter the class size. Besides, he would have gladly take 5 minutes of his time once a week, to grade a one page composition of my child, and to support the home tutoring that was being done at the home front, in improving my child’s writing. Another SE service that was denied to my child, and in the 21st century of modern education, actually expects the regular classroom teachers to attend to the needs of students who need explicit lessons on the mechanics of writing. How can they, with all of the other demands and edicts from the school boards and ministries?
I second the desire for more Stephen Hurleys
To the non initiated there are 2 camps in education of any significance, there is the neo-conservative far right camp of Freidman/Hayak types who believe lower class size are nothing but an expanding state (read socialist) view of the world and a progressive (lib-left) view that says some policies (such as class size reduction) are good for parents, students AND teachers, they are just not good for billionaires who need to fund the expansion.
Neo-cons were put on this Earth to protect the billionaires.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22080720
The kids in the smaller classes in STAR went to college at higher rates and earned more income, particularly minority kids.
Game, set match.
Doug, the writer of the first study, concludes just like Stephen Hurley concludes in his blog, using different words
“Smaller class size may improve student achievement because of its social ecology. The provision of education through small class sizes in which the students and teachers are able to get to know and understand one another better may facilitate increases in student achievement while according to Fischel (2002, p. 1) it “reduces the transaction costs of the provision of true local public goods such as education” by increasing graduation rates and reducing truancy. The communal capital of smaller class sizes, therefore, generates more frequent and meaningful face-to-face student-teacher interactions. These more frequent one-on-one student-teacher interactions may create an improved learning process in which student performance improves as a result of smaller class size. Increases in student achievement, therefore, may be a function of the social ecology of smaller class size.”
Small class size increases teacher and student interactions, and in other words the teacher gets to know his students better, than a teacher with 30 in his class. Now it is back to square one, the teacher, the curriculum, instruction methods and other education policies of the day.
Just another angle to support the tripling of the education work force, without consideration of other variables. Below is another study, that focuses on the Star data.
“A Northwestern University study investigating the effects of class size on the achievement gap between high and low academic achievers suggests that high achievers benefit more from small classes than low achievers, especially at the kindergarten and first grade levels.
“While decreasing class size may increase achievement on average for all types of students, it does not appear to reduce the achievement gap within a class,” said Spyros Konstantopoulos, assistant professor at Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228112004.htm
So Doug, another study, that points that it is the high achievers of the class that will benefit more than the low achievers. Low achievers stay low achievers, not because of class size, but other variables especially the teacher variable, his training and knowledge base.Instruction and curriculum comes into play, and as I stated, whether 15, 20 or 25 students, children who have learning struggles are impacted by the curriculum, instruction methods, and the education policies.
Why we need more teachers like Stephen Hurley, who are willing to step beyond the current pedagogy and practices, to lift the low achievers to the same status as the high achievers, The current pedagogy and practices teaches to only the high-achievers, and the rest get the dumb-down schooling no matter the size of the class.
The study I reference concludes that the kids in smaller classes in the STAR study did better IN LIFE with better college completion and better jobs at higher salaries.
Kinda hard to top that. BTW the same study said that low achieving minorities advanced even more than others.
The Smaller Class Size literature review posted by Stephen Coffin at Coffin’s Education Center is quite extensive and fascinating to read and digest. It tends to support the value of Small Classes based upon the “social ecology” of classrooms offering more potential for individualized and student-teacher attention. It’s also far more convincing than the rather facile research produced by Dr. Nina Bascia at OISE.
Stephen Coffin’s Blog has its own agenda http://stephencoffin.wordpress.com/
Here, for example, is his “About Coffin’s Education Center” entry:
“My passion is education with a particular concentration on school finance, governance, reform and property taxes. Our schools have never been as challenged or as scapegoated as they are today, therefore, I enjoy providing solutions to solve the problems confronting our educational system.
As an Adjunct Professor of School Finance and Personnel Administration with Montclair State University’s Graduate School of Education, I teach prospective school business administrators, superintendents, principals, educators, and other school personnel as well as students making a career transition into education.”
He’s well known in New Jersey for doing battle with Steven Brill and Governor Christie in the Education Wars. Beware those who see school reformers as engaged in “scapegoating activities.”
I second Paul’s last post. Perhaps one reason we challenge schools more is that we know more, are more educated, and more democratic in our thinking.
And when you move from challenging to scapegoating to damage the cause. Imagine never being satisfied with your students or children, no matter what they do. Being a “tiger parent” is not a recipe for society.
Besides, when you assume all teachers are no good, they might say well,”%$^^$ you”. That would be a disaster for all.
Too many blogs cross this line. Fortunately, Paul is a model of civility, even when we disagree which we may do from time to time.
Oh yes, and labelling positions as “left” or “right” neocon, neolib or radical
stops debate and is anti-democratic in its consequence.
I always find it amusing that corporte reformers attack the Canadian system arguably the world’s finest system with 50% post secondary graduation (nobody else has that) and PISA results that nobody except Finland and Korea can touch.
If you choose to attack the world’s finest system what do you want?
As Paul posted his last comment, I was in the midst of what the heck is social ecology got to do with small class size, and for that matter education. It never dawn on me to explore the Stephen Coffin’s site, for his agenda.
As for social ecology within the education field, an expanding theory that emerged from the 1970s or so, that has mainly applied in health issues and other singular issues such as bullying. Hence, I found no particular definition , but many definitions. Rather confusing, the merging of various theories, philosophies and pedagogy, to where the student learns in the context of the political, social and resources spheres. I put it down to pure foolishness, to think that humans beings learn best through the social interactions of an eco-system, and how knowledge is expand from the individual, to the group and eventually expands to the school, while eschewing data streams that indicates that the learning of the individual is failing the student to acquire skills and abilities to move up to the next level of advance knowledge.
Advocates of constructivism and its theory as well as the critical theorists in education, are now picking up social ecology theories and incorporate it within the theories of constructivism and critical pedagogy. Most of the newer papers on social ecology are coming from the top global education networks, where the Coffins of the ivory towers of the education field are trying a bit of social ecology to make their agendas go down smoother and attractive to all sorts of people across the span. Coffin is such a strange one, to emerge, but very common in the upper levels as I discovered, using social ecology theory as a way to merged the silos of education but still maintained the structure of learning and what is learned wholly in the hands of the educators, the authority and restrict parents, students and the local community and move them through the protocols that falls on the political, social and resources spheres.
Coffin is a really strange one, advocating for free-standing schools of the self-government kind, supported by public money to where students have a choice of a state school or the self-government kind. The distinction would be, in the self-government kind, where no one would be allowed to sue the school on any education matter, and all matters of dispute would go through an arbitration panel where members are selected from the self-government schools. What can I say, about a fellow who thinks it is democratic to remove rights from the whole collective to save a few dollars, to allow the status-quo to direct education and still be able to download the education services unto the unsuspecting parents that the small elite in control of the self-government schools deems that they cannot afford, unless the community votes to raise the taxes.
Social ecology theory on the smaller issues such as small class size, differential instruction, and equity issues fits in nicely with the newer developments and, expansion of social ecology theories in the education field. The smaller the classroom size, the better to control the variables to filter all knowledge through the .filters of the political, social and resource spheres, and where students will behave and act accordingly by learning and applying knowledge through filtered and narrowed parameters, designed to elicit social ability and mobility and downplay all knowledge of the students, The point of learning is not to gain knowledge, but to gain knowledge through the processes of the social constructs and networks of the eco-system of a school.
To recap, Coffin is a strange one because he is advocating for a one-sized-fits-all system, and where the struggling learners of any classroom are restricted to only the resources of the classrooms, that is decided by a small elite and as well as the small elite will have total control to put a lock and key on the resources of the self-government school. And no legal options, besides a kangaroo court, called an arbitration panel. All wrapped up in a pretty bow where teachers have total autonomy of what goes on in the classroom but not the resources.
I don’t know John, if the democratic version of the politically correct is the way to go, but stated in your last post, I do know, sitting on the fence learning to disagree without offending the sensibilities of others, and pretending it does not matter, while students are falling through the cracks and fissures of the fault lines is not the way to go. If I went that way, being politically correct, my child would be sitting in a basic class learning all kinds of novel ways of basket weaving, and the so called life-skill courses that certainly does not prepare students for the realities of the world.
Small class size, simply improves the relationships between students and the teacher, but as for improving achievement, that depends on the school variables, the teachers and its resources. More importantly how the resources are used and how the skills and abilities of teachers put the resources to good use, for steady progress and achievement of students.
WISE math has been busy today, at least 50 new members have signed up today, and most of them parents.
Here is one comment – “Edmonton, Alberta This is outrageous. My son is 15 and he has no textbooks in Math. There is nothing to refer to when we need examples of the math concepts. He cannot do cursive writing, cannot write an essay, and iPads are recommended for students at the school. He doesn’t understand almost anything in Math despite being a very bright child who can verbalize adult concepts and ideas. Enough is enough. This insanity has to end somewhere..”
No doubt a small class size, but does class size matter, if students have deficits in the 3 Rs, because even a teacher is not a miracle worker when all the students have deficits in the foundation of the 3 Rs that has been accumulated over the years starting in primary grades, but never corrected. But a small class size sure creates the close relationships of teachers and students, but what of the learning deficits of the students?
Nancy you cannot include variables. The point is to isolate a factor, in this size class size as ws done in STAR, Wisconsin and California while you keep other factors constant. The beauty of STAR and other studies is that the sample size was huge, the other factors were held constant, the longditudinal studies showed the small class kids did far better even into adult life and minorities did particularly well.
Small classes means teachers have more time with each kid. Canada has amongst the world’s fewest problems as you discuss in your final paragraph due to internal and external factors.
The thing that is never discussed is the compensatory use of small class size. It is expensive, therefore don’t make it universal. Have radically small classes for the bottom 20% SES, slightly larger for the next 20%, avg size for the next 20% and so on. This way your class size is not expensive since the small classes for the poor are balanced by larger classes for the affluent.
Compensatory, where supposedly the have students will lift up the have-not students, or some type of magic elixir? It has to be some type of magic thinking, when ignoring the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of students no matter what part of town they came from.
Your little model, will still leave a good percentage of students no matter what the size of the class as the low achievers. Again, because of teacher training, instructional practices, knowledge base, and other education policies that impacts students’ learning.
I spent the last few hours, digesting a secondary report done by the school board, to pinpoint the difficulties that my 16 year old has in reading. The only good news is her low phonemic awareness has improved, but her overall reading ability is below average due to several deficit areas in the phonological components. However she has high comprehension, despite her poor decoding skills for unknown words and poor fluency, Nothing surprising in the report, and it is the same problems she had back in grade 1, and as I reported to the school back then, and when I lack the knowledge framework, to speak the lingo and I was describing and observing the symptoms of reading struggles.
The reason that I mention it to you, is that your little 20 percent model, if the teacher practices, curriculum, and other education policies remains the same, all one has done is reshuffled the deck, to produce the same dismal stats, by postal codes. So Doug, what will change for the low income small class, given that low income children, will likely have weaker phonological awareness including phonemic awareness impairment coming into grade one, but not likely to improve due to the current reading instruction and practices? Nothing in my eyes, The higher the postal code, the early reading struggles the public education system relies on the parents, their abilities and pocketbooks for the necessary tutoring and remediation of the 3 Rs.
As for the variables, it is good thing that you are not a scientist, especially a physics scientist or an engineer, but to ignore the variables when planning programs and policies, is rather foolish, since it only takes one variable to make a good policy into a poor one. Perhaps, that is the intention of education programs and policy makers, that they did indeed factor in all the variables, to ensure that children with the mild to moderate reading deficits are to remain in the inclusive classroom, and of course do not qualify for any outside education services that is beyond the classroom. But your model does not work really well on a large scale, and can well imagine what low-income parents would do, the smallest class is reserved for the low-income students. Why don’t you just put up a neon sign, and let everyone know, just like the former storage closets that turned into SPED rooms, Good target practice for others to practice their skills on differing learning ability or income.
Small classes teachers will developed closer relationships, but if the teacher does not have the knowledge and skills to help their students, the other education policies impacting the classroom and the students will hinder achievement except for the high achieving students. My kid had and still does have small classes, and the teachers did what they could, but are stymied by the rules and regulations and other enforcers of the school board. Today, she and the other students enjoy close relationships with the teachers, inside and outside of school, but living in a small rural community that is one of the advantages that is hard to copy in a big city.
It is the reading, writing and numeracy deficits of students that is the core problem, to which no one within the public education system will address, because they are far too busy pushing agendas and self-serving interests, and it leaves the front line teachers caught in a web of not their making, and if a teacher breaks out of the web, they could risk loosing his or her job, or being transferred to another school.
Can’t have it both ways Doug, small class sizes with teacher autonomy in the classroom including local school autonomy is the way to go. It would not take 30 minutes for elementary and primary schools to make the switch and dump the curriculum and instruction methods that get in the way of having a solid basic foundation for all students, and not just the high achievers.
The point is to limit or eliminate the variables because that is the only way to measure the value of the factor being examined.
Andreas Schleicher from the education arm of the OECD commented when he was in Toronto last month that, while he doesn’t have a “judgement” on class size, jurisdictions around the world that prioritize teacher quality over class size are doing very well.
He went on to point out that class size is attractive to parents, governments (and, I suspect, unions) because it is a type of low-hanging fruit. It’s easily referenced and easily measured.
Educators working with class sizes of 45 in Singapore, he points out, are finding ways to leverage technology in order to discover ways of personalizing learning.
Hmmm…
I second Stephen’s post as international research and our experience support .
To add, groups and organizations in the fields of learning disabilities, SQE and other educational organizations teacher quality is far more important than class size.
A 2009 Washington Post article – too bad we don’t see the same articles in the Canadian media.
“Maybe a visit to Room 56 at Hobart Boulevard Elementary School in Los Angeles will help. It has far more students than is considered wise — 31 fifth-graders taught by Rafe Esquith. I stopped there one day last month because Esquith is amazing to watch. There were actually 60 students in the 29-by-27-foot room that afternoon because Esquith, who has no classroom aide, had invited volunteers to join Room 56’s annual Shakespeare rehearsals. This year’s play is “The Merchant of Venice,” with musical interludes also performed by 10-year-olds. The students are mostly from low-income Hispanic and Korean American families, but their test scores are high and their English vocabularies exceptional.
Esquith, whose third book on teaching comes out in August, agrees with me that class size is a factor in learning. Smaller classes mean more attention for each child, but the impact is minimal compared with making the instructor more effective. “A great teacher can teach 60,” Esquith told me. “A poor teacher will struggle with five.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/03/for_monday.html
Conversations like this could, if allowed to continue, force us to challenge some of the stubborn notions about the way that schools are structured in the first place. Could it be time to give up our notion of one teacher: x number of students in one room?
Technology could allow our thinking to be shifted considerably!
I could very well envision a school where the grade schools from grades 1 to grade 5, the students are not bound by the curriculum outcomes and students move through ability where the only things that are assessed is the foundation of the 3 Rs,. Where teachers have full autonomy as to what will be taught in the sciences, maths and arts that moves beyond the basic foundation of the 3 Rs, to strengthen their knowledge base and support the 3 Rs.
A child like mine, would spend more time learning to read, than the average student, and since it is a fantasy, children would be assessed as to their language deficits, and start at the level of their ability. My child would not be lonely, there will always be 20 or so students doing the same thing, but each of the 20 or so students will display other strengths in language, the sciences and arts that perhaps allow them to move at a higher level, than the grade 1 level ability.
Wishful thinking on my part, but technology as Stephen has suggested, can push the conversation. as well as the science of learning that has a great deal of knowledge on how children learn. Too bad both are not being put to good use, to increase the overall achievement of children, and rather sad, today when the held held technology devices can offer opportunities of practice compared to the lonely work sheet, and improve overall reading, writing and numeracy skills and abilities.
Stephen in Asian nations they attempt to compensate for large classes by starting school at 7:30 AM ending at 5PM and coming back at night and Saturday.
There is no need to priorize teacher quality OVER class size. A smart jurisdiction (like Ontario) does BOTH. This may be why Ontario has a better education system than every nation on the Earth including every nation in Asia except long-hours Korea. No nation on this Earth graduates 50% of its population from post secondary except Canada. Ontario is 42% of Canada.
Anybody who has actually seen the Singapore education or any other Asian system and would wish that on our kids has no idea what they are talking about.
People have been saying technology will totally change education since the invention of radio. There is a role for technology. It is also not a solution.
Funny to watch the conservatives who attack small public sector classes and place their kids in private schools that tout their small classes.
People have been “re-envisioning” the grade class structure since the 1920s. Once again it does not work because we do not do this on a whim.
We daydreamed schools “with no walls” until we actually had them and the walls went back up right quick.
We have had an endless number of Summerhills and endless other experiments. At the end of the day we come back to grades and classes as does pretty much everyone on the planet because it is “natural” it is the proven way forward.
Nobody on this side of the pond has done more in the area of improved teacher quality than Linda Darling-Hammond. If their is a guru of teacher quality it is LDH. BTW she supports the Finland model of needing a MA to apply for teacher training. In her very popular recent book “The Flat World and Education” she makes the case that is teacher quality AND small classes that move us forward.
It is a false dicotomy to pit teacher quality against class size. It is like saying should kids learn reading or math. It is a bogus argument dragged out by those who oppose a larger state.
Doug, I’m not convinced that any silver bullets exist. Quality is always achieved through a combination of ideas.
I wouldn’t be too quick to write off “everything” about Asia’s education systems. There are some innovative things happening there, even when you take it out of some of the political contexts that surround it.
I don’t think that blanket statements about quality are that helpful either. I understand where you’re coming from when you talk about Ontario but I don’t think that we can rest on our PISA laurels, even though our Minister of Education here is named…well…Laurel.
There are still plenty of kids in Ontario that not being served well by our system. Most are, it’s true. And of the ones that don’t do well in school, some still end up doing OK in life.
On technology, I was one of the ones heralding the fact that the internet was going to cause the walls of our schools to come tumbling down, revealing a vision of connected and relevant education. That was in 1994, and it hasn’t happened yet. In fact, I think that the opposite has happened.
I certainly wouldn’t want to see a polarized conversation around class size and teacher quality. It’s not a binary type of conversation. Andreas Shleicher’s comments were not prescriptive, but merely descriptive when he said that those countries that are doing really well are making teacher quality a priority over class size.
When I asked him about Ontario and Canada he indicated that we shouldn’t rest in our efforts. He pointed out that Canada’s “rate of growth” has not been as good as other countries. His questions about Canada didn’t have as much to do with our international standing, but whether or not we’re continuing to grow. How to measure that? Now that’s another story!
Agree with Stephen on virtually all points.
Below is a timely article on the 4 top Asian countries or city states.
Catching up:
Learning from the best school systems in East Asia
Click to access Grattan_report_learning_from_the_best_detail.pdf
A detailed and a long article, but should be of great interest to all educators, since the class sizes of the Asian nations are much larger than 30 students on average.
“However, these four systems focus on the things that are known
to matter in the classroom, including a relentless, practical focus
on learning and the creation of a strong culture of teacher
education, research, collaboration, mentoring, feedback and
sustained professional development. These are precisely the
reforms that Australia and other western countries are trying to
embed in schools. Yet there is often a disconnect between the
objective of policies and their impact in classrooms. The four East
Asian systems have found ways to connect high-level strategy to
what others have been trying to achieve in the classroom. ”
How? The Asian nations are very good at implementing policy, as one will discover when reading the article.
And more importantly, the classroom educators connect the achievement results of the students to the instruction if changes need to be made.
I am going to make a flying leap into the unknown, more than likely a student in any of the Asian schools, would likely received timely remediation on poor achievement results on a test, because an important focus is the steady achievement of their students.
Of course more than class size helps
class size, teacher quality, ECE the earlier the better, less streaming, bettewr resources INCLUDING carefully integrated technology, lower tuition, more support staff, more targeted resources, FAR better First Nations education….
There are many reforms, INCLUDING SMALL CLASSES, that would dramatically improve education.
Nancy Canada does better than Japan, better than China (all of China) and better than all real nations (Singapore, HK and Shanghai hardly count).
The only actual country that outscores Canada is Korea and does it with massive night school tutorials.
Well Doug, they are sitting on top of the PISA rankings, that your love to use. At least you could do is read the article, that is talking about the same things as Stephen is.
It is an analysis, and rather an impressive one, that should give every educator food for thought, as well as doing it for less dollars than the bloated public education systems of North America.
Apparently, and as Stephen has states, “I wouldn’t be too quick to write off “everything” about Asia’s education systems. There are some innovative things happening there, even when you take it out of some of the political contexts that surround it.”
Singapore HK and Shanghai are cities. Shanghai sends 80% of it students to university while in China as a whole it is 20%. They are artificial cretions. Wouldn’t it be nice if canada could just submit its highest achieving city or Finland or Korea?
I understand what you’re saying Doug, and I agree with youo on how we do our comparisons. But, I’m thinking that we have to stop lusting after the statistics (I’ve spent my fair share of time doing that) and dig deep into some of the factors that may or may not contribute to school success or lack of it.
It is student spending? Class size? Political involvement? Particular teacher strategies? School-level leadership?
I think that it was Doug that made a comment earlier here about research and it being difficult to isolate just one factor. Education-based research, if it were to be carried out scientifically, would bring with it so many ethical problems that it would be likely bring an end to education-based research.
But there’s something in me that draws me to the growth of success in places like Singapore and Shanghai. Not saying that they it can be replicated, or even repeated, but it’s certainly worth a look, don’t you think?
“Education-based research, if it were to be carried out scientifically, would bring with it so many ethical problems that it would be likely bring an end to education-based research.”
Perhaps not, and below a few links out of numerous where education-based research can be carried out using the scientific principles within a human environment.
“The report asserts that education is a social science
that can be investigated using randomized experiments of the design successfully used in other social sciences (such as psychology and economics) as well as in the “hard” sciences (such as physics and biochemistry). This view is further supported through research that compellingly suggests that scientific studies of education can be
of comparable rigor to research in the “hard” sciences.”
Click to access ScientificallyBasedResearch.pdf
“The key characteristics of scientifically based research are common across all fields, including medicine, biology, and psychology, as well as education. Scientific research gathers information about significant questions; uses objective methods that involve reliable and valid observations and measurements; and meets rigorous standards of peer review. The conclusions of scientific research can be replicated and generalized……………Scientifically based instructional methods equip teachers with tools that help them better reach children, avoid burnout, and improve their classrooms’ culture of learning and achievement. Instructional practices that are based on scientific evidence bring the best teaching approaches and programs to children who might fail without them. Such practices challenge children and interest them in learning, setting them on the path to success in school and in life.”
http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/NELB/NELB007.shtml
The new guy on the block
“Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for
Educational Inquiry……….concludes – “We have argued that design-based research methods can compose a coherent methodology that bridges theoretical research and educational practice. Viewing both the design of an intervention and its specific enactments as objects of research can produce robust explanations of innovative practice and provide principles
that can be localized for others to apply to new settings. Designbased research, by grounding itself in the needs, constraints, and
interactions of local practice, can provide a lens for understanding how theoretical claims about teaching and learning can be transformed into effective learning in educational settings.”
Click to access DBRC2003.pdf
On an Ontario school board site – “ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES
Education Research is the investigation of education-based topics through the collection, analysis and dissemination of data. This research data is obtained either directly or indirectly from students, staff, parents, school boards or any other education stakeholders through ethically acceptable practices that align with current scientific research methodologies.”
http://www.niagaracatholic.ca/index.php?doc=/niagaraRC//board/policies/Section_800/ResearchAG.html
I would argued that to conduct research, at any level including the classroom one needs both the guidelines of the scientific principals and the statistics.. And no it would not be an end to education-based research, but actually increase in validity and success in the classroom.
For example, the other day I read a research piece under the general title of assessments with dyslexia students. Only to discovered that my child has double deficits in the phonological component in reading, based on the standard scores that were derived from the scientific research in the hard sciences. Important research to know, from an education viewpoint, as well as providing the correct education services for students with core reading deficits.
My point is that in determining what is successful whether it is on a large scale looking into the success of places like Shanghai or on a small scale, the success of a neighbouring school where reading levels of all students are at grade level or above, what is important to keep in mind, success in the education field is based on a combination of factors, that may or may not be replicated. But it is the innovation, the differences, the knowledge base and the general cultural values and belief systems that increases the validity of education practices and policies that leads to consistent successful outcomes, and validates the underlying statistics, data streams, education theories and the learning research based on the hard sciences.
It is worth looking into Shanghai, and not quickly dismiss the success based on the PISA data, and not as Doug has done, “Wouldn’t it be nice if canada could just submit its highest achieving city or Finland or Korea?.” Or the tendency to dismiss the research in the reading field based on the science, and if not cherry-picking to formulate new education policies on reading instruction practices for the classroom. And than expect more successful outcomes for students with weak reading foundations, by ignoring the data generated from the science research in core deficits in the phonological component of reading.
Read Linda Darling Hammond the “Flat World and Education.” She lays out that teacher development AND TEACHER EDUCATION including the demand for masters degrees, small class size, Early Childhhod Education, phonics very early for any child showing difficulty etc We know what works. The reason there is a furious fight about this is because within the reform movement there is a very serious movement that puts their anti-tax, anti-state, anti-union attitudes way ahead of their education priorities and therefore only support reforms that cost very little to impliment such as shifts in curriculum and pedagogy or actual reforms that lead to “their idea” of savings. They believe charters and vouchers cost less.
No Stephen I have been to Shanghai and visited many schools and we have zero to learn from them. Any country can choose their most educated city and enter it only in international competition like PISA. What we have to learn from Singapore is that a well financed totally public system can produce good results. LDH discusses Singapore at length in Flat World…. Their math results are a factor of time on task. They use math specialists as low as grade one. The teacher moves class to class like an itinerant French teacher here. They spend more hours on it and use drill and shame to develop good human calculators but this is increasingly less useful in the workplace where math problem solving is much more important.
Asian systems are very heavily streamed and exam driven. As a result, they graduate a low % of their students from university. Due to their large populations the raw number is high but the % is low. Still I am not down on them because they are still developing nations in many cases, (exclude Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore here as they can be considered developed).
China spends the highest % of GDP on Earth on education and as a result they will get rapid increases in improvement.
Hmmm…
So, essentially, she’s simply in favour of more of everything in the world of education?
More useful research would determine which areas of increased spending generates the most benefit for kids.
Does having a Masters degree, in and of itself, actually create a better teacher or is the issue what the teacher will now be expected to do. Creeping credentialism is always an issue. If a Masters is now considered a requirement to teach effectively what does that say about the competence of tens of thousands of teachers who don’t have one? Have they become, en masse, incapable of doing the job? Is the MA required to be appropriate for what the holder actually does or does anything qualify?
As usual blanket statements or, as someone else called them, “silver bullets” are rarely of any value without supporting evidence
Yes I do not believe in “one factor” however true experiments need to hold other factors constant and change just one. In the case of STAR +Wisconsin and California the other factors were held constant and class size results were significant and life altering for those in the smaller classes.
These students were followed into adulthood and had greater college completion, and better jobs at higher incomes.
“Their math results are a factor of time on task. ” Could use more of in the NA education system, where the stats on low numeracy adults is well over 50 percent, Or go on the WISE math site that indicates in spades, there is no time spent on task, nor is the math curriculum based on the research on the components that is necessary to acquired before advance math concepts are introduce on the road to deeper understanding.
Or here the reasons why the knowledge and deep understanding of fractions are not important by those within the public education system, is not an important element to know, prior to leaning algebra and other advance mathematics, is like removing the heart of a person, and still expect the person to get up and walk away. Doug, providing solutions as what you stated in your post, , such as “masters degrees, small class size, Early Childhhod Education, phonics very early for any child showing difficulty etc We know what works.”
But does the research support and validate the solutions?
Does the outcomes in the data streams support the solutions? Does it validate the solutions, and if not, are you really advocating education research to based on feelings and intuitiveness, without paying attention to the data streams, and knowledge of the research in the hard and soft sciences?
Education can be a science, but it cannot be a science when the solutions do not take into account the research in learning, and applying the research derived from objective means, to programs and other education policies using a combination of subjective and objective means.
For example, early childhood education phonics is to prepare the children to learn how to read in grade one, and yet within the education world, there is still great debate on what are the require components and factors that are crucial for students to enter grade 1, fully ready and prepare to learn to read. The policies and practices are all over the place, regarding early reading preparedness and outcomes at the end of grade 1, are not compared to the various approaches used in the early childhood education programs. Instead parents hear, based on best research practices without the support evidence of the stats to support the approaches.
Another example is an established curriculum that is already in place, and defended by the best practice model, where the anecdotes that lies within the final outcomes of the data streams, are ignored, and the established curriculum is once again reinforce and all anecdotes that indicates the curriculum is not good for students, become isolated anomalies.
” I have been teaching middle school for over 10 years. I have noticed a big difference in the abilities of the students, as time has passed – for the worse. We are encouraged to focus on concepts and problem solving, meanwhile the students are not equipped with enough math skills to understand or solve them. Thank you for this initiative, and I hope that this might start a similar discussion in other parts of Canada.”
The above quote taken from the WISE math site, and is an example that gives evidence to support that North American education systems, are not very good at the actual implementation of education policies at any level,compared to the Asian education systems. Could it be that it is not so much the actual goals and policies of an education system, but the actual implementation and the processes to obtain the objectives of whatever the policies and practices are?
Just wondering, because small class sizes, teachers with masters comes with a hefty price tag when the research based on science is ignore, as well as cherry picking the outcomes, weeding out the negative outcomes.
Doug, I’ll read Linda’s work on this. I have read some of her other books, and have heard her speak, but will take a good look at this one. In fact, it keeps coming up on my “recommended” list in Amazon.
The use of subject specialists at elementary is something that I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately. Is there a reason, in your opinion, why this shouldn’t be our approach here?
The Asians seem to take a POV I happen to agree with that “math is different”. We all understand the use of a specialist French teacher, perhaps a music teacher, then it gets thinner primary teachers are expected to do it all even if their major was likely psychology or English. Of course the math is 2+2=4 but nevertheless a math major is more intuitive about even the most basic math. It also guarantees that the “math time” is not stolen for the other programs.
On balance I support it.
I have exchanged may emails with LDH and nothwithstanding her efforts in teacher improvement she sees no contradiction with class size reductions as she told me “don’t we want excellent teachers working in small classes?”
Just wondering, because small class sizes, teachers with masters comes with a hefty price tag when the research based on science is ignore, as well as cherry picking the outcomes, weeding out the negative outcomes.
Nancy the research is rock solid and yes class size is expensive but I prefer giving it to all kids not just those in private schools.
“If you think education is expensive try ignorance.”
Do we have a system creating “ignorance”?
The normal claim is that ours is among the best, if not the best, system in the world.
I suspect an excellent teacher doesn’t spend his/her time worrying overly much about whether or not there are 20 or 22 kids in their class; part of their excellence is the abilty to focus on what really matters. A marginal teaceher will be a marginal teacher irrespective of class size
Here is the other side of the coin, Doug, compliments of my e-mail box.
A conference – “Plain Talk About Reading – April 30 – May 2, 2012
Hyatt Regency New Orleans
What is Plain Talk About Reading?
Plain Talk About Reading is heralded as the nation’s premier reading institute. The Institute gained its reputation because of its clear focus on providing the latest scientifically based reading research (SBRR) and strategies for those who teach reading at all ages and grade levels.
From the nation’s leading researchers, you will learn the current findings on reading instruction, reading difficulties and reading intervention.
From seasoned practitioners, learn classroom strategies that put this knowledge to work.
“Plain Talk is by far the most energizing, practical and rewarding
professional learning experience out there!”
http://www.cdl.org/what-we-do/professional-learning/Plain%20Talk%20About%20Reading%20Institute/Plain%20Talk%202011%20homepage.html
And Michael Fullan is one of the speakers – “New ideas for leadership that ’cause’ positive movement in improving student achievement will be discussed. This session builds on the highly successful original ‘Motion Leadership’ with new ideas and insights for effective leadership. The insights are based on new case study examples of success.
Target Audience: PreK–12 Teachers, Reading Coaches, Leadership/Administrators”
http://www.cdl.org/what-we-do/professional-learning/Plain%20Talk%20About%20Reading%20Institute/Sessions.html
So Doug, as rock solid as the reading research that will be presented at this conference? As rock solid as teachers who will be attending this reading conference, the ideas and classroom strategies that will be brought into the classroom in the fall, that will benefit all students.
Michael Fullan is attending such conferences, because he knows leadership, for effective leadership to occur, is to open up the networks on both sides of the looking glass. Plus it is probably opening up his eyes on all the anomalies.at the lower rungs of any education system, that is masked by the louder and chest beating of heralding achievement no matter how small it is. Besides his leadership research would shine like a diamond, if the anomalies across the span had effective instruction and strategies based more on the science research, to improve the dismal achievement of students with low reading, writing and numeracy skills, in some aspect or throughout the 3 Rs.
My point is, obtaining a master degree, will still not change the achievement of student, because nothing has change to provide effective teaching, that rises all students’ achievement, The conference above is connecting the networks of reading research to the networks within the education system. Quite frankly, much of the research in reading does not reach the bottom rungs of the education system, where it is most needed, and the upper rungs are too busy with their own private agendas and differing goals that gives lip service to the anomalies of the education service.
Is having a master’s degree necessary to teach? I don’t know, but as a parent I rather have a teacher who is effective in his or her teaching, and curious enough to look beyond, when his teaching fails a student, or students. Not to see students as the ones at fault, but the instruction methods, and other aspects of the school’s environment.
Another post on the WISE math site – and I leave it for food for thought
“I have been a teacher since 1959 and have taught in 3 different provinces and many different grades and schools. Rote learning has been denigrated and discouraged for years. The new methods for math has brought many student to tears, and others to just accept the conceit that they are doing well and don’t need it. I believe rote learning and drills, for math particularly, is the best method for most of these kids and should be taught in schools as a basis. Other explanations and methods can be demonstrated for interest sake and for quick learners, but basic math is an essential for literacy. If not, their natural belief in self-esteem will become seriously tested as they grow into adulthood.”
http://wisemath.org/join/
Would teachers with masters, have the freedom to confront and say no to new curriculum, or would they still have to whisper in the parents’ ears, to send the kid to a tutor?
You would be wrong about that John L where the research says the slightest change in class size has benefits. BTW contracts stipulate caps and either come from government or are freely negotiated. Once a cap is established, that IS the cap, 20 not 22.
Usually when you “suspect” something it is based on no research but an out-of-date hunch.
Keep away from the personal attacks, Doug. As someone who claims to be a retired teacher, complete with all sorts of degrees, you should act appropriately. Consider the Hurley/Myers model as a guide to playing nice with others.
As to contracts stipulating class size someone should inform Premier McGuinty; he seems to think that’s the role of government.
In some places it is the role of government like Ontario since Mike Harris decided that. In other places it is negotiated. I prefer negotiation. I guess in Ontario it is government until future notice.
I recommend that we have as our goal, the world’s best educated and trained teachers working in the world’s smallest classes in the world’s newest and best equipped schools beginning in FDK with wrap around child care aiming to place them in tuition free colleges and universities aiming to raise our world’s best 50% post secondary graduation rates up to 75% ASAP. We should aim to spend the world’s highest rate of expenditure as a % of GDP.
We ought not to be be able to find a single nation on Earth that has anything better in any catagory. We should aim to be first in every catagory of PISA.
This could take a decade.
Wow! 🙂
The cost of the above would be recovered X 10 in increased productivity, innovation, better health outcomes, less poverty lower welfare and EI payouts less crime fewer police, fewer smaller jails, and so on.
The more you spend on education the less you spend on EVERYTHING else.
Ever the agent provocateur, Doug!
Your Education Nirvana sounds a lot like Premier Dad’s wildest dream back in 2003. Reducing class size was a central component of that Dalton McGuinty Education agenda for Ontario. After eight years of increased spending boosting the Ontario budget to some $22 billion, it’s time to take stock of whether the achievement gains matched that investment. That’s how I read what is happening in Ontario.
Pouring even more money into Ontario education simply isn’t in the cards. Your proposed Spending Bonanza would make Premier Dad blush, Doug. It’s so over the top that I wonder if you are actually looking to create a North American Finland on steroids.
Why not consider a truly orginal proposal for re-ordering public education, integrating class size into the overall model?
British educator John Abbott proposed a new Model in his oft-cited January 1999 speech, “Battery Hens or Free Range Chickens? What Kind of Education – for What Kind of Future?” http://www.21learn.org/site/archive/battery-hens-or-free-range-chickens-what-kind-of-education-for-what-kind-of-world-full-speech/
Here’s the key passage:
“I believe we now have it within our power to create a very different education system – one in which free-range chickens would flourish….
A Proposed Reordering
Assume a constant level of expenditure between the ages of five and 18. Build up a pedagogy geared toward the creation of life long learners, starting at the youngest age. Develop forms of teaching that constantly encourage children to become “reflective learners” – in reality the full application of all that we now know about meta-cognition.
Plan for the Weaning principle from the start. That is, give children so many usable skills when they are very young that, progressively, they only need “teaching” for those skills they have not yet acquired. Move away from the assumption that every lesson has to be taught. Stop assuming that it’s only teachers who can teach; get older learners to be teachers themselves.
Provide 10% of the school budget for the continuous professional development of all teachers.
Create class sizes of 10 or 12 for children of five, and classes two or three times that size but taught for only half the time for 17 and 18 year olds. Recruit the community to provide a range of mentoring and support facilities. Expect at least a doubling in value-added from this strategy, if not a three or four-fold increase. Stop people from any longer thinking that the school can do everything.
Take information technology seriously. Don’t try to be too sophisticated. Concentrate on word-processing for everyone in every subject. Ensure that every piece of writing, be it in chemistry, history or geography, becomes a lesson in applied communication skills; literacy should be cross-curricular without weakening the precious significance of individual disciplines.
All the time remember that the world of the 21st Century will be about continuously managing your own lifelong learning. By 18 every young person needs to be already doing this.” (John Abbott, 1999)
Comment:
What would have happened if we had followed John Abbott’s prescription for what ails the public education system? More emphasis would be placed on educating adolescents to be independent thinkers, or “weaning students” out of dependence on the system. Class sizes would scale upwards from age 5 to age 18. Far more than 2% and as much as 10% of budget would be invested in professional development. Information technology would have been seamlessly integrated into classroom teaching. Most tellingly, as one Toronto teacher told Abbott, ” it would be the children who would tired at the end of term, not the teacher!”
His Canadian disciples, promoting The 21st Century Learning Initiative ( @changelearning.ca) seem to have strayed from these original ideas. Perhaps Abbott was prophetic when he predicted that only the “free range chickens” would survive in 20 year’s time. That’s only seven years from now!
Finland is a piker in my view. Stunning achievements in Ontario are partially due to lower class sizes but in fact I pay for my lower class sizes by raising class sizes amonst the affluent to balance this. Alberta’s “conservative” government is increasing spending and considering the abolition of elementary testing at the same time.
Well intentioned conervatives always say “but the cost the cost….” It is cheaper to invest in education than to NOT invest in education. Consider it “investing in Canada’s future” .
Former foreign minister of Sweden was on BBC today. Interviewer asked him “how did Sweden go from one of Europe’s poorest countries 80 years ago to one of its richest today?” The answer “very heavy investments in education.”
Thomas “flat world” Friedman was asked recently what his favourite nation was in economic terms. His answer was Taiwan. Asked why he said “they realize they have nothing but themselves- no oil, no gold, no coal no diamonds no strategic resources of any kind so massive investments in education and training have allowed them to make something out of nothing.
We all understand how a huge investment in “our children’s” education pays of in spadeds and is returned multi fold. Why do we have so much trouble understanding that the same formula extends to “everybody’s children”.
No doubt some would comment that we already make a “massive investment” in education. As to the “10X” return thing I’d love to have you actually provide the background on where that came from…?
Then there’s the issue of increasing class sizes “among the affluent”. That presupposes that the affluent are some homogenous group who can be isolated from “the poor” or the “middle class”. How does one actually isolate the affluent? I’d imagine if we target certain schools according to the socioeconomic area there’s be all sorts of implications.
Abbott’s formula is an eclectic salad with some left some right and some centrist ideas. The problem is finding a party that would accept the whole salad. It is a little dreamy and fails to understand the radical dicotomy of the UK based on its deep class cleavages. Nobody has successfully bridged this gap including Labour gov’ts. That is a very tough nut to crack.
The work of sociologist Paul Willis “Learning to Labour” is instructive here. In a nutshell he followed boys in public housing projects “council estates” and by grade 3 they stated they had no intention to go to university, no money and BTW the deck is stacked against us, the kids who actually try in school are fools because they are deluding themselves. Only football (soccer) or rock and roll can get a kid out of here.
Truly sad, an attitude I have only seen in Canada amongst our 5% of Aboriginals.
Then there’s the issue of increasing class sizes “among the affluent”. That presupposes that the affluent are some homogenous group who can be isolated from “the poor” or the “middle class”. How does one actually isolate the affluent? I’d imagine if we target certain schools according to the socioeconomic area there’s be all sorts of implications.
It has been done in many boads for many years, nothing new. Schools are ranked by “Opportunity” SES.
You seem to have sampled a little John Abbott salad, Doug.
Over at VoiceEd.ca, my initial post resurrecting John Abbott’s 1999 speech on “Free Range Chickens” has left them scratching their heads. Perhaps it’s a generational thing. These 21st century educators seem to think that Sir Ken Robinson experienced an epiphany…all on his own. Presentists and futurists think that way.
Now, on the matter of Paul Willis and Learning to Labour: Have you been reading my Ed. D Thesis, Doug. It’s gathering dust in the OISE Library in your fair city.
Are you still promoting the “Social Reproduction” thesis? Hasn’t it been superceded by new research?
You looked so well preserved on Steve Paikin’s The Agenda, that I thought you might have advanced beyond Paul Willis. Indeed, until you took a swipe at Doretta, I thought you were making some sense. (Smile)
It WAS intriguing watching the various players on Paikin’s show. He’s quick to jump on any dubious assertions, regardless of who tries to make them. I loved his comment on the claim that limiting compensation to public servants would impact negatively on local economies, essentially he suggested that’d mean doubling their compensations would really solve the problem. Mind you he said it firmly tongue-in-cheek.
As Paikin pointed out if teachers can’t work out their issues with McGuinty, after all he’s done for them, what hope dealing with anyone else?
It was interesting, and amusing, to watch the cases made to someone who can dissect on the spot 😉
No I believe Paul Willis and social reproduction because it squares with everything I have experienced through students.
Time for a return to Traditional Values:
Class Struggle.
Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman if they were in my seat on the Agenda would have said:
This is no time to bring in austerity in the public sector because the 25% of the economy that is in the public sector is the only place with the money to spend on goods and services. Cutting either their numbers or their wages will reduce aggregate demand at exactly the same time that business is withholding billions from investment because of uncertainty regarding demands for their goods or services.
Shorthand. Cutting in the public sector will create another recession.
There is zero chance that teachers can work out issues with McGuinty unless McGuinty is willing to fold up like a deck chair. The teacher membership will simply not allow it. One can see that Duncan is already shifting from cutbacks towards “revenue enhancements”.
It is very hard for McGuinty to say “you better deal with me or the bogeyman Hudak will get you.” When what he proposes is every bit as bad as Mike Harris.
What I wish I had said on Paikin to quote Lord Palmerston “there are no permanent enemies nor parmanent friends. There are only permanent interests.”
“The work of sociologist Paul Willis “Learning to Labour” is instructive here. In a nutshell he followed boys in public housing projects “council estates” and by grade 3 they stated they had no intention to go to university, no money and BTW the deck is stacked against us, the kids who actually try in school are fools because they are deluding themselves. Only football (soccer) or rock and roll can get a kid out of here.
Truly sad, an attitude I have only seen in Canada amongst our 5% of Aboriginals.”
Gotta get out Doug, kids are not dumb as you think they are. especially when reading the sterile politically correct literature of happy outcomes in school.
“It has been done in many boads for many years, nothing new. Schools are ranked by “Opportunity” SES.”
So you do agree that the low income schools get a raw deal when it comes to resources do you Doug? And yet you always want to present a picture of equality and equity, as the stakeholders within the eduction system presents.
“No I believe Paul Willis and social reproduction because it squares with everything I have experienced through students.
Time for a return to Traditional Values:
Class Struggle.”
Back to social reproduction and a mixture of cultural Marxism, in order to constantly reproduce the social reproduction within the public institutions, especially the social institutions that depends on their survival to produce needy citizens of all sorts that requires the public institutions to do their thinking for them.
The concluding remarks on social reproduction
“In order to change relative status within a society that society must actually change in significant ways. In order to change relative status within a society education must be the least socially reproductive that is possible. In order to change relative status within a society people must be treated according to their needs, not according to the pronouncements of those seeking to maintain their own power.
So consider this, in everything you do in education – are you measuring students and their learning, or are you measuring parents and their status. If you keep that question in mind at every decision-point, you will probably find that you need to change most of what you do.”
http://speedchange.blogspot.ca/2009/08/social-reproduction.html
Lots of articles like this one on the web, I am beginning to hate the words, needs based __________ (fill in the blank), because there is always an angle to either reduce services or to denied services, looking at it through the education system model. Tossed in social reproduction dogma, according to this guy above, he would grade according to SEC status, and the higher status kids would end up with more homework, larger classes, compared to the less wealthier kids. And yes needs based services, would also be according to the SEC status. And no one gives a toss about any of the students if they can make the grade in the post-secondary environment.
Class struggle eh Doug? Between the left and right of the political spectrum, the social institutions will continue to be a busy factory in social reproduction, in order for the stakeholders to survive, and reproduce and grow the bureaucracy of small armies to control the classes. Too bad technology and the i-pad came along, pouring rain on the social institutions that have become accustomed to ruling the roost and no one questioning their expertise and knowledge. Civil strive and class struggle is their cup of tea, rather than the noble pursuit of knowledge and to instruct the students the many facets of knowledge.
Smaller classes to larger classes according to income, is not striving for equality nor can it be called equity. And I would dare say, if it was tried in the public education system, the system would be challenged in a court of law. and in the same way, here and there across Canada, the ordinary citizens are challenging the status-quo of the public education system, in various forms and across the span in issues.
Not class struggle, but the pursuit of knowledge for all learners. .
Nancy many boards in Ontario have been assigning staff based on SES for nearly 40 years. Classes in poor areas are smaller rich areas bigger. Nobody has objected. Provincial grants to boards even build in an SES factor.
I was a trustee on the board for many years and voted many X to put in more teachers in poor schools.
There are lots of mixed socioeconomic areas, indeed most communities are very much that way. It may be possible to designate certain schools as in “poor” areas, however it’d never be possible to allocate resources on a widespread “poor/affluent” model. In any event if we’re already doing it as required what’s the problem?
On the “Class Struggle” thing that’s pretty dated.
As was pointed out on The Agenda teachers would generally fall into the “affluent” class so which class should they be battling?
The schools are ranked in four catagories from poorer to richer. The poorer they are the more teachers and other resources they get.
If you listen carefully I kept saying top 1% but Decter kept saying top 20%. Teachers for sure are in the top 20% in fact most are in the top 10% but the real money is in the top 1%.
The affluent are the top 1%. The rest of us are in the 99%.
There are 2 classes in the class struggle. The top 1% that owns the economy and the 99% who work for them. You have to read more John, this power stuggle has been going on for 10 000 years. The first strike was against the cruel pyramid builders that were working the slaves a bit too hard.
I believe the only people who benefit from enhanced funding in the school boards based on SES factors are the teachers,the administrators and the Unions.
There has been zero research corroborating the view that more money equals better results.
What brings enhanced results is doing what works based on empirical research which the gang at the top is determined to ignore.
The STAR study proved not only that class size makes a significant difference but that it made the greatest difference for minorities and low SES. It then follows that if someone wants to close the gap one might want to target the class size reductions towards poor communities.
The California and Wisconsin research on class size confirms the STAR research. The US Dept of Education research wing confirms the overwhelming research confirms that class size makes a significant difference.
The overwhelming evidence is that class size (more money) = better results.
It`s instruction that makes the difference-not small classes-if you want both,then okay.
http://www.nrrf.org/essay_Illiteracy.html
Too bad we can`t parents making sure the shift occurs,the research is everywhere.
I am always perplexed,why don`t the schools listen????
“Classes in poor areas are smaller rich areas bigger. Nobody has objected. Provincial grants to boards even build in an SES factor.”
Nobody does, but the other side of the coin is masked, and to the question where does all the money go to? Certainly, not to fund directly students’ education and achievement, but indirectly through the higher salaries of school staff and the more expensive board consultants.
In P4E –
“The fundamental premise of publicly funded education—that every student should have an equitable chance for success—is in danger because of an
increasing reliance on fees and fundraising to support programs in Ontario schools.”
Click to access Fees-and-Fundraising-in-Schools-2011.pdf
The lower income schools, fundraise for the every day supplies, and the higher income schools fundraise for the bells and whistles. So where is all the money being spent on, if it is not being spent on adding additional staff?
“But over the years, and despite emphasizing education as a key part of the government anti-poverty strategy, two things have happened: The number of programs the LOG is intended to cover has expanded, and the funding has been reduced. Since 2005, the per-pupil amount in the LOG has been reduced by 9%, and the grant is now intended to cover the costs of not only programs based on demographic needs, but also a range of literacy and numeracy programs, the Specialist High Skills Major program, the K–12 School
Effectiveness Framework and more. The grant now gives more weight to boards’ poverty demographics, but that has not overcome the loss of funding and the breadth of programs the grant is intended to cover.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The current Learning Opportunities Grant is neither protected, nor targeted at programs for disadvantaged students, and it is insufficient to support programs that would alleviate the effects of poverty.
People for Education recommends
• the provincial government develop a new Equity in
Education Grant, designated solely for providing programs to mitigate socio-economic and ethno-racial
factors affecting students, and
• further that the new Equity in Education Grant should
be protected, and include a built-in accountability
process to mandate that school boards report annually
on the programs and services funded by the grant and
on their effectiveness.”
Click to access Poverty-and-Inequality-2011.pdf
Doug, just to remind you, the professional class will always fall into the affluent which does include teachers, and the professionals who work in the public sector, are well protected from the economic woes and the ups and downs of the economic cycles. The public sector, especially the education sector are in the position to protect and defend their power and influence, and they do often at the expense of the students and taxpayers. As the P4E report states, “”But over the years, and despite emphasizing education as a key part of the government anti-poverty strategy”, it is not covering the needs of the intended students,
The other side of the coin, all the funding going to the anti-poverty strategies are only helping to increase the bureaucracy of the public education system, and in so doing that, maintains the monopolistic nature of the public education system. As a result, most of the funding in the grants to address the needs of the low-income students, are being redirected to pay for the salaries of the additional staff that is hired, and the programs are watered down, where one school is in desperate need of upgrading in computer technology and the other school, is in desperate need of ordinary school supplies.
Not equity. Not equality. But just another way to reshuffle the cards, giving the illusion of equity and equality. And certainly not true needs-based funding, where each school’s funding will varied according to the needs of the student population and the school’s physical environment.
Should it not be left up to the individual schools to sort out class sizes, where minimum and maximum caps are imposed, rather than the imposing bureaucracy in the upper levels over seeing and giving its high approval right down to the number of toilet paper being used at a school? .
The “class struggle” thing is pretty stale, Doug.
“read more”? “Listen carefully”? The real problem is an ability to see the various dubious assertions some here keep making. That came out clearly during your ill-starred run on The Agenda.
This isn’t a bunch of bored teenagers being lectured to Around here we’ve a pretty good ability to differentiate between the compelling and the facile. That doesn’t necessarily work out well for self-styled “experts”.
Stale and not at all the opinion of many of my young teacher colleagues either John L. Often those self-styled “experts” you speak of are as far removed from the new movement of educators coming up the ranks as one can be.
I’ve been reading the listings here for just a few weeks and it doesn’t take long to figure out who those self-style, and so-called “experts” think they are. We and most parents know better.
The Agenda program I watched clearly proved that those old union notions that Doug Little likes to toss out just don’t pass the smell test any more. Not with many educators, not with parents and sure as heck with the average working stiff who has already made adjustments to their lives to get through tough economic times. Teachers on the ground are MUCH more open to concessions as is the union leadership. What does THAT tell you all?
FYI I probably got 40 new subs and endless accolades across the spectrum from profs, teachers, parents and others for that show. I have never had such a positive reaction and I’ve been on that show many times.
When I asked Steve’s producer why they keep having me back the answer “you are good TV, you don’t hesitate for a second to lay it all out there.”
Of course I went straight home and had the link up on my own web site the next day. It is still generating new subs.
“40 new subs”? “endless accolades”, “never had such a positive reaction”?, yada yada.
You also claim to have 36,000 subscribers, a number which never seems to change.
The key is to find folks, other than yourself, to trumpet your importance in the field of education. Promoting one’s own significance is a bit dubious.
As to being “good TV” that’s kind of a mixed bag, right?
In any event this is becoming too much a “Doug” line than a class size line. Let’s get back to the issue.
You folks here seem to concern yourselves that this Doug Little person has a handle on what new teachers care about and support these days.
Believe me when I suggest to you that he just does NOT.
Most new teachers have never laid eyes on Doug Little. Maybe Steve Paikin needs a newer union model on his show because seriously there is no one under 40 connecting with new teachers in any meaningful way that’s actually getting it.
We are as open to more choice in our jobs as parents are in getting more choices for their kids.
Mr. Sal Khan found a way to have millions and millions of students in his classroom. The funny thing is, he’s not even a teacher, and he doesn’t even have an actual classroom.But lots of learning takes place. Good thing he doesn’t have to do parent teacher meetings. That dashboard does show how the student is progressing though, so I guess part gets eliminated !
I get a kick out of the fact that you can pile a STAR report on top of a Wisconsin report on top of a California report on top of a USDE report and many other studies and someone says “there is no research proving this.” OMG there is more evidence on this than on almost anything else.
Sal Khan has peaked and is going downhill. His tapes are shallow and not very helpful outside a 1 on 1 situation. There is almost no support for the idea that technology is the replacement since online courses have much higher drop-out and failure rates.
You brought up Agenda John.
As I mentioned, America’s #1 expert on teacher improvement Linda Darling Hammond does not think it is enough. She believes in excellent teachers working in small classes. There is NO dicotomy, surely we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Surely we can make huge cuts in class size WHILE we improve teaching. Surely we can also introduce PROVEN ELP type programs WHILE we improve teachers. Why fight proven reforms while we improve teaching.
JTC,
There are always some conservative teachers who claim to speak for more than themselves even “me and my friends”. We will see. First of all federation leaders speak for teachers not one by one conservative teachers.
Before any serious action by teachers, strikes, work-to-rule etc there will be a vote. The leaders will ask for a yes vote for their positions on anything. It is at that point when the teachers know the consequences of the vote (by secret ballot of course) that we know how teachers feel.
Young teachers are always fearful that if they ask for a raise it will cost them their job. They are wrong. The teachers have made all of the progress they have made since 1975 by being totally fearless in the face of board and provincial provocations.
Your spin and threats carry no weight with the younger educators.
Dinosaurs are extinct and so are the days when teachers roll over just because some union leader tells them to.
If Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman were here he would tell you that putting controls on public sector wages can and probably will send us back into recession. The reason business is sitting on billions and not investing is due to fear that there is not enough demand for their products and services. If you cut control or limit public sector wages, there is even less demand in the economy so there is more unemployment and less investment.
It is stupid economics to control public wages because everybody suffers. More aggregate demand is what the economy needs not less. Did you notice Drummond did NOT advocate wage controls.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1133243–walkom-the-real-victims-of-the-drummond-report-s-cuts
Yet Sal Khan was one of the speakers at one of the U.S. top education conferences – backed and finance by the teachers’ unions..
http://thirteencelebration.org/blog/speakers/speakers/108/
I bet small class size was not talk about, because the main theme was about the 21st century skills, But some early reporting by teachers who attended the conference offers interesting titbits of parent bashing, free tuition for would be teachers, and the 21st century skills cannot be measured.Therefore no need for standardized testing of the skills.
On Kitchen Table Math –
http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.ca/2012/03/4-cs-at-celebration.html
http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.ca/2012/03/at-celebration.html
Kitchen Table Math has also a number of blog postings on class size.
,http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.ca/search/label/class%20size
The theme of the above, is about teachers teaching effectively,regardless of class size. Hard to do with the current curriculum found in the public schools, where it is almost guarantee to create the need for small class sizes, based on the teachers’ work load of outcomes to supposedly the students’ learning needs. Lousy curriculum, creates steep learning slopes for students who have weaker foundation skills in the 3 Rs, and in turn increases the work load of teachers, no matter the size of the class. And that can be measured, but not in the current model of the public education system, because students with the different levels of the 3 Rs, of students found in any classroom, are used as the reason why there is a need for small classes.
As for the students’ learning, and steady progress, the steep learning slopes that students must overcome to obtain a pass, it is ignore for the most part by the stakeholders of the education system. In the same way, the individual teachers are ignored when complaining about the foundation skills of the 3 Rs, the number of students with accommodations, and the curriculum. If the WISE math is not enough evidence, there is always the low numeracy skills of adults in the stats, of over 50 percent in Canada.
In the Toronto Star – ” Whitby school borrows ‘world-best’ teaching methods”
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1148268–whitby-school-borrows-world-best-teaching-methods
Good teaching methods plus good curriculum, will always trump class size and produce consistent steady progress of students.
It is why I had to laughed at a public school math coordinator response to the Singapore Math Bar Model.
“To Mary Fiore, math coordinator for the Peel Region District School Board, Singapore math’s “bar models” sound like the “fraction rods, fraction circles and fraction strips and other manipulatives we already encourage teachers to use to focus on problem-solving skills.” Numeracy coordinator Gina Iuliano Marrello of the Toronto Catholic District School Board added the slow pace “sounds like what we do; the idea of ‘go slow to go fast,’ to make sure kids understand before you drive through the curriculum.”
Sure would love to have a chat with the math coordinator, on if the Singapore Math Bar models are on the approved instruction method list, or are students are still discourage from using this method, and if marks are taken off, as it was done with my child. Such horrible math curriculum, and the public education system should take a page off the private school, and go for the world’s best teaching and curriculum methods.
For parents, if you are reading this – a rather simple way on paper, without the bells and whistles, to help your child do the word problems in the current math curriculum, but be prepare for flack from the school.
http://www.teach-kids-math-by-model-method.com/
And a PDF example
Click to access WordProblems.pdf
Small class size to big class size, and regardless of class size, achievement and steady progress of students, will always need efficient teaching methods and quality curriculum.
“
“Good teaching methods plus good curriculum, will always trump class size and produce consistent steady progress of students. ”
I am with you Nancy.
A posting on the WISE math site –
“If teachers in China can teach classes with 70+ students to be mathematical geniuses, then there’s no excuse for math teachers in Canada to have any problems whatsoever with such small class sizes.”
http://wisemath.org/join/
Nancy, the Chinese do it by using long hours and extra days 7AM to 5PM supper and back to school till 10PM + Saturaday is that what you want?
China has the worl’s largest number and second largest % of female adult illiterates. Is that what you want? In China 20% go to post secondary, in Canada it is 50%. Is that what you want. You can’t cherry pick here. To you want the Chinese education system or the Canadian system.
Over and over and over some members insist that we only fix curriculum (when I think they mean pedagogy). The research shows that smaller classes make a significant difference.
The North American leader BY FAR is Darling-Hammond who says we need to improve teaching AND have very small classes. Why on Earth would we go with a unicycle when we can have a bicycle?
Hi Doug,
Standing on the dark side,:)Nancy and I send you our links constantly,www.childrenofthecode.org and the research results from the NICHD and all those important quotes from Dr.Reid Lyon.
You never acknowledge that they are meaningful,why should we respond to your please of common sense because of Lynda`s name and pedigree,we have pedigrees that supercede,you don`t bat an eyelash.
I looked up Linda`s pedagogical beliefs,she stands on the other side of the road of my beliefs.
That means Yale and Harvard are on our team and Stanford is on the analytic phonics and contextual learning side.
Not interested.
The fact is you persist in attacking smaller classes while promoting a false dicotomy that it is EITHER small classes OR teacher improvement. Nonsense, it can be both. We can have smaller classes tomorrow. It takes much longer to improve teaching.
That`s okay,I applaud your concession-only K-3 and an addition of 2-3 children is also okay-is it 20 or 23,it doesn`t matter.
The curriculum matters much more and it`s never discussed,ever!
No wrong every single student lower makes a difference, Dropping from 22-21 makes a difference.
BTW I support much lower class sizes for the poor say 18 offset by increasing class sizes to the affluent say 26. That would be in a board with a 22 avg.
Look it Doug, small classes for primary grades make a difference. It has shown that the gains are kept for all students, but and it is a big but, providing students have effective teachers, instruction practices and curriculum. What has not been shown, using the typical WL now called balanced literacy, is for all students to reach grade level, to where all students leaving grade 3 are at grade 4 level or higher. Nor a small primary class, will help students who are struggling in the 3 Rs to overcome their difficulties, due to the instruction and curriculum and for that matter any size class. The students who are behind, stay behind, unless they received effective remediation.
From grade 4 up, students who have weaker foundations of the 3 Rs, are always struggling to keep up, and most will work only to obtain a 50, the minimum pass, Small class to big class, and it does not matter, because the standard that is set is at the 50 percent mark, and for a lot of students they will only work to a 50 and call it a day. The curriculum, has a high number of outcomes, but the achievement bar for students is set at the lowest level. Neither will teachers bother to work for higher achievement, even if three-quarters of the students are barely passing. Students with serious troubles in the 3 Rs, received the dumb-down work, accommodations, and are seen as always being low achievers.
Your little theory, has a flaw, that all teachers work to their best ability, and all raise achievement to grade level. If so, than why is the majority of students entering grade 9, with various levels in the 3 Rs from grade 6 to grade 12 level.
Why does the adult population, have 48 percent with low literacy skills?
Why does the adult population have 52 % with low numeracy skills?
Click to access Sep-14-05-Making-sense-of-the-class-size-debate.pdf
Most of the adult illiterates are older many did not attend Canadian schools or have learning problems. Canadian 15 year olds are 3rd in the world in reading but with even smaller classes we can become #1.
Read the latest literacy stats, and the majority of adults with low literacy skills are Canadian, and at last count is 11 million adults – estimated to be approximately 60 percent. The other 40 percent belongs in the immigrant category. A common percentage coming out of the reports that the education system is helping to increase the percentage of adults with low literacy skills, where 40 percent of grade 12 graduates have low skills in some aspect or all aspects in literacy and numeracy.
There is no excuses for poor literacy and numeracy skills, including learning problems in our education system, because much of it can be remediated and corrected. It is the failure of the education system and its stakeholders for not ensuring all students are able to have good literacy and numeracy skills at the end of 12 years of schooling. Even with small class sizes, there has not been any decrease in the number of students graduating with low literacy and numeracy skills, nor did it decrease the number of LD students with low literacy and numeracy skills. It is all about the curriculum and teaching practices.
Below is a twist speaking about class size, in BC.
“Class size is a sticking point between the B.C. government and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation. It affects teachers’ working conditions, the quality of education received by children in kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12), as well as the province’s bottom line.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Education+dispute+ignores+Generation+Squeeze/6328576/story.html#ixzz1pfIoCrQd
“No wonder teachers are frustrated, and adamant that class size must remain a matter for contract negotiation. Society is expecting them to deal with our collective failure to address a seismic decline in the standard of living for the generation raising kids. In effect, we ask teachers to supplement their work as educators with additional roles as social workers, corrections officers, and health pro-motion officials. That is not a context conducive to excellence in pedagogy, despite teachers’ best intentions.
But where in the dispute between teachers and the government is a discussion of why classrooms typically have so many children needing extra support? What is the root cause?
A primary cause is our policy failure to adapt to the declining standard of living for Canadians under age 45 before their kids reach school. For years now, UNICEF and the OECD have reported that provincial and federal governments in Canada lag behind most industrialized countries when it comes to supporting parents to afford time at home with a new-born, find and afford quality child care services, and balance employment with family time.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Education+dispute+ignores+Generation+Squeeze/6328576/story.html#ixzz1pfJkzZ86
I became curious, on the author of the article, and his emphasis on prevention.
“t’s a classic Canadian example of addressing problems after the fact, rather than preventing them in the first place.
Just think what teachers could do with four fewer children requiring extra support per classroom. Existing dollars could stretch further, as could teacher time. Some day the government and BCTF may even settle on a teacher-student ratio that welcomes an additional student per class than they would under current conditions when seven children have extra support needs, instead of three. This trade-off could save provincial coffers millions per year.”
The Human Early Learning Partnership – to which the author of the above article is affiliated with.
http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/#
In the adult illiteracy class all but about 2% can read. Some people simply have profound learning problems that almost nobody can fix. The dividing line for adult illiteract in grade 9 education. Are they “illiterate” nonsense. Can they do their own income tax? No but neither can I and I have 3 degrees.
Don’t bother with that adult literacy nonsense. We have the world’s 3rd best reading 15 year olds and that is what matters. Lower the class sizes at all levels further, complete ELP and extend to 3 year olds, require a masters to teach and we will be #1.
Class size and composition has always been and isue in BC. The elementary and HS teachers are in the same union BCTF. The teachers want class size restricions but also want limits on how many SE kids are integrated into each class.
Doug, 48 percent of adults in Canada have low literacy skills, the large bulk of them come from the level 2 and the bottom of the level 3 rankings, where the adults are weak in some aspect in reading or writing or both.
Low literacy and numeracy skills are just that, poor readers, writers and in numeracy. The public education system, just does not do a very good job at raising the literacy levels of all students to high proficiency levels. DItto for numeracy, and it is about curriculum and teaching practices, and not about small class sizes, percentage of students in the various sub-groups sitting in any classroom, and the other excuses that defends the current curriculum and instruction practices.
As in the Vancouver Sun article states, how about practising preventive education, rather than after the fact, where kids are used as the means to ram small class size caps and limit the percentage of kids with reading deficits, into the contracts. Knowing full well, that at least 40 percent of the typical elementary class, could conceivably be classified as needing accommodations in the classroom, for reading,writing and numeracy deficits. Where accommodations are given, with or without the need of the students being formally identified. What the BC teachers’ union as well as the other provincial teachers’ unions are talking about in reality the number of students in a typical class that have reading, writing and numeracy deficits. But they won’t tell the public, and rather tell the public the the increase in the numbers of children that have the SE status. In reality, only 2 to 4 students in a classroom, on average have been identified as having SE formally, and out of the 4 students, 3 students will have learning deficits in the 3 Rs. The small class sizes are being rammed down by the unions, for the purposes of increasing the number of classes per grade, based on the ratio of students with high to low literacy and numeracy skills.
The sad part, the students with deficits in the 3 Rs, will remain low achievers, due in part to curriculum, instruction practices regardless how small the class size is reduce. Unions want no part of effective remediation for the 3 Rs and preventive education practices , that increases the numbers of students become proficient in the 3 Rs.
Note that inserting class size in the contracts, in an inclusive environment, prevents the majority of children having access to SE services that are educational in nature and having to do with the 3 Rs. Probably why school boards and governments were willing to introduce small class size caps into the union contracts, to stemmed the flow of students by parents requesting remediation beyond the classroom, for the 3 Rs to keep costs down. The inclusive policies were also pushed by the teachers’ unions at the same time as small class sizes were being pushed.
Outsiders have no idea how much harder it is to DO than it is to SAY. All the arm chair quarterbacks would not last a day in the real situation.
Teaching and learning are two different things. When the kid is absent 40% of the time what do you think happens? When they move almost every year what do you think happens. When they need glasses 5 years earlier than they get them what do you think happens. When they have profound learning problems what do you think happens?
This arm chair “just teach them to read” nonsense is just that nonsense. Do you not think everybody is trying their best? Your pedagogical prescriptions have been overwhelmingly rejected as has choice, as has merit pay etc etc.
You just turn yourselves into “cranks” on the very edge of education. You look like a cult.
Why don’t you tell the Leafs how to win more games, “score more goals on the opponents and don’t let so many in.” Brilliant. why didn’t anybody think of that?
We have one of the three finest education systems on Earth. The fact that it did not work out well for some of you needs to be held against the fact that it works out well for the vast majority.
The interesting thing from reformers is how they explain this. A government IS willing to lower class size, a proven reform that improves achievement. The reformers oppose reductions in class size notwithstanding its proven value.
The government is clear, similar to McGuinty, that it IS willing to lower class size but not willing to do anything on the reform agenda.
So why do corporate reformers oppose smaller classes? Could it be that they are doing the bidding of their corporate masters at Fraser I and CD Howe because smaller classes eventually means tax increases.
It looks as if reformers are siding with corporate masters against parents and children. Hmmmm
Pulling out the old excuses, where any kid is absent more than 40 percent of the time, the regime system will kick in, and the school’s incentive to put the student back in the system, or otherwise lose funding dollars.
Not much of a problem according to the stats, when it comes to students being absent. Furthermore, the vast majority of students who have literacy and numeracy problems are not the very small percentage of students who have complex learning problems. Some would say it amounts to 40 percent of students, and others would go as high as 60 percent having the garden variety reading, writing and numeracy deficits. All can be corrected, included the vast majority of identified students with dyslexia. In some cases, some would say, the vast majority have not been taught.
Here is another post from a teacher on the WISE math site.
“I am currently a special ed teacher with a background in Maths and Sciences. I did my teacher training 25 years ago in elementary education. I have taught grades 1 through 10 and tutored in the prison system. I have been very concerned about Maths education since the beginning.”
http://wisemath.org/join/
A long post, and should be read.
Again curriculum and instruction methods. Oh yes, getting rid of the school nurses, public health nurses at the school level, as well as the other health professionals attached to public health, and the wider health system, as it was in the 1960s to sometime in the 1980s was again at the expense of the students, and especially those who did not have easy access to the health system.
There is a number of articles and research on the benefits of having some type of health care at the school level, to check for eyes, ears, and other basic health concerns that impacts learning, as well as the benefits as having a health professional on the school staff. In today’s reality, the education system have been downloading much of the responsibility to others outside the education system, including parents to pick up the costs and time to either re-teach or teach what is not taught, and/or the new thing, having parents become co-teachers. Some parents are even questioning why bother with schools of the bricks and mortar, when parents are asked to become teachers of the type that are holding teacher certificates.
I have a feeling, that the school nurses were tossed out of the education system, for pinpointing the early struggles in the foundation of the 3 Rs, before the teachers did. The 21st century school nurse, would be an improvement considering the knowledge and advances that have been made in learning, where emotional , physical health intersects at the junction in students’ learning. And school nurses would be big on prevention education practices, rather than picking up the pieces after the fact.
No one opposes small classes, but what is opposed is the dismal achievement results after the vast amounts of education expenditures in salaries and extra staff. And where the children with identified learning deficits are no better off and are two grade levels below, because of their reading, writing and numeracy deficits.
We don’t have DISMAL reading results, we have OUTSTANDING reading results to the point that most of the world’s countries list Canada along with Finland and Korea and possibly New Zealand as the OUTSTANDING education nations of the world.
Why don’t reformers say “you want to lower class sizes? That is fantastic but after I still have other reforms to make.” They take action to try to actually PREVENT class size reduction and Early Learning Programs that parents want and kids would benefit from. Why do they actively oppose class size reductions and Early learning?
Doug,because it costs too much and we are an impoverished province.
To have 2 -3 more kids in the class saves a fortune and it has proven to not make a difference.
What did parents do before Early Learning,they should go back to getting a government cheque and organize themselves on their own.
We can`t afford the project and I have seen the play based learning curriculum,you can get it anywhere in any day care and nursery school accountable to parents because they are the client.
Every single kid removed to make smaller classes makes a big difference especially since we need to end up around 15-18/1 we cannot get there by backing up but only by steady progress. This reform is proven. (USDE)
Parents WANT FDK and more. Are you against what parents want? Parents want smaller classes. Are you against the parents wishes?
Parents also don’t want labour disruptions to interfere with their kid’s education.
Are you suggesting teachers shouldn’t be allowed to strike? Are you against what parents want?
As to the value of minor reductions in class size you’re simply repeating the same old. Various commentators, Drummond, et al, have noted that minor changes in claa size are unimportant.
Time for bed.
Young teachers do not want labour disruptions either John L. As for full day K? Meh. Take it or leave it. Parents should be able to take it or leave it also.
Younger teachers are much more willing to make concessions that the old boys in the union know.
Terrific that McGuinty’s going to get rid of those Victory Laps and nor force the Early Learning Program on boards/communities who don’t have it already.
I’m ok with the pay freeze also and increasing class size. Everyone know that despite what union leadership spins, individual teachers negotiate larger classes all the time.
This Doug person’s not even close to being clued-in to the disconnect.
I`ve found that too,teachers voices are not represented by the Unions,many are so caring and would work with the demands of the government.
Such a shame.
Drummond does not know anything about class size research. Young teachers are so scared to lose their job that they are timorous about demands since they have few responsibilities beyond themselves. They will soon find out that only militant resistance to gov’t works, not craven weakness.
Any action requires a vote so their is no sense guess how teachers feel. The vote will determine their action. I suspect that they are now sophisticated enough to know strikes and demos are not the best weapon, politics is the best weapon.
I`ve found that too,teachers voices are not represented by the Unions,many are so caring and would work with the demands of the government.
Such a shame.
This is boring. The teachers’ unions are totally democratic from top to bottom not only in regards to leaders but they vote on all important issues as well. It is the easiest thing in the world to find a few conservative teachers around but when it comes to the votes they lose badly meaning of course, that they are not representitive.
You said it was the “radical 3%” who determine things in the unions.
No doubt most teachers are too busy actually teaching to spend their time doing “union activist”. I’d imagine that’s the norm in most unions.
As to what “young teachers” think you may not be in a position to speak to that, right?
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120321/bc_poll_ndp_trouncing_liberals_120321/20120321?hub=BritishColumbia
I have a huge number of contacts across the unions. Young teachers are often under the mistaken impression that if they modify their salary demands they will achieve job security. This is nonsense since the # of teachers is on a set formula. The two questiions hve nothing to do with each other. It takes a while for them to clue in.
The only way to get ahead is militant resistance to the governments
You may have reached the battle of Waterloo.
What goes on in the classroom,curriculum and results just have to win.
It`s that time.
Teachers salaries and working conditions are important but only equally so,we`re completely off balance with only 10 percent of the impetus on the former.
What about your clients,parents and their children?
Perhaps we should do a Caterpillar move and when the Union is just inflexible and narcissistic we should close down the shop and start over somewhere else,a new kind of school board,oh yes,a charter school like KIPP.
Many teachers would feel at home there and they`re not as bankrupt emotionally as the Union is.Many feel bullied.
Teachers cannot buy groceries with KIPP money. You offer them a charter, we will offer good wages, pension and benefits. See where they want to work.
Many feel bullied. This is the same conservative anedotal nonsense over and over. You are projecting. The unions are totally internally democratic so by definition it reflects the overwhelming majority.