Striving for the “full inclusion” of all students in the regular classroom may be a worthy goal, but it makes teaching far more challenging and cannot satisfactorily meet the needs of all children. A few Canadian provincial school systems, following the lead of New Brunswick, have elevated “inclusive education” to an exalted status. For many children and teens with severe learning disabilities or complex needs, it is not the most enabling learning environment. It’s also rendering today’s diverse classes, at certain times, nearly impossible for regular teachers to teach.
Teacher surveys identify class management as a fundamental problem and “class composition” as the biggest obstacle to professional satisfaction. Building upon Canadian school research, it’s clear that special needs policy, designed by theorists, is not working and needs rethinking to achieve a better educational environment for teachers and students alike. That was the theme of my recent researchED presentation, October 29, 2016, in Washington, DC.
Class size is a well-diagnosed and much studied question with much of the research driven by teacher unions. Back in September 2013, Gordon Thomas of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA), used a class of 37 students as an example of the challenges facing stressed-out high school teachers. In his worst case scenario, out of the 37 students, four had learning disabilities, five were in transition from other provinces, one exhibited serious behavioural issues, three were repeating the course, seven were functioning below grade level, and one was chronically absent because of a dysfunctional home life.
In such overcrowded classes, Thomas asked, how can we expect teachers to provide constructive and rewarding learning experiences, let alone introduce innovative practices? Coping in such diverse classrooms goes far beyond class size and raises the hidden issue of “class composition.”
Most Special Education researchers concur that “smaller classes have the greatest positive impact on students with the greatest educational needs.” (OISE-UT/CEA, 2010). It is now clear that both class size and diversity matter.
Today teachers try to adapt their teaching to address the individual needs of the learners in their regular classrooms. As the classroom becomes larger and more diverse, this task becomes increasingly onerous. All of this has obvious implications for inclusive education. The success of “Inclusion” is, in large measure, determined by the extent to which teachers have the necessary supports and services to be able to effectively integrate students with special educational needs into their classrooms and schools.
Class size reductions from K to 3 and possibly beyond can produce student achievement gains (Canadian Council on Learning 2005), provided that the total context is conducive to such improvement. Three critical factors have been identified:
1.Complementary policies and practice supporting higher student achievement (i.e., raised expectations, positive discipline, regular assessment, teacher PD);
2. Contradictory policies and practice that undermines the potential benefit of class size reductions (i.e., full inclusion, social promotion, student competencies gap, language challenges);
3. Rising class sizes at higher grade levels – from grades 7 to 12 (i.e., removal of class size caps, integration of learning disabilities and ELL students).
Class sizes have actually dropped in all Canadian provinces except British Columbia over the past 15 years. At the macro-economic level from 2001-o2 to 2010-11, student enrollment has dropped 6.5%, the number of educators rose 7.5%, the student-teacher ratio declined by 12.9%, and spending per pupil rose by 61.4%. Class size reductions and caps from K to Grade 3 or Grade 6 may explain the overall smaller class sizes.
In the Spring of 2011, the Canadian Teacher’s Federation (CTF) conducted a national teacher survey on the theme of The Teacher Voice on Teaching and Learning to seek input from across Canada on teacher concerns. The CTF survey provided a snapshot of what class size and composition looked like across the country. The survey secured responses from nearly 3,800 teachers representing 9,894 classes in English and French schools. The sample teacher pool was drawn from 12 participating CTF member organizations.
Class Size Analysis: Average class size was 21.3 students, ranging from 22.1 students for grades 4-8 to 19 students for junior kindergarten or kindergarten (JK-K). English schools (including French Immersion) had an average class size of nearly 22 students, while French as a first language schools had a slightly smaller average class size of just over 19 students.
Class Size by Grade Level: Over a third of the classes for all grade levels combined contained 25 students or more (8.3% contained 30 students or more). For grades 4-8, nearly 39% of classes contained 25 students or more (6.5% contained 30 or more); for grades 9 and over, 40.3% of classes contained 25 students or more (13.5% – over 1 in 7 classrooms – contained 30 or more students); for grades 1-3, just over 14% of classes contained 25 students or more; for JK-K, nearly 12% of classes contained 25 students or more.
Average Number of Special Needs Students: Students with identified exceptionalities (i.e., designated behavioural problems or mental or physical disabilities, as well as other special needs students including gifted students); and English Language Learners and French Language Learners (defined as students whose first language differs from the school’s primary language of instruction, and requiring supports). The average number of students with identified exceptionalities per class was 3.5, ranging from 3.8 students for grades 4-8 to 1.9 students for junior kindergarten/kindergarten.
Class Composition – Grade 4 and Over: Students with identified exceptionalities accounted for 16.3% of total students in the surveyed classrooms, ranging from respective shares of 17.1% for grades 4-8 to 10% of students for junior kindergarten and kindergarten. Of classes surveyed, over 81% have at least one student with formally identified exceptionalities, and 27.7% contain 5 or more students with identified exceptionalities. In grades 4 and over, not only were class sizes generally larger but almost 1 in 3 (30.6%) classes contained 5 or more students with identified exceptionalities.
Students with Language Learning Challenges: The average number of English Language Learners and French Language Learners (ELL/FLL students) per class was 2.6. The prevalence was higher the lower the grade, ranging from 4.7 students for junior kindergarten/kindergarten to 1.7 students for grades 9 and over. ELL/FLL students accounted for an average 12.2% of total students in the classroom, ranging from respective shares of 24.7% for junior kindergarten / kindergarten to 8.2% for grades 9 and over.
The CTF survey looked at students “identified” as Special Needs, but did not include students who were undiagnosed or those with other glaring needs such as students from low-income families (with poverty-related issues of hunger, illness, instability), students with mental health problems, or immigrant and refugee students.
My researchED 2016 Washington presentation also delved into two Class Composition case studies – Inclusive Education in New Brunswick, 2006 to 2016, and Class Size and Composition in British Columbia, 2012 to 2016. In the case of New Brunswick, a province recently honoured by Zero Project for its “legally-binding policy of inclusion” in Feburary 2016, Guy Arsenault and the NBTA are now demanding a full Special Education review to secure “positive learning environments” and come to the aid of teachers forced to “don Kelvar clothing in the classrooms.” Out west, in British Columbia, a five-week 2015 BCTF teachers’ strike has produced only meagre gains in containing class sizes, while more and more classes have four or more and seven or more Special Needs students.
The real life classroom is not only far more diverse, it’s increasing challenging to manage let alone teach anything substantive. Class Size based upon Student-Teacher Ratios has long been accepted and used in staffing schools, but its utility is now being questioned by front line teachers. Student diversity, driven by “Inclusion” and the growing numbers of severely learning-challenged and disadvantaged kids is the new normal. The rise of “Coddled Kids” and “Helicopter Parents” has compounded the challenges. Tackling Class Composition is emerging as the top priority in teacher-led school reform.
Why is class composition emerging as the biggest problem facing front line teachers? Why do we continue to focus so much on simply reducing class sizes? What’s standing in the way of us tackling the ‘elephant in the room’ — class composition in today’s schools?
Nailed it!
I teach in New Brunswick. The analogy I use to describe the education policy here is that of a car. In NB we want a custom Lamborghini on a Ford Factory budget. Lamborghini builds hand made, one at a time custom cars at a rate far smaller than Ford, but also far more expensive. Ford builds many many cars each year for far less, but can do so because they send them down a robot assemby line. In NB schools we want a custom education for each child. A Personalized Learning Plan made just for you with your own learning goals. There is no failure, so everyone gets pushed through. This means a grade 10 teacher could be teaching grade 10 English to a classroom that spans Grade 1 to Grade 10 reading levels. Somehow this teacher must give something to each of her 30 students that hour. If she had 7 students she could manage teaching each and every one of them exactly where they were, but no, she has 30. They must be churned down the assembly line. NB must decide what it wants and what it can afford. If you want a custom education for each and every child, then just like a Lamborghini car buyer, you must pay for it. If you want to pay as little as you can to get a student to graduation, then a K-car can get you from point A to point B. Just make sure you lower your expectations of the ride.
1.Corporations-flawed materials sold..flawed methods.The corporations are all on the NYSE so look out,they are predominant!The methods impact on outcomes.
2.Superficial preparation of teachers-the professors who teach year after year are not able or forced to stay current on compelling research.
3.An outdated mandate for inclusion that as you so aptly state Paul refuses to look at the impact on the children and on the teacher.
This is such a great article,congratulations.
What is your view of Response to Intervention as a model?Intervening in small groups early and returning them to their classrooms stronger so they can succeed?
Preparations of teacher can certainly be addressed, but it leads to the question of how research and the teaching of this research can impact how a classroom is taught when each class is quite unique from the next.
The comment about parents is also interesting. I sometimes think that Kindergarten and First Grade classes need to be smaller because teachers not only teach the students, but play a role in educating the parents.
A recent 2015 report on the State of Inclusive Education in Alberta tends to support my analysis. Based upon a 2014 teacher survey, lead researcher Avis Glaze confirms that “class composition may be more problematic than size.” (See p. 11).
Click to access COOR-101-5%20The%20State%20of%20Inclusion%20in%20Alberta%20Schools.pdf
Inclusion sure makes it difficult in many cases. Need to consider class size reductions to compensate. Led to wars in BC.
Congratulations Paul!I just saw you on Yahoo.ca.First time in many years that I have seen a real story about education in the News…I read all the comments.
People know,they are simply stuck.
I hope your fine work drums some sense into them.
One more thing,L.D. is up significantly,one thing I know for sure,that`s a label for not teaching properly so the label gets more funding and provides the excuse as well.
What a deal for the establishment!
Sadly the reverse is also true. Segregated classes for those who could be integrated is also a streamed failing model.
Agree with Doug and Jo-Anne, but please be mindful of the long history of inclusion based on parent wishes in the 1970s in the US that spread to Canada in the early 1980s. So not really a “plot” by some mysterious nefarious “establishment”.
Reformers are always on the look for ways to have fewer teachers with larger classes.
I hope they don’t conclude that if we segregate more kids we don’t have to lower class sizes.
Your timing is impeccable Paul. The Supreme Court of Canada just gave BCTF a huge victory today declaring that the BC govt must negotiate class size and composition with BCTF and cannot legislate away this right. 😅
Excellent article.
My timing is impeccable, for a change, Doug. The British Columbia decision on Class Size and Composition is huge in terms of its potential impact upon teacher-government bargaining in BC and elsewhere. Here’s the most reliable news report:
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-teachers-win-landmark-supreme-court-of-canada-victory
The CBC News BC report on the impact of the BCTF Court Decision is also worth studying:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bctf-wins-supreme-court-battle-over-class-size-and-composition-1.3845620
Your “elsewhere” is important Paul. Ontario can hardly deny the right to negotiate these issues if the SCC has spoken on the issue.
It is fair to say among other things
– the history of education is too much a history of untested assumptions
– for policy makers too often beliefs are more important than facts
– too often policies are made without seriously looking into the “black box” of the classroom and asking those who work within the box (it is a box for those on the outside); i.e., teachers what is going on and why
Love that John!Amen!
YES. Class composition is surely equal to or more important now than class size as this article shows. We are overloading the teaching load more by including very difficult students than by having too many students. Everyone suffers a lower quality of service. The recent SCC decision supporting BC teachers bargaining rights over class size as a matter of constitutional law is a wake up call. Because collective bargaining is a fundamental right in Canada, the voice of teachers must be heard in teacher negotiations, but the right to be consulted is not the right to decide. The government must carry this key responsibility.
One reason NS pulled back on imposing contract. Present disposition of SCC is that you must bargain in good faith with teachers. Legislate against that and eventually look like a fool – Christy Clark and Kathleen Wynne.
Put special needs students in their own class, with extra teaching/EA support, no matter the severity of each special needs case. It’s not worthwhile to throw them into a classroom of able students, as the teacher will inevitably have to spend more time with their special needs students. Why detract from the education of the majority to assist the minority?