LearnmoreMN Blog

The Importance of Class Sizes

By John Fitzgerald, Minnesota 2020 Fellow, April guest blogger

There are many factors that create a quality education environment that maximizes each student’s ability to learn. I would argue that none is greater than class size.

Of course, the quality of the teacher in that classroom makes a huge difference. Supplying that teacher with the proper curriculum and tools to teach is important too. A student’s home life and the quality of his peers — both inside and outside the classroom — have an enormous effect.
But all things being equal, a student in a class with 40 other students and one teacher isn’t going to learn very much.

In late 2008, I sent a short survey out to science teachers across the state asking if class sizes have gone up and if so, what that did to the quality of science education. The majority said class sizes have gone from an average of 25 students per class in 2003-04 to an average of 30 students per class this year. They said science classes should have no more than 24 students. This was especially important in laboratory classes; The National Science Teachers Association recommends four students in a group, and adding more is a recipe for trouble when working with Bunsen burners, glassware, dissecting scalpels and needles.

More than 67 percent of the science teachers said overcrowding has caused the quality of science education in Minnesota to go down.

More than 72 percent blamed overcrowded classrooms on underfunding by the state government. Since 2003 when the state took over education funding, state aid has dropped an inflation-adjusted 13 percent.

“We are all like gerbils on a treadmill trying to run faster with fewer resources, more kids, more testing, fewer computers per student for test prep and a huge change in community expectation over what schools should do about their children's education,” one teacher wrote.

Speaking of class sizes, there’s an excellent document that outlines what the optimal class sizes should be for classes preK-12. It’s called Investing In Our Future (PDF, 1.7 MB). It was commissioned by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and delivered in 2004. It was created by a blue-ribbon panel of educators who were asked to quantify a quality education.

“Investing in Our Future” is an intriguing document because it gives a solid, education-first examination of what Minnesota education should look like. It is remarkably thorough. Unfortunately, it has rarely been referenced in the halls of government. Gov. Pawlenty, Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke and her replacement, Commissioner Alice Seagren, have not used this document to help shape education policy. This is unfortunate, because it serves as an excellent starting point — if not an ending point — for education policy.

The group broke into three panels, each consisting of a district superintendent, a business manager, three principals — one from each level of schooling — and a classroom teacher from urban, suburban, and rural districts. Some panelists came from professional associations, but most were vetted by the Department of Education. The panels designed “adequate” instructional programs to meet Minnesota’s academic standards for prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools given a variety of student-need characteristics.

After the panels created a core curriculum and adjusted it for various levels of student ability (ELL, special education, high achievement, etc.) they offered suggested class sizes on page 58:

• Preschool 8 students to 1 teacher
• Kindergarten 8:1
• First Grade 16:1
• Second Grade 16:1
• Third Grade 16:1
• Fourth Grade 16:1
• Fifth Grade 16:1
• Sixth grade – Eighth grade 19:1; less for remediation; larger for band, vocal music, physical education
• Ninth grade – Twelfth Grade 26:1 which varies depending on band (larger) and some electives(smaller sizes)

This is why I find “Investing in Our Future” to be such a valuable document. Commissioned by our governor, created by our experts, it tells us what we already know — that class size does matter, that smaller classes are better than larger classes, and we owe it to our children to keep class sizes as low as possible.

Achievement Gap and Poverty

By John Fitzgerald, April guest blogger

I recently wrote an essay for Minnesota 2020 about the achievement gap. My goal was to bring to light new figures that show the gap still exists and has not changed for the better.

The achievement gap is most often seen through the lens of race — that is, how do minority students compare to white students? In Minnesota, they fare quite poorly. In 1992, white fourth-grade students scored 223 on a National Assessment of Educational Progress test while African American students scored 189, a gap of 34 points. Fifteen years later, that gap was 33 points. In eighth-grade math, white students scored 277 in 1990 and African Americans 236 — a gap of 41 points. In 2007, that gap was 37 points.

But race isn’t the only way to look at the achievement gap. Significant differences can be seen between those children who live in poverty and those who do not.

More than 30 percent of Minnesota students qualify for free and reduced price school lunch, the federal standard for poverty. There was a gap in the reading test of 30 points between fourth-graders from high-income families and low-income families in 1998. That gap was 27 points in 2007. Minnesota’s low-income fourth-graders rank 31st in the country in test scores.

The situation is worse in the eighth-grade math test. What was a 19-point difference in 2000 is a 25-point difference in 2007.

What’s the answer to the achievement gap? Heck if I know. I am often reminded of the saying “A war is won with boots on the ground.” I suspect that the achievement gap problem — vast and nationwide — will require a solution that includes increased manpower to reach out to students in danger of becoming achievement gap statistics. We simply must not allow these students to fail.

NCLB’s True Worth to Minnesota

By John Fitzgerald, Minnesota 2020 Fellow, April guest blogger

Last fall, the prestigious publication Education Week hosted an online chat about the federal No Child Left Behind law. One of the panelists was David Figlio, a professor at Northwestern University and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ellen Solek of East Haddam, Conn., asked if Figlio was aware “of any current research that has, or is being conducted that determines correlation (if any) between K-12 student test scores, accountability, and future success in the workplace?”

This is a magnificent question because it goes to the heart of NCLB and how it relates to every Minnesotan. The question is simple: What difference does NCLB make?

Figlio doesn’t really have an answer. First, he says this: “It's too early to know about the effects of accountability on workplace success.” Then he says “there have been a number of studies that have linked K-12 test scores to labor market outcomes as adults,” but then adds “these papers use data that are decades old, however.”

He also says there is evidence that college selectivity, which is associated with higher K-12 test scores, has important effects on wages in early adulthood. But then he says “it will take another decade before we know the degree to which school accountability directly plays into this mix.”

So what did Figlio really say? He said we don’t know if high-stakes testing a la NCLB actually improves our workforce.

It’s safe to say that improving the workforce is one of two ultimate educational goals; the other being to prepare children to become participating, law-abiding citizens. If NCLB — or any other program — can produce good workers who can stay out of prison, then we should be happy.

But the fact is we don’t know if NCLB is working or not. We have anecdotal evidence that NCLB’s high stakes test bumps up results, but we have more anecdotal evidence that shows the bumps don’t last through the next year, and they come at the expense of other subjects such as science and art because schools take time away from other subjects to “teach to the test.”

In Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove, Gus describes Jake as “a mighty leaky vessel to be putting one’s hope into.” For the reasons listed above and for many others, NCLB is a mighty leaky vessel for us to put our hopes of a better education.