When I went and looked quickly at the contract provisions of the towns cited by Mr. Miskin, two things jumped out at me:

1. Many of these communities had *higher* classroom size restrictions for middle
schools than Framingham, and 30 students per class was not an unusual maximum. (Note one key exception: Many districts had 20 as a guideline for science classes, even the ones that had 30 in other classes. However, that issue could be remedied by the addition of a subject matter teacher, rather than a whole middle school team).

2. Many of the contracts had mitigating language similar to our existing
policy which says "within the constraints of space availability and budget
limitations" In other words, the language was non-binding, even though it was
in a contract instead of a policy.

I'm not clear on how big a problem this really is. If most of the classrooms that are over the guidelines are in the 26-28 student range, I don't see how that makes a huge difference with regard to student learning. There is a significant cost to adding teachers, especially if it involves the creation of new middle school teams, and if the class sizes are close to the guidelines, it doesn't seem like an efficient use of taxpayer money.

If we are talking classrooms of 30 or more, that is a different kettle of fish entirely.

Here is one research document of many that I found about class size. My question is why wouldn't the school committee be advocating with the teachers to reduce class size? Especially since we have some underachieving schools in town.

Konstantopoulos, S., & Chun, V. (2009). What Are the Long-Term Effects of Small Classes on the Achievement Gap? Evidence from the Lasting Benefits Study,” American Journal of Education 116. A summary of the effects of smaller classes on the achievement gap through eighth grade. Effects significant in all tested subjects, and for those in smaller classes for four years, very substantial. “The results … provided convincing evidence that all types of students (e.g., low, medium, and high achievers) benefit from being in small classes (in early grades) across all achievement tests…. in certain grades, in reading and science, the cumulative effects of small classes for low achievers are substantial in magnitude and significantly different from those for high achievers. Thus, class size reduction appears to be an intervention that increases the achievement levels for all students while simultaneously reducing the achievement gap.”

The key line is right in the policy: "within the constraints of space availability and budget limitations." Right now we have both of those issues. The district needs to invest its resources in a cost-effective way to advance student achievement and close the gap. Decreasing class sizes is a rather expensive option, and not the only way to close the achievement gap. Dr. Scott actually happens to know quite a bit about this issue, having written a book on the topic.

BTW: the study you cited specifically talks about the benefit of smaller class size in grades K-3 in closing the achievement gap through 8th grade. It doesn't say anything about smaller class sizes in later grades.

For research on class size, please visit http://www.classsizematters.org/fact-sheets-on-the-benefits-of-class-size/

You will find info. about a study of 2500 schools where the only correlation factor related to higher achievement was class size in the upper grades.

Class size matters and we should be striving for lower class sizes. It's a no brainer.

I'm sorry Mr. Miskin, but when did state law change that made the teacher's union in charge of setting policy for a school district? It sounds like there are a whole bunch of teachers who should take out nomination papers for the school committee race. Until then, maybe teachers should stick to teaching, and the school committee can stick to setting policy through tough economic times, factoring in hundreds of variables that the teachers hardly understand.

Contracts are no place for policy, period.

Mr. Chasan, I agree that we should strive for lower class sizes where it makes the most sense, but what does a policy decision like that that have to do with teacher contracts? Why would a district ever contractually state a policy, knowing that if a complete economic meltdown occurred that it would be in absolutely no position to honor the language of the contract agreement? Like I said above, if teachers are so concerned about policy, maybe they should run for a (non paying) position on the board that legally sets those policies. At an absolute minimum, maybe they should show up the some of those meetings where policy is discussed and debated, rather than just showing up one night every few years to complain about one policies.

If money and school buildings grew on trees, smaller class sizes certainly would be a no-brainer, but that isn't the world we actually live in. The state only has so much to give us, and the town already sets property taxes at the maximum levy. Maybe you'd like to try to drum up support for an override to increase the classrooms and teachers to support your expensive plan. As for myself, I will think practically and assume limited resources...

The study you cited is based on data that is 20+ years old, and a good many things have happened in the world and education since then, such as widespread use and support of differentiation and technology changes. The study actually does not measure whether smaller class sizes are more effective than other intervention strategies that might be used to reduce the achievement gap. It merely suggests that smaller class sizes have a larger impact on student performance than whether or not teachers have degrees and experience, racial tensions in the schools, school size, behavioral issues in the schools, etc.

I think boosting the hours of aides at the elementary level, as the district just did, is a more positive and pragmatic step, especially since some struggling schools were not staffed in an equivalent manner to other schools. Putting aides in classrooms is one way of mitigating the impact of larger class sizes, and is an example of the type of intervention that was not measured in the study you cited.

Natick school administrators have proposed a preliminary budget for next school year that would add about 27 positions, partly to reduce class sizes.

The budget, based on requests from principals and department heads, is for $50.5 million, about 8.5 percent above the current year’s $46.5 million budget.

There is a need for additional teachers at the high school, where some English, history and math classes have 28 to 30 students

The district in recent years added eight middle school teachers, helping keep class sizes down. Now the high school is experiencing that growth.

The preliminary budget for next school year includes seven teachers at the high school. At the middle school level, it includes a music instructor and a social studies teacher. There are also increases in administrative support and reading, speech and math specialists at elementary schools.

Some parents worried about high class sizes in kindergarten classes, which they said are around 25 students.

Other significant increases in the preliminary budget include contractual obligations, a cost-of-living adjustment for all employees, special education costs and transportation and energy expenses.

My question is: Why aren't we having this discussion in Framingham?

The discussion on class size is actually held every year, Herb. You should attend and watch *all* of the meetings, and stay to the end. It is just not part of a wish list/everything including the kitchen sink budget process. Instead, the district is creating priorities and making thoughtful requests to improve student performance, like, for example, the switch to full day kindergarten and technology upgrades.

Which schools have classrooms over 25 students?

What does the research say about the importance of reducing class size?

Fact: Class size is a proven and effective reform.

Students who are assigned to smaller classes in grades K-3rd score higher on tests, receive better grades, and exhibit improved attendance. Smaller classes result in achievement gains and lower dropout rates in the middle and upper grades.

Fact: The smaller the class, the better the outcome.

Any reduction in class size helps students to be on-task and positively engaged in learning.

Fact: Class size reduction narrows the achievement gap.

Students from disadvantaged groups experience two to three times the average gains from smaller classes than middle class white students.

Fact: Class size reduction is cost-effective.

Class size reduction yields numerous benefits that outweigh the cost. The estimated payoff in terms of increased earnings is twice as high as the costs.

Reducing class sizes is one of the most cost-effective public health measures, with large savings in health care and almost two years of additional life for those students who were in smaller classes.

Finally, even if reducing class size is costly, the question should be, compared, to what? If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Don’t we have a moral obligation to provide equitable opportunities to all children, especially when we know that class size reduction greatly benefits those who need this help most?

Ref. www.classsizematters.org

"Don’t we have a moral obligation to provide equitable opportunities to all children, especially when we know that class size reduction greatly benefits those who need this help most?" Of course, but "equitable opportunities" does not necessarily equal smaller class sizes. There are other ways to boost academic achievement that don't cost as much.

I'm not impressed when you quote a fact sheet from an organization whose sole purpose is decreasing class sizes. I'm doubting it is objective or unbiased.

Mr. Chasen - sorry I have to disagree and I have to wonder if you still have school age children. The issue is not class size - the issue is getting parents more involved with the importance of an education, the importance of homework, the importance of studying....

The issue is the home not the school! Many think we can just throw money at the problem and the problem will fix itself. It won't - stop deluding yourselves. If you were going to spend additional money on anything - then pay for kids to do their homework, get good grades (without cheating), i.e. give them incentive to learn if they aren't getting it at home.

In terms of class size and its impact - I'll challenge you to go into any classroom whether its 10 kids or 30 - there will almost always be one disruptive student in the class which is taking away from the learning experience of the others. Now if you can guarantee me the schools would remove all the disruptive kids and put them in their own class - then I'm all for getting another teacher (or lets face it a babysitter) for that crew. It is time we stop pandering to the lowest common denominator in the schools.

Truthfully, all this seems is part of the negotiation games that go on between the union and the town. We should ignore the noise.

Actually, the study that Herb cited is pretty definitive that it *isn't* the parents' fault, nor the fault of misbehaving kids. Many misbehaving kids are bored, either because they are too far ahead or behind their peers academically.

Blaming the parents is lame. Lots of middle class families hire private tutors for their kids. Lots of working class families actually work, and not always first shift, to support their families. Schools are stuck in the 1950s, and need to adapt to the reality that not all of their families come from 2-parent (with one parent working), English-speaking families that have the time and ability to aggressively monitor homework or the resources to hire tutors.

The schools that have the most success in closing the achievement gap are run and staffed by educators who take on the responsibility for educating all of their student.

Definitely agree with the last comment Derek.

Linda - I'm basing my comments more from what I see and hear in the trenches as a parent not as the reader of whatever 'definitive' study exists. Most of the kids that disrupt tend to do it because they can get away with it. They have little to no fear of authority (and yes I will blame parents for that). Teachers just don't want to be bothered - they know in most cases if they make an issue - the parents are going to come in blindly backing the child - from some of the things I hear - I wish a teacher had the ability to flip a switch and tape these parent's little darlings in action.

And yes circumstances have changed - but that does not absolve parents of their parental responsibilities. Putting this on the teachers shoulders is utterly unfair. Their job is to teach not parent.

My biggest issue with the throw money at the problem though is that there are some who have taken the 'it takes a village to raise a child' metaphor too far. For them they are now willing to sacrifice the village for the well-being of the child.

If anyone is interested in the class size issue and research, check out:

Class Size Matters, a non-profit, non-partisan clearinghouse for information on class size and the proven benefits of smaller classes

http://www.classsizematters.org

Wow! Pretty judgmental, aren't you Derek or whatever your real name is? That is a pretty broad brush to be using based on anecdote. You should read the study Herb posted the link to.

I don't believe in throwing money at a problem, but I do believe in making strategic investments in education.

Linda I said my opinion was based from the trenches - it was not sitting down by the old Oak tree listening to Grandpa Walton entertaining us with one of his 'anecdotes'. I base it on what I hear from my kids, their friends, other parents, what I have actually seen myself when volunteering at a school event and probably most importantly from friends and relatives that are teachers. So although that info is not bound into a nicely wrapped 'definitive study' it is a little more than anecdotal.

And if you are calling me judgmental because I believe parents should still take full responsibility for their children - then I'm guilty as charged.

I do agree that strategic investments in education obviously make sense. But buying 20 more teachers and patting ourselves on the back with an ok we've licked that education issue lets just sit back and watch those test scores go to the moon is delusion (I'm not saying that this is your position but more of general commentary on the give everything to schools crowd.) This is just what that crowd doesn't get. If your going to spend money either use it to directly incentivize kids or use it for a program (if one even exists) that gets parents more involved with their kids education.

It's still anecdotal evidence. I have heard countless stories of kids who act out in class because they are bright and bored in school, but aren't problems at home. Is this a parent problem? Likewise, there are plenty of kids who act out in school who are bored because because they have disabilities, or learn best in a non-auditory modality. They simply can't follow the material. They may or not have behavior problems at home. Sure, there are plenty of cases where there is a lack of discipline at home, but there are many root causes for behavioral problems. Sometimes a teacher with poor behavior management skills is also part of the equation.

I spent many years as a corporate trainer of new college grads entering the workforce. These are people being paid to sit in class. I have taught classes ranging in size from 7 to 30. I can tell you from my experience that the higher the class size the harder it is to really gauge the true abilitues of anyone other than the highest and lowest performers, and behavior problems. Adding another trainer helps, but not as much as lowering the class size. I can only imagine how exponentially harder this must be with children. I think you need to trust the teachers a little more on the effects of class size. If you have never spent your days standing in front of an overcrowded room of students you will be lacking important experience to fully inform your opinion on the topic, no matter how many studies you read. Try talking to an actual teacher or volunteering in a classroom. It may change your perspective.