About class size | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Kristy Bailey, writing in the Carolina Journal appears to be taking Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson to task for Atkinson's current crusade to sell the idea of lower class sizes in the state. Even Republicans get on the "smaller class size bandwagon." In the last session of the Legislature, Senate Leader Phil Burger pushed through an "education reform" program that spent most of its money on reducing class size in the early grades. It's a popular topic, both for "spend more advocates" to trumpet and for the "cut spending advocates" to point out that there is no solid research to show a high cost/benefit return on the millions of dollars it costs to reduce class size, even by a miniscule amount. You can read the latest round in the debate by clicking here.

    I'd offer some observations based on 42 years in the business.

    First, Governor Perdue, Superintendent Atkinson and other education leaders should really stop and realize how utterly foolish they sound to say that the nearly $10 billion dollars that were dumped into the K-12 system in 2009 and 2010 from Obama's "stimulus" program should be maintained. The problem with their argument is simple: They are totally unable to show any significant improvement in student achievement as a result of the massive influx of money. Clearly, if you ever wanted an example of how "throwing money at education" does not produce education you'll never find a better illustration.

    Atkinson missed a golden opportunity to show what could be done if schools had more money when the stimulus funds were doled out. She and every educational leader I know blew that opportunity. So I have to wonder how they can sleep at night asking the beleaguered taxpayers to continue spending that kind of money when they can't show obvious results.

    But back to class size.

    One thing that is essential to understand in this debate is how expensive it is to reduce class size. For example, the last legislature dumped $124 million new dollars into reducing class size in K-3. But that only reduced the average class size from 18 to 17 students. I'll just predict here and now that having 17 students rather than 18 in a K-3 class will make absolutely no difference except to the payroll department. And, of course, the additional teachers who got/kept a job who otherwise would not have.

    What's needed in the debate is some common sense.

    Commons sense, based on 42 years of experience, tells me that a good teacher can do a better job with 17 students than he/she can with 35 students. But how much better is open to serious question.

    I would suggest that a good teacher can do a better job with 35 students than a weak teacher can with 17. That's common sense. So why don't the Governor, Superintendent and President Pro Tem talk about improving the quality of teachers rather than reducing the number of students? You tell me that and we'll both know.

    I suspect the answer is that they don't really know how to produce better teachers. The same bunch will say that we have to pay them more. But then they'll come up with a system that pays the weak teacher more just like the good teachers. Makes no common sense whatsoever.

    I would suggest also that the current crop of teachers (not more, not even better) could do a better job is they did not have to worry about students who disrupt the learning of others and especially those who just don't care. Doesn't it make common sense that it would be smarter to give good teachers 20 kids who behave themselves and do what they are told to do and put the ones who are going to disrupt and lollygag in separate classrooms? Yep, I'm suggesting that "heterogeneous grouping" be eliminated.

    And as for the class size, I would suggest that we develop a pay schedule that allows a teacher to add as many more students as he/she wants and pay them something like $4000 per student (half of the revenue each of those students generate) that makes the amount of progress their previous record indicates they should make in a year. Performance pay? Yep. But at the same time, allow those teachers to reject any student they choose from being assigned to them. (You have to ponder that one to really understand what it would do.)

    But here's my radical idea. Impose a surcharge on parents of kids who are "rejected" unless they can find another teacher who will accept them. Yep, I'm talking about "choice." Teachers' choice.

    At the same time, allow parents to choose the school and teacher they want their kid to have.

    I'll bet you this: Class size would not be so important anymore.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.