Many studies out there seem to tout the advantages of small class sizes on student achievement, especially at the elementary levels. While not all studies on the subject have shown that students learn more in smaller settings—and while many are still ongoing—most studies have found some benefits. These studies indicate that the greatest success in small class size and increase in student achievement is seen in the grades K-3 and in the more economically disadvantaged (free and reduced lunch) students. Some 40 states have adopted federal class-size-reduction programs, under the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary School Act—popularly known as "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001—with small elementary class sizes in the range of 17-20 students per classroom. With so many states/districts adopting these policies why then is ASD seeming to go backward with this concept? It seems that all of the elementary schools in the district now have in excess of 25-28 students in a classroom (with the exception of Dayton Elementary). With the upcoming “discussion” of the closing of Kittanning Township Elementary and merger with Elderton Elementary it seems this trend is continuing. What do these districts know that ASD does not? Why is ASD seeming to do the opposite, with decreasing class sizes in the upper classes rather than the elementary?
Some of the benefits and advantages of small class size may be seen in a number of different ways. For example, small class size could affect how students interact with each other—how they engage socially. This could result in less noise and disruptive behavior in the classroom, and in turn affect the kinds of activities the teacher is able to provide. Smaller class size may also affect the time a teacher is able to focus on individual students and their specific needs rather than on the group as a whole which may then result in increased individual attention. The class size could also affect the teacher’s allocation of time and, therefore, effectiveness, in other ways, too—for example, he/she may be able to cover much more material, or may choose different methods of teaching and assessment. They may assign more writing, or provide more feedback on students’ written work, or use open-ended assessments, or encourage more discussions, all excellent tools for improving achievement. It is also thought that exposure to a particular learning environment may not only affect learning over the time period of exposure, but may have long term or delayed effects as well (e.g., by increasing self-esteem or cognitive developments that have lasting effects). Various other advantages have been seen with a decrease in class size also, such things as noticeable declines in the number of disciplinary referrals, improved teacher morale, focus on prevention rather than remediation and higher levels in classroom participation by students.
Shouldn’t the energies and finances of the district be focusing on how to keep ALL of our elementary class sizes small and thus bestowing advantages on our children at their youngest and most impressionable levels rather than fighting over buildings, vying for dominance and control, and crushing educational advantages? Isn’t this the job of our elected School Board Directors and Administrators—to work together for the common good of the district, to focus on the educational issues at hand, help ALL of our children to achieve educational excellence and to afford them every choice and opportunity possible??
