I’ve always been curious as to why the class size issue is presented as if there is one, single class size that “works best”.  I don’t think I buy that.  I have a feel the optimal class size has something to do with who is in the class.  It wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine a class of 30 achieving, “typical” kids who were easier to teach than a class half the size made up of kids with exceptionalities.

In other words, is the issue the size of the class or is it the diversity of needs and learning profiles within the class?

a great teacher is great with 6 kids or 36 - a poor teacher poor with 6 or 36. It’s not rocket science - class caps cost us way too much for what we get in return.

Same with the Early Learning Program.

Yet another board is chiming in with the shortfall in funding mantra

“Sunday, May 16, 2010 5:20 am

The Superintendent of Education for the Avon Maitland District School Board says they do not have final figures yet but they are anticipating a gap between funding for full-day early learning and their actual costs.
Kim Black says they’re still in the process of hiring Early Childhood Educators so they’ll have a better handle on exact figures once that’s done.
Black says they were funded for ten classes next year and they’ve actually got enough students for eleven.
So there will be a deficit.
She also says there are some questions around funding for special needs children and new equipment that will be needed for the new classrooms.
Black says they’re monitoring potential gap areas closely but she says it’s too early to know what the final numbers might be.”

We heard the same song from London earlier in the week.

Looks like the Liberals and unions are creating their own crisis all to keep teachers working and boards scrambling.

We will keep telling parents that the evidence shows that class size matters. You can keep saying that it does not matter. I hope you do because that means that we will win the debate before it ever starts.

Funded for only ten classes but actually have enough students for eleven classes you say Chuck? Sounds pretty popular down there. Guess it can only grow. You don’t need to stress yourself Chuck, it will all work out, just part of the everyday pushback between levels of government.

Isn’t interesting that indpendent schools or charter schools can afford smaller classes, if they so choose, because they aren’t constrained by collective agreements.

Just saying…

Come on Doretta, federations negotiated class size downwards for years until Harris came along and centralized it into legislation. They would love to keep going downwards.

I always love the hypocracy from the right that class size doesn’t matter while private schools use it as one of their main draws. Gee which is it?

I sure don’t see many private schools saying “come to our school, we like DI and phonemic awareness”.

It’s pretty clear to the rest of the province that the ELP promise is gearing up to be another liberal boondoggle.

Parents learn very early on that class size is a crap shoot where achievement is concerned.

The unions haven’t fooled anyone at all. As a matter of fact the elephant in the room is quickly making public education a most unaffordable proposition. Just wait until Dalton starts cutting. Not a matter of “if” but “when” OR he’ll leave a nice mess for Hudak to clean up. A mess worse that Bob Rae left for Harris.

It would not matter what class size it is, when education policies that are poor in design, will negatively impact the advantages of class size. It would not have matter if my child’s class size in the primary grades were whittled down to 15. Balance literacy, and the philosophy behind it, is one such policy, where only about 40 % of a class, will still succeed to learn to read well, by the end of grade 3. The other 60 % is stuck at various levels, of very poor to poor and to so-so reading levels. The only factor that may increase the levels of reading, is the quality of the teacher, her knowledge on reading processes (the science), and her beliefs in the philosophy of progressive education.

In the Toronto Star, the Liberals are listening to new ideas. Class size is on their menu.

Class size is the biggest dead end in the world,’ writer tells provincial Liberal think-tank
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/810122—class-size-is-the-biggest-dead-end-in-the-world-writer-tells-provincial-liberal-think-tank

Nancy,this is such a good posting!

agree Nancy - Great post!

We have to know that when the Toronto Star starts talking about the dead weight of class size that the status-quo spin is dead in the water because the Star’s readers are exactly those who Doug feel are no longer fooled by out-dated philosophy. We’re on to you dude!

You can keep beating the class size makes no difference all you want, I love it. It is an unpopular position that undermines the rest of your case. The research huge that it makes big difference and it is popular.

Gladwell is directly quoting the STAR study the Tennesse Value Added work.  We’ve been saying this forever.

“I know that from time to time there is a lot of interest in the power and importance of reducing class size but the data shows class size is the biggest dead end in the world,” Gladwell said. “

How does someone, come up with the Star study, when there is no mentioned of how Gladwell came to the conclusions that class size is the biggest dead end in the world. Furthermore, if one went to the bother, and look at Gladwell, his logic and where he looks at stats, is not only refreshing but there is a lot of common sense attached to it.

But to make another giant leap to assume Gladwell is on board with the Star studies is purely speculation.

There’s no surprise in federations forever trying to negotiate smaller class size; that translates into the need for more teacher in the federations. 

The key would be to look at what the federations were offering to contribute toward creating the smaller class sizes.  What did they offer to forego in order to fund smaller class sizes?

There have been occassions when federations have offered to accept slight increases in class size if it’d help cover off higher salary increases.

At the end of the day the whole class size issue is more a negotiating matter/job creation matter than a welfare of the kids matter.

With his arbitrary cap of 20 kids Daltie likely became one of the best negotiators the elementary teacher unions ever had.

I know John has missed me. I’m doing some education consulting in Shanghai. Smaller classes are good for kids and good for teachers. Generally speaking, teachers negotiate class sizes down which happens to be very popular with parents and the population in general. You can go into denial mode all you like these are just plain facts. I doubt if Hudak even has the nerve to say he will raise class sizes. This is positive proof that small classes are popular and large classes are unpopular.

Always interesting that elite private schools advertise their small classes. Hmmmm

That class size promise is about to go out the window when the kindergarten day care is fully implemented.  If I recall, it was mentioned by someone in goverment, Wynne I think, that class sizes may actually have to go up a bit in the primary grades. 

The issue is money and a big deficit.
In years past, boards used to be able to negiotiate class sizes as a trade-off for salary raises.  No more when the provincial govt. sets both. They can’t afford to keep reducing class sizes and at the same time increasing salaries.  It’s like a candle burning at both ends.

Adding on to what John has stated, is that class size is in reality, only on paper. One can go from one school to the next, with various sizes well above the 20.  Even in rural areas, where class sizes below 20, have been enjoyed in the past, is no longer the case for some smaller school boards.
The closures of schools did more to increase sizes of classes, and government’s policies on investment in school buildings, that lack any cohesiveness when it comes to maintenance, additions, and other capital investments.

No doubt smaller classes, not “small classes” would be better than bigger classes, not “big classes” might be nice if there was absolutely no impact on anything else.  As it is the issue is that the money and resources spent creating them is not available for anything else.  If, as we keep hearing, schools are perpetually short of just about everything it raises the question of what isn’t being made available in order to pay for the minor reductions in class size.

Creating an artificial demand for teachers by claiming slightly smaller classes are a top priority is pure politics being done on the backs of students.

John, you reminded me of something, and it is about numbers, the statistically significant. Why 20? Why not 18 or 19?  At 20, most boards would be able to reach that number more or less, due to the declining birth rate. As far as I know, if there is 52 students enrolling for K, it is split in two classes, of 26 . It will not be split until it is 60 plus. Anything below 20, would increase costs 10 fold, and make it unstable. Unstable, one year could have 45 students, the next two years, 65 students, and than the 4th year, back down to 46 students.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/PCS.pdf

There is one fault with the current model, being used in Ontario, split classes.

http://www.thespec.com/article/246139

It appears we’re mostly taking classes of 23 or less and insisting that they have no more than 20.  The cost of a minor reduction in class size will work out to hundreds of millions of dollars.

This was about paying off political cronies on the backs of taxpayers.