4 ms·

Since "google it" seems to be the alpha and omega of your research abilities, here are some papers and research from the last five years that supports the case

by evgen 16y ago

Since "google it" seems to be the alpha and omega of your research abilities, here are some papers and research from the last five years that supports the case that smaller class sizes leads to better student outcomes when applied to K-6 education (as in long-term quantitative results and not just "student satisfaction"): Spyros Konstantopoulos and Vicki Chun, What Are the Long-Term Effects of Small Classes on the Achievement Gap? Evidence from the Lasting Benefits Study, American Journal of Education 116, November 2009. Peter Muennig and Steven H. Woolf, Health and Economic Benefits of Reducing the Number of Students per Classroom in US Primary Schools, American Journal of Public Health, published online September 27, 2007. Philip Babcock and Julian R. Betts, Reduced-class Distinctions: Effort, Ability and the Education Production Function, NBER Working paper 14777, March 2009. Sarah Theule Lubienski et.al., Achievement Differences and School Type: The Role of School Climate, Teacher Certification, and Instruction, American Journal of Education 115, November 2008. Elizabeth Graue, et.al. The Wisdom of Class-Size Reduction, American Educational Research Journal, September 2007, Vol. 44, No. 3. Douglas D. Ready and Valerie E. Lee, Optimal Context Size in Elementary Schools: Disentangling the Effects of Class Size and School Size, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2006/2007, pp. 99-135. Fatih Unlu, California Class Size Reduction Reform: New Findings from the NAEP, Princeton Univ., Nov. 2005 Jeremy D. Finn et.al., Small Classes in the Early Grades, Academic Achievement, and Graduating From High School, Journal of Educational Psychology, 2005. The best that the opponents of initiatives to reduce class sizes can muster are exemplified the recent efforts by anti-tax groups to fight Amendment 9 in Florida (see http://floridataxwatch.org/archive/amendment9.html http://floridataxwatch.org/archive/amendment9.html for an example) where there is a a great deal of political weaseling to try to minimize the available data. No studies are presented that show that reduced class sizes have a detrimental effect and a lot of words are spent trying to spin the results that are available. We are not talking about college-level instruction and you know that. The attempt to claim that research on college pedagogy is in any way applicable to elementary education is poor sophistry at best. To return the favor, how about you start listing some studies that show that reduced class sizes in K-6 have no long-terms effects on student outcome?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Look, I don't claim to be an expert. I was just asking you to cite some of the voluminous research you claimed existed, and pointing out that the case seems far from clear. I just cited the first two on-point google results, one of which was about grade 1. Also, no one is claiming reduced class sizes have a detrimental effect. The claim is that their effect is small and probably not cost effective. Now, on to your citations. Your first paper (Konstantantopoulos and Chun) agrees with me. It shows an achievement gain is 0.04-0.1 standard deviations, decreasing with time (they don't even bother to look past grade 8). The increase in cost is 66% (reducing class size from 25 to 15). Graduation probabilities are also increased by 3% (for students not receiving a free lunch) to 18% (for students receiving a free lunch), after 4 years of small class size (according to the Finn paper). So far, the only effect that seems significant is the graduation probability for students receiving a free lunch (assuming this particular effect is real, rather than just data mining). (Note: several of your other studies don't even try to address the claim that lower class sizes improve student achievement. Your paper by Woolf and Muennig is just an advocacy piece, assuming that education is the cause of all good things and arguing that we need more of it. )
- evgen 16y ago
  You cited a study of college-age students and a study from France when there is a wealth of domestic data ready for your to cite and you expect the claims to be taken seriously? As far as your claim that these were the first two on-point google results, I guess it just depends on what you search for: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=research+class+size+student+achievement http://lmgtfy.com/?q=research+class+size+student+achievement I beleive that you are misreading the Konstantantopoulos and Chun if you think that it agrees with you. An achievement gain of that size in education is actually quite significant and both the abstract and text make this clear. To dismiss the fact that the study followed a third grade class for five years and showed improvement down the line by saying that "they don't even bother to look past grade 8" is more spin than reasoned analysis. Once again, please provide the links to papers that show that smaller class sizes do not have a long-term positive impact on student performance. So far it seems you are much like the anti-CSR group I mentioned previously, all spin and bullshit. Prove me wrong.

by evgen 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Look, I don't claim to be an expert. I was just asking you to cite some of the voluminous research you claimed existed, and pointing out that the case seems far from clear. I just cited the first two on-point google results, one of which was about grade 1. Also, no one is claiming reduced class sizes have a detrimental effect. The claim is that their effect is small and probably not cost effective. Now, on to your citations. Your first paper (Konstantantopoulos and Chun) agrees with me. It shows an achievement gain is 0.04-0.1 standard deviations, decreasing with time (they don't even bother to look past grade 8). The increase in cost is 66% (reducing class size from 25 to 15). Graduation probabilities are also increased by 3% (for students not receiving a free lunch) to 18% (for students receiving a free lunch), after 4 years of small class size (according to the Finn paper). So far, the only effect that seems significant is the graduation probability for students receiving a free lunch (assuming this particular effect is real, rather than just data mining). (Note: several of your other studies don't even try to address the claim that lower class sizes improve student achievement. Your paper by Woolf and Muennig is just an advocacy piece, assuming that education is the cause of all good things and arguing that we need more of it. )

evgen 16y ago
You cited a study of college-age students and a study from France when there is a wealth of domestic data ready for your to cite and you expect the claims to be taken seriously? As far as your claim that these were the first two on-point google results, I guess it just depends on what you search for: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=research+class+size+student+achievement http://lmgtfy.com/?q=research+class+size+student+achievement I beleive that you are misreading the Konstantantopoulos and Chun if you think that it agrees with you. An achievement gain of that size in education is actually quite significant and both the abstract and text make this clear. To dismiss the fact that the study followed a third grade class for five years and showed improvement down the line by saying that "they don't even bother to look past grade 8" is more spin than reasoned analysis. Once again, please provide the links to papers that show that smaller class sizes do not have a long-term positive impact on student performance. So far it seems you are much like the anti-CSR group I mentioned previously, all spin and bullshit. Prove me wrong.