This is a naive view, with inaccuracies in at least one of the "facts" it claims to be wrong. It's what I would call a level 2 grad student view. Level 1 - yo

This is a naive view, with inaccuracies in at least one of the "facts" it claims to be wrong. It's what I would call a level 2 grad student view. Level 1 - you believe every research article you read and everything your advisors tell you, and you glom onto one area or viewpoint in particular without considering alternatives. Level 2 - you reject everything that isn't in line with your viewpoint. I've seen professors stuck at level 1 and 2. Level 3 - you start to see what's 'right' and 'wrong' (and more useful or less useful) about everything you learn. Consider this "fact" from the article, which has no citation whatsoever: "Increased K-12 spending and lower pupil/teacher ratios boost public school student outcomes." Which the author claims is "wrong." Actually the evidence suggests that it is right, although the effect of class size alone may be small. And it is not just a matter of how much an effect reducing class size has on learning, but also in what circumstances and to what extent. And even with these "facts", it doesn't mean that big classes are inherently always "bad" and useless - MOOCs are still quite useful even though 90% of students don't finish them. And large class lectures actually could be made more effective if given after (not before) a lab or other interactive learning activity. But a wealth of research has showed how one on one tutoring is generally the most effective method of teaching (which also directly contradicts the author's assertion that reducing class size has no effect). http://www.districtadministration.com/article/does-class-size-really-matter http://www.districtadministration.com/article/does-class-siz... http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/-issues-in-education/class-size?start=4 http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/-issues-in-education/class-...