With larger class sizes, you tend to get more worksheets, more scantron-type tests, less personal interaction between students and teachers, and there is also a greater risk of kids in need “slipping through the cracks.”
Of course, kids who are accustomed to worksheets and T/F or multiple-choice tests tend to do about as well on standardized tests as kids who are taught using methods that emphasize critical thinking skills, but I don’t think those tests are the best way to evaluate educational outcomes. These tests are good and necessary, but not really indicative of the quality of education received in the classroom, IMO.
I’ve worked under both conditions — pre and post-CSR — and there is no question about the benefit of a smaller class size, IMHO. With a smaller class, the teacher knows when a student is falling behind or improving rapidly, and why. They are able to intervene more quickly and effectively, often having enough time to dedicate some time one-on-one every day or two. I was able to spend 1:1 time with each student almost every day, and the students made tremendous improvements because of it.
That being said, smaller class sizes are much more expensive, so in an environment where everyone is ranting and raving about budget deficits, it’s expected that the CSR program would take a hit. Education is the state’s #1 expenditure at ~40% of the state’s budget. Pensions, on the other hand, represent about 3-5% of the state’s budget.
Don’t forget all the savings we get to see as a result of getting rid of all of those “government parasites” in the classroom…and we get to eliminate pension contributions for them, too!!! You should be cheering for this, Pri!
