Recently, I attended one of the Local Control Funding Formula Accountability meetings. In our break-out group, it was mentioned that some of our freshman algebra classes contained as many as 46 students. When I expressed my concern (outrage?), the district employee who was leading our group commented "Yes, but the teacher also has some smaller classes, too." Her point was focused on teacher workload, not the actual teaching itself.
Somehow, 46 students in an algebra class was acceptable if the teacher's next class only contained 35 students. That was the other number she provided. 35. In her mind it was all about class size averages. At this same meeting, our Superintendent shared some district goals of class-size reduction numbers, again using "averages." A real commitment in class size reduction should be expressed in "maximums", not averages. How many of our kids might end up in a classroom with 46 students?
What does that classroom looks like, the one with 46 students? Studies show that students will feel much less comfortable in such large classes, less inclined to seek help, assuming time even allows for such. Help. We tell teachers that they are not to simply lecture, that they are to engage the student. All 46 of them. How?
Constantly, we hear from our Superintendent about the "achievement gap". We really need to pay more attention to the "teaching gap."
This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.
The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?