Small Classes Help Learning

“Class-Size Reduction Initiatives Faltering” (May 18) quoted many so-called experts who, if they do not actually teach children, at least can pretend to speak authoritatively, using questionable statistics in an attempt to justify educational cutbacks. The Times did not quote the teachers who have recently been “inheriting” students who have benefited from reduced-size classrooms. I am a fully credentialed teacher who has taught for many years. Experienced teachers like myself have seen dramatic improvements in reading and writing skills among the children who have recently come from reduced-size classrooms.

Fortunately, the public has the common sense to understand the real benefits of reduced-size classes. Parents realize that their children deserve a quality education, despite the attempts by so-called educational experts to justify financial cutbacks.

Craig Hansen

Redondo Beach

*

I’m sorry to read that some districts are giving up on class-size reduction so soon. Perhaps this is another example of putting too much reliance on a single measurement, in this case standardized test scores. The program had major weaknesses that have taken time to work out, the primary one being a lack of trained teachers to fill the new classrooms. The Cal State system was not given adequate support at the time to expand its teacher-training program. Now that the supply of credentialed teachers is catching up with the demand, shouldn’t we give class-size reduction a little more time to succeed?

At my school, class-size reduction has helped our students better make the difficult transition from middle school to high school. Classes of up to 40 ninth-graders were overwhelming some of our finest English teachers a few years ago and contributed to the high level of teacher attrition that continues to be a serious problem in education. I have difficulty imagining how our freshmen will continue to make strong connections to each other and to this school without class-size reduction.

Terence Harkin

Teacher, Hoover High School

Glendale

*

It is interesting that those who claim there is “no real evidence” to support the “mythology” of the benefits of reduced class size are researchers and administrators who are far removed from the classroom. It is obvious to anyone who has observed a small class that these students receive more teacher attention, have fewer distractions, gain more access to materials and are more involved in their own education than students in classes of 30 or more.

Actual learning is not always measurable on the all-important tests this administration advocates. At-risk students, whom class-size reduction was designed to help, traditionally score poorly on standardized tests. As a 24-year veteran teacher in public schools, I have seen the difference smaller classes can make. The numbers may not show it, but, undeniably, smaller classes give all students a better opportunity to learn.

Michael Duffy

Simi Valley

*

About six years ago, the class-size reduction phenomenon came to life in California and the practice spread quickly, fully funded and applauded by lawmakers. I predicted that the first recession that came along would demolish the reduction effort, because it was actually a disguised plan to do something else: solve the teacher-shortage problem. Today, with California in deficit and with many calling for tax increases and spending cuts, the hero will be the lawmaker who calls for an end to class-size reduction, saying that it has been duly tried and has failed. Thus, a few thousand teaching positions in the state will not have to be filled, saving millions of dollars. In the end, the maneuver will work because politicians are hardhearted and bold enough to pull that kind of prank on the children of what was once a great state.

Dave Maresh

Yucca Valley

*

Louis Harris’ “State’s Separate Systems for Rich and Poor” (Opinion, May 19) is an accurate description of California schools. He does, however, leave the most important question out. Why is there such a discrepancy in school climate when funding for schools at risk (at least in California) is as good as, and often better than, schools that serve the “privileged”?

If Harris had asked me that question, he would have heard the following: Students whose behavior is the primary cause of the most important poor working condition--the disruption of teaching in the classroom--are punished, counseled, medicated, removed and/or provided with therapy in privileged schools. Most of those same students in the “least privileged” schools are simply housed until they commit an act of violence, show disrespect to an administrator or grow too old. The result is often good teaching conditions in privileged schools and poor teaching conditions in the least privileged schools. Students who are willing to give learning their best effort are trapped in classes overrun by a few coddled delinquents who care nothing for learning. Many talented and experienced teachers become burnouts.

Indirectly, Harris has pointed out a critical problem that is not addressed in the current round of reforms. Until it is, the success of anything we do to improve public education is limited.

Gregg Beytin

Teacher, Hamilton Humanities

Magnet High School, Los Angeles