Class-Size Reduction

Edward P. Lazear’s “Smaller Class Size Isn’t a Magic Bullet” (Commentary, Sept. 2) correctly summarizes the problems that schools have experienced when they make class-size reduction a higher priority than other educational reforms. However, Lazear erroneously states that congressional Republicans have “followed suit” on President Clinton’s “100,000 new teachers” plan. He writes that the Teacher Empowerment Act would “require local school districts to spend a portion of the federal booty on reducing class size.”

The TEA would provide $2 billion in grants to local schools. The priority would be hiring new teachers to reduce class size, but schools would also have the choice to spend funds to promote innovative reforms, such as tenure reform, teacher testing, merit-based pay and alternative certification, at the discretion of local officials. The funding would come from eliminating the 100,000 new teachers program, as well as other redundant federal programs.

My subcommittee has conducted hearings on teacher training. All the evidence is that class-size reduction is of little or no value unless accompanied by a highly qualified teacher. One of the problems with California’s class-size reduction program is that it has flooded schools with tens of thousands of unqualified teachers. My bill would give local schools the power to decide that all-important question: How much money should be spent on class-size reduction and how much on teacher improvement?

REP. HOWARD P. McKEON

R-Santa Clarita

*

I disagree with Lazear’s assertion that small class size only benefits disadvantaged children or children with special needs. It ignores a wide range of individual differences in learning. Not all students who do poorly in large classes are learning-disabled. Even potentially good performers may find themselves lost in a large class setting.

A smaller student-to-teacher ratio allows for more interaction between student and teacher. This may make it easier to identify students with special needs earlier in the process. Small classes allow for more individualized instruction, which is superior to a blanket, singular method characteristic of larger classes. Even students with superior learning skills may be better motivated with the attention provided by a smaller class size. One-on-one interaction with the teacher enhances the self-esteem of even the average student, let alone those with “special needs.”

Catholic schools with large class sizes preselect for attentive students from advantaged backgrounds. These students do not really represent the public school population. I question Lazear’s finding that most students would only marginally benefit with a smaller student-to-teacher ratio.

BILL ROBERTSON

Santa Barbara