I went to a two-room rural elementary school (Grades 1 through 8). There were 90 students — 45 in each room, divided into 4 grades each, and probably 45 different ability levels. Later on, several similar schools, in the county, were amalgamated into a larger one that allowed for individual class rooms per grade (or two). That was certainly an improvement; so I will agree that there are limits to class size.
What I’m referring to is classes the size they are now — typically fewer than 25 students, of a single grade. That’s where reduced class size won’t help.
Thanks to “mainstreaming”, where there are a number of special-needs students in a typical classroom, there’s no doubt that teacher aides and tutors can help. These positions cost a lot less to fill, than fully-qualified teachers.
Also, if the way classrooms are managed, and “teaching” is done; larger (about where they are now) class sizes can be better than smaller ones. Tax-chick mentions the negative correlation in post # 11. In other words, work smarter (not only teachers — the whole public-education monopoly needs to work smarter).
Class size became an issue, when the demographics (declining birth rates) reduced the number of “clients” for the school system — while the universities and teacher colleges continue to crank out ever more teachers. The newly-minted teachers want a job (naturally); and the unions want their dues (naturally) — in neither case is quality of education actually a concern.
“The newly-minted teachers want a job (naturally); and the unions want their dues (naturally) — in neither case is quality of education actually a concern.”
And that seems to apply especially when it comes to the minting of the teachers. Eek!