# data[].attributes.body
The advocacy issue that I chose as the student centered challenge is how class size has a effect on students in terms of student achievement, attendance, or behavior in k-8.

# data[].attributes.body
Students will be placed in a classroom randomly in a class of 10 students, 20 students, or 30 students to show how class size has a effect on student's learning.

# data[].attributes.body
In a peer review article, It was found that students show better achievement in a smaller classroom due to have student- teacher interactions than being in a full classroom and not receiving the one on one attention they need.

Folmer-Annevelink, E., Doolaard, S., Mascareño, M., & Bosker, R. J. (2010). Class size effects on the number and types of student-teacher interactions in primary classrooms. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(2), 30-38.

# data[].attributes.body
Which class size has effect on student's achievement, attendance, or behavior.

# data[].attributes.body
I will obtain the attendance records, grades, and behaviors weekly from every student that are randomly placed in a classroom for the plan. I will meet with the students weekly to see how they feel about their class size they are placed in.

# data[].attributes.body
I will be monitoring everything for a whole semester from August to December.

# data[].attributes.body
If I do not see how student's achievement, attendance, or behavior is effecting by class size within a semester then I would do the next semester after christmas break until the last day of school.

# data[].attributes.body
My goal is to have the goal completed by the end of the year to show how important class sizes make a difference toward students.

# data[].attributes.body
- Positive attitude towards work and learning
- Apply self motivation and self directions to learning
- Actively engaged in challenging coursework
- Demonstrate ability to overcome barriers to learning
- Create positive and supportive relationships with other students

# data[].attributes.body
The teachers for each class size will meet with the school counselor once a week to show progress in their classroom test scores, learning styles, what is working best for them.

# data[].attributes.body
School Counselor will meet with the students and teachers individually and in group settings to see how they feel about their class size, any barriers, or achievements.

# data[].attributes.body
Keeping track of how their student is doing in their class size and if they are seeing a difference in their behavior, grades, or their attendance of waiting to come to school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to a January 2015 study of tax rates in all 50 states by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, called "Who Pays", Washington families pay among the highest state taxes in the nation - 20% above the national average. Washington families should therefore have the best funded schools and lowest class sizes in the nation. Instead, Washington's one million children are forced to endure the highest class sizes in the nation. How can this be? In this report, we will "follow the money" to see how the Washington state legislature is robbing our schools of billions of dollars and robbing our children of their future in order to line the pockets of a few billionaires and wealthy multinational corporations.

Why Small Class Sizes are Important
Small class sizes matter to the future of our students because small class sizes allow struggling students to get the help they need to succeed in school and succeed in life. For example, the nation's largest study on class sizes found thatlow income students who were lucky enough to have four full years of smaller classes were much more likely to graduate than their peers who had years in smaller class sizes:

http://www.classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Small-Classes-in-the-Early-Grades-Academic-Achievement-and-Graduating-From-High-School.pdf

A 2011 study, summarizing the life academic and economic outcomes of students in smaller classes in the STAR study compared to their peers who had normal class sizes, found that "The effects of class quality fade out on test scores in later grades but gains in non-cognitive measures persist. " Put in plain English, high stakes test scores are not an accurate predictor of future student performance. However, student engagement from small class sizes is predictive of future success as an adult.

Here are just some of the adult outcomes for these students 20 years later of being in a smaller class in elementary school: Students were significantly more likely to graduate from high school, attend college, start a savings account, buy a home, get married and stay married. Students were less likely to commit a crime or go to prison. Much of this information was obtained from federal tax returns of 95% of the nearly 12,000 students involved in the STAR study. Source: Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., Hilger, N., Saez, E., Schanzenbach, D.W., & Yagan D. (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1593-1660.

http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/STAR.pdf

In a separate analysis, Alan Krueger, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, estimated that every dollar invested in reducing class sizes yielded about $2 in long term economic benefits. https://etec511.wikispaces.com/file/view/economic+considerations+and+class+size.pdf

Smaller Classes Lead to More Successful Students
Wealthy private schools understand the importance of small class size. For example, at Lakeside Private School in Seattle, average class sizes are 16 students. If class sizes of 16 students is considered ideal for the children of the wealthy, small class sizes of 16 students should be available to all students in Washington state.

Unfortunately, according to the National Center for Education Statistics Schools and Staffing Survey (Table 8), Washington State has the third highest class sizes in the nation for elementary school, the second highest class sizes in the nation for middle school and the second highest class sizes in the nation for high school. Sadly, Washington has the Highest Class Sizes in the Nation
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t1s_007.asp

This estimate of class sizes comes from a national survey of classroom teachers in which teachers are asked how many students are in their average classroom. This survey indicates that for Grades 1 through 6, the national average class size is 21 students and the average class size in Washington state is 24 students. For Grades 7 through 12, the national average class size is 27 students and the average class size in Washington state is 30 students.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.30.asp

Here is a distribution of class sizes showing which states have low, average, above average or extremely high class sizes:

However, even this survey of teachers under-reports the actual class sizes in the nation and in Washington state because it includes Special Education teachers who often have classes of under 10 students. Excluding Special Education classes, the typical or median class size in the US is likely close to 29 students and in Washington state, the typical or median class size is close to 32 students per teacher per class period.

Why Actual Class Sizes are Much Larger Than Student to Teacher Ratios
The most common mistake made when discussing class size is to confuse class sizes with Student to Teacher Ratios. The Student to Teacher Ratio is determined by dividing the total number of students in a school or a state by the total number of professional staff at the school or the state. For example, if you go to the Washington State OSPI website and click on Apportionment, then Publications, then Personnel Summary Reports, then select a year, then click on Table 46, you will get a report called "Ratio of Students to Classrooms." This is actually the Student to Teacher Ratio. For the 2014 school year, this ratio was 18.2 students per teacher. http://k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/PER/1415/tbl46.pdf

This type of statistic might mislead one into believing that the class sizes in Washington state are only 18 students - which would mean Washington state has the lowest class sizes in the nation and in the world. Yet if you walk into any real classroom at any real school in Washington state and count the actual students, you will see about 30 students in the real classroom. Many classrooms have 35 to even 40 students!

The OSPI state report card is also misleading. It indicates that Washington state has 1,075,107 students and 60,543 Classroom Teachers. This would lead one to believe that the average class size is 18 students in our state. Why is there such a huge difference between the Student to Teacher ratio reported by OSPI and the number of students in real classrooms? The problem is that OSPI uses an extremely broad definition for classroom teacher. Many so-called classroom teachers are actually administrators. We need administrators. But we should not be misleading parents and voters by calling them teachers. Using Student to Teacher ratios misleads the public and even legislators into thinking that class sizes are not that bad when the truth is that
class sizes in Washington state are among the highest in the nation.

In fact, using a real average class size of 30 students, the actual number of classroom teachers we have is about 36,000. This means that OSPI is mis-reporting 24,000 administrators as teachers. This also means that at 10,000 additional teachers per billion dollars, it would take about $3.6 billion dollars per year to cut class sizes in half here in Washington state. This does not include the cost of support staff or building the actual schools. Nor does it include raising the pay of teachers here in Washington state to the West Coast average or eliminating the use of local levy funds for basic education. My plan to cut class sizes in half therefore includes one billion dollars for replacing levy funds, one billion for increasing teacher pay, four billion for building hundreds of new schools every year, and four billion for hiring 36,000 new teachers and 4,000 additional support staff. The total needed to cut class sizes in half is about $12 billion in additional revenue per year.

Given the fact that poor and middle class families in Washington state are already paying the highest state taxes in the nation, a more accurate question is
Where can we get $12 billion per year needed to cut class sizes in Washington state in half?
where are the money went that should have gone to our public schools? It turns out that there is no need to increase taxes at all. What we really need to do is decrease tax breaks for the wealthy. It will be impossible to lower class sizes for struggling students until we first recognize and better understand how Washington legislators real Paramount Duty has not been our public schools but rather giving away more than $36 billion in tax breaks to wealthy multinational corporations (who pay for their re-elections). Here is a graph of the increase in the number of state tax breaks since 1996:

Here is a graph of the increase in the dollar amount of the tax breaks in billions of dollars compared to total state revenue and spending for public schools:

Understanding the Deceptive Nature of the Washington Department of Revenue Tax Break Reports
The Washington legislature has not only approved the largest tax breaks in the US, they have approved the largest most unsustainable tax breaks in the history of the world. This is why we now have such a broken tax system.

Since tax breaks for the wealthy are what prevent us from fully funding schools, any parent or teacher who wants to understand why Washington has the highest class sizes in the nation must take time to understand how the public is being deceived about the amount of these state tax breaks. This subject is complex. So try to be patient, take your time and read slowly.

Every four years since 1984, the Washington State Department of Revenue is required by law to release a Tax Exemption Report. Here is a quote from RCW 43.06.400 authorizing this report: "Beginning in January 1984, and in January of every fourth year thereafter, the department of revenue must submit to the legislature prior to the regular session a listing of the amount of reduction for the current and next biennium in the revenues of the state or the revenues of local government collected by the state as a result of tax exemptions. The listing must include an estimate of the revenue lost from the tax exemption, the purpose of the tax exemption, the persons, organizations, or parts of the population which benefit from the tax exemption, and whether or not the tax exemption conflicts with another state program."

It should be obvious that giving away tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks every year conflicts with the Paramount Duty of the legislature to fully fund our public schools. E very billion dollars of tax exemptions means 10,000 more teachers losing their jobs and thousands of kids forced to endure higher class sizes . This fact is not mentioned on any of the tax break reports.

In January 2016, Vikki Smith, the current Director of the Washington State Department of Revenue released the 2016 Tax Exemption Report, which she called the 2016 Tax Exemption Study. I have spent more than 8 years researching and writing analysis of the previous four versions of this report and I will briefly summarize my findings here You can download a PDF file of this 910 page study at the following link:
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/2016/Tax_Exemption_Study_2016/2016_Tax_Exemption_Study_Entire_Report.pdf

The Department of Revenue currently collects about $20 billion per year in taxes but also exempts at least $30 billion per year in state taxes. The DOR Tax Exemption Study attempts to describe the $30 billion per year in lost state revenue. These $30 billion in lost state revenue are "justified" by corrupt state legislators with the false claim that they "create jobs." In fact, history shows that in nearly every case, tax exemptions to wealthy multinational corporations like Microsoft and Boeing do not create jobs. For example, after receiving billions in tax breaks, Boeing has laid off thousands of workers and used their tax breaks to build a non-union airplane manufacturing plant in South Carolina - firing thousands of Washington workers. Microsoft used their tax breaks to build sweat shops in China - also firing thousands of Washington workers.

However, as was true of the 2012 Report, authored by the former director of the Department of Revenue, Suzan Delbene, the 2016 report has several glaring omissions:

First, the 2016 study does not include the 1997 tax break on commercial intangible property. Since this is one of the largest of all the tax breaks accounting for several billion dollars in lost revenue with these benefits going almost entirely to three of the the richest people in the world, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Paul Allen, one has to question the validity of the rest of the 2016 Tax Exemption Study.

Second, this report does not mention the billion dollar per year Microsoft Business and Occupation tax break. Microsoft achieves this tax break by claiming that they are located in Nevada - when everyone including the Washington State Department of Revenue knows they are located in Redmond Washington.

Third, this report does not fully analyze revenue lost by manipulating the Business and Occupational categories that alway some businesses to pay these taxes at an extremely low rate while other businesses pay these taxes at an extremely high rate. It simply assumes the previous manipulated B & O rate was somehow fair or accurate. A more consistent way to evaluate any tax would be against a set standards such as a one percent B & O tax.

Fourth, this report low balls the amount of revenue lost through tax breaks by falsely claims that repealing all 694 tax breaks (now up to more than 700 thanks to the 2016 legislature) would only generate about $30 billion. This claim is based on another blatantly false assumption that repealing the 1931 intangible property tax break on personal property would not generate more revenue but merely shift the burden of total property taxes away from some tax payers and to other tax payers. Here is a quote from Section 1, page 3 of the study: "Repealing a property tax exemption does not increase state revenues. Removing a property tax exemption broadens the tax base, and at the same time reduces the tax rates. This reduces the property taxes for existing taxpayers, and shifts property tax to currently exempt taxpayers."

In fact, our state constitution has a one percent tax rate on all property. If you own a $200,000 home, one percent of that is $2,000 in property taxes. But if the value of your home doubles to $400,000, then one percent of that is $4,000. The state revenue is directly related to the value of property. So if the value of property doubles, the tax burden is not merely shifted from one tax payer to another - the total state and local taxes available doubles. How Vikki gets away with such an absurd statement is because local levy rates are set by the total amount of the levy and if the total amount did not raise then the burden would just shift from one property owner to another. What Vikki is ignoring is that the total levy is almost always limited by the one percent limit rule in our state constitution. Doubling the amount of property would double the revenue available for funding public schools.

Vikki next mistakenly assumes that the value of intangible property is only $2 trillion. Intangible personal property is discussed on page 17-458 of the 2016 tax exemption report. On page 459, Vikki states that her assumption is that the value of personal intangible property exempted is $1,907 billion or about $2 trillion or about the same as the value of tangible property in Washington state. The ratio of tangible to intangible property was 50-50 in the 1990s. But there has been a dramatic rise in the value of intangible property to the point where by 2010, intangible property accounted for about two thirds of all property. In other words, since we know that tangible property in our state

Due to a rapid rise in the concentration of wealth in the hands of the richest one percent, and with nearly all of this wealth being in the form of intangible property, the amount of lost revenue due to this tax exemption has skyrocketed since 1997 to the point where it is now causing a loss of state funding of more than $4 billion per year.

It is no mere coincidence that our State has been short changing our public schools by billions of dollars a year ever since. As a direct result of this massive and unwise State tax give away, as well as the federal tax cuts since then, the wealth of the richest one percent of our population has DOUBLED in the past 2 0 years from 20% of our total wealth to 40% of our total wealth. This single exemption was responsible for $7 billion in state tax breaks per biennium or $3. 5 billion in state tax breaks per year in 2008. This makes this single tax break much larger than any other tax break. The law allowing for this tax break is RCW 84.36.070. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.36.070

billions of dollars in tax breaks to our richest citizens years by exempting over one trillion dollars of "intangible property" from our State property tax. It is the single largest tax break in the history of our state and bigger than the Billion Dollar Per Year Boeing Tax Break and the Billion Dollar Per Year Microsoft Tax Break combined!

A Billion Dollar Shift in Property Tax Burden from Investors to Homeowners
One mechanism that led to this loss of state revenue was that wealthy investors suddenly had a huge financial incentive to mis-classify their commercial tangible property as intangible property. This is what many investors did - causing a huge shift in property tax burden from investors to homeowners. Here is a graph of this shift:

Source: Washington State Department of Revenue
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/wa_tax_system_11_17_2004.pdf

The property tax burden on middle class homeowners has skyrocketed in the past 14 years as the ratio of commercial to residential tangible property has shifted from about 50-50 in 1997 to 66% residential to 33% commercial by 2006. When $100 billion dollars of commercial property is exempted from property taxes, residential property taxes must go up even if State and local spending remains the same.

As a consequence of these tax break for millionaires, and tax shifts to our middle class, our middle class now pay much more than the national average in State taxes while millionaires in our State pay much less than the national average. Working families see their tax bills go through the roof and they naturally assume that State spending is "Out of control." But what is really out of control is tax breaks for b illionaires .

We Can Cut Class Sizes in Half Just by Rolling Back Tax Breaks to 1996
In 1996, we had 400 tax breaks costing $20 billion. We now have more than 700 tax breaks for the rich costing our schools $36 billion. This includes the 1997 Intangible Property tax break that is so unfair and so costly that the Department of Revenue and the state legislature do not even want you to know about. It also includes most of the Boeing tax breaks and the Microsoft tax break.

So the question is what is more important? Helping Bill Gates and Paul Allen buy another private jet? Or helping one million students in Washington state get the education they need and deserve to succeed in school and succeed in life? If I am elected, I will file a motion for summary judgment immediately to declare every tax break passed since 1996 to be illegal, null and void and that the resulting $16 billion per year in additional state revenue be put in an account controlled by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. We could have full school funding restored in as little as 6 months.

You now know why class sizes in our state are the highest in the nation. The fact is I am the only candidate even talking about the real cause of our massive class sizes. All of the other candidates like to talk about their "great relationships" with the very bandits who are robbing our schools of funding and our kids of their future. They perpetuate the myth that some how the legislature will suddenly come clean and start funding our schools "next year." But all that will come out of Olympia next year is the same thing that came out of Olympia this year and last year and the year before that - more excuses and more lies. Did you know that 4 years after the Supreme Court McCleary ruling, we have 30,000 more kids - but 1,000 fewer teachers? All we got since McCleary was another fake committee and another hundred tax breaks for the rich!

This is why we need completely new leadership, more honest leadership, in Olympia. This is exactly what I will provide - real solutions - not merely marketing slogans. I therefore hope you will share this important article with every teacher and parent you know. Together, we can win this election and give our kids the education they deserve.

As always, feel free to email me with your questions and comments.

Regards,
David Spring M. Ed.
David (at) springforbetterschools (dot) org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Washington State has the Highest Class Sizes in the Nation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to a January 2015 study of tax rates in all 50 states by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, called "Who Pays", Washington families pay among the highest state taxes in the nation - 20% above the national average. Washington families should therefore have the best funded schools and lowest class sizes in the nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How much attention do students at your school get? Class size is one factor to consider when evaluating a school's effectiveness. But small class size alone does not ensure a good education. The quality of the teaching, the school leadership, the size of the school, the amount of parent involvement and other factors are important to consider, too.

What's the difference between class size and student-teacher ratio?

GreatSchools publishes class size information for schools in some states and student-teacher-ratio information in others, depending on what's available in each state from the respective state Department of Education. It's important to understand the difference between these two types of data and what they indicate about your school.

When you see class size stats on GreatSchools' school pages, the number refers to the average class size at the school. Some classes may be larger or smaller than the average number you see. This is especially true in schools which have state-mandated class sizes, particularly in the lower grades. Schools that have mandated lower class sizes in grades kindergarten through 3 may have larger class sizes for the upper grades.

Student-teacher ratios are based on the total number of school instructional staff divided by the total enrollment of students. So this number may include specialist teachers in the arts, literacy specialists, physical education and special education teachers, who may teach smaller groups of students. As a result, student-teacher ratios may show smaller numbers than the actual average class size.

Student-teacher ratios, which in many states are based upon full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers, can appear high for schools that have a large number of part-time teachers. If, for example, a small school has four part-time teachers, who each work 25% of the time, the student-teacher ratio at this school would be calculated based upon one teacher instead of four (because four teachers at 25% is equal to one full-time teacher). This will make the student-teacher ratio appear higher than it really is. If you think your school data shows an exceptionally high student-teacher ratio, check with your school principal to find out why.

What defines a "small class"?

Researchers have found that gains in achievement generally occur when class size is reduced to fewer than 20 students.

What are the benefits of small classes?

Numerous studies have been done to assess the impact of class size reduction. Although most studies do show a relationship between small class size and increased student achievement, researchers disagree on how to interpret the results. Because there are so many variables in the average classroom - the quality of the teacher, the home environment of the students, the quality of the curriculum, the leadership of the school - it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about student achievement based on class size alone. In other words, strategies effective in one setting may not be equally effective in another. Nevertheless, studies over a period of years have pointed to a number of trends as a result of lowering class size:

Gains associated with small classes generally appear when the class size is reduced to less than 20 students.

Gains associated with small classes are stronger for the early grades.

Gains are stronger for students who come from groups that are traditionally disadvantaged in education - minorities and immigrants.

Gains from class size reduction in the early grades continue for students in the upper grades. Students are less likely to be retained, more likely to stay in school and more likely to earn better grades.

Academic gains are not the only benefit of lowering class size. A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health revealed that reducing class sizes in elementary schools may be more cost-effective than most public health and medical interventions. This is because students in smaller classes are more likely to graduate from high school, and high school graduates earn more and also enjoy significantly better health than high school dropouts.

Next page: Why reducing class size matters in the early grades
Why does reducing class size in the early grades have a positive effect?

Education researchers suspect that class size reduction in the early grades helps students achieve because there is a greater opportunity for individual interaction between student and teacher in a small class. Teachers generally have better morale in a small class, too, and are less likely to feel overwhelmed by having a variety of students with different backgrounds and achievement levels. As a result, they are more likely to provide a supportive environment. One researcher, Frederick Mosteller notes "Reducing [the size of classes in the early grades] reduces the distractions in the room and gives the teacher more time to devote to each child."

In the early grades, students are just beginning to learn about the rules of the classroom, and they are figuring out if they can cope with the expectations of education. If they have more opportunity to interact with their teacher, they are more apt to feel like they can cope.

This theory would also explain why lowering class size in the upper grades may not have the same effect on achievement. Students in the upper grades, who may not have had the benefits of a small class in the early years, have already formed their habits, good and bad, for coping with their classroom environment. Simply reducing the class size at this level may not be enough to change their ways.

The movement to reduce class sizes in public schools

In recent years there has been a movement across the country to reduce class size in public schools. In the late 1990s when state coffers were full, it was politically popular to cut class sizes across the board in the lower grades as a way of pointing dollars toward education in a way that would please voters. Currently, well over half the states have class-size reduction programs for their public schools.

The federal government jumped on the bandwagon in 1998 with a federal class-size reduction initiative. From 1999-2000, the federal government's $2.6 billion appropriation enabled states and school districts to hire more teachers and reduce class sizes.

Reducing class size is an appealing and visible way for states and public schools to show that they are improving the quality of education. Because smaller classes allow teachers to devote more time to instruction and less to classroom management, smaller classes are popular with teachers unions and administrators. Many studies have shown an increase in student achievement, fewer discipline problems, and improvement in teacher morale and retention as a result of class size reduction. But many researchers question whether the costs outweigh the benefits.

Unintended consequences

In addition to high costs, reducing class size can have unintended consequences. When California reduced class size in 1996, the state found that it did not have enough veteran teachers or classrooms to meet the challenge. Schools were forced to hire new teachers and add portable classrooms to accommodate the state mandate. Schools faced a dilemma: Was it really better to have smaller classes with an inexperienced teacher or larger classes with experienced teachers?

Voters in the state of Florida approved a class-size reduction amendment in 2002 that requires classes to have no more than 18 students in pre-kindergarten through third grade classes, no more than 22 in fourth to eighth grade classes and no more than 25 in high school classes by 2010. The state Board of Education estimates that Florida will need to spend $2 billion to build enough classrooms to meet the demands of the amendment.
Next page: Why smaller classes aren't enough
Why smaller classes aren't enough

In California, where class size reduction began in 1996, the research has shown only a modest effect on achievement. This disappointingly small gain has been attributed to the following:

Per student funding for class size reduction was not enough to cover the cost for already underfunded districts.

School districts had to hire new teachers, many of them not certificated, to meet the needs to make their classes smaller.

Serious overcrowding issues forced schools to "cannibalize" other needed facilities - special education rooms, child care centers, art and music rooms, gyms - or rent portable classrooms to accommodate the need for more classrooms.

The high cost of implementing class size reduction made it difficult to fund other education needs.

The California experience points to an important lesson. Class size reduction, in and of itself, is not the answer to all the problems in education. In order for a classroom to be effective, it must have a qualified teacher and adequate facilities. When weighing the advantages of class size reduction, schools, districts, and states must consider these questions:

Will there be enough resources to provide for high-quality teachers?

Will there be adequate facilities to provide for the necessary classrooms?

Will putting money into class size reduction take away money from other programs, such as art, music, and child care?

How important is school size?

School size may be as important as class size in influencing student behavior. An April 2000 report by North Carolina's State Board of Education on the relationship between school size and student achievement and behavior summed up the research in this area nicely. For elementary school students, there's an inverse relationship between school size and student achievement: smaller elementary schools are associated with higher achievement.

For high school students, the relationship isn't as straightforward because students at smaller schools don't necessarily perform better academically; in fact, one study found that students at medium-sized schools (with between 600 and 900 students) did better academically than students from smaller and larger schools. However, research shows that smaller schools are associated with a host of other benefits for high school students: they are less likely to drop out or be expelled; they have better attendance; they're more likely to be involved in extracurricular activities; and they're more likely to pursue higher education.

Other important factors to consider

Teacher workload

In high schools, it is important to consider not only the number of students per class but the nature of the class, and the subject the teacher is teaching. For example, a math teacher might have no problem teaching an advanced math class, or several math classes, with 35-40 students. But an English teacher teaching four classes of 40 students would probably not be able to give the proper attention to written assignments from that many students, and might not give as many assignments because of the large number of students.

Team teaching

Some schools might have classes of 40 taught by a team of two teachers. The class size by itself is not necessarily an indication of the attention students are getting.

Volunteers

Some schools effectively use parents and upper-grade students as volunteers in the classroom. This type of instructional help may not appear in a school's data about class size.
Next: Making the most of larger class sizes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much attention do students at your school get? Class size is one factor to consider when evaluating a school's effectiveness. But small class size alone does not ensure a good education. The quality of the teaching, the school leadership, the size of the school, the amount of parent involvement and other factors are important to consider, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Presentation is loading. Please wait.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy. I agree.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
enabling high quality teaching and learning for large classes kirti garg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
vasudeva varma international institute of information technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ENABLING HIGH QUALITY TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR LARGE CLASSES Kirti Garg, Vasudeva Varma International Institute of Information technology, Hyderabad. - ppt download

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Presentation is loading. Please wait. To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy. I agree.

# data[].attributes.body
American School Counselor Association (2014). Mindsets and
Behaviors for Student Success: K-12 College- and Career-Readiness
Standards for Every Student. Alexandria, VA: Author