[RUME] A Response to "It's Not All About ClassSize"

Mon Feb 9 20:12:03 EST 2009

If you reply to this long (12 kB) post please don't hit the reply 
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your 
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already 
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.

****************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "A Response to 'It's Not All About 
Class Size' " Math-Teach's Jonathan Groves expressed puzzlement over 
the fact that reduction of class size in California did not elevate 
student achievement gains as it had in Tennessee. Perhaps Jonathan 
failed to see in my post,  or did not believe, the reason suggested 
by the California Class Size Reduction Research Consortium; viz., 
there were not enough effective teachers in California to support any 
substantive class size reduction without deterioration of teaching 
effectiveness. In my opinion: (a) if the Obama administration  - in 
trying to narrow the international achievement gap -  should follow 
the suggestion of Ceci & Konstantopoulos and attempt, like 
California, to duplicate the Tennessee results by mandating smaller 
class sizes, then the net result could be as disappointing as it was 
in California, and for the same reason - the dearth of effective 
teachers; (b) one reason for that shortage is the failure of U.S. 
universities to properly educate prospective K-12 teachers.
****************************************

In response to my post "A Response to 'It's Not All About Class Size' 
" [Hake (2009a)],  Math-Teach's Jonathan Groves (2009), wrote:

"It is still puzzling to me why the study in Tennessee revealed 
increased student achievement in smaller classes but not when the 
study was done in California."

It's possible that Jonathan did not read my intricate post carefully. 
In Hake (2009a) I quoted Ceci & Konstantopoulos (2009) as follows 
[bracketed by lines "C&K-C&K-C&K. . . . . "; my insert at ". . . 
.[insert]. . . ."; see Hake (2009a) for references other than 
Mosteller (1995)]:

C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .It's true that many studies have 
shown the benefits of smaller class sizes - including. . .[randomized 
control trials (RCT's)]. . . . like the Student Teacher Achievement 
Ratio Project. . . . [STAR (Mosteller, 1995; Mosteller et al., 1996; 
Finn & Achilles, 1999)]. . . . conducted in 79 elementary schools in 
Tennessee, which assigned children to either small or regular-size 
classes as well as large-scale analyses of small and large classrooms 
that have occurred naturally . . . . . . . [But according to  the 
California Class Size Reduction Research  Consortium [CCSRRC (2002)], 
California's attempt to duplicate the Tennessee results yielded *no 
conclusive evidence of increased student achievement*. ONE REASON 
APPEARS TO BE THAT THERE WERE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TEACHERS IN 
CALIFORNIA TO SUPPORT ANY SUBSTANTIVE CLASS SIZE REDUCTION WITHOUT 
DETERIORATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS] . . . . . .
C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K-C&K

Perhaps Jonathan did not:

a. see the capitalized sentence in the insert, or

b. accept the reason that there were not enough teachers as viable, or

c. some other.

If "b" or "c", I hope Jonathan will explain his puzzlement.

In my opinion:

1.  If the Obama administration - in trying to narrow the 
international achievement gap -  should follow the suggestion of Ceci 
& Konstantopoulos (2009) and attempt, like California, to duplicate 
the Tennessee STAR results by mandating smaller average class sizes 
in K-3 [Mosteller (1995)], then the net result could be as 
disappointing as it was in California, and for a similar reason: not 
enough effective teachers in the U.S. to support any substantive 
average class size reduction without deterioration of teaching 
effectiveness.

2. One reason for the dearth of effective science/math teachers in 
the U.S. is the failure of U.S. universities to properly educate 
prospective K-12 teachers, as I discussed most recently in  "Re: 
science education goals and strategies"  [Hake (2009b)].  There I 
pulled the following quote of mathematician Sherman Stein (1997) out 
of "Whence Do We Get the Teachers? (Response to Madison)' [Hake 
(2002)]:

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
The first stage in the reform movement should have been to improve 
the mathematical knowledge of present and prospective elementary 
teachers. Unfortunately, the cart of curriculum reform has been put 
before the horse of well-prepared teachers. In fact, not a single 
article on the subject of the mathematical preparation of teachers 
has appeared in "The Mathematics Teacher" since the second Standards 
volume was published. Because the AMS and MAA presumably agree with 
those twelve most crucial pages . . .(pages 132-143 of "Professional
Standards for Teaching Mathematics (1991)". . . these organizations 
should persuade mathematics departments to implement the 
recommendations made there. If all teachers were mathematically well 
prepared, I for one would stop worrying about the age-old battle 
still raging between "back to basics" and "understanding". On the 
other hand, if mathematics departments do nothing to improve school 
mathematics, they should stop complaining that incoming freshmen lack 
mathematical skills.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

And while I'm pulling quotes out of  "Whence Do We Get the Teachers? 
(Response to Madison)" [Hake (2002)] here is one of mathematician 
Herb Clemens (1998):

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Why don't mathematicians from universities and industry belong in 
math education? The first reason is that it is self-destructive. The 
quickest way to be relegated to the intellectual dustbin in the 
mathematics departments of most research universities today is to 
demonstrate a continuing interest in secondary . . . .[or much worse, 
primary]. . .  mathematics education. Colleagues smile tolerantly to 
one another in the same way family members do when grandpa dribbles 
his soup down his shirt. Math education is certainly an acceptable 
form of retiring as a mathematician, like university administration 
(unacceptable forms being the stock market, EST. . .[ Erhard Seminar 
Training? <http://www.working-minds.com/werner.htm>]. . ., or a 
mid-life love affair). But you don't do good research and think 
seriously about education."
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Of course, the above comments of Stein and Clemens apply as well to 
scientists and science education. 

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of  Deventer, The Netherlands.
<rrhake at earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/>

. . . I know from both experience and research that the teacher is at 
the heart of student learning and school improvement by virtue of 
being the classroom authority and gatekeeper for change. Thus the 
preparation, induction, and career development of teachers remain the 
Archimedian lever for both short- and long-term improvement of public 
schools." Larry Cuban. 2003. "Why Is It So Hard To Get Good Schools?" 
Teachers College Press.

REFERENCES
Ceci, S.J. & S. Konstantopoulos. 2009. "It's Not All About Class 
Size," Chronicle of Higher Education" 55(21): A30, January 30; free 
online at <http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i21/21a03001.htm>.

Clemens, H. 1998. "Is There a Role for Mathematicians in Math 
Education?" Notices of the American Mathematical Society 36(5): 
542-544.

Groves, J. 2009. "Re: A Response to 'It's Not All About Class Size', 
" Math-Teach post of Feb 8, 2009 2:27 PM; online on the OPEN! 
Math-Teach archives at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6602787&tstart=0>.

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Whence Do We Get the Teachers? (Response to 
Madison)," PKAL Roundtable on the Future: Assessment in the Service 
of Student Learning, online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/MadisonResponse-061702d.pdf> (44kB).

Hake, R.R. 2009a. "A Response to 'It's Not All About Class Size', " 
AERA-L post of 6 Feb 2009 09:42:04-0800; online on the OPEN! AERA-L 
archives at <http://tinyurl.com/daf85y>, the OPEN! Net-Gold archives 
at <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/27065>, and at 
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/02/response-to-its-not-all-about-class.html> 
where comments may be easily posted.  The abstract only was 
transmitted to about 30 discussion lists including Math-Learn, 
Math-Teach, RUME, and PhysLrnR.

Hake, R.R. 2009b. "Re: science education goals and strategies," 
online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at 
<https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2009/2_2009/msg00027.html>. 
Post of 3 Feb 2009 15:33:01-0800 to AP-Physics, Net-Gold, Physhare, 
Phys-L, & PhysLrnR.

Mosteller, F. 1995. "Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early 
School Grades," The Future of Children 5(2), Summer/Fall, and 
references therein; online at
<http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no2ART8.pdf> (300 kB).

Stein, S. 1997. "Preparation of Future Teachers" Notices of the AMS 
44 (3); 311-312; online at
<http://www.ams.org/notices/199703/199703-toc.html> / "Letters to the 
Editor", where "/"
means "click on."