As far as inclusion is concerned, the special education practices are great for all students. We need help from the special ed. teachers, even when there are not enough of them to stay in your class all day. Collaborate with them. Special ed. teachers attend all general ed. professional
development classes. General ed teachers should attend some of the special ed. professional development classes. This helps a great deal.
Special ed. teachers have very little problems with general ed. students because of their extensive training; including teaching practices as well as behavioral situations. These practices help all teachers and students.

In addition, classrooms are comprised of a tremendous variety of ability levels at this time. I am neither condoning nor condemning inclusion, but it is a factor in the effectiveness of the classroom environment. To have 30, even more than 20, children in a classroom, along with a child who has outbursts, is prone to running away, cannot handle slight changes in noise, etc…. creates an atmosphere of disruption that is not conducive to learning for anyone. If anything, we are understaffed with regard to these children with special needs and the classroom teacher more often than not, must deal with the needs of everyone. There is not “cookie cutter” child out there… some are more able in one area than others and classroom teachers recognize that and plan lessons accordingly to meet everyone’s needs… this is next to impossible in large classes and teaching turns into behavior management.

Observe, please, the gains made when children are pulled in small groups for extra help… it works!

I have no doubt that you can find “research” to support any opinion you have of education… but until you walk in the shoes of the classroom teacher, and truly spend years doing the job, you have no credibility! “

Select Releases 2005 Releases 2004 Releases 2003 Releases 2002 Releases 2001 Releases 2000 Releases 1999 Releases

Date: May 8, 2005
Contact: David Partenheimer
Public Affairs Office
(202) 336-5706

——————————————————————————–

SEVERAL YEARS IN SMALL CLASSES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YIELDS BIG REWARDS AT GRADUATION TIME – ESPECIALLY FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS, ACCORDING TO STUDY

——————————————————————————–

WASHINGTON — It is well established that small class size in the early elementary grades boosts student achievement in those grades and allows students to be more engaged in learning than they are in larger classes. But there has been little research on the long-term effects of small class size. A new study involving a large sample of students followed for 13 years shows that four or more years in small classes in elementary school significantly increases the likelihood of graduating from high school, especially for students from low-income homes. The study is reported on in the May issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Study authors Jeremy D. Finn, Ph.D., and Susan B. Gerber, Ph.D., of the University at Buffalo-The State University of New York and Jayne Boyd-Zaharias, Ed.D., of HEROS, Inc., tracked nearly 5,000 students from kindergarten through the 12th grade in 165 schools in connection with Tennessee’s class-size experiment of the 1980’s. The experiment, known as Project STAR, involved randomly assigning students entering kindergarten to a small class (13-17 students), to a full-size class (22-26 students), or to a full-size class with a full-time teacher aide within each participating school. The class size was maintained throughout the day and all year long. Students were kept in the same class arrangement for up to four years, with a new teacher assigned at random to the class each year.

Results show that for all students combined, four years in a small class in K-3 were associated with an 11.5 percent increase in high school graduation rates. This effect was even greater for low socio-economic students (students who were receiving free lunches). In fact, after four years in a small class, the graduation rate for free-lunch students was as great as or greater than that for non-free lunch students (more than doubling the odds of graduating). The study also revealed a strong relationship between mathematics and reading achievement in K-3 and graduation from high school.

“Our results contradict arguments that just one year in a small class is enough to reap long-term academic benefits,” says Dr. Finn. “Three or four years of small classes are needed to affect graduation rates, and three or four years have been found necessary to sustain long-term achievement gains.”

Future research is needed, according to the authors, to more fully understand the processes that connect early school experiences with long-term benefits. “The long-term effects of small classes on dropout rates were not explained entirely by improvements in academic performance, even if the improvements carried through later grades. Other dynamics must have been occurring as well, for example, effects on students’ attitudes and motivation, students’ pro- or antisocial behavior, or students’ learning behavior,” add the researchers.

Article: “Small Classes in the Early Grades, Academic Achievement, and Graduating From High School,” Jeremy D. Finn and Susan B. Gerber, University at Buffalo – The State University of New York, and Jayne Boyd-Zaharias, HEROS, Inc.; Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 97, No. 2.

Full text of the article is available from the APA Public Affairs Office or at http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/edu972214.pdf

Reporters: Lead author Dr. Jeremy Finn is currently on sabbatical at Stanford University and can be reached at (650) 856-1940 or at his University at Buffalo Email.

——————————————————————————–

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 150,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 53 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.

——————————————————————————–
© 2005 American Psychological Association
Office of Public Affairs
750 First Street, N.E. • Washington, DC • 20002-4242
Phone: 202-336-5700 • TDD/TTY: 202-336-6123
Fax: 202-336-5708 • E-mail
PsychNET® | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
————End quote —————

First, in regards to special needs kids. Stop mainstreaming them so the other kids can learn. The special needs kids can also learn better when they are in an environment where they get attention and instruction conducive to their learning style. Again, my brother is autistic, so I have experience with this.

As for my experience in the classroom, I was a substitute teacher for a while during my college days. I have also been to my children’s classroom for visits and to do presentations to the kids. My wife has more experience than me in this area. She was constantly volunteering in classes for both our children when they were in public school and private school. She subbed as well in the private school occasionally. Before you ask, this was not in D46, but all my subbing was here in Illinois schools.

It only took 1 response to get the STAR report mentioned. That is exactly what BEYOND SMOKE AND IRRORS: A Critical Look at Smaller Class Sizes said would be the most actively used report. I left out the mention of it just to see if someone would start reacting without reading the studies first. Of course, they did.

Quote from ¹â€It is nearly impossible to discuss the effects of class size reduction without referencing the STAR results and the conclusions generated from them. At least that is certainly the case for reduction promoters. STAR is the absolute boon to advocates of smaller classes.”

Below is the truth about the results. It’s exactly what I stated in my post, “reducing class size is only helpful in the first year or two of school.“

Quote from ¹â€
TABLE 2 Lessons from Project STAR
Peabody Journal of Education
1. The maximum effect of reducing class size is in kindergarten and first grade. The effect on achievement levels off and declines in second and third grade even when students remain in smaller classes.
2. The achievement advantage of small class students dropped about 50% the first year after they were back in regular sized classes (21-28 students) in the fourth grade.
3. Class size reduction appears to be very expensive. The cost of reducing class size is proportional to the size of the reduction: i.e. a one-third reduction in class size will increase per pupil costs about onethird.
4. The high costs of substantial reduction in class size and the modest achievement gains that can be expected, even in kindergarten and first grade, suggest that less expensive targeted reductions should be tried.
5. The most important lesson may be that just changing class size without changing what is taught or how it is taught will probably have modest results, because the various factors all influence achievement.

Source: Folger, John. Lessons from Class Size Policy and Research. Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 67, No. 1,
Fall 1989.”

The facts of the STAR report are exaggerated to make a point.

Quote from ¹â€Additionally, there seems to be a lamentable level of exaggeration used while reporting of the magnitude of the STAR achievement results, especially by its most vehement supporters. Repeatedly heard are claims that students in the small STAR classes outperformed students in regular sized class by “significant” margins. In these comments, the reference is to the idea of statistical significance. The interpretation of statistical significance is clear, but unfortunately its relevance can be easily presented to the public in a disingenuous manner. Statistical significance simply means that some difference, no matter how small in magnitude, can be expected to exist in reality to a high probability. But differences that are statistically “significant” to the mathematician can easily be insignificant to the common understanding of the term. This is the case with the STAR data, where the actual size of the effects ranges from minimal to small, depending on the test and subject.12”

The researchers will not even release the data for further critical analysis. If this study can be debunked so easily, it is now wonder they won’t release the actual data.

Quote from ¹â€ One review of 152 studies on class size found a handful, about fourteen, showed minor gains. About the same number showed negative results, while the great majority, about 125, found no difference.”

The above quote was in my original post. For all the people that keep talking about getting all the facts when something does not go their way, they seem to focus on just one study that agrees with them this time and ignore the rest of the facts that prove them wrong. Think about it, they quote STAR, which has been debunked with only the data the researchers reveal and not the full set to analyze.

Let’s look at these studies different way to help explain this better:

• 152 studies on class size reduction
• Minor gains – 14 (9.2%)
• Negative results – 13 (8.5%)
• No Difference – 125 (82%)

That’s a huge percentage that shows no gains at all. I repeat, there are other methods that are much more cost effective and show better results.