Class Size in California Matters, of Course!

That is why "we" are now able to conclude that no more money need be spent reducing class size in schools with heavy majorities of students from very low-income families. The reading progress that has been made came from our one-size-fits-all approach. And if it is not working somewhere, then the "teachers need more professional development time."

We certainly do not need to spend money on Counselors, or Health Professionals, and technology is too expensive, goes out of date, and didn't I read somewhere that it has been shown not to be very useful compared to what it costs? All this has lead Governor Schwarzenegger to conclude that, "we do not need to be speaking about more money in schools until we 'fix the problems' at the schools right now." I am certain he speaks for all who do not want any rise in income or corporate taxes when the Governor says fixing schools in not really a matter of money, though, shucks, we all know that more money would be grand, if we had it.

The Textbook and Testing Industries along with self-delusion and denial and greed ("No, I won't pay any more of my millions of dollars in taxes!"), all have concluded that reducing class size is not critical in improving the achievement of low and very low income students. Yet small class size and the individual attention which comes with it are the hallmarks of the private schools attended by the offspring of the well-off and rich.

I have a news bulletin for everyone listening: The State adopted reading programs did not raise reading achievement for many California school children. It is class size reduction that caused achievement to move up, in almost all schools in California. That is right. When a class size is held at a MAXIMUM of 20 students, children get more attention, and the children have far fewer "behavior problems." Teachers get to know their students as individual young people, not as a herd that must be reigned-in before it gets "out of control." Attendance goes up, and achievement does too, and not just on standardized tests. But it costs money to reduce class size, so all efforts in this area are usually rebuffed. And they are rebuffed with inane arguments like, "Reducing class size doesn't really help unless you get to 15 students per class, and since we will never do that, then there is no reason to reduce class size." What an argument. "We can't save everyone, it's too expensive, so let's not save anyone." And, why would we NEVER really spend more money on our schools?

So that's the problem. Next week, I'll make some suggestions for solutions. Stay tuned. (So go ahead, ask me, How do I really feel about this topic?)

Before being termed-out of office, Goldberg served six years in the California Assembly and Chaired the Assembly Committee on Education. Prior to that, she served on the School Board for the LA Unified School District for 8 years, LA City Council for 8 years, and has been a high school teacher for 18 years. This article originally appeared on the website of Speak Out California Speak Out California and is republished with her permission.