By LISA CARPENTER
The Cupertino Union School District is proposing a "class-size reduction" plan that will increase the number of first-graders in some of our classrooms and reduce the effectiveness of our successful kindergarten program. The direction they are taking and the statements they are making are inconsistent with the research that convinced our governor and legislature to provide incentive funding for this program. As a community, we need to ensure that our district correctly implements this opportunity to improve the classroom learning environment for all of our children.
To be effective, class-size reduction must be more than a lower student-teacher ratio. The advantages of smaller class size are factual, not a matter of "personal preference," as Assistant Superintendent for Instruction John Erkman concluded in a Dec. 18 Cupertino Courier article.
WestEd, a public agency funded in part by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement, is nationally recognized for translating education research into classroom practice. Its Fall 1996 report "Focus on California's Class-Size Reduction" summarizes, "Generally speaking, research confirms what virtually every parent and teacher believes: Students are more likely to get a better-quality education in small classes."
Erkman also claimed that "in a well-managed classroom where children are clear on procedure, the number of children should not affect the quality of education." I disagree with Mr. Erkman; existing research convinced the state to invest $1 billion to sponsor the class-size reduction program. If our school board members believe what he is saying, why are we implementing class-size reduction?
WestEd's study shows that academic improvements are possible through the combined effects of reduced student-teacher ratio, less students per classroom and more classroom space for a variety of activities. The report gave a clear picture of the changes possible with reduced class size: "A teacher teaching a large class may see little recourse other than using tightly structured, directive approaches to maintain control over student behavior. Rows and columns of desks are likely, since that's all the space allows. ... The routine may be dominated by large-group instruction, with the same work, pace and tests for all children. As class size shrinks, other possibilities grow. The teacher can really get to know each child. He or she can individualize the lessons. The basics can be covered more thoroughly, with time for varied and creative enrichment activities. Extra classroom space can be used for a reading corner or learning center that gives students options, encourages peer interactions and helps develop decision-making skills and a sense of responsibility. Students gain time to discuss what they read. They can get instant feedback on a math problem from a teacher who moves around the room as they work.
Our district states we need 33 additional classrooms to correctly implement first-grade next year without using any Guided Learning Center or student care rooms. Despite having 79 classrooms leased out in five closed campuses, plus excess capacity for more than 400 students at our alternative campuses, the district has been focusing its presentations to the board for the last three months on reducing the number of classrooms required by increasing class size:
* putting 40 first-grade students with two teachers in larger classrooms wherever possible;
* moving kindergartners out of specially designed kindergarten classrooms (with extra space, bathrooms and access to kindergarten play areas) to accomplish the 40-to-2 ratio mentioned above; and
* going back to a.m./p.m. kindergarten, with 32 children per classroom for academics, instead of the current 16.
This approach is not class-size reduction for all first-graders, and is a major step backward for our successful kindergarten program. With the growing range of abilities coming into our schools, and the increasing amount of academics we are expected to achieve in kindergarten, we need to minimize distraction and maximize individual attention, while having space to address a variety of ability levels and learning styles.
We need to implement all aspect of class-size reduction--lower student-teacher ratio, fewer students per classroom, more space for teaching, continuing teacher support--to achieve its potential. The resulting facilities issues should then be addressed through facilities changes, not by changing our academic program until it fits conveniently into existing open classrooms.
At Garden Gate Elementary, we met with our principal and Superintendent Pat Lamson, then invited all parents to meet to discuss next year's implementation at our school. At this meeting we showed a first-grade class-size reduction implementation layout for our school--with existing kindergarten intact--that required only one additional classroom. We proposed that the state preschool program utilizing one of our classrooms be moved to another district school that has excess capacity (or Eaton School, if reopened) to provide the necessary classroom. Shouldn't each school community similarly propose alternatives that are acceptable to them and resolve some of the facilities problems by redistributing special programs? (For example, Sedgwick Elementary could propose expanding into CCF.) And couldn't the district sell a leased site in an area without projected enrollment growth to fund the purchase of portables to fully solve the facilities issue?
I want true class-size reduction for my children. I've volunteered in kindergarten classrooms with both 16 and 32 children and have seen the difference. With other concerned parents, I've researched the issue, attended the district board meetings and spoken up regarding my concerns, talked with district staff and board members, worked with my school principal and worked on the special meeting at Garden Gate. I believe that the district will not change its recommendation for 40 per classroom and a.m./p.m. unless more parents speak up against it.
Lisa Carpenter is a parent at Garden Gate School.
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, January 22, 1997.
©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.