1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600
March 2010 | Volume 52 | Number 3
Closing the STEM Gender Gap
Class size reduction programs are popular with the public, and in the last 10 years, 40 states have implemented such programs. Reducing class size implies that teaching in smaller classes will be more responsive to student needs and yield better student achievement. Research shows, however, that teachers often use the same strategies regardless of class size. A November 2009 article from researchers at the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, "Class Size Reduction: What It Is, and Isn't" (www.wcer.wisc.edu/news/coverStories/2009/class_size_reduction.php), asserts that investments in class-size reduction need to be accompanied by support for teacher change. Teachers need professional development to help them make the most of smaller classes.
Laura Varlas of Education Update asked differentiated instruction (DI) expert Carol Ann Tomlinson, Does differentiation change in smaller classes? How can DI help teachers capitalize on small class size?
Carol Ann Tomlinson: There are few teachers I know who would say class size doesn't matter to them. In general, it's simply easier to know students and follow their progress if there are fewer of them. However, I regularly see teachers with small class sizes who don't differentiate instruction, and teachers with very large enrollments who do. I think teachers who mean to attend to student differences do so regardless of class size. Those who don't mean to—or just can't figure out how to start—don't find sufficient motivation in reduced numbers to solve those problems.
Differentiation doesn't ask teachers to begin by individualizing instruction. In other words, it doesn't call for teachers to create 20 tasks for 20 students who will come to class tomorrow. It asks teachers to look for patterns of need. Are there students who need assistance with reading tomorrow's material? Are there several students interested in music or sports who would benefit from seeing how fractions are useful in those contexts? Would it open up opportunities for students to have an option to express what they've learned in one of two or three ways rather than only in one format? "Four students misunderstood the principle we were working with yesterday. How can I find time to meet with them today to help clarify their thinking?" Those sorts of decisions for teachers can be made with both smaller and larger classes quite effectively.
I think the issue is providing teachers with the kind of intelligent, classroom-focused, sustained professional development necessary to move away from one-size-fits-all thinking and toward addressing varied student needs thoughtfully and smoothly by
In other words, I believe reducing class size has the potential to be beneficial in a number of critical ways. I don't believe, however, that reducing class size alone is a sufficient catalyst for us as teachers to jettison our old instructional habits or to help us adopt more fruitful ways of thinking about and acting on the multiple needs that students inevitably bring to the classroom.
Copyright © 2010 by ASCD
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our free e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.