By Bill Bjork

             It’s difficult to believe that columnist David Reaume has ever lived in Alaska.  His column, “Additional spending is no fix for schools” [February 4, 2007] betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about Alaska schools, and indeed, about schools everywhere.

            Mr. Reaume uses class size and per-pupil spending to claim that there is no significant relationship between the amount of public money spent on education and the performance of students.  Let’s take a closer look at his case:

            Right off the bat he demonstrates that he doesn’t know the difference between class size and student-teacher ratio.  These are very different concepts, and the two can’t be used interchangeably.  Most state departments of education, including Alaska’s, don’t collect actual class size data—by far the most meaningful set of numbers. 

Here’s the difference:  To calculate student-teacher ratio, you divide the number of students by the number of instructors holding teaching certificates whose primary responsibility it is to teach.  These instructors include teaching specialists in areas such as physical education, art, reading, and special education, as well as “pull out” teachers who remove students from classrooms for specialized instruction.

By contract, to calculate class size, you survey classroom teachers and ask them how many students they have in their classes.  Although some people outside education circles mix up class size and student-teacher ratio, an economist who purports to write authoritatively about schools needs to grasp this crucial difference.

Mr. Reaume quotes Alaska Department of Education and Early Development statistics for fiscal year 2005 that show student-teacher ratios of 17.4 in Anchorage and a statewide ratio of 16.8.

Cite these ratios to most parents with school children in Anchorage, and they’ll look at you like you’re crazy.

Class sizes, not student-teacher ratios, are what matter to parents, students, and teachers.  To calculate the difference between the two, a rough rule of thumb is to take the student-teacher ratio and add 9 or 10 students to come up with class size.  (www.heros-inc.org/pupil-teacher%20ratio.pdf)  For example, the 17.4 ratio in Anchorage correlates to class sizes of about 26 or 27 students.  Parents will tell you that these numbers are unfortunately closer to their children’s actual experience than the misleading student-teacher ratio of 17.4.

Naturally, student-teacher ratios and class sizes drop in rural school districts.  But Mr. Reaume fails to realize that the beneficial effects of smaller class sizes are offset by high teacher turnover; limited or non-existent student resources such as textbooks, lab equipment, music, art and other programs; and by the frequent necessity to group students of multiple grades into a single classroom.

He makes the broad-brush assertion that lower class sizes in Alaska—and nationwide—fail to improve student achievement.  Research shows the opposite is true.  The ground-breaking STAR class size study in Tennessee (1985-’89) has more than stood the test of time and two decades later remains the gold standard for class size research. 

Careful follow-up research over the years confirms the original findings:  that reducing class sizes in kindergarten through 3^rd grade significantly improves student achievement, and years later even improves graduation rates.  Other beneficial impacts include fewer discipline problems, earlier identification of learning problems, more parent volunteers, reduction in the achievement gap, and improved teacher recruitment and retention.   

Mr. Reaume, in addition to being way off base about actual class sizes in Alaska and the benefits of reducing them, also gets it wrong about there being no correlation between per-student spending and student achievement.  That old argument has been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming academic research and court findings across the country. (www.cfequity.org/MoneyMattersFeb2004.pdf)  The Moore vs. State of Alaska adequate funding lawsuit follows in the footsteps of more than 40 similar lawsuits across the country.  Overwhelmingly, these suits have been successful. 

Money invested in quality teachers, smaller class sizes, preschool initiatives and academic interventions is money well spent.  In the long run, the ultimate savings to society—through higher numbers of well educated, productive citizens—will far, far exceed the cost of these investments in our schools.