Research countering the student-teacher ratio effect Essay

Graddy and Steven (2005) examines several studies of secondary school performances throughout the U. K. and concluded that there is little to no effect of the student-teacher ratio on the achievement of students. Borland, Howsen & Trawick (2005) also found no noticeable connection between student achievement and either reduced or enlarged class sizes. The Congressional Budget Office presented results and analysis of 1986 SAT scores. Analysis revealed a relationship between student performance and student-teacher ratios. Lower student-teacher ratios were consistent with lower SAT scores (as cited in Hanushek, 2000). School size, which is another important consideration that also affects the student-teacher ratio, does not demonstrate an effect on student performance either, according to Lamdin (1995). There is also very little long-term effect of student-teacher ratio on student performance and lifelong achievement. Though Vignoles (1998) found a slight correlation between student-teacher ratio and student performance on O Levels exams in the United Kingdom, the observed effect was so small as to be insignificant. In fact he argues that true effect on student achievement is actually non-existent. This conclusion is based on the finding that the effect of a lower student-teacher ratio was not reflected in later years on the job market and in terms of earnings 17 years later. True achievement, he argues, is measured not by the standard of achievement tests, but by later success in life. He safely concludes therefore that there is no true effect of class size on student accomplishments. Schweitzer (1991) suggests that moves by institutions to decrease the pupil-teacher ratio are counterproductive and will only result in additional government spending with little effect on student performance. He believes that the old-fashioned method of â€Å"hard work on the part of the student, good teaching by the faculty, and strong motivation by both† (Schweitzer, 1991, p. 297) are the key ingredients to improved student achievement. Thus, as Gursky (1998) surmises, there is very little magic to class size or student-teacher ratio. Some researchers have proposed that the optimal size for any classroom is between 15 and 17 students. What the research is confirming is that there is presently very little in the way of consensus on the issue of whether or not reduced student-teacher ratios result in improved student performance. In the comprehensive review conducted by Hanushek (2000), 14% of the researches showed that there was a positive relationship between increased student-teacher ratio and a similar 14% found the opposite association. The remaining 72% found the relationship to be too insignificant to matter (p. 5). It is fallacious to suppose that all factors that may impact student performance can be isolated and controlled in order to discover a causal relationship between the variables of lower or higher student-teacher ratios and higher student performance. As researchers such as Hanushek (2000) and Preece (1987) would argue, there are a myriad of home-environmental and societal factors over which the state or school have very little control but which may impact student performance in either direction regardless of existing student-teacher ratios. Without a doubt the family background from which the students come plays a significant role in impacting achievement. Dustmann et al. (2003) proposes that the financial resources of the family, the quality time parents spend with children, the size of the family, a child’s birth order and the interest the parent shows in the child’s performance are important in analyzing factors that influence success in school. The socioeconomic context and location in which the child resides could also be a constraining factor. Preece (1987) adds that another factor, the heterogeneous nature of the classroom could be a significant key in understanding student achievement. He proposes that more homogeneous classrooms foster a better learning environment for students, regardless of class size or student-teacher ratios. Research has not proven either side of the debate but has demonstrated the possible merits of both. Educators seem determined, despite the lack of evidence to support the claim, to reduce the student-teacher ratios in an effort to impact student achievement. These educators are not completely misguided in their position however. It is a combination of factors too complicated to isolate that determines the how well each student achieves individually. Reduced class sizes have not proven to be harmful to any significant extent and thus existing policies to continue to reduce the student-teacher ratios cannot possibly do any notable amount of harm. ferences Alspaugh, J. W. (1994, Summer). The relationship between school size, student teacher ratio and school efficiency. Education, 114(4), 593-601. Borland, M. V., Howsen, R. M. & Trawick, M. W. (2005, Mar). An investigation of the effect of class size on student academic achievement. Education Economics, 13(1), 73-83. Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Association of School Executives & Colorado Education Association. (n. d. ). Believe in a better Colorado. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www. believeinabettercolorado. org/images Dustmann, C. , Rajah, N. & van Soest, A. (2003, Feb). Class size, education, and wages. Economic Journal, 113(485), F99-F149. Ehrenberg, R. G. , Brewer, D. J. , Gamoran, A.& Willms, J. D. (2001, Nov). Does class size matter? Scientific American, 285(5), 78-85. Graddy, K. & Stevens, M. (2005, Apr). The impact of school resources on student performance: A study of private schools in the United Kingdom. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 58(3), 435-451. Gursky, D. (1998, Oct). Class size does matter. Education Digest, 64(2), 15-18. Hanushek, E. A. (2000, Aug). Evidence, politics, and the class size debate. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www. utdallas. edu/research/tsp/pdfpapers/paper19. PDF Lamdin, D. J. (1995, Apr). Testing for the effect of school size on student achievement within a school district. Education Economics, 3(1), 33-42. Morisi, T. L. (1994, Jul). Employment in public schools and the student-to-employee ratio. Monthly Labor Review, 117(7), 40-44. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001, Sep). Elementary and secondary school enrollment. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2(2). Retreived November 19, 2007 from, http://nces. ed. gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_2/2_2/q3-3. asp Preece, P. F. (1987, Jul/Aug). Class size and learning: A theoretical model. Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 377-379. Sable J. & Garofano, A. (2007, Jun). Public elementary and secondary school student enrollment, high school completions, and staff from the common core of data: School year 2005-06. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from, http://nces. ed. gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo. asp Schweitzer, T. T. (1991, Summer). Collective bargaining, teachers, and student achievement: Comment. Journal of Labor Research, 12(3), 297-298. Vignoles, A. (1998, May). Raising standards in our schools: Does class size really matter? Economic Outlook, 22(3), 18-23.