There is even some research to support the idea – at least for children from five to eight years of age.

And it seems pretty obvious that the only way to have smaller classes is to have more teachers.

And that means more money.  Right?

Not necessarily.

In fact, it just may be that to perceive the issue as one of "class size" is to blind ourselves to the real problem – and a number of possible solutions.

Think about it.  The issue is not how many students are sitting in a classroom.  The issue is, or ought to be, what is the optimum number of students for the task at hand?

There are some learning experiences, or school occasions, at which the size of the group makes little difference.  If the event is a pep rally before a big game, an outside speaker or other reason for an all-school assembly, watching a film or videotape, taking an examination, study hall, recess, orchestra practice, or a teacher’s lecture, little is gained by limiting "class size" to 15 – or even 35.

When doing group projects a teacher may need to meet with students only five at a time.  On the other hand, even a "class size" of five may be too large if what is needed is a one-on-one conference or special help.

So perceived, the issue is not "smaller class size" it is "most appropriate group size."  The number of students in any learning environment should be a function of the task at hand, the students, the teacher, and other variables.  The question is, "What is the optimum size unit that will maximize both efficiency and effectiveness?

We don’t expect "one size fits all" solutions elsewhere – tools, vehicles, clothes – why class size?

Because we have classrooms, that’s why.

In a traditional junior high, or high school, students go from classroom to classroom.  They sit in each for a predetermined period of 40 minutes or so with one teacher in the front of the room.  So defined, the only way to reduce class size is to build more classrooms and hire more teachers.

(1)  And, clearly, that is one solution.  Cut expenses – somewhere – in order to free up the money to hire more teachers.

But is that the only way?  No.

(2)  Consider what we will call "the college model."  College students usually spend about three hours a day in class – 15 hours a week.  But they are expected to spend far more than that "studying."  (When I was in college the rough rule of thumb was two hours out of class for every hour in.)  Obviously, if college students were required to spend 30 hours a week in class – closer to what is usual for high school students – the college or university would either (a) have class sizes twice their present number, or (b) have to double the faculty.

If junior high and high school students were to spend proportionately less time in a classroom with a teacher ("contact hours") and proportionately more working on homework, or in teams with their colleagues, the impact on class size (or the budget for teachers’ salaries) would be comparable to colleges.

(3)  "Team teaching" and "block scheduling" offer other ways to achieve appropriate-sized groups of students for each task.  A team of three or four teachers can plan their work jointly.  They will have, together, the same total number of students they would have had in their individual classrooms.  The difference is that, with the autonomy to teach together, and plan blocks of time, they can, more often, each be working with the most appropriate size group of students.  No longer need they present material to 35 students that could have been presented to 125.  No longer need they try to work one-on-one with 35 students at once.

(4)  Multi-purpose staff.  A substantial proportion of the fulltime payroll in any school are not teaching students.  There are principals and assistant principals, guidance counsellors, secretaries and custodians.  There may be social workers and others offering special services.  For the most part, these are busy people.  But we’re talking about priorities.  And if the highest priority is to increase the number of adults in the classroom it may be possible for the principal and assistant principal to teach an hour or two a day.  Guidance counselors might be able to spend some time each day with their students in classrooms rather than just during office appointments.

(5) Associates and teachers’ aides.  One way to increase teachers’ time with students is to increase the number of teachers, but leave each teacher with the same range and quantity of tasks they now have.  Another way is to pay closer attention to those tasks, and identify those that need not be performed by a certificated teacher.  Examples might include computer instruction, day care work, cafeteria and playground supervision, attendance, classroom housekeeping, or bulletin board maintenance.  To the extent these tasks can be assigned to associates or teachers’ aides it frees up time for the teacher to spend teaching students.  Ultimately, "more time" means teaching groups of more appropriate size than before.  And because of the relative salaries of teachers and associates, a careful allocation of tasks is considerably cheaper than simply hiring additional teachers.

(6) Eliminating courses and programs.  Another way of reducing class size in a traditional school would be to eliminate some courses or programs in favor of concentration on whatever is thought to be the highest priorities.  For example, in a Pasadena high school the faculty chose to emphasize improving students’ math scores.  Some teachers would be transferred from their old courses to, in this case, math.  Others would be transferred to other schools, and the money freed up used to hire new math teachers.

(7) Hiring at entry levels.  Suppose a District has a relatively high salary scale, a disproportionate number of faculty with many years of experience at the top of that scale, and it tends to hire new teachers with experience, also at the top of that scale.  An obvious way to increase the number of teachers, and thereby reduce the student-teacher ratios, is to start hiring at the entry level.  This can often produce as many as twice as many teachers.  Of course, experience is widely perceived to be a virtue in teaching.  So a district might want to begin by ascertaining the age, experience and salary spread of its faculty before undertaking such a course.

(8)The academic school.  One of the often-cited arguments in favor of smaller class sizes is the problem of classroom discipline.  It is often harder for a teacher to maintain control as class size increases.  It is difficult for students to learn in a classroom that is noisy, otherwise distracting, or actually unsafe.  One solution is to increase the number of teachers, and thereby reduce class size.  Another solution is to remove the students who really want to learn.

Imagine if there was a school for students who really wanted to learn.  This is different from "bright, gifted and talented."  It would include students of varying levels of ability and test scores.  What they would have in common is a measure of seriousness about their studies.  They would do their homework.  Their parents would be actively involved.  They would be sufficiently respectful of their teachers to create a classroom environment in which learning would be possible.

As a result, such a school could have larger class sizes and still deliver quality education.  And the impact of its relatively larger classes on the rest of the district’s schools is that they could have somewhat smaller class sizes.

Perhaps such a school could also use the college model described above.  That would be a way to reduce what would otherwise be its average class size.

Conclusion.  The point of this range of options is not to advocate any given one of them, let alone all.  The point is simply that there are options.  Hiring more teachers is one way to reduce class size.  It is not the only way.