Of course class size is important in the Clark County schools

I have read with curiosity comments about whether smaller class sizes affect student learning (“Right-sizing,” Sunday Review-Journal). Apparently, there are some who question this idea because the research doesn’t always show that smaller class sizes lead to better learning. As a teacher for 33 years, I know this is absurd. First, the facts.

Most, if not all, schools make the honors classes larger than the “regular” classes — especially in math and English — because they are tested. Many classes in Clark County have 40 or more students. The honors kids will pass, so we don’t worry about them. This begs for a discussion of how we educate the talented, but that will have to wait for another day. Test results will always be skewed to show large classes get better results. In addition, the smallest classes are for the slow learners, which is as it should be. Those factors skew the results even more.

But there is more. It was not unusual for me to have had as many as 200 students, usually around 180. That means for every paper I assigned, I got 180 back to grade. Would you assign a 10-page research paper? At the lower grades, that means every time teachers have to buy supplies and make the next project for the kids, they have to cut, laminate and prepare for 25 or 30 or 40 instead of 20. It costs more, and it takes lots of time at home.

There are so many factors that come into play when class sizes increase. The stress it adds in discipline and management is tremendous. Does the research show this? Of course not. You would have to ask teachers to get that information. There are only about 2 million of us.