Columns
EDITORIAL: What to do about class sizes
Feb 2, 2006

Nothing hits home with parents like class sizes.
At Monday night�s school board meeting and again after Tuesday morning�s PTA budget presentation, elementary school parents spoke out with anger about the school system�s failure to keep down class sizes � especially in second grade. Many expressed a sense that money was being wasted elsewhere in the budget, when it would better be devoted to putting more teachers in the classroom.
The parents� concern follows the school board�s denial of a class size grievance by the teachers� union, protesting some 77 classes around the system that are over the �desired maximums� specified in the board�s contract with teachers. It also follows a budget presentation in which the school administration proposed to reduce the �break points� at which new sections are created at every level of the elementary schools � except second grade, the focal point of parents� concern.
It�s a question of money more than philosophy.
The teachers union is very serious about class sizes � its class size grievance is virtually an annual ritual. But the teachers also understand that the school board and administration are largely in agreement that class sizes should be smaller.
The break points were bumped up three years ago in a very tight budget year, with agreement of the union. Since then class sizes have remained at the higher level � with new classes created at 23 in kindergarten and first grade, at 27 in second grade, and a 28 in grade three and above. Classes remained larger without the union�s consent.
The new budget proposes reduce the elementary school break points from 23 to 22 in kindergarten and first grade, and from 28 to 27 in third, fourth and fifth grade, while leaving second grade at 27.
This reflects the history of class sizes is town.
Second grade is an emotional issue with parents because it is where the smaller class sizes of kindergarten and first grade increase to the size applied in the higher grades. As a practical matter, a first grade of 54 students would be set up as three classes of 18. But the next year, those same 54 students would be split into two second grade classes of 27.
Of course, the younger the children the more difficult it is to manage a large class � that�s why the lower grades have smaller class size limits. Historically, Ridgefield has had the change from smaller to larger classes come as students move from first to second grade. There was one year that the board succeeded in achieving what had been a longstanding goal of changing second grade from its traditional alignment with the larger classes in third, fourth and fifth grades to a grouping with the smaller classes in kindergarten and first grades.
Because of the budget squeeze that followed the all-school construction, the change only lasted a year. In addressing class sizes in the 2006-07 budget, the board leaves second grade out because it is the one year where sizes have not exceed what they traditionally were � with one year�s exception � for decades.
Parents� concern is justified, but the intense focus on second grade � and the bitter anger � are a bit misdirected.
Parents would do best to put their energy into supporting the school administration and board in what is likely to be a long and difficult battle to get enough money to lower class sizes as they propose. Second grade is a fight for another day.

© Copyright by Hersam Acorn newspapers