Class size and composition - a short visual history

I put this table together today to share with parents and community members at our information forum this evening, but please feel free to share.

It is a slight simplification as it doesn't deal with exempted classes like music, classes in distributed learning, special education class, the "fudge factor" allowing overages in special circumstances and so forth.

But if you want to know the basics of how class size and composition have changed over the last twelve years through three rounds of legislation, this is an overview.

It is based on the Greater Victoria collective agreement.

Can we afford smaller classes? Absolutely.

Education Minister Fassbender seems to have backed off his stance that class sizes don't matter. Not surprisingly, it was one of the first concerns raised at the annual general meeting of the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Council's Q & A discussion:

Education Minister Peter Fassbender spoke to conference delegates Friday morning and was later peppered with questions, starting with this one: “How does class size not matter?”

Parents also wanted to know what his government is doing to help with complex classes, how it will protect schools threatened with permanent closure, whether the labour dispute will upset graduation activities and final exams and whether negotiations will continue throughout the summer.

There were no surprises in his answers: Class size is important up to a point, but not as important as class composition and teacher quality, given limited tax dollars, he said. Government has provided additional dollars to help with class composition challenges but it’s an issue that needs more attention, after a contract is signed, he added.*
So his back up answer? We can't afford it. And another old standby...class composition matters more. (I don't deal with teacher quality - another red herring, but read my thoughts on it here.)

Class size and class composition are inextricably linked. When the portion of the student population with identified special needs is high, the only way to create educationally sound classes is by having smaller classes. So if, for example, what is reasonable for a typical classroom is three students with special needs (the guidelines that used to be in legislation with Bill 33), but there are 8 students with special needs in Grade 5 out of 50 students, the only way to configure classes is to have three smaller classes rather than two larger ones. I'm not sure what other solution Fassbender could be referring to for class composition, unless he means segregation.

So can we afford smaller classes? British Columbians both can afford it and are willing to pay for it. The best evidence comes from an excellent report prepared last year by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. They costed this specific question, and they asked British Columbians what they thought about it.

The first thing they point out is how much tax revenue we would have for public services if only the tax cuts implemented by the BC Liberals never took place:

If BC collected today the same amount in tax revenues as a share of the economy 
(GDP) as we did in 2000, we would have $3.5 billion more in public funds this year 
alone. Meaning, no deficit, and the ability to invest in enhanced or even new public 
services.

But they go on to look at class size and composition in particular, and what it would take to fund this with new, progressive income tax brackets for high income earners:

Two new brackets at the top: 18% 
on income $150,000–$200,000; and 
21% on income over $200,000

(would generate) $700 million

(which could pay for) 2,000 units of new social housing per year plus restore 
K–12 class sizes, composition, and specialist teacher 
staffing to levels that prevailed five years ago

Or alternatively:

Increase the current top (5th) bracket rate 
to 17%, and add two new upper income 
brackets: 20% on income $150,000–$200,000, 
and 22% on income over $200,000 

(would generate) $930 million

(which could pay for) Welfare benefit increases, a major funding increase to 
the Ministry of Children and Family Development, plus 
restore K–12 class sizes, composition, and specialist 
teacher staffing to levels that prevailed five years ago

The CCPA backed up these policy proposals with polling to see what British Columbians think about increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, or even themselves, in order to spend on public services. Here is what they found:

The overwhelming majority of British Columbians (90%) think there should be income tax increases for those at the top. As to where those higher taxes should kick in, a clear majority (57%) says at $100,000 per year of income. A majority (67%) also think major corporations are asked to pay less tax than they should.

...

Of course it’s easy to say someone else should pay more taxes. That’s why it comes as a further surprise to discover the openness British Columbians show when it comes to potential tax increases for themselves. When initially asked a general question about their own level of taxation, most people feel they pay too much – no surprise given the cost of living challenges many wrestle with. But, when taxes are linked to concrete policies that can reduce inequality and improve our quality of life, the story changes.

Respondents were asked if they would consider paying a slightly higher share of their own income to provincial income tax (for most people representing a few hundred dollars per year) in order to help bring about 11 different policy changes. The changes included things like providing more access to home and community based health care for seniors, increasing welfare benefit rates, creating a $10 per day child care program, protecting BC’s forests and endangered species, or reducing class sizes in K-12 education.

The results are striking: 68% say they are willing to pay a higher share of their income in order to help bring about 4 or more of the 11 policies. And once again, this held true for majorities regardless of which political party people intended to vote for in the next provincial election. 

- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/british-columbians-are-ready-thoughtful-conversation-about-taxes#sthash.jQ51lTNa.dpuf

New school year, another 12,000 overcrowded classes

As we get ready to return to school, much attention has been focused on the "teach only" campaign of BC teachers.

But as far as students are concerned, more significant will be the more than 12,000 oversize classes that we can expect, give the government's refusal to reinstate $275 million in lost funding. This funding was cut in 2002 when the BC government stripped teacher collective agreements of limitations on class sizes and class composition (the number of students in each class with special needs designations). (See class size data here: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reporting/)

Even after the teachers strike in 2005 and the introduction of some limitations in the School Act, the government has failed to meet it's own stated limits.

Year after year, since 2005, the number of classes exceeding the School Act limits has grown. Last year it was over 12,000 across BC.

This means there are 12,000 classes with either more than 30 students or with more than 3 students who require an Individual Education Plan (or both).

Talk to any teacher who has been assigned an overcrowded class and you will begin to understand the impact on student learning.

Here is the composition of just one Victoria class that was outside the limits a few years ago:

"My class of 29 students included:
Five children with standard IEP’s (Individual Education Plans). Two children had LD (learning disability) designations. One student had a PDD-NOS (pervasive development disorder - not otherwise specified) designation including neuro-developmental difficulties and immaturities, MID (mild intellectual disability), autistic type behaviours and had had an IBI (intensive behaviour intervention) designation in the past. Another student had been diagnosed with PDCH (physical disability/chronic health), Aspergers, Pervasive Developmental Disorder. The fifth designated child had autism, Tourettes, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and LD. Four additional students had “In-school” IEP’s. These included one student who was two years below grade level, was on a modified program for language arts and mathematics and was waitlisted for an Ed-Psych assessment. Another student had been referred for an Ed-Psych assessment and was barely functioning in the class. He was living in a foster home and was seriously “at risk”. A third student “minimally met” in all areas of the curriculum, was easily distracted and had difficulty beginning and completing tasks. The fourth student had received occupational therapy and instruction from the Learning Disabilities Association and was dysgraphic. This same student was diagnosed with autism the following year. An additional two students had serious emotional concerns."

This teacher was rightly concerned about his ability to meet every student's learning needs. There are only so many hours in the day and one teacher simply cannot meet such diverse needs effectively in the time available.

When teachers begin their "teach only" action, they will be spending more time with their students, and less with Administrators. More at IEP meetings, and less at staff meetings. More planning and assessing and less doing formal reports.

The great tragedy this fall is that the BC government has failed to listen to teachers and restore the funding that has been stolen from our classrooms.