June 2 issue - In the 1970s, Mike Riley was a young Chicago teacher trying to save failing inner-city students. He found they blossomed if he simply sat them down each day after class and made sure they did their homework. "They went from F's to honor roll, and I realized that... they weren't dumb kids, just kids we hadn't connected to," he says. Riley learned that even the most apathetic students responded to a challenge, as long as they had the right support.
Instead of an argument for different tests, which we certainly need, this experience could point to the argument which makes the most sense to me, lower class size, particularly in some urban neighborhoods.
You may recall the Hawthorne effect from your undergraduate days. It's a thesis which emerged from industrial psychology studies in the 30s. Researchers though productivity could be increased in measurable amounts by altering various things about the work setting. And, bless them, designed careful studies to see which would have an effect. Basically, to make a fairly long story short, all did. And, the conclusion was not that redoing the work settings made a difference but the sheer amount of attention to the workers which doing the studies created.
By the same argument, these students did better because Riley was willing to pay attention to them. Thus, an argument for fewer students per teacher, more time with any given student. |
