True-False Quiz on Class Size

ECORD school and college enrollments are again stimulating wide discussion of the question of class size. Ellsworth Tompkins, Office of Education Specialist for Large High Schools, has done much research on this question. He recently prepared a true-false quiz on class size which we are pleased to present to SCHOOL LIFE readers. Mr. Tompkins points out that "busy administrators, principals, and teachers may find the quiz interesting and helpful." He says that the quiz also "may well serve as a subject for a faculty discussion or conference." The key to letters following certain questions is: (E) for Elementary, (S) for Secondary, and (C) for College. If no letter is used, the item has general application. This quiz is part of a longer article, "Enigma of Class Size," copies of which are available upon request. Address Office of Education, Federal Security Agency, Washington 25, D. C.

(How much do you know about results of studies on class size?)

For the purposes of this quiz, it is arbitrarily assumed that small classes enroll up to 24 pupils, and large classes enroll 25-50 pupils.

1. Most of the studies on class size have been confined to the elementary school.

2. Generally large classes seem to waste more time than smaller classes.

3. Pupils in higher grades profit rather more by small classes than pupils in the lower grades do.

4. In general, smaller classes are of greatest advantage to the dull pupils. (Dull pupils in this study were those whose intelligence scores were less than the median score of the class immediately below.) (E)

5. There seems to be a correlation between class size and term marks. (S)

6. Small classes make for increased pupil interest through group stimulation. (E) 7. Large classes have been found to be inspiring to the teacher. (S)

8. Large classes surpass smaller classes in achievement when class management is given careful attention. (S)

9. From the teacher's point of view, large classes are more enervating. (S) 10. The lecture method is the only successful method in conducting large classes. (C) 11. Studies in optimum class size were stimulated only after reliable means were available for determining the intelligence and achievement of pupils.

12. Teachers prefer average-sized classes (20-25) rather than small (10-15) or large (30-40) classes. (C)

13. There is a correlation between size of class and teaching efficiency. (S) (C) 14. Traditionally the size of class in elementary schools is larger than in the secondary school.

15. The superior student is hampered by large classes, but the inferior student is helped. (S)

16. Students believe that one of the advantages of larger classes is that they afford a greater variety of student reactions. (C)

17. Student participation depends more on the teacher than on the size of class. 18. Small classes can be justified on the basis of superior student achievement. (E) 19. Better contact with the instructor can be made in small classes. (S)

20. Pupils are strongly in favor of small classes. (S)

21. Teachers disagree strongly on the most effective small- and large-class teaching procedures. (S)

22. Little effort has been made to adapt important teaching functions to large class conditions.

23. Teachers generally are skeptical of their ability to adapt instruction to larger classes. (S)

24. Teachers are confident of their ability to modify their teaching to suit small classes. (S)

(See page 12 for the key to the quiz.)

SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM (Continued from page 3)

more attention than the selection of the architect, who actually interprets commu

leaders should endorse every funds campaign, and should assume active leadership in its conduct. Every available method of public information should be employed, with emphasis at all times placed upon the betterment of educational opportunities for youths and adults of the community.

9. Professional considerations must not stop with the completion of the new structure. It is recommended highly that the school administration, the school board, and the architect sit down together with all school personnel, including teachers, custodians, heating engineers, cafeteria workers, and students' representatives for a discussion on how the building should be used. Stress at this meeting should be placed upon the healthful maintenance of the classrooms and upon the specifics of maximum use of all new facilities.

10. Every building program must be a long-range program. The school superintendent must make special effort to keep abreast of trends not only in his community, but throughout Washington and the entire United States as well. Increasing responsibility, both in number of students. and in the type of instruction offered, bespeak never-ending future challenges within every district in the areas of schoolhousing, program planning, and all other community services.

A mobilized local community will demand superior educational services on all levels for all children, and it will expect its professional leadership to give the competent direction and wise planning which such a demand entails.

plans.

7. The architect will have many meetings with the administration and the governing board of the school district. It is not until these meeting are held that specific details of finance of the building may be decided. The qualified architect can provide professional information in his field and at the same time he will solicit repeatedly the information which teachers and other school people only can give.

8. Before a building program may be completed it is necessary that long, continued attention be given to methods of finance. A building program which has been planned with the support and cooperation of the community almost invariably gains voters' approval. Key community

Herbert S. Conrad has been appointed Chief of the Research and Statistical Service, Central Services Division. Dr. Conrad came to the Office of Education after serving for several years on the College Entrance Examination Board located at Princeton, N. J. For a period of 18 months he was also Educational Consultant to the Secretary of War. In 1945 he was Chief of the Examination Methods and Statistical Analysis Unit of the United States Civil Service Commission. From 1928 to 1945 he served the University of California at Berkeley in the fields of research and statistical analysis and of educational psychology. From 1926 to 1928 Dr. Conrad was in the Department of Psychology of Columbia University.

WHAT a group of educational leaders is doing to raise the standards of educational leadership in our Nation is reported to you in the adjoining article by John Lund, Office of Education Specialist in the Education of School Administrators. Dr. Lund is also serving as Secretary to the Planning Committee of the newly organized National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration. The full report of the Madison conference will be available for distribution later this fall. For details write to Daniel R. Davies, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.

TTRACTED to the University of Wis

AT

consin campus on September 2 were a broadly representative group of educational administration professors. The occasion was the second annual workshop conference of professors of administration to consider problems in developing educational leadership. Their organization of a permanent National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration was probably the high light of the conference.

This group of educational leaders had met a year before at Endicott, N. Y. They had worked hard and had made considerable progress. Their report, published in limited edition, has been studied by many administrators, education staffs, and students during the past year.

At Endicott this group had boldly proclaimed that "education can change community life," and that "it has done so." They had stated their belief that "the basic method and purpose of education must become that of improving the quality of daily living in communities," and that, "the quality of educational programs can never be expected to rise to a level higher than the competence of leadership." They had identified some of the competencies they believed educational leaders should possess and they had set forth the thinking of the group on some ways and means by which such competencies can best be acquired.

Reassembling at Madison a year later the realization was strong upon the group that Endicott marked only the beginning of efforts which must go on for a long time. This could be no short-term drive. Nor could this group alone accomplish the task

they share with educational authorities and other organized professional groups, namely the continuous upgrading of the kind and quality of leadership for American education at all levels of operation.

The action taken at Madison to organize for continued action was therefore in the nature of a solemn commitment to a cause and a program of continuing cooperative study and action. In the language of their formally adopted resolution:

THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROFESSORS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION proposes to work toward the declared purpose of this organization "to improve educational leadership" through the following means: (1) Improve the programs for preparation of administrators of education in our respective institutions as proposed in the recommendations of the Endicott and Madison Conferences; (2) cooperate in working toward the upgrading of standards for the preparation of administrators of education; (3) cooperate in the development of uniform minimum standards for certification by the States of administrators of education.

We further propose to continue to work together as individuals and institutions in special studies, investigations and experiments to attain our declared purpose

We also declare our desire and willingness to cooperate with any and all other groups or interests that are working toward these same purposes. We invite their help.

Preview of Progress

The kind of cooperation invited here was already on the way toward implementation. Representatives of the following groups and agencies participated in the two conferences held at Endicott and at Madison: The American Association of School Administrators, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Department of Elementary School Principals of the National Education Association, the National Council of Chief State School Officers, and the Office of Education of the Federal Security Agency. Representative laymen will be included in the personnel of future conferences. Assurances of interest and further cooperation have been received from all the groups mentioned. Plans are developing for organized meetings of all persons interested, and attending the regional meetings of the American Association of School Administrators to be held at San Francisco, St. Louis, and Philadelphia early in 1949. Such a meeting was suc

cessfully held at Atlantic City in February 1948. Institutions, singly and in regional groups, are planning study, research, and experimentation programs for the year ahead. These will involve cooperation at the "grass roots" level between institutional staff members, administrators, and teachers in the field and representative laymen. It should be a busy and fruitful year.

With this background description of progressive activity a brief preview of progress made at Madison is appropriate. As stated earlier, the Endicott Conference had based its concept of educational leadership upon the conviction that "the basic method and purpose of education must become that of improving the quality of daily living in communities." At Madison that conviction was reaffirmed and the

INSTITUTIONS (61) represented at Endicott or at Madison: Alabama Polytech. nic Institute, Claremont Graduate School, Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley,* Colorado State College of Education, University of Denver,* Yale University, University of Connecticut, George Washington University, University of Florida, University of Georgia, Drake University, Iowa State Teachers College, University of Kentucky,* University of Idaho, Illinois State Normal University, Northwestern University, Southern Illinois University, University of Chicago,* University of Illinois, Ball State Teachers College, Butler University, Indiana State Teachers College, Indiana University,* University of Maryland,* Boston University,* Harvard University, Michigan State College,* Wayne University, University of Minnesota, University of Mississippi,* Washington University, University of Omaha, Columbia University,* Cornell University,* New York University,* Syracuse University, University of Buffalo,* University of Rochester, Duke University, East Carolina Teachers College, University of North Carolina,* University of North Dakota, Ohio State University,* Ohio University, Oklahoma A & M College, University of Oregon, Pennsylvania State College,* Temple University, University of Pennsylania,* University of Pittsburgh, George Peabody College for Teachers, University of Tennessee,* Texas Christian University, University of Texas,* University of Utah,* University of Wyoming, State College of Washington, University of Washington, University of West Virginia, University of Wisconsin.*

*Represented at both conferences.

Sixteen Characteristics of the Community School

1. The community school seeks to operate continuously as an important unit in the family of agencies serving the common purpose of improving community living.

2. The community school shares with citizens continuing responsibility for the identification of community needs and the development of subsequent action programs to meet these needs.

3. The community school begins its responsibility for better living with the immediate school environment.

4. The curriculum of the community school is sufficiently comprehensive and flexible to facilitate the realization of its purpose.

5. The community school program is dynamic, constantly changing to meet emerging community needs.

6. The community school makes full use of all community resources for learning experiences.

7. The community school develops and uses distinctive types of teaching materials.

8. The community school shares with other agencies the responsibility for providing opportunities for appropriate learning experiences for all members of the community.

9. The community school recognizes improvement in social and community relations behavior as an indication of individual growth and development. 10. The community school develops continuous evaluation in terms of the quality of living for pupils, teachers, and administrators; for the total school program; and for the community.

11. The pupil personnel services of the community school are cooperatively developed in relation to community needs.

12. The community school secures staff personnel properly prepared to contribute to the distinctive objectives of the school, facilitates effective work and continuous professional growth by members of the staff, and maintains only those personnel policies which are consistent with the school's purposes. 13. The community school maintains democratic pupil-teacher-administrator relationships.

14. The community school creates, and operates in, a situation where there is high expectancy of what good schools can do to improve community living. 15. The community school buildings, equipment, and grounds are so designed, constructed, and used as to make it possible to provide for children, youth and adults those experiences in community living which are not adequately provided by agencies other than the school.

16. The community school budget is the financial plan for translating into reality the educational program which the school board, staff members, students, and other citizens have agreed upon as desirable for their community. (Detailed discussion of these characteristics is of necessity omitted here.)

Here again the conference came up with practical proposals for action programs. Full recognition was of course given to the fact that in many areas of possible action much will need to be done through research and experimentation. Many problems requiring further research were identified and listed.

The conferees left Madison as they left Endicott, satisfied with the fruits of their united labor, both from the point of view of the value of the experience itself to each of the participants, and from the point of view of the progress made. They left also more convinced than ever that only a good start has been made along a road that still offers challenges to clear thinking, teamwork and bold action if the objectives are to be reached in our time.

Members of the Planning Committee for the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration are: Russell T. Gregg, University of Wisconsin, chairman; William E. Arnold, University of Pennsylvania; Orin Graff, University of Tennessee; David W. Mullins, Alabama Polytechnic Institute; Roald F. Campbell, University of Utah; Ralph Cherry, University of Kentucky; Clyde M. Campbell, Michigan State College; Dana Cotton, Harvard University; Daniel R. Davies, Columbia University, treasurer; and John Lund, Office of Education, secretary.

Code For Comics

FOURTEEN of the thirty-four publishers who produce comics for children and adults in our country recently subscribed to a code of ethics for comics promulgated by the Association of Comics Magazine Publishers. The high points of the code, which may affect the type of comic content regularly circulated to 50 million persons, and read by many school-age children, are: Less sex, no crime detail, no sadistic torture, a minimum of slang and no vulgar language, no “alluring" divorces, and no ridicule of or attack on any religious or racial group.

12