The Teacher's Attention: Why Our Kids Must and Can Get Smaller Schools and Classes

1 First and Foremost

T here are many good (and bad) ideas for changes in schools; I am convinced relationship load ought to be addressed first and foremost . For some it’s a radical argument; for others it’s a tired argument , supposedly long since shown to be simplistic. If you’re skeptical, please read at least this chapter—I shall try to intrigue you. There are at least eighteen reasons grouping size reduction should be done first and foremost among (but not necessarily instead of) other good suggestions for school change. In Chapter 8 cost projections show that we’ll spend 20 percent more on education than we currently do to implement my proposal— that’s about 1 percent for each of these reasons. Surely many of them are worth at least a 1 percent spending increase in and of themselves. Many have observed the fact that most education reforms fail to become widespread. An important reason is that many fixes actually complicate rather than simplify the jobs of educators (Cohen and Scheer 2003; Kennedy 2005; Tye 2000). This research lends credibility to relationship load reduction because it is a simplifying—rather than a complicating— reform in numerous ways.1 As Deborah Meier, a leading figure of the small schools movement, suggests, we would be wise to reserve the complexity of schooling for the thinking that goes on in classrooms (2000b, p. 187). What follows are eighteen reasons we should reduce grouping size instead of looking for yet another apparently quick and cheap change that actually increases the complexity of both educating and growing up. 1 First and Foremost 2 / Chapter 1 Reason 1 First Do No Harm Doctors take the oath that they will “first do no harm” before trying to help. Likewise, before we seek to educate, we should vow not to hurt our students in the attempt. I believe the typical current relationship load does harm, in spite of our good intentions. Reason 2 It Furthers Social Justice in Education A focus on relationship load reduction does not detract from the fight for educational equity and equal outcomes for poor students and students of color. In Chapter 3 I will demonstrate how the racial achievement gap is due in part to the racial relationship gap. Eighteen Reasons to Reduce Relationship Load First and Foremost 1. First do no harm. 2. It furthers social justice in education. 3. It brings school into line with other human grouping sizes. 4. It’s the simplest, most direct solution to the real nurturance crisis. 5. It has automatic results. 6. It simplifies teaching. 7. It requires little or no change to teacher training (initial or ongoing). 8. It facilitates other positive changes in education. 9. It immunizes kids against the drawbacks of what we can’t change. 10. It accommodates local control. 11. It’s simple to understand and noncontroversial. 12. It’s simple to measure, regulate, and administrate. 13. It’s preventative, which is kinder—and cheaper—than cure. 14. The arguments against it are simply wrong. 15. Simple-sounding alternatives to it only sound simple. 16. It’s already a secret ingredient in many “alternatives.” 17. It would prevent future Columbines. 18. It’s simply an ethical imperative. First and Foremost / 3 Reason 3 It Brings School in Line with Other Grouping Size Norms As a context for explaining why school should have small groupings, let’s talk about the fact that it’s pretty much the only place that doesn’t. An opponent of relationship load reduction is in essence arguing that school is an exception to the rule of the negative impact of an insufficiency of adult attention. As we’ll see, such opponents must also consider that school groupings are an exception to the rules of group dynamics that researchers have found to apply across groupings of all ages in Western societies. Perhaps most incredibly, schools are exempted from laws that govern how much adult attention children have a right to in daycares. Daycare and “They Don’t Care” State laws regulate grouping sizes and ratios in public and private daycare centers due to compelling psychological research that foregrounds attachment theory and demonstrates the advantages of relationship-based care. One of the criteria used by an association that accredits daycares reads, “Sufficient staff with primary responsibility for children are available to provide frequent personal contact” (National Association for the Education of Young Children 1991, p. 40...