How Big is a Socratic Class?
By Stuart Grauer

Years ago, when my daughter was in lower elementary school, her school hastily moved in quite a few portable, relocatable classrooms that took up substantial playground space. The reason? The California Class Size Reduction Act of 1996. What could be bad? Who wouldn't want smaller classes for their child? The effect of the Act was to reduce class caps in grades K through 3 from around 30 students down to around 20 students. After a few years, research and appearances woke our state up to the reality that they had spent a fortune and caused enormous disruption to no effect. Why? The classes had not been reduced in size enough to reach a truly different dynamic. Teachers still could not have personal conversations and connections with kids.

While it is true that data exists showing the deleterious impacts of classes much larger than 30 students, reducing such a class by only five or even ten did not prove to impact the dynamic or level of personalization substantially. The question that lingered was, where did they get the research to back such an extremely expensive initiative? No one seems to know.

The California Class Size Reduction (CSR) Act was a well-intentioned initiative aimed at improving educational outcomes by reducing class sizes in the early grades. However, as I painfully watched the story of my daughter's school, the implementation of this policy led to some unintended consequences:  a massive increase in the demand for teachers; the hiring of many less experienced or less qualified teachers; and a shortage of classroom space resulting in the shotgun installation of portable classrooms, crowding out playgrounds and other valuable school spaces. Personally, I would have preferred they focus on secondary schools where, I believe, kids need mentoring more than perhaps any time of their life.

Research on the outcomes of the CSR Act offers some insights. A study by Bohrnstedt and Stecher (2002) evaluated the impact of the initiative and found that while smaller class sizes did lead to slight improvements in student achievement, these gains were relatively modest given the substantial financial investment. The moderate reductions in class size did not reach the critical threshold needed to transform the classroom experience. This lesson underscores the importance of basing educational policies on robust, evidence-based research to ensure they achieve their intended outcomes.

There is historical and empirical evidence suggesting that truly smaller class sizes, particularly around 12 students or fewer, offer numerous benefits to all ages I’ve seen. I treasure the work of cultural anthropologist and educator, Edward Hall. In his insightful book Beyond Culture, Hall discusses how the size of a group impacts its performance across various settings, including business, sports, and even military operations. His research reveals that the ideal working group size is between eight and 12 individuals. Within this range, members can know each other well enough to maximize their talents and communicate effectively. Once a group exceeds this size, the complexity of communication increases, and individuals begin to be categorized rather than seen as unique contributors. Participation and commitment tend to fall off, and leadership often becomes more manipulative than natural.

Social neuroscience research shows much the same, particularly the work of Robin Dunbar. His research, often referred to as "Dunbar's Number," suggests that the human brain is wired to manage social interactions within small groups. For meaningful interactions, smaller, more intimate groups of around 10-12 individuals are ideal. This neurological perspective perfectly complements the structure of Socratic classes, where deep discussions and personal connections are crucial for effective learning. For example, Larry Cuban at Stanford has presented research showing that student performance significantly improves when class sizes drop below 15 students. On the other hand, performance does not dramatically worsen until class sizes exceed 30, highlighting the importance of finding the right balance. At The Grauer School, our decades-long commitment to capping class sizes to allow for Socratic instruction has provided us with valuable insights that support these findings. 

Further studies bolster the case for smaller class sizes. For instance, a study by Hackman and Vidmar (1970) focused on problem-solving and found that groups of around 12 members consistently outperformed larger groups in both speed and accuracy in solving complex problems. This suggests that small class sizes not only benefit individual academic achievement but also can encourage a more collaborative environment where students can engage in deep thinking and problem-solving.

The historical and cultural significance of groups consisting of 12 individuals is also fascinating for those concerned with the noble heritage of our profession. Across various traditions, religious contexts, and symbolic systems, the number 12 has often been associated with completeness, balance, and a manageable size for effective communication and collaboration. Consider the twelve Apostles in Christianity, the twelve Knights of the Round Table, the twelve Olympians in ancient Greek mythology, the twelve tribes of Israel, and the twelve Zodiac signs, each associated with different attributes. On an anecdotal level, I have consistently found that with classes of 7 to 12 students, the attributes of my students, and many of my associate teachers, come to the forefront, creating a dynamic environment conducive to in-depth learning. 

In addition to cognitive and collaborative benefits, smaller class sizes offer significant advantages in social-emotional learning (SEL). Research by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2015) highlighted that smaller groups allow for more direct teaching and reinforcement of SEL skills. In such settings, students are more likely to engage in meaningful interactions, develop empathy, and feel a sense of belonging. These factors contribute significantly to their overall well-being and academic success. I do not think their benefits can be understated as we seek to address the issues of today, like joyful learning, loneliness, anxiety, and connection. These topics highlight the importance of developing Socratic classes, where emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills are valued as highly as intellectual achievements.

Reducing class sizes to 12 students or fewer comes with significant economic implications, and they do not seem attainable by many schools and districts. But for those who can find a way to afford them, the costs are justified by the long-term benefits. Alan Krueger's research in The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2003) indicates that smaller class sizes lead to higher graduation rates, increased college attendance, and better lifetime earnings. These economic returns are substantial, especially for disadvantaged students, making the investment in smaller classes a worthwhile consideration for educators and policymakers alike. 

Though not much research has been done specifically on class sizes under 12 students, the existing studies and historical evidence strongly suggest that smaller Socratic classes offer significant cognitive, collaborative, and social-emotional benefits. These findings provide a compelling case for educators and policymakers to consider the impact of class size in their quest to improve student outcomes, especially in small schools like The Grauer School, where the benefits of intimate learning environments are observable every day, and we can attempt to measure joyfulness as the fundamental outcome we want for our students.

Bibliography
1.    Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Stecher, B. M. (2002). What We Have Learned About Class Size Reduction in California. California Department of Education.
2.    Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming Again, Again, and Again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
3.    Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469-493.
4.    Hackman, J. R., & Vidmar, N. (1970). Effects of Size and Task Type on Group Performance and Member Reactions. Sociometry, 33(1), 37-54.
5.    Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.
6.    Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
7.    Krueger, A. B. (2003). Economic Considerations and Class Size. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F34-F63.
8.    Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. The Future of Children, 5(2), 113-127.
9.    Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
10.    Schanzenbach, D. W. (2014). Does Class Size Matter? National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado Boulder.
11.    Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2015). The 2015 CASEL Guide: Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs—Middle and High School Edition. Chicago, IL: CASEL.
 

COMMENT! Click on the "Comments" drop-down box below to share a comment.
SHARE! Click on the social media icons below to share this column.