It would be great to be able to point to research that studies and documents a positive relationship between a low teacher – student ratio in high school English and language art classes and higher achievement in students’ reading and writing. Unfortunately, this issue has not been studied directly, but there are definite ways of thinking about the role that teacher – student ratio may play in high school literacy learning.

One instructional strategy that has been shown to be effective in supporting literacy outcomes is the use of extending discussions of the meaning and interpretation of the texts students read (see the IES Adolescent Literacy Practice Guide, Kamil, et., al., 2008).  The Practice Guide recommends that teachers create opportunities to lead students in discussions about text as a way to strengthen their comprehension through sustained exchanges with their fellow students.  In order for effective discussions to be effective, a variety of opinions and perspectives are shared, debated, and refined.  Students hear how their peers make sense of text, which often leads to new insight about how to apply comprehension and critical thinking strategies.  Effective discussions need a “critical mass” of students.  We know that absenteeism can be a problem with high school students, especially among struggling students.  For example, in one evaluation of interventions for struggling readers, teachers actually complained that the class size of 15 students was too small because absenteeism sometimes meant that there were too few students to carry on rich discussions about the class readings (Kemple et al, 2008).

So what is the optimal number for a high school ELA class?  That is hard to say, probably because teachers may differ so much in their ability to manage active discussions.  It is also difficult to determine a specific class size because we know that in any high school class, students’ literacy levels will differ considerably.  Teachers serve their students most effectively when they provide reading materials at varied reading levels and when they differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs.  Again, it is impossible to provide a definitive class size that makes these two important tasks possible for all teachers.  

What we do know is that extended time for literacy is an essential infrastructural element of a successful literacy program for adolescents (see Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).  Many schools have implemented a 90-minute or longer ELA block, even if the regular time blocks are 50 minutes or so.  The extra time may be used for reinforcement, enrichment, study skills instruction, or intervention with students who need extra help completing their reading and writing assignments.  Some programs take the concept of “extended time” even farther.  In Talent Development schools (Kemple, Herlihy, & Smith, 2005), students spend a full semester in a double block of reading and writing instruction.  This block replaces their regular English/ELA class, and in the second semester, students attend English/ELA and a “transition” class that helps them maintain the literacy strategies they learned in the so-called “double dose” of reading.

Another way for students to receive extra literacy instruction occurs if schools adapt a “literacy-in-the-content areas” perspective.  When schools take this approach, teachers in all content areas learn to think about and teach content-specific reading and writing strategies:  how authors organize text to present ideas in science, math, social studies and how students need to organize their own writing when they want to show what they have learned in these classes.  The success of this approach is, of course, predicated on teachers actually making assignments to students to read in authentic texts that are similar to what scientists, mathematicians, and historians read.  Content area teachers also need to make assignments that require students to write and to include items on class tests that require a “constructed response.” 

One can argue that teachers will integrate content-specific reading instruction and writing assignments into their teaching most often if they have small classes, but the value of this approach cannot be underestimated (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007).  And to add one more consideration to the class size question, best practices in literacy-in-the-content area instruction also include active discussion about the ideas and information students must learn.  For example, class discussions about the meaning of important historical documents or multiple approaches for conducting experiments in science can engage students’ curiosity and deepen their learning. And, as it has been stated, discussions require enough students for a vigorous exchange of ideas.