Why are class sizes set at 30 (ish)?

[FiveFingeredFiend]

It's like it is a standard. 30 is ok

but OH my word if it is 33.

boastful mother " My Anna is in a class of 27, i was so relived"

I ask in relation to a market forces question Xenia asked. Teachers are relatively low paid she says becuase it is easy to become one.

So i wondered why they arn't paid more and we dont have two teachers per class, or why the standard isn't 15 per class.

Why that number? why 30?

interestingly I can't find anything on it. I thought it was introduced by the scottish assembly when they first started up.

just wanted to add that you'd be hard pressed to find a fully qualified accoutant who has been signed off in 5 years - it's usually 3 years of degree and another 3-5 years of study (whilst working full time) and then another year or so of doing on the job stuff to get signed off. Think the drop out rates is significantly higher than teachers too, plus that extra study has to be paid for!!!!!

I do think Teaching is a hard job and is undervalued but I think academically not as taxing as other professions.

Do wish class sizes were smaller too - down to 35 would make a big difference - actually over haul the whole education system whilst you at it. I think the UK education system is really poor and does not reflect the latest findings on what would benefit children of both genders best.

meant to put SOME other professions!

mildly insulted at the thought that passing on academic information, and understanding the mechanisms by while children can learn is not considered academic.

I've carried out biomedical research at three top flight universities, worked in the pharmaceutical industry in medical information and teaching is the most intelectually demanding job I have ever had.

Because not only do I need to know my subject, but I also have to analysing how the kids are approching the subject, and evaluating their understanding, so that I can tailor the lesson to their needs.

Giving infomration to doctors on drugs was much simpler in comparison. paid better though!

xposted!

TBH....I did leave school many years before the advent of the scottish parliament...so my info is hugely out of date ...but thinking back there were 6 big square benches per class, and I sat with another three around mine, at least in physics..so science probably was smaller.

think part of the issue is that primary and secondary teaching is lumped together. Also I'm talking purely about qualifying as teacher in response to thinking you could qualify as an accountant so quickly/easily - if it were that easy their would be more of them! Being a good teacher is a different kettle of fish.

Sadly I think also the teachers who are not good at their jobs are noticed (however much a minority they are) and that lessens appreciation for how demanding it is to be a good teacher (me thinks probaby all good teachers should get honoury pyschology degree). Bad accountants do not get to qualify and those that do soon get sacked and become unemployable!

If I am honest I think that being a Primary teacher is even more taxing, since much of what they do is so basic that most of us cannot remember a time when we couldn't do it!

I think that teaching someone to read is very academicaly challenging

I find teaching my dds to read not academically taxing but much more emotionally demanding??? The patience, encouragement, being positive etc where as the mechanics of understanding what they can/can't do and which bit to develop onto etc is the easy bit?

Perhaps I'm doing it all wrong then?

I think you have to go into quite a bit of background into what they can actually learn at which stage. Piaget and all that.

I would find teaching Primary to be quite scary, having to teach everything.

At least when my kids get on my nerves I only have them for 1 hour 10!

There are things that teachers have to consider that Joe Public doesnt even think about. A primary school teacher is an expert in children. They often have an extensive knowledge of special needs and child development.

The lesson content is not academically taxing, but understanding the pscyhology of getting children to learn can be. A good teacher has to understand the misconceptions child have as well as controlling the class.

Teachers need EXCEPTIONAL communication skills.

Yes absolutely agree those are skills I see you need to be a teacher which is presumably why those who are fatastic teachers it is a given vocation type of thing - those skills must be there and you build on them. Which is why a teachers job has become undervalued over the years as more suited to women and seen as a nurturing role. It will be a great day when society values nurturing roles more highly than "academic" achievement.

Lets face it anyone who is highly academically able and is prepared to work hard can be an accountant! Doesn't add much to society though does it!

CarGirl I don't think you can really compare teaching your DD to read with teaching 30 odd children to read, write, interact, learn about numbers, science, art, history, pe, taking turns, sharing, talking, communicating, listening, following instructions,being nice to each other, sitting still, lining up, not fighting, not hitting, not punching, not overturning furniture when things don't go their way and not trying to kill each other five days a week from 9 till 3. It is both intellectually taxing and emotionally taxing and draining. Being a primary teacher is not easy.

Getting the qualification to be one is easier than some other academic professions.

Let's face it, the wannabe accountant could never train to be one without teachers.

The medic couldn't become a doctor without teachers.

Etc. etc. etc.

'tis highly undervalued, teaching. And some people go into it for all the wrong reasons, but some are in it because they truly are great teachers. They deserve medals.

Sorry, that wasn't a dig Cargirl!

Teaching your own kids is always more emotionally taxing that teaching other children too! You're not going about it wrong

but why 30? Has a study been done? Why is 30 the magic number and not 20 as MB says it is in Scotland?

"Why are we not paid more? Because the government can get away with not paying us more. As the major employer there isn't much by way of market forces. "

i am not sure i believe this, if there was a shortage of teachers wouldn't teachers get paid more - supply demand?

From August P1 intake is set at a maximum of 25 in Scotland. Will make a big difference, especially as we sit at maximum capacity in my school.

there is a premium paid for new science teachers . I got it myself. But the pay i get now is the same as for people in non shortage subjects