Class Sizes

[rabbitstew]

When people talk about class size not making that much measurable difference to performance and it being an expensive way of making a difference.... I was wondering whether this assertion is based on ignoring children with special educational needs? Or are children with special educational needs served just fine in a class of 60? Isn't both asserting that all children should be educated together, regardless of need and ability, and asserting that very large classes are perfectly acceptable, combining two different things that work against each other??? Surely with a colossal range of different needs in a class, a teacher cannot deal with a huge class of children and serve the needs of any but the rump in the middle, effectively? Isn't the argument a very utilitarian one - ie one that argues against making expensive efforts for those who have an unusual profile, because it isn't cost effective for the economy???? And if a huge proportion of people are let down by their education as a result, that is OK, because a sufficiently large proportion of people are progressing in the way required and expected. That argument would greatly increase the appeal of private education, I should imagine, so that parents who can afford it can get their children a better, if less "cost effective," life.

Wondering what the views of teachers were on this....

That's quite cynical, have you had a personal bad experience?
I am not a teacher, but I think classes above 20 usually have a spare adult, either a TA for all or dedicated LSAs who end up being a spare helper part of the time, too.

What are you thinking of as "very large"?

Our experience seems to suggest that this is true. DD has gone into a reception class with an unusually wide range of ability. Her teacher says it's the most extreme range she has ever taught, and freely admits that this is affecting her ability to differentiate as she would have been able to do in a more normal year.

There's another factor here, though, and that's budgets. The model you describe works if the special educational needs are being met with extra funded support. That's not happening in the way it once would have done, and so what you are arguing is more likely to happen.

A final, controversial point. Special education for those who have an unusual profile at the top end of the spectrum - i.e. the bright - might well be cost effective for the economy as a whole on a strictly utilitarian basis. But it's morally wrong to do one and not the other.

This is a very complicated area because there are so many different strands involved and I am not sure there is any easy answer.
If you take a few examples. Firstly the capability of the teacher. A teacher can be outstanding in teaching their class and it does not matter whether there are 20 or 35 in the class, they will all receive the best possible attention from the teacher and make good progress. A poor teacher is clearly not going to be able to do that. If you then add in the possibility of there being some kind of additional support in the classroom, then an outstanding teacher should use them to best advantage and this will further enhance the teaching experience for all in the class. But even an outstanding teacher can actually be poor at delegating and using this extra support effectively so an extra body in the classroom is not always an advantage.
As soon as you then add in special needs, which also includes those who are gifted and talented, then you again widen the number of parameters, hence my suggestion that this has no easy answer.
If you are wanting an answer to whether one teacher can adequately teach 60 pupils then I think the answer is no, even if they are the best behaved, willing class in the country.

Just asking the question in advance of anyone taking advantage of a recent OECD report by suggesting that a maximum class size of 30 is unnecessary and that primary and secondary schools should start accepting classes of 35 or 40 children, or more... ie anyone taking advantage of the crass reporting of what the OECD report actually says in order to come up with a quick fix for there being too many children and not enough school places for them...

I was listening to the Radio 4 piece on S Korea this morning and shouting at the radio, "It's not the class size, it's the massive cultural difference in attitudes to education."

I think a huge amount depends on the capability of the teacher IME.Dd was in a class of 18 with a dreadful teacher, her LSA for twenty hours and another LSA for another statemented child full time and a part time class TA and she was going backwards even though her LSA was very good at supporting her.
Now she is in a class of 36 (y4) again with her LSA for 20 hours, a full time TA another full time LSA for another statemented child and she is thriving but her teacher is exceptionally good and she has a very competent class TA to assist.Also maths , literacy and phonics are streamed so she is in a class of 20 for maths and literacy and a group of 8 for phonics. Her maths and literacy groups are the top groups, lower groups have fewer children.

I think 30 is more than enough! There have been days when there has been as few as 24 children in my class due to illness, and the difference is noticeable. Everyone gets 1/24 of my attention, rather than 1/30.

30 children can sit on the carpet and all see the teacher. The teacher can see them and ensure they are engaged. If someone's talking, they can be moved. If someone is daydreaming, they can be brought back in. If there were 60 children, there's no way the teacher could ensure all children were engaged during introductions/ direct teaching.

There's also no way one teacher could mark 60 books, differntiate for 60 children, assess 60 children's progress, know the ins-and-outs of 60 children's lives. Every child would get a lesser experience for it.

With regards to SEN children- lots of children who would have traditionally been in special schools are now in mainstream schools. Lots of special schools were closed down, and also parents are now given more choice. On top of that, there are more children with SEN. One theory is because science and technology has moved on so much that very premature babies are surviving, whereas in the past they wouldn't have done.

It's not going to happen anyway. There isn't the physical space in schools to fit more than 30 children into one room. In my room, there is only one way I can set the tables out and not create a fire hazard. The carpet space is just big enough.

It depends on the age mix and ability mix. Clearly a more homogeneous class makes teaching more straightforward and enables the class to be larger with still good results. However, if you have a class with very different abilities which on top of it is very large, then there are going to be victims. This could be children who are quiet and well behaved or very clever children who are not being stretched or disruptive children who are being left to their own devices or a mix of any of these things. Ultimately it means that some children will be paying the price. I think that a class of 20, of similar ability with an experienced teacher would be my ideal.

My dd is in a class of 20 and has made almost no progress this year due to an ineffectual teacher with low expectations. There is a child in her class with SEN who has a TA to support him. I suspect that he has made almost no progress too. Nothing to do with the class size, but everything to do with a rubbish teacher.