The smaller, the merrier

In choosing primary schools, parents take many things into account. If educational success is prioritised, then the calibre of the head teacher and the proportion of children in the school from low-income homes (and without English as a first language) are important. Unfortunately, these latter tend to need more help, eating into the time devoted to other pupils. But perhaps the most significant single issue is class size, not social class.

 This is not simply a matter of measuring teacher-pupil ratios. Some classes are small because low-performing pupils have been clustered together to give them a better chance. Experimental studies are a better test; the best being one done in Tennessee.

 Pupils and teachers in the same school were randomly assigned to three class types. One class had 17 pupils, another had 23, a third had the same number but with the addition of a teaching assistant. The children in the small classes did significantly better in maths and reading, with those from ethnic minorities benefiting the most. The children were returned to normal classes from grade 4 (year 6) onwards, but the improvements were still evident three academic years later.

 Other evidence comes from a longitudinal British study that tracked more than 10,000 pupils in 300 schools from entry to the end of primary. Care was taken to measure factors other than class size that could influence outcomes. Small classes (under 25) had a significant effect on literacy and maths in the first year. This effect endured for literacy (but not maths) in the second year. However, the literacy effect disappeared by the third year, as many of the pupils moved into larger classes.

Tellingly, the effect of first year small classes carried over into the second year more when children moved into a similar or smaller class. Moving to a larger class had a negative effect.

 The study also showed why small is beautiful. Teachers spent more time with pupils, individually; the classes were easier to control; and more time could be spent in planning and marking work. Consequently, pupils are better behaved and are more engaged in the process of learning.

They asked more questions, discussed subjects with teachers, and were more inquisitive.

While bad teachers are not made good by small classes, and while there is a danger that teachers with small classes sometimes fail to adapt their techniques to individualise the pedagogy (having been trained to deal with large ones), particularly for the early years, small is definitely best.

 Interestingly, there is little evidence that teaching assistants improve educational outcomes. While they do free up the teacher to provide more individualised attention, they do not have the same effect as simply having smaller classes: results in maths and literacy are not improved by having teaching assistants.

 Arguably, class smallness is the main educational asset you buy for your child by going private. It is deeply regrettable that the last government did not take the evidence on board.

 Rather than saving money by injecting teaching assistants into schools and by squandering billions on private sector partnership building programmes, they could have increased the number of teachers and reduced class sizes.

With Cameron cutting education, it is hardly likely he will be splashing out on this. So, alas, it means that if you want the best for your child, you have to seek out the state school nearest to you with the smallest class sizes and, I am sorry to say, the most other middle-class children. That’s always assuming you reject the private sector on principle or for financial reasons, or cannot face the idea of home education.

Culled from guardian.co.uk

By: OLIVER JAMES