Anyway, in one of the appendices of her report was a reference to a study of London primary schools that indicated that smaller class sizes provided no appreciable benefit. I was surprised by this because it ran counter to everything I'd ever heard about schools and the need for smaller classes.
I don't know if there have been similar studies done here, but this report from Canada has some interesting facts. Try this:
It is far from clear, however, that reducing class size is the most costeffective strategy available to raise young pupils'’ achievement, particularly in the case of the later primary and secondary grades, where smaller classes have not been shown to produce tangible achievement gains. Those likely to gain most from smaller classes generally are teachers whose work-loads are eased somewhat with fewer students.Whoa! Teachers unions won't like that. And, what's more, even though the youngest children do get some benefit from smaller classes, those benefits are small and they vanish by the time the children have finished the second or third grade (age 8 or 9).
Some countries, such as "South Korea, with very large class sizes, routinely outperform richer countries, such as the U.S. and Canada, where classes are much smaller". Of course, why this should be is important. The author offers some evidence to show that the quality of teachers declines as class sizes shrink. Smaller classes means more teachers, which means you must lower your standards to fill the new jobs.
If our government wasn't so firmly in the grasp of the teachers' unions, we might have a proper debate on this issue. However, teachers are one of those professions that dominates our political class (along with publicans and lawyers).
NOTE: if you read the report you'll see a reference to another report that talks about the experience in Ireland. However, this is a misprint as it is Iceland and not Ireland that is mentioned in the other report.
