Larger Classes: Good Education or a Cost Cutter?

Larger Classes = Less Teachers = Less Expenditure On Education

= ?

Rangiawhia School in the 19s60s

My comments here are based on experience as a primary teacher. The largest class I had was 40 fortunately only for a term. Most classes I had from 1959 to 19 72 were between 32-36. My smallest class was a special class of 14 children. What a relief to have that few even though they had learning difficulties; in two cases severe. They improved in reading, speaking, writing, and other subjects. In every case they were well below their chronological age in reading; the most severe was a twelve year old with a reading age of six. He improved from that to eight in one year. Four improved their reading so that it equated with their actual ages in the same time; or an improvement of about three years. Those were able to go to a larger, "normal" class, but kept coming back. Eventually two had socially advanced to the point where they could cope and didn't come back. 

We sometimes forget the effect in learning that a proportion of the children can have on a class. In one of say 35 children, if there are 10-15 who are academically advanced, their presence and impact can improve the rest. In some cases the improvements are spectacular. They can "pull" up the rest academically including themselves. Behaviour also becomes less disruptive. I had large classes (35 plus)  at a time when I was an inexperienced teacher. This does not mean that those classes did not progress. Far from it. Each class has its own character reflecting communities they came from. Parental unemployment wasn't a problem then. SES status was, as was extreme social behavior. The child poverty spoken of now was rare. Teachers tended to blame parents for  learning difficulties. Eventually I realized that however true that was, only the teachers were paid to educate children, not parents. We tended to claim successes and make orphans of our failures. However as far as class sizes are concerned smaller is much better academically whether they be in private or public schools. 

Paying the "best" teachers was through grading of teachers performance by Inspectors and scaling of positions. This enabled the best graded to win higher paid jobs within schools and education. In other words if the "best" teachers should get higher pay then someone/system has to decide who these are and what the criteria are to determine "best" teacher. It's ironic that  the harshest critics of that system were us teachers and our unions. Whatever system is imposed to determine this would need to be fair to all teachers.