Class sizes and improved outcomes

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/03/2024 (570 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In a 2021 video in which educational researcher John Hattie discusses his book Visual Learning: The Sequel, he says: ‘The average effect of class size is small… and that hasn’t changed in 50 years.’ In other words, changing the number of students in a classroom has some impact on average student achievement.

The source of Hattie’s notoriety, pro and con, is making studies of educational research studies — called meta-analysis — to arrive at a hierarchy of the strength of relationships between student achievement and over 250 (currently) teaching- and learning-related factors. He pointed out class size because, in his experience and words, “it’s everyone’s pet subject.”

It’s a pet because proposing smaller class sizes to improve student achievement dare not be refuted, and it has popular appeal. The struggle is that its appeal outweighs its impact. An announcement such as “initiatives coming to enhance students’ meta-cognition” is, despite stronger associations with learning, unlikely to have PR people scampering to their media posts eager for a “win.”

An online scan of class-size research yields many reviews. Reducing class size can have benefits. Students who need extra attention may benefit the most. Teachers may have more time for collaborating about how to support and engage students. Morale may improve, and there are fewer student behavioural issues. Teachers can have more frequent interactions with students and their parents. Passionate and articulate proponents of class-size reduction as a preferred strategy hone in on these.

The scan also confirms that average improvements in achievement are discussed using terms such as “marginal,” “small,” “modest” and “somewhat,” Furthermore, there are contingencies. Gains are associated with class sizes in the high teens, and entail changes to teacher planning and practice to improve student engagement with learning that may require additional professional development to realize. Reviews also point out that its cost is so high that other ways to invest more in education should be considered before adopting this one.

In addition to contingencies, there are compromises if all additional costs and facilities — more teachers and classroom space — are not provided or available. From recent stories in the Free Press, we know that some school divisions find that funding lags increasing costs, and recruiting qualified teachers in some geographic areas is challenging, already. Fewer desks in one classroom, therefore, may result in larger classes at other grades, or in the creation of multi-grade classrooms (note: this is not known to be harmful to student achievement). Space used to meet other student needs and interests may need to be reallocated, or portable classrooms added. Teachers may need to be taken from libraries or other roles supporting students.

Regarding contingencies and compromises, the mandate to publish school-level class sizes starting this fall, as motivator and proof of implementation, ignores them. Jockeying desks, alone, can result in compliance, technically. Effective implementation must account for compromises and contingencies, too. Yet this number will invite judging and comparing schools as if it is sufficient.

On balance and the evidence, some students in their early years will benefit, possibly at some cost to students in later grades. There should be no expectations for a resultant notable improvement in average student achievement. The publication of class sizes will mislead rather than edify; a more considered, collegial curation is required that weighs contingencies and compromises as well as desks.

Research is contestable, as are my interpretations. I would welcome insights, including challenges, from the perspectives of research experts and of school leaders faced with decisions about how best to allocate finite resources.

Meanwhile, barring evident consideration for all aspects of class size reduction to improve student outcomes, I’ll struggle with the possibility that, despite the best of intentions, the glitter of a class size caps initiative may be a distraction from its demands and substance.

Ken Clark writes from Winnipeg. Most of his nearly 30 years in education were focused on student assessment policy and on large-scale assessment.