My two cents on class sizes

Class sizes are a hot topic right now. Kate Gainsford, PPTA President and teacher, wants class sizes to become at election issue. In contrast, Education Minister Ann Tolley, who has no real experience or understanding of education, just spouts off whatever John Hattie tells her, and unfortunately he has told her that class sizes aren’t a priority. This blog post will briefly explore why class size does matter and why governments should reduce class sizes for teachers. 

I know that John Hattie’s work has shown that reducing class sizes has minimal effect on the achievement outcomes of students. I do understand his research; it’s really interesting research, and I can actually relate on a personal level to his findings about class sizes because the two most challenging, stressful classes I ever taught had less than 20 students in each of them. But when Hattie looks at student achievement he doesn’t actually look at teacher welfare in relation to student achievement, and I do believe that taking teacher welfare into consideration is a fundamental aspect of a good education system.

Below are three major reasons why, in my opinion, class size does matter, and why classes in both primary and secondary schools should be capped at 25 students:

1)      Marking. A teacher who has 35 students compared to a teacher who has 25 students in their English class has a lot more marking to do. Marking takes time, so the larger the class, the more marking there is to do in each assessment. This means that teachers are less inclined to run assessments, such as formatives, and they are also more likely to spend their non-contacts and planning time (and evenings and weekends) marking, as opposed to planning. Ah assessment, you always seem to pop up in my blog posts, grrr.

2)      Feedback. Right at the top of Hattie’s effect sizes table is feedback; feedback is the most important factor in improving student achievement. But how good a quality feedback can a teacher actually give each student when they have five classes of 30-35 students? In a secondary school, period times are 50 minutes to an hour long. That’s not enough time to give students daily, individualised, verbal feedback. Similarly, there are only 24 hours in a day, and that’s not enough for the teachers of those classes to give high quality, written feedback for every student, every day because teachers have to eat and sleep and organise finances and families, just like everyone else. Having taught classes of both 35 and 20 (and everything in between), I can honestly say that I’m much more likely to be inclined to give quality feedback on a regular basis for a smaller-sized class.

3)      Last, but definitely not least: Teacher workload. Teachers are over-worked, so why do governments wish to make teacher workloads even bigger with even more students to educate and assess in each class? Do we actually want teachers to have mental breakdowns?! Do we really want to drive out people from the profession who are passionate about educating young people?!? Because when governments under-fund schools to the point where a school has 35 Year 13 students sitting in an English class, those amazing teachers who for so long have struggled so stay on top of their workload will go elsewhere for a job - possibly to a richer, more well-resourced (possibly private) school, where class sizes are smaller - or they will leave the profession, because there’s only so much stress a human body can actually take.

I know there are numerous other reasons why class sizes are important (for example, guaranteeing authenticity of students’ work for one – I realised this yesterday, whilst discussing plagiarism with lovely teacher friends; how likely are you to pick up on a student who has plagiarised their Level 3 research report when there are 35 students in your class? Less likely that if you have 20 students in the class… Also, which schools actually have classrooms with space for 35 desks? I bet there isn’t one school in the entire country with 35 computers in a computer lab…) and I could go on and on and on, but I won’t because super-lengthy blog posts are quite annoying and I believe in the art of being concise (heh).

So, there’s just a few reasons why class size counts. Obviously, Tolley has no empathy nor respect for teachers; Hattie possibly does but his research doesn't really show it, and Gainsford is working hard in the fight for both teachers and students.

I know who I won’t be voting for this election.

The Goss on NATional Standards

So, a little birdie told me that you-know-who is eager to introduce National Standards to Years 9 and 10. And by ‘a little birdie’ I mean a widely respected and renowned NZ educator who is only two degrees of separation away from she-who-must-not-be-named. When I heard this, I was gobsmacked and felt the scar on my forehead burn (actually, it was hot and had been in a 3-hour PD session in a small meeting room so I had a slight headache and the scar on my forehead didn’t actually hurt because the accident happened when I was 7…). And then I thought about it some more, and I thought, yeah, that sounds like Ann Tolley (shhhhh!!!), and I felt kinda head-achy.

In this blog-post, I’m going to explore the issue of National Standards, which were introduced to primary schools in 2010. I’m not going to explain how National Standards work, because it’s pretty straight-forward and you can find information here. Instead I will discuss whether or not National Standards would be useful and how they might function (dysfunction) in secondary schools.

As an ideal, National Standards are useful in the sense that they identify where a student is at and where they need to go next – and that’s what assessment is about, the ‘what next’ and the ‘how’. Having said that, e-asTTle does this very well already and is utilised by most primary schools and by an increasing number of secondary schools.

But the problems with National Standards are many and they are very complex. One problem is when children are compared to each other. For example, many children begin school being able to write their name, the alphabet, count and identify colours. Some children, however, do not (and there are a variety of reasons why this might happen). So no child enters on a level playing field and automatically students are labelled: ‘bright’, ‘gifted’, ‘talented’, or alternatively, ‘low-ability’, ‘challenged’, or ‘thick’ (yes, teachers still use that word). So, immediately, students and their parents are made to feel like crap. Awesome. Oh, and then these stats are used to create league tables, which ultimately means that schools will be compared against each other (not, funnily enough, against a ‘National Standard’.) And league tables suck, obviously.

Another major problem with National Standards is that they are assessment, not teaching and learning. And pouring money and resources into assessment doesn’t actually make better teachers, because assessing is not teaching, and although good assessment does provide teachers and students with good data on where to go next, it doesn’t mean that we all know how to get there. There’s nothing more irritating as a teacher than going to Professional Development on assessment (which, unfortunately, I seem to do an awful lot).

So, in a secondary school context, I shudder to think how National Standards might play out. Here are my predictions:

Firstly, it would cost a lot. All that money that could be spent on improving teaching and reducing class sizes would be spent on preparing teachers to do more assessment. And I think that’s a really stink way to spend money that’s allocated to improving teaching and learning.

Secondly, it would take up a lot of time. Every time there is a change in assessment practices e.g. Standards re-alignment ,we have to spend hours and hours attending PD to get us up to speed.  Fun? No. Useful? Only vaguely. Time-wasting? Yes. Obviously teachers are over-worked already.

Thirdly - how the hell would it actually work?!? Secondary schools students are taught in subject classes, with some exceptions in integrated classes and in alternative education (and I know there are lots of dumb assumptions about students in the way that secondary schools function, but I haven’t heard from a little birdie that Tolley’s going to overhaul the system completely). So, who’d be responsible for the literacy? I shudder to think. I know that all teachers are literacy teachers (because unless you don’t teach and assess student via the use of language, you are a literacy teacher) but I bet Anne Tolley doesn’t. Just the thought of adding more assessment to an English teacher’s workload makes me feel a little ill.

Fourthly, the beautiful thing about teaching Year 9 and 10 is the lack of formal assessment; it’s so great that we don’t have to hand back students their work with a big Achieved or Not Achieved on it (unfortunately, my school does do this and it sucks majorly and I am forever complaining about it to various members of middle and senior management, heh) – instead we assess them against the curriculum. We can actually treat them as individuals and plan lessons to cater for their needs, as opposed to planning programmes that they complete because they have to gain 18 credits in the subject or they won’t get NCEA level blah (I know we are not supposed to do this but let’s be honest about the role of assessment in secondary schools, eh – it’s really dominating).

Secondary schools don’t need more assessment imposed on them from above. So, I hope like hell that this rumour is simply a rumour and not going to eventuate in anything. I just wish we had the power to vanquish the Dark Lord that is Tolley; oh wait, we do - it’s called voting in the election...