Class Size in Primary Schools: perceptions of headteachers, chairs of governors, teachers and parents

British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1996 33

Class Size in Primary Schools: perceptionsof headteachers, chairs of governors,teachers and parents

NEVILLE BENNETT, University of Exeter

ABSTRACT Class sizes in primary schools have continued to rise throughout the lastdecade, in contrast to those in secondary schools. The response of central governmenthas been that there is no evidence linking class size and pupil outcomes in Britain, andthat class size is an issue to be resolved by schools and local government. This study wasdesigned to assess the experiences, attitudes and perceptions of the major participantsand users of statutory primary schooling—headteachers, chairs of governors, teachersand parents—in three broad areas: the current situation in their school and theimportance of class size in the present educational context; how class size affectschildren as learners, and teachers classroom practices; and the management of re-sources and decision-making at school level in relation to class size. The findings of anational survey are presented together with a consideration of their implications foraction at school and governmental level.

Introduction

The average size of primary classes has risen steadily over the last decade. The latestofficial figures, for January 1993, show that in England this has now risen to 27 (HMSO,1994). The average is slightly lower in Wales at 25, but this represents a 10% increasein the last 2 years. The average is lowest in Scotland, at 24.5. The probable reason forthis, it has been argued, is the fact that conditions of service for Scottish teachers includea 'normal maximum' class size as well as an 'upper limit' (Mortimore & Blatchford,1993).

These averages mask important changes in the composition of classes however. Ofparticular significance has been the substantial decline, by almost one half, of the numberof classes with less than 20 children and a corresponding increase in classes with morethan 30 (Department of Education and Science [DES], 1992). The percentage of childrenin primary classes over 30 pupils varies substantially by local education authority (LEA).In many of the inner London boroughs less than 10% of children are in such classes,whereas in Redbridge and Kingston upon Thames, for example, more than 55% of

0141-1926/96/0)0033-23 © 1996 British Educational Research Association

34 N. Bennett

children are. In the 'shire' counties the proportion varies from 13% in Suffolk to nearly42% in Dorset (CASE, 1990). The number of children in classes of over 40 pupils wasnearly 9000 in January 1993 and this too varies from LEA to LEA.

There are substantial differences in average class sizes in primary and secondaryschools. The average for secondary schools in England, for example, was 21.4 in January1993, and only 5% of secondary pupils are taught in classes of over 30, compared withover 22% in primary schools. This reflects disparities of funding through the policy ofresourcing by age, such that older pupils generally experience smaller classes.

An additional concern in primary schools in this regard is the operation of the 1988Education Act which requires schools to admit pupils up to a maximum capacity asdefined by the Department of Education. As Blatchford & Mortimore (1994) point out,'as schools are now funded almost entirely according to the number of pupils they have,the commonly expressed worry is that this has created a dynamic ... leading inexorablytoward even larger classes'. There is also evidence to indicate that primary class sizesin England are among the least favourable in the Organisation for Economic Co-oper-ation and Development (OECD) countries (OECD, 1992). But the critical question is: doclass sizes matter?

Research on Class Size

Common sense would suggest that smaller classes should lead to improvements in thequality of education that children experience. Common-sense views are not generallysupported by research in Britain, which tends to show that achievement is higher inlarger classes (cf. Burstall, 1979; Mortimore & Blatchford, 1993). The 1978 PrimarySurvey in England by Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI), for example, reported a linkbetween class size and reading scores such that reading scores increased with increasesin class size. This relationship held irrespective of catchment area. Studies which havereported a relationship between higher achievement and smaller class sizes are few andfar between. Mortimore et al. (1988) found such a relationship, but only at one age level,in one subject area. However, most of these studies suffer from substantial methodo-logical weaknesses.

Firstly, none set out deliberately to investigate the effects of class size. Analyses ofthese relationships were no more than ex post facto explorations. There has in fact beenno well-controlled study undertaken in Britain with an explicit focus on class size.Secondly, all of these studies were correlational, and thus were unable to establish causeand effect. Thirdly, most used norm referenced, standardised tests of achievement withunknown isomorphism to the curriculum the children were actually experiencing. Inother words the tests were of unknown curriculum validity. Finally, some studies ignoredthe tendency to teach children with learning difficulties in small groups or classes, andthese were thus often included in the sample of small classes. The British evidence isthus sparse, flawed and ambiguous, although it has allowed successive ministers ofeducation to argue that, in the British context, there is no evidence linking smallerclasses and pupil achievement, and for the Chief Inspector of The Office for Standardsin Education (OFSTED) to query the 'facile assumption' that smaller classes or lowerpupil-teacher ratios necessarily mean higher quality {Times Educational Supplement,1994). On the basis of the evidence available these are true—but only because theappropriate research has yet to be carried out. Absence of evidence is not evidence ofabsence.

Class Size in Primary Schools 35

To establish cause and effect requires experimental research, and such research hasonly been carried out in North America. The most thorough investigation in this field,project STAR in Tennessee, is a state-wide intervention programme which has includedover 7000 pupils in 79 schools (cf. Finn & Achilles, 1990; Pate-Bain et al., 1992;Achilles et al., 1993). Children were randomly placed, on entry to school, in small(13-17), or regular (22-25) classes, or a regular class with a full-time teacher aide. Theresults for both attainment, at a single point in time, and progress across periods of time,leave little doubt that small classes, as defined in this study, have an advantage overlarger classes in reading and mathematics in the early primary years. At the end of thefirst 2 years of the experiment the authors concluded,

First grade students in smaller classes benefited in terms of improved perform-ance on standardised reading and mathematics tests and pass rates on curricu-lum-based tests. Those pupils who had been in small classes for two yearsbenefited in both kindergarten [i.e. the equivalent of reception class] and Grade1, and also showed significantly greater growth during first grade on standard-ised reading measures when compared with their regular class peers'.

It is also clear that the performance of minority children was substantially enhanced insmall classes. Indeed they experienced greater relative growth than white pupils in Grade1.

Later findings showed that the early effects of small classes were maintained throughthe first 4 years of school life. A subsequent study of these same children was designedto ascertain whether, and to what extent, these benefits lasted when they were transferredinto regular sized grade 4 and 5 classes. Those analyses yielded clear and consistentresults. They retained statistically significant advantages on every set of measures used.In other words the positive effects of early involvement in small classes still remainedpervasive 2 years after the pupils returned to regular sized classes.

These findings support others reported in the USA which suggest that reducing classsize can have greater effects when reduction is to below 20 pupils, and in the earlieryears of schooling (Glass & Smith, 1978; Slavin, 1989). Nevertheless caution isnecessary in generalising to Britain from this study. In addition to differences inschooling and culture, the definition of small class is, at 13-17 pupils, very small; indeedthe so-called regular classes of 22-25 pupils would be considered small in this country.Nevertheless this study provides solid evidence of links between class size and pupilperformance, and largely on this basis the National Commission on Education (1993)found 'a convincing case for substantial reductions in primary school class size', andmade recommendations to that effect.

Classroom Practices

The fragmented nature of the research effort on class size in Britain has meant that therelationship with achievement remains equivocal, and that other important aspects of theproblem have been totally neglected. These include the identification of those classroomprocesses which operate in smaller classes to improve pupil performance, and of theperspectives of those most interested, and involved, in the organisation and managementof classes in schools, i.e. headteachers, chairs of governors, teachers and parents. Thisstudy was designed to throw some light on the former, by gaining a coherent understand-ing of the latter. More specifically the aims were to ascertain the experiences andperceptions of these four groups on the following broad areas:

36 N. Bennett

Presage

FIG. 1. Presage, process and product variables.

(i) the current situation in their school, and the importance of class size in the presenteducational context;

(ii) how class size affects children as learners, and teachers' classroom practices andprocesses; and

(iii) the management of resources and decision-making at school level, and its impacton class size.

In the absence of specific evidence on effective classroom processes in small classes, thisstudy was conceptualised by first identifying classroom processes, and the factors whichmediate them, from recent research on primary teaching. These were then considered interms of the characteristics of the participants, the processes they engage in theclassroom, and the outcomes which emerge, i.e. the presage, process and productvariables involved. These, together with relevant contextual factors, are identified in Fig.1.

Viewed from this model, it can be seen that class size is but one contextual factorwhich interacts with teacher characteristics to affect or mediate teaching processes,which in turn are likely to affect outcomes. Each element of the model is considered inmore detail below.

Presage

How teachers react to class size could relate, among others, to their attitudes to teachingand learning, preferred teaching approaches, classroom management style, experienceand training, and the age/intake characteristics of the children they teach. Teachers arealso likely to have conceptions about possible differential effects of class size onchildren of different ages and achievement level, and on optimal class sizes.


Process

Recent research has aimed to improve practice by identifying those aspects of teachingwhich enhance the quality of children's learning (cf. Alexander et al., 1992; Bennett,1992; Gipps, 1992). Those aspects which class size could affect include the following:

(i) planning and preparation—larger classes inevitably demand more preparation(Campbell & Neill, 1992; School Teachers' Review Body [STRB] 1994), andthose of mixed age are also likely to have a wider range of attainment, which islikely to impact on teachers' attempts at:

(ii) matching and differentiation—these demand extremely important, and difficultteaching skills, and larger classes are likely to exacerbate an already difficultproblem;

(iii) classroom organisation—larger classes automatically cut down the available timewhich teachers can use to support individual children, or groups, and may resultin more whole-class teaching. Larger classes mean more groups to supervise, andresearch shows that pupil involvement is related to active teacher supervision.Issues of control could also be made more difficult;

(iv) assessment and diagnosis—whatever teaching approach is adopted, teachers needto ascertain their pupils' knowledge, skills and understandings in order to optimiseprogress and development. Good diagnosis, e.g. to ascertain misconceptions,needs time, and time is already in very short supply.

Context

Contextual factors which are likely to interact with class size are Set out below in thethree indicative categories identified by Mortimore et al. (1988):

(i) school-givens, including location—urban, suburban, rural etc.; catchment area—socio-economic status, minorities, English as a second language, turbulence;school type—infant, first, junior etc., voluntary-aided etc.; accommodation—open/traditional spaces, size.

(ii) school-level decisions, including single versus mixed-age classes; non-contacttime; presence and distribution of auxiliary assistants, including parents; with-drawal—setting policy; policy on admittance of 4 year-olds; influence of gover-nors and parents; policy on in-service education and training.

(iii) classroom-level decisions, including teaching approaches, assessment practices,management style.

It was on the basis of this analysis that the questionnaires were designed. Separatequestionnaires were developed and piloted for headteachers, chairs of governors,teachers and parents. A major focus in each was the identification of the perceptions andbeliefs of these four groups on class size and its impact on teaching and learning. Theimportance of such perceptions in human behaviour is well established in psychologicalresearch, acting as filters to sift everyday experiences. In other words, perceptions andbeliefs mediate knowledge and understanding, which in turn mediate action.

38 N. Bennett

Sampling

A random sample of 325 primary schools in England and Wales was selected indepen-dently by the National Foundation for Educational Research. The sample was stratifiedon the basis of:

(i) school type—infant, junior and JMI;(ii) school size—small (less than 100), medium (100-299) and large (300 + );

(iii) area—metropolitan and non-metropolitan; and(iv) region—North, Midlands, South, Wales.

The headteacher of each school was written to several weeks prior to the survey to setout the aims of the survey, to inform them of the random selection of their school andto seek their co-operation. At this stage only nine schools withdrew. Questionnaires werethus mailed to 316 schools.

The package of questionnaires sent to schools contained instructions for the head-teacher on the sampling of teachers and parents. Responses were requested from up tofour teachers per school, i.e. those teaching Reception, Year 2, Year 4 and Year 6,dependent on school size. Where there were fewer teachers than this, each teacher wasrequested to complete the questionnaire.

Within each of these classes the headteacher was asked to give a copy of the parents'questionnaire to four parents chosen in a systematic random process from the classregister, i.e. choosing parents whose child was number 1, 11, 21 and 31 on the register.The size of the parent sample was thus determined in part by the size of the class. Eachquestionnaire was sent with a covering letter outlining the aims of the study, requestingtheir co-operation, and providing the date that the completed questionnaire should bereturned to the headteacher sealed in an envelope provided. The headteacher was, in turn,requested to return all completed questionnaires in a stamped addressed envelope alsoprovided.

Packages of questionnaires were mailed to schools in late May 1994, with a requestfor return by 24 June. This time-scale was tight given the complexity of the process, butwas necessary in order to allow a follow-up before the end of term. A follow-up letterwas in fact sent in the first week of July. A total of 179 schools responded, a responserate of 56.7% a creditable effort in the light of the additional demands on heads andteachers already overloaded with curriculum demands and national assessment. Ten ofthese responses arrived too late for analysis—thus the analyses presented are based on169 schools.

The sample size of each group is shown in Table I. Some 95% of all headteachersreturned their questionnaires, as did 60% of chairs of governors. The 411 responses fromteachers represented an average of 2.4 teachers per school, and the 1264 replies fromparents represented an average of 7.5 parents per school.

Findings

Following a brief description of the schools, derived from information contained in theheadteachers' questionnaire, the following sections present the findings separately foreach group prior to a comparative analysis of the responses of the four groups.Descriptive statistics are used throughout.


TABLE I. Sample size of participant groups

HeadteachersChairs of GovernorsTeachersParents

Total

Sample size

160100411

1264

1935

Schools

The characteristics of the schools were gauged from the headteachers' questionnaireresponses. Two-thirds were JMI schools, whereas one in five were infant schools and15% junior. Most (56%) were county schools with a similar proportion of voluntarily-aided and controlled (23% and 21% respectively). Less than 1% were grant-maintained.Their average size was 214 pupils on roll but they varied from 25 to 709. Two-thirds hadbetween 100 and 300 pupils. On average they employed 8.2 full-time teachers and 1.7full-time paid classroom assistants. Over half of the headteachers (57%) had a timetabledteaching commitment, which averaged 0.5 of a teaching load. Over 90% of deputyheadteachers had a timetabled commitment and this was virtually full-time. Thecatchment areas that these schools served cannot easily be determined since averagescannot adequately portray the patterns identified. Accepting this, however, 26% servedrural areas (in part at least), 30% suburban, 36% urban and 8% inner city.

Headteachers

School policy. Most headteachers regard class size as a very serious issue in theirschools; 63% rated it as very important, and a further 13% rated it important. Only 1.3%felt that it was not an important issue. Heads of junior schools were more likely toindicate class size as very important, and possibly because of this, proportionately morejunior heads stated that they had school policies in place to deal with it. Overall 54% hadpolicies in operation, the most prevalent (44%) in all types of schools, being to limit themaximum size of classes. One quarter of schools deliberately created smaller classes forthe youngest pupils, and other common policies included the provision of single-ageclasses whenever feasible, and attempts in general to keep classes as small as possible.The reasons for generating these policies varied, the four most frequent being to providethe most effective teaching; to safeguard the development of learning skills, particularlyin the younger children; because of increasing pressure on accommodation, facilities andresources: and the desire not to have mixed-age classes. These policies varied somewhatby school type, as is shown in Table II in which is listed the top three policy prioritiesfor each type of school.

The most common high priority across all types of school is the provision of effectiveteaching, but in JMI schools a more pressing concern is to protect their youngestchildren. Dislike of mixed-age classes and catering for special needs, on the other hand,are perceived to be more of a priority in junior schools.

40 N. Bennett

TABLE II. Reasons for policies for class size by type of school

Number ofType of schoolsschools with policy Rank Policy

JMI 52 1 Importance of learning skills in young children (20%)2 To provide most effective teaching (17%)3 Pressure on accommodation, resources (11%)

Junior 16 1 To provide most effective teaching (23%)1 To cater for special needs (23%)3 Dislike mixed-age classes (15%)

Infant 17 1 To provide most effective teaching (27%)1 Because of pressure on places (27%)3 Youngest children need most attention (14%)

Heads were asked whether, in addition to their specific policies on class size, therewere other grounds on which decisions were made on the numbers of children in eachclass. Stressed here were more structural issues such as dictation by admission levels,and budgeting. Many heads are clearly distressed at having to operate a market-ledsystem, and wrote additional comments to this effect. The following are typical.

The Government has a policy (unstated) to increase class size. LMS [LocalManagement of Schools] determined budgets for schools, this was rate-cappedand therefore budget was reduced. The last pay increase had to come from thebudget. The only way to pay for this was by reducing staff.

I believe there should be statutory limits for pupil/adult ratio at different ages.Market forces should not determine class size.

LMS dictates size of classes now. Education of individuals becomes verysecondary. Management controlled by cash.

Teachers in primary schools disadvantaged by historical funding system whichmitigates against smaller classes and non-contact time—both sorely needed butnot possible under present funding.

Two related issues troubled heads—fluctuation in pupil numbers, which could meanreductions in staffing and thus increased class sizes, and appeals. This latter issue drewsubstantial comment of the following type.

Problem of outside body deciding an appeal—needs urgent attention.

Appeals make a mockery of Standard Admission Numbers.

A major concern is parents winning appeals to classes already over full.

Our class sizes have increased due to appeals. The view of the LEA is thatonce a class has increased this now becomes the norm and others can beincreased to that level.

One in six made reference to encouraging more pupils into their school in order toincrease the size of their budget. A market economy would seem to be taking a hold, in


some schools at least. Other common responses related to accommodation, making goodprovision for special needs, and differences in ability and behaviour.

One indication of the seriousness of the class size issue is the extent to which it hasbeen discussed at governors' meetings. Three-quarters of headteachers stated that it hadbeen discussed in the school year, indeed almost one in three discuss it annually. Thereis close agreement between heads and chairs of governors on this issue. When the latterwere asked this question 78% said that class size had been discussed. There was alsolarge agreement as to the outcomes of these meetings. Top of both lists were staffingimplications, the establishment of policies to set maximum class sizes and to increase theprovision of non-teaching assistance. The heads, but not the governors, stressed out-comes relating to the establishment or maintenance of single-age classes.

Mixed-age classes loom large in some headteachers' minds—several wrote additionalcomments on this theme. One wrote:

Mixed age classes should be restricted to 25. The issue of mixed age classesis more important than the size of single aged classes. It is critical that the twoissues are not confused. LEAs do not allow for this in their funding.

Another wrote similarly:

There is only one reason for larger classes—financial. I would like classes of26, but then I would lose a teacher and have bigger classes with mixed agegroups.

Classroom practices. All, without exception, believe that class size has an effect on thequality of teaching and learning, and all indicated that optimal sizes for classes ofprimary children are considerably smaller than those currently being experienced.Irrespective of the type of their school they believed that classes should be smaller forthe younger children. Thus their optimal size for a Reception class is 22, for a Year 2class 25, and for both Year 4 and Year 6, 26.

In view of their belief that class size has an effect on teaching and learning, they wereasked what effects these were, in relation to both children and classroom teaching. Withregard to children the findings are set out in Table III. Heads were asked to indicate whateffect—beneficial, adverse or none—increasing class size would have on various pupilattributes and classroom behaviours.

TABLE III. Effects of increasing class size on children: headteachers' perceptions (teachers' perceptions ofadverse effects in brackets) (%)

Emotional well-beingMotivationBehaviourStandards of workSafetyRelationship with teachersRelationship with other childrenLikelihood of bullyingAmount of individual teacher attentionAssessment of their workQuality and quantity of curriculum resources

Beneficial

2.52.52.52.51.92.55.73.13.22.57.6

No effect

12.316.45.0

10.111.313.824.522.0—4.5

10.8

Adverse

74.8 (83.5)73.6(71.1)88.1 (91.9)82.4 (88.5)81.8 (83.4)79.2 (85.1)56.6 (54.8)56.6 (68.5)96.9 (99.5)92.4 (90.2)75.2 (82.9)

Not sure

10.37.54.45.05.04.4

13.218.2.—0.66.4

42 N. Bennett

TABLE IV. Effects of increasing class size on classroom practices: perceptionsof heads and teachers (means)

Classroom practices Headteachers Teachers

Planning and preparation 1.3 1.2Choice of curriculum activities 1.6 1.4Choice of teaching approach 1.2 1.1Choice of classroom organisation 1.0 0.8Time for assessment of children's work 0.5 0.4Time for reflection 0.7 0.6Time to liaise with colleagues 1.3 1.1Uaison with parents 1.5 1.4Time with individual children 0.3 0.2Matching tasks to children 1.2 1.1Classroom control and discipline 1.3 1.2Children's social and emotional needs 1.0 0.9Children's learning 0.9 0.8Movement around class 0.6 0.5Available space 0.3 0.3Teachers' workload 0.3 0.2Teachers' emotional state 0.3 0.3Demand on curriculum resources 0.9 0.7

It is clear that very few see any beneficial effects on any of the aspects. Some believethat there may be little or no effect on a few of those listed, such as relationships withother children and the likelihood of bullying, but the overwhelming pattern is the beliefof adverse effects on children. There is almost total agreement that the amount ofindividual teacher attention would be adversely affected, as would the assessment ofchildren's work. In addition, over three-quarters of headteachers argue that there wouldbe adverse effects on pupils' behaviour, standards of work, safety, relationships withteachers, and emotional well-being, as well as the quality and quantity of curriculumresources. It is clear, from the force of their responses, that they are most concernedabout the quality of pedagogic processes and outcomes, defined in terms of individualattention, assessment of work, standards of work and behaviour.

With regard to classroom teaching they were asked to indicate the extent to which aset of classroom practices would be hindered or helped by increases in class size, on aseven-point scale. Here, mean scores of 0-1 indicate extreme hindrance, and 5-6extremely helpful. As can be seen in Table IV, the mean scores for both heads andteachers are very skewed, showing overwhelming belief in increasing class size hinder-ing a great deal all the practices listed. Many of the mean scores are extremely low.These indicate that headteachers believe that the teachers' workload, their emotionalstate, the time they can spend with individual children, the amount of space in whichthey have to work and the time available for the assessment of their children's workwould be most hindered. When asked to rank which of these practices would beinfluenced, most importantly they identified time with individual children, teachers'workload, time for assessment and children's learning.

Chairs of Governors

School policy. Chairs of governors indicated that class sizes had risen over the last fewyears in over half of their schools, largely, in their view, because of underfunding, as


seen, for example, in increased pupil numbers without commensurate increases inteacher numbers. Not surprisingly, therefore, nearly two-thirds believed that class sizesin their schools were too large. When asked about optimal class size their responsesoverall were very similar to those of headteachers, i.e. Reception, 21; Year 2, 24; Years4 and 6, 26. In each case, however, the parent governors presented a lower estimate.

Virtually all—96%—believe that class size has an effect on the quality of teachingand learning, and almost 60% felt that the issue of class size was the most important ora very important factor in parental choice of schools. But these beliefs do not alwayswork through into school policy. Only 43% (compared to 53% of headteachers) indicatedthat their school had policies in this area. Here they adumbrated the same policies as theheads—to impose limitations on the maximum size of classes, to provide smaller classesfor the younger children, to retain single-age classes where possible, and more generally,to keep classes as small as possible. They too, like headteachers, had to take into accountadmission levels and budgetary considerations when deciding on the number of childrenper class.

A large measure of agreement existed between the responses of governors andheadteachers on the timing, frequency and outcomes of governors' meetings which haddiscussed aspects of class size. From these responses it is apparent that three-quarters ofschools had discussed these in the current year, and that these discussions were heavilyweighted towards admissions, budgeting and staffing.

Questions were addressed to the chair of governors of schools which had notdiscussed class size specifically in recent times, in an attempt to ascertain the views ofthe governing body. Their responses are set out in Table V. The great majority felt thatdiscussion of the issue was a legitimate one for the governing body, and that there was

TABLE V. Views of governing body of schools which had not discussed class size recently (%)

Yes No Not sure

Consideration of this issue is not seen as part of therole of the governing body. 18.5 74.1 7.4

The head seems happy with current class sizes andhas never discussed this issue with governors. 30.8 57.7 11.5

Because of budgetary limitations, if we reduced thenumber of children we would lose teachers. 81.5 14.8 3.7

The governors would not want to turn children away,in case the school acquired a reputation for doingthis. 48.0 48.0 4.0

Even if we did reduce the class sizes, children wouldbe admitted on appeal. 64.0 24.0 8.0

Some experts say that smaller classes do not improvelearning. 16.0 52.0 32.0

There is insufficient space for smaller classes. 53.8 42.3 3.8There is insufficient time to discuss class size at

governing body meetings. 8.0 88.0 4.0Governors do not see smaller classes as a selling

feature of the school. 28.0 60.0 12.0Governors are prepared to allow class sizes over the

standard number. 37.5 • 54.2 8.3Governors prefer large classes to vertically-grouped

(mixed-age) classes. 16.0 68.0 16.0

44 N. Bennett

sufficient time for such discussion. They believed that having smaller classes was a goodselling point and were not prepared to believe that smaller classes did not improvelearning, but they were extremely wary of reducing class size by reducing intakes sinceall this would achieve would be loss of teachers. They did not feel that they had muchcontrol over intakes in any case, since children would probably be admitted on appeal.Also, half were concerned with the possible ramifications of turning children away onthe school's reputation. About half would find it difficult to reduce class sizes, even ifnumbers allowed it, because of insufficient number of rooms. Finally, and interestingly,given the headteacher views, two-thirds of these governors would prefer mixed-ageclasses to large classes.

Primary schools do, of course, face a large number of pressing problems other thanclass sizes. It is of interest then that 70% of chairs of governors rated class size as eitherthe most (8%) or one of the most (62%) important issues for them. It is also significantthat one in three said that if additional revenue were made available to the school,reduction in class sizes would be their top priority. When asked what such revenuewould be spent on if not on reductions in class-size, the three most popular options were:(i) recruitment of extra staff (including non-teaching staff); (ii) provision of extraresources; and (iii) improved space and accommodation. The purposes of these optionswere not to affect class sizes but to enable schools to meet better the requirements of theNational Curriculum, to help children with special educational needs, to improve thegeneral level of teaching, to improve facilities, in particular, the learning environment,and to allow more non-contact time.

Classroom Practices. Chairs of governors were presented with the same list of classroompractices as the headteachers. However, in this instance they were asked to rate them interms of the extent to which they thought they would be affected by increases in currentclass sizes. Their responses are shown in Table VI.

TABLE VI. Chairs of governors' ratings of effects on classroom practices (%)

Classroom practices

Planning and preparationChoice of curriculum activitiesChoice of teaching approachChoice of classroom organisationTime for assessment of children's workTime for reflectionTime to liaise with colleaguesLiaison with parents or guardiansTime with individual childrenMatching tasks to childrenClassroom control and disciplineChildren's social and emotional needsChildren's learningMovement around classAvailable spaceTeachers' workloadTeachers' emotional stateDemand on curriculum resources

Largeeffect

45.737.952.664.278.953.838.943.289.545.751.660.051.158.970.274.773.457.4

Someeffect

34.044.242.129.515.834.443.241.19.5

47.937.936.840.432.624.520.018.137.2

Littleor noeffect

19.115.84.25.34.27.5

15.813.7—5.39.52.16.46.32.13.23.24.3

Not sure

1.12.11.11.11.14.32.12.11.11.11.11.12.12.13.22.15.31.1


TABLE VII. Effects of increasing class size on children: chairs of governor's perceptions (%)

Emotional well-beingMotivationBehaviourStandards of workSafetyRelationship with teachersRelationship with other childrenLikelihood of bullyingAmount of individual teacher

attentionAssessment of their workQuality and quantity of curriculum

resources

Beneficial

2.14.3—1.1——7.51.1

——

2.1

No effect

17.028.019.122.621.323.737.620.7

3.216.0

13.8

Adverse

66.052.778.764.571.365.637.653.3

95.876.6

72.3

Not sure

14.915.12.1

11.87.4

10.817.225.0

1.17.4

11.7

Like headteachers they believe that the largest effect is on the time that teachers canspend with individual children, on time for assessment of children's work, the teachers'workload, and their emotional state. They are also very concerned with the effect onchildren's social and emotional needs, on available space and on limitations on teachers'choice of classroom organisation. Of all the practices rated, those they felt wereinfluenced most importantly were time with individual children, teachers' workload andchildren's learning.

With regard to children, governors were asked, as were headteachers, to indicatewhether various children's characteristics and behaviours were beneficially or adverselyaffected by increasing current class sizes. Their responses are shown in Table VII. Theclearest pattern in the table is the lack of response in the beneficial column and thecorresponding size of the response in the adverse column. Their top concern is again lackof individual teacher attention, but two-thirds or more of the governors were alsoconcerned about adverse effects on the assessment of children's work, children'sbehaviour, the quality and quantity of resources, their safety, emotional well-being andrelationships with teachers. The only aspect where less than half of the governors felt anadverse effect was likely was in relationships with other children. The aspects whichgovernors felt were influenced most importantly were individual teacher attention,standards of work and behaviour.

Teachers

Background. Almost half the teachers were in the age range 41-50, and most (86.9%)were women. Their average teaching experience was 16 years. The deployment of theseteachers across the year groups illustrated the typical pattern of proportionately moremen teaching juniors and more women teaching infants. 13% of the sample were malebut only 3% taught Years R-2, whereas 29% taught years 5-6. Some 57% of theteachers had experienced an increase in the size of their class, a situation more prevalentat the infant level where nearly two-thirds had seen an increase. It is also of interest tonote that it was more prevalent among teachers already teaching classes over 30. Thiswas largely due, in their minds, to externally imposed financial constraints. The average

46 N. Bennett

size of their current classes is 28, although significantly, nearly one in three (117teachers) have more than 31 children in their class. This situation is worst in Years 3-6where 37% of all classes contain more than 31; no doubt a consequence of many JMIschools implementing policies to protect the youngest children in their schools, aspreviously indicated by the headteachers.

Paid classroom assistance is also more prevalent in classes of younger children. Onaverage 57% of teachers were helped by paid classroom assistance, usually about 10hours per week, but this average masks the fact that almost three-quarters of Year R-2classes enjoyed help, with correspondingly fewer in Years 3-6.

Not surprisingly, teachers judge the optimum size of class to be considerably lowerthan those they currently teach. When asked to indicate what they felt the optimum,maximum and minimum class sizes ought to be, the average response was 23, 28 and18 respectively. These averages are very similar for teachers of different sex and agerange, although Key Stage 1 teachers indicated that class sizes should be lower in eachof these categories.

A somewhat similar pattern appears when teacher beliefs about size are related to thesize of the class they currently teach, i.e. those currently teaching smaller classes believethat the optimum, maximum and minimum sizes should also be lower.

Classroom practices. All teachers believe that class size has an effect on the quality ofteaching and learning, and despite all the other pressures impinging on teachers at themoment, 84% said that class size is either the most important (18%) or one of the mostimportant (67%), issues for them. Comparing teachers' responses to the identicalquestion on the governors' questionnaire shows that more teachers see class size as animportant issue.

In common with the other respondents they were asked to rate whether increasingclass sizes would have a beneficial or adverse effect on a set of children's characteristicsand behaviours. Their ratings are shown in Table III. The overall pattern is similar to thatof the heads, but exhibits even greater strength of feeling about the likely adverse effects.Virtually all the teachers identified the adverse effect on the amount of individual teacherattention. Over 90% felt that their assessment of children's work would suffer, alongwith children's behaviour. More than eight in 10 were concerned about deleteriouseffects on their standards of work, relationships with teachers, emotional well-being,safety, and quality and quantity of curriculum resources. Like heads they were lessconcerned about adverse effects on relationships with other children. The aspects whichthey felt would be influenced most importantly were individual teacher attention,assessment of work, standards of work and behaviour. There were few differences in thispattern of findings when broken down by age and sex of teacher or size of class taught.

With regard to classroom teaching, they were asked to rate a set of classroom practiceson the extent to which they would be helped or hindered by increases in current classsizes. Their mean scores are presented with those of headteachers in Table IV. Themeans are all extremely low, the pattern being almost identical to that of the headteach-ers, but even more skewed toward feelings of extreme hindrance. Teachers believe thattheir workload, the time they have to work with individual children, their emotionalstate, the amount of space available to work in and time for the assessment of children'swork, would be most hindered.

This pattern does not differ when men and women are compared. Some differences areapparent when their ratings are compared on the basis of the size of their current class,however. The group of teachers with the lowest mean scores, i.e. those who perceive


most hindrance, is composed of those favoured 22 teachers teaching in classes of lessthan 20 pupils. Presumably it is these teachers who are most aware of what can beachieved with small classes, and who obviously wish to retain these advantages for thesake of the children, and themselves. As one wrote: 'With a class of 20 receptionchildren I have a social life and love my job. With 32 children I couldn't have said this'.

Finally, teachers were asked whether they would change their classroom practices iftheir current classes were smaller; 82% said they would, (even higher, at 90%, amongthose with classes over 30). The changes they would make are, in order of popularity:

(i) provide more individual attention;(ii) reorganise the classroom and teaching space;

(iii) do more group work;(iv) more individual assessment and task matching;(v) more practical activities; and

(vi) create smaller working groups.

These presumably reflect those aspects which teachers currently feel they are unable toprovide for adequately.

Many teachers took the opportunity to add extra comments on the questionnaire. Mostsupported or elaborated on their earlier responses. Two areas raised deserve comment—those relating to government polemic and policy, which of course is later reflected inschool policy, and the relationship of classroom behaviour and changes in society. It is,of course, too easy to lay the blame for society's ills at the doors of parents—but fewteachers did this. Nevertheless some clearly feel that they are fighting a losing battleagainst contemporary culture, particularly youth culture. One experienced teacher put itthis way:

As a teacher who began with classes of nearly fifty children class numbershave only recently become a cause for concern. It is increasingly difficult todiscipline children when so many people in society have abdicated theirresponsibilities in bringing up their own children. Also motivating childrengets more and more difficult. We cannot compete with TV programmes andother "experience" mediums which supply short "sound bite" types of well-presented multisensory chunks of interesting information.

Others were concerned about government policy and its roll-on effect into school policy.One wrote: 'Teachers face great difficulties with governing bodies who see "large classesand young cheap teachers" as sound economies'. But it is not just resources that teachersrail against. Some are incensed by political or media polemic whereby, for example, thepolicy or practice in some country or other is wheeled out to support somebody's 'goodidea', irrespective of differences in school systems and culture. The message inevitablyis that because it can be done in Bucharest or Yokohama it can be done in Bradford orYeovil—and if it can't then the implication is that it is the teachers' fault. On this oneteacher wrote, 'Would someone please explain once and for all on the media why thefollowing argument is not acceptable: "What does class size matter anyway? In Japanthey have 60 in a class and they do alright!"' This is not just the plea of an isolatedteacher. A recent large-scale survey on teacher motivation and morale found that thefactor which teachers placed unequivocally as the most important for morale andmotivation was 'more positive portrayal of the teaching profession by the media'(Varlaam et al., 1992).

48 N. Bennett

TABLE VIII.

Class size

Up to 2526-3031 +

Parents views of the

Too few

2.200

size of their child

About right

70.733.28.4

s class (%)

Too many

27.166.891.6

Parents

Class size. Three-quarters of parents knew exactly how many children were in theirchild's class and of these over 60% felt that this was too many. This finding heldirrespective of the age of their child. There were, however, interesting differences inopinion which were related to the size of their child's class. This is shown in Table VIII.Over 70% of parents are content when their child is in a class of 25 or less. When theirchild is in a class of 26-30 two-thirds believe class size is too high, and when classesare 31 or over nine in every 10 parents believe that this is too many.

A similar effect is apparent in their views about the ideal class size for their child.They argue, on average, that the ideal size is 22 but this varies in relation to the size oftheir child's class. Parents whose children are in a smaller class believe that the optimumsize of a class should also be smaller. Despite the fact that the majority feel that theirchild's class is too large, and that over 96% believe that the number of children in a classaffects the quality of teaching and learning, only 40% believed that class size was themost, or a very important factor in the choice of a primary school by parents. Less than8%, however, felt it to be not a very important factor.

That class sizes have increased nationally was attributed by the majority to the issueof funding. It is clear that parents are aware that there is less money available to primaryschools, and that this inevitably links with staffing. One in seven parents did in factattribute specific blame on government policies for this state of affairs. This rose tonearly a quarter among parents whose children were in larger classes.

Despite the obvious importance of the issue for heads and governors, it would appearthat class size is not an issue discussed with parents very often. Less than a quarter(23.1%) have experienced such a discussion in the last 2 years. When discussions didtake place three broad areas were stressed:

(i) concerns about increases in class size, including implications such as mixed-ageclasses, less individual attention and pupils moving up or down, to or from their'correct' class;

(ii) reasons for these increases, including reduced or inadequate staffing levels,reduced funding, and increases of number of pupils on roll; and

(iii) strategies for dealing with it, including attempts to 'even out' class sizes, need forextra provision, and need for extra parental participation.

Effects on children and teacher. Parents were presented with the same list of children'scharacteristics and behaviour as the heads, governors and teachers and asked to consider,in relation to their own child, whether they thought that increasing the current numberin his/her class would have a good or bad influence (see Table IX). Once again thepattern is highly skewed—parents are able to find very little to rate as a good influence.There was much that was perceived as bad, however, and the pattern is now a familiarone. The area of most concern was the amount of individual teacher attention, closely


TABLE IX. Influence of increasing class size on children: parents' perceptions (%)

Emotional well-beingWillingness to workBehaviourStandards of workSafetyRelationship with teachersRelationship with other childrenLikelihood of bullyingAmount of individual teacher attentionAssessment of his/her workBooks and equipment

Goodinfluence

1.42.31.41.41.02.19.61.51.21.42.5

Noinfluence

32.532.427.313.612.616.745.717.92.7

15.911.3

Badinfluence

48.754.762.877.377.172.327.262.793.570.475.2

Not sure

17.410.68.67.89.49.0

17.517.92.6

12.311.1

followed by a cluster of concerns including standards of work, safety, books andequipment, relationships with teachers and assessment of the child's work. They are leastconcerned, in terms of bad influences, about relationships with other children.

When asked to list other aspects concerning their child which they felt would beinfluenced by increasing the size of their child's current class they included, in order ofprevalence:

(i) lack of space;(ii) problems of special educational needs (SEN), particularly the possibility of them

being overlooked;(iii) teacher overload, or working under pressure;(iv) child's confidence in class, in, for example, participating in class discussions; and(v) increase in noise level.

Most also believe that class size particularly affects certain groups of children. Mostcited were the less able, and children who were quiet, reticent or introverted. SEN, giftedand ethnic minority children were also identified. Finally parents were asked to think ofthe teacher's job and how it would be affected if the size of the current class increased.First in importance was, as identified in an earlier question, less opportunity for theteacher to give time and individual attention to children. Second equal in importancewere: the obvious increase in the volume of work—in marking, preparation etc.; theincreased difficulties in getting to 'know', and therefore adequately to assess, individualpupils; and issues of discipline and control. Third in importance was the more generalpoint that teaching standards would be harder to maintain.

Over half of the parents, compared to between 33% and 38% of the other groups, tookthe opportunity to make further comments at the end of the questionnaire—a testamentboth to the importance of the issue and of their interest and concern. Most of thecomments echoed and/or restated points made earlier, but occasionally in more starklanguage—'any half wit should realise that increasing class size is detrimental to achild's education'. Indeed most of the comments include the statement that it must beobvious that smaller classes would be more satisfactory for both the progress of thechildren and the efficiency of the teachers.

Several common themes emerged from these additional comments:

50 N. Bennett

(i) Smaller classes mean more attention for individual children, and less pressureon the teacher. As one parent cogently argued:

'Children develop at different rates, some need more time, others needless time, some need a lot of time. It is not fair to expect the teacher tobe able to handle all the varying personal needs in a large class.Obviously he/she'll be under an extreme amount of pressure and his/herteaching ability may suffer as a result of this, hence the children suffermore.

(ii) Larger classes mean that it is more difficult to assess individual needs,(iii) The link of smaller class size with the development of social skills. It was

suggested that a large class can produce a lack of confidence and concen-tration in the children. Many link poor pupil discipline with large size ofclass and some mention significant levels of unhappiness. Typical of thistheme is the following:

'Larger class sizes require larger classrooms. This is not possible atevery school. The increase in noise, lack of space and lack of extraequipment can all add pressure to a teacher's job. The children find itdifficult to concentrate under these conditions and can be more unrulyand disruptive. Children's problems may be missed or overlooked.'

(iv) The importance of the teacher-child relationship, which is of course tied tothe time available. Some parents wrote that this is particularly important atthe start of a child's school career when they need to learn new social,emotional and educational aspects of school life. Children need time andspace with the teacher, and some need attention. One parent related their ownexperience:

'In view of the fact that with our particular child we have experiencedproblems due to lack of confidence, it is in our opinion that if classesare large the teacher-child relationship sometimes suffers and can causea child to become withdrawn.

(v) Large class size and the problems of supervision lead to unnoticed undesir-able behaviour, including bullying, arising from frustration and opportunity.This of course is linked to the issue of teacher attention, as the followingtypical quote indicates: 'The children are continually queuing to seek teach-ers' attention, therefore the teachers are unable to see past this line of bodiesand problems may be occurring out of sight of the teacher, i.e. bullying'.Another wrote, "There is no time to help slower children. My son has actuallysaid "no one helps you". Behaviour can be a big problem. Bullying can beunnoticed or not acted on. Pressure to cover the curriculum becomes all',

(vi) The necessity to create mixed-age classes, with the disadvantages that theseare perceived to have:

'We selected our current school so that they would be taught in separateclasses. They are now 7 and 9 and have been placed in the same classagainst our wishes. The present class has more than 35 pupils—is verynoisy, making it difficult for children to concentrate—particularly thosewho are hard of hearing. Children who are less able either because theyare shy or find difficulty in the curriculum are less likely to approach theteacher for advice, thus slipping even further behind—creating furtherisolation,

(vii) Pressure to remove their children to the private sector is recorded by a few,


to benefit from closer attention and smaller classes, but, possibly less excitingprogrammes:

My two very able children are moving to a private school in the nextacademic year with 11 and 13 children in their respective classes—thecurriculum is not so exciting but 1 know they will be occupied,motivated and actively taught. It is very expensive but the education onoffer in the primary schools available to us are way below what we findacceptable. It's a shame, as I now have to pay for my children'seducation twice—once in taxes, twice in a termly bill of £3,500! Classsize is a very big issue.

The impression should not be left that all comments about increasing class size wereadverse. The great majority were, but one satisfied parent wrote:

I generally feel that the class sizes for children of my daughter's age at thisschool are very good. The children bring books home that they have read withtheir teacher on a regular basis. The teachers appear to know the children welland the children seem to be happy and confident. I believe that the numbersof children in these classes has a direct bearing on these conditions.

This from a parent of a 5 year-old in a class of 22.

Discussion

The average class size reported by this representative sample of schools in England andWales, is 28. Although there are always sampling errors the indications from this studyare that the steady rise in class sizes is continuing, and that there is an increasing trendtowards classes of more than 30 children. Almost one teacher in three now appears tobe teaching in such classes, and this approaches 40% in Years 3-6, i.e. in those yeargroups where curriculum overload is most clearly apparent.

Most of these teachers report having to teach increasing class sizes, and the greatmajority feel that their classes are too large. In this they are supported by parents andchairs of governors, nearly two-thirds of whom argue that classes are too large. Thisconsensus extends to their ratings of class size as an important educational issue. Some84% of teachers, for example, rated class size as the most, or one of the most, importantissues, as did more than 70% of chairs of governors. There was similar consensus aboutwhat class sizes ought to be, and of the need for smaller classes in the early years ofschooling. Teachers and parents were asked somewhat different questions but on thegeneral question about the optimum class size for primary children they too gave almostidentical answers of 23 and 22 respectively. Teachers were asked additionally to specifya maximum and minimum level. Their modal scores indicate an optimal size of 25, amaximum of 30 and a minimum of 20. This consensus on the size of classes is supportedby another recent survey (Professional Association of Teachers, 1993).

There was also a unanimity of view about what had created these increases in classsize. All cited, one way or another, the financial basis of the problem, and a sizeableproportion directly attributed this to government policy. This was particularly evidentamong the parents, 56% of whom felt that their children were in classes that were toolarge. Almost a quarter of these felt that government policy and priorities were directlyresponsible.

Headteachers and chairs of governors feel the financial pressure most keenly of

52 N. Bennett

TABLE X. Rankings of effect

Children

Individual teacher attentionAssessment of workBehaviourStandards of workSafety

of increasing class

Headteachers

12345

size on children

Ranking by:

Chairs ofgovernors

13275

Teachers

13246

Parents

15723

course, and there is evidence from both parties that the issue of class size is not only highon their list of priorities, but also the subject of regular discussion in governors'meetings. About one half of schools have put specific policies in place, these being directresponses to coping with increases in pupil numbers within the constraints of limitedbudgets. Nevertheless they feel disempowered in this context, both from the operationof the LMS formula, and the appeals system on agreed numbers. They find themselvesin a position whereby they feel they cannot turn children away, not only because of thefinancial implications involved, but also because their experience seems to be thatwhenever parents appeal, they win. In other words school policy operates at the mercyof external forces over which they feel they have little or no control. The most likelyoutcome of this situation is, they believe, further increases in class size.

Within this financial context schools have to make decisions and enact policies whichsuit their own particular circumstances. Nevertheless it is apparent that common policieshave emerged. Every attempt is being made to place limits on class size, by whatevermeans possible, and to favour, whenever possible, the needs of younger children.However, differences in view occasionally emerge, as for example, in the differingreactions of headteachers and chairs of governors to the prospect of mixed-age classes.

Given that this is an area of difficulty and frequent decision-making, it is perhapssurprising that there is so little evidence of the discussion of these issues with parents.Such discussions would seem singularly necessary given that a majority of parents areunhappy with the size of their child's class, and that appropriate situations, such asannual parent meetings, exist.

Almost 100% of each group agreed on the adverse effect of class size on teaching andlearning. There was also a large measure of agreement about the effects of class size onspecific aspects of classroom practices and children's classroom characteristics. Thequestion on children's characteristics appeared on the questionnaires of each group.Table X shows the five characteristics which headteachers felt would be most affectedby increases in class size, and the extent of agreement of the ratings of the other groups.All groups ranked individual teacher attention number one, and all but the parents rankedassessment of work, and behaviour, as number two or three. Parents ranked these as fourand five. Agreement is even closer when the importance of the effects was ranked, wherethey identified the same four top characteristics, and their rank orders are almostidentical. The most important adverse effects are clearly seen to be in individual teacherattention, assessment of children's work, standards of work and pupil's behaviour.

This same picture is apparent in the ratings for classroom practices. Table XI showsthe rankings of adverse effects derived from the ratings of headteachers, chairs ofgovernors and teachers. There is almost consensus on the six practices which would be


TABLE XI. Ratings of influences on increasing class size on classroom practices

Classroom practices

Time with individual childrenTeachers' workloadTeachers' emotional stateAvailable spaceTime for assessmentMovement around class

Headteachers

123456

Ratings by:

Chairs ofgovernors

13452

Teachers

123456

most affected, and their rankings of the four practices most importantly affected showalmost complete unanimity. All believe that those practices most importantly affectedwould be time with individual children, the teachers' workload, time for assessment andchildren's learning. Finally, over 82% of teachers stated that they would change theirclassroom practices if class sizes reduced, and identified what those practices would be.It seems clear that class sizes at their present level are narrowing the range of approachesteachers feel they can adopt, limiting the pedagogically possible.

Implications

This survey has identified a significant consensus of concern by both the producers andconsumers of primary schooling. It has identified aspects of practice, and of managementat school and national levels, that can, and should, they believe, be improved. The dataindicate clearly that class sizes continue to increase, and that more teachers are findingthemselves teaching classes of over 30 children. Headteachers and governors arestruggling to enact coherent policies in a financial context over which they feel they havelittle or no control, and large numbers of parents are unhappy about the class sizes theirchildren are experiencing in the public sector of education. All are united in their beliefsabout what class sizes ought to be, and about the extent of the adverse effects on childrenand on teachers—not only on their classroom practices, but also on their workloads,morale and general well-being. These findings are important, not least because peopleact, and make decisions, on the basis of what they believe.

The implications of these findings relate most clearly to schools and to centralgovernment, although the actions of the former are closely dependent on the action, orinaction, of the latter. Schools need to develop, or reconsider, their policies on class sizewithin the context of a school development plan. Such policies need to reflect theaspirations of parents regarding their children, and of staff regarding teaching style,taking account of available resources. In coming to their decisions headteachers andgoverning bodies will need to recognise several inherent dilemmas. For example, manyschools have implemented a policy which provides for small classes for the youngestchildren in school. This judgement accords with the research evidence on the boostwhich young learners can gain from smaller classes, and that early interventions of thiskind tend to be more successful than those implemented later in the primary school. Setagainst this, however, is that more teachers in these schools will teach larger classes, andare thus more likely to experience additional workload and stress. This dilemma is

54 N. Bennett

fundamental since it essentially pitches the welfare of young children against that ofteachers.

The government's current view is that class size is an issue to be managed at theschool level, but the amount of room for manoeuvre in schools is very limited. Schoolshave, of course, to make the best use of the buildings and resources at their disposal, butas the survey has made clear, headteachers and chairs of governors feel powerless in theface of the operation of LMS formulae and the appeals system. Indeed the supposedautonomy of school governors is considerably constrained by the legal frameworksupporting the appeals process. Ironically, therefore, the appeals system, which was putin place to extend parental rights has actually created another problem.

Headteachers, teachers, chairs of governors and parents, are agreed that the resourcesmade available to primary schools have a major effect on class size. The future prospectof increased resources for primary schools rested with the Government's response to therecent Select Committee report on disparities in school funding (House of Commons,1994). The Committee concluded that the assumption that primary schools can beexpected to function with a significantly lower level of staff than secondary schools wasinvalid, and called for parity by directing, in the short term, any additional fundsavailable to primary schools.

Unfortunately the Government, in its recent response to the Select Committee report,abrogated any responsibility for bridging the funding gap, and repeated its oft-rehearsedclaim that there is no evidence linking class size and achievement. This is true in theBritish context simply because no well-controlled study of class size and achievementhas been carried out. But, as was indicated in the introduction, lack of evidence is notevidence of absence. There is, of course, high quality evidence available on this issuefrom the USA. There are clearly dangers in generalising findings from studies across theAtlantic, but this evidence is far more substantial and credible than the Americanevidence which the Government has accepted as the basis for its initiative on pre-schooleducation. Nevertheless, it has to be accepted that to provide smaller classes would beextremely expensive. The best compromise might be, therefore, to begin in a limited wayby implementing this process in the reception class. The learning boost that this canprovide would not only provide lasting benefits to the children themselves, but wouldalso provide enduring value for money.

Correspondence: N. Bennett, University of Exeter, School of Education, HeavitreeRoad, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.

REFERENCES

ACHILLES, C. M., NYE, B. A., ZAHARIAS, J. B. & FULTON, B. D. (1993) The Lasting Benefits Study (LBS)in Grades 4-5, Paper No. 7, Centre of Excellence for Research in Basic Skills, Tennessee StateUniversity.

ALEXANDER, R., ROSE, J. & WOODHEAD, C. (1992) Curriculum organisation and Classroom Practice inPrimary Schools (London, DES).

BENNETT, N. (1992) Managing Learning in the Primary School (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books, for theAssociation for the Study of Primary Education).

BLATCHFORD, P. & MORTIMORE, P. (1994) The issue of class size for young children in schools: what canwe learn from research? Oxford Review of Education, 20, pp. 411-428.

BURSTALL, C. (1979) Time to Mend the Nets: a commentary on the outcomes of class-size research.Trends in Education, 3, pp. 27-33.


CAMPBELL, R. & NIELL, S. (1992) Teacher Time and Curriculum Manageability at Key Stage 1 (London,Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association).

CASE (CAMPAIGN FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF STATE EDUCATION) (1990) Classroom Charter Update No.1 (London, CASE).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1992) 1982-1992 Annual Statistics for England (London,DES).

FINN, J. D. & ACHILLES, C. M. (1990) Answers and questions about class size: a statewide experiment,American Educational Research Journal, 27, pp. 557—577.

GIPPS, C. (1992) What We Know about Effective Primary Teaching (London, Institute of Education,University of London).

GLASS, G. V. & SMITH, M. L. (1978) Meta Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class Size andAchievement (San Francisco, LA, Far West Lab for R&D).

HER MAJESTY'S INSPECTORATE (1978) Primary Education in England (London, HMSO).HMSO (1994) Regional Trends, 29 (London, HMSO).HOUSE OF COMMONS (1994) The Disparity in Funding between Primary and Secondary Schools, Vol. 1

(London, HMSO).MORTIMORE, P. & BLATCHFORD, P. (1993) The issue of class size, briefing paper (London, National

Commission on Education).MORTIMORE P., SAMMONS, P., STOLL, L, LEWIS, D. & ECOB, R (1988) Schools Matter (London, Open

Books).NATIONAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION (1993) Learning to Succeed, p. 149 (London, Heinemann).ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (1992) Education at a Glance (Paris,

OECD).PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS (1993) National Survey on Non-contact Time and Class Size

(Derby, PAT).PATE-BAIN, H., ACHILLES, C. M., BOYD-ZAHARIAS, J. E. & MCKENNA, B. (1992) Class size makes a

difference, Phi Delta Kappan, 74, pp. 253-256.SCHOOL TEACHERS REVIEW BODY (1994) First Report on 1994 Teachers Workload Survey (London,

School Teachers Review Body).SLAVIN, R. E. (1989) Achievement effects of substantial reductions in class size, in: R.E. SLAVIN (Ed.)

School and Classroom Organisation (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).Times Educational Supplement (1994) 5 August.VARLAAM, A., NUTTALL, D. & WALKER, A. (1992) What Makes Teachers Tick? (London, Centre for

Educational Research, London School of Economics).

Documents

Class Size in Primary Schools: perceptions of headteachers, chairs of governors, teachers and parents