The experts seem to be arguing that reducing class sizes has little or no effect on raising attainment and that it does badly in terms of "value for money" (Will smaller class sizes improve Scotland’s schools?,State of the Nation, March 26). However, the General Secretaries of the EIS and School Leaders Scotland, disagree.
In my view, most approaches which are important in closing the gap are made easier with smaller class sizes. Giving individual pupils help when they are struggling, listening to them when they are reading, tracking their progress, assessing their work, personalising their learning when necessary ... all of this is easier in smaller classes, where pedagogy, rather than class control, can be put centre-stage. Active learning, collaborative working, small-group discussion and peer- and self-assessment can all take place. The stress of teachers and pupils alike is reduced.
Stress among teachers and learners is as high as it has ever been, as high-stakes exams dominate schools. Approaches to learning and teaching such as Assessment Is For Learning, Storyline, Active Learning and Teaching For Understanding, which are currently making a difference in Scottish classrooms, would be facilitated by smaller class sizes.
Reducing class sizes will not, by itself, close the gap. But, implemented alongside improvements in pedagogy, it is a vital step which needs to be taken, initially in schools in areas of disadvantage, then across the board. It does not require new school buildings; having two teachers working together in the same classroom is the equivalent of halving class size.
Those who argue against reducing class sizes often cite "evidence". However, other policies are pursued with little or no evidence to support them, such as National Standardised Testing and "setting" by attainment. So, let's set up a longitudinal research project and have it evaluated rigorously by teachers and academics, with input from parents and pupils. Let's see if the results of the Star project, where the most disadvantaged pupils benefitted from reduced class size, can be replicated in Scotland.
I have been involved with an Erasmus project involving six European countries, three of them Nordic. The Norwegian primary school had roughly the same number of pupils as the Scottish primary ... but had nearly twice the number of teachers. Maybe there is a lesson there.
Prof Brian Boyd
East Kilbride
How do you improve Scotland’s schools? Evidence shows that the quality of the teacher is paramount. In secondary schools, the 21st-century teacher needs excellent personal and communication skills, a deep knowledge of their subject and a thick skin. To attract and retain the best graduates, money helps, but there must also be a potential, career path. Currently, teachers hit the classroom salary-ceiling after five years. Middle-level promoted posts were removed to save money and replaced by faculty heads, often responsible for departments in which they are unqualified to teach. A new, promoted post of subject expert would provide a stepping-stone for ambitious teachers to higher-level management. It would develop leadership and provide a qualified mentor for new teachers.
Leadership is vital, but head teacher posts remain vacant. With the named-person train coming down the track to add to work-overload, this should be no surprise. To get able people to apply for head teacher posts, head teachers must be protected from burdensome bureaucracy and inappropriate expectation. This would allow them time to be leaders, as opposed to full-time, crisis managers.
Reasonable remuneration, a job with a career path and the freeing-up of head teachers could go a long way to reinvigorating Scotland’s schools.
David Muir
Dr Avis Glaze claims smaller class sizes have little effect on outcomes (Better teachers not smaller classes will fix schools, say top experts, News, March 26). I agree that good teaching has the most significant effect on academic success. However, until schools like Eton and Fettes have classes of 30-plus, I refuse to believe class size is unimportant.
D Mitchell
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here