As the school year begins in earnest, teachers around the country will come under renewed pressure to achieve the unachievable: optimal student outcomes. Why unachievable? Allegedly because of unmanageable class sizes and high student-teacher ratios.
The debate has been going on for decades. A Monash University study, for instance, included a review of 112 research papers dated between 1979 and 2014.
Most studies have provided little, if any, solace to the pressured profession. The central issue, it seems, is one of economics. Should we ‘spend’ or ‘invest’ taxpayers money to reduce class size, or is there another remedy? Just as importantly, what is the ideal class size?
One argument is that a smaller class size increases a teacher’s capacity to improve student outcomes. The economics of the situation would be: employ more teachers and commit to a major increase in ongoing annual salaries.
Another view is that any further reduction in class size would have little impact, and that teacher quality has a greater impact on student outcomes. The economics here would involve adapting pre-service teacher education and investing in ongoing professional learning.
According to Victoria – The Education State, the size of a class is defined as ‘the number of students that exist in a class grouping’ and ‘average class size is NOT the same as the student-teacher ratio’. The example given is: ‘A class of 24 students with 1.2 teachers is a class of 24 students, and not a class of 24-1.2, or 20 students’.
Significantly, this calculation does not factor in additional staff, including education support staff or teacher aides.
Today, the Australian Education Union (AEU) has negotiated class sizes to sit, on average, between 21 and 25 students; the first years of schooling (P-2) have a smaller number of students. In 2017, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) reported an average 13:6 student teacher ratio.
These figures do not accurately reflect the actual number of employees working with students. The impact of current class size and possible further reductions, therefore, remains an unknown factor.
What about if we agreed, first of all, on the expected return on investment? In other words, what should the teaching of students actually look like?
In 1980, the Teacher Education in Victoria, Interim Report… Inquiry Into Teacher Education stated: ‘One significant challenge will probably be the change in the rate of change itself. Teachers need to be adequately prepared for flexible, open thinking and problem-solving since, as Toffler predicted, the rate of change may outstrip our ability to deal with the new realities’.
The report goes on to say: ‘In a dynamic world where skills date rapidly, a sound general education offers the best guarantee of a flexible workforce whose members are capable of turning to new tasks’.
As the school year begins, Australia’s teachers will come under renewed pressure. Is this pressure exerted by allegedly unmanageable class sizes, or by the failure to pass on a sound general education from one generation to the next?
Could the ongoing war over class size and student:teacher ratios be a distraction? Perhaps we should be addressing the genuine problems facing schools – the same problems that were evident 40 years ago.
Copyright © Cheryl Lacey 2019
Email cheryl@cheryllacey.com and mention this post to receive your complimentary report on Sensible Strategy for Leaders of Education.
Cheryl Lacey is an educationist and advocate of agitating change in Australian education to face global challenges facing Australia and Australians.
If you would like to learn more about the outcomes achieved by educational leaders and teams who have worked with me, contact me at cheryl@cheryllacey.com or visit www.cheryllacey.com
