For Chris C: you and other readers are referred (again) to the argument actually presented in the article linked in my previous comment, rather than the straw man you address. The nub of the argument is this: yes, smaller classes can be (not 'are', but 'can be') more effective for students and/or teachers. But other strategies using the same level of funding/resources may be (and very often are) more effective. The obligation to make that comparison exists irrespective of the amount of money available.

Chris’s breakdown to minutes and decimal points is symptomatic of the need for a fresh way of thinking. This type of thinking, indulged in both by Unions and Governments is based on an industrial model of the 1930s and the Model T Ford.

Just one simple example of thinking outside the square: In the school I was in there was a felt need for more teacher meeting time, so in Senior classes in each subject line one period a fortnight was designated a private study period. All classes went to the Library with half the normal staff allocated, and where possible a mixture of humanities and science/maths teachers. Each class teacher was responsible for setting work that could be done in this period. This freed 3 to 4 teachers to meet on a regular basis through the term.

For more fresh ideas I would also suggest a reading of Salman Khan’s “The One World School House” to gain some ideas of what new technologies can make possible.
Ian Keese

Dean,

The “nub” of your article is that teachers’ working lives would be worse if you won this debate.

Victorian stonemasons won the eight-hour day in 1856. I see no good reason that teachers not enjoy something similar in a much wealthier society 157 years later.

That other steps can improve education is indisputable, but the imposition of increased workloads in teachers is not justified. Teaching is exhausting for those who take it seriously.

There is another perspective on class sizes at http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/class_size_research_summary.pdf.

Ian,

I could have rounded off to 15 and a half hours, but I am precise by nature and I see no reason not to quote publicly available figures accurately. “This type of thinking” is based on a commitment to decent working conditions for teachers, something I was able to achieve in the three schools I was timetabler of. It would be much harder to achieve today.

For Chris: My view is the inverse of yours, as I think you know. And, to repeat, I refer you to the actual argument of my piece, including the suggestion that the 'class sizes' strategy was absolutely essential, in its day, now well behind us, and has become a dogma, an obstacle to further improvement in the working conditions of students and teachers. If I can't persuade you to subscribe to my (very sketchy) suggestions about a new strategy, let me remind you of the vices of the old: despite increases in real per pupil expenditure of around two-and-a-half times over 50 years, no improvement whatever in teachers' salaries and standing, or in standards of entry to the profession; very limited or no gains in student performance in fundamental areas of the curriculum; and very limited capacity to switch effort to kids in greatest need, even within schools. As for the document linked in your comment: it is a tendentious cherry-pick of the evidence in support of the argument that smaller classes can make a difference , which (as my piece makes plain) is not the issue at all.

Chris, my comment about decimal points was not intended as a criticism of you personally - I also have been involved in timetabling and played the same game - it is a criticism of the paradigm that "one size fits all" Of course small class sizes are good in some circumstances, and in particular cases the smaller the better down to a one-on-one situation for students with particular difficulties, but I think one of the points Dean is making is that we have to think flexibly. There could be times when a well prepared lecture to one hundred students followed by small group discussion could be far more effective than four teachers setting students a couple of pages to read from a textbook and then answer the questions that follow (and we cannot pretend that this type of "teaching" does not still occur)

Dean,

I accept that there are many things other than class sizes that affect learning. I do not see class size limits as any sort of obstacle. I see them as an essential protection for teachers and students. More than 20 years ago, the Victorian agreement allowed variation in class sizes to allow lectures and tutorials, but it had to be by agreement. The limits on class sizes and teaching loads underpin staffing ratios. If they are removed, the ratios will go too and then the workload will go up. If the legal limit is simply removed, then all that will follow will be exploitation under the Great God Flexibility. It if remains with provision for local variation by individual agreement, teachers can still organise in other ways.

The increase in real per pupil expenditure of 250 per cent is a complete furphy. Education spending has to grow in real terms for education achievement just stand still. Do the reverse exercise. Let’s get rid of the 250 per cent increase. We can do that by cutting teacher salaries by 71 per cent (i.e., to around $24,000 for the top level in Victoria) or by increasing the maximum class size by 250 per cent (i.e., to 88 students), or by increasing teaching loads by 250 per cent (i.e., to 79 hours a week in primary schools), or by sone combination. It’s absurd.