by Catherine Delahunty
Yesterday, I asked a question in Parliament to Education Minister Hekia Parata:
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Will she rule out implementing Treasury’s advice to increase class sizes in schools?
I was expecting a similar rejection to those we have grown used to from John Key in response to some of the wackier far right suggestions that come out of Treasury. Instead, I got this:
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) : Tēnā koe. No, because Treasury’s independent observation was actually, quote, that “Student achievement can be raised by improving the quality of teaching, … Increasing student/teacher ratios, and consolidation of the school network, can free up funding that could be used to support initiatives to enhance the quality of teaching, …” (full transcript here).
The Minister went on to cite Professor John Hattie, whose research published in his book Visible Learnings suggests class size has only a small effect on student achievement, and that teaching quality is a far more significant factor.
This is research cherry-picking of the worst sort by the Minister. Hattie’s findings on this issue are not unchallenged. A team of academic educationalists led by Emeritus Professor Ivan Snook and Professor John O’Neill have expressed concern at the validity of Hattie’s findings on class size.
Research conducted by Michael Boozer and Tim Maloney, ironically for Treasury itself, based on the Christchurch Health and Development Study finds statistically and economically significant positive effects of children being assigned to persistently smaller classes on both childhood test score growth as well as on early adult outcomes such as completed education and unemployment experiences.
It is also highly ironic that Minister Parata now purports to rely on Professor Hattie to justify increasing class sizes, while her predecessor Anne Tolley rammed through the Government’s National Standards programme despite Hattie’s deep concerns about its implementation and his suggestion that it could set back education 50 years.
I fear the Government’s real agenda in considering increasing class sizes is about cutting costs rather than quality of education and that Hattie’s research is being misused by the Minister in an attempt to give the appearance of evidential credibility.
Published in Society & Culture by Catherine Delahunty on Thu, February 9th, 2012
Tags: anne tolley, class size, Hekia Parata, Ivan Snook, John Hattie, John O'Neill, national standards
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Like or Dislike:
10 
2 (+8)
There is no statement on anything that isn’t challenged.
Could be as simple as a great teacher has no trouble teaching really well and effectively to a larger class size, so for that great teacher, class size s not a determiner of outcomes. Whereas a less good teacher’s outcomes might be very sensitive to class sizes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Increasing class sizes, just sounds like another of this Key-party’s agenda to slash public spending, by reducing the numbers of teachers & have the rest deal with overcrowded classrooms !
SHAME
Kia-ora
Like or Dislike:
9 
2 (+7)
University students seem to do pretty well in those large lecture rooms where the ratio is like 1:100, provided they have smaller class options for students that may fall behind and they are captured early then a large class size should suit the majority of students.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9 (-4)
Uni students also do pretty well with 100:1 because they are generally, y’know, adults, and thus have been exposed to basic pedagogic discipline and too a degree are self motivating (when they are not drinking) being that they are paying for their education.
This does not apply to 5 year olds.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
@nzmr2guy I think we are talking about primary and/or secondary schools. Universities are quiet a different environment and the attrition rate is really high. Say about half fail 1st year and another half of 2nd years fail, etc until in 3rd year the number of students left is about a quarter of the number that enrolled for 1st year.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever seen. University students are at university of their own choice to further their learning and have largely already learned the disciplines of study through their previous compulsory education.
Kids in compulsory education largely don’t have the maturity to have learned the disciplines of study and many wouldn’t want to be anywhere near a school if they had the choice.
I’d love to see how successful you would be attempting to teach a lecture theatre filled with 100 12 year olds!
Like or Dislike:
15 
2 (+13)
With quotes from research a decade out of date, and negative quotes about National Standards before they had even started – it’s laughable that Catherine is complaining about cherry picking.
New research has shown that children learn more in classes of 60 with a quality teacher than a class of 15 with a poor teacher.
Of course class size can matter, but not nearly as much as the quality of teacher.
And we don’t reduce class size much where it can really make a difference anyway (i.e. youngest and least able school children). Instead we do it across the board – not enough where it’s needed mosts, and mostly in the majority where it makes little difference.
Our children would be better off if the best teachers had LARGER classes. But this would mean assessing how good teachers really are – something that happens in every other profession – but a big no-no to the unions who are desperate to keep the useless teachers in front of our children.
Here’s a quote from a foundation aimed at getting better results for poor children, from Time Magazine
“In other words, class size matters, but teacher effectiveness matters more. That means that as a parent, you’re better off with 28, 30, or maybe even more kids and a great teacher, than 24 or 22 and a mediocre one. What’s more, to really make a difference smaller must mean much smaller. Fewer than 16, for instance. Even then the benefits are greatest in the early grades and for at-risk youngsters. Meanwhile, class size reduction is very expensive, so it doesn’t always work from a cost/benefit analysis relative to other choices schools can make with scarce dollars.”
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056571,00.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
photonz
Do you think schools that seek to hire the better teachers (private schools) are wrong to provide/guarantee smaller classes to their fee paying clients? Or they do not know what they are doing?
You ultimately mean we decide by cost saving and rationalise that we not losing much – or hope not.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
The only substantial change in compulsory education over the last 10 years has been the introduction of National Standards, which are about assessment and reporting rather than teaching practices. Research from 2001 relating to teaching practices is therefore just as valid now as it was then.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
Treasury’s line on classroom size suits cost cutting in education.
Given the troubles state and city budgets are in across the USA there are wholesale teacher lay offs and attempts to rationalise this as having not so much impact on educational performance (to reassure the voters) – in which case why would not those without such budget difficulty just do it just to afford another tax cut or two.
Of course this requires keeping the better teachers and giving them larger classes. That means identifying who the better teachers are, not to give them better pay but to decide who to keep and to teach the larger classes for the same pay.
In looking at the group the writer of the Time Magazine article photonz linked to I found a report on DC City edcuation, that shows the brave new world of educational “reform”.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/77669/washington-dc-schools-without-michelle-rhee-adrian-fenty-vincent-gray
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Most teachers indicate the optimum class size is 26. Anything over that size and the students at the high-achieving end and the low-achieving end miss out because there is just not the time available to effectively deal with every student in class. Not only that but what about the actual sizes of the rooms themselves? It becomes dangerous to cram students into a science lab that isn’t built for 30 kids.
Quality teaching owes as much to job satisfaction as to the person. It’s proven that in any workplace that a happy staff means good quality output. Increasing class sizes just because the bean counters say so and refusing to listen to the majority of people at the actual coalface will not only drop teaching morale further but also compromise the learning of our students.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
Like or Dislike:
12 
3 (+9)
Catherine hypothetical fantasy of a “class where 10% have English as a second language, four have learning impairments such as dyslexia, three have been diagnosed as ADHD” completly ignores the swathes of teacher aides that would be available for those people, as well as the additional funding for the ESL students.
But as usual, Catherine does ignore fact and promotes fantasy. The above hypothetical fantasy should therefore come as no surprise.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10 (-8)
The reality is these kids get some resources but ususaly its of a token nature and the funding is never enough. I base my observations on watching the education progress of two boys who are now both men. One was blind and the other had ADHD.
The education system realy failed them and to claim that they had “swathes” of aids and resources is a sick nasty joke from a sick nasty mind .
Back in the real world the nasty nats will only make it worse for struggling students and their familys .
Like or Dislike:
10 
1 (+9)
Do you really think the great Teachers are going to hang around when given an impossible task because of class sizes that are too large.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
Misanthropic Curmudgeon et al don’t give a fuck about public education. All they are interested in is minimising their tax bill, or even better, redirecting taxation into their own pockets thorugh welfare for the rich schemes.
Of course they cannot put it this bluntly, because it would be too unpopular. So instead they try and con us into thinking increasing class sizes is somehow a good thing.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Our current Education Ministers refuse to listen and just call us into their offices to dictate to us. http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/tolley-trashes-new-zealands-educational.html The most successful education systems are where there is respect and collaboration between the profession and the government. The profession in New Zealand is ignored and yet we have had someone with a background in real estate dictating to us and now we have an ex State Sector manager. Nothing is wrong with having either background if decisions develop out of consultation and good advice. I have yet to see meaningful consultation and as Catherine has stated there is much cherry picking of research and advice. John Hattie’s class size comments have been supported but not his advice that the National Standards are flawed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
“Swathes of teacher aides” MC..if only! From my albeit limited observations in our local primary, there were a number of high-need children who didn’t “quite” qualify for an aide. And for those who did, the aides were local mums, unqualified, doing their best in often very trying circumstances on a pittance wage, and only ever for a couple of hours in the morning.
As a stay-at-home mum to an only child, I’ve been in a privileged position to be able to offer support and time at my son’s schools…bigger number of students to teacher ratio…HELL NO.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Smaller School Classes Leads to Better Student Outcomes and Higher Wages
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)