Small classes, especially in the first four years of school, can have an important and lasting impact on student achievement. This is the conclusion of a new Australian review study by dr. David Zyngier from Monash University’s Faculty of Education, published in Evidence Base the Journal of the Australian New Zealand School of Governance.

In this review of over 100 papers from 1979-2014, Zyngier looked at whether the conclusions reached on the effect of smaller class sizes still hold true today. Zyngier found that the current Australian policy advice – and not only in Australia I may add – is based on ‘cherry picking’ of flawed research evidence from a US conservative think tank’ and that a range of independent studies throws doubt on that argument.

Actually, I don’t agree with this quite harsh claim, as I don’t want to call e.g. PISA, flawed research. Still, it’s true that the longitudinal research often sheds another light on the matter. Another critique on the review study I have is that the review actually puts a rather small emphasis on the quality of the papers in the selection.

Still the results are in line with the report I mentioned earlier on this blog, do check here. And I do agree based on the research – soon published in the English version of our book on Urban legends in education – that the cost of keeping classes small had to be weighed against the long-term costs or benefits. Zyngier describes also a need for a new approach to teacher development, as the current teaching methodology in Australia is based on large classes, which call for a very different approach to teaching smaller groups.

Abstract from the report that can be downloaded here:

The question of class size continues to attract the attention of educational policymakers and researchers alike. Australian politicians and their advisers, policy makers and political commentators agree that much of Australia’s increased expenditure on education in the last 30 years has been ‘wasted’ on efforts to reduce class sizes. They conclude that funding is therefore not the problem in Australian education, arguing that extra funding has not led to improved academic results. Many scholars have found serious methodological issues with the existing reviews that make claims for the lack of educational and economic utility in reducing class sizes in schools. Significantly, the research supporting the current policy advice to both state and federal ministers of education is highly selective, and based on limited studies originating from the USA. This comprehensive review of 112 papers from 1979-2014 assesses whether these conclusions about the effect of smaller class sizes still hold. The review draws on a wider range of studies, starting with Australian research, but also includes similar education systems such as England, Canada, New Zealand and non-English speaking countries of Europe. The review assesses the different measures of class size and how they affect the results, and also whether other variables such as teaching methods are taken into account. Findings suggest that smaller class sizes in the first four years of school can have an important and lasting impact on student achievement, especially for children from culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised communities. This is particularly true when smaller classes are combined with appropriate teacher pedagogies suited to reduced student numbers. Suggested policy recommendations involve targeted funding for specific lessons and schools, combined with professional development of teachers. These measures may help to address the inequality of schooling and ameliorate the damage done by poverty, violence, inadequate child care and other factors to our children’s learning outcomes.