A new study on class size in Best Evidence in Brief, and it’s an interesting one!

There is a new Best Evidence in Brief with some interesting studies. I want to pick this one as it is a theme that often pops up, but seldom with new data.

The Ministry of Education in France instituted a policy in 2002 that reduced class size to no more than 12 students in areas determined to have social difficulties and high proportions of at-risk students, called Zones d’Education Prioritaire (ZEP). In order to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of this policy, researcher Jean Ecalle and colleagues in France examined the results of the policy-mandated class size reduction on the reading achievement of first graders (Study 1), and compared them to the effects of an evidence-based literacy intervention on the reading achievement of at-risk children in regularly sized classes (20 students) (Study 2).
Study 1, reducing class size, involved assigning classrooms to either small (12 students/class n=100 classes) or large (20-25 students/class, n=100 classes) class sizes (with the support of the Ministry). At the start of the 2002-03 school year, 1,095 children were pretested on pre-reading skills and matched at pretest. At the end of the school year, children were post-tested, with results favoring the small-class-size group on word reading (ES=+0.14) and word spelling (ES=+0.22).
In Study 2, researchers separated 2,803 first graders in ZEP areas into an experimental group who received an evidence-based reading intervention, and a control group who did not. The intervention was a protocol developed by the Association Agir pour l’Ecole (Act for School), who developed a hierarchy of teaching reading based on evidence-based methods of learning to read, progressing from training phonological skills, to learning letter sounds, decoding, and fluency. Act for School monitored compliance with the protocol weekly. Class size for both groups was 20 students. Experimental teachers received a one-day training, and provided 30 minutes of instruction a day to average or high readers in groups of 10-12, and one hour a day for lower readers in groups of 4-6. Again, children were pre-tested on reading skills and matched between groups. All areas post-tested favored the experimental group, with significant effects in word reading (ES=+0.13) and word spelling (ES=+0.12).
Researchers stated that based on the results of both studies, the optimal recommendation to improve literacy skills for at-risk students would be a double intervention, combining evidence-based practices within small classes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.