Large class sizes may not be bad

Results are mixed but indicate that adapting strategies matters more than pupil numbers. By Mark Potterton

- By Mark Potterton

One of the most contentious issues in education today is the effect of class size in schools.

The main reason for the debate is that smaller classes involve increasing the number of teachers, which has implications for educational resourcing. Put more crudely, more teachers mean more money, and hard questions are asked about the value of this investment.

In this article, I revisit the class size debate and explore whether we are making any progress. The relationship between class size and learning achievement has been a significant topic. Research evidence from high school classrooms calls into question simple one-way relationships between class size and students' learning and challenges us to re-examine teaching and learning in schools.

I rely heavily on a gold standard research article by David Pedder titled Are Small Classes Better? Understanding Relationships between Class Size, Classroom Processes and Pupils' Learning. The article critiques the assumption that smaller class sizes universally improve learning outcomes.

Pedder argues that while politicians often demand clear answers, class-size research reveals ambiguous and context-dependent results. He notes that early reviews highlight critical gaps such as the lack of attention to classroom processes mediating class size effects. Pedder brings together quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies and proposes models to explain how class size interacts with teaching and student learning.

He says that class size research has often ignored classroom dynamics and assumes links between class size and achievement, which overlooks both teachers' and students' agency in adapting to different contexts.