Peter Blatchford

The issue of class size is a complex and contested topic that has divided opinion for many years. Whilst many teachers believe that smaller class sizes assist in enhancing outcomes, a number of policy influencers, policy makers and researchers argue that it has little influence on success in learning and that decreasing class sizes is not cost-effective. This article reports on over 20 years of research on this topic that is embodied in a recent text entitled Rethinking Class Size: The Complex Story of Impact on Teaching and Learning by Peter Blatchford and Anthony Russell of the University College London Institute of Education. The book offers an extended exploration of how class size affects key classroom processes including teaching, classroom management, peer relations, groups in the class, marking and other administrative teacher activities, as well effects on teachers themselves. The article is based on a question and answer session between one of the authors of the text, Professor Peter Blatchford, and his colleague at the UCL Institute of Education, Matt Somerville.

In recent years there has been an unprecedented increase in support staff in schools in England and Wales. There were widespread expectations that this will be of benefit to teachers and pupils but there has been little systematic research to address the impact of support staff. This study used a naturalistic longitudinal design to investigate the relationship between the amount of support (measured by teacher estimates and systematic observation) and pupils’ ‘Positive Approaches to Learning’ (PAL) and academic progress. There were over 8000 pupils across two cohorts and seven age groups. Results on PAL were not straightforward by there was a consistent trend for those with most support to make less academic progress than similar pupils with less support, and this was not explained by characteristics of the pupils such as piror attainment or level of special educational need.

Despite an unprecedented increase in classroom‐based support staff, there are confusing messages about their appropriate deployment and a lack of systematic evidence on their impact. This article addresses the deployment and impact on pupil engagement and individual attention of support staff, commonly known as teaching assistants (TAs), in terms of: (1) a comparison between TAs and teachers; (2) differences between pupils with and without special educational needs (SEN); and (3) differences between primary and secondary schools. Systematic observations of pupil behaviour in 49 primary and secondary schools showed that support staff presence resulted in increased individualisation of attention and overall teaching, easier classroom control, and that pupils showed more engagement and a more active role in interaction with adults. This supports teachers’ positive view of support staff, but their presence also meant pupils’ contact with teachers declined and at secondary level there was less individual and active interactions between teachers and pupils.

There is still little consensus on whether and how teaching is affected by small and large classes, especially in the case of students in the later primary years. This study investigated effects of class size on teaching of pupils aged 7 – 11 years. We used a multimethod approach, integrating qualitative information from teachers' end-of-year accounts and data from case studies with quantitative information from systematic observations. Results showed that there was more individual attention in smaller classes, a more active role for pupils, and beneficial effects on the quality of teaching. It is suggested that teachers in both large and small classes need to develop strategies for more individual attention but also recognize the benefits of other forms of learning, for example, group work.

It is widely assumed that increasing the number of teaching assistants (TAs) in the classroom will be beneficial to children, and this is one important aim of the recently implemented Workforce Agreement. But there are still significant gaps in knowledge about many aspects of their deployment and impact. The Class Size and Pupil—Adult Ratios (CSPAR) KS2 study built on earlier findings when the pupils were in reception and Key Stage (KS) 1, and investigated: (1) the deployment of TAs in classrooms and how key parties involved perceived this; and (2) the effect of TAs on interactions involving pupils and teachers in the same classrooms, and on pupil attainments. The study had a longitudinal, mixed method and multi‐informant design. Methods of data collection included: (for the whole sample) questionnaires completed by TAs, teachers and head teachers, assessments of pupil attainments in mathematics, English and science, data on pupil background, and (for a sub‐sample) case studies and a systematic observation study. This study found that the TA's role in KS2 is predominantly a direct one, in the sense of face‐to‐face interactions supporting certain pupils. There was no evidence that the presence of TAs, or any characteristic of TAs, had a measurable effect on pupil attainment. However, results were clear in showing that TAs had an indirect effect on teaching, e.g. pupils had a more active form of interaction with the teacher and there was more individualised teacher attention. This supported teachers' views that TAs are effective in supporting them in this way. The authors conclude that more attention needs to be paid to what they call the pedagogical role of TAs so that they can be used effectively to help teachers and pupils, particularly in the context of the enhanced roles for TAs being introduced as part of the Government's remodelling agenda.

This paper describes a multi‐method approach to data collection used in a large‐scale seven‐year longitudinal study of the effect of class size differences on classroom processes. There were five main types of process and the paper concentrates on the results from one of these: teaching interactions with pupils. It was felt that integration of results from quantitative and qualitative methods would help reconcile inconsistencies and limitations in previous research on this topic. Quantitative information was collected from systematic classroom observations and teacher completed time estimates to address relationships between class size and teacher time allocation, and teacher and pupil behaviour in class. But we also wanted a more qualitative assessment of relationships between class size and teaching through the use of methods that captured practitioners’ experiences, and through detailed case studies. Examples of integrated results from these four methods are given, along with some reflections on lessons learned.

This short‐term longitudinal study examined activities at recess and peer relations. We were interested in changes over the school year, and the sex and ethnic mix of groups. Data came from systematic observations of 129 pupils (61 boys and 68 girls) aged 7–8 years. Results showed that peer interaction dominated recess. Ball games increased over the year, and chasing games decreased. Aggression was most common during vigorous play and conversation, but not ball games. Cleavage in boys' and girls' play and activity was common but not inevitable. Mixed‐sex play was not supported by particular game types. Boys' game networks were larger than those of girls but there were no sex differences in active networks. There was little ethnic group segregation on playgrounds, and games became more integrated with time. The results indicate that playground activities can have a positive role in social relations between different ethnic groups.

Background: Despite a long‐running debate over the effects of class size differences on educational performance there is little evidence on the classroom processes that might be involved. Aims: The effects of class size differences are examined in relation to social and behavioural adjustment to school, in terms of two dimensions: attentiveness and peer relations. It was predicted that as class size increased there would be more inattentiveness in class and more signs of social difficulties between children in the form of more rejection, asocial, anxious and aggressive behaviour, and less prosocial behaviour. Samples: Data came from a large‐scale longitudinal study of children over KS1 (4‐7 years). The observation study was based on a subsample of 235 children in 21 small (average 19 children) and 18 large (average 33 children) reception classes (aged 5 years). The PBR sample involved over 5,000. Methods: There were two complementary methods of data collection: first, a systematic observation study of pre‐selected target children in terms of three ‘social modes’ — when with their teachers, other children and when not interacting — and in terms of work, procedural, social and off‐task activities; and, second, a teacher administered Pupil Behaviour Rating (PBR) scale comprising over 50 items rated on a 3‐point scale grouped into six ‘factors’: hyperactive/distractible, aggressive, anxious/fearful, prosocial, asocial, and excluded. Results: Observations showed that children in large classes were more likely to show off‐task behaviour of all kinds, and more likely to interact with their peers in terms of off‐task behaviour, social, and also on‐task behaviours. Connections between class size and PBR factors were not strong. There was no support for the view that peer relations are better in smaller classes; indeed, there was a slight tendency for worse peer relations, in terms of aggression, asocial and excluded, in the smallest classes. Conclusions: There was confirmation that children in large classes are more distracted from work and more often off task. The unexpected result, based on teacher ratings, that small classes may lead to less social and more aggressive relations between children is discussed, along with implications for teachers of a tendency for more peer‐related contacts in large classes.