42 IN A CLASS - PERSONALISE THAT, GORDON!

42 IN A CLASS - PERSONALISE THAT, GORDON!
Robin Pye (St.Helens NUT)
In my last year at primary school, I was taught in a class of 42. Our teacher, Mr. Crossman, kept telling us how terrible it was that we were in such a large class. I grew up thinking that classes of 42 children, along with outside toilets, would soon be a thing of the past.
Four years ago, I was at a meeting of primary teachers in a school not too dissimilar from the one I remembered from my childhood. One of the staff then told the meeting she had 42 pupils in her class and wanted to know if that was allowed. I couldn’t believe it.
Unfortunately, of course, the law allows it. Even more unfortunately, I could not find anybody who was prepared to do anything about it. The school did not have the funds to split the group. The Council did not have the power to instruct the school to do so, nor did they have the inclination to increase the school’s funding for fear that it would encourage ‘irresponsible’ attitudes to budget setting across all the schools in St. Helens.
Two years ago, I was in another primary school to be told that NUT members were teaching merged classes numbering between 52 and 55 pupils every afternoon. The Head confirmed to me that if she would de-merge the classes – but only when she had funds to employ a part-time teacher (see box).
Pupil numbers always fluctuate for all sorts of demographic reasons. The fact that schools get delegated budgets based on pupil numbers means they are ill equipped to respond to these fluctuations. In St. Helens we have schools that seem to have a policy of having class sizes in the mid 30’s so they can remain in robust financial health. We also have schools with falling rolls that then have to make large classes, usually in Key Stage 2, to compensate financially for a shortage of pupils elsewhere in the school. This can lead schools to make teachers redundant while their colleagues are left behind to teach large classes. These schools are then treated as if they are guilty of financial mismanagement.
Some of the cracks are being papered over using the worst aspects of the ‘remodelling’ agenda. Schools who cannot afford teachers make do with teaching assistants to cover more and more of the timetable.
The impact on children is quite clear. Larger classes make it harder for the individual needs of pupils to be met. Teachers inevitably focus on those pupils whose performance will make most impact on the dreaded league tables. Where year groups are merged to make large classes this problem is made even worse.
The impact on teachers is also clear. The larger the class, the more marking and preparation needs to be done. There are more classroom management issues and our members can too easily go under.
We have a colleague in St. Helens who has been placed on capability procedures despite having a track record of being an excellent teacher. He teaches a class of 35 Year 3 and Year 4 pupils in a school which has previously been ‘financially mismanaged’. He has three pupils with special needs none of whom get any additional support. He is not responsible for the financial mismanagement – nor are his pupils - but they are all paying the price now.
Of course, not all schools are struggling in this way. Independent primary schools never have such large classes. Class sizes in the upper teens are more typical in this sector so the pupils in those schools can get a lot more of a teacher’s time. The teachers spend less time marking and can spend more time planning lessons. Often, they are relatively free of pressure to meet SATs related targets. Why can’t all children access a primary education like that?
Gordon Brown gave a pledge in 2006 that spending per pupil in state schools will be increased to match the per pupil funding in private schools. But who can believe him? The limited funding announcements in this year’s Budget are just crumbs off the table compared to the billions that have been thrown at banks to stave off financial crisis.
Additional resources to employ more teachers are vital, but on their own will not be enough.
The system of delegated budgets and per pupil funding demanded by the ‘market forces’ approach to education also needs to be replaced by a system that funds schools according to need, including guaranteed funding to enforce maximum class size limits.
The NUT’s current workload campaign does, of course, give members the right to request a ballot if they are asked to teach more than 30 pupils. However, it is clear that members are reluctant to take this issue up on a school by school basis. This is because they feel isolated. They are not convinced that there is widespread support for a ceiling of 30 pupils. Some of our members have been teaching in schools where classes in the mid to upper 30’s have been the norm for years.
The Union cannot throw the responsibility for this vital issue onto the courage of individual school groups. It needs to lead a national campaign aimed, above all, at building parental support for our objectives. In the context of a national campaign with the threat of national action, more school groups will be prepared to take up the issue of class size.