The Kintyre Forum

just heard that when the roll at our local primary drops to 47 next year we will go from 3 classes to 2 classes - with a composite 1-4, and a 5-7. 51 pupils is apparently the required number for 3 teachers. Wouldn't be as concerned except our oldest is in P3 just now in a composite 3-5, so she is mixing with P5s. next year, if the plans go ahead she will be in P4 and back in with the P1s.

I spoke to the head teacher yesterday and they are allocated 2.7 teachers for next year, so it seems we're only 0.3 of a teacher down, but the budget can't be stretched to an extra 0.3 of a teacher. Not sure that writing to the Director of Education is going to have any effect, as they are just applying the rules - not sure what to do?

Anybody got any experience on this?

I don't have much experience of primary staffing Tom, but all schools are staffed to a formula based on the school roll. As the roll drops, so must the staffing allocation. 0.3 of a teacher (including all the various oncosts) would probably come out not too far from £10,000, which doesn't sound like much in the great scheme of things, but replicated across all the primary schools in the education authority it could bring out a total additional cost of a million or more. Improving the staffing standard would require an increase in Council Tax, or Income Tax, or both. You can have properly funded schools or low taxes, but not both.

WC1 wrote: I don't have much experience of primary staffing Tom, but all schools are staffed to a formula based on the school roll. As the roll drops, so must the staffing allocation. 0.3 of a teacher (including all the various oncosts) would probably come out not too far from £10,000, which doesn't sound like much in the great scheme of things, but replicated across all the primary schools in the education authority it could bring out a total additional cost of a million or more.

Thanks WC1 - I can see the logic, and surprisingly feel slightly more at ease with the idea when I hear it from somone unconnected with our council or school . I know the teachers at our school will do the best for the pupils

WC1 wrote: Improving the staffing standard would require an increase in Council Tax, or Income Tax, or both. You can have properly funded schools or low taxes, but not both.

A more efficient council (and central government) would also do the trick - often feel that there's money being wasted through inefficiency - and I'm not referring specifically to education departments or A&BC here - but that's maybe another thread...

interesting development at yesterday's EIS conference.....

"Scotland's teachers have moved a step closer to taking industrial action over the issue of class sizes.

Members of Scotland's largest teaching union, the EIS, have voted for a ballot on taking action in pursuit of classes with no more than 20 pupils.

A majority also called for the cap to have statutory force................."

more - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8086866.stm

I guess what I'm going to say is controversial but I think there's too much emphasis on class sizes. Surely we have now accepted that reducing school class sizes in an attempt to raise pupil achievement is a waste of money? I agree that in the first few years of a pupil's school life, classes should be small but thereafter, class size is not the issue. I hate harking back to years gone by but as a pupil myself in Glasgow I had 30 other kids in my class and still received the best education in the world. There are other problems we need to tackle - discipline, behaviour management, a growing list of made-up 'special needs', inclusion, etc. etc. And at the centre of all that is the key element, the one thing that really will raise standards: teacher quality. This is what Scotland does infinitely better than its neighbour, btw. I'm just not convinced that lowering class sizes is the real issue here.

Not entirely clued up on this subject but here's my views. Similiar to GG I went to school during the sixties. My old class photo taken in primary four counts 48 children. Some of my school chums ahve done very well considering.

I would agree that smaller classes do/would enhance better educational attainment, but that the management of children is also the key and that can depend on each individual teacher's qualities.

My wife is this month finishing her probation year as a teacher in a P6 class in the Southside. 33 children- 3 non English speakers. A mixture of Slovaks, Muslims, Asians and various other levels of child ability and nationality.

I also agrre with GG about the increasing amount with 'special needs' I think it's a fad or possible excuse used by parents to having an 'built in allowance' so to speak for their child. In general smaller classes -yes, but at what cost to the taxpayer?

Govangirl wrote: Surely we have now accepted that reducing school class sizes in an attempt to raise pupil achievement is a waste of money?

very interested in this comment - who has accepted this?

Govangirl wrote:I agree that in the first few years of a pupil's school life, classes should be small but thereafter, class size is not the issue.

I hear that comment too GG - if we got SNPs figure of 18 for P1 - P3 then that would be a great start for the pupils

Govangirl wrote:There are other problems we need to tackle - discipline, behaviour management.....

happy to agree with you on this

Govangirl wrote:And at the centre of all that is the key element, the one thing that really will raise standards: teacher quality.

don't disagree with that - as a parent it's easier to latch on 'class sizes' as an issue rather than poor teacher quality - which is harder to detect - do you think schools in general (all areas) have adequate systems for detecting and rectifying poor teacher quality? Is it a myth that you 'don't hear about teachers being sacked for being bad teachers'?

Govangirl wrote:I'm just not convinced that lowering class sizes is the real issue here.

Are you at odds then with the EIS? or am I misunderstanding somewhere (probably!)

Bobh wrote:In general smaller classes -yes, but at what cost to the taxpayer?

Bob - I don't have any stats to back up the benefits of smaller classes, but the costs of introducing smaller classes may well be less than the long-term costs of not doing so - especially if the results are that pupils fail to become enthusiastic 'consumers of education' at school and later in life - isn't that the conclusion the SNP & EIS (who presumably do have the stats) have come to? I agree teacher quality is the most important thing - but a good teacher with a class of 18 presumably has much more time to dedicate to getting to know the needs of individual pupils than a good teacher with a class of 48?

[quote="Bobh"
I also agrre with GG about the increasing amount with 'special needs' I think it's a fad or possible excuse used by parents to having an 'built in allowance' so to speak for their child. [/quote]

Bobh - I always took you, from your posts on the forum, as a family man!! I think these comments above though are pretty poor! Anybody who knows my family will vouch that my daughter is a smart wee cookie!! I have had concerns for the last few years over her spelling and finally somebody has listened to me and she has tested as "borderline" dyslexic with the test to be redone at the beginning of next year, during her final year at Primary School. Believe me, it is neither a "fad" nor an excuse for a "built in allowance" but if a formal diagnosis means that she will gain extra time in exams and/or receive help in any other way throughout the rest of her school years then I am all for it.

Ags, I don't think Bobh and I were referring to those who have very real needs or whose needs would benefit from a proper diagnosis and effective teaching input. Lately, there have been increasing numbers of pupils with a range of what I would call 'suspect' labels and I make no apology for stating that one of these is ADHD. Not all but many of these diagnosed are actually badly behaved kids that have had no discipline at home.
I know two families well. One has a disruptive, spoilt, rude and very badly behaved child as a result of very poor parenting. He has been diagnosed as having ADHD and has every support available to him. The other has cerebral palsy and has a limb missing amongst other difficulties. He too has support but his parents have had to fight for every aspect of it. But the worst is this: Family number 1 has more monthly financial support. That has angered me for years.
I am getting heartily sick of being presented every month with new labels. The latest is 'Deviant Conduct Disorder' and then there's 'Peer Deviance'and I kid you not: identifying, assessing and treating conduct disorders in schools is now big business. And how can you expel a pupil who swears, kicks and bullies if there are lawyers in each town taking on cases of these pupils with now very real and recognised disorders? I'll stop here else I'll burst a blood vessel. Anyway, your wee girl is only a smart cookie cos' you're her mother!

And Tom, there is much research into class size and achievement. If I remember right, Peter Blatchford's study of 2004 is one of the most well-known. Of course, you can prove anything with research as there are always opposing views but most studies (like Blatchford's) found that the early years, particularly reception year, benefits from small class sizes but as the children get older, there is less emphasis on its importance. What is important are the other issues, including teacher quality. As for bad teachers in schools, I think it is true that it is difficult to weed them out - they should have been identified in training and it doesn't happen. It's very different in Scotland though. You wouldn't believe my stories about NQTs that I train, I know you wouldn't but they would explain why Scotland's training requirements are so much superior to here.

Point taken - apologies Bohb! I read your post and didn't actually go back and read GG's post properly before posting!! (and I hate it when folk do that ). I had a bad day yesterday

Ags, i had actually just written a reply to your post and it got 'lost'. Anyway no offence taken. I'm personally glad Dyslexia is being taken more seriously and being provided for.

My comments were in a general sense. Not personal.

Got a reply back from Keith Brown Minister for Schools explaining that despite the election promise to "...reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to eighteen pupils or less to give children more time with their teacher at this vital stage of their development" this wasn't really a commitment they could make (my words) because "...management of education..rests firmly with local authorities (his words)" The good news though is that in a Concordat they've tied down the local authorities with the SMART objective to reduce class sizes "....as quickly as possible..." which could mean I suppose, eh, never.

I'm not interested in the party politics of the Scottish Government or my local authority area here in South Lanarkshire, but I am p'd off that promises can be made and not followed up on, and in receiving a response from a government minister to the specific question "what had happened to the election promise" I get a a patronising "First of all I should explain that management of education...rests with local authorities."