Class Size (Reduction) (Hansard, 15 October 1996)

§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the numbers of children taught in classes in schools. My Bill would set a limit of no more than 30 children in any class in any school within the next five years. It would review ways of achieving smaller classes for children who have special educational needs—physical or psychological—or who are learning English as a second language or who have very low attainment levels.

Why is the Bill needed? According to official figures, 40 per cent. of primary school age children in England are being taught in classes of more than 30, and the percentage is worsening. In January 1995, 1.6 million primary school children were in classes of more than 30, which is a 7 per cent. increase on the previous year and a 24 per cent. increase since 1991. The number of classes with more than 40 children has risen even faster—27 per cent. in the year to January 1995—to 18,000. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy says: average class sizes in primary schools are rapidly increasing. Primary class sizes in England are now among the least favourable in OECD countries, and the gap is getting wider.

There are 400,000 secondary school pupils in classes of more than 30. Class sizes are rising in that sector too. Since the mid-1980s, secondary schools have lost more than one in five of their mathematics and English teachers. The Observerof 1 Sept this year noted that despite the fact that the school age population is set to rise this year by 100,000, the Department for Education and Employment plans to recruit only 85 more teachers. Each year since 1992, the intake of new primary school teachers has fallen. There is a shortfall of 2,000 teachers in the secondary sector if the Government's own targets are to be met, so there is a looming crisis in mathematics, science and English teaching.

The Department for Education and Employment continues to claim that there is no teacher shortage and refuses to acknowledge the effect of class sizes on children's attainment. Meanwhile, more than one third of 14-year-olds are not mastering basic mathematics, English or science, and one in six adults has severe difficulty with literacy and numeracy.

The evidence shows the advantage of smaller class sizes. Despite the Government's refusal to sponsor detailed research studies, several such studies have been undertaken which clearly show that the smaller the class size the better the performance of pupils. STAR, the student-teacher ratio project in Tennessee, found that pupils in small classes consistently out performed pupils in larger classes and that children from deprived backgrounds benefited the most from learning in this environment. Mortimore and Blatchford concluded that smaller classes led to greater progress in reading and mathematics for eight-year-olds. They said that the results of smaller classes were "impressive and consistent". There appears to be particular advantage for pupils from ethnic minorities. In addition, the benefits are long-lasting.

608 Studies show that schoolchildren taught in smaller classes were still benefiting at the age of 12. Mortimore and Blatchford state that, in direct contradiction to Ministers' pronouncements that class sizes are unimportant, it can justifiably be said that it is incorrect to state that there is no proven connection between class size and attainment.

Ofsted's report, "Class Size and the Quality of Education", in November last year said: small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education. It added: pupils with special needs frequently make greater progress when they are taught in smaller classes. Ofsted maintained that teaching methods were more important for attainment than class sizes, but Maurice Galton, writing in the Educational Review in the summer, made clear that the two are linked. He said: Challenging high levels of interaction, involving in particular challenging questioning and feedback, are crucial determinants of pupil progress. High levels of interaction can be best achieved in smaller classes.

The National Commission on Education's report, "Learning to Succeed", said that, within five years, no primary school child should be in a class of more than 30. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations supports a class size limit of 30. Private schools have pupil-teacher ratios of 10:6. They clearly regard low class sizes as important. There is much evidence to support the need for low class sizes.

What would be the cost of my proposal? Based on the recent survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research, 6,000 more teachers would be needed to cover 39,385 classes. That would cost £156 million. The assisted places scheme will cost £161 million by 1998. By phasing that scheme out over five years, all class sizes could be reduced to a maximum of 30 in the same period. To quote the slogan of the Tory party conference, that would mean opportunity for all. Alternatively, the cost could be met by reducing wasteful spending in other Ministries.

Ofsted has suggested that reducing class sizes would cost an enormous sum—more than £500 million. It included in its calculation large extra transport costs and additional accommodation requirements. Such costs have not been incurred as class sizes have risen, so why should they be taken into account when numbers fall to earlier class size ratios? Ofsted's figures are a crude and unsubstantiated guesstimate. They are much less worked out than those of the National Foundation for Educational Research, which stands by its calculations.

There has been virtually no detailed research in the past decade into relevant class sizes in secondary schools. Most studies have concentrated on primary teaching. Although I acknowledge that that sector is vital for imparting learning skills, smaller class sizes would also benefit secondary school pupils. There is a widespread assumption of failure; that many in the secondary sector are already lost to education. That assumption should not be accepted. There are fewer large classes in secondary schools than there are in primary schools, so the cost of achieving the 30 limit in the secondary sector would be low. Education strategies concentrate on early schooling 609 and better training after leaving school. Ensuring low class sizes would fill the gap by improving learning in secondary schools, too.

I turn to the Labour party's commitment. While the Government are letting class sizes rise inexorably, claiming that it does not matter, the Labour party is pledging as a manifesto commitment to bring class sizes down to 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds. That commitment is important and most welcome, but I consider it too cautious. It would not cover all primary or any secondary school pupils. Like my Labour party colleagues, I want to take forward the debate on better education. Much of the brouhaha over teaching methods is a smokescreen. That is not to say that such methods are unimportant—they are. However, they are also a cover-up for cost reduction. They are used to avoid consideration of the consequences of rising class sizes.

Most teachers are working longer hours —in primary schools two hours a week, and in secondary schools 1.4 hours a week longer than two years ago. Many teachers have been sacked or replaced by less experienced, less costly ones due to Government education cuts. Exclusions have soared: in 1993–94 there were 11,181. Greater pressure on teachers as a result of less controllable, larger classes is a factor in that.

There has also been a chronic lack of investment in school buildings and books. Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools recently reported that 3,700 schools do not have enough books. Last year, investment in buildings amounted to only £69 per pupil in state schools—it was £551 per pupil in private schools. In addition to those factors, larger class sizes is a key indicator of the extent of this Conservative Government's neglect of our schools. Rising class sizes is both a symptom and a cause of the crisis in our schools. My Bill attempts to stop the rot.

§ Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham)

I oppose the Bill, but not because my hon. Friends and I are against smaller class sizes in schools—far from it. The Government have an excellent record on reducing class sizes—indeed, class sizes are now smaller than they were when this Conservative Government were first elected.

My concern about the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is that it is a red herring—or, perhaps in the hon. Gentleman's case, a very old Labour herring. The Bill does not tackle what is the largest problem in our schools and what should be even the hon. Gentleman's first priority—the quality of education provided for pupils. The Bill will not improve the excellence of the teaching, or the results achieved by students. Class size has little influence on those, as has been confirmed many times by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. Proof of that is easily found in other countries. In Japan, class sizes for mathematics are generally much larger than in our schools, yet pupil attainment is better in all age groups in Japanese schools than in England.

Although reducing class sizes is desirable, it should not be the first priority, which is to raise standards in our schools. Teacher training and parental choice are much more important in achieving that. The hon. Member for Leyton proposes paying for smaller class sizes by using 610 the money currently used for the assisted places scheme. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that scheme, even though it increases parental choice and gives opportunities to children from less well-off families who will benefit from the sort of education the independent sector can provide. However, the hon. Gentleman is also mistaken in his sums.

If the assisted places scheme were done away with, the pupils currently benefiting from it would have to be found places in the state sector. That, in itself, would push up class sizes in the short term. In addition, providing those extra school places would cost more than three quarters of the money saved by the abolition of assisted places. The remaining quarter—which, by the most generous estimate, would amount only to some £60 million by the time the Bill came into effect—would not be sufficient to fund the reduction in class sizes. As the hon. Member for Leyton admitted, he has overlooked the additional cost of providing new classrooms, which would add greatly to the overall bill.

A more realistic estimate of the cost of reducing class sizes in the way the hon. Member for Leyton proposes would be £180 million—three times the Labour party's figure. The hon. Gentleman's proposal, far from being self-financing, would require well in excess of £120 million to be raised from the taxpayer to pay for it.

Another reason why I oppose the Bill is that I wish to save the hon. Member for Leyton from himself. All hon. Members are very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes around proposing tax increases—as he clearly did in his speech—he will draw down on himself the wrath of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). No hon. Member could bear the painful sight of the hon. Member for Leyton being disciplined by the shadow Chancellor. For that reason, if for no other, I urge him not to proceed with his Bill. His many friends on this side of the House fear for his safety if he does proceed with it.