Experts attack key SNP schools policy

GOVERNMENT plans to cut primary school class sizes by spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash on extra teachers and classrooms will fail to boost attainment in the long term, according to a major new study.

In a hammer blow to the SNP's key election pledge of reducing P1-P3 class sizes to 18, the report found "no evidence" cutting pupil numbers would boost educational standards.

In the most comprehensive report of its kind in Scotland, civil servants, union chiefs and education experts studied research from across the world and concluded smaller class sizes in early primary years causes only a short-term improvement, especially for low achievers.

But the report adds there is no clear evidence of "lasting benefits beyond the early primary years".

It also finds that at least 4,000 extra teachers will be required in primary schools to meet the SNP's pledge. Economists believe this would cost at least £160m a year extra in salaries alone.

Earlier this year, Scotland on Sunday revealed that the nation's two biggest councils, Glasgow and Edinburgh, had effectively refused to implement the plan unless forced to do so by law. This newspaper also revealed new details of existing class sizes, showing many councils have classes of 29 or more children.

Last night the report prompted a new political row, with Labour claiming the findings showed the SNP government's pledge would be impossible to keep. Meanwhile, Scotland's leading parent group called on the government to ditch the policy, warning that much-needed funds could be better spent elsewhere.

However, ministers insisted they would stick to their plans, claiming the report backed up their own findings that lower class sizes in early years are effective.

The report, written by the Class Sizes, Staffing and Resources Working Group, was finalised in the summer but has still to be published. The group was chaired by Liz Lewis, the head of the Schools Group at the Scottish Government and included experts from local authorities, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), the General Teaching Council for Scotland and HM Inspectorate of Education.

It concludes: "Class size reduction is attractive because it maintains the existing structure of schools while simply adding more resources. This may be a necessary step, but there is no evidence that in the long-term it will be sufficient to raise the attainment of all pupils."

The report questions two pieces of research into cutting class sizes, conducted in England and the USA, which have been used by ministers to back up their policy.

It declares: "In both the USA and England the evidence of lasting benefits beyond the early primary years seems to be weaker than for initial effects."

It continues: "Overall, research suggests a complex inter-relationship between pupil behaviour and their attitudes towards learning and their attainment. Class size may be one influential factor but the evidence is inconclusive."

The report also provides the first clear indication of the recruitment that would be required: "It is estimated that it would require over 4,000 additional teachers to reduce P1-P3 to 20."

The figure is 900 more than the 3,100 figure issued by the SNP in opposition when it announced its plans to slash class sizes.

Economists say it costs an average of £40,000 a year per teacher, suggesting it would cost £160m a year to back the pledge. Councils say they will also need tens of millions of pounds on top of that to build extra rooms in which to house the new smaller classes.

The shadow education secretary, Rhona Brankin, said: "This is astounding. The SNP have known all along how much their class size promise will cost, yet they chose to keep this a secret.

"Given that they had meetings with the civil service before the election they must have known how difficult this pledge would be to keep. Yet they still promised Scottish pupils and teachers something they had no intention of keeping."

Judith Gillespie, development manager with the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, said:

"The major problem is that there are some areas where it can't be done without reducing intake and some people are going to be upset when they can't get in to their local school.

"I think they should ditch the policy. They should ditch it in favour of a plan to ensure universal literacy by the end of primary school."

However, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: "We believe that investing in children's early years is crucial and cutting class sizes is a key part of this. The research evidence - in this report from a working group set up by the previous administration - appears to support the new government's policies that cuts in class sizes in the early years make a difference."

A source close to the education secretary, Fiona Hyslop, added: "We won't take any lessons from Labour. They said they would cut class sizes in S1 and S2 for maths and English, which they failed to do."

Liz Smith, education spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "As a former teacher, I know what is important is the teaching ability of the person in charge of the class. I don't think parents are worried about whether it is 18 or 20 or 25 pupils in the class if their children are getting good results and it is a good class."

Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen said: "This proves the point we have been making. The SNP promised everything to everyone before the election. The truth is they never planned or costed their biggest policies."

Teachers stick with chalk despite warning

For generations it has been as central to classroom life as overdue homework and runny noses, but now teachers are being warned that chalk is bad for their health.

They are being urged to shun the traditional teaching tool over fears that dust could damage their throats.

An edict issued by the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) also suggests that teachers should practise humming and avoid tea and coffee to stop their voices from being damaged.

But the call to dust off chalk for good has been met with bemusement from teaching unions, who insist it has never been raised as a problem.

On its website, the GTCS offers tips to new teachers. A section on voice management states: "Your most important teaching tool is your voice. You need it to direct, focus and encourage pupils and to explain, discipline and manage the classroom."

As such, the independent regulatory body advises that teachers should avoid "chalk or other types of dust or fumes".

But Bill McGregor of the Headteachers' Association of Scotland said the idea of chalk being a health hazard was met with laughter by his members.

"They were quite amused when I raised the issue," he said. "Our members have no experience of chalk dust being damaging to anyone's health. In a lot of schools in Scotland, especially in rural areas, old-fashioned chalk and blackboards are the only teaching aids available."

A spokesman for GTCS admitted that there was no evidence of chalk causing health problems.

"This is a fun part of the site providing tips and advice. We don't have any evidence in relation to chalk dust."

MARC HORNE