Money for small class disappeared into large coffers

Tekst Robert Sikkes - redactie Onderwijsblad - 17 oktober 2020 - 13 Minuten om te lezen

Image: Jorrit Lousberg \x3ca href=\"https://www.flickr.com/photos/weekvandemediawijsheid/11224577713\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"\x3eMediawijzer.net/Flickr\x3c/ a\x3e

In 1996, with slight reluctance, State Secretary Tineke Netelenbos complied with the strong wish for smaller classes in the lower years of primary education. At the time - as now - there was a link with children who need more attention. Only the other way around. At the end of the eighties special education had grown enormously and people wondered: should every child go to 'separate' education? No, was the answer. In 1990, this marked the start of the program Back to school together (Wsns). But if primary education wanted to be able to give extra attention to more pupils, then – just like today – full classes were clearly an obstacle.

This longread guides you through the relevant political moments that initially made class reduction possible, and then made it impossible. You also see how researchers have increasingly and differently come to judge the effects of teaching in smaller groups.

Skipping through time? Then click on the years and subjects below.

1995: An Old-Fashioned Delay Recipe
1996: the motion comes anyway
2002: short-lived euphoria
2004: What Went Wrong?
2011: back to the old level
2016: the turn of the CPB
2020: the teacher as a blind spot

Class reduction has been number one or two on the wish list of both parents and teachers in surveys for decades. In primary and secondary education, but also packed lecture halls in higher education are unpopular. In the mid-nineties, partly due to Wsns, the first years of primary school were central. In October 1994, kindergarten classes had an average of 24 students. In May of the same year it rose to an average of 27. In total, 40 percent of all primary education classes in 1994 had more than 26 pupils.

1995: An old-fashioned delay recipe

Still, class reduction was not immediately obvious. In 1995, the wish was translated by then State Secretary Tineke Netelenbos into an ancient recipe for delay: a committee that would investigate the matter. This committee, long-named the Qualitative Aspects of Group Size in Primary Education Committee, was chaired by former director-general of primary education Bas van Eijndhoven.

Tineke Netelenbos in 1988 (Photo: Rob Bogaerts / Anefo, via National Archives)

Netelenbos itself saw more in the appointment of class assistants. This clashed with the views of her party colleague and PvdA party chairman Jacques Wallage. While the committee was at work, the press started writing about full classes. De Volkskrant for example, came across recently published American research that smaller classes yield much better school performance.

Groundbreaking Research in Tennessee

In 1996 the groundbreaking STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio) study was published, the first valid scientific study of class reduction. For the study, Charles Achilles and Helen Bain randomly divided classes in the US state of Tennessee into small, normal or with an assistant. The results of the first study phase were already completely clear in the mid-XNUMXs: the children in the small classes performed better. Scientists have continued to follow the children from the STAR study for the rest of their lives. This has led to numerous scientific studies and insights into the effects of small classes that are still relevant today:

• The positive consequences of participation in a small class diminished in secondary school, but later returned in secondary education: pupils from a small class as adults had on average a higher salary

• Class reduction is especially effective in groups 1 to 4

• The math and reading performance will improve substantially

• Disadvantaged children benefit more from class reduction than others

1996: The motion comes anyway

The American study received a lot of attention. The Van Eijndhoven committee set up by Netelenbos had also seen the STAR study, carried out additional research itself and came to the far-reaching advice that classes in the Netherlands should be significantly smaller. In any case in the lower years of primary education up to a maximum of 25 pupils. Reason enough for PvdA party chairman Jacques Wallage to work on reducing the class even before the publication of Van Eijndhoven's advice. In the autumn of 1996 he submitted a motion to the general considerations. Wallage asked for a step-by-step plan for a substantial reduction of the classes in the lower years of primary education. The fact that Frits Bolkestein (VVD) and Gerrit Jan Wolffensperger (D66) co-signed the motion made it clear that the government factions were serious, in the face of a hesitant purple cabinet. Ultimately, the motion was passed unanimously by the entire House of Representatives. This, together with the advice of Van Eijndhoven and the media attention for the American STAR research, led to the fact that, from 1997 onwards, a billion guilders were gradually released to reduce the classes in groups 1 to 4 of primary school.

2002: Short-lived euphoria

The money came, but the obligation to actually spend the guilders on class reduction soon became less strict. Due to the growth in the number of four-year-olds and low enrollment figures at teacher training colleges, the contours of a significant teacher shortage became visible. In addition, school boards did not like the obligations and found the difference between superstructure and lower school unworkable.

In 2002, at the start of the first Balkenende cabinet, the boards were proved right. Almost immediately, Minister of Education Maria van der Hoeven (CDA) made it possible to also use the class reduction budget in the superstructure. And assistants were allowed. Moreover, the money was no longer labeled separately, but placed in the lump sum.

It pays off if people learn longer and receive better education

Economists

These measures matched how researchers viewed class reduction at the beginning of this century. The attention for the effectiveness of education policy is also growing among Dutch economists. The first comprehensive study comes from the Central Planning Bureau (CPB), which is setting up a line of research to test government measures in general for effectiveness. With a points program they value party programs, in which they calculate, among other things, that investing in education pays off enormously. It pays off if people learn longer and receive better education.

In the same report, the CPB concludes that class reduction does improve learning performance, but the researchers also speak of studies that show 'that reducing groups is a relatively expensive intervention.' The CPB advocates putting the budget for class reduction 'temporarily' in the lump sum without earmarking. This reduces the demand for teachers in primary education and frees up money for bonuses and incentives to make the teaching profession more attractive. At the time an express wish of the right-wing parties.

2004: What Went Wrong?

The final evaluation in 2004 of the class reduction project will follow in 2004. This study commissioned by the Ministry of Education shows that the original focus on class reduction in the lower years was quickly completely lost.

One of the classes participating in the STAR study in Tennessee.

Most schools started using a mix of assistants (extra hands in the classroom), more subject teachers and internal supervisors, construction coordinators, language and math specialists plus a bit of class reduction throughout the school.

As a result, the model of the STAR study disappeared. The researchers from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), who carried out the final evaluation, can therefore only note a limited learning gain. They see a positive effect especially in groups 2 and 3, but no longer in group 4, for example. However, the atmosphere has improved and students can work more task-oriented.

The profit points of the class reduction project according to Minister Maria van der Hoeven in 2004:

• Groups of 30 to 35 students have been considerably reduced, groups over 35 are actually no longer present

• Participation in teacher training courses has risen sharply, a survey shows that for first-year students the reduction in size of the groups played an important role in their choice. 'Class reduction has contributed to making the sector more attractive on the labor market', writes Van der Hoeven.

• The costs have risen to 646 million euros where 531 was originally budgeted at the start, which has everything to do with price and wage increases. That amount has been added to the lump sum. There are also additional housing costs.

• Van der Hoeven sees the allocation of the budget to the lump sum and the scrapping of the earmarking for class reduction in substructure. She writes: "That eases the administrative burden on school boards."

2011: Back to the old level

In this way the investment in class reduction evaporates. Initially, there was a slight decrease in the average, but due to the baseline and other cutbacks, the average group size in all primary education will rise again from 2011 to almost the level at the start of the investment. A slight improvement is the workload of the past few years due to the Rutte III cabinet. Apparently teachers are also paid from this and the average group size decreases slightly.

Source: OCW / Inspectorate. No data is available for the period 2006-2010.

The table below shows that roughly a third of primary school classes in the Netherlands consist of more than 26 pupils. Here too, the effect of the workload resources seems visible.

Source: OCW / Inspectorate

In the same year that the classes in the Netherlands become full again, Swedish researchers take up the subject. In Long term effects or class size they note that school performance in small classes is substantially better, but above all that the long-term yields are much higher than expected. Class reduction turns out to be a 'goldmine', writes the Education Magazine in an interview with one of the researchers in 2011.

The Dutch education economist Hessel Oosterbeek is also part of this team. Based on the research, he says in 2014 that 'the small the better' is the rule for classes between 20 and 30 children. According to him, the Swedish study refutes almost all criticism of class reduction by its design. It is certainly good for students dealing with young, more inexperienced teachers. Despite that situation, they perform much better in small classes.

The pile is growing

In the United States, a solid movement has emerged under the name Class size matters. As many as 25 states now have more or less success class size reduction arrested. At the same time, there is also criticism of class reduction in the US. Certainly from

economists in the US who are much more concerned with educational measures than here. According to the famous educational economist Eric Hanushek, for example, it is not class size that counts, but the quality, training and therefore also the salary of teachers is important. His equally renowned colleague Alan Krueger did a meta-analysis plus additional research and came to the conclusion that every dollar you put into class reduction is worth twice as much.
Most American research is now somewhat older. According to critics, it does not take into account innovations such as ICT and blended learning. You can read back a nice overview of the American debate 'The class size debate - 5 important findings from research'.

2016: The turn of the CPB

After almost ten years, the Dutch CPB is also convinced. In their calculations of party programmes, the planning office stated in 2006 that ICT and class reduction make little sense, but a salary increase does. In 2010, the researchers emphasized the usefulness of performance-related pay and advocated experiments with it. And when the CPB again values ​​party programs in 2012 on the eve of new elections, performance-related pay gets points for good policy, class reduction does not. What's more, parties that cut back on the lump sum receive points for doing so because it leads to an increase in classes and that results in 'only a slight deterioration in educational performance'.

In 2016, this view of the CPB will change radically. Performance pay remains on the list, but with many caveats, such as the susceptibility to fraud. However, the turnaround in class reduction is obvious. 'The smaller the class, the better the learning performance. This is evident from a large amount of literature on class size in primary school ', CPB writes about class reduction in what that year Promising Education Policy hot.

In Dutch primary education, small classes are very expensive, according to the CPB in 2016, but lowering the number of pupils per class to a maximum of 21 pupils is super effective at the same time and: 'these benefits will continue to work in the longer term'. In secondary education, the reduction to 21 pupils does have significant effects for disadvantaged pupils, a little for VMBO, but not for the whole of secondary education. When teachers are still inexperienced, small classes help them to maintain the level of the students.

Elections

With the 2021 elections in prospect, the CPB published another update this summer, again titled Promising Education Policy, whereby tables and figures have been adapted to new developments. A new chapter has also been written about higher education and student finance.

Promising education policy 2020: what does class reduction cost?

• Primary education - a maximum of 21 pupils - costs: 990 million

• Secondary education - a maximum of 21 students - costs: 1005 million

• MBO not calculated

• HBO and WO - student-teacher ratio to 17 - costs: 660 million

The CPB update does not show any change in the positive effects, but it does show a change in the costs of class reduction to 21 students. In primary education, these fall from 1,5 billion to 990 million, because there are fewer pupils. Costs will increase slightly in secondary education. In the new chapter on higher education, CPB sees slightly positive results by lowering the student-teacher ratio to 17. No proposals and no figures have been calculated for MBO.

2020: the teacher as a blind spot

Better education means higher school performance, means higher wages, and that leads to economic growth, the economists say. Their limited research agenda means that many other advantages or disadvantages of class reduction have not or hardly been investigated.
The lack of this is striking, because the high workload is a huge problem. In the most recently published report by research organization TNO and Statistics Netherlands (CBS) for 2019, it is percentage of burnout complaints in education for the fourth year in a row. It is now at a lonely height: 27 percent of the education staff experience these complaints. That is far above the national average of 17 percent.

From an economic point of view, gains can be made there, because every teacher who has been ill for short or long periods must be replaced. And for every teacher who leaves the profession, one additional training must be done. 'Education is like a leaking swimming pool', an American labor market specialist wrote about it some time ago.

More than half of the teachers who left say large classes contributed to their decision to quit

Dropout

International research that does link class size reduction to teachers is mostly about reduced dropout rates to another profession. Research by Susanna Loeb and the renowned professor of education labor market Linda Darling-Hammond from 2005 concludes that large classes significantly promote the departure of teachers. Similarly, according to a 2016 study by professor of education labor market Richard Ingersoll, a specialist on shortages in the US, job dissatisfaction is the number one reason for teachers to move to other professions. More than half (54 percent) of teachers who have left say large class sizes contributed to their decision to resign. Ingersoll's plea is therefore continuous: smaller classes, better guidance at the start and a competitive salary.

You can indeed reduce classes if you earmark the money for it. The AOb and other organizations for educational staff and parents have therefore started a petition for small classes in primary and secondary education. Maximum 21 students, starting in schools where it is most needed. Do you want that too? Then sign the petition and share it!

To the petition