Yesterday we covered some aspects of how to create small classes on a budget (mainly: pay for them by having a few big ones). Today I want to delve into three other questions: are small classes actually better than large ones, can small classes be conjured up more cheaply, and what is the price we are all willing to pay for small classes?

Let’s start with the question of the benefits of small classes. There is a massive amount of literature on this, most of which is pretty iffy methodologically. There are a couple of reasons for this:

Now, while the results of the literature are all over the place, I think in general they can best be summed up as 1) nobody really finds meaningful differences in outcomes, however defined, when the class size differences are small, but 2) some studies do find quite meaningful differences when we are talking about classes of 30 versus classes of 100. Why aren’t all class size differences meaningful? If I had to hazard a guess, it’s because course sizes affect the kind of material being taught in the classroom. Broadly speaking, big classes are for transmitting large amounts of material that you need to master to enter a field, and small classes are better for putting skills into practice or for improving written/oral communication skills (I know, that’s a vast generalization, YMMV, etc., but it’s more often correct than not). Because only large classes tend to have testing and assessment which is amenable to standardized outcomes measurement, what we’re really learning from these studies is that “in courses where size is largely irrelevant, size is largely irrelevant”.

The real question we should be asking is: within any given curriculum, how many courses should focus on mastering basic content, and how many should be about communications and skill development? I know, tricky question, because it implies curricula are coherent units of analysis rather than a collection of buckets into which credits are dumped, but it is the key question every department and faculty that wants to manage its resources properly needs to ask itself. Big courses where they are appropriate, small where they are not. Horses for courses (so to speak).

But here’s the problem. To some extent, every institution (or faculty) can manage its courses to keep classes small. But holding course loads constant, courses can only stay at a given average size if you keep salaries flat or if you add resources. If faculty salaries rise, or resources fall, something else has to give. And if that something else isn’t course loads, then there are only two options: reduce the number of faculty (which implicitly increases average class size) or reduce the average cost of faculty by hiring new, cheaper (i.e. sessional) faculty.

Let me spell that last piece out a little more clearly: without some kind of magic money tree, there is always a trade-off between keeping small classes and avoiding the use of sessionals. Basically, if you prioritize small class size, eventually, you are going to have to introduce more sessionals in order to reduce the average cost of teaching. That’s just math.

Now, we in Canada have been lucky enough over the past few years to actually possess a magic money tree in the form of soaring international student revenues. But as I have argued before, this isn’t going to last forever. At that point, the trade-offs are going to come fast and furious. Will faculty increase teaching loads or accept lower pay? Will politicians and students accept higher domestic student fees? No? Then you’re down to a straight choice between sessionals and larger class sizes.

An unpalatable choice, to be sure. But smart universities and colleges (and student unions!) might want to think through their preferences on that subject before any crisis actually comes. Asking what trade-offs everyone is actually prepared to make in order to keep class sizes under control is a useful way of thinking through collective academic priorities.