IELTS Reading: ‘Does Class Size Matter?’ – Answers & Key Vocabulary

Does class size matter? This is one of the most debated questions in the field of education. The idea of reducing the number of students per class is certainly appealing, but is it truly effective and worth the cost? The IELTS reading passage “Does Class Size Matter?” delves into the research, controversies, and real-world consequences of this policy.

This article from the ECE language center provides a detailed analysis of the entire reading passage, including answers, in-depth explanations, and a curated vocabulary list to help you master one of the most common academic topics.

Reading Passage

Does class size matter?

A Does class size matter? Of all the ideas for improving education, few are as simple or attractive as reducing the number of pupils per teacher. With its uncomplicated appeal, class-size reduction has lately gone from being a subject of primarily academic interest to become a public issue. In the U.S., more than 20 states have adopted policies aimed at decreasing class size.

B One way investigators have attempted to analyze the effects of class size is by reviewing existing data, such as records kept by the U.S. Department of Education. These show that between 1969 and 1997, the average number of pupils per teacher in American public and private elementary schools fell from 25 to 18, a decline of greater than 27 percent. In secondary schools, the number also fell, from 19 to 14. Does these findings mean that class size makes no difference? Not necessarily. For a variety of reasons, most researchers, including us, pay little attention to those figures. For instance, schools strive for more than just high test scores; they also usually try to keep their dropout rates low. And indeed, the dropout rate for students aged 16 to 24 fell from 15 to 1 percent over that period. Because dropouts generally come from the low end of the achievement distribution, a reduction in the dropout rate could, be expected to pull down average test scores in the upper grades. Ideally, U.S. students would all come from families that are financially well off, with two highly educated, English-speaking parents who are involved in their children’s schooling. Teachers would all be creative and have complete mastery of their subject matter. Schools would be nicely outfitted with libraries, computers and other resources.

C Over the past 35 years, hundreds of studies and analyses of existing data (such as the Department of Education records) have focused on class size. Unfortunately, most of these studies were poorly designed. The notable exception was the STAR project. Students entering kindergarten were randomly assigned to one of three kinds of classes: a small class of 13 to 17 students, a regular-size class of 22 to 26. The students remained in whatever category they had been assigned to through the third grade, after which they joined a regular classroom in the fourth. To ensure that teaching quality did not differ, teachers were randomly assigned to small and regular-size classrooms. Few teachers received any special training for working with small classes, and there were no new curricular materials.

D Charles M. Achilles of Eastern Michigan University found “an array of benefits of small classes” in their review. They also found that the effect was stronger for minority students. Black and Hispanic children improved their scores slightly more than did other students – a significant finding from a policy standpoint. He argues, the STAR data cannot be used to prove that the gains persist for years after a student has returned to regular-size classes. He and others have also shown that during the study, too many children migrated from the regular to the small classes, probably because school personnel caved in to parent demands. Criticism does not undermine the findings of a statistically significant benefit of being in a small class.

E California’s multi-billion-dollar effort, begun in 1996, stands more as a model of what not to do than as an initiative worthy of emulation. That state is trying to reduce classes in kindergarten through grade three from a maximum of 33 to a maximum of 20 in rich and poor districts alike – despite a shortage of qualified teachers, especially in low-income areas. This across-the-board approach may be politically expedient, but it seems to have actually exacerbated the disparity in resources available to rich and poor schools in California. The better-paying, more affluent districts got the best teachers – including a fair number that good teachers. The evaluators found a small but statistically significant achievement advantage in reading, writing and mathematics for students in classes that had been reduced to 20 or fewer pupils, as compared with the classes of more than 20. The second program, Wisconsin’s Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE), also begun in 1996, was a five-year study. It was small – class size was reduced in just 14 schools – but noteworthy because it targeted schools in which at least 30 percent of the students were below the poverty level.

F Studies such as STAR and SAGE have made it hard to argue that reducing class sizes makes no difference. On the other hand, the California initiative has shown that the strategy, applied with too little fore thought and insight, can consume billions of dollars and, at least in the short run, produce only minuscule gains and even some losses. Legislators and administrators need more solid information on the relative costs of the other options before they can make sensible policy decisions.

Questions 27 – 31

Which paragraph includes the following information?

27. Criticism about the STAR program due to some unreliable factors.

28. A comparison of one program’s failure and other programs’ successes.

29. The change of class-size reduction from an academic topic to a public one.

30. Actions that were taken to ensure the reliability of the data in a key study.

31. Reasons why analyzing existing data on class size is complex.

Questions 32 – 40

Classify the following statements as referring to:

• A The STAR project
• B The California initiative
• C The SAGE program

Write the correct letter, A, B, or C, in boxes 32-40 on your answer sheet.

32. The composition of its classes was determined by chance.

33. The topic of whether its benefits continued in later grades was discussed.

34. It demonstrated particular advantages for students from ethnic minorities.

35. Participants stayed in the same class category for four years.

36. It was specifically aimed at schools serving disadvantaged communities.

37. It was a very small-scale project.

38. Its implementation negatively affected the balance of resources between schools.

39. Its approach was applied equally to all types of districts.

40. It was noted that teacher quality varied between different types of schools in the program.

Summary of the Reading Passage

This passage explores the debate over whether “class size” influences the quality of education.

• Paragraph A: Introduces how class-size reduction has evolved from a purely academic topic into a compelling public issue.
• Paragraph B: Analyzes existing data from the U.S. Department of Education, which shows that while class sizes have decreased, test scores have not risen proportionally. The author explains that this data is unreliable due to confounding factors (e.g., a drop in dropout rates, which pulls down the overall average).
• Paragraph C: Introduces the STAR project, a uniquely reliable study due to its rigorous design (random assignment of students and teachers).
• Paragraph D: Presents the results of STAR: small classes offer benefits, particularly for minority students. However, it also notes criticisms regarding the study (e.g., the inability to prove long-term gains and issues with student migration between classes).
• Paragraph E: Describes two other programs: California (a costly failure that widened educational inequality) and SAGE (a successful, small-scale program targeting low-income schools).
• Paragraph F: Concludes that while STAR and SAGE prove that smaller classes *can* be effective, the California initiative demonstrates that policies implemented without sufficient forethought can be both expensive and ineffective.

Key Vocabulary

1. primarily (adv) (Paragraph A): mainly; for the most part.
2. strive for (v.p) (Paragraph B): to make great efforts to achieve something.
   • Example: “…schools strive for more than just high test scores…”
3. mastery of (n.p) (Paragraph B): comprehensive knowledge or skill in a subject.
   • Example: “…complete mastery of their subject matter.”
4. randomly assigned (adv + v) (Paragraph C): distributed by chance.
   • Example: “Students… were randomly assigned to one of three kinds of classes…”
5. curricular materials (n.p) (Paragraph C): teaching resources and materials.
6. standpoint (n) (Paragraph D): a point of view or perspective.
   • Example: “…a significant finding from a policy standpoint.”
7. caved in to (v.p) (Paragraph D): to yield or give in to pressure.
   • Example: “…school personnel caved in to parent demands.”
8. emulation (n) (Paragraph E): effort to match or surpass a person or achievement, typically by imitation.
   • Example: “…an initiative worthy of emulation.”
9. politically expedient (adj) (Paragraph E): convenient or advantageous for political reasons, though perhaps not morally or practically sound.
10. exacerbated the disparity (v.p) (Paragraph E): made an existing inequality or gap worse.
11. forethought (n) (Paragraph F): careful consideration of what will be needed or what might happen in the future.
12. minuscule (adj) (Paragraph F): extremely small or insignificant.
    • Example: “…produce only minuscule gains…”

Answers and Detailed Explanations

27. D – Criticism about the STAR program due to some unreliable factors.

• Explanation: The question asks for “criticism” regarding the STAR project.
• Evidence (Paragraph D): “He and others have also shown that during the study, too many children migrated from the regular to the small classes… Criticism does not undermine the findings…”
• Analysis: Paragraph D explicitly mentions criticism regarding students “migrating” between classes, which compromised the study’s reliability.

28. F – A comparison of one program’s failure and other programs’ successes.

• Explanation: The question asks for a comparison between “failure” and “success.”
• Evidence (Paragraph F): “Studies such as STAR and SAGE have made it hard to argue that reducing class sizes makes no difference. On the other hand, the California initiative has shown that the strategy… can consume billions of dollars… and produce only minuscule gains…”
• Analysis: Paragraph F summarizes and compares the successes of STAR/SAGE with the failure of the California initiative.

29. A – The change of class-size reduction from an academic topic to a public one.

• Explanation: The question asks for the shift from “academic” to “public.”
• Evidence (Paragraph A): “…class-size reduction has lately gone from being a subject of primarily academic interest to become a public issue.”
• Analysis: This matches the information in paragraph A perfectly.

30. C – Actions that were taken to ensure the reliability of the data in a key study.

• Explanation: The question asks for actions taken to “ensure reliability.”
• Evidence (Paragraph C): “To ensure that teaching quality did not differ, teachers were randomly assigned to small and regular-size classrooms.”
• Analysis: The “random assignment of teachers” was a specific action taken to ensure the STAR study was reliable.

31. B – Reasons why analyzing existing data on class size is complex.

• Explanation: The question asks why “existing data” is “complex” to analyze.
• Evidence (Paragraph B): “…most researchers… pay little attention to those figures. For instance, schools strive for more than… high test scores… they also usually try to keep their dropout rates low.”
• Analysis: Paragraph B explains that you cannot simply look at the data (where class size fell but scores didn’t rise) because other complex factors, such as changing dropout rates, influence the results.

32. A (STAR)

• Question: Class composition was determined by chance.
• Evidence (Paragraph C): “Students entering kindergarten were randomly assigned to one of three kinds of classes…”
• Explanation: “Left by chance” is synonymous with “randomly assigned.”

33. A (STAR)

• Question: The topic of whether benefits continued in later grades was discussed.
• Evidence (Paragraph D): “He argues, the STAR data cannot be used to prove that the gains persist for years after a student has returned to regular-size classes.”
• Explanation: The passage discusses whether gains “persist” after moving to the fourth grade, a topic specific to the STAR project.

34. A (STAR)

• Question: It demonstrated particular advantages for students from ethnic minorities.
• Evidence (Paragraph D): “They also found that the effect was stronger for minority students.”
• Explanation: “Special groups” refers to “minority students.”

35. A (STAR)

• Question: Participants stayed in the same class category for four years.
• Evidence (Paragraph C): “Students entering kindergarten were randomly assigned… The students remained in whatever category… through the third grade…”
• Explanation: From Kindergarten through the third grade covers four academic years (K, 1, 2, 3).

36. C (SAGE)

• Question: It was specifically aimed at schools serving disadvantaged communities.
• Evidence (Paragraph E): “…Wisconsin’s… SAGE… it targeted schools in which at least 30 percent of the students were below the poverty level.”
• Explanation: “Disadvantaged communities” corresponds to “below the poverty level.”

37. C (SAGE)

• Question: It was a very small-scale project.
• Evidence (Paragraph E): “It was small – class size was reduced in just 14 schools…”
• Explanation: “Small-scale” matches “small” and “just 14 schools.”

38. B (California)

• Question: Its implementation negatively affected the balance of resources between schools.
• Evidence (Paragraph E): “This across-the-board approach… seems to have actually exacerbated the disparity in resources available to rich and poor schools…”
• Explanation: “Negatively affected the balance” is synonymous with “exacerbated the disparity.”

39. B (California)

• Question: Its approach was applied equally to all types of districts.
• Evidence (Paragraph E): “That state is trying to reduce classes… in rich and poor districts alike… This across-the-board approach…”
• Explanation: “Across-the-board” and “rich and poor districts alike” match “applied equally to all types.”

40. B (California)

• Question: It was noted that teacher quality varied between different types of schools in the program.
• Evidence (Paragraph E): “…despite a shortage of qualified teachers… The better-paying, more affluent districts got the best teachers…”
• Explanation: The fact that “affluent” districts secured the “best teachers” indicates that teacher quality varied between schools.

Conclusion

In summary, the passage “Does class size matter?” does not provide a simple “Yes” or “No” answer. Instead, it shows that while class size *does* matter, the success of such a policy depends heavily on implementation. Reliable studies like STAR and SAGE prove the clear benefits of smaller classes. However, the costly failure of the California program serves as a cautionary tale against applying policies mechanically and without sufficient forethought.

We hope this detailed analysis from ECE helps you understand these complex arguments and feel more confident when tackling educational topics in your IELTS exam.