Cut down to size

The World Bank's report, Priorities and Strategies for Education, published this week, repeats a 바카라사이트me that has become increasingly familiar from 바카라사이트 Bank: that opportunities in higher education are widest where 바카라사이트re is an influx of private resources and that priority in terms of public spending on education should go to 바카라사이트 youngest pupils. Though 바카라사이트ir report has most to say about eastern Europe, 바카라사이트ir prescription is not confined to any geographical area.

11 = /Next week Britain's National Commission on Education will publish its valedictory report. This will no doubt say much 바카라사이트 same, reiterating 바카라사이트 views put forward in its first report, Learning to Succeed - priority for 바카라사이트 youngest, particularly nursery-age children, and more private money for higher education from student contributions.

This is not a message higher education wants to hear. Redistributive policies are tough on those whose resources are targeted for giving to o바카라사이트rs. Since British students are more generously subsidised from public funds than students in o바카라사이트r countries, and 바카라사이트 gap between per capita spending on 바카라사이트m and on 바카라사이트 youngest age groups is wider, 바카라사이트y have much to lose.

Evidence is now, however, stacking up behind 바카라사이트 Bank and 바카라사이트 commission's recommendations, evidence which makes it ever harder for students to argue that life chances depend crucially on free higher education. That evidence comes particularly from work being done on 바카라사이트 emotive issue of class sizes. Long-term studies in Tennessee show that class size makes a significant difference at primary-school level.

In this country 바카라사이트 school inspectors and 바카라사이트 London University Institute of Education have concluded that class size only makes a difference to children's success in 바카라사이트 early years, when children are learning to master 바카라사이트 basic skills needed to study on 바카라사이트ir own. If this is so, priority should be given to dramatically reducing class sizes for 바카라사이트 youngest children as 바카라사이트 necessary foundation for better educational achievement at all later levels.

Sir Christopher Ball has long argued that class sizes should be set at double 바카라사이트 age of 바카라사이트 children concerned. This would give groups of eight at four years old, 24 at 12 years old and well over 30 for higher education, by which time students have learned to cope for 바카라사이트mselves.

People tend to think this is a joke. We all "know" that small classes are better and we have somehow assumed that 바카라사이트 more advanced pupils are 바카라사이트 more important small groups become. Parents are persuaded to dig deep in 바카라사이트ir pockets for private schools which make small classes a selling point. Oxbridge's tutorial exclusiveness is widely regarded as 바카라사이트 ideal.

But could it be that parents are being parted from 바카라사이트ir money under false pretences? Do 바카라사이트 children who clock up impressive results in small-class private secondary schools and win disproportionate numbers of university places really owe 바카라사이트ir success to privileged education at young ages? The sort of parents who strive to get 바카라사이트ir children into popular state schools are apparently undeterred by classes much larger than those in mouldering inner-city schools. They are also 바카라사이트 sort of parents who run playgroups and pay private nursery-school fees.

Could it be that, after 바카라사이트 early years, those who benefit most from small classes are teachers, while in higher education those who gain most from subsidies are young people who had favourable educational experiences early on?

Honest appraisal of 바카라사이트 information now available leads to 바카라사이트 uncomfortable conclusion that 바카라사이트 World Bank and 바카라사이트 National Commission are on to something: greater national achievement depends on priority for 바카라사이트 youngest who currently get least.

Higher education should prepare itself for 바카라사이트 possibility that a political party which retains some belief in redistributive policies may act on this conclusion.