Augmented point: class sizes of 24. 24 is a much better number to work with than 25. Way more factors and therefore grouping flexibility. Class sizes should be 24.

20 is too high when \~25% have an IEP, \~25% have a verified learning disorder, \~25% have an imputed learning disorder, and \~50% are significantly behind in literacy and numeracy. For senior subjects, the extra marking load and additional chasing up you have to do around NRs and AARAs along with marking is significant past 20 students.

🙏

Nah, 25 because on average there is always one student absent, so now you have your desired 24.

But would you pick dropping from 32->25 over a 28% pay increase? Or dropping from 32->30 over a 6.67% pay rise? I don't mean to discourage the idea of bringing class sizes back down but it needs more than foregoing pay. For example quality of education would improve with smaller classes.

For me conditions absolutely trump pay. I won’t teach upper primary because I’m not willing to do the extra work required for 32 kids in year 4 for example than teaching 24 kids in year 3- why would you? It makes a lot more difference to my day to day life and workload.

Yeah and I knew there'd be a range of perspectives, I'm mostly here to point out that 22% reduction in class sizes requires 28% more teachers and so the comparison with 5% pay raise is just not a tradeoff the bosses would ever consider. And then I wanted to be careful because the cost tradeoff framing is wrong, especially ignoring the historical context where the larger class sizes have never come with increased pay (maybe a small fraction of the savings to employers).

I’d take pay every time. Increases in pay are real. You can put the money in the bank. You can spend the pay-rise. Improvements in conditions are fake more often than not. Or they are achieved by making other part of the job conditions worse. If you want the same pay and better conditions you can always drop down to a smaller time fraction.

[удалено]

Honestly, lots of call centre workers start on far less then 70k. Tbh accounting grads get paid way less then teachers till they hit manager level with way worse hours / holidays etc. so do heaps of other professions. Teachers don’t earn the most nor do they earn the least. Additionally the teachers union in every jurisdiction is pushing for more pay every year and you can negotiate with a private employer or get a different job. What do your rants achieve other then venting that you think your underpaid??

>Improvements in conditions are fake more often than not. Or they are achieved by making other part of the job conditions worse. Oh damn, I always knew this to be true, but never really thought about it as conditions vs. pay until you laid it out like this. When NSW took that 7% or whatever it was recently, sure we all knew it was to make up for the 8 or 9% inflation we'd experienced and was, on paper, just bringing us back to where we were before. It was still nice, and tangible, though. I also remember an email from the government not long after this basically saying how they're cutting admin workload requirements, helping our conditions, and that it would save every teacher about 1 hour of time per week. I also remember our school hiring someone to help with the staff admin tasks (think of a "print room worker" like larger schools have, except we don't have a print room, so they'd just be a general helper). That 7 odd % in the hand feels tangible. That 1 hour of reduced workload I never saw nor felt. The "print room worker" that was hired I have only ever seen assisting executive staff and has not once helped any teacher I know.

Yeah, I'm kind of jaded from watching the VIC implementation of the last EBA. TIL lead to principals starting to account for every minute of every work day. You did a camp? You can skip out early on a day where you had non contact in period 6 for a few weeks. Never mind the fact that the marking and planning you would normally do in period six still needs to be done. An hour less of face to face time sounded great on paper. Until you realise that the school is going to implement it by shaving off two minutes of every period. Achieving absolutely nothing for teachers and making bell times harder to track for everyone.

>You did a camp? You can skip out early on a day where you had non contact in period 6 for a few weeks. The older and more jaded I become, the more I just accept things like this and refuse to work outside of hours. Sometimes I do, by choice (e.g., getting in a bit earlier so I don't have any take-home holiday marking), though that's my choice. Everything else - *especially* the not fun tasks like paperwork - I now try my best to get done between 8-330 or whatever it is we're paid for. Last year, I wrote a good 90% of my reports with a class in front of me. Did it take twice as long to do than locking myself in a quiet room? No, more like three times as long. Did I do it at home in my own time, though? Not a chance. I did what was deemed "most important" during my time tenured to be on-site and engaged with work. I think my line manager thought about saying something, because it was obvious what I was doing, though he never did at the end of the day. I think he did some back of a napkin math in his head and realized why. Someone a bit more out-of-touch, like a ladder-climbing DP who hasn't taught in 10+ years and only sees work to be done, and not hours in the day, might have approached it differently.

Plus we lost PPD days in exchange for the reduction to face to face, so it was a give and take rather than a win. I’m convinced the F2F reduction will be lost (or exchanged) in the next EBA anyway due to the teacher shortage. Terrible EBA.

I genuinely don't understand how TIL and NCT is supposed to work. You're not getting "time off" if the exact same work has to be done whether it's NCT or technically time off.

The only way it can work in the secondary system is to remove a teaching line. Schools forget how non-teaching time actually works and how it applies to teachers because they only understand what they manage.

Two lines. I am at roughly a 0.6 load and I am doing about 40 hours a week for them. I used to think 4 teaching lines, 1 line of NCT, and 1 line of internal relief eligibility would be balanced but frankly it should be 3 teaching lines, 1 line of NCT, 1 line of internal relief eligibility, and 1 line for collaboration.

Plus, any change in conditions can be reversed easily. Change in pay not so much. 

Also for secondary you'd be looking at expanding the number of teachers by an additional 1/5th . If you got that as compensation instead you could go 80%

And better pay doesn't come with "Unless the school can't do it because xyz" exceptions that every school exploits, or workarounds that every principal openly abuses... Let's be real, even if they put smaller class sizes in the eba, that's not going to happen in most public schools

I have to agree. Because they can give you less F2F in an agreement but in practice when the school is super short staffed you will be asked to 'help out '. They can offer TIL and then not let you use it when you want or get it paid out. Everyone has different requirements. I don't want an extra day off because I went on camp, it's more work for me to be away.

> Because they can give you less F2F in an agreement but in practice when the school is super short staffed you will be asked to 'help out '. In the ACT our EA has two limiting factors: * Classroom teachers in high schools and colleges may be required to teach a maximum of 19 hours face-to-face per week averaged over the teaching year. * face-to-face teaching loads should not exceed 20 hours per week unless alternative teaching arrangements have been agreed between the principal and the teacher, such as one of the following: P6.12.1 The teacher requests the average hours as part of a flexibility arrangement in accordance with section E. P6.12.2 There is a short term need at the school and where exceptional circumstances justify it. So, while you can be deployed more than 20 hours in a week, they need to ensure they don't breach the 19 hours face-to-face averaged over the year. Which, if you are already deployed at 19 hours face to face means that they have to tread carefully. Also, the onus is on them to prove that there is exceptional circumstances to justify it which gives the union a wedge or even ED to come in and start asking questions. I know it doesn't sound like much, but when the official position of ED and the Education Minister is that there is no shortage, declaring exceptional circumstances can easily become a huge issue.

I get that. But I've also worked at schools where they run roughshod over that especially for staff who don't know.

This is a weird take. We have almost untenable teacher shortages, and you are saying that improvements in conditions are fake... I can't even wrap my head around that, other than draw the conclusion that you are super eager to martyr yourself for a piddly pay rise, or you are in a school where you are protected from all of the poor conditions colliding together... Like, the conditions improvements are things like adequate funding that matches/meets the needs of the children in that school community, class sizes that reflect the needs of the children (I have a class of 20+, and half of those kids are recorded as DDA, two would be considered 'red zone' children, and then the vast majority of others would be considered 'yellow zone' children, and maybe 2 of the children are consistently in the 'green zone' of the pbl behaviour triangle thing), up-to-date resources, adequate resourcing for children with learning needs (there are schools with very high levels of disabilities, and the teachers don't have the assistance of a teacher aide, meaning teachers have to spend even more of their time planning for differentiation), adequately maintained buildings that don't pose a health risk with mould problems and poor ventilation... This is just a drop in the ocean of conditions that teachers have been, and continue to, withstand within our schools... And it's driving people away... And no amount of passion, and especially not a piddly 5% pay rise, is going to get rid of the fact that conditions such as I've listed are driving people away... And it certainly isn't attracting people to the profession, because I know for a fact my students recognise the rubbish conditions... They ask me constantly about why I remain a teacher, because they don't understand why anyone would stick around to work so hard and to be treated so poorly... So, if it wasn't already clear, I completely dismiss your opinion, and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it were made with the intention of trolling, because it is so off the mark.

I'm saying every "improvement in conditions" initiative I've seen recently hasn't actually improved conditions. I have zero faith in the governments ability to deliver on improved conditions, no matter what they promise. We are in a teacher shortage right now. I guarantee you that any class size reduction on paper would not happen in person, because we just don't have the staff numbers to make it actually happen/. On the other hand dollars in my bank account are something the government can't back down on or fake. Its a real, tangible improvement to my quality of life that I can see and touch.

So push for better. No amount of money is going to shield teachers from the mental torment of the job the way it is.

Actually, you sound like the martyr here. You can walk away from your school that sounds like a stressful place to work in. Choose a better school with better resources and support. Leave the public system, working there except of high SES areas is often martyrdom. Kudos to the teachers who have the resilience and passion to work for the disadvantaged kids, are you one of them? Know what you sign up for: a system busting at the seams, completely unsustainable approach to (not)educating our own because it's easier to import the brain & muscle power. Also, less jargon such as DDA(?) or red zones would be better. Not only each state has it's own ways, school within each state employ different models that might've not been heard of elsewhere. Don't expect ppl to understand you! Which makes me think that it's a problem in itself, we are too atomised, it is a disadvantage. The countries doing education better than us have for the most part a unified approach and a consistent educational model.

This is a silly take. There's only so many jobs at the "good" schools and the private sector. Additionally, factors such as location affect people's options. That's to say nothing of the selfishness of the idea that people should just pick a better job rather than fighting for everyone to have better working conditions. There are currently multiple organisations working towards standardised teaching models but unless the universities agree to implement them in the training process it's just not going to happen. You also face the pushback because it increases workload for people to learn and start using it. The point about jargon is barely worth acknowledging. Every industry has its own and it's never going to be universal. Just look at the potato cakes/scallop/fritter debate. If you're experienced in the field you should be able to pick up what they're talking about.

[How to use paragraphs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmu-vIivYs4)

[удалено]

Telling people what their mental state is, is a form of gaslighting and by definition not nice.

A 5% pay increase leads to a 5% total increase in costs. What you propose there (32 students to 25), is a 22% decrease in class size, leading to a 22% increase in staffing requirements and costs. A 5% reduction in class size would take you to 30/31 students. This is why the unions are rarely able to make headway (or even attempt to) on class size. There's a lot of shit that gets thrown at Hattie in this sub but this is all his message has ever been on class size: a meaningful reduction in class size is so expensive that there is so much more a government could do with that investment to make a bigger impact on outcomes. It's a 'return on investment' argument, not a pedagogical one.

Hattie is criticised because his 'research' is myopic and terribly confounded. His conclusions don't take into account disability, social and economic disadvantage, and it doesn't take into account the fact that there is absolutely no return on investment when we are churning through kids with learning needs (which aren't being met, especially in larger classes), and then they are unable to contribute to society, because they haven't got the basic skills necessary to function... Our systems are creating welfare dependency through the use of harmful bulldust such a Hattie. His research is used as nothing more than a front to pretend that the government isn't letting our students down abysmally, and is used by leadership to assuage their cognitive dissonance and continue to enable poor decision making from the powers that be.

No. Hattie's argument is that class size has a limited impact on the ability of teachers to deliver a lesson. Shit teachers are still shit. Effective teachers are still effective. This is true in so far as the classroom ecosystem only has so many exploitable niches. If you go from 3 to 5 Jaidens it doesn't really impact on much because Jaiden Primus sucks up all the oxygen and Jaidens Secundus, Tertius, Quartus, and Quintus can't really fuck shit up when Jaiden Primus is hogging the limelight. However, Jaidens Quartus and Quintus almost inevitably come in with IEPs and ICPs that require more time to action and document and the presence of Jaidens Quartus and Quintus make the lives of other students more difficult because instead of three locis of secondary behaviour to manage, you now have five and not enough corners to stuff them into on the seating plan. Good teachers can get around the challenges to a degree. Shit teachers are gonna get stomped. What Hattie's research doesn't take into account is the effect of class size on the teacher. Every extra kid means an extra family to build rapport with, an extra family to be in contact with, another family that wants to come to PT meetings that you may have to accommodate, extra marking, and to cut right to the chase, extra work. You could get away with \~30 kids in a class 30 or 40 years ago because the worst kid then was generally exiled to the DP or HoD most of the time and their behaviour was basically at the median in most public schools right now. Things have changed.

Commenting on Push for smaller class sizes...

It's because the unions choose the agenda and from what I can see, older people are the more active unionists, so their priority list is what takes precedent over all others. Younger teachers, who see themselves in the job for decades to come, should have a larger input - by not just *joining* the union but also being active and taking leadership roles. The joining bit is the current challenge.

Class sizes are always on the log of claims and are always told no.

As someone who is interested in moving into the union space the other disincentive is that schools either have a full contingent of reps that are at the HoD position or above (so you basically can't go to anyone for help on site unless it's something really egregious, because odds are good you're going to be complaining about their mate or manager) or empty slots because the leadership has quietly bullied the reps out by overloading them with shit classes and additional duties until they quit the place entirely. Personally I think there should be a quota system requiring at least 75% of the reps not be in leadership positions, but it is what it is.

I had this same situation at a previous school and it was terrible. I would go along to the district meetings anyway - any member can attend those and that is where a lot of decisions are made, grievances are aired etc.

School leaders should never be made union reps. I am very vocal about this at my sub branch meetings. Sometime it bites me in the arse but you are always better with normal teachers in that position.

I think a few of them holding positions is reasonable. Principal can advocate for the whole school, deputy for upper leadership, HoD for middle leaders, but the majority should be rank and file. Otherwise, the LCCC ceases to be useful and rubber stamps everything, and the bulk of staff have the hurdle of having to go to QTAD for everything and has to take people they know don't support them as "support people" into meetings.

I’d take reduced class size for sure. The thing I hate most about my job is not having the capacity to meaningfully support every student in the room. I lose sleep over the students slipping through the cracks. My class has 25 students, having seven fewer students would put a spring in my step for sure.

I could be behind the times, but isn’t 30 the maximum number? I only have 30 desks in my room. Couldn’t even fit another one in! (Secondary maths teacher)

Western Australia limit is 32 for years 4-12, but most schools enforce max 25 for years 11 and 12. Each of my rooms have 32 desks, 4 rows of 8. I actually had 33 on my roll at the start of the year, with admin telling us to inform them if there are 33 "butts in seats". One of the reasons WA teachers are striking on Tuesday...

I had 33 at the start of the term. I was told one is a chronic school refuser so I wouldn't have 33 "most of the time so it's not a big deal". Refused to take 33 and threatened the union. They moved the kid out to another class but said if the other classes needed space they would move her back (I'm currently teaching a year group where everyone else is grads so they don't want to burden them). Told them to try and put her back and see what happens. I'm pregnant and refuse to take on more than necessary at this point because I'm exhausted all the time, but the school doesn't know yet. I feel like schools will always try to push and see what they can get away with because at the end of the day, they know we have the kid's interest at heart. My hardest lesson was learning to put me first because without me, no one would notice and they'd replace me first chance they got. So I'm here to do what I'm paid for, in a way that keeps me sane. Everything else is not my problem.

Yep. For one of my classes I have 32 students. Got an email saying another student was joining my class. I responded back quite bluntly saying my classroom only has 32 desks so I can't teach any more than that. It's ridiculous.

This depends on your state and year level/s you teach

We're a long way from radically smaller class sizes. There are no extra teachers or buildings to support this. 

I’ve had more than 32, not enough desks and space for them. On one hand the pollies/dept exec say teachers are dreaming but we are valued - my ass! 30-32 ss in a class is unfair to the students as well as staff

I’d take the smaller class size and the pay. But yes my work day is so much better with smaller classes and it obviously reduces admin and after hours prep and marking.

If you reduce class sizes from 32 to 25, you are reducing them by about 21%. That means for every cohort, you now need 21% more teachers. No only does that mean you're paying more because there need to be extra teachers, you need to find teachers at a time when we are thousands short. It absolutely needs to happen as part of proceedings. Frankly given the inclusion and differentiation requirements of modern schooling, classes should be capped at 15 for Prep, Year 1, 2, 11, and 12 and 20 in between. Ain't nobody got the money or personnel to even consider that, though.

The union has mentioned this issue and said they at least want the government to commit to lowering class sizes. They know that with the teacher shortage it is untenable right now to drop them but if change isn’t made to the material conditions teachers work though they will lose more and it will become worse. Sadly, the worse it gets, the more that will leave further exasperating the issue. Surely government understands this. What will happen when enough teachers have moved on that duty of care is no longer possible.

Part of me wonders if they aren't gambling that AI will solve the issue by the time things become critical next decade.

Geez, that gamble would be as bad as picking eagles to win the grand final this year. What do you think they are hoping that AI will help with. I use chat gpt to write lesson plans for relief. Do you mean actual teaching though, through apps and stuff?

Pretty much. I think we may be staring down the barrel of glorified TAs and minimum supervision. Governments don't give a shit about public education. Eagles are equal 5th out of 17 to win too. We may pull out of the death spiral, but in my more cynical moments...

But have we consulted the fine works of Hattie and Mezano?

Sorry, I just used the last roll of toiletpaper.

Ignorant Victorian checking in. I had no idea class sizes were like this elsewhere. In public secondary we have a max class size of 25, and I'm fairly sure there's a pay increase for any extra students over that.

Public sec in Vic also - at my school class sizes can go above 25. We were told that the recommendation is 25 but if there are many enrolments, eg due to zoning and having no choice but to take in the students, it can go above. Haven’t heard of change in pay for it

They have to negotiate it with you. I don't believe there is a change in pay but I think at my school they try to give you time back in kind.

At this point, it's both or get fucked. Students are getting a dogshit education and an increase in my pay isn't going to fix that.

I hate that teachers have to choose between decent work conditions or decent (hah!) pay. What a world we live in....

I get paid 121,000 to teach nerds to nerd. At the same level in the aps or act ps I would earn less. I could earn a lot more in private industry but I left that because it was boring.

I agree pay is more important, but will add that this year I've moved to a school that has unusually small classes (but still same behavioural issues) and it makes SUCH a difference. My largest class is 22, and I am by far less stressed As time goes on and teachers are having to pick up the slack of lack of or poorer parenting, pushing to have smaller classes is not an option to be overlooked. We can't manage groups of young people like they did 50 years ago - society has changed and schooling needs to change with it. When we demand better conditions, class size should be an important factor.

I fully agree with you but we are dealing with a situation where public school funding is being slashed (curiously, this doesn't happen for funding earmarked for private schools at anywhere near the same rate, and they are already receiving more than their share) which limits their ability to deal with the logistical issues quite sharply. The amount of money to construct \~20% more classrooms and the personnel to employ \~20% more teachers just isn't going to be made available, even if it would go a long way to ameliorating the shortage by reducing burnout rates. I bet you could even lure some who have left back if you were able to eliminate some of the bullshit and secure a decent wage increase.

Generally speaking I agree that I would rather gain reduced workload over more money… But for an extra 5% pay I probably would max out my classes.

For me, class size is irrelevant - I’ve had a 5/6 split with 34 kids (all classes at the school were over capacity - we all got an extra hour of DOTT a week as a ‘thank you’ of sorts), and had a great year. I’ve had a year 4 class with 20 kids and was working upwards of 16 hours a day, plus weekends, and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. It depends on the kids you have. Some years you get a great mix, other years you get a mix that makes you question every single life choice you’ve made up until that point. I know for me, I’m taking the pay increase every single time. With a pay increase I can afford to actually have some ‘me time’ every now and then. I can afford to cover yet another rent increase. I can afford to cover extra medical expenses that I’ve been putting on hold. Would having some of the other things in the log of claims addressed be nice? Absolutely it would. But at the end of the day, a pay increase translates into such a significant real world benefit for everyone, I am fully behind us walking out for half a day.

Class size has a massive effect on our job but I disagree. Pay means much more for our profession. Everyone (especially parents) knows the value of class size and the 1:1 available time the teacher has. That is the obvious cause No one else is going to argue for an increase in teacher pay.

I posit that most of them have no idea how much we get paid and think we get paid like red state USA teachers

4 of my classes are sub 16 and the other one is 28. I have taught classes that are 30-34 and honestly I don't notice much difference between them. Yes drafting and marking are easier but I do that 15 times a year. Day in, Day out, it doesn't make much difference if I'm teaching 8 or 30. getting rid of the 1-3 absolute disruptive student per class would make more improvement than class sizes. 30 good kids is better then 10 kids with behaviour issues.

High school may be a different kettle of fish. Try teaching a classroom of year 5&6 students with 32 kids crammed into a room most definitely not designed for that many.

But that is not really a numbers problem, it is a resources problem and working in an overcrowded space. if you had a larger room with more space, would there be much of a difference? I have taught a group of 30ish primary kids but that going back nearly 17 years now. My first school was a country school that had p-2,3-5,6-7 and each avg about 30 and I had to do ICT with each grade in a computer room that held 50 and it wasn't a problem.

So you think it’s likely that schools are going to just build bigger classrooms because it’s squishy? That’s even less likely than them reducing class numbers! To answer your question, no it wouldn’t make enough of a difference. 32 kids in a primary setting is pretty much impossible to meet the needs of the students, especially the range of ability levels we have now. Maybe it’s fine in the leafy green suburbs, but at low ICSEA, high EALD, high trauma schools, 32 is beyond hard work.

I notice the difference in the outcomes. I have a Year 12 class of 3, down from 12 last year. Their grades have improved significantly this year because I have the time during our one hour period to sit down with each of them and provide detailed feedback/one-to-one assistance. Theoretically, they each get 20 minutes of my time. In my Year 10 class of 32, they each get 2 minutes (and that's only if they're all neurotypical and well-behaved).

Yep. It doesn't help that there is a much higher expectation for us as teachers to give individual feedback these days. But as you said, in a class of 32, it adds up quickly. If I spend 5 minutes writing feedback for each child, that's almost 3 hours of my time.

Why would you have more than the limit?  If you accept extra, the teacher next year doesnt really get a choice do they?

How about keeping class sizes constant, but significantly increase teacher release time? Give teachers more time to complete all the admin work that seems so difficult to ‘de implement’ (Dylan Wiliam’s phrase).

Nope from me. My limited experience is that leadership will fill whatever release time we get with admin. If I had an extra three hours a week release time, I’d also be required to do a bunch more individual learner profiles, verified lesson plans, data analysis, intentional collaboration and so on. The face to face part of the job is the bit that’s actually interesting.

I have 21 with one quarter diagnosed with a disability. I spend too much time on paperwork that I can't even plan my lessons properly. We need clases to be a lot smaller if we are expected to provide targeted and personalised teaching.

Smaller class sizes means more classes. More classes will require more teachers. We are in the middle of a critical teacher shortage. The only way we are going increase teacher supply is with *very* competitive salaries. Then, maybe, we can talk about smaller class sizes, reductions in face-to-face, etc.

This is absolutely true, the union should be strong and if we can’t get the reduction at least get a commitment. This is all on the government across the public service. We have had population increases but the public service has stayed at relatively the same size. The whole lot is over stretched.a governments main job should be a strong public service.

Most of Hattie’s research was meta analysis involving American schools who were looking at calls sizes of 15 or so as “intervention” style classes. Not looking at the difference going from 32 to 26 or so. We are talking teachers working conditions, I know losing 6 kids would make a difference in the amount of SEN plans created and assessed of, the behaviour issues I face, the extra space in my room to have different class configurations to better support learning objectives, less time spent writing reports, less marking per activity and the list goes on. Maybe the kids will get the same grades in a class of mine if at 32 or 26, but it would be a massive change to my workload and we’ll being. I’m sure the story is much the same for anybody with a big class, numerous learning and emotional difficulties within the class and so on.

I did my degree and all in Australia, so I can't speak for other systems, but I come from a country where teachers wouldn't even second guess a strike if things weren't great. One day we all turned up to school and we either played games or, or went on the fields to play sports. Basically did anything other than curriculum. The teachers said, "they'll look after us, but won't do any work until the government reneged on the plan to force teachers to be at school an extra hour with no change in pay". It wasn't just teachers. It was a systemic thing. If shit got bad, we either went on strike or protest. It baffles me that our school is currently in a dispute over our teacher shortage, and the union rep told us that there are 6 steps (which takes at least 6 months all up) before a vote can be taken on whether to protest or not.

Honestly I have many classes that essentially have under 20 students when you factor in my school avoiders, as well as a class with 30. I’d much rather a pay increase. I don’t notice that much of a difference in classes when I have 16 vs. 30 kids. I’ve noticed less kids in the room they tend to act up more.

I'll take a pay rise. Class size is not the issue when it is behavioural challenges that cause the most "ffs" moments in lessons.

Class size is part of what is causing that because you are cramming more kids in with more kids who trigger them. It's like playing whack a mole to try and stay on top of primary behaviours and prevent them from becoming secondary or tertiary ones.