If you’re a fan of evidence-based policy in government, you might want to move out of Ontario. If you’re a fan of populist sound bites about pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps just like grandpa did in the good old days, by all means, stay put.

Better yet, put those boots up on the table, crack open a dollar beer, and listen with delight to a recording of Ontario Education Minister Lisa Thompson explaining the benefits of bigger class sizes on CBC’s Metro Morning this week.

Thompson was on the show Wednesday discussing the Provincial Conservatives recent announcement about plans to increase the average high school class size from 22 students to 28, likely over the next few years.

When news broke of these changes, many of us wondered about the reason behind them. Is there a new study out indicating that, contrary to popular belief, bigger class sizes are better for student learning?

After all, some research suggests class size isn’t as important a factor in the quality of education as many of us think it is, nor is it a panacea for poor test scores and low student engagement. But has there been an academic breakthrough recently proving that there are major benefits to really big classes — that in fact, they are better than small ones?

No.

Read more:

Larger high school classes build teen ‘resiliency,’ Education Minister says

Ford government to tweak autism program overhaul amid intense pressure

Ontarians trust doctors, academics — but not religious leaders — when it comes to sex-ed

But this doesn’t appear to concern Lisa Thompson, who has her own reason for putting more bums in the seats of Ontario classrooms. On Wednesday, she told the CBC’s Matt Galloway:

“When students are currently preparing to go off to post-secondary education, we’re hearing from professors and employers alike that they’re lacking coping skills and they’re lacking resiliency. By increasing class sizes in high school, we’re preparing them for the reality of post-secondary as well as the world of work.”

Says who exactly? Apparently Thompson heard this “loud and clear” in a consultation with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, from people whose names and credentials she did not provide.

This does not sound like policy by research. It sounds like policy by anecdote. It sounds like Thompson went for lunch with a few business men, one of whom (likely a guy whose kids attended private schools and whose experience with public education is limited to voting Conservative in a school gym) blurted out over frites something to the effect of “I’m telling you Lisa, the kids coming out of school today are soft. No resiliency. No backbone. We had one intern with us a few months ago. The guy couldn’t cut it. In my day …” And voila, a plan for education reform was born.

OK, I’m being facetious. But how else can a person be in the face of this government?

I’m not an academic but I tried my best to find evidence linking larger class sizes to resilience among young people and I failed.

Here’s what I did find out. Kids and teens who are resilient typically benefit from a dedicated support network. They are not overlooked.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

From Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child: “The single most common factor for children who develop resilience is at least one stable and committed relationship with a supportive parent, caregiver, or other adult.”

Another good example of this type of relationship: a teacher with the time and energy for every student in their charge.

A bad example: a teacher with neither.

Clearly Thompson’s understanding of resilience is flawed. But even within the confines of her own flawed logic, she’s illogical.

After all, if she truly believes kids are coddled in smaller classes, why not increase class sizes to 60 or a hundred students for maximum hardiness under pressure? If care and attention produce weak adults, why not reintroduce the strap into classrooms? Ontario students shouldn’t just visit Black Creek Pioneer Village on a field trip. They should live it.

OK, I’m being facetious again. I don’t seriously believe a big class is tantamount to child abuse. But the notion that it promotes resilience is also far-fetched.

I would know. I’ve been in several very large classes throughout my education. And I loved them. I loved them not because they helped me develop coping skills but because they were a godsend to those of us who a) liked to talk at the back and b) liked to go to the bathroom for extremely long stretches without our absence being noticed (or better yet, go to the bathroom and never return). A big class is an excellent way to tune out. This is something research does in fact indicate.

In 2003, Jeremy Finn, a professor of educational psychology with extensive knowledge on this topic, published a paper suggesting that when class size is reduced, student engagement improves.

In 2014 he told the Seattle Times, “In a big class, everybody in the back of the room is talking and giggling … But in a small class, the first thing a teacher says is ‘Let’s all bring our chairs around me here in a circle. ’ ”

If you think the former scenario beats the latter you’re either deluded or you have an ulterior motive. When it comes to Thompson, it’s likely she has an ulterior motive. She wants to cut costs and she’ll do it at the expense of education. She doesn’t seem to care what the research says.

Obviously she can’t admit this, but at the very least, it would be great if moving forward she spared us her inane theory about how students are better served when they are underserved. They’re not.