CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1Â Â Â Â Â Â BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
As the school population grows, so do class numbers, and student performance becomes a problem (Olulola, 2007). Class size, according to Dror (1995), has become a topic that is frequently cited in the educational literature as having an impact on students’ moods and accomplishment, as well as administration, quality, and school budgets. In his opinion, class size is virtually entirely a managerial choice over which instructors have little or no influence. Most investigations begin with the premise that class size will be a key driver of students’ level of performance. Under reality, with the exception of a few research, many have shown that, in ideal circumstances, class size appears to be a crucial determinant (Ajila, 2007). The first point that has to be clarified is how many pupils should be considered a large group and what should be considered a small group. Bray (1990) observed that small groups have few professors with tiny pools of talent, provide a restricted variety of courses, and typically find it difficult to justify costly library investments… Their students have little rivalry and interest because they have the same instructor for their whole school experience. The description looks to be the polar opposite of what happens in a big gathering. Large school/class sizes, on the other hand, are generally impersonal, with larger curricula and more support for instructors, but children may have discipline issues as teachers cannot readily get to know their pupils (Kim, 2010). They find it simple to sort kids into groups based on their abilities, while work ethic may endure the test of time. The National Policy on Education (1977, updated in 1981) prescribed a numerical strength of 20 in pre-primary, 30 in primary, and a maximum of 40 in secondary schools. Because of the high population density in cities, these directions look impossible.
