THERE is no hard evidence that cutting class sizes, sorting pupils into ability groups or testing them more makes much difference to improvements in education, Mary Simpson, professor of classroom learning at Edinburgh University, told the conference.

What mattered most was the dynamic between teacher and pupil. There was no guarantee either that “high-octane fuel in the form of powerful computers in every classroom” would help.

“Standards in Scotland are not low; part of the problem is that we are just getting better and better at measuring them. And always adults expect far more of children and what they learn is short of our aspirations and we blame the children,” Professor Simpson said.

Teachers often viewed the increasing variability among young people as a major stumbling block to their work and understandably sought more heterogeneity through smaller class sizes and setting or broad banding.

But low attainment was not associated with any such variables, Professor Simpson said.

Given the right conditions, motivating tasks and support, young people were fast and effective learners. What sometimes stopped them were the limitations of existing structures, including compartmentalising topics into subjects.

“Whatever we do in the future, we have got to revitalise the classroom so that not just pupils but the teachers are happy to go to school,” she said.

Professor Simpson pinpointed several initiatives in the United States which offered different models of learning between pupil and teacher, many of which involved new technology. Unfortunately, innovation in Scotland had been driven from the system.

She called on schools and local authorities to make “a leap of faith” in devising alternative structures that offered new approaches to learning.