Increase Class Size - Layoff Teachers

#26
#26
nbakerld said:
This is why one-size-fits-all education is inherently at a disadvantage. No offense but maybe kids with severe ADD should be isolated to small classrooms while the others go through the 25-kid factory style classroom*. It probably won't happen cause they don't want to single them out, but I think it would result in a better learning experience for everyone.

*Or bigger even...half the kids go onto college with 500-person class rooms, and they do fine. I'm thinking AP students can handle 100 to a class.
Click to expand...

I found out I had ADD at age 25. Just worked out that I was an athlete so I had a constant place to use my energy and I benefited from smaller class sizes.
 
#27
#27
milohimself said:
There is a proven inverse relationship between class size and student performance, and IIRC around 20 is the largest optimal class size.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with this point, I do wonder why class size doesn't affect performance in Japan's schools, e.g.
 
#29
#29
dreVol said:
While I don't disagree with this point, I do wonder why class size doesn't affect performance in Japan's schools, e.g.
Click to expand...

Because the social pressure to succeed in Japan's schools is great enough that kids essentially spend twice as much time in classrooms as they do here and wind up killing themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
nbakerld said:
This is why one-size-fits-all education is inherently at a disadvantage. No offense but maybe kids with severe ADD should be isolated to small classrooms while the others go through the 25-kid factory style classroom*. It probably won't happen cause they don't want to single them out, but I think it would result in a better learning experience for everyone.

*Or bigger even...half the kids go onto college with 500-person class rooms, and they do fine. I'm thinking AP students can handle 100 to a class.
Click to expand...

Then why is it that a number of countries who adopt that exact same method are kicking our asses in education?
 
#33
#33
milohimself said:
Because the social pressure to succeed in Japan's schools is great enough that kids essentially spend twice as much time in classrooms as they do here and wind up killing themselves.
Click to expand...

isn't class size an irrelevant metric for American education, then? why include that as a reason for more funding or cite it as a cause of poor performanc when the size makes little difference on a student's desire to learn?
 
#34
#34
dreVol said:
isn't class size an irrelevant metric for American education, then? why include that as a reason for more funding or cite it as a cause of poor performanc when the size makes little difference on a student's desire to learn?
Click to expand...

it starts at home...But smaller class sizes allow teachers to work more individually with students. Again - a lot of the problems start at home, but when there are problems, smaller class sizes do make a difference.
 
#35
#35
dreVol said:
isn't class size an irrelevant metric for American education, then? why include that as a reason for more funding or cite it as a cause of poor performanc when the size makes little difference on a student's desire to learn?
Click to expand...

Because the way most western countries are beating us is through an egalitarian approach. The US education system as it was originally set up was to send a small number of very gifted students on a highly effective tract and put the rest into the workforce. That worked during the wars, it worked when the US was still a manufacturing powerhouse. It doesn't work anymore and we can see that.

We're never going to get the manufacturing sector back to the way it was, and without a highly educated population, there's no way to keep the United State's current position of world relevance in the long-term.

Stricter standardized testing won't do it. Busting teachers unions won't do it. Defunding school districts en masse without rhyme or reason certainly won't do it.
 
#36
#36
KiffinKiller said:
it starts at home...But smaller class sizes allow teachers to work more individually with students. Again - a lot of the problems start at home, but when there are problems, smaller class sizes do make a difference.
Click to expand...

I understand the argument. It seems to me, though, that if much of student success is predicated on the student, the student's family, and the student's society giving a
sh**, then absent a positive support system it doesn't matter how small the class size is. If no one, including the student cares, then individual tutoring isn't going to matter.

Maybe I'm just a cynical pri**.
 
#37
#37
milohimself said:
Then why is it that a number of countries who adopt that exact same method are kicking our asses in education?
Click to expand...

There are way too many factors to nail it down. Culture, size and scope, etc.

Europe doesn't have a solution for us, IMO. Government programs for 15 million people take on a whole new life when applied to 300 million.

It's funny how there aren't any relatively free market industries that people label as "crappy". Nobody says "American clothes are crappy". Coincidentally "American education is crappy", and "American HC is crappy" are commonly said phrases.
 
#38
#38
dreVol said:
I understand the argument. It seems to me, though, that if much of student success is predicated on the student, the student's family, and the student's society giving a
sh**, then absent a positive support system it doesn't matter how small the class size is. If no one, including the student cares, then individual tutoring isn't going to matter.

Maybe I'm just a cynical pri**.
Click to expand...

No, you're absolutely right. Everybody involved in any child's education needs to care. The problem is that when the rubber meets the road, that doesn't always happen.
 
#39
#39
milohimself said:
Because the way most western countries are beating us is through an egalitarian approach. The US education system as it was originally set up was to send a small number of very gifted students on a highly effective tract and put the rest into the workforce. That worked during the wars, it worked when the US was still a manufacturing powerhouse. It doesn't work anymore and we can see that.

We're never going to get the manufacturing sector back to the way it was, and without a highly educated population, there's no way to keep the United State's current position of world relevance in the long-term.

Stricter standardized testing won't do it. Busting teachers unions won't do it. Defunding school districts en masse without rhyme or reason certainly won't do it.
Click to expand...

To be sure, education reform is complicated. That being said, I don't think anyone benefits from alarmist chain emails like the one in the op.

It's hard to have an open policy debate when parties go beyond spin to mischaracterize their opponent's position. My 2¢
 
#40
#40
nbakerld said:
There are way too many factors to nail it down. Culture, size and scope, etc.

Europe doesn't have a solution for us, IMO. Government programs for 15 million people take on a whole new life when applied to 300 million.

It's funny how there aren't any relatively free market industries that people label as "crappy". Nobody says "American clothes are crappy". Coincidentally "American education is crappy", and "American HC is crappy" are commonly said phrases.
Click to expand...

First, nowhere have I advocated that a federal solution is the best. Yes, difference in population matters. When you look at the mixture of highly successful solutions that have been enacted in Europe, the equation becomes much more familiar if you're thinking about applying them on the state level.

The problem with the free market solution to education is this: Yes, it probably would reduce the amount of money that we as a country spend, but the compound issue is the fact that we have a glaring need for high levels of educational attainment across the board.

The free market does not provide for everybody to be able to buy a BMW, or a 55" LED tv, or a full wardrobe from Nordstrom. Nor should it. With education, however, there is a clear need for the social benefit of achievement everywhere from NYC to the plains to the neighborhoods of Oakland and east LA and across all social classes. A free market education system fundamentally cannot provide for that.
 
#41
#41
dreVol said:
To be sure, education reform is complicated. That being said, I don't think anyone benefits from alarmist chain emails like the one in the op.

It's hard to have an open policy debate when parties go beyond spin to mischaracterize their opponent's position. My 2¢
Click to expand...

IMO the debate gets pigeonholed into a number of areas that, by themselves, are of no use to anyone. In particular, the deep flaws of union benefits, the dogmatic separation of government spending vs. value, personal and parental responsibility, etc.
 
#42
#42
milohimself said:
First, nowhere have I advocated that a federal solution is the best. Yes, difference in population matters. When you look at the mixture of highly successful solutions that have been enacted in Europe, the equation becomes much more familiar if you're thinking about applying them on the state level.

The problem with the free market solution to education is this: Yes, it probably would reduce the amount of money that we as a country spend, but the compound issue is the fact that we have a glaring need for high levels of educational attainment across the board.

The free market does not provide for everybody to be able to buy a BMW, or a 55" LED tv, or a full wardrobe from Nordstrom. Nor should it. With education, however, there is a clear need for the social benefit of achievement everywhere from NYC to the plains to the neighborhoods of Oakland and east LA and across all social classes. A free market education system fundamentally cannot provide for that.
Click to expand...

I disagree, and fail to understand why you think that. Why can a free market education system not provide for the masses? The free market does so with food and clothing. Why can't a fluid free market meet educational demands?

Public education does not offer a "BMW". They offer a Gremlin. The free market will offer the Gremlin as well, but it will also offer everything in between. We'll all be better off, unless "being better off" means people are equally dumb.
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top