MyRandomName: But there is a substantial body of research to suggest that kids in small classes don't necessarily learn more. In the range of things that schools can do to improve outcomes for your child, reducing class size may rank a distant fourth behind solid teacher training, a clear and well-sequenced curriculum, and a staff that is well supported and regularly evaluated.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/06/good_school_excerpt/

"Empirical evidence of the benefit of smaller class sizes on education outcomes presents a more complicated picture. A review of Ontario's primary class-size policy by the Canadian Education Association notes that class-size reductions typically yield at least modest quality improvements, but questions of "what size class is 'small enough,' how and why reducing class size works, and under what conditions it works, are all under-explained." Research by the C.D. Howe Institute suggests that "no solid evidence exists to show that smaller classes improve student achievement in the later primary and secondary grades in Canada."

"International evidence of the educational benefit of smaller class sizes offers similar conclusions. Studies have suggested that positive and negative impacts of class sizes were observed in the same proportion of classes (14 per cent each), while nearly 72 per cent of results showed no statistically significant impacts. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has shown that "[a]mong systems with comparatively high levels of spending on education that prioritize small class size, performance patterns are mixed." This evidence suggests that small class sizes are not a key determinant of educational outcomes, and certainly small class sizes alone are an insufficient measure to achieve these outcomes

http://educhatter.wordpress.com/


GOD DAMN THAT ROMNEY FOR BEING INFORMED.

Wow, you undercut yourself pretty fast on that one.

It may not be the most important, but it still ranks up in the top 5.

Thanks for concern trolling this point though, you obviously stood out in you '05 Gary_PDX University of T-rolling.

Snarfangel: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Huh. It's almost like it's a societal problem that doesn't have a one size fits all magic bullet solution.

There's probably a magic missile solution, though.

/ Granted, schools might have some hidden resistance, like gazebos.

Kids have +4 spell pen.

DrewCurtisJr: coeyagi: Yep. And he doesn't follow Zero Population Growth practices either (5 kids), so he's part of the problem as much as your average "welfare queen".

Part of what problem? Public school class size?

Sure. Everything has an effect. If the wealthy start having more kids, and they aren't building enough new private schools to hold them all, what effect do you think that has on the public schools?

coeyagi: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Schools in the NE have parental units who become more involved in their childs education then stupid backwoods red state welfare rednecks?

So what you're saying is that it's not unions that are the problem, then?

I don't think he ever was, unless Giltric is an ALT for BillCo. He was just arguing that class size isn't important, which is incorrect.

Why is it incorrect?

BECAUSE YOU *&&$*#&$(##9& KEEP CHANGING MORE THAN 1 VARIABLE!

Compare two affluent schools in the Northeast and two shiatty schools in Lousiana for class size.

//dumbasses

Define affluent.......NJ has Aboott Districts.....money from Westfield(affluent) is spent in Westfield and in Camden (slum)....more money per student is spent in Camden then in Westfield.

I am not a billco alt, al queda is not under your bed....put the bong down and remove the tinfoil hat.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: The top 25% of achievers need to be selected out for advanced, rigorous education, the middle 50% taught a standard curriculum and the bottom 25% given the best education they can master. What we can't afford to continue to do is pretend that they all have the same capabilities.

Yeah, sorta maybe. Having been educated in a system somewhat like that, there's a couple of problems:

1) What age do you sort at, and how? I went through a system in England called the "11+". In the year between your 11th and 12th birthday you sat two SAT-like exam papers. The top 10% (roughly) of kids got places at "grammar schools" for the next six years that focused on advanced, rigorous education intended to prepare them for college. And the rest went to "secondary modern" schools that primarily prepared them for a trade, with the large majority leaving school at 16 and only a minority continuing to tertiary education.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to list the many problems with this system, and will only add: whatever streaming/tiering system you come up with, it needs to be flexible and continuous; not a guillotine on a kid's prospects at age 11.

2) Kids are not automatically "top 25%" across the board. I used to get straight As in every subject that required logical, systematic thinking or accurate recall (including the grammatical and vocabulary aspects of european languages), and constantly skirt failure, well into my late teens, in subjects that required interpretative discussion and essay writing (such as history beyond the mere recitation of facts). What tier would you put me in?

I'm not saying the system can't work, but it's not nearly as simple as it sounds.

Giltric: coeyagi: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Schools in the NE have parental units who become more involved in their childs education then stupid backwoods red state welfare rednecks?

So what you're saying is that it's not unions that are the problem, then?

I don't think he ever was, unless Giltric is an ALT for BillCo. He was just arguing that class size isn't important, which is incorrect.

Why is it incorrect?

BECAUSE YOU *&&$*#&$(##9& KEEP CHANGING MORE THAN 1 VARIABLE!

Compare two affluent schools in the Northeast and two shiatty schools in Lousiana for class size.

//dumbasses

Define affluent.......NJ has Aboott Districts.....money from Westfield(affluent) is spent in Westfield and in Camden (slum)....more money per student is spent in Camden then in Westfield.

I am not a billco alt, al queda is not under your bed....put the bong down and remove the tinfoil hat.

Are you retarded? I never said you were an ALT nor did I even insinuate you were. READ IT AGAIN.

And also, you are still having a tough time fixing all the variables. Compare two schools with the same amount of money spent, the same demographics, the same average household income, but change one variable, class size, then come back to me.

DrewCurtisJr: coeyagi: Sure. Everything has an effect. If the wealthy start having more kids, and they aren't building enough new private schools to hold them all, what effect do you think that has on the public schools?

Who says they aren't building enough private schools? And people who send their kids to private schools still pay taxes to support kids in public schools.

You want to place blame, blame the people who are having kids who aren't paying enough in taxes to support them.

So what you're saying is that property taxes are assessed based on how many kids you have? That's so cute.

Is it possible to get a good education in a large class? Sure, if you have a good teacher. Can smaller classes be even more effective? Absolutely. Most of my classes through grade school and high school were around 30+ students each and there weren't any major problems with most of the students learning the material. However, I found that in the electives and advanced classes that I took (which had around 15 or less students each), there was much more two-way communication between the students and the teacher. It turned from a lecture into more of a discussion.

ghare: It makes more sense when you realize that the real problem Republicans have with teachers is that they are mostly female.

You could look at it that way, but I think they've come to accept that fact and have molded their opinion of the profession around that fact, and they've concluded it's a much less noble profession given that fact.

Glenford: coeyagi: Glenford: WhyteRaven74: Glenford: South Korea typically has class sizes of 50 or more students and they are one of the highest achieving countries, according to the OECD.

And the Finns and Czechs who have the best schools in Europe have small class sizes. And the Czechs also have what are by most standards short class days.

In FInland you require a Masters degree to teach (I'm not sure about the Czech Republic) - like I said in my post, it's teacher efficacy and school leadership (the points you managed to ignore) not class size that has a greater impact. I used South Korea as an example where a good teachers can still manage to effectively teach larger classes.

FFS, no one is arguing that good teachers aren't the most important thing, but why not exhaust all possibilities for improving outcomes? You want smaller class sizes but don't want to pay for more teachers? Fine, blame the Catholics and Evangelicals shiatting out all those kids.

And I'm not arguing against smaller class sizes, I'm pointing out that smaller class sizes isn't the only factor. It's almost like education is a complicated issue that requires more than bumper sticker slogans.

Um, no kidding? Who in this thread is arguing that class size is the number one thing?