8 ms·

Should States Spend Billions to Reduce Class Sizes?

29 points by tokenadult 12y ago

chiph 12y ago
Fire administrators, hire teachers.
- jobu 12y ago
  I used to agree with this mentality, but I've seen first-hand how important a really good principal can be. Over the past three years my kids elementary school has turned around the direction of test scores, teacher attrition, and the overall mood and enthusiasm of the whole school staff. One great example from last year was when the school was facing budget cuts after a bond failed. Rather than cut any teachers or staff, she was able get a massive PTO fundraising effort to bring in tens of thousands from the local community. She also worked with local businesses to donate thousands of dollars worth of paper, office and maintenance supplies, and even food for some of the fundraising events.
  - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
    I agree with both of you. Fire some administrators... but not the good principals. :) There appears to be some room for improvement at a level higher than school principal.
  - ep103 12y ago
    I'm just a layman, but I wonder if that sort of ability from a n administrator is exactly the sort of thing that would be less likely to happen with larger and larger administrative staffs?
    - emn13 12y ago
      If you're swamped by your administrative duties, you're unlikely to find the time + energy for the kind of initiatives described here. Getting rid of the "overhead" is a cop-out. With fewer (administrative) people, you're going to get less administration done - people aren't going to magically do more work. If you can pinpoint those tasks that are relatively unnecessary, you're got a real contribution to make. However, that's often surprisingly tricky, which is why in all kinds of cost-cutting debates people pretend theres this "overhead" that's nicely pre-categorized and ready to cut. If only it really were that simple.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
      Not necessarily. To some extent the administrator for an even larger school district/unit is there because of their excellent bullshitting skills. The laughable part is that the goals that the administration pursues are, at best, tangential to the goals that everyone else has for school systems. They want their children to have an adequate education... but the principal made sure no one was laid off, and that morale was good among the employees.
  - chiph 12y ago
    I was being flippant in my answer, but there's a nugget of truth to it -- growing up, my school district had maybe 50-60 administrators to run about 25 elementary schools, 12 middle schools, and 8 or so high schools. Each of which had a principal, assistant principal, librarian, etc. But today, that number is much higher. Mainly because of increased reporting requirements (No Child Left Behind, etc). But also to do things like write grant proposals (the federal Department of Education hadn't been created in my time, and wasn't handing out money)
  - chiph 12y ago
    I was being flippant in my answer, but there's a nugget of truth to it -- growing up, my school district had maybe 50-60 administrators to run about 25 elementary schools, 12 middle schools, and 8 or so high schools. Each of which had a principal, assistant principal, librarian, etc. But today, that number is much higher. Mainly because of increased reporting requirements (No Child Left Behind, etc). But also to do things like write grant proposals (the federal Department of Education hadn't been created in my time, and wasn't handing out money)
innguest 12y ago
That is a question that should be asked directly to those that will be providing the money to be spent. But luckily we live in a democracy and those who don't contribute a dime get to choose how much I should contribute to this. Less work for me. Less money too. But at least government employees get a nice pension so it's all worth it. Plus if we didn't do it this way then there's no other way at all - it's the government's way or the highway. God bless democracy.
- 67726e 12y ago
  We live in a democratic republic, you elect the folks who make those decisions. If you lived in a pure democracy, you'd get a say in every decision.
  - innguest 12y ago
    Thanks, I was not aware. So yes, as you put it so eloquently, this system is set in stone and it's pointless to think of better ways to manage these problems. So indeed, we should spend not only billions, but trillions. And if it doesn't work then we should up the ante and go to quadrillions. Then I think it will work.
    - mhurron 12y ago
      > Thanks, I was not aware. Probably because you needed a smaller class size in civics/history/social studies class so the teacher could spend more time making sure everyone actually learned the material.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Stop poisoning the well with your snark. It's one thing to disagree with how things are run and propose an alternative, but just satirizing the positions of your imaginary opponents while being rude towards the people who do comment impedes everyone's ability to have a constructive discussion.
      - innguest 12y ago
jack-r-abbit 12y ago
> it needs to hire thousands of new teachers, counselors, teaching assistants and librarians. More teachers and assistants I get. Same number of students in smaller classes means more classes which means more teachers (and their assistants). But more counselors and librarians? Those people generally don't have a dedicated class. The librarians are in charge of the library. The smaller class size isn't going to mean more students. So why would you suddenly need more librarians to serve the same books to the same students? Same with counselors. Why would you suddenly need more counselors to counsel the same number of students?
- innguest 12y ago
  You ask as if there are genuine reasons. Do you not see this is a money grab, and if you don't also pay the librarians and the counselors they aren't going to support the cause?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  You'll likely need more schools to handle smaller class sizes or to expand existing schools. If the former, then you'd definitely need additional counselors and librarians since a new school would need its own support services. If the latter, then you only need additional counselors and librarians if the expansion to the school also brings in additional students and doesn't just spread the existing students across more rooms. On the other hand, you may need to expand the library to accommodate more classes needing access to it simultaneously. I know my high school had two libraries largely for that reason (also because it was a poorly designed building, but the space was well utilized for social studies and English courses).
  - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
    Since opening a new school has far more cost than just hiring more teachers, it didn't even occur to me that it would have been the route they would take. But I do realize that a new school facility is going to need a full set of faculty to support it. That includes principals, janitors, admins, etc. I just assumed they'd be expanding existing schools with "portables" and such.
lemonad 12y ago
The extensive research by John Hattie shows that reduced class sizes has a small but positive effect on student achievement but relative to other factors, it is very inefficient: http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/ http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect... One explanation to reduced class sizes not having a larger effect is that teachers, given smaller classes, rarely change their practice to optimize for the new situation.
- munificent 12y ago
  > teachers, given smaller classes, rarely change their practice to optimize for the new situation. Or maybe that given all of the increased rules, regulation, and standardized testing, they don't have the freedom to.
  - lemonad 12y ago
    True. If I remember Hattie correctly, he argues something akin to that reducing class sizes is mostly a political move (it's certainly not research based) — and after spending huge amounts of money on that — there is no political incentive to spend at least as much on retraining teachers. Also, if some of the money had been spent on professional development instead of reducing class sizes in the first place, his research shows that the effect of that on student achievement had been much, much higher.
breischl 12y ago
>>“We can’t operate under the premise that we’re only willing to spend a certain amount of money on our children’s education.” Love that! Instead we must operate under the assumption that we're willing and able to spend an infinite amount of money on education! That kind of brilliant analysis is part of how governments manage to waste tons of money ineffective programs.
- Retric 12y ago
  You completely misunderstood that point. The real issue is when you focus on 1 number you tend to lump ineffective programs with effective programs and have no idea what to cut or what to focus on. The important thing is not the $ spent it's the long term ROI on money spent. Consider we could replace some instruction time with high cost videos as it’s not like every classroom really needs a slightly different lecture on the distributive property. If the ROI is high enough we might be better off paying for education with loans. But if it's to low that's a sure way to long term ruin. EX: Handing out ice cream for anyone with perfect attendance for a semester. Sure there 'cheap' but pointless = wasteful. Ramp that up to handing out ice-cream every Friday for perfect attendance and you might actually make some difference. But, the cost is probably not worth it. Again, the value is not keeping under some specific number but maintaining positive ROI.
breitling 12y ago
>>"Hire thousands of new teachers" If you MUST hire thousands of new teachers, I'd imagine the quality of the teachers would decrease. I wonder if there's a point where this whole exercise becomes counter-productive. Are two bad teachers > one great teacher?
- sp332 12y ago
  Maybe we already don't have great teachers. Maybe we're between a global max of a few great teachers and a local max of lots of not-great teachers, sitting in a global min of a few not-great teachers.
  - bluedino 12y ago
    Exactly. It should be, are two mediocre teachers better than one mediocre teacher? Yes.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  The damage that a bad teacher can do to dozens (or hundreds of students) is incredible, and most of that damage is unrepairable. But the people in charge only look at things statistically, and will gladly sacrifice those, if they believe the overall results are acceptable. Bad teachers are bad for many reasons too. Some are incompetent, stupid, visionless, and unable to see what goes on in any child's head (let alone in 30+, each an individual), but some are toxic. Borderline personality disorder, abusive, bullying, dismissive. And you can't even easily sort them. There's no test that will let you find any of the bad teachers reliably, or a test that will show only the good. If we throw more money at the problem, if we "pay them what they deserve", how do we filter the opportunists?
gyardley 12y ago
Politically, Washington is one of the more interesting places I've ever lived - there's a majority for Massachusetts-style spending, but there's also a majority for Texas-style taxation. Combine that with the voter initiative system and a cultural boundary line that has nothing to do with the state boundary line, and you get one hell of a predictable mess. I assume the state will eventually tip demographically in favor of the coast and end up resembling California, with high income taxes and a pissed-off but powerless interior, but I've got no idea how long that's going to take.
- xrange 12y ago
  >I assume the state will eventually tip demographically in favor of the coast and end up resembling California So do you think that this will be a result natural population growth, migrants from California/Oregon, migrants from other U.S. states, or migrants from other countries? I tried to look up population trends for various counties, but it isn't as straightforward as I had hoped. It seems like there should be a heat map showing population growth per county, so that we could see which counties are growing fastest. Also it would be interesting to look at the population trends east and west of the Cascades. Somewhere this data must exist, I'm surprised that it isn't in an easy to digest form, or that tracking it down hasn't been simple.
  - gyardley 12y ago
    I honestly haven't done the research to back up my assumption that the more left-leaning areas west of the Cascades are growing faster than the rest of the state, fueled by migrants from other left-leaning urban areas. It would be interesting to see population trends and voting behavior changes by county over time.
bluedino 12y ago
Japan and Korea, famous for their high-achieving students, are also famous for another thing: huge class sizes. Larger than those in the USA. Sure, classes are different, teachers are different, but the culture to push your kids to succeed is different as well. The parents are to blame for so many of the problems in our schools. I'm guessing parents in Japan and Korea don't go to a kids school and fight the teacher when they have bad grades.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
Well, it depends. You could have a classroom with 70 highly motivated students, and love it. You find this in Africa were teachers are scarce and respected, children are abundant and want to learn. I went to visit a female friend that leaved everything in Europe(executive in a bug multinational, a good house) to help and teach poor children in Africa. After going there and seeing it myself I understood: those kids were the best students ever and they loved their teachers so much. On the contrary in wealthy countries it is common to find someone in each class that does not want to study and does not want anybody else in the class to study too. That makes teaching a bad experience.
- bluedino 12y ago
  Do wealthy countries like Iceland have this problem? They have very small class sizes and high-ranking school systems.
  - xrange 12y ago
    Extrapolating anything from Iceland seems dubious. Since it is tiny (300,000) and so culturally and racially homogenous (84% of Icelanders apparently belong to the official state Luthern church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iceland
gwern 12y ago
> The initiative will cost nearly $5 billion through 2019, a hefty sum considering that the state’s current two-year budget for public education is around $15 billion....Project STAR is the gold standard in class-size reduction literature because it’s the only randomized study on the issue that’s been conducted since the early 20th century...Florida’s program cost $20 billion over eight years, about the same as the estimates for the Washington initiative. And Project STAR was estimated to cost about $400,000 for each student who eventually went to college, compared to $133,000 for HeadStart. “Reducing class size is one of the most expensive things you can do in education,” Chingos said. And people keep asking whether we can afford, ethically or financially, to run randomized trials...
logfromblammo 12y ago
Even a 1:1 teacher-student ratio would not improve education if that teacher cannot respond and adapt to the needs of the student. If that teacher is bound by a common curriculum and testing regime, or an otherwise rigid administration, you might as well teach with a bunch of robots. Bring on the anecdote. Math is taught by very different methods now than those I remember, and I shudder to think about what is being taught in class now when my child can do a homework worksheet and get every single question on it completely wrong. And the reason, as far as I can tell, is because the curriculum is sometimes using logarithms and decimal-shift operations to teach multiplication and division. They are literally teaching kids to simulate the mechanical processes behind slide rules and abacuses in their brains in lieu of just memorizing the multiplication table. The entire system seems constructed around the complete avoidance of rote memorization. But that is how I learned to multiply. Memorization of the multiplication table from 0x0 to 9x9 was absolutely required. You could not progress at all if you could not quickly look up any of those 100 numbers. 55, really, thanks to multiplication being a commutative operation. Or 36 if you could also remember that 0xn=0 and 1xn=n. Rather than ask kids to memorize and index those 36 numbers for quick recall, I see piles of nonsense about "compatible numbers" and "reasonable numbers" and other concepts of dubious value outside the narrow context of quickly selecting the correct answer in a multiple-choice test, without actually doing the work. I actually had to teach my child that the exact answer to a math question is, in fact, a reasonable estimate. To top it off, judging from Feynman's anecdote about being on a textbook selection committee, this same nonsense, or cleverly repackaged iterations of it, has continued unabated for decades. Wakalixes make it go. Wakalixes pay the bills. Wakalixes extract the tax dollars and deliver it to the rent-seeker. And the students continue to learn, or fail, largely based upon whether their individual teachers care more than the median amount. The economics of public education create too wide of a separation between the interests of the student and the signers of the checks. No matter how hard you push on that rope, the load will barely move. Adding more money will not help when there is already very little connection between the amount spent and the observed outcomes.
tzs 12y ago
> In 2012, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled the legislature had failed to uphold its “paramount duty” to fully fund the state’s educational system. For those in other states who might be wondering why the Court would find that the legislature had a "paramount duty", it's in the State Constitution [1]: ------------------ ARTICLE IX EDUCATION SECTION 1 PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex. SECTION 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools. ------------------ [1] http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx

29 points by tokenadult 12y ago

chiph 12y ago

Fire administrators, hire teachers.

jobu 12y ago
I used to agree with this mentality, but I've seen first-hand how important a really good principal can be. Over the past three years my kids elementary school has turned around the direction of test scores, teacher attrition, and the overall mood and enthusiasm of the whole school staff. One great example from last year was when the school was facing budget cuts after a bond failed. Rather than cut any teachers or staff, she was able get a massive PTO fundraising effort to bring in tens of thousands from the local community. She also worked with local businesses to donate thousands of dollars worth of paper, office and maintenance supplies, and even food for some of the fundraising events.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  I agree with both of you. Fire some administrators... but not the good principals. :) There appears to be some room for improvement at a level higher than school principal.
- ep103 12y ago
  I'm just a layman, but I wonder if that sort of ability from a n administrator is exactly the sort of thing that would be less likely to happen with larger and larger administrative staffs?
  - emn13 12y ago
    If you're swamped by your administrative duties, you're unlikely to find the time + energy for the kind of initiatives described here. Getting rid of the "overhead" is a cop-out. With fewer (administrative) people, you're going to get less administration done - people aren't going to magically do more work. If you can pinpoint those tasks that are relatively unnecessary, you're got a real contribution to make. However, that's often surprisingly tricky, which is why in all kinds of cost-cutting debates people pretend theres this "overhead" that's nicely pre-categorized and ready to cut. If only it really were that simple.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    Not necessarily. To some extent the administrator for an even larger school district/unit is there because of their excellent bullshitting skills. The laughable part is that the goals that the administration pursues are, at best, tangential to the goals that everyone else has for school systems. They want their children to have an adequate education... but the principal made sure no one was laid off, and that morale was good among the employees.
- chiph 12y ago
  I was being flippant in my answer, but there's a nugget of truth to it -- growing up, my school district had maybe 50-60 administrators to run about 25 elementary schools, 12 middle schools, and 8 or so high schools. Each of which had a principal, assistant principal, librarian, etc. But today, that number is much higher. Mainly because of increased reporting requirements (No Child Left Behind, etc). But also to do things like write grant proposals (the federal Department of Education hadn't been created in my time, and wasn't handing out money)
- chiph 12y ago
  I was being flippant in my answer, but there's a nugget of truth to it -- growing up, my school district had maybe 50-60 administrators to run about 25 elementary schools, 12 middle schools, and 8 or so high schools. Each of which had a principal, assistant principal, librarian, etc. But today, that number is much higher. Mainly because of increased reporting requirements (No Child Left Behind, etc). But also to do things like write grant proposals (the federal Department of Education hadn't been created in my time, and wasn't handing out money)

innguest 12y ago

That is a question that should be asked directly to those that will be providing the money to be spent. But luckily we live in a democracy and those who don't contribute a dime get to choose how much I should contribute to this. Less work for me. Less money too. But at least government employees get a nice pension so it's all worth it. Plus if we didn't do it this way then there's no other way at all - it's the government's way or the highway. God bless democracy.

67726e 12y ago
We live in a democratic republic, you elect the folks who make those decisions. If you lived in a pure democracy, you'd get a say in every decision.
- innguest 12y ago
  Thanks, I was not aware. So yes, as you put it so eloquently, this system is set in stone and it's pointless to think of better ways to manage these problems. So indeed, we should spend not only billions, but trillions. And if it doesn't work then we should up the ante and go to quadrillions. Then I think it will work.
  - mhurron 12y ago
    > Thanks, I was not aware. Probably because you needed a smaller class size in civics/history/social studies class so the teacher could spend more time making sure everyone actually learned the material.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Stop poisoning the well with your snark. It's one thing to disagree with how things are run and propose an alternative, but just satirizing the positions of your imaginary opponents while being rude towards the people who do comment impedes everyone's ability to have a constructive discussion.
    - innguest 12y ago

jack-r-abbit 12y ago

> it needs to hire thousands of new teachers, counselors, teaching assistants and librarians. More teachers and assistants I get. Same number of students in smaller classes means more classes which means more teachers (and their assistants). But more counselors and librarians? Those people generally don't have a dedicated class. The librarians are in charge of the library. The smaller class size isn't going to mean more students. So why would you suddenly need more librarians to serve the same books to the same students? Same with counselors. Why would you suddenly need more counselors to counsel the same number of students?

innguest 12y ago
You ask as if there are genuine reasons. Do you not see this is a money grab, and if you don't also pay the librarians and the counselors they aren't going to support the cause?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Jtsummers 12y ago
You'll likely need more schools to handle smaller class sizes or to expand existing schools. If the former, then you'd definitely need additional counselors and librarians since a new school would need its own support services. If the latter, then you only need additional counselors and librarians if the expansion to the school also brings in additional students and doesn't just spread the existing students across more rooms. On the other hand, you may need to expand the library to accommodate more classes needing access to it simultaneously. I know my high school had two libraries largely for that reason (also because it was a poorly designed building, but the space was well utilized for social studies and English courses).
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  Since opening a new school has far more cost than just hiring more teachers, it didn't even occur to me that it would have been the route they would take. But I do realize that a new school facility is going to need a full set of faculty to support it. That includes principals, janitors, admins, etc. I just assumed they'd be expanding existing schools with "portables" and such.

lemonad 12y ago

The extensive research by John Hattie shows that reduced class sizes has a small but positive effect on student achievement but relative to other factors, it is very inefficient: http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/ http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect... One explanation to reduced class sizes not having a larger effect is that teachers, given smaller classes, rarely change their practice to optimize for the new situation.

munificent 12y ago
> teachers, given smaller classes, rarely change their practice to optimize for the new situation. Or maybe that given all of the increased rules, regulation, and standardized testing, they don't have the freedom to.
- lemonad 12y ago
  True. If I remember Hattie correctly, he argues something akin to that reducing class sizes is mostly a political move (it's certainly not research based) — and after spending huge amounts of money on that — there is no political incentive to spend at least as much on retraining teachers. Also, if some of the money had been spent on professional development instead of reducing class sizes in the first place, his research shows that the effect of that on student achievement had been much, much higher.

breischl 12y ago

>>“We can’t operate under the premise that we’re only willing to spend a certain amount of money on our children’s education.” Love that! Instead we must operate under the assumption that we're willing and able to spend an infinite amount of money on education! That kind of brilliant analysis is part of how governments manage to waste tons of money ineffective programs.

Retric 12y ago
You completely misunderstood that point. The real issue is when you focus on 1 number you tend to lump ineffective programs with effective programs and have no idea what to cut or what to focus on. The important thing is not the $ spent it's the long term ROI on money spent. Consider we could replace some instruction time with high cost videos as it’s not like every classroom really needs a slightly different lecture on the distributive property. If the ROI is high enough we might be better off paying for education with loans. But if it's to low that's a sure way to long term ruin. EX: Handing out ice cream for anyone with perfect attendance for a semester. Sure there 'cheap' but pointless = wasteful. Ramp that up to handing out ice-cream every Friday for perfect attendance and you might actually make some difference. But, the cost is probably not worth it. Again, the value is not keeping under some specific number but maintaining positive ROI.

breitling 12y ago

>>"Hire thousands of new teachers" If you MUST hire thousands of new teachers, I'd imagine the quality of the teachers would decrease. I wonder if there's a point where this whole exercise becomes counter-productive. Are two bad teachers > one great teacher?

sp332 12y ago
Maybe we already don't have great teachers. Maybe we're between a global max of a few great teachers and a local max of lots of not-great teachers, sitting in a global min of a few not-great teachers.
- bluedino 12y ago
  Exactly. It should be, are two mediocre teachers better than one mediocre teacher? Yes.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The damage that a bad teacher can do to dozens (or hundreds of students) is incredible, and most of that damage is unrepairable. But the people in charge only look at things statistically, and will gladly sacrifice those, if they believe the overall results are acceptable. Bad teachers are bad for many reasons too. Some are incompetent, stupid, visionless, and unable to see what goes on in any child's head (let alone in 30+, each an individual), but some are toxic. Borderline personality disorder, abusive, bullying, dismissive. And you can't even easily sort them. There's no test that will let you find any of the bad teachers reliably, or a test that will show only the good. If we throw more money at the problem, if we "pay them what they deserve", how do we filter the opportunists?

gyardley 12y ago

Politically, Washington is one of the more interesting places I've ever lived - there's a majority for Massachusetts-style spending, but there's also a majority for Texas-style taxation. Combine that with the voter initiative system and a cultural boundary line that has nothing to do with the state boundary line, and you get one hell of a predictable mess. I assume the state will eventually tip demographically in favor of the coast and end up resembling California, with high income taxes and a pissed-off but powerless interior, but I've got no idea how long that's going to take.

xrange 12y ago
>I assume the state will eventually tip demographically in favor of the coast and end up resembling California So do you think that this will be a result natural population growth, migrants from California/Oregon, migrants from other U.S. states, or migrants from other countries? I tried to look up population trends for various counties, but it isn't as straightforward as I had hoped. It seems like there should be a heat map showing population growth per county, so that we could see which counties are growing fastest. Also it would be interesting to look at the population trends east and west of the Cascades. Somewhere this data must exist, I'm surprised that it isn't in an easy to digest form, or that tracking it down hasn't been simple.
- gyardley 12y ago
  I honestly haven't done the research to back up my assumption that the more left-leaning areas west of the Cascades are growing faster than the rest of the state, fueled by migrants from other left-leaning urban areas. It would be interesting to see population trends and voting behavior changes by county over time.

bluedino 12y ago

Japan and Korea, famous for their high-achieving students, are also famous for another thing: huge class sizes. Larger than those in the USA. Sure, classes are different, teachers are different, but the culture to push your kids to succeed is different as well. The parents are to blame for so many of the problems in our schools. I'm guessing parents in Japan and Korea don't go to a kids school and fight the teacher when they have bad grades.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

Well, it depends. You could have a classroom with 70 highly motivated students, and love it. You find this in Africa were teachers are scarce and respected, children are abundant and want to learn. I went to visit a female friend that leaved everything in Europe(executive in a bug multinational, a good house) to help and teach poor children in Africa. After going there and seeing it myself I understood: those kids were the best students ever and they loved their teachers so much. On the contrary in wealthy countries it is common to find someone in each class that does not want to study and does not want anybody else in the class to study too. That makes teaching a bad experience.

bluedino 12y ago
Do wealthy countries like Iceland have this problem? They have very small class sizes and high-ranking school systems.
- xrange 12y ago
  Extrapolating anything from Iceland seems dubious. Since it is tiny (300,000) and so culturally and racially homogenous (84% of Icelanders apparently belong to the official state Luthern church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iceland

gwern 12y ago

> The initiative will cost nearly $5 billion through 2019, a hefty sum considering that the state’s current two-year budget for public education is around $15 billion....Project STAR is the gold standard in class-size reduction literature because it’s the only randomized study on the issue that’s been conducted since the early 20th century...Florida’s program cost $20 billion over eight years, about the same as the estimates for the Washington initiative. And Project STAR was estimated to cost about $400,000 for each student who eventually went to college, compared to $133,000 for HeadStart. “Reducing class size is one of the most expensive things you can do in education,” Chingos said. And people keep asking whether we can afford, ethically or financially, to run randomized trials...

logfromblammo 12y ago

Even a 1:1 teacher-student ratio would not improve education if that teacher cannot respond and adapt to the needs of the student. If that teacher is bound by a common curriculum and testing regime, or an otherwise rigid administration, you might as well teach with a bunch of robots. Bring on the anecdote. Math is taught by very different methods now than those I remember, and I shudder to think about what is being taught in class now when my child can do a homework worksheet and get every single question on it completely wrong. And the reason, as far as I can tell, is because the curriculum is sometimes using logarithms and decimal-shift operations to teach multiplication and division. They are literally teaching kids to simulate the mechanical processes behind slide rules and abacuses in their brains in lieu of just memorizing the multiplication table. The entire system seems constructed around the complete avoidance of rote memorization. But that is how I learned to multiply. Memorization of the multiplication table from 0x0 to 9x9 was absolutely required. You could not progress at all if you could not quickly look up any of those 100 numbers. 55, really, thanks to multiplication being a commutative operation. Or 36 if you could also remember that 0xn=0 and 1xn=n. Rather than ask kids to memorize and index those 36 numbers for quick recall, I see piles of nonsense about "compatible numbers" and "reasonable numbers" and other concepts of dubious value outside the narrow context of quickly selecting the correct answer in a multiple-choice test, without actually doing the work. I actually had to teach my child that the exact answer to a math question is, in fact, a reasonable estimate. To top it off, judging from Feynman's anecdote about being on a textbook selection committee, this same nonsense, or cleverly repackaged iterations of it, has continued unabated for decades. Wakalixes make it go. Wakalixes pay the bills. Wakalixes extract the tax dollars and deliver it to the rent-seeker. And the students continue to learn, or fail, largely based upon whether their individual teachers care more than the median amount. The economics of public education create too wide of a separation between the interests of the student and the signers of the checks. No matter how hard you push on that rope, the load will barely move. Adding more money will not help when there is already very little connection between the amount spent and the observed outcomes.

tzs 12y ago

> In 2012, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled the legislature had failed to uphold its “paramount duty” to fully fund the state’s educational system. For those in other states who might be wondering why the Court would find that the legislature had a "paramount duty", it's in the State Constitution [1]: ------------------ ARTICLE IX EDUCATION SECTION 1 PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex. SECTION 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools. ------------------ [1] http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx