elg@nuchat.UUCP (Eric Green) (04/01/88)
From AP newsitem: Reducing class size in publis schools is very expensive and likely "a waste of money and effort" for those seeking improved student achievement, according to a study issued Wednesday by the Department of Education. There now re 24 pupils in the typical public elementary school classroom, down from 30 in 1961. Past research has indicated classes would need to be 15 students to have any appreciable impact. But that would cost upwards of 69 billion and require hiring a million new teachers, when school systems already have problems finding qualified teachers. "the number of students they teach has never been fewer and .. their workload has never been lighter," said he report, "Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas." "lowering class size has become an ersatz reform goal around the country. There are a lot of better and less costly things you can do and get better results." The preport emphasized that Japan has achieved the world's highest math achievement scores with math classes that average 41 pupiles. "available resources should instead be directed to improving the quality of instruction and teachers' ability to manage the demands of classrooms as they are currently configured." --------- Commentary: If we continue to teach our children using the same old outdated methods that we've been using for the past 50-80 years, class size could be FIVE and still not be "low enough". Eric Green uunet!nuchat!elg
tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) (04/05/88)
In article <882@nuchat.UUCP>, elg@nuchat.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > <AP News article deleted...> > --------- > Commentary: If we continue to teach our children using the same > old outdated methods that we've been using for the past 50-80 years, > class size could be FIVE and still not be "low enough". > > Eric Green uunet!nuchat!elg What suggestions do you have to offer in this regard? We may have beaten the calculator in the classroom business to death...but there should be some other things we can discuss. To me the biggest problems facing our schools are apathetic students and parents (read: if parents (when around) don't give a damn about their children's education the kids won't either) and math-phobic elementary teachers. NOTE: The first problem is a SOCIAL issue with all sorts of causes. Also, a public high school I know about had a parents organization attempt to oust the principal because the (get this) ATHLETIC TEAMS were not up to their satisfaction. Now this school had several Nationl Merit Finalists in the years that I went to college in that town. (Small town, 5500 people) Eric, I agree with you that class size is not the answer, but you over simplify things claiming "outdated methods" is a causal factor. -Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Hausmann Dept. of Computer Sciences Purdue University tlh@mordred.cs.purdue.edu | My ideas? There has never been an original ...!purdue!tlh | thought since Plato.
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/06/88)
> > From AP newsitem: > > Reducing class size in publis schools is very expensive and likely > "a waste of money and effort" for those seeking improved student > achievement, according to a study issued Wednesday by the Department > of Education. > There now re 24 pupils in the typical public elementary school > classroom, down from 30 in 1961. Past research has indicated > classes would need to be 15 students to have any appreciable impact. > But that would cost upwards of 69 billion and require hiring a > million new teachers, when school systems already have problems > finding qualified teachers. > > "the number of students they teach has never been fewer and .. their > workload has never been lighter," said he report, > "Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas." > "lowering class size has become an ersatz reform goal around the > country. There are a lot of better and less costly things you can > do and get better results." > The preport emphasized that Japan has achieved the world's highest > math achievement scores with math classes that average 41 pupiles. > > "available resources should instead be directed to improving the > quality of instruction and teachers' ability to manage the > demands of classrooms as they are currently configured." > > --------- > Commentary: If we continue to teach our children using the same > old outdated methods that we've been using for the past 50-80 years, > class size could be FIVE and still not be "low enough". > Only in the last 10-20 years have educational indices declined. Maybe we should go back to some of the basics discarded in the late 60s. Speaking of class size, a Japanese class of 2000 would be more manageable than an American class of 10 due to cultural differences (docility, conformity, respect for authority, etc.).
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (04/07/88)
In article <85@avsd.UUCP>, govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: .... > > There now re 24 pupils in the typical public elementary school > > classroom, down from 30 in 1961. Past research has indicated > > classes would need to be 15 students to have any appreciable impact. > > But that would cost upwards of 69 billion and require hiring a > > million new teachers, when school systems already have problems > > finding qualified teachers. .... > > The preport emphasized that Japan has achieved the world's highest > > math achievement scores with math classes that average 41 pupiles. > > > > "available resources should instead be directed to improving the > > quality of instruction and teachers' ability to manage the > > demands of classrooms as they are currently configured." --------- > > Commentary: If we continue to teach our children using the same > > old outdated methods that we've been using for the past 50-80 years, > > class size could be FIVE and still not be "low enough". > Only in the last 10-20 years have educational indices declined. > Maybe we should go back to some of the basics discarded in the > late 60s. I would like to make a few comments. Our educational indices are very poor measures, but they are the best we have. Our teaching methods have changed in the past 50 years, mostly for the worst, but our examination methods have become absolutely atrocious. The important parts of the courses are almost totally ignored in evaluating the students! Before the social adjustment (put your favorite pejorative here) gurus got into the school systems about 50 years ago, even elementary school courses had content. Children were expected to learn about X in course Y, and in later course Z, they were expected to be able to use their knowledge of X. This was even the case if X was badly taught; the even fairly good elementary texts do a better job of teaching the use of variables than the high school books then or now. Even though it was very badly taught then, junior high students were tested on the ability to solve word problems. The ones who could not do it were effectively eliminated from taking subsequent mathematics, so those teaching high school mathematics were not concerned with students who could not do this type of abstraction. I have no objection to teaching those who cannot figure for themselves the use of symbols that use. In fact, I think it should be done no later than the third grade. But I would expect students to be reasonably adept in using symbols as language in subsequent presentations. I do not think that 25% of the present high school teachers of mathematics are capable of this. The testing methods of >50 years ago with the slight improvements in teaching methods since, properly applied by reasonable teachers, can do the job even with large classes, provided we consider the level of the course not adjustable to the level of the students. It would take at least a 20 year program to get enough qualified teachers. If we now raise all teachers' salaries, this will perpetuate control by the baby sitters. We also have to recognize that different children should proceed at different rates, and we may need different teaching methods for the same subject. The use of television classes (not lectures) may make things possible. Teachers should also be talent scouts and recognize that they are quite capable of destroying thinking ability. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet
John_MicroFone_Kelley@cup.portal.com (04/14/88)
What do you teach my friend ... you compare Japan to USA ... ohhh good grief ..