Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014122045.htm
"The study suggests that reducing class size in early grades provides a dual benefit: It raises achievement for all students through middle school, while also closing the persistently large gap between high- and low-achievers, say authors Spyros Konstantopoulos from Michigan State University and Vicki Chung from Northwestern University."
Kids drop out for a lot of reasons but to just say they aren't interested in education is akin to burying ones head in the sand regarding the issue - why aren't they interested in education, do they have a different learning style which can't be accomodated in a larger classroom.
I am amazed that people think that it is ridiculous to suggest that children do better in smaller class sizes. Is it the only factor - of course not, you need qualified, motivated teachers as well and guess what... employees like that cost money and you sure don't motivate people by threatening to cut their wages and go back on previously signed contracts.
|
I never said it is ridiculous. I said its not the 'big' problem that people think it is. There are a lot of factors involved where a child gets a good education. Class size is probably pretty far down the list when you considering teacher quality(not quantity)....parenting influence, the curriculum, resources available in terms of equipment(for physics/chemistry class, etc, etc)...or even the classes being offered, which is often solved by interactive television, and not MORE teachers like you're suggesting.
When I was in grade 12, the school I attended offered a history class over interactive television. The teacher who was teaching the course came from another school in the district, and I have the chance to sit in on a few of the classes. The students in my school did very well compared to the students in the school where the physically located.
Why am I bringing that up? Because its an example of how technology can help lower the cost of education and increase the efficiency and overall learning experience. That history course wasn't available to me in grade 11. Sure, my school could have paid another $60,000 to a teacher to teach it, but instead they came up with a better alternative. And it was more cost effective too.
And that was over 5 years ago. I'd imagine the technology has changed immensely since then.
Your idea of education revolves around a dated 'model' that doesn't include how much more efficient technology can make the learning experience.