April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Slava

What grades were you in where you had those class sizes as well? It makes a huge difference depending on the ages.

The other big difference now is that there are more non-English speaking students and learning disabled students integrated into the 'normal' classrooms, taking up a lot more of the teacher's time; if class sizes were the same as they were when I was a kid the teacher would have a lot less time to work with most students.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

Class size is a big problem. The more kids in a class the less time a teacher has to respond to each student's individual problem. Factor in more learning disability and ESL students in any given classroom and that time shrinks even more. What you are left with is the 'dated model', a bunch of kids jammed in a room with a teacher standing at the front lecturing.

Your personal experience over 5 years ago only speaks to your personal experience and nothing more.

[Jacks]

I guess I'm getting old but they used to have separate classes for ESL and learning disabled, those classes were much smaller because they needed more attention. We had at least 30 kids in a regular class, probably more like 35. That was the 80's however.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I guess I'm getting old but they used to have separate classes for ESL and learning disabled, those classes were much smaller because they needed more attention. We had at least 30 kids in a regular class, probably more like 35. That was the 80's however.

Not sure what they are talking about either. From my experience in a small-town school, students with learning disabilities were never part of the normal classroom. Once you got into high school, there was a higher level, and a lower level that students could choose depending on their ability to learn.

This was in 2004 about.

Class size was never a problem. Well except when the teachers decided they wanted to strike in the middle of the year leaving us with 2 months of vacation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flamingreen

Class size is a big problem. The more kids in a class the less time a teacher has to respond to each student's individual problem. Factor in more learning disability and ESL students in any given classroom and that time shrinks even more. What you are left with is the 'dated model', a bunch of kids jammed in a room with a teacher standing at the front lecturing.

Your personal experience over 5 years ago only speaks to your personal experience and nothing more.

Students with learning disabilities have no reason to be part of a normal classroom. I have absolutely no problem spending money to help these kids.

Otherwise if the students are on the same level, a classroom size of 30-35 should not be a problem.

Besides, we're turning this into a bigger deal than it actually is. On a list of 1-10, classroom size is probably a 3 in terms of being a concern. I'd imagine parental influence on education is near the top of the list and no amount of money we spend will fix that.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Azure

Students with learning disabilities have no reason to be part of a normal classroom. I have absolutely no problem spending money to help these kids.

The best way to help those kids isn't to segregate them, it is to spend money on Educational Assistants and have them be part of the regular classroom. Just putting a kid with a developmental disability into another classroom doesn't do anyone any good, it just further stigmatizes the mentally ill that they are less worthy and less deserving of being in a classroom with their peers.

What do you consider a learning disability by the way? Because I am pretty sure you are thinking of developmental disabilities.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Students with learning disabilities have no reason to be part of a normal classroom. I have absolutely no problem spending money to help these kids.

Well

a) No money is being spent on these kids (or some of them anyway), parents have to pony up ten thousand + dollars themselves and spend a significant amount of time fundraising and getting donations from people and companies just to have a place where their kids can learn in an environment that understands them and will work with them. Nice for families that can afford it I guess.

b) That's easy to say, but the world isn't so black and white. There are tons of kids who fall into the grey area between a dedicated school and public education. Kids' social needs don't just go away because they happen to need extra help, so some don't fit into a specialized school. Most conditions aren't on/off, they're on a wide spectrum and putting kids at one end with kids at the other end is often more harm than good in some ways. Some kids do better in public if they can just get a little extra support. Some school districts are great and very willing to help with this. Others aren't and actually make life worse for parents with kids with challenges.

We're just in the process of trying to transition my son from a specialized school to a public school, and fortunately I live in one of the good school districts, but I've spoken with workers that have told horror stories about some places where the kids are almost used as political pawns.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The best way to help those kids isn't to segregate them, it is to spend money on Educational Assistants and have them be part of the regular classroom. Just putting a kid with a developmental disability into another classroom doesn't do anyone any good, it just further stigmatizes the mentally ill that they are less worthy and less deserving of being in a classroom with their peers.

What do you consider a learning disability by the way? Because I am pretty sure you are thinking of developmental disabilities.

Normal classroom means 1 teacher, x amount of students. If it takes educational assistants to help students with learning disabilities, fine. Keep them in the normal classroom with extra attention.

Pretty sure that isn't what the issue is here. I was talking about students who can learn just fine doing okay in a classroom with more students.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Well

a) No money is being spent on these kids (or some of them anyway), parents have to pony up ten thousand + dollars themselves and spend a significant amount of time fundraising and getting donations from people and companies just to have a place where their kids can learn in an environment that understands them and will work with them. Nice for families that can afford it I guess.

b) That's easy to say, but the world isn't so black and white. There are tons of kids who fall into the grey area between a dedicated school and public education. Kids' social needs don't just go away because they happen to need extra help, so some don't fit into a specialized school. Most conditions aren't on/off, they're on a wide spectrum and putting kids at one end with kids at the other end is often more harm than good in some ways. Some kids do better in public if they can just get a little extra support. Some school districts are great and very willing to help with this. Others aren't and actually make life worse for parents with kids with challenges.

We're just in the process of trying to transition my son from a specialized school to a public school, and fortunately I live in one of the good school districts, but I've spoken with workers that have told horror stories about some places where the kids are almost used as political pawns.

I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I have no problem with spending money helping kids with learning disabilities if it can be proven that the money is being spent efficiently.

But simply generalizing things like class sizes and saying we need to spend more money to get class sizes down to 25 students because kids in classes with 35 kids aren't getting a proper education is to me a pretty dumb excuse.

Especially when people like MMF then use that logic to say that is why kids drop out of school. Your son already has something a LOT of other kids don't have. Parents that care. And parents can be a VERY important influence on how a child approaches school. Saying that we need to reduce class sizes to keep kids from dropping out is a ignorant statement when 1 on 1 teaching won't help a kid if his parents don't influence him in such a way that schooling is important.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not sure why this is being brought up.

Because you said this: "Students with learning disabilities have no reason to be part of a normal classroom." The kids themselves are the best reason.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Because you said this: "Students with learning disabilities have no reason to be part of a normal classroom." The kids themselves are the best reason.

Because like I said a normal classroom is usually 1 teacher, x amount of students.

That is normal to me, and probably normal to most kids. I don't ever recall having teacher aids, unless it was in the earlier years. Granted, a small-town school doesn't have the resources either for more teachers so we made do.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

But simply generalizing things like class sizes and saying we need to spend more money to get class sizes down to 25 students because kids in classes with 35 kids aren't getting a proper education is to me a pretty dumb excuse.

Not sure if it has been touched upon, but if the Student to teacher ratio is 25:1, then no class will have under 30 students and most classes will have around 35*. That ratio counts all teachers, including administrators and teachers of smaller classes. Just because you had 35 kids in your class, doesn't mean the ration was 35, in fact I would bet it was below 25.

*I am not 100% sure of the numbers, but the point is still relevant.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because like I said a normal classroom is usually 1 teacher, x amount of students.

That is normal to me, and probably normal to most kids. I don't ever recall having teacher aids, unless it was in the earlier years. Granted, a small-town school doesn't have the resources either for more teachers so we made do.

I remember seeing a few, but there were kids in the classes that needed them, and I was in a 250 kid K-12 school for a while. That was in SK though.

Now it really just depends on what's required, in the school we're moving into they have a few aides that work with all the classes as there's no kid that requires a full time aide. For my kid's move it looks like they're hiring someone to add to their pool of aides to accommodate him.

But just because your idea of a normal classroom is 1 teacher x kids, or that the standard classroom is that, doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. There's good reasons for those kids to be in "normal" classrooms associating with "normal" kids. The biggest one being that constantly marginalizing a child because he isn't "normal" just compounds the problems associated with not being typical.

[Jacks]

Wow, this election could get nasty before it's over.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2388261/

And now, the Tories are in serious damage control after a staffer in the premier’s office publicly questioned the Wildrose commitment to family since Ms. Smith, who turns 41 on Sunday, and her husband, David Moretta, don’t have biological children. (Ms. Smith has a stepson from Mr. Moretta’s previous marriage.) On Friday, Amanda Wilkie, who once worked for the Wildrose Party before joining the government, tweeted:
“If @ElectDanielle likes young and growing families so much, why doesn’t she have children of her own?’ Ms. Wilkie wrote, along with “#wrp family pack = insincere.”
On Saturday, Ms. Smith issued a response: she tried, and failed to conceive.
“When David and I married in 2006 we intended to have children together,” Ms. Smith said in a statement, “After a few years we sought help from the Calgary Regional Fertility Clinic. I appreciated the support and assistance of the caring staff as we went through tests and treatments, but in the end we were not successful.”

She also apologized minutes after the tweet (“Fine. I apologize”) and later wrote: “140 characters, didn't come across the way I meant it and for that I'm sorry. I meant to imply something entirely different.”

Nice apology. What the heck could she possibly have meant?

[kn]

An indepth article on G&M's obvious choice:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2387909/

Her background really seems like she's better suited to Federal politics than trying to protect the interests of a province.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Wow, this election could get nasty before it's over.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2388261/


Nice apology. What the heck could she possibly have meant?

For the conspiracy theorists out there, the PC staffer's father is apparently part of Danielle Smith's election staff; I have no sources as it was just posted among the comments in the above story.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by kn

For the conspiracy theorists out there, the PC staffer's father is apparently part of Danielle Smith's election staff; I have no sources as it was just posted among the comments in the above story.

What conspiracy theory?
And what does her father have to do with it?

[kn]

Originally Posted by Jacks

What conspiracy theory?
And what does her father have to do with it?

Isn't it obvious? He works for the opposition.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by kn

Isn't it obvious? He works for the opposition.

Okay I get it, the WR planted her in the PC campaign team by using mind control on her father.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

And the connection with high school graduation rates is mentioned where?

Are you actually questioning whether there is a connection between achievement in school and graduation rates? You know what no matter what I post and what research is out there I am sure you will stick to your same opinion so google the #### yourself.