Message from @tereško
Discord ID: 610761054141808658
I found the study, @tereško:
"This effect was concentrated in the first year that students participated in the program. In addition, the positive effects of class size were largest for black students, economically disadvantaged students, and boys."
https://www.brookings.edu/research/class-size-what-research-says-and-what-it-means-for-state-policy/
For gifted students you're better off being more selective about which teachers you hire, and giving them room to work.
Home School
naah, home schooling is a terrible idea
kids need to socialize and compete
They do
Doesn’t have to be through school.
Genetic confounding.
If smarter people are more likely to home school, then home school could outperform public school for entirely unrelated reasons. That said, home schooled students do have higher college graduation levels, lower crime rates, and better test scores across the board.
There are no recorded measures that I know of, where home schooled students perform worse than public school.
And (and this is the kicker) the parents are in control of of the rhetoric.
“How should a nation educate its children?”
Is a very different question to,
“How should *you* raise *your* kids?”
*"In addition, the positive effects of class size were largest for black students, economically disadvantaged students, and boys"*
@Arthur Grayborn that by definition is more than 50% of all students
and that just says "largest positive effects" .. no mention of negative effect at all 😃
@tereško - Have you also considered that class size might have an influence on academic performance, entirely unrelated to the teacher? Smaller class sizes mean fewer disruptive students, which means a larger percentage of your time can be spent on actual education, and not glorified daycare work.
You could likely achieve the same exact results, by ejecting disruptive students from the classroom and sending them to special ed.
Less kids in each class means the teacher has more time to devote to each student.
This is fairly obvious.
It's also probably irrelevant.
Less kids in each class means the teacher has to spend less time getting the class under control, which means you can cover more of the material and answer more questions.
It could be lecture time and total questions answered that are the driving factors behind class size and performance, and that actual time per student is entirely irrelevant.
Which would make sense when you look at Japan, a nation with massive class sizes and world leading academic performance. They have little patience for disruptive students.
But Japan has an entirely different culture. A culture that I’d say is largely responsible for their results.
Nah. Just put them in a classroom with other disruptive students, and make it clear that if they don't learn to behave then prison is very much in their future.
that's just like an asian way for growing the most poisonous insect possible
put them all in the same bucket and the last surviving one is the most poisonous
It doesn't matter how you reduce the number of disruptions, @tereško.
Smaller class sizes and ejecting disruptive students will BOTH improve academic performance, but only one of those can be done without having to increase education spending by a ridiculous amount.
the difference is that one approach "ejects students", while other educates all of the students
That's like saying you shouldn't cast murderers, drug dealers, and pedophiles out of normal society. The difference is that one approach "ejects people" while the other embraces the humanity of all people.
The “disruptive children” and by that I mean the ones who’ve made it entirely obvious that they’re impossible to teach, should be expelled.
They should then be put into some kind of school that’s half way between regular school and trade school.
If that fails.... meh? You’ve done what you can. Handball them back to the parents and say “You fucked up. Your problem now.”
What the fuck is up with me mixing up my words?
My mind is running faster than my keyboard. FML...
no, your mind is a very very dark place
you think that just because kid is "disruptive", it is a good reason for that kid to be ejected from society
U need to overclock your keyboard
No, I believe that most humans are fairly neutral, while the good ones and bad ones are "end of the bell curve" type people. Most people don't need to be ejected from society, but a fairly large number of them do. I'd say probably about 2-5%.
The 2-5% on the other end, the truly good ones, should be identified and put in positions of power.
I’ll agree with you about the bottom 2-5
sorry, but assigning labels like "good ones" and "bad ones" to 9 year olds seems somewhat retarded
But the top 2-5... you’re talking about making folks god-Kings.
We’ve tried that.
It’s not good.
Personalities are pretty much set in stone by that age.
Parents, peers, there's not much the school can do.
Nah, @Scale_e. Just finding them and encouraging them to do leadership crap.
"Hey, if you run for class president you could push for the school to fix X, Y, Z problems. Your classmates could really use someone who gives a crap about everyone else!"
Encourage people who care, and are also competent, to put themselves in a position where they can actually do something.