Message from @tereško
Discord ID: 610762265800736768
“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.
@Arthur Grayborn so .. send all the disruptive students to .. emm .. prison
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...
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.
fuck this ... I will not waste more time on arguing with biological determinists
The thing is, there’s no standardized test, applicable to teenagers, that is predictive of good leadership.
Noticing good leadership is done via... well, knowing people.
@tereško - Who says I'm a biological determinist?
I’m not a biological determinist either.
Childhood nurture is a HUGE deal, and it's also something you can fuck up royally, and something that can only be "fixed" if you start at a young age. Once people hit 9/10, there's not much you can do to change them.
(Hard determinist, cause/effect, absence of free will, *maybe*)
(But that’s another argument)
If you want to raise someone as a future leader of society, you basically have to start them out as a toddler. Parenting is pretty much everything, and on top of that you also have to put them in a great social circle where people won't drag them down or debase their work ethic.
Once people hit a certain age, personalities don't change that much.
It's like smoking. If mom and dad smoke, odds are the kid will smoke too. If mom and dad are non-smokers, but the kid's friends all have parents who smoke, then that kid's probably still gonna become a smoker.