Get Schooled

By MMM

March 9, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Do you think we would believe them if they told us?

Do you think they are smart enough to be able to figure the cost out?

Are they honest enough to tell the truth if they could figure it out?

Do you really think that a bunch of folks with members that can claim that “sparklers have no combustable material in them” and “there are only 4 or 5 families in the state that don’t have bibles available at home” can be believe on anything this complicated. We are fighting a mult-generational problem of poor math skills.

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

By Nel

March 9, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

This is just another badly though out solution in an election cycle. They obviously belive the populace is too stupid to crunch the numbers. I think it’s interesting that former Governor Barnes’ idea now seems like such a good idea NOW. Any teacher will tell you the smaller is more manageable. That’s nothing new. There are already too many schools, some newly built with 20+- trailers (or portable classrooms to make it sound better). How does this help them? If you ask any parent or teacher, they would much rather be inside the main building. Close to 70% of my property taxes already go toward education. Lord help us here in GA because our legislators are clueless. This just another piece of “sound bite” legislation.

By lynn d

March 9, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Keep in mind that this doesn’t go into effect until the 2007-2008 school year. After the election, in the next legislative session, I can almost guarantee you that this law will be changed or repealed and those of us with kids in overcrowded classrooms will be right in the same place.

Can you say DIRTY politics?

By V for Vendetta

March 9, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

There is absolutely no doubt that reducing the number of kids in a class makes teaching easier AND more effective. (HOWEVER) There are other things that need to change that I think are just as important that would not cost John Q. taxpayer a thing. What about discipline and administrative support? What about getting rid of NCLB?

Dealing with the same old crap from students and administrators is just as annoying when you have a class of 20 as it is when you have a class of 25.

I know that’s not really an answer to the question, but I just feel like this class size issue is not nearly as important as people make it out to be. JMHO from the front lines.

By Jeff

March 9, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

But pollsters didn’t ask whether parents would want smaller classes if it meant classes could be split midyear, children would attend school in trailers or be taught by less experienced teachers.

I’m sick and tired of the disrespect first year teachers get!!!!! We are usually the ones coming in with the most innovative ideas, yet no one pays any attention to us! Yes, a “veteran” has a better sense of the problems that need to be dealt with and ones to leave alone and when to escalate to the next level, but those skills can be learned! How do you deal with a “veteran” who is burned out and only sticks with teaching because they can retire in a couple of years? The veterans at my school are GREAT. They’ve been HIGHLY supportive of me and VERY helpful and understanding. But I’ve met a few in my day that I would - and have - called out for the horrendous job they were doing. (So horrible that it was noticeable by a novice!)

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

Anyway, ranting done. Carry on!

By high school teacher

March 9, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Did the “65% in the classroom” pass yet? If so, that’s how they can justify spending tons o’money hiring new teachers to make smaller classes. I’ll be the first to pipe in and say that smaller classes are much more effective. However, those numbers come at a price. It might mean that Cobb Co teachers won’t get a lap-top after all. It might mean getting rid of secretaries’ assistants in Cenral Office (Sorry for the biting tone today; it’s Thursday - teachers understand the significance of a Thursday).

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

March 9, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Hey Jeff,

My daughter had a first year teacher in second grade and she turned out to be a blessing.

More politics in education, that only comes every 4 to six years. The class size should have been reduced 10 years or more. Yes, our legislator should know the cost, before they vote on any subject. But, it doesn’t matter - they will vote like blind and deaf people anyway.

If, they vote yes - where does the money come from to hire all the new teachers? My guess, is it will be just another bill on the books without “Funding”. Something to say, we tried to lower the student teacher ratio.

By Litmajor

March 9, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

I think that this is more “election” talk. Yes, the public should know the cost but I doubt it will be a realistic figure. Also, where will all the teachers come from? Where will the space come from? I don’t know any schools that aren’t bursting at the seams already. Smaller class sizes are far better for everyone involved, but I just don’t think this will go anywhere.

Like someone else mentioned, former Gov. Barnes’s ideas sound pretty good all of a sudden. If I were a legislator, I would insist that my fellow legislators actually try to fix things like NCLB, the horrible drop out rate and the many other issues surrounding education here in Georgia.

By BlindHomer

March 9, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

It’s pretty clear there isn’t enough money for smaller class sizes, brick classrooms, and competent teachers. I’m for raising the bar for qualifying for the Hope and adding a needs test, than using the money saved to improve primary and secondary education. Currently there’s a lot of money going to kids that don’t need it and those that don’t deserve it since many just go party at UGA for a year and flunk out or at least lose the Hope (40%).

By SET

March 9, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

It is a huge mistake to write in stone a rigid plan at the state level that will cost all this money. Small class size does not magically create better results in education.

The local school districts need flexibility and they sure don’t need the $60,000 student problem. Flexibility is more important than small class size.

The schools need the freedom to arrange their classes and their student placement to get results (by which I mean better student achievement levels on math and verbal standardized tests and on subject mastery exams). That includes the freedom to remove disruptive and failing students to other programs so normal students don’t have to suffer their presence.

If productivity were the goal of local education this would be occurring. Since it is not I suspect that political correctness and political patronage is the mission of the schools (as set by the state legislature), not productivity.

This is why families spend so much money on private schools in 2006 compared with 1966.

In the end it’s the poorer children that grow up unable to provide for themselves. The wealthy and the smart will be fine, thank you.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

By E. Lewis

March 9, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

My perspective as a former math teacher is that it will always be cheaper to get the football coach to teach a math class with 32 student than it will be to hire a qualified math teacher to work with classes of 25 students each.

From the students’ point of view that is a bad thing. From the voters/taxpayers’ point of view it’s not.

By michelle

March 9, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

for all of you who say you are positive that smaller class sizes mean better education for the students, have you read any research to back this up, or back up the figure of exactly 20 students? if anyone actually did their homework they would know that 1)no particular class size has been proven as the most effective for learning, and that studies have shown there are limited effects of reducing a class size once you get to a certain size (meaning that if you reduce a class from 25 to 20, there may not be any added improvement in student outcomes); 2)some studies show that other alternatives are more effective at improving student outcomes than simply reducing class size; 3)it is debated that even class size reduction has a large effect on studewnt outcomes.

this legislation is more PR work than anything and the state cannot possibly provided enough funding to make this a long term program.

By Ernest

March 9, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

I think as taxpayers, we should want to know the cost of ANY initiative like this. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe there was a precedent in CA several years ago like this. The were not enough ‘highly qualified’ teachers thus many students ended up with inexperienced teachers and their education was compromised.

By I_Teach

March 10, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

Hi, I do teach..every single day (my class is in their “special” now..so I am not neglecting my duties, thank you).

Let me tell you-having fewer children DOES improve my ability to reach my students who are struggling.

When I began teaching over 20 years ago, my first class had 33 first graders-no assistants or paras to help. My strugglers really struggled…my higher kids were given more independence, because they needed less help. Definitely NOT fair to them, and not fair to the ones in the middle.

I now have 20 in my class. It does make it easier for me to reach ALL of my students, and with even fewer, I could tailor specific lessons for specific children. However, with larger class sizes, and no extra hands, right now, I target my middles, try to differentiate for my really high kids, and work with my strugglers.

Anyone who says smaller class sizes doesn’t make a difference is insane. My sons learned a lot less efficiently in lab classes in high school with 35 kids…no room, harder class to manage..than they did with smaller sizes.

“Research” isn’t the only way to determine if this works. Anecdotal evidence straight from teachers will really tell the tale.

Am I a better teacher now than I was then? Maybe..but I DO know a huge factor is that i have 13 less now than I did, and that in and of itself makes a vast difference in how I can approach teaching my varied class!

By M

March 10, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Absolutely! This is a big smokescreen issue to reduce the work of teachers and hire more teachers to benefit the education UNIONS at the expense of the taxpayer and the student! I was in school when class size was as many as 30 to 35 students! All who wanted to learn did, class size is no problem! A better solution is to structure classes based on ability! Place fast learners in seperate or advanced classes to challenge them! Provide those who learn at a slower pace with the tools they need to succede! This will reduce costs and provide a better overall education to all students!

By Nel

March 10, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

I read Mike King’s column yesterday in the AJC and it throws the entire dynamics of funding for eduction in the future into a completely different sphere. Well worth reading by all. The point that education funding will become increasingly problematic is one that must be addressed now because these knee-jerk reactions to the problem will not fix anything. I hope somebody is actually forecasting future funding because we are in for some serious problems in the near future.

By Dan

March 10, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Certainly the cost should be made known, as with any other gov spending. However just as critical if not more so is where do these teachers come from? Is there a factory somewhere that will just crank out these extra teachers? The studies that indicate smaller classes result in better results assume the teachers ability is the same in both cases. That of course is where the theoretical world departs from reality. Since another frequent complaint is a shortage of teachers reduction in class size would result in lowering the stds. I would rather have a good teacher with 30 kids than a poor one with 20

By EW

March 10, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

M,

We don’t have unions in Georgia, and the difference here, is that all children don’t want to learn, they come to school to have something to do. Because by law we are required to teach them, so it’s not the same.

By Nel

March 10, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

People keep talking about class sizes when “they” were in school. School is different and children are different now. When you have parents who don’t give a rats about whether their children learn or not you can’t have 30-35 children in a class with one teacher because many aren’t disciplined enough. Times have changed and we need to adapt to that change. When I was in school for each “grade” we had A-D classed and with the brighter kids in say 7th grade were in 7A on down. Math and English were the core subjects so even if you might not be so great in Math but great in English although you were in say 7C, you would join 7A or 7B for English. With the yearly school exams, the teacher could see improvements so you could move up with each grade level as you became more proficient. This was something you had an opportunity to work at achieving. When you have kids who are willing and eager to learn, yes you can have larger sizes. We are operating however, in today’s real world of public education.

By SET

March 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

It’s not that class size doesn’t matter. Of course they do in certain subjects.

The state should allow the districts flexibility rather than post a rigid state standard for all classes of all types and ages.

Generally class size does not control productivity. Discipline and structure is a greater factor for productivity. We have lost that in the public schools today as compared to 40 years ago. We lost it when we stopped challenging the kids and punishing failure.

By I_Teach

March 10, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

M, Can you please direct me to any of Georgia’s teacher UNIONS??

I belong to GEA—an ‘arm’ of NEA. We have NO collective bargaining rights, and GAE can do precious little to effect our contracts. They try, but because we are not ALLOWED to have a union, per se, they are very uninvolved unless there’s a disciplinary issue, which few teachers experience (disciplinary—not talking students, here).

The only benefit, as I see it for class size reduction, is for the CHILDREN. If I can reach them more effectively, rather than giving ‘busy work,’ or managing behavior problems because I am so outnumbered, my students suffer. It is easier for me to really TEACH TO MASTERY when I have a ‘manageable’ size class.

I am good at what I do…I know that. However, some kids require extra..and there’s only ONE of me in here….(and I wouldn’t be anywhere else!)

;-) Lovin’ what I do…

By Nikole

March 10, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

As a former teacher in a class size reduction school, it is DEFINITELY worth the money. Research of the STAR project also shows benefits, mostly to minority students, of class size reduction. Please keep in mind that I taught 2nd grade and most benefits occur in the primary grades. But as a teacher, I can see ways to better run a high school class with fewer students as well. I do not know where extra teachers, classrooms etc would come from, but if a school can reasonably do it, then they should.

By JW

March 10, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Anyone claiming that class size does not make a difference has never worked in a classroom. Even a couple of students can make a huge difference in this day and age. For those “back when I was in school” people…hey, it’s 2006 - wake up! Times have certainly changed while you have been daydreaming about the 1960’s.

As far as what the “research” shows - with educational research, you can make the data support whatever conclusion you are seeking. That is why in the world of education “new” strategies and learning models are constantly being forced down teachers’ throats only to be discarded a few years later for the latest, greatest fad.

Maybe one positive of this might be that school districts will be forced to eliminate some of their administrative/county office jobs where we have assistants to the assistants of the assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction. I would much rather have the money spent on hiring more teachers than to have these people sitting in their ivory tower offices thinking of more work they can pass along to classroom teachers.

By SET

March 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Small classes in every subject are not an absolute. We shouldn’t waste money by requiring every class be the same small size.

If you want results with your children the school needs to be able to allocate resources as it sees fit to meet it’s mission which may include classes of 12 or 20 on occasion and classes of 35 or 40 on occasion depending on the subject and the student mix.

I’m advocating flexibility and local control, not rigid state rules across the board.

I have taught (In Calif) 8-12 in the very early 1980s. I don’t teach now. I have a BA and a JD. I went to public high school, public college and private college, and public professional school. I have done public speaking at high schools on occasion in the last 25 years. I hate what I see there (although the teachers seem to be very caring they are simply not tough enough).

The present CA public secondary schools place an unreasonable premium on the students and maybe their mothers being happy and content and some nonsense about “self esteem” usually centered on kids who have too much of it in the first place and haven’t earned any in the second.

Yes some classes should be smaller. But we can’t afford to spend the budget we have on making all classes smaller.