Well your children certainly don’t belong to you or anyone else but themselves. If humans have the natural right to life liberty and the product of their labor then children should be no exception.
Treat your children with the rigors that you would treat an adult including the repayment of debt and the responsibility to be self-reliant and you will have succeeded in raising them well.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Well your children certainly don’t belong to you or anyone else but themselves. If humans have the natural right to life liberty and the product of their labor then children should be no exception.
Treat your children with the rigors that you would treat an adult including the repayment of debt and the responsibility to be self-reliant and you will have succeeded in raising them well.[/quote]
Just curious, how many kids do you have?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That is such a creepy and invasive way of pitching the idea that we should dedicate more funding to public education. “We should break through our private idea that kids belong to their families” is fucking ghoulish and makes my skin crawl.
[/quote]
I agree with you except for your failure to reject of “pitching the idea that we should dedicate more funding to public education.” (In fairness, you didn’t accept it; you just didn’t expressly reject the sentiment.)
Not sure about the exact, but the USA spends more per student than almost any country, and yet fails miserably.
The public school teachers and unions — and the inane laws that protect bad teacher and restrict good teachers — are broken.
The answering is not “more money.” It’s burning the system down and starting over.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Well your children certainly don’t belong to you or anyone else but themselves. If humans have the natural right to life liberty and the product of their labor then children should be no exception.
Treat your children with the rigors that you would treat an adult including the repayment of debt and the responsibility to be self-reliant and you will have succeeded in raising them well.[/quote]
Children are considered children because they are not capable of taking responsibility for themselves. Otherwise, I agree with the sentiment. Children become adults by learning how to take responsibility for themselves.
I’ve tried to edit my post above about 3 times. I give up.
I would like this lady to explain how more money translates into better education for a child. Shit, most of the funding for education goes to teachers’ salaries, pensions, and benefits. No one is spending millions or billions on chalk and erasers.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That is such a creepy and invasive way of pitching the idea that we should dedicate more funding to public education. “We should break through our private idea that kids belong to their families” is fucking ghoulish and makes my skin crawl.
[/quote]
I agree with you except for your failure to reject of “pitching the idea that we should dedicate more funding to public education.” (In fairness, you didn’t accept it; you just didn’t expressly reject the sentiment.)
Not sure about the exact, but the USA spends more per student than almost any country, and yet fails miserably.
The public school teachers and unions — and the inane laws that protect bad teacher and restrict good teachers — are broken.
The answering is not “more money.” It’s burning the system down and starting over.[/quote]
Yeah. I forgot that part. I agree that we have been throwing good money after bad for way too long. The entire environment that has been created has WAY less to do with actual teaching and way too much to do with sustaining and improving the terms of labor contracts and an ideological stranglehold on the workforce.
I also don’t like the implication that we are investing badly by not giving more. Investing wisely doesn’t mean throwing all you have into it, (for me) it means making what you have work for the highest yield.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I would like this lady to explain how more money translates into better education for a child. Shit, most of the funding for education goes to teachers’ salaries, pensions, and benefits. No one is spending millions or billions on chalk and erasers. [/quote]
They will argue as they always do: higher pay to retain better teachers.
Teachers are some of the laziest and most highly paid (unskilled) people I know of.
The 20-something teachers just graduating out of college can barely pass the tests themselves.
Education is a complete racket.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Shit, most of the funding for education goes to pensions. No one is spending millions or billions on chalk and erasers. [/quote]
Just trimmed that up a little. Hope you don’t mind.
Generally, teachers (unions) push smaller class size. It’s what we spend most of our money on. It creates more jobs for teachers. It’s also, withing limits, one of the least impactful things on a child’s education.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Generally, teachers (unions) push smaller class size. It’s what we spend most of our money on. It creates more jobs for teachers. It’s also, withing limits, one of the least impactful things on a child’s education.[/quote]
The hidden impact is that more teachers means necessarily less quality teachers.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s also, withing limits, one of the least impactful things on a child’s education.[/quote]
What exactly is this based upon?
I don’t follow education policy closely, but there is a mountain of research that says this ^ isn’t true.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s also, withing limits, one of the least impactful things on a child’s education.[/quote]
What exactly is this based upon?
I don’t follow education policy closely, but there is a mountain of research that says this ^ isn’t true.[/quote]
Studies I read. Good teachers make good students. Bad teachers make bad students. Until class size gets ridiculous, it has little impact on performance.
I’d be interested in your mountain though.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s also, withing limits, one of the least impactful things on a child’s education.[/quote]
What exactly is this based upon?
I don’t follow education policy closely, but there is a mountain of research that says this ^ isn’t true.[/quote]
Studies I read. Good teachers make good students. Bad teachers make bad students. Until class size gets ridiculous, it has little impact on performance.
I’d be interested in your mountain though.[/quote]
“Ridiculous” is relative. I don’t know what would be ridiculous and what wouldn’t, but journals are full of studies that say that class size reduction is at least moderately beneficial, especially early on and especially if you’re talking about 6-10 kids.
For example:
"Despite there being a large literature on class-size effects on academic achievement, only a few studies are of high enough quality and sufficiently relevant to be given credence as a basis for legislative action. Because the pool of credible studies is small; the individual studies differ in the setting, method, grades, and magnitude of class size variation that is studied; and no study is without issues, including those reviewed here, conclusions have to be tentative.
It appears that very large class-size reductions, on the order of magnitude of 7-10 fewer students per class, can have meaningful long-term effects on student achievement and perhaps on non-cognitive outcomes. The academic effects seem to be largest when introduced in the earliest grades, and for students from less advantaged family backgrounds. They may also be largest in classrooms of teachers who are less well prepared and effective in the classroom."
As I said, this isn’t an area that I spend a lot of time thinking about. And I’m sure we could spend the next couple of days producing research and counter-research, study and counter-study. But it’s my impression that there’s far more data that supports class-size reduction (as you’ve alluded to, where it’s really needed) than data that paints it is wasteful.
I do know, though, that a kid in a class of 29 is going to find it a lot easier to fuck around on his cellphone than a kid in a class of 18.
Why does it take 13 years to sub-optimally educate a child?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s also, withing limits, one of the least impactful things on a child’s education.[/quote]
What exactly is this based upon?
I don’t follow education policy closely, but there is a mountain of research that says this ^ isn’t true.[/quote]
Studies I read. Good teachers make good students. Bad teachers make bad students. Until class size gets ridiculous, it has little impact on performance.
I’d be interested in your mountain though.[/quote]
“Ridiculous” is relative. I don’t know what would be ridiculous and what wouldn’t, but journals are full of studies that say that class size reduction is at least moderately beneficial, especially early on and especially if you’re talking about 6-10 kids.
For example:
"Despite there being a large literature on class-size effects on academic achievement, only a few studies are of high enough quality and sufficiently relevant to be given credence as a basis for legislative action. Because the pool of credible studies is small; the individual studies differ in the setting, method, grades, and magnitude of class size variation that is studied; and no study is without issues, including those reviewed here, conclusions have to be tentative.
It appears that very large class-size reductions, on the order of magnitude of 7-10 fewer students per class, can have meaningful long-term effects on student achievement and perhaps on non-cognitive outcomes. The academic effects seem to be largest when introduced in the earliest grades, and for students from less advantaged family backgrounds. They may also be largest in classrooms of teachers who are less well prepared and effective in the classroom."
As I said, this isn’t an area that I spend a lot of time thinking about. And I’m sure we could spend the next couple of days producing research and counter-research, study and counter-study. But it’s my impression that there’s far more data that supports class-size reduction (as you’ve alluded to, where it’s really needed) than data that paints it is wasteful.
I do know, though, that a kid in a class of 29 is going to find it a lot easier to fuck around on his cellphone than a kid in a class of 18.[/quote]
Yeah, I see that one study on huge reductions in there, which as noted is insanely expensive.
It also lists out a lot of the contradicting studies showing no correlation or minimal results.
It really seems to conclude that reductions have to be drastic to have an effect and that the conclusions for improvement are tentative because of lack of credible research.
And again, weigh that against the huge cost of downsizing classes. It isn’t necessarily that it isn’t beneficial; it’s that the rate of return is too low.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I see that one study on huge reductions in there, which as noted is insanely expensive.
It also lists out a lot of the contradicting studies showing no correlation or minimal results.
It really seems to conclude that reductions have to be drastic to have an effect and that the conclusions for improvement are tentative because of lack of credible research.
And again, weigh that against the huge cost of downsizing classes. It isn’t necessarily that it isn’t beneficial; it’s that the rate of return is too low.
[/quote]
Indeed, I have no idea how much a 7-kid reduction costs, but I’m assuming it’s extremely expensive.
But it does seem to be worth it if the class is too big already.
I have no idea what “too big” is.
But I can get on board with the notion that a 3-kid reduction in a class that is already only moderately-sized is not worth the cost.
A while back (about 2 years ago) a friend of mine developed and introduced a concept in teaching that he borrowed from athletic coaching. It involves teaching from your feet, where the teacher actively moves around the classroom addressing individual needs as they occur. The results were phenomenal. He had kids in their early teens with some severe behavior disorders reading for the first time in their lives and standardized test scores went up across the board in his classes.
The district even charged him with teaching this style to other teachers to implement it district wide. Unfortunately, the reception of it and ensuing shit storm got the program dropped.
^You mean he did what normal teachers should be doing anyway?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Shit, most of the funding for education goes to pensions. No one is spending millions or billions on chalk and erasers. [/quote]
Just trimmed that up a little. Hope you don’t mind.
[/quote]
I don’t mind one bit.
Want to know what spending $30k per child per year gets you here ? A graduation rate of 40%.