The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Class sizes and the dead hand of history > Comments

Class sizes and the dead hand of history : Comments

By Dean Ashenden, published 1/3/2013

Smaller class sizes are good, but other measures are better, and cost far less.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Read the work of John Hattie for figures to back up this article. There are many more important thing the government should be aiming for before even looking at class size.
Posted by rational-debate, Friday, 1 March 2013 12:54:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear hear!

I refer you to my article of 11 September 2012:

If Gonski is the answer what is the question?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14097&page=0

>>In economic terms what we have seen globally over many centuries is the substitution of capital for labour. The deployment of capital in the form of machines and software enables one man to do the work of many more cheaply and, usually, better. A man with a horse drawn cart with steel-rimmed wheels can shift more cargo more rapidly than a human being can carry on his back. Give the man a diesel truck and decent roads and he can shift even more.

And a small team armed with the right software can do the work of armies of lawyers and do it better and more cheaply.

[...]

I suggest that the current model for education belongs to the horse and cart era. Or, if you like, the era of hundreds of lawyers laboriously over thousands of documents. Just as we can substitute capital for labour in every other human enterprise, so I suggest, we can do it in education.>>

Gonski may turn out to be the biggest blunder of an especially inept administration.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 1 March 2013 5:40:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I quite enjoyed this article. It raised valid points and smacked of an article whose author knows what he is talking about. It also provides a far better refutation of the 'small classes' argument than those who lazily throw Hattie's name into the equation (and no, rational-debate, I don't mean you: you haven't made the assertion that I'm about to discuss).

In a workshop with John Hattie that I attended last year, he expressed some concern at the fact that his work was used as evidence that small classes don't work and therefore classes should be made bigger. If he reads this (unlikely, I know), he's more than welcome to correct me, but what I got out of the workshop was the following:

Class size ON ITS OWN has little effect on learning. Smaller classes may, however, allow more effective pedagogy that is only effective in small groups. Assuming that a small class is an effective one, then, is incorrect. A small class with a well-trained teacher who employs effective pedagogy may be an effective class, though.

Which brings us back to the article. If we are looking for cost-effective improvements to learning, a reduction of class sizes on its own is ineffective. When you add in new resources and new training for teachers, it may not be cost-effective at all. Other strategies with greater proven effects may be the solution we need. I'm not entirely sure that Gonski has taken that into account. Until we know what to spend it on, money thrown at education is money wasted.
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 1 March 2013 11:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes a good article, & definitely on the right track, as far as it goes. I know those I went to school with, in classes of around 40 students, all had results better than similar kids today, in classes of less than 30. We had good teachers, unlike so many in schools today.

Of course our teachers were not only allowed, but expected to maintain discipline, a great aid to learning.

Where the article failed was in not suggesting our kids would do better in classes of double the number of students, if this increase in class size was caused by SACKING all incompetent, disinterested, & bludging teachers from the system.

Getting rid of the no hopers would allow a large increase on pay for those good teachers left to do the work, & all kids would benefit.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 1 March 2013 11:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another way that we could be more selective with teachers is by recognising that school is not the place for everyone. The ABS shows a sharp spike in the retention rates of students from Year 7 to Year 12, dating back to the early 1990s:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40Mar+2011 (scroll down about 2/5 of the page)

What this means is that when you, Hasbeen, were attending school, it is likely that senior classes - although bigger - were fewer. More kids in smaller classes require more teachers. This, in turn, reduces the level to which we can be selective of those entering into the workforce as teachers.

The thing is, so many of those kids are there not because they have ambitions that require a Year 12 education, but because opportunities outside of school have dried up. I suspect that many don't have the 'get up and go' to get up and go somewhere else - school is all they know, so they stick it out until the end. Opportunities for those students outside the school environment - and a societal shift away from the belief that those who leave before Year 12 are 'lazy dropouts' could be beneficial.

Perhaps Year 12 should be seen as extension rather than a base, and a Year 10 certificate should once again be introduced to indicate the satisfactory acquisition of skills needed for the workforce. Students in Years 9 and 10 would be motivated to make the most of those years, and students in Years 11 and 12 would be reduced to those who saw value - or whose parents saw value - in continued academic study in order to achieve their goals.

At present, by trying to please everyone, our schools seem to be pleasing nobody.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 2 March 2013 12:05:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree a proportion of students coerced to remain after Year 10 when they dont desire or need academic quals. 30-40 years ago the Federal government wanted to brag education interest, they legislated students to stay in school/Tafe education until grade 12 .

This clogged up the education system through to post graduate.

This also capped off the demise of real jobs for 'juniors' and in trade training, as difficulty finding a placement at 17-18 yrs with no experience and exhalted wages, which were close to an experienced, productive adult. The extra 2 years, frustrated and bored students doing dumbed down subjects, led to disrupted school communities.

At this time political correctness went a trip to the moon too far so that parents, schools and Australians in general were terrified to discipline/teach self discipline to anyone.

Unfortunately,training courses for real work were not there when the ' bright idea ' was legislated and student's later quasi courses, didnt fulfil "out in the world".

UNFORTUNATELY AUSTRALIANS STARTED TO BELIEVE THAT ACADEMIC SUCCESS WAS THE ONLY TRUE SUCCESS... disregarding that Australia was well populated by highly successful, contributing Australians whose academic education was limited. IT WAS political ACADEMIC SNOBBERY and ended boxing extraordinary skills ( not academic) onto a second class shelf. As Australians felt obliged to do 'the best' for their children, grade 11 & 12 was overloaded, and thousands of university graduates never worked in their field.

PS....Discipline...Why are the young students from families recently added to our Australian family showing such aptitude for their studies and work ethic. I believe it is their family Discipline leading to the Student's learned self discipline and their recognition for the students natural skills

Australians have been politically duped into thinking that discipline/self discipline is a loss of freedom and that was a cute political ploy to garner votes at that time, from 18yr plus young people who had been recently given the vote.

PPS......If small classes are such a benefit are there any statistics/ studies which show that students in country schools with small class sizes have much higher education achievement
Posted by nannabev, Saturday, 2 March 2013 9:27:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy