Are your local schools too big to teach?

[Truthmatters]

Too Big High Schools: Science Videos - Science News - ScienCentral




But just how large a school is too large? University of Michigan education researcher Valerie Lee set out to find the answer. She divided a national sample of about 800 public and private high schools into categories by size, and measured the learning of close to 10,000 students during four years of high school. Lee reported in the journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis that regardless of the schools' resources or students' backgrounds, they learned the most at schools of 600 to 900 students. "The category '600 to 900' was where students learn the most," says Lee. "When schools got smaller than that, learning was less, and when schools got larger than that, learning was less and continued to be less as they got larger and larger."









Lee also was interested in how school size affects different students. "The category '600 to 900' really popped out as the ideal category, regardless of the social composition of the high school, regardless of the kinds of students who went there." But she did find that "school size makes more difference for the learning of disadvantaged students, than it does for more advantaged students. For schools that enrolled mostly affluent and white students, school size still followed the same pattern, still peaked in schools of 600 to 900, but the differences in learning were considerably less."

 

[Truthmatters]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

 

[Samson]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

How much would it cost for smaller schools?

 

[Tom Clancy]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

Do you post Drunk?

Right, is that why Liberals are against School Vouchers?

 

[Truthmatters]

Does it matter?

Its worht the investment and will pay dividends for generations to come.

 

[Truthmatters]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

Do you post Drunk?

Right, is that why Liberals are against School Vouchers?

school vouchers will do nothing to teach our kids

 

[del]

one assumes that there were 10,000 in your graduating class.

it shows.

 

[Samson]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

George Bush graduated from Phillips Academy Andover when the enrollment was 600-900 students.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

How much would it cost for smaller schools?

I guess you would need some number cruncher with many of data available to them to come up with a valid estimate. But I think Truthmatters makes a reasonable assumption. Its reasonable to assume that as the size of the school increases the cost per student decreases, kind of along the line of the concept of economies of scale.

However, I think the diagnosis of the problem is completely worng. In my opinion, the greatest factors in a kid performing poorly in school are 1. complete apathy on the part of the student and 2. complete apathy on the part of the parent. Regardless of school size, resources are available for most every kid in almost every school system to succeed; however, the will to succeed is not so much.

 

[del]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

How much would it cost for smaller schools?

I guess you would need some number cruncher with many of data available to them to come up with a valid estimate. But I think Truthmatters makes a reasonable assumption. Its reasonable to assume that as the size of the school increases the cost per student decreases, kind of along the line of the concept of economies of scale.

However, I think the diagnosis of the problem is completely worng. In my opinion, the greatest factors in a kid performing poorly in school are 1. complete apathy on the part of the student and 2. complete apathy on the part of the parent. Regardless of school size, resources are available for most every kid in almost every school system to succeed; however, the will to succeed is not so much.

bingo!

 

[Samson]

one assumes that there were 10,000 in your graduating class.

it shows.

Graduating Class?

 

[Tom Clancy]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

Do you post Drunk?

Right, is that why Liberals are against School Vouchers?

school vouchers will do nothing to teach our kids

Ignorance at it's best.

 

[Truthmatters]

There you guys going ignoring science and facts.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you post Drunk?

Right, is that why Liberals are against School Vouchers?

school vouchers will do nothing to teach our kids

Ignorance at it's best.

Plead your case asshole

 

[Samson]

To teach them like we used to ( back when schools were smaller) it would cost money so the cons fight it at every turn.

Money is far more important to them than educated kids.

Do you post Drunk? ?

That excuse would be too convenient.

 

[del]

There you guys going ignoring science and facts.

 

[Samson]

There you guys going ignoring science and facts.

You are ignoring that George Bush went to a school that you have described as being the perfect size to teach everything, including morality.

 

[Truthmatters]

So none of you are willing to discuss the material provided and jsut want to play games?

Wow Im so surprized right wing hacks have no interest in solving problems and jsut want to piss in the lemon ade.

No wonder your party is such a fucking joke

 

[del]

So none of you are willing to discuss the material provided and jsut want to play games?

Wow Im so surprized right wing hacks have no interest in solving problems and jsut want to piss in the lemon ade.

No wonder your party is such a fucking joke

and you're the punch line.

thanks for playin'!

 

[Tom Clancy]

There you guys going ignoring science and facts.

Science?

school vouchers will do nothing to teach our kids

Ignorance at it's best.

Plead your case asshole

First, there's no need to call people asshole. I'm guessing you're off your meds again, or drunk.

either way..

A good Informative site gives both the Pros and Cons of em.

In my own words, School Vouchers increase the Chance of someone underprivileged to go to a Well Funded and Highly Academic school, meaning, they have the chance to go a better education than most Public schools. That's a nice way to put it..

either way, here's the Sites Points.

BalancedPolitics.org - School Vouchers (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)

Rich parents have a choice of schools for their kids; poor parents should have the same choice. In all but the smallest areas of the country, parents have a number of options for their child's education. Various religious and non-religious schools are available. Unfortunately, the private schools are not free. They are often very expensive. Rich parents can and do often choose the school which has the best reputation and results. However, poor parents who can't afford the private tuition usually have only one option--the public school in their area. That one choice may be a crime-ridden school that fails in all measures of academia. Is it fair that only rich parents can send their children to the best schools?

Competition between schools is increased, leading to greater efficiency and results in all schools. For too long, public schools have been able to coast along with no level of accountability. When you're the only ones providing a subsidized education, you in effect have a monopoly; thus, you don't have as much of an incentive to improve efficiency. Competition has been the key to success in every area of business. How good would GM cars be if GM didn't have competition from Chrysler, Ford, and foreign operations? How good would Dell computers be if Dell didn't have competition from Gateway, IBM, Apple, and others? Competition will force public schools to squeeze out every bit of efficiency and start emphasizing the teaching of values such as hard work, discipline, and respect for others.

Private schools have a better history of getting results in teaching information and values than public schools. Private schools can cost a significant amount of money. Yet, even with the cost, people with the means will usually choose private over public schools. Why? It's because the reputation and results of private schools are so much better. Measures of both character and academic success are almost always better at the private schools. Private schools have accountability; if they don't do a superior job, they won't have any students (unlike public schools which will have students no matter how bad of a job they do). Private schools are allowed to be more flexible in their teaching methods. Most of all, private schools focus more on teaching lifelong values that are often tied to religion (e.g. respecting your neighbor, not lying or stealing, working hard, etc.).

Those parents who send their kids to private schools must in effect pay twice; i.e. their taxes pay for public schools that their children don't even attend. Regardless of where their children attend school, parents must pay taxes. These taxes are used to pay for the public school. Because private schools charge tuition, those parents that send their children to private schools are in effect paying twice.

Providing private school access to everyone will increase diversity. There is little debate that there's an income disparity between whites and other races. The option of expensive private schools often leads to schools that are somewhat segregated. Offering vouchers would introduce more diversity to the all schools since choice would no longer be a factor of income.

The parent makes the choice between religious or non-religious schooling; thus, the government isn't imposing religion. Each and every parent would have a choice of religious and non-religious school. Thus, the government would in no way be violating the 1st Amendment establishment clause.