A teacher needs to know their students to be effective.
-
I think that without the requirements of the state -- such as teaching to the standardized test and grading assignments that no one cares about -- there would actually be less overall work for teachers, not more.
I don't agree. Not having national standards just means you get a hodge podge of local ones which will on average be less well-thought out.
In some cases they *will* be better, but in many other cases they will be worse. Sometimes "worse" as in destructive.
I do agree there is too much testing.
But many of the national requirements are they only thing keeping schools from simply cutting out huge portions of the curriculum and hiring even less educated teachers.
-
I don't agree. Not having national standards just means you get a hodge podge of local ones which will on average be less well-thought out.
In some cases they *will* be better, but in many other cases they will be worse. Sometimes "worse" as in destructive.
I do agree there is too much testing.
But many of the national requirements are they only thing keeping schools from simply cutting out huge portions of the curriculum and hiring even less educated teachers.
And there are conservatives, religious leaders, charter school grifters and assorted others who have been bouncing up and down excited to dismantle national standards for decades. If we only let them they wouldn't need to even try to teach "those" kids algebra. Think of the pliant employees without other options the schools could turn out for them. Think of all the money they could make running even worse schools.
-
And there are conservatives, religious leaders, charter school grifters and assorted others who have been bouncing up and down excited to dismantle national standards for decades. If we only let them they wouldn't need to even try to teach "those" kids algebra. Think of the pliant employees without other options the schools could turn out for them. Think of all the money they could make running even worse schools.
Anarchism doesn't envision replacing one component of a horrible society and leaving the rest in place. I agree that it would be impossible to have anarchist schools as long as the rest of the state is there.
And once again: the state is not preventing local schools from being bad. What it's doing is presenting a system as standard when it is not, and therefore covering for the schools that are bad.
-
Anarchism doesn't envision replacing one component of a horrible society and leaving the rest in place. I agree that it would be impossible to have anarchist schools as long as the rest of the state is there.
And once again: the state is not preventing local schools from being bad. What it's doing is presenting a system as standard when it is not, and therefore covering for the schools that are bad.
IDK Rich. The way you come at me in these conversations I feel like I'm holding a gate closed and there are snapping monsters (think ancaps) at the other side, they are trying to get in. I'm trying to keep the gate closed and talking about how we could get a better lock, take turns keeping them out so I could get a little rest.
But you walk in and point out that if we didn't have monsters we wouldn't need a gate, and gates are horrible aren't they?
Oh I agree! HOWEVER
-
A teacher needs to know their students to be effective. This puts an upper limit on the number of students one teacher can teach at once. Something like 150 students. I need to know their names, and when I see that name a little about who that is.
Further, a student should have at least 4 or 5 teachers who know them. This is a selection of hopefully trustworthy and supportive adults they can turn to.
Most plans to make school less expensive mess with these numbers.
@futurebird 150 students seems awfully high. Is that one class, or divided across a set of classes? The number I've seen most often is that 15 students is optimum class size, that decreasing class size has lower gains, and increasing has clear losses.
-
@futurebird 150 students seems awfully high. Is that one class, or divided across a set of classes? The number I've seen most often is that 15 students is optimum class size, that decreasing class size has lower gains, and increasing has clear losses.
150 is the total students in all of the classes that I teach, or my upper limit for doing any kind of effective teaching. You are correct that class size is better around 15.
-
Meals? Adults with enough time to get to know the students? You want to spend money on that?
No. Kids need to learn "workplace ready" skills. And they can eat iPads.
@futurebird @funnymonkey
Just generally, it's... *really* striking how consistently throughout history the wealthy and privileged neglect, resent, or simply fail to notice or understand the concept of peasants needing food. -
@futurebird @funnymonkey
Just generally, it's... *really* striking how consistently throughout history the wealthy and privileged neglect, resent, or simply fail to notice or understand the concept of peasants needing food.Same people will get grouchy if they have to go to a long meeting and there is no coffee or little snacks.
But they think about food so little they might not even be able to articulate that is WHY they are grouchy. Because never thinking about food is one of many privileges.
-
150 is the total students in all of the classes that I teach, or my upper limit for doing any kind of effective teaching. You are correct that class size is better around 15.
@futurebird @jhavok
When I cited 1:20 in another thread, that was the number of kids in a classroom at a time. I think the full size of each class in the "class of 19XX" sense was about 200ish? It's been a long time, so I can't be sure. Things like it being a wealthy suburb that refused to participate in football so it would have more money for actual education stuck out in my mind more. -
@futurebird @jhavok
When I cited 1:20 in another thread, that was the number of kids in a classroom at a time. I think the full size of each class in the "class of 19XX" sense was about 200ish? It's been a long time, so I can't be sure. Things like it being a wealthy suburb that refused to participate in football so it would have more money for actual education stuck out in my mind more. -
Same people will get grouchy if they have to go to a long meeting and there is no coffee or little snacks.
But they think about food so little they might not even be able to articulate that is WHY they are grouchy. Because never thinking about food is one of many privileges.
"I don't see why parents can't provide them with breakfast..."
*takes orange madeleine from plate*
"... really if you can't provide your child with breakfast and lunch should you even be a parent?"
*bites madeleine, starts to pour some coffee*
"These people expect us to do everything for them! Where is the cream? Ugh. Powdered? Disgusting."
