Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1093 misc.headlines:2629
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!k.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik
From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Reducing class size said waste
Message-ID: <741@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 7 Apr 88 13:20:06 GMT
References: <882@nuchat.UUCP> <85@avsd.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Lines: 67

In article <85@avsd.UUCP>, govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes:

		....

> >    There now re 24 pupils  in the typical  public elementary school
> > classroom, down from 30 in 1961. Past research has indicated
> > classes would need to be 15 students to have any appreciable impact.
> >   But that would cost upwards of 69 billion and require hiring a 
> > million new teachers, when school systems already have problems
> > finding qualified teachers.
		....
> >    The preport emphasized that Japan has achieved the world's highest
> > math achievement scores with math classes that average 41 pupiles.
> > 
> > "available resources should instead be directed to improving the
> > quality of instruction and teachers' ability to manage the
> > demands of classrooms as they are currently configured."
		 ---------
> > Commentary: If we continue to teach our children using the same
> > old outdated methods that we've been using for the past 50-80 years,
> > class size could be FIVE and still not be "low enough".

> Only in the last 10-20 years have educational indices declined.
> Maybe we should go back to some of the basics discarded in the
> late 60s.  

I would like to make a few comments.  Our educational indices are very
poor measures, but they are the best we have.  Our teaching methods have
changed in the past 50 years, mostly for the worst, but our examination
methods have become absolutely atrocious.  The important parts of the
courses are almost totally ignored in evaluating the students!

Before the social adjustment (put your favorite pejorative here) gurus
got into the school systems about 50 years ago, even elementary school
courses had content.  Children were expected to learn about X in course
Y, and in later course Z, they were expected to be able to use their
knowledge of X.  This was even the case if X was badly taught; the 
even fairly good elementary texts do a better job of teaching the use
of variables than the high school books then or now.  Even though it
was very badly taught then, junior high students were tested on the
ability to solve word problems.  The ones who could not do it were 
effectively eliminated from taking subsequent mathematics, so those
teaching high school mathematics were not concerned with students who
could not do this type of abstraction.

I have no objection to teaching those who cannot figure for themselves
the use of symbols that use.  In fact, I think it should be done no later
than the third grade.  But I would expect students to be reasonably adept
in using symbols as language in subsequent presentations.  I do not think
that 25% of the present high school teachers of mathematics are capable of
this.

The testing methods of >50 years ago with the slight improvements in
teaching methods since, properly applied by reasonable teachers, can do
the job even with large classes, provided we consider the level of the
course not adjustable to the level of the students.  It would take at least
a 20 year program to get enough qualified teachers.  If we now raise all
teachers' salaries, this will perpetuate control by the baby sitters.

We also have to recognize that different children should proceed at different
rates, and we may need different teaching methods for the same subject.  The
use of television classes (not lectures) may make things possible.  Teachers
should also be talent scouts and recognize that they are quite capable of
destroying thinking ability.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet