You hear a lot of talk about class size and why we should have smaller class sizes. This all sounds good on the surface and that is where most voters stop their analysis. They work on the basis, "if it is good for the kids, then we should do it". This might work if we had unlimited resources, but we don't. We don't have unlimited money or time. We have to prepare our kids for life and there is a limited amount of time and money to do the job. Now if you agree with this basic point, we can go on to see if we can come to some compromise. Yes, that's right, a compromise. You might notice that about everything in life is some kind of compromise, so start getting used to it. The compromise here is exactly how many kids should we have in a class? Where do you start and what do we consider? Let's see.
If you read some of my prior Blogs, you will already understand that 99% of optimization decision points are on the flat area of the optimization curve. That is the point where the slope or first derivative is zero. I like to show off a little calculus once in a while, but you don't need to know calculus to understand this. We know that there is an optimum class size and it is some where between one and infinity and we know that the area of optimum is in a flat area. We also know that all the data that we use to calculate this optimum class size is subject to differing degrees of error. That is just a fact. If anyone tells you that they know or have calculated the optimum class size, I can tell you that they are incompetent. The point is, we know in advance that the optimum class size we calculate is going to be off to some degree. Now this is where it gets interesting. Just to make this easier to follow, let's assume that we have calculated that the optimum class size is 25. If we test the "value: function for a class size of 20 and 30, we will notice that they yield about the same "value" function as the optimum 25 class size. Conclusion is that it does not make much difference whether the class size is 20, 25 or 30. Interesting isn't it? This takes us to how to interpret these interesting results.
Now if you were the teacher's union who only has the sole interests of the kids at heart, you would push for the class size of 20. Smaller is always better. If you were a tax payer, you would push for 30 because the "value" function for 30 was about as good as for 25 and you would save a lot of tax money by needing fewer teachers. See how this whole thing works? The teacher's union would never claim that the reason the want the class size of 20 was so that the school would hire more teachers. Teachers are the good guys.
Now,let's look as some more aspects of the problem. We know that the school has newer and older teachers. Does it seem logical that newer teachers should have smaller class sizes and older teachers larger? Seems logical to me. Years of experience teaching should result in teachers being more "productive". Older teachers get paid more, so why can't they teach more kids? Interesting isn't? How about the complexity of the course being taught? Can a teacher teach more kids in a history class than they can in a math or physics class? Complexity should come into the consideration at some point.
Here is another. The teacher's unions look at the national school system when they come up with their recommendation for class size. The national average high school graduation rate is only 60% and in some cities it is below 50%. At the same time there are some districts where the high school graduation rate is over 90%. Do you think that all schools, no mater what their graduation rates are should have the "same" optimum class size. I you got thru 4th grade, I think you would agree that in schools where the kids are well mannered and have responsible parents that the optimum class size should be larger than the national average.
What I have tried to point out is just another way the the teacher's union is screwing the tax payers of this nation. You must already know that the "Head Start" program had "zero" affect on improving school performance. After the fact studies have clearly shown that these expensive programs were a 100% waste of tax payers money. As tax payers and parents, it is your responsibility to see that your kids get a good education and that it is done at a reasonable cost. We spend more than any country in the world and we get the worst pop for the buck. We need change and it is not going to come from Obama and his teacher's union buddies.
