The teachers would have more time to spend on struggling students, so many of those currently performing poorly would see a substantial increase in achievement. Average and higher achieveing students would also see increases in academic performances, but doubling across the board is unlikely.
3 weeks ago | 56
Depends on the teacher, curriculum , overall school quality not simply 1 variable of class size imo
3 weeks ago | 50
I think “students would learn more than twice as much” a valid item
2 weeks ago | 0
Honestly, other countries do well with large number classrooms. After kids leave school, they're expected to finish homework & ....? Activities and intellectual conversations at home is what makes all the difference, really.
3 weeks ago (edited) | 6
It's about quality, not quantity. With fewer students to focus on, teachers can ensure that gaps in understanding can be properly addressed.
3 weeks ago | 0
In college, class sizes didn't matter. What did matter was how they thought.
3 weeks ago | 10
Not much. The bell curve would still be in effect, and the teacher could, in theory, spend a bit more time with those who struggle. But class size and time spent in the classroom isn't the only issue facing public schools. Charter schools have similar class sizes and generally provide better results, because parents demand it our they'll take their child elsewhere.
3 weeks ago | 1
Depends if the teachers attempt to engage more with students or keep giving lectures and reading off powerpoints
3 weeks ago | 1
Half the classes would be taught by a substitute teachers and temporary hires because there aren’t enough teachers in the nation to do that. Temps don’t have the training a regular classroom teacher has, so discipline and scores and grades would go down. Instead, set up a nationwide homeschool system and get as many students as possible onto that. Save the brick and mortar seats for students who need more personal attention.
3 weeks ago | 0
I have been in all sizes of classes & the larger is usually better as you can check w your peers to see what you missed or explain a concept that the teacher moved past.
3 weeks ago | 3
When I was in school, we'd have lessons for 1½ hours. I'd clock out around the 30 minute mark
3 weeks ago | 1
It’s not the class sizes that are the problem. The whole time I was in school (k-12) we had over 30 kids in our classrooms. If we focused on discipline and the academics again instead of feelings and emotions. Promote critical thinking instead of indoctrination or “reimagining” we wouldn’t have the problems we do. No child left behind was another bad trend…in theory it looked good, in practice we’ve pushed kids through grades who haven’t proven themselves and why we have 80% of middle schoolers who can’t read at their grade level.
3 weeks ago | 6
It would really depend on the class. I’ve taught a variety of college classes. For writing, smaller class sizes would greatly increase learning. Writing is a solitary activity and if class sizes allowed more one-on-one time and the ability to spend more time analyzing and giving feedback to students, it would have a huge impact. Math classes would benefit from smaller class sizes. Some students understand the concepts easily. Some students would really benefit from one-on-one instruction from the teacher. Obviously, smaller class sizes would allow that. For a speech class, small class sizes aren’t that helpful. You need to put students up in front of an audience and build community. That would be hard to do if class sizes were too small. So, right sizing classes for what needs to be learned means some subjects require smaller classes and others a bit larger.
3 weeks ago | 0
It's not only about the students, but the teachers as well, they get less tired teaching fewer students
3 weeks ago | 0
Sprouts
If class sizes were cut in half, what would happen?
3 weeks ago | [YT] | 250