Don’t fall for the “little red schoolhouse” image, Rob. It is the function of every govt program to grow ever larger and more expensive. The real message here is: build more schools, hire more administrators. Think about it: One school, with its number of students and teachers. Four schools, same number of students and teachers, four times the number of administrators.
Bo knows govt.
robert108 - 01:06pm on 06/23/2008
We already have this in Western and Southern ND. I graduated with 10 kids in my class 20+ years ago. My niece (now 14) was in the same school and had 3 in her class each year in years K-5, then 2 moved away. Her parents had the means to buy a home in a much bigger town 45 miles away, where she has 25-30 kids in her class. The interaction with the other kids, the competition for grades, is a much, much more enriching education environment in a class of 30 vs a class of 3, or 10. There is no need to “create it” and then study it, its happening, go study it and see if its a learning rich environment.
patriot - 01:06pm on 06/23/2008
It has been studied. Bigger is not better. There appears to be a breakpoint where a “mega-school” reaches a tipping point of opportunity for students vs. individualized attention. It is the relationship between teacher and student that facilitates education.
That being said, the ultra small is very limiting to student growth. Again, the relationship between teacher and student is important.
Consolidation has positive and negative impact on communities. Often consolidation is avoided due to it’s impact on the communities BB team, and loss of ‘identity’ for the community.
imagine - 04:06pm on 06/23/2008
Ya know, 108 DOES have a point that if you’re not awfully careful, you COULD get school districts trying to assign a principal, secretary, janitor, and guidance counselor to every one room schoolhouse. I’d say that indicates why we all need to supervise local government, though, not any particular weakness in this particular proposal.
Bike Bubba - 09:06am on 06/24/2008
BB: It’s the nature of govt to expand and become more costly, at the administration level. Compare the salaries of administrators(who teach no children) and teachers(who do the lion’s share of the actual work) in present day govt schools. I don’t think those “one room schoolhouses” would stay that way for long, in the govt system.
robert108 - 09:06am on 06/24/2008
Well, in rural communities, they did avoid “administratium” for nearly a century--really until Rockefeller’s (and Dewey’s) “school as kid education factory” theories caught on.
While certainly today’s government tends to apply administratium in an unsparing manner, there is historical precedent for small, well managed, cost effective small schools. The trick isn’t in the type of school, but rather the type of community that asks the hard questions.
Bike Bubba - 09:06am on 06/24/2008
While certainly today’s government tends to apply administratium in an unsparing manner, there is historical precedent for small, well managed,
cost effective small schools. The trick isn’t in the type of school, but rather the type of community that asks the hard questions.
Unfortunately, efficient school systems and local control are pretty much a thing of the past. Historical precedent is pretty much meaningless today.
robert108 - 10:06am on 06/24/2008
...and those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
By Disraeli’s (?) logic, I’m not quite sure about your statement, 108. While certainly more and more people are willfully ignorant of the past, if we know what did happen then, we at least know what to watch out for as our neighbors ignore its lessons.
Bike Bubba - 12:06pm on 06/24/2008
The reason that the historical precedent you cite is obsolete today is the usual principle that when the govt enters a field, it soon becomes essentially a govt monopoly. The time you are referring to was quite different: public education was simply an adjunct to the existing education system, which was private. Now, the situation is completely reversed, with the govt school system being a virtual monopoly, with private schools being a very small part of the mix. Even private universities and colleges have been bought off by the obscene amounts of money the govt gives them to fund “research”.
It’s not about “ignoring lessons”, it’s about dismantling the govt monopoly and restoring market forces. We are a lot more affluent today than we were then, and govt schooling isn’t anywhere near as necessary as it was in the past. However, we have become addicted to the heroin of “govt money”.
You also seem unaware of the reality of the Dept of Education. With all your animus toward the Federal Reserve, one would think you would be all over the D of E.
robert108 - 01:06pm on 06/24/2008
Hey, we reduced government involvement in banking, oil development, and air travel during the Reagan administration, didn’t we? We got rid of the draft and Prohibition, didn’t we? We ended AFDC, didn’t we?
Yes, it’s hard, but you can go back. Yes, the DoED makes things harder. (and yes, I do pick on it..you haven’t been reading my posts if you think otherwise) Historical precedent still matters.
Don’t fall for the “little red schoolhouse” image, Rob. It is the function of every govt program to grow ever larger and more expensive. The real message here is: build more schools, hire more administrators. Think about it: One school, with its number of students and teachers. Four schools, same number of students and teachers, four times the number of administrators.
Bo knows govt.
We already have this in Western and Southern ND. I graduated with 10 kids in my class 20+ years ago. My niece (now 14) was in the same school and had 3 in her class each year in years K-5, then 2 moved away. Her parents had the means to buy a home in a much bigger town 45 miles away, where she has 25-30 kids in her class. The interaction with the other kids, the competition for grades, is a much, much more enriching education environment in a class of 30 vs a class of 3, or 10. There is no need to “create it” and then study it, its happening, go study it and see if its a learning rich environment.
It has been studied. Bigger is not better. There appears to be a breakpoint where a “mega-school” reaches a tipping point of opportunity for students vs. individualized attention. It is the relationship between teacher and student that facilitates education.
That being said, the ultra small is very limiting to student growth. Again, the relationship between teacher and student is important.
Consolidation has positive and negative impact on communities. Often consolidation is avoided due to it’s impact on the communities BB team, and loss of ‘identity’ for the community.
Ya know, 108 DOES have a point that if you’re not awfully careful, you COULD get school districts trying to assign a principal, secretary, janitor, and guidance counselor to every one room schoolhouse. I’d say that indicates why we all need to supervise local government, though, not any particular weakness in this particular proposal.
BB: It’s the nature of govt to expand and become more costly, at the administration level. Compare the salaries of administrators(who teach no children) and teachers(who do the lion’s share of the actual work) in present day govt schools. I don’t think those “one room schoolhouses” would stay that way for long, in the govt system.
Well, in rural communities, they did avoid “administratium” for nearly a century--really until Rockefeller’s (and Dewey’s) “school as kid education factory” theories caught on.
While certainly today’s government tends to apply administratium in an unsparing manner, there is historical precedent for small, well managed, cost effective small schools. The trick isn’t in the type of school, but rather the type of community that asks the hard questions.
Unfortunately, efficient school systems and local control are pretty much a thing of the past. Historical precedent is pretty much meaningless today.
...and those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
By Disraeli’s (?) logic, I’m not quite sure about your statement, 108. While certainly more and more people are willfully ignorant of the past, if we know what did happen then, we at least know what to watch out for as our neighbors ignore its lessons.
The reason that the historical precedent you cite is obsolete today is the usual principle that when the govt enters a field, it soon becomes essentially a govt monopoly. The time you are referring to was quite different: public education was simply an adjunct to the existing education system, which was private. Now, the situation is completely reversed, with the govt school system being a virtual monopoly, with private schools being a very small part of the mix. Even private universities and colleges have been bought off by the obscene amounts of money the govt gives them to fund “research”.
It’s not about “ignoring lessons”, it’s about dismantling the govt monopoly and restoring market forces. We are a lot more affluent today than we were then, and govt schooling isn’t anywhere near as necessary as it was in the past. However, we have become addicted to the heroin of “govt money”.
You also seem unaware of the reality of the Dept of Education. With all your animus toward the Federal Reserve, one would think you would be all over the D of E.
Hey, we reduced government involvement in banking, oil development, and air travel during the Reagan administration, didn’t we? We got rid of the draft and Prohibition, didn’t we? We ended AFDC, didn’t we?
Yes, it’s hard, but you can go back. Yes, the DoED makes things harder. (and yes, I do pick on it..you haven’t been reading my posts if you think otherwise) Historical precedent still matters.