HTownAg98 said:

---

This is up there with the dumbest posts on this thread.
College is a completely different environment than high school. You can get away with classes of 300+ students primarily because of maturity, but there's a whole host of other reasons.

---

Yeah, that person had obviously never been in a classroom full of students who don't want to to be there. Larger class size…..lolololol.

Quote:

---

Yeah, that person had obviously never been in a classroom full of students who don't want to to be there.

---

Seems to me the key part of your post is they don't want to be there. We sure go to a lot of trouble and expense to fail at educating kids who don't want to be there. Perhaps we should focus on the ones that do want to be there.

15 years ago a single high school teacher was filling stadiums to teach high school classes and getting big bucks for it.

Of course, now South Korea has a new problem with parents suing and abusing teachers, but that is a different story.

Your whole point highlights our biggest issue - we are designing a system based on the lowest common denominator. The results shouldn't surprise us. We are aiming for mediocrity out the gate and still falling short.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, that person had obviously never been in a classroom full of students who don't want to to be there.

---

Seems to me the key part of your post is they don't want to be there. We sure go to a lot of trouble and expense to fail at educating kids who don't want to be there. Perhaps we should focus on the ones that do want to be there.

15 years ago a single high school teacher was filling stadiums to teach high school classes and getting big bucks for it.

Of course, now South Korea has a new problem with parents suing and abusing teachers, but that is a different story.

Your whole point highlights our biggest issue - we are designing a system based on the lowest common denominator. The results shouldn't surprise us. We are aiming for mediocrity out the gate and still falling short.

---

Exactly. And therein lies the problem. Part of it is cultural; part of it is parents and administrators not requiring responsibility; part of it is teachers.

It's a complex issue, and there aren't many people who seem to want to fix it; they just keep on throwing more money at it.

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is up there with the dumbest posts on this thread.
College is a completely different environment than high school. You can get away with classes of 300+ students primarily because of maturity, but there's a whole host of other reasons.

---

I taught both college and HS.

Many HS teachers have multiple preps. Have "special needs" students mainstreamed into their classes. Suggesting significantly larger classes is likely to cost you a lot of those better teachers. The ones that don't care much are still not going to care.

Not sure why you think this would ever work? Parenting is a much bigger part of the problem than teachers, not that most teachers are "inspirational".

Most college professors don't get paid to teach, which is why the good profs are the ones everyone remembers.

ETA - I am referring to the post you were replying to. SORRY!

Democrats have destroyed education. They control everything and its swirling the drain.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, that person had obviously never been in a classroom full of students who don't want to to be there.

---

Seems to me the key part of your post is they don't want to be there. We sure go to a lot of trouble and expense to fail at educating kids who don't want to be there. Perhaps we should focus on the ones that do want to be there.

15 years ago a single high school teacher was filling stadiums to teach high school classes and getting big bucks for it.

Of course, now South Korea has a new problem with parents suing and abusing teachers, but that is a different story.

Your whole point highlights our biggest issue - we are designing a system based on the lowest common denominator. The results shouldn't surprise us. We are aiming for mediocrity out the gate and still falling short.

---

You think you have a problem with bad teens, gangs, thugs?

Wait until way more of them are loose on the streets all day. The schools may be a joke, but even in bad schools it may be more discipline than they get at home.

What is your alternative? I've said repeatedly that public education is failing too many. But I don't see much of an alternative to public schools - just that I would find a way to go private or home as opposed to my kids going many public schools.

You can't treat kids like adults, because they are not, emotionally, cognitively, or legally.

So we are admitting it's about daycare and not education?

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, that person had obviously never been in a classroom full of students who don't want to to be there.

---

Seems to me the key part of your post is they don't want to be there. We sure go to a lot of trouble and expense to fail at educating kids who don't want to be there. Perhaps we should focus on the ones that do want to be there.

15 years ago a single high school teacher was filling stadiums to teach high school classes and getting big bucks for it.

Of course, now South Korea has a new problem with parents suing and abusing teachers, but that is a different story.

Your whole point highlights our biggest issue - we are designing a system based on the lowest common denominator. The results shouldn't surprise us. We are aiming for mediocrity out the gate and still falling short.

---

You're going to have to amend the Texas Constitution to do that. I wouldn't be opposed to that, but it's not as simple as you think.

Oh, I don't think it's easy.

I just think we are rearranging deck chairs unless we get serious about actual education and not all the wild missions we have sent our public schools on.

HTownAg98 said:

---

My wife has been teaching since 1994. Fifteen years ago, her AP classes had roughly 20-22 students per class period. This year, her smallest class has 32. It's almost impossible for her to effectively teach a curriculum with that much rigor to it with that many students in a classroom. She used to tell her kids that she can teach them to a 4 on the AP test, but to get a 5, you have to do some outside work. Now, she tells them she's doing good to get them to a 3, which doesn't do you a bit of good if you're trying to use it for credit to tu or A&M.

---

32 is a ****ing joke. No one is learning in that class. 20-22 is rough.

It needs to be around the 15-18 mark with 18 being the absolute maximum.

Kozmozag said:

---

Democrats have destroyed education. They control everything and its swirling the drain.

---

Texas has been red for about two decades now. TEA is entirely run by Republicans. You cannot blame Democrats for what's happening to Texas education.

MEEN Ag 05 said:

---

There is plenty of blame to go around for the overall education situation:

- Parents not emphasizing the importance of education; couple that with a broad home/societal deviation from Judeo-Christian values in the home/family and it's a bad mix

- Educators having their performance based on passing rates of kids encourages passing them on regardless of performance. This should be a component, but not the overbearing factor. (Teachers overall not the best and brightest doesn't help, either)

- Top-heavy administrations in most school districts puts a financial strain on the situation

- Government involvement and the red tape is ridiculous. We all know that gov't involvement is almost never a good thing.

All that being said, kids can be successful coming out of a terrible situation - just as some kids will fail to succeed even after given every advantage. Most is on the individual to make it happen.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I could go on for days and days about "Capturing Kids' Hearts" and what a load of crap that is.

---

Not a load of crap but we can still hold them accountable for their actions.

sam callahan said:

---

So we are admitting it's about daycare and not education?

---

Not really. Providing kids with a purpose is so much better than them being listless out on the streets. Now what we do with the time we have them should change but nobody, especially males do well without a purpose.

Quote:

---

Texas has been red for about two decades now. TEA is entirely run by Republicans. You cannot blame Democrats for what's happening to Texas education.

---

Republicans get plenty of blame. It's also important to recognize a lot of the problems were driven by federal policy and plague both red and blue states.

Read through this thread and you will see ample evidence public schools are loaded up with missions that are not about education and certainly not striving toward a rigorous education. It's largely a social welfare enterprise.

We wring hands over free breakfasts, lunches, and sending backpacks full of food home with kids. We throw money at ipads and smart boards. Meanwhile in India, 10 kids are crammed in a rickshaw hauling them across town with a tin of naan and dahl to an apartment where 20 other kids will cram in with one teacher and those same kids will kick our ass on math scores. But hey - we have some great football stadiums to play in 5 friday nights a year.

Quote:

---

Providing kids with a purpose

---

The premise was based on the kids that don't want to be there. Their only "purpose" is to make life harder on the teachers and kids who do want to be there.

Asking teachers to provide that purpose is a fool's errand.

Quote:

---

but we can still hold them accountable for their actions.

---

are you saying you should be able to hold them accountable? or that they are currently being held accountable?

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

but we can still hold them accountable for their actions.

---

are you saying you should be able to hold them accountable? or that they are currently being held accountable?

---

Some schools are, some aren't.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

Providing kids with a purpose

---

The premise was based on the kids that don't want to be there. Their only "purpose" is to make life harder on the teachers and kids who do want to be there.

Asking teachers to provide that purpose is a fool's errand.

---

Then we take them out of traditional school and find another avenue. If that doesn't work, welcome to the military.

Those stadiums are voted on by the same people that elect GOP/conservative representatives.

Quote:

---

Those stadiums are voted on by the same people that elect GOP/conservative representatives.

---

Absolutely. Never said any differently.

That's a key problem with public schools. Spending gets out of hand and misdirected, because its other people's money. It never gets spent as efficient as if the consumer was spending his own money and is ripe for milking by others.

Quote:

---

Then we take them out of traditional school and find another avenue. If that doesn't work, welcome to the military.

---

where is that happening?

I've seen a kid threaten to shoot another kid with a gun and be back in school the next day.

Got to keep those attendance numbers up. Got to avoid public controversies. Got to placate crazed parents. A private school could not take those risks.

This place is providing great education at a cost of about $7,000 a year.

https://www.thalesacademy.org

Because the cost of living and raising families is astronomically higher, dual income households are essential in modern society. That's why many parents don't have time to meet their children's teachers or energy to work closely with their children on their homework. Another issue is that many parents had their children out of wedlock, and some of them have children with multiple partners. Multiple Partner Fertility (MPF), the practice of having children with more than one partner, is strongly associated with increased father absence and reduced father involvement.

However, I think the biggest problem is tolerating poor or unfinished homework in the name of "equity." Grade "inflation," keeps allows schools to evade accountability, but deprive students of the rewards of doing their homework and actually learning. Most teachers know it, but the principals and superintendents are much more concerned about graduation rates than on learning.

I agree, this is a big problem. Someone should start a thread. :-)

sam callahan said:

---

So we are admitting it's about daycare and not education?

---

Sam, its always included "babysitting". This is otherwise known as socialization. I think that with what i going on in many homes, this is more important than ever, I guess you disagree?

I've waited for your alternatives, I also guess you can't come up with one that doesn't require motivated students and parents?

If all students were good students it would be easier and cheaper, but public institutions will always accrete their bureaucracy so public educaion will always cost $$$.

I am sure many kids wouldn't last a day there, then what?but

Again, in general I am not big on public schools, but see the need. You don't?

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is up there with the dumbest posts on this thread.
College is a completely different environment than high school. You can get away with classes of 300+ students primarily because of maturity, but there's a whole host of other reasons.

---

To the contrary, the fact that you don't recognize this basic fact points the finger of idiocy at you. Take it to the extreme to recognize how wrong you are:

Why not hire one teacher for EVERY student? Each student gets INDIVIDUAL ATTENTION! And best of all, the teachers unions are ecstatic! The problem? 99% of those teachers will suck, as they would have to lower standards to a ridiculous level to hire that many. And that doesn't even go into the ridiculous cost that such a system would impose on society.

There is a point between 8B students per teacher and 1 student per teacher that is the peak. Where is that peak? It sure as hell is not where we have it today. How do I know? Because our schools have been reducing class sizes for many years and our education keeps getting worse and more expensive. A rule of thumb is this: if a union is behind a given policy, it is likely wrong.

How should these sort of things get set? By complete privatization. Schools that find the magic formula will thrive, and those that do not will fail. Will it be 300 students like in college? Probably not, but only competition can say for sure.

zooguy96 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is up there with the dumbest posts on this thread.
College is a completely different environment than high school. You can get away with classes of 300+ students primarily because of maturity, but there's a whole host of other reasons.

---

Yeah, that person had obviously never been in a classroom full of students who don't want to to be there. Larger class size…..lolololol.

---

LOL.. you think that a smaller class size with crappier teachers would make them want to be there? No wonder our schools are failing, you guys have no idea what the hell you are doing.

You know how you make them want to be there? By ACTUALLY PUNISHING THEM for not doing their work and booting them out of school if they are disruptive. When I was in elementary school, I didn't go to recess if I didn't finish my morning work, and I had to stay after school each day that I didn't get my work done for the day. Guess what? Students busted their asses to get their work done by the time school was out. Amazing how that works!

And if the student was disruptive? They were GONE. For good. So guess what? Parents made damn sure their kids were not disruptive. Weird how that works too!

aTmAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is up there with the dumbest posts on this thread.
College is a completely different environment than high school. You can get away with classes of 300+ students primarily because of maturity, but there's a whole host of other reasons.

---

To the contrary, the fact that you don't recognize this basic fact points the finger of idiocy at you. Take it to the extreme to recognize how wrong you are:

Why not hire one teacher for EVERY student? Each student gets INDIVIDUAL ATTENTION! And best of all, the teachers unions are ecstatic! The problem? 99% of those teachers will suck, as they would have to lower standards to a ridiculous level to hire that many. And that doesn't even go into the ridiculous cost that such a system would impose on society.

There is a point between 8B students per teacher and 1 student per teacher that is the peak. Where is that peak? It sure as hell is not where we have it today. How do I know? Because our schools have been reducing class sizes for many years and our education keeps getting worse and more expensive. A rule of thumb is this: if a union is behind a given policy, it is likely wrong.

How should these sort of things get set? By complete privatization. Schools that find the magic formula will thrive, and those that do not will fail. Will it be 300 students like in college? Probably not, but only competition can say for sure.

---

You really couldn't be more wrong about all of this. What data or facts do you have to show that schools have been reducing class sizes and failing? I work in education and, while the goal is smaller classes (which historically do better), they have been getting larger.

You think the state of Texas and local ISD bureaucracies are going to pay the kind of sums necessary to keep high performing teachers for a 300 person classroom? Forget the massive behaviors that'll happen and the loss of instruction on practically every child. You're willing to stimy an entire generation of young, dependant learners on an education model that is used to support students who have had 12+ years of education, maturity, growth, and development?

Brother good luck.

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is up there with the dumbest posts on this thread.
College is a completely different environment than high school. You can get away with classes of 300+ students primarily because of maturity, but there's a whole host of other reasons.

---

To the contrary, the fact that you don't recognize this basic fact points the finger of idiocy at you. Take it to the extreme to recognize how wrong you are:

Why not hire one teacher for EVERY student? Each student gets INDIVIDUAL ATTENTION! And best of all, the teachers unions are ecstatic! The problem? 99% of those teachers will suck, as they would have to lower standards to a ridiculous level to hire that many. And that doesn't even go into the ridiculous cost that such a system would impose on society.

There is a point between 8B students per teacher and 1 student per teacher that is the peak. Where is that peak? It sure as hell is not where we have it today. How do I know? Because our schools have been reducing class sizes for many years and our education keeps getting worse and more expensive. A rule of thumb is this: if a union is behind a given policy, it is likely wrong.

How should these sort of things get set? By complete privatization. Schools that find the magic formula will thrive, and those that do not will fail. Will it be 300 students like in college? Probably not, but only competition can say for sure.

---

You really couldn't be more wrong about all of this. What data or facts do you have to show that schools have been reducing class sizes and failing? I work in education and, while the goal is smaller classes (which historically do better), they have been getting larger.

You think the state of Texas and local ISD bureaucracies are going to pay the kind of sums necessary to keep high performing teachers for a 300 person classroom? Forget the massive behaviors that'll happen and the loss of instruction on practically every child. You're willing to stimy an entire generation of young, dependant learners on an education model that is used to support students who have had 12+ years of education, maturity, growth, and development?

Brother good luck.

---

First of all, did you actually READ my post? I didn't say we should simply push class sizes up to 300 students. That was an example. And BTW, you suck at math. You don't understand that paying far fewer teachers costs less than paying more? Even at higher salaries?

And do a grok search. It will give you all the sources you need to understand that you are wrong. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, among many others, class sizes have been shrinking across America over many decades.

And talk about stymying a generation. You guys have done that to GENERATIONS. Go watch Tim Cook's comment about the education difference between here and China. No longer is it about cheap labor in China. He says that for any given narrow and highly valued skill, they could fill football stadiums full of experts. Where we have almost nobody (and they are probably pretty damned old now).

A free market education system is the only way to reverse the decline of our education system. Get government out of it. They suck at everything they do.

Quote:

---

I've waited for your alternatives, I also guess you can't come up with one that doesn't require motivated students and parents?

---

My alternatives to what? Actual education or solving all the problems we are tasking our schools with?

I suppose either way it's the same answer. Moves toward personal responsibility. The more serious you are, the bigger and faster the movements required.

We are subsidizing all sorts of bad behavior and like the old saying goes, we are getting more of it.

Do you not see how we have tried to use the school system to make-up for parenting failures more and more over the years?

Look at just one area: food. We went from kids packing lunches in a pail...to well, not everyone has the same lunch, so we need to start providing them....to we need to feed them a hot lunch...to well, we need to subsidize the lunch cost for some...to well, we need free lunches...to we need to offer breakfast, too...and of course those have to be subsidized and free...to hey, if our school has a high enough percentage of free lunch students then we qualify for all the extra federal programs, so lets do no-verification apps and beg our families to sign-up...to hey, we have such a high number of people on free lunch that we should make it free for everyone...breakfast, too...and you know what, let's start sending them home with food on the weekend.

Mission creep has been immensely destructive. You are training generations of kids that it's the government's job to feed them and because its run with other peoples money through a monopolistic system and lacks market forces, it provides a low quality product. You aren't helping the families financially as you are divorcing them from responsibility and freeing up cash for amusement park tickets or liquor store runs.

So we set out to help a couple of kids have a better lunch and ended up spreading a lot of misery around to everyone. And that's how the whole system will inherently go.

I don't know why we can all (most of us anyway) see that city run grocery stores are a bad idea, but somehow expect schools will end up differently.

And as for your point on socialization, how is that working out for you?

Quote:

---

You think the state of Texas and local ISD bureaucracies are going to pay the kind of sums necessary...

---

I think they will continue to make poor choices because voters are all on board with those poor choices when it's someone else's money. That's the fundamental flaw.

I can't and didn't argue with Ghost that republican and democrat voters approve those big bond packages that pay for the crazy stadiums, but the ISDs are in on the game, too. They don't put individual projects up for bond votes, they package them altogether into one Big Beautiful Bond and say "it's for the children".

I present to you the $400,000,000 stadium that Beaumont United plays in (operating and maintenance costs not included).



Their latest test scores show 22% proficiency at reading and 6% at math.

That's on reading and math tests that were probably easy for 8th graders in the 1950s.

aTmAg said:

---

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is up there with the dumbest posts on this thread.
College is a completely different environment than high school. You can get away with classes of 300+ students primarily because of maturity, but there's a whole host of other reasons.

---

To the contrary, the fact that you don't recognize this basic fact points the finger of idiocy at you. Take it to the extreme to recognize how wrong you are:

Why not hire one teacher for EVERY student? Each student gets INDIVIDUAL ATTENTION! And best of all, the teachers unions are ecstatic! The problem? 99% of those teachers will suck, as they would have to lower standards to a ridiculous level to hire that many. And that doesn't even go into the ridiculous cost that such a system would impose on society.

There is a point between 8B students per teacher and 1 student per teacher that is the peak. Where is that peak? It sure as hell is not where we have it today. How do I know? Because our schools have been reducing class sizes for many years and our education keeps getting worse and more expensive. A rule of thumb is this: if a union is behind a given policy, it is likely wrong.

How should these sort of things get set? By complete privatization. Schools that find the magic formula will thrive, and those that do not will fail. Will it be 300 students like in college? Probably not, but only competition can say for sure.

---

You really couldn't be more wrong about all of this. What data or facts do you have to show that schools have been reducing class sizes and failing? I work in education and, while the goal is smaller classes (which historically do better), they have been getting larger.

You think the state of Texas and local ISD bureaucracies are going to pay the kind of sums necessary to keep high performing teachers for a 300 person classroom? Forget the massive behaviors that'll happen and the loss of instruction on practically every child. You're willing to stimy an entire generation of young, dependant learners on an education model that is used to support students who have had 12+ years of education, maturity, growth, and development?

Brother good luck.

---

First of all, did you actually READ my post? I didn't say we should simply push class sizes up to 300 students. That was an example. And BTW, you suck at math. You don't understand that paying far fewer teachers costs less than paying more? Even at higher salaries?

And do a grok search. It will give you all the sources you need to understand that you are wrong. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, among many others, class sizes have been shrinking across America over many decades.

And talk about stymying a generation. You guys have done that to GENERATIONS. Go watch Tim Cook's comment about the education difference between here and China. No longer is it about cheap labor in China. He says that for any given narrow and highly valued skill, they could fill football stadiums full of experts. Where we have almost nobody (and they are probably pretty damned old now).

A free market education system is the only way to reverse the decline of our education system. Get government out of it. They suck at everything they do.

---

This is what happens when you rely on AI to either confirm your priors or don't understand the data. Would you like to take a guess at why the data shows classroom sizes are decreasing? The answer is because of all the SPED classes that have 5-6 kids in them pulls that average down, and with the emphasis on SPED education over the past 30 years, you have more and more small classes for those kids, and those small class sizes skew the average downward. This is why average classroom size and teacher:student ratio data is bunk.
Go ask any core curriculum public school teacher in the state of Texas if their classes have gotten bigger, smaller, or stayed the same. I bet I could count on one hand the ones that would say they've gotten smaller.