WHAT DOES OVER SIZE CLASSES MEAN?

Even everyone knows that small class sizes produces better student outcomes in general; however class sizes are continuing to grow in all level schools in Australia. What is the real cost behind the oversize classes in schools and the impacts on our education systems in general.

First of all, I believe that the Australian population has been growing faster than it should be, and this has a negative impact which results in a greater pressure on Australian education and life style in general.

Perhaps, more people need education and the schools developments are far behind the needs. We need more class rooms and education equipment and the most important is we need more teachers, this all about funds.  Do schools get enough funds to deliver this requirement?

I disagree in the point of view “the government is spending too much money on cutting class sizes and not enough on lifting the quality teachers” as a result it almost has impact on student learning. I think the real problem is not the teaching profession, it more about how we keep the balance between the developments of schools and our fast growing population.

I think teachers are under a great pressure and this will has a negative impact in infective education in general. When class size go over from 20 - 38 students, all most double size of a normal class. For teachers who spend the same amount time to prepare and deliver lessons to 38 students instep 20 students. What does this mean to teachers at school and do they get enough pay for they over work?

So things are starting to change when class sizes go bigger and bigger and lessons go quicker and quicker! People are not patient about education anymore, everything have to be done quick, even education. Of cause, our education quality will fail and what really fails is our education future and our nation’s future!

I think our education system has been pushed by the fast growing population in general. Oversized classes are just a warning sign and symptom of the fast growing population. Focus on having a better balance between the number of students and teachers and put more money into developing schools’ educational equipment. I believe this is the key to a healthier education and a better future.

Is our countries education moving forward or going backwards? Should we slow down!

In Yo Face

IN YO FACE!

Over the last few years I have noticed an increase in graphically violent, gory images and descriptions creeping into the media. 

It disturbs me so much I make a point of avoiding and/or not viewing such manipulative propaganda as much as possible.  

I believe that we have no one to blame but ourselves for what the media has become to day. 

 

AFTER ALL WE PAY FOR IT!

Where is the line?

Is it free speech or invasion of privacy?   

Is it art or Pornography?

Is it relevant or persuasive/scare tactics?

Is it the truth or is it a twisted representation of a fact?

The idea that I am questioning the news reporters agenda is a terrible thing and although underhanded tactics have been used for well pretty much ever, I believe it is getting much worse. Everybody knows that Sex, Violence Mayhem and Destruction sell! So the only way the media will change is if our viewing preferences change. They can introduce new rules and guidelines to try to control journalism but when they do we will find away around it.      

If there was no market for it there would be no point to display such rubbish... There are rules and regulations citing what is deemed inappropriate for television i.e. swearing and nudity, but as soon as it is labelled as news then it is protected by "FREE SPEECH" hmmmm makes you think... does it not?

Showing footage of the convicted Batman killer 24/7 for days on end is essentially immortalizing him. I do not want my children brought up in a world that is desensitized to MURDER whether it is in our local area or half way across the world, so I ask is it really hard hitting news that his psychiatrist prescribed medication to herself and other family members? and do we really need to know the ins and outs of his daily routine? He is no humanitarian, hero, or activist he is a mentally disturbed Psychopath and should not be shown so much attention...  The attention would be better spent on reporting the heroics many people displayed that day saving the lives of their loved ones. I would like to acknowledge the courage of Alex Sullivan, Johnathon Blunk and Mathew MacQuinn.

I am aware that people want to know what is happening news wise, that is a valid concern but is constant coverage of such terrible incidents really necessary? Plastering this madman's face across all forms of media is just over kill.

   

Personal Space.

Our media is a reflection of what the audience is interested in as a majority, whether that be seeing car crash victims, a burning building or a sneezing panda. Our media caters for our wants, rather than our needs. Of course, I am in no way saying that seeing dead bodies from a catastrophic incident, such as the brutal attack in the Colorado cinema shooting as a way of entertainment. But this is the sort of things the media makes its living off, without sensationalism and exaggeration how many people would even bother picking up a newspaper or turning on the news?


Journalists and media professionals around the world are there to inform the population, yes, but also to get people talking. Word of mouth is always going to be the best news coverage, especially now with every type of social media imaginable, it gets what the media sets out to achieve, for peoples ears to prick up and take notice. This is nothing new its just become more apparent as we become bombarded with media news and images almost every waking moment. When I say this is nothing new I mean it has been happening for hundreds of years, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176040/Jack-Ripper-invented-win-tabloid-newspaper-war.html.


The voyeurism of the media however does tend to continually push the boundaries, seeing that the media in a case of being able to get the best story possible, are selling out for their own sense of humanity. Capturing footage of a woman's final moments with her dying child and showing this on a national basis is not OK. There is no need to push these boundaries to an unnecessary point where already grieving families are put under more pressure of having their personal intimacy and privacy invaded.

I feel this is a question of how much is too much? Where is the line we cross to make a great news story? Surely the media can pull together a way of making a story without the necessity of making a front page spread, from the belligerency of a lunatic who, mentally ill or not, could not see the difference between a movie and peoples real lives. Should this be OK to get what the bad guy wanted, for the media to make him into some sort of commercially manipulated "villain" or should we become more interested in the strength that has been found within the survivors and their families?
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-22/world/world_europe_norway-shooting-anniversary_1_breivik-charges-of-voluntary-homicide-fight-multiculturalism


The media realises how much influence it has on its audience, maybe its time for it to do some good with its power and prove us all wrong.

"Peeping Tom" Does the media truly go too far?

Does the Media truly go too far?
Are you prepared to pin prick your way through every selective issue the Media has created to offend you? In light of recent events people have been asking themselves the question of what the Media as a whole has the right to do and is it ethically correct.
In Charlie Brooker's BBC series "Newswipe" A forensic psychiatrist outlines the things the media shouldn't be doing if they wish not to propagate more mass murderers. However I am sceptical of  this for several reasons, I am no psychiatrist which obviously could be part of the issue but last time I checked viewing how many people died in a crime didn't cause more people to become killers. I do however agree with his idea that making a mass murderer into an "Anti-hero" is quiet absurd and will lead people to believe some villains to be a sort of, Revolutionary nihilistic breaker of the mass media society we live in today.
"Don't start the story with sirens blaring" Well, I would find this hard because the fact is when people hear of something devastating or something that morally rocks them to their bones, sirens do blare. "Not to have photographs of the killer" I'm unsure of what the lead is here... I thought on this for awhile and unless I'm missing something crucial showing a picture of a murderer shouldn't create more murderers but maybe I am being mislead by myself and totally missing the point.

A thing that I am also iffy about is localising a story, I am understanding that the issue is to only give information to directly affected communities but does that mean you want to localise issues in Syria or is this selective to only mass murderers or rape? I can't help feeling that the Psychiatrist is writing a lot of this on the basis on being empathetical rather then rational.

Of course you have read on channel 7's giving of graphic footage and harassing attitude of the women who lost her daughter on a quad bike, clutching her deceased daughter obviously distraught the camera-man took advantage, snapping footage of the scene. They released this footage with knowledge that the immediate family hadn't even been notified of the young girls accident. This of course raises ethical questions and the mother was quick to post an angry statement on the channel 7's Facebook which was rudely deleted "accidently" from their page. But then the footage they took was not that of breaking the law, so what is the correct action to take? Of course you would most likely to agree that justice is a loose term when the involvement of law comes into play.

You can most likely tell I am sceptical of many of these issues but still in the grey, still undecided and my opinion is set to change at any moment.

It's not the size that matters, but what you do with it!

Throughout years 11 and 12, I was in both the smallest and largest classes of our grade. The smallest was French and consisted of 8 girls in a room no bigger than a shoebox. The largest class was Business Studies, at least 28 students (and that was after people dropped out).

Now, when I reflect back on my classes I can't help but think that it's not solely the class size which determines academic performance, but the experience of the teacher and the enthusiasm of the students.

For example, with such a small French class you would think we would each get lots of one on one time with the teacher but no. Being a group of girls, it resulted in talking...Lots of talking. It didn't help that due to cutbacks we had one "NFTF" (not face to face) lesson each week, meaning we would be given work to do but had no help if we required it.

Business studies on the other hand was a completely different environment, our teacher was awesome and would use the class time to discuss each topic and ensure that he covered everything we needed to know for the exams. Despite the teacher's best efforts, many still fell behind due to how large the class was, lack of communication and no one on one time with the teacher.My point is that there are many more factors than the size of a class that determine it's performance. Yes, I believe that small classes in a distraction free environment are important, however I believe that a quality teacher is the most crucial ingredient for the education of students.

'The Size Is Right'

Christopher Pyne has made a bold spoken statement on smaller class sizes in hopes to save the government more money. This is one of the reasons why he is the 'opposition' education minister. Our obsession with smaller class sizes is because it works.


As a recent high school graduate, I strongly feel that these smaller class sizes have an impact on our education. It simply gives the teachers more control over the class meaning less unnecessary distractions and more engaging students. Smaller classes grants a teacher the time to go around the room assisting each student with their work when required and keeping them on the right page.


There are countless more reasons why smaller class sizes are important, perhaps Mr. Pyne is just an 'old school' politician. Having 30 or more adolescent high school students crammed into a class can be the closest thing to hell for a teacher. I went to Edmund Rice College in Wollongong which is unfortunately an all male high school where my junior high school classes proved that a class filled with hotheaded, mischievous teenage boys can make a teacher throw a CD player across the room in anger. Yes, it happened.


It seems as if Mr. Pyne is just trying to lower the education standard for future Australians by sacking quality teachers and preventing the students from an opportunity. The price is right Mr. Pyne, ask Bob Barker.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

It is very hard to differentiate being famous and being infamous. The difference I think could be easily summarised by comparing two people. I guess you could say somebody "famous" would be somebody like Michael Jackson as he is a celebrated entertainer. An example of somebody "infamous" would be somebody like James Holmes who infamously killed 12 people and wounded 58 in the 2012 Colorado movie theatre shooting. I believe that the lines of being famous and infamous are continuously being blurred between one another. This is due to the media's involvement in news coverage.

My personal opinion on whether the media is being too voyeuristic in reporting on the news is pretty much 50/50. On one side it sickens me that we see these sicko's on televsion but we still need to know the facts on what is going on because it unites the world in a way where we all come together... And we watch it because it's like a car crash; you always look because no matter how brutal the outcome, you're curious as to who it happened to, what exactly happened, where it happened, when it happened, why it happened and how it happened.

I also believe that the 'mentally ill' arguement is such a cop out to the actual mentally ill. I believe it's just a cheap way to avoid jail time. We have all been brought up in a world where violence is not accepted in society. We have certain laws that are set in concrete so we do not kill or hurt somebody. There are plenty of mentally ill people in the world that do not go out and hurt other people. It's like the media are singling out the mentally ill by giving that label to people like James Holmes just so a news story can have a little more depth. Our mental stability "status" should not change all of a sudden when we shoot someone in the head. I believe that you're not mentally ill; you're just a killer. Do you get where i'm coming from?

The media needs to have a healthy balance on reporting serious issues such as mass murder, drugs and crime. It is important to shine a light on actual reality without having to make a reality TV show. The media should also inform the public on certain situations but it is not okay to put people who have done the wrong thing on some sort of pedestal. What the media needs to do is twist the story; instead of focusing on how gruesome a mass murder is, why don't they focus on how strong the survivors are? Why not turn a negative into a positive? Everytime you turn on the TV, it's always negative.

It's time for sunshine, rainbows and all that other positive, happy shit. :)

Quality > Quantity

The last two years of my schooling were the most rewarding and I believe this is due to the smaller classes.

 There was a sense of mutual respect between the students and teachers which helped many students greatly. Students who previously would just sit in the back quietly now engaged in class discussions and voiced their opinions with out the fear of being ridiculed or spoken over.

 Mr Pyne is clearly out of touch or just wants to save money. While there is no evidence that Smaller class sizes help students nearly every teacher and student I have met prefers a smaller class as it allows them to help each student individually as well as the class as a whole.


Stop to justify saving a quick buck, Mr Pyne.

Fluctuate this!

Classrooms are subject to fluctuations in their numbers, just the same as schools are in their yearly intake of students and teachers. Factoring in population density, lack of teaching staff, not to mention availability of courses or appropriate educational facilities a student may require it's no wonder that some classes are over crowded. People want to send their children to good schools, they want to be able to attend courses at a university or a tafe themselves, with intelligent teachers and good students, it's natural when seeking education, to seek one of quality.

Why then is there such outrage over so many people wanting the same thing? the issue isn't the number of students, It's the lack of teachers. Educators have become a dying breed, forcing the necessity of overflowing classrooms, world wide.

It's Not Rocket Science!

When I was in primary school I attended a school which had a maximum of 60 students at any one given time, in my final year 6 there was literally 5 students in year 5 and 6 students in year 6. These smaller class sizes made for a much more interactive learning experience between teachers and students alike when it came to interaction and discussion. However this is the same primary school institute that failed to even introduce maths as a subject for three years in a row which had a severe impact on my learning experience when I went to high school as I was already behind the eight ball.

This abhorrent lack of educational assistance has been a problem for many years and seems only to be getting worse. You would think that the situation would be rather easy to resolve; smaller classes means the teachers have more control and input into their students learning experiences, a higher level of education for teachers will incur a higher standard of teaching. There seems to be a call for an 'either -or' decision to be made between the quality of the assistance provided by teachers and the quantity of students per teacher, why is this so? Shouldn't we be focused on creating both quality AND quantity? There's no point having highly articulate and trained teachers in a class that is too large for any one individual to coordinate.
 
There are special circumstances that people should be aware of, in which large class numbers can seriously impact on the quality of a persons learning experience. Growing up I experienced some hearing loss which made it very difficult to hear the teacher speaking, let alone concentrate, when there are 30 or more students talking, fidgeting and shuffling in a class room all at once.

It's not rocket science! This is not a debate of class room sizes or even improving educational  resources to provide a better quality learning experience for our student population. This article depicts a politicians excuse for redirecting funds into areas that do not support or focus on public concerns but rather allow for pay-rises for those who are in positions of power to control and manipulate our national budget to suit their particular political agenda, which is all too often a capitalists dream of shunting the little guy in order to get more for themselves!

In all honesty, as I am currently enrolled in a TAFE course and am receiving the blunt end of the futile public education stick in Australia at the moment, I can comfortably say that this is not good enough and that cutting funds will only further decrease the ability of teachers to properly man (or woman :) their posts.

P.s. Now days there is such similarities between the Liberal and Labor government that I don't know who I'm fighting for anymore.

Improving grades isn’t as clear cut as downsizing classes

In my opinion yes class sizes are too big but I find that improving grades of students is not so clear cut as downsizing student numbers in the class. Sure the extra one on one time that each student is entitled too is increased with smaller classes which logically would see that student improve their grades. However with the increase in numbers of classes comes the need to employ more teachers which means that a student may be under the supervision of a teacher who may or may not be as skilled. With the increased quantity of classes more teachers must be employed which means that a student although receiving more supervision may be under the supervision of a teacher of less quality which would see a decrease in grades.
Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne says "There is no evidence that smaller class sizes somehow produce better student outcomes." I disagree with this as through my own personal experiences through sport, school and work I have found that learning in an environment with more one on one time with the teacher increased my ability to understand what it is I was supposed to be learning.
In conclusion I think the downsizing of classes will be beneficial to students however this doesn’t necessarily mean that being in a smaller class will always be more beneficial as we must make sure that all our teachers are of the highest calibre. Quality of teachers rather than quantity will see the improvement of students grades.

64 Students Dead in New Jersey Massacre

a total of 64 students were killed in a school massacre  that took place in a New Jersey school this morning, the tragedy was initiated with pipe bombs being thrown into an assembly then the gunman standing at one of the few exists firing randomly into the terrified crowd of students before taking his own life as soon as police arrived on the scene.

Please refer to the following link for further information:

http://www.edition.cnn.com/2012/07/27/us/jersey-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c1

The question now is, as he was a student himself should his count be raised to 65?

For anyone that tried to use that link, congratulations! you are part of this problem, but are you really to blame? Yes, but its not just you.

This problem extends beyond just "the media", the main problematic parties can be broken down into:

The media who sensationalizes tragedy 
Yes, they do this, but not simply because they can, but because they need too. They are in direct competition with their rival media outlets, if they don't get viewers > they don't get paid > they cease to exist. The fact that they not only are able to do things this way but that they must do it this way is a societal issue that lies squarely with the viewership.
"You can't create a monster and whine when it destroys a few buildings."
- Lisa Simpson, the Simpsons

The media who sensationalizes media intrusiveness
"we don't pander to the viewers and use cheap tactics to get ahead, we would never report on something like this in the way these media outlets would *shows clips of the news story* See how they are behaving? its disgusting right? here, watch it again!".
They are simply showing the same things but they aren't doing the sensationalism them selves, they are just showing other people doing it, which allows them to sit there on their moral high horse looking down on the mainstream. While they do not directly sensationalize specific tragedies, they do it for the greater societal issue of  humanity not being quite as civilized as we like to think, but they are worse as they do it with an over bearing sense of smugness.

The civilians who soak it up with no concerns for the morality of it
Of course we are drawn to stories like this, humanity has found death and violence entertaining for pretty much the entirety of its existence, from the ancient roman gladiators to people dueling to resolve mundane issues to modern full contact sports and violent fictional and non-fictional media. We claim that its terrible to like violence and that we should fight against it, it but we have done virtually nothing to stop it, there are people white-knighting the cause but its futile, it will never be stopped.

The civilians who publicly denounce the media
Most likely the ones white-knighting the anti-violence cause, similar to the anti-media media, all they do is draw additional attention to the things they claim to want to go away, and generally (not always) have the exact same sense of smugness that causes people who don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other to likely lean away from them and their futile cause.

Classroom sizes. Should they increase?

Having large classes can present numerous problems. For one there is usually only one teacher teaching the class. That teacher has to be able to balance the appointed time in class to see to all the students. Most classes only have a certain time period and with large classes the teachers often aren't able to see every student. I have been to a couple of different schools over the years and one thing i have noticed is that the teachers usually have to spend the majority of their time trying to clam the disruptive students who don't particularly want to be in class. At one of my high schools in particular there was only a very small amount of year 9s and so there were only three classes all roughly around 25-30 students. Many of the students were disruptive and liked to muck around. The noise often got so bad that some of the more dedicated and series students had trouble being heard. The teachers were put under a lot of stress having to teach classes that were almost uncontrollable. If the classes had been smaller or split into half I think the situation would have been different.
One of my year 9 electives was drama. It was a great subject and the class had only 11 students. I found it was much easier to participate in class. I didn't have to shout to get the teachers attention, and the teacher was able to come around and see each of the students throughout the lesson to make sure we were all on the same page.
Maybe with some schools having large classes work but in my experience large classes have never worked out.

My favourite class

When I was in high cchool my favourite class was Entertainment. We had an almost entirely absent teacher whose dismal efforts left us in a dire position when it came the HSC. In 2010 we started with about 10 people, only one of which was I actually friends with. But as the year went on and people dropped out or just stopped turning up to class we were left with 5 people including myself.

Our average Entertainment class consisted of the 5 of us walking around pointlessly as we had no teacher. We usually had tasks to do but they were usually very easy and took a matter of minutes. Because of this those 3 other people that I had barely ever spoken to became close friends in a very short period of time. We formed a kind of makeshift community. After a while we started dragging friends from free periods. And very quickly this small class turned into a bigger one as we brought more people in and formed our unoffical entertainment class. While other groups at school had people that had fights with each other and other nonsense we remained entirely drama-less. Instead we just listened to music, swung on the rope swing which was in place for the musical and found ways to amuse ourselves. After a while my friends had become theirs and theirs mine. It was almost like a social experiment that our teacher accidentally imposed on us.

I know this all sounds sappy, but the moral of my poorly told tale is that small classes usually end with better friendships. Also, negligent teachers are sometimes a blessing.

Class Sizes : Quality or Quantity

I have experienced studying at  large (as for me) classes in university where were sometimes more then 50-60 students during lesson . For some subjects there was no loss of educational value in large classes compared with smaller classes. However, I remember that  postgraduate subject content is usually analytical and discursive in nature. This required from us as students to participate in discussions. This was pretty hard sometimes. With this, I think that students learn more and get more individual attention when classes are smaller. Also if classes are smaller and students are comfortable with their educational experience, they will be more likely to progress.

Australia has a growing population and a government that  is in most part incompetent at meeting the realistic needs of the people it is representing. We see in the papers and media that there is a larger focus on discrediting the minister ( in this case the education minister ) to gain credit or favor in the public’s eyes.

I think that correct class size is proportional to the teaching ability of the person delivering the lesson and also the level of the student’s education. For example,  a year one class has a very limited knowledge base to draw from and relies heavily on the input from the teacher. This early education often forms the basis of a student ability to learn. The quality of the teacher, in my opinion, is very important and the class size should also be at a level that gives him or her  the ability to distribute their time among the class giving the attention needed to each individual. If we then look to the opposite end of the scale, a university student who has learnt how to listen, research and focus their learning is not as demanding on a teacher. The teacher is I think there to deliver content and guide the student and able to spread his time more efficiently among a larger group.

I see reason in Pyre's argument in that it is not solely class size that is a key factor in effective education but also the quality of the person delivering the content. The way we look at education and in particular class size I think needs to be more flexible and could also be proportional to the teachers actual ability. From what I have been told and read in the media about school classes, here in Australia  there are teachers in the system that are incompetent or just do not have the resources at their disposal to give their class (whatever the size ) the quality of education they deserve. If the government actually stopped and looked at the bigger picture and not just trying to throw money into a system to gain the public's favor for an upcoming or future election I am positive that a system could be put into place that could not only attracts the people they need into our educational system but also a structure that identifies what actually works in relation to the number of students a particular level of teacher is competent in teaching.

As far as I know (if it is not my mstake), our teachers are not graded and this, I think, could be a step in identifying ability. Also this is a way to highlight and reward the experienced and enthusiastic teachers, who have the qualifications and dedicated to deliver their knowledge, that is reflected in their students grades.

How resources and funding is distributed can also impact on this and in some cases the public system is restricted. In the article Evans worried by university class sizes where education minister Chris Evans is looking at the  tertiary education the funding from the government is allocated by the vice-chancellor and I think he needs to be accountable for the way that these funds are used. It is him who ultimately sets class sizes and employs teachers and resources. 

Well, in conclusion, I should admit that the terms “small” and “large” are obviously a debatable subject. How many people in a "big" class? Does a small class consist of less then 20 people? I was curious about standard for sizes of classes, so I made a little research.

In some published sources “small”is defined as “30 or fewer students” while “large” is defined as “70 or more students” (Gibbs, G., Lucas, L., & Simonite, V. ,1996,Class Size and Student Performance. Studies in Higher Education; Toth, L. S., & Montagna, L. G.,2002, Class Size and Achievement in Higher Education: A Summary of Current Research). Other work defines a “small” class as having a ceiling of 55 students and a “large” class as having a ceiling of 120 students (Maxwell, N. L., & Lopus, J. S., 1995, A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Large and Small Classes in the University. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis). Other book distinguishes “normal” classes as consisting averaging 39 students and “megaclasses” of 120 or more students (Hancock, T.,1996, Effects of Class Size on College Student Achievement)... As for me, only qualified and experienced teacher can objectively say for particular subject if his/her class is big or small.

Press to this link to see video, which shows a few good reasons to keep classes small

Back of the line, no cuts!

Remember back in primary school when you would line up at the canteen and eagerly await to spend the change you spent your entire morning convincing your mum you reeeeeeally needed? Fidgeting restlessly as you watched the racks of sausage rolls or pies or even cakes slowly dwindle down in number as the line got shorter, kids squishing and poking you as you waddled closer to the front. And there would always be that one kid that tried to cut in, trying to get to YOUR cake before you could!
And you would shout "Hey! Back of the line Timmy, no cuts!"

Wouldn't it be nice to have such a system in place for education budget cuts?

It's naive to think that smaller class numbers are the only way for students to achieve a strong academic performance. It's also naive to dismiss the effectiveness of competent professionals.
You can have a class of one student and one teacher, and still have an ineffective learning environment if the teacher isn't passionate, knowledgable and engaging.

And contrariwise, a good teacher that is under pressure from large class numbers can be made ineffective simply due to lack of time and resources to accommodate each student. And if the students are unwilling to learn, that is a whole other Mad Hatter's tea party.

Cutting class numbers is not the solution to Australia's declining academic results.
Our population is only going to get larger, which means more students. More students means we need more teachers. So more money needs to be put into developing effective teaching strategies, and more support given to teachers in terms of adequate pay for the amount of work they do, and the quality of work they provide.

It's important to have a balanced student:teacher ratio, yes, but also important to have good quality teachers. You can't boil soup from stone.

"Dammit Timmy, I said no cuts! Kamehamehaaaaaa!!" - True story

class sizes

When i was at school, my senior years were the best years of my schooling. The classes were smaller, you could actually hear and pay attention to the teacher without getting easily distracted (I wasnt with any of my bestfriends though, so that probably made it a bit easier to concentrate!)

But in saying that, I don't agree with the government spending more money and attention in cutting class sizes down. The focus should be on the level of quality in the teachers. If a teacher doesn't know what they are talking about, if they look nervous and cant control a classroom, of course the kids aren't going to pay attention. The government should invest time in training teachers on how to manage students in a professional way, instead of wasting money trying to cut down the number of students in a class.

Ignorance is Alive and Well

Mr Pyne’s resent vitriolic attack on the Federal Government’s efforts to reduce classroom sizes should be COMMENDED!! Yes people … you heard me right … COMMENDED!!

Never before have we had a politician with such vision, such foresight and such vigour. Finally, a true “peoples” politician. You have heard our cries and you have listened.

The People of Australia have voted Mr Pyne. Their ears have been ceremoniously “pricked”. We… as a collective group of “no-bodies” … would like to impart on you our deepest thanks.

Thank you Mr Pyne… in fact … Thank you Shadow Minister … for not being afraid of sounding like a complete horses arse.

May we all … be afforded ... the education you were solicited.

Movie Premiere

Movie Premiere

Being in a large class is like going to the movies on the premiere of a popular movie, there is always going to be that group of people talking in the back corning making it hard to concentrate. However, sometimes you get lucky and are surrounded by others who share the same excitement and passion about the movie you have all been so eager to watch.

 I guess what I’m trying to say is the size of the class most defiantly matters but sometimes it just depends on the attitudes the students have towards the class. In my earlier years of high school I only had a few classes with my friends, one of those being math, I was never the best at math so I became the loud obnoxious kid who didn’t even own a text book because I just didn’t care! The class was an average size for my school being about 20-25 students but it was the lowest math class full of year 8 students.

The following year I was placed in the highest English class, same size, but there was no comparison to these students’ outlooks on learning! The class was much more structured and organized there was no way I would get away with the same things I did in my maths class.

Looking back on it now my negative attitude towards math could have been turned around if I was offered that little bit of extra attention and talked through an equation a different way.

People’s views on educational courses today about not worrying too much on the size of the class in hopes that students will drop out is more horrifying than being back in that year 8 math class! If we can find a way to improve teacher’s attitudes towards teaching and encourage their students to succeed hopefully the graduation room will be just as packed as the cinema on a movie premiere.

"Eat My Shorts"

Classroom sizes are way too big. Period. For me, my time in primary school and high school were surrounded by 30+ people and at times you could tell the teacher was struggling to hold it together. I look back at high school and cringe and laugh… But mostly laugh at the things we as students did to our teachers. I’m telling you now; power by numbers is such a big factor in whether a teacher or the students have control over the classroom.

We had students hanging from the fans, throwing dusters at them, swear at them, we wrote notes to teachers to “go die in a whole you fat whore” (I personally did not do this.), spat “gollies” on the chalkboard and even threw dirty underwear at the teachers (I also did not do this). I’m telling you right now; there are too many students in classrooms and if you don’t want to shorten them to save money then do it for teachers, for their health and welfare. Looking back, most of our teachers had breakdowns and left because they couldn’t handle us as a group unit.

So as you can see, It baffles me to the point of exhaustion that this Christopher Pyne clown would even suggest that the government had been wasting money and resources on reducing classroom sizes. I mean, wasn’t he a student once? Is he really that old that he cannot remember what it was like to be in a classroom, to be heard? To state your opinion? To me, the way the Herald sun has portrayed Pyne in the article is as if he is whinging about the education system... Oh boy we must be in trouble then!

I’m pretty sure if you ask any student if they would like their classrooms to be small I’m positive that they would all say YES. Pyne was quoted as saying “There is no evidence that smaller class sizes somehow produce better student outcomes”.  I don’t know why we (as a nation) are so money hungry. Education is supposed to be free. In saying that; if the government cannot give us “money” then give us smaller classes.

Christopher Pyne, you are clearly out of touch with the education system. I believe Bart Simpson puts it beautifully... Don't have a cow, man!

Classroom Ignorance

When you are in a classroom there are things that you factor in your mind, am i concentrating enough? have i absorbed all the information that i can? Am i listening attentively? do i have enough lip gloss on?

These are the things students should be worrying about okay maybe not the last one, but as a student you come to class to further your education to learn the the best of your ability and i think that with a bigger class its hard to listen attentively when there is so much going on around you. People get distracted easily and teachers feel like they have to be in a million places at once trying to give each student the best education possible because that's what there their for right?

As for Mr Pynes argument for attracting more talented people into the teaching profession does he really think people are really going to be attracted to becoming a teacher when all they are doing is cutting jobs and making classes bigger because that doesn't appeal to me a student and I'm sure it wouldn't appeal to teachers. Having that extra stress that is forced upon them because of the large number of students they have to take on. I strongly believe that they should worry about reducing class sizes before all the teachers go on stress leave. 

Same old argument...

It comes down to the same old argument for me.  Cutting back on education resources to save money, because we can get more money in the short term from overseas students, who can then leap-frog over the natives for jobs (i.e. importing workers to cover the "skills shortage" which wouldn't exist if some of our own, disadvantaged citizens could get some decent education).  This type of approach means that the rich, who can afford the fancy schools (which in the great egalitarian scheme of things, the poor get an equal chance to subsidise from their taxes), can get the education that enables them to remain rich, and the poor get locked into the crap education - crap job (or no job) cycle.

To gain smaller class sizes, it seems you have to just divvy up the face-to-face time between the reduced size classes, so what do we gain?  The teachers are still stretched to get around everyone's needs, and the system relies more on the students doing their leaning during homework and assignment time.

I believe it is the duty of the state to give its citizens a decent education, and class sizes are only part of that story.  As to Pyne's position, we already have some very good teachers, but they are not able to reach their potential because they are stretched time and resouce wise.

Smaller Classes vs Teacher Training

Smaller Classes vs Teacher Training

The government is always looking for a way to "cut costs" but do I think that increasing class sizes to save money, for the educational training for new teachers is a good idea?

That would be a NO.

I don't believe this will help. Teaching is about attitude, enthusiasm, passion and interest in your profession as well as knowledge. Can you really pay somebody to teach somebody else to be enthusiastic and passionate?

A good teacher is somebody who encourages all students to want to learn and that is a skill you can not buy.

Every class has a mix of students with different needs and abilities, increasing the size of the class will mean those in need of extra attention will inevitably suffer the consequences of this action. A smaller class means the teachers attention can be directed where it is needed most. Yes it is true that some less desirable teachers will be introduced to the profession, but is it not simply a matter of enhancing the original training curriculum. If the study expectations of a student teacher is reviewed I am betting that there are a number of changes that could be made to improve the level of training without allowing our next generation of possible leaders to suffer.

We need to make sure that our children have the best possible education that is possible.

SO YOU SEE... SIZE DOES MATTER.

Add one cup of...

Recently I quit my job...

I started my Chefs apprenticeship in October 2009, literally walked out the doors of  my last HSC exam and into the Kitchen at "La Cucina @ the Hotel Illawarra". I was keen, I was ready and strangely enough I was well prepared for my time as an apprentice.

I excelled in my classes at TAFE. I had gained prior recognition for a years worth of work due to my completion of my Cert II during highschool. It was all well and good, however I did have a few issues with my time in my practical classes. Not issue issues but some small problems, mostly concerning allocation of resources...

There was never enough of the suff, at least not of the good stuff. There was a lack of quality ingredients, and sometimes we ran out.

Now I can understand that this could probably have something to do with the general funding of the course. HOWEVER it still frustrated me to no end. How can we turn out quality product without quality ingredients?
The answer is we can't... and with large class sizes, spreading out small ammounts of ingredients over large ammounts of students doesn't really work.

At one point we had to create a mushroom risotto, simple enough right? Wrong.
Without enough mushrooms to go around they didn't turn out so well.

I could give some more examples but I think that you should have caught on to my point by now and although class size may not be the root of the problem (underfunding probably was but thats a whole different kettle of fish...) it sure as hell didn't help.

As they say "too many chefs spoil the broth"...

Size does matter

While quality of teachers is a very significant issue, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the solution to the issues with the our current quality of education is to reduce the total time a teacher is able to spend with each student individually.

If teachers are unable to discover a students strengths and/or weaknesses until after assessment the issue cannot be addressed, and given the already tight time constraints placed on them to keep moving forward they may not be able to go back through and resolve the problem.

In regards to the other involved party in the matter, the students, larger classes enable them to more easily "fly under the radar" enabling them to be disruptive to not only their own education but also to the students around them. There would also be a problems with students not wanting to speak up about issues they are having due to the larger, more intimidating, number of students who, as far as they know, are not facing the same problems they are.

Trying to learn -

Trying to learn -

When I studied Jiujitsu, I was placed in a squad of ten other boys. The cost per lesson a mere ten dollars for an hour but I soon discovered that many of my competitors where getting extra lessons, one on one, teacher with student for fifty dollars. I wonder now if the reason for the larger costing class was to cover the time the teacher spent on a single student or because the student was receiving one on one better training than others.

The dilemma appears quickly that for smaller classrooms to operate efficiently people need well trained teachers in the said profession and not only this but their era of expertise should be relevant to what they are teaching. Many times during my High-school years a teacher of Maths would teach English and not only this but the ridiculousness of 'Substitute' teachers is also an issue. Substitute teachers do not teach often, they babysit.
Not only this but the factor of costs on a certain institution which is paying the many teachers to run many small classes. Jiujitsu is of course a long way from an English or Maths class but the relevant analogy still stands, If there are smaller classes, will students have to pay more money for more teachers to be involved in their education?

I give the question, if the government demands that a class has less than twenty students would you be willing to pay an extra one thousand or more dollars towards your education or would you quickly take the route to employment in an effort to save money.

Of course you could sit there and argue that the government should pay all your fees and that education always should be free or accessible.
Having forty students in a class with two teachers is not a good idea, then whom is teaching the class? Quickly misdirection sets in or not knowing where to lay your attention, causing confusion and people will ultimately start to day-dream.

I am not saying I am against small classes in anyway, if I had my way a class room would be maximum ten students but it is not about wishing, it is about what is realistic and the real world factor of costs/money is the real issue along side educated teachers. A teacher is the one conveying information on a topic so the rest of the class can learn about it, so employing substitute teachers just so people can have smaller classes is ridiculous.
If the government could step up with a viable plan to covers costs than so be it but let us not live in a fairy land believing that everything comes easy.

Consider :
1. Will there be enough high quality teachers to cover all the small classes?
2. Is there enough room for all these classes to take place?
3. Will putting money into the class reduction take away funds for other courses?