Wednesday, January 12, 2005

THE OLD CLASS-SIZE MYTH EXPLODED ONCE AGAIN

"It has not been a good week for state education in Britain. First came a study from London University's Institute of Education (reported by dehavilland and the UK press). It explored whether smaller class sizes do indeed produce better results. Smaller classes formed a key Labour pledge when it was first elected. While doubts have been raised about older children (11+) level, it had been widely assumed that smaller classes at primary level (5+) gave better results. The report says:

No evidence was found that children in smaller classes made more progress in mathematics, English or science.


Indeed, a counter-indicator emerged, in that levels of literacy among children aged 11 in classes of fewer than 25 pupils were lower than those who were in groups of more than 30 children.

In fact family poverty, rather than class size, had the biggest effect on results. Those eligible for free school meals (taken to be a social indicator) fell further behind in English and maths as they progressed through school.

Now the Commons Education and Skills Select Committee has said there is no evidence to support the claim that more money in education equals better results. The Labour-dominated committee says bluntly that the Government is wrong to claim that billions of pounds in extra funding for schools has produced better examination results.

Despite Chancellor Gordon Brown's claims to the contrary, the committee said that GCSE exam results had improved no more rapidly during Tony Blair's Government than when the Conservatives were in power, even though public expenditure on secondary schools had risen up to ten times faster.

The Government needs to take great care in making claims about the effectiveness of increased investment in education in increasing levels of achievement which the evidence cannot be proved to support. Links between expenditure and outcome remain difficult to establish.


The select committee's report on public expenditure in education said that the Treasury had "simply asserted" a direct link between spending and exam performance in the 2004 Budget, with no supporting evidence. These two reports do not, of course, prove any case, but they do suggest that the link between extra money and better results might be more tenuous than the UK government, and especially its Chancellor, has assumed. It could be that the mountain of additional spending might bring forth only a mouse of achievement.

(Post lifted from Madsen Pirie)






SOUNDS LIKE SOME IMPROVEMENT

Boarding Schools Nurturing Low-Income Students

Lynnette Blackmon liked the small classes and energetic teachers at Maya Angelou Public Charter School in the District, but she was often hours late. "I had a big tardy issue," said the tall, slender 17-year-old. Most schools try to persuade students to get out of bed in the morning by lowering their grades or giving them detention when they don't, but Maya Angelou is one of a small but growing number of schools that have a different approach to the problem. They invite teenagers who need extra help to live in school quarters. Last year, Lynnette moved into a well-kept brick rowhouse on 13th Street NW -- one of three rented homes, each staffed with an adult resident supervisor, in which her school houses 15 of its 110 students. Not only did she stop being late, she said, but her grades rose, and she began to shed a crippling shyness. Living with four other girls, she said, "forced me to interact with people."

A generation ago, American boarding schools were generally of two kinds: private institutions for the college-bound children of the wealthy, or state-supported facilities for children under court supervision. But now a few private schools and charter schools, which are independent public schools exempt from ordinary rules and procedures, have set themselves up as boarding schools for low-income students who want many of the advantages and the support given to bankers' and lawyers' children at Groton and St. Mark's. "At the residence, they make sure you do your homework," said Blackmon's friend and housemate Ingrid Nunez, 16. The students are in bed by 11 p.m., they said, and up in time to catch the Metro to school, a mile from the boarding home. "Local philanthropists, educators, judges, clergy and others around the country are starting local residential schools rather than just despair of the conditions so many youth live in, and fail in," said Heidi Goldsmith, founder and executive director of the Washington-based Coalition for Residential Education. There are only about 30 such schools, public and private, in the country, but more are planned, she said.

Some experts think the idea makes sense. "Boarding schools can nurture a shared commitment to disciplined study and achievement," said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California-Berkeley. "It builds a tighter community of learners, among dedicated teachers and students who gain a new sense of confidence. Rich parents who have sent their kids to boarding schools have understood this for centuries." The movement toward boarding schools for low-income students has made some of its greatest strides in the District, where both Maya Angelou and the SEED Public Charter School receive an extra $14,000 in federal tax dollars each year for every student who lives on their premises.

SEED, a seventh- to 12th-grade school, has all 300 of its students living on a new campus in a low-income section of Southeast Washington, its dormitories as shiny and well-equipped as any New England prep school. The school's founders, Eric Adler and Rajiv Vinnakota, said they realized that the school would not work without government aid, so while raising millions in private funds to build the dormitories, they helped persuade Congress to add a boarding stipend to the D.C. school funding law.

More here






HOORAY! STUDENTS ABANDONING USELESS COURSES

Universities are losing millions of dollars every year because dissatisfied students are pulling out of courses. And as students face tuition fee increases of up to 25 per cent for federally funded places, or pay thousands of dollars more for full-fee places, university chiefs are struggling to ensure that poorer students, people with disabilities and those from non-English speaking backgrounds are not forced out of the market.

At the University of Western Sydney alone, 1520 students left last year, according to an internal student exit survey seen by the Herald. Of those, 319 were overseas or postgraduate students; their withdrawal cost the university more than $4 million. "With the pipeline effect this loss increases to $9,283,200 over the full duration of the courses concerned," the survey report says.

Yesterday, a pro vice-chancellor at the university, Geoff Scott, said the student drop-out rate was a sector-wide issue and it was important to find out why students were leaving, because of the cost not only to them personally and universities but to the country. "We really need to come to grips with why people leave," Professor Scott said. "And where we find it's something to do with the quality of the experience, we really need to address it. We don't want to lose folk who wanted to stay but couldn't afford to, or are single mums struggling to make ends meet, or older people trying to upgrade skills."

The survey, completed by 496 of the 1520 students who left, found 70 per cent of respondents had "permanently withdrawn" - though 39.5 per cent hoped to return - with 24 per cent moving to another tertiary institution. "Of the students who moved to another institution, 30 per cent reported they were now studying with TAFE," the report said.

The reasons for leaving were mixed - some the university could do something about, but there were also "more general life factors" that were beyond its control. More than 35 per cent of students said the course was not what they had expected; 24 per cent said they had conflicting employment commitments; and 20 per cent cited difficulties with enrolments, paying fees and student admissions. Just over 10 per cent said they had problems with access to staff, and almost 9 per cent said the teaching was "un-motivating". Almost 9 per cent had suffered financial difficulties. The report lists six categories under the heading "university factors". Under "staff", it says respondents listed "unhelpful teaching staff, staff with insufficient knowledge to respond accurately to particular inquiries, unprofessional teaching staff (late to class and unprepared), missed lectures".

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************

No comments: