Early Sunday afternoon, the 49ers did their best to maintain the hunt for #1. They only managed to put up 3 points while generously allowing Tampa Bay 35 points. This put the pressure on for the Dolphins in the late game, meeting in Seattle. In that game, the Dolphins started out in good form, allowing the Seahawks to take a 7-0 lead. However, the Fins then scored a touchdown, putting their status as #1 in jeopardy. At halftime, the Fins were down 17-7, and it seemed safe that they would continue their attempt at #1.
However, in the second half, the Dolphins scored 10 unanswered points, tying the game. Late in the game, the Dolphins were driving for a potentially winning score that would take them out of first place. However, Feely, after being much injured and pounded throughout the game (knocked down over 20 times), managed to save the Dolphin's #1 by first throwing a touchdown pass -- to Boulware of the Seahawks -- and then fumbling on the next play from scrimmage, securing the Dolphin's #1 spot.
Of course, this #1 spot is the #1 draft pick for next year. And they are currently tied with the 49ers. Next week's game? The real game for #1: Dolphins vs. 49ers (both teams are the worst in the league at 1-9).
Monday, November 15, 2010
Class Size vs. Performance
One of govn'r Easley's primary claims to fame -- the first words out of his mouth when he mentions government education -- is making class sizes smaller. He knows that a vast majority of people hear that and think a) he cares about children and b) smaller class sizes result in better educated students. I've often wondered from where this idea came, so I've tried to find out (for now I'm ignoring 'a' because he only really cares about being elected).
I found a study from the Education Commission of the States (2002) that examined CA and reductions in class sizes. This pro-government education group found that there was no link between smaller class sizes and student achievment, and that when implemented, it's primary effect was to increase the number of unqualified teachers in the districts. When actual measurable results are compared, it can be found there is NO relationship between academic performance and class size -- one study by the Heritage Foundation found no difference in reading scores for students in classes of 20 or less as compared to classes of 31 and more.
In looking for more research supporting smaller class sizes, some benefits of smaller class size seems to be: "it helps teachers in getting to know the kids," "more personalized attention to students, higher teacher morale," and "The extra time got me inspired to try new things." One study on the TN "STAR" study is quoted in dozens of sources -- some claming smaller classes are absolutely, 100% effective in increasing student scores, while others claim they had no effect on test scores.
How about a longer term, wider-based study: "Hanushek discovered that between 1950 and 1994, student-teacher ratios in U.S. elementary and secondary schools fell by 35 percent. Nonetheless, math, science and reading scores among American 17-year-olds have remained the same throughout most of the time period." Doesn't sound so good, especially when reducing class size costs very, very large amounts of money. Oh yeah, it's for the children, so we can take that money from the producers and spend at will. I'm glad I homeschool.
I found a study from the Education Commission of the States (2002) that examined CA and reductions in class sizes. This pro-government education group found that there was no link between smaller class sizes and student achievment, and that when implemented, it's primary effect was to increase the number of unqualified teachers in the districts. When actual measurable results are compared, it can be found there is NO relationship between academic performance and class size -- one study by the Heritage Foundation found no difference in reading scores for students in classes of 20 or less as compared to classes of 31 and more.
In looking for more research supporting smaller class sizes, some benefits of smaller class size seems to be: "it helps teachers in getting to know the kids," "more personalized attention to students, higher teacher morale," and "The extra time got me inspired to try new things." One study on the TN "STAR" study is quoted in dozens of sources -- some claming smaller classes are absolutely, 100% effective in increasing student scores, while others claim they had no effect on test scores.
How about a longer term, wider-based study: "Hanushek discovered that between 1950 and 1994, student-teacher ratios in U.S. elementary and secondary schools fell by 35 percent. Nonetheless, math, science and reading scores among American 17-year-olds have remained the same throughout most of the time period." Doesn't sound so good, especially when reducing class size costs very, very large amounts of money. Oh yeah, it's for the children, so we can take that money from the producers and spend at will. I'm glad I homeschool.
Money is not the root of all evil.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for money. Money is not the tool of moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor -- your claim upon the energy of men who produce. You wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of the man who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made -- before it can be looted or mooched -- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his own ability. An honest man is one who knows that he cannot consume more than he has produced."
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor -- your claim upon the energy of men who produce. You wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of the man who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made -- before it can be looted or mooched -- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his own ability. An honest man is one who knows that he cannot consume more than he has produced."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)