FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W189992235> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W189992235 startingPage "246" @default.
• W189992235 abstract "A FEW YEARS ago I received a phone call from Ira Glass, then with National Public Radio and based in Chicago. Glass had recently completed what I thought was a dynamite series on school reform in Chicago. He had committed two years to the project, spending one in an elementary school and one in a high school. I took the opportunity to ask him, Ira, you just spent two years in the system Bill Bennett says is the nation's worst. Is there any hope? There was a considerable pause, and then Glass replied, you could get class size down, way down. About half of the kids who are there aren't really there. If class sizes were really small, the teachers might have enough time to think of strategies for reaching the kids who are mentally absent. While hardly uniform, the evidence on class-size reduction (CSR) appears to support Glass' position. Under the guidance and guest editorship of David Grissmer of the RAND Corporation, the summer 1999 issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA) devotes all 155 pages to studies of CSR. One might hope that this much space would bring closure and a definitive conclusion, but instead it dramatizes just how complicated the situation is: CSR might be effective for some types of students but not others, it might be effective for some subjects but not others, and its effectiveness might depend on a whole host of other variables. For instance, Project STAR in Tennessee found that CSR produced larger gains for low-income and minority students than for middle-income and white students. Project STAR contained a larger proportion of low-income and minority students than Tennessee or the U.S. in general, which raises the question of the efficacy of CSR for an entire population, as in California. Alex Molnar and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, use their space in EEPA to report on their evaluation of Project SAGE, a small-class experiment in Milwaukee. They report positive results, but their population is almost entirely made up of low-income and minority children. Generalizations from these data to the entire population of a state would be tricky, but these results do appear to extend the range of the STAR findings. Interestingly, the SAGE researchers find that two teachers with a class of 30 might be as effective as one with a class of 15. If this finding holds up, then larger-scale experiments could be effected without enormous increases in the number of separate classrooms, such as were needed to put in place California's CSR mandate. There are hints in the data that there might be some kind of effect in terms of how many students can be in a classroom before achievement starts to drop. And this threshold might vary by socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity. There is a certain intuitive logic to this idea. If poor students bring less social and intellectual capital to school, then the school would have to provide more intense doses of such capital in order to bring them up to speed. What one sees in CSR research depends, in part, on what assumptions one makes about thresholds or subject matter or SES or grade level or the linearity/nonlinearity of the relationships. For instance, in his article in EEPA, Eric Hanushek of the University of Rochester argues that substantial reductions in pupil/teacher ratios over time have not been accompanied by increases in scores of 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. There are several problems with this contention. First, pupil/teacher ratio is not the same thing as class size. Hanushek argues that they are correlated and tend to move together in the aggregate. This is true. But while the average pupil/teacher ratio is around 17:1, the Digest of Education Statistics reports the average class size as 23 for elementary schools and 25 for high schools. The calculation of pupil/teacher ratio includes everyone in the building who has a professional certificate. …" @default.
• W189992235 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W189992235 creator A5008300154 @default.
• W189992235 date "1999-11-01" @default.
• W189992235 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W189992235 title "Reducing Class Size: The Findings, the Controversy" @default.
• W189992235 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W189992235 type Work @default.
• W189992235 sameAs 189992235 @default.
• W189992235 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W189992235 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W189992235 hasAuthorship W189992235A5008300154 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C2776824051 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C2778083465 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C2778572836 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C2778707766 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W189992235 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C10138342 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C111919701 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C138885662 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C144024400 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C144133560 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C145420912 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C154945302 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C15744967 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C17744445 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C199539241 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C2776824051 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C2777212361 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C2778083465 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C2778572836 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C2778707766 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C39549134 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C41008148 @default.
• W189992235 hasConceptScore W189992235C41895202 @default.
• W189992235 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W189992235 hasLocation W1899922351 @default.
• W189992235 hasOpenAccess W189992235 @default.
• W189992235 hasPrimaryLocation W1899922351 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W10921210 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W146920992 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W150157118 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W1558322165 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W2065952874 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W2100385892 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W2314166308 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W233027360 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W240122855 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W2510617294 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W255866508 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W258123326 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W266848489 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W303146216 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W3123869744 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W3124664866 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W335934104 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W57234143 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W747302475 @default.
• W189992235 hasRelatedWork W2993906659 @default.
• W189992235 hasVolume "81" @default.
• W189992235 isParatext "false" @default.
• W189992235 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W189992235 magId "189992235" @default.
• W189992235 workType "article" @default.