In a message dated 95-10-10 21:14:38 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org (William A. Juraschek) writes:
>Back in the late 70s Gene Glass did a meta-analysis of the research on >the relation between class size and achievement. I vaguely recall the >magic number was around 18, that is, there was not very much effect until >you got down around 18 (don't quote this).
Exactly. I don't know why you need a study to see the obvious. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has ever done any teaching could tell you that beyond 18 you have a crowd and not a class. Perhaps I was exaggerating in an earlier post when I said that beyond 18, teaching is a waste of time, but certainly the class dynamic changes abruptly.
>This was disappointing >because such a reduction is not considered economically feasible, and not >much was done after his study was published.
Nonsense. We could easily afford this. It might mean that every person couldn't own four TVs and three VCRs, but what the heck. Or maybe the rich would have to give up their entitlements.