I don't understand the deal with MoCo class size

[Anonymous]

"Our elementary school was built just a few years ago"

Not pp but ours was built 2 years ago and is already almost full. School population has ballooned since the new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should recognize they would be in danger of breaching the cap when most classes are 26 or greater and for that year hire additional teachers.

It should not be acceptable to have classes over 30. Why is that acceptable? Hire more teachers so the goal is 25 at least.

Hire additional teachers from where? How many good teachers are unemployed and available for hire in the middle of the year, or even in August?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Our elementary school was built just a few years ago"

Not pp but ours was built 2 years ago and is already almost full. School population has ballooned since the new school.

Which school?

[Anonymous]

Even if they hired more teachers, where do you suggest they put the additional classes? More portables? My DC's school already has 8, lunch staggered from 11 to 1:30. At some point, more kids = dangerous conditions.

When there is a tornado, kids in portables have to go into the hallways on the 1st floor; the kids on the 2nd floor also go down to the 1st floor hallways. Adding more kids to an already over crowded school is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if they hired more teachers, where do you suggest they put the additional classes? More portables? My DC's school already has 8, lunch staggered from 11 to 1:30. At some point, more kids = dangerous conditions.

When there is a tornado, kids in portables have to go into the hallways on the 1st floor; the kids on the 2nd floor also go down to the 1st floor hallways. Adding more kids to an already over crowded school is a disaster waiting to happen.

The kids are already there, regardless. The question is only whether they would be in fewer classes with more kids per class or more classes with fewer kids per class.

Also, there are large class sizes in schools that are under capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Our elementary school was built just a few years ago"

Not pp but ours was built 2 years ago and is already almost full. School population has ballooned since the new school.

Which school?

I'm not the PP, but Garrett Park ES was reopened 3 years ago and was almost at capacity last year, predicted to be over capacity this year.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP16_Chap4_WJ.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's flatly silly. Not finding statistical significance does not mean there's no causal effect there. And the fact that you DO see a significant relationship when the class sizes get lower (under 20) means there's good reason to believe that in fact you just aren't able to capture the effect because of confounding factors. So, yes it's true that we haven't PROVEN a difference between 25 and 24, but it's not at all true that there's no evidence of a negative relationship between class size and student success.

Nobody said that there is a negative relationship between class size and student success (i.e., smaller classes are correlated with less student success)

The point is that the studies do not show a positive relationship between slightly lower class size and student success. I.e., the studies did not find a correlation between slightly smaller class sizes more student success. Might such a correlation exist anyway? Yes. But the studies do not show it.

You don't understand what a negative relationship is. It means when one goes up the other goes down. Please stop talking about statistics when you clearly have no background that would enable you to understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's flatly silly. Not finding statistical significance does not mean there's no causal effect there. And the fact that you DO see a significant relationship when the class sizes get lower (under 20) means there's good reason to believe that in fact you just aren't able to capture the effect because of confounding factors. So, yes it's true that we haven't PROVEN a difference between 25 and 24, but it's not at all true that there's no evidence of a negative relationship between class size and student success.

Nobody said that there is a negative relationship between class size and student success (i.e., smaller classes are correlated with less student success)

The point is that the studies do not show a positive relationship between slightly lower class size and student success. I.e., the studies did not find a correlation between slightly smaller class sizes more student success. Might such a correlation exist anyway? Yes. But the studies do not show it.

You don't understand what a negative relationship is. It means when one goes up the other goes down. Please stop talking about statistics when you clearly have no background that would enable you to understand it.

Also you misstate the studies. The studies show a statistically significant relationship at slight decreases if that decrease is from 21 to 19. But not from 23 to 21. So you have mistakenly concluded that that means there's no relationship there. The more reasonable conclusion would be that there is a relationship, because otherwise it wouldn't be evident going from 21 to 19. The confounding variables are masking it at the higher numbers. As a side note, basic statistics should be a required course in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about properly allocating resources, 19:56? You are a shameless BFES apologist.

What do you mean by "properly allocating resources", specifically? How do you think that resources should be allocated? What should MCPS have done with BFES?

Not PP but will respond to your question with a question. Should the county, in a supposed money saving move, have delayed construction in other clusters that were severely overcrowded and getting worse but move forward with a new school for Beverly Farms? That is what happened. The same year they moved forward with construction at Beverly Farms, the county delayed construction of a 5th elementary school to relieve overcrowding in the Richard Montgomery cluster. This despite a recommendation from the education board to move forward with construction of the 5th elementary school. Why should resources have been allocated to Beverly Farms but relief delayed for the Richard Montgomery cluster (or others that are overcrowded). True, the county has to prioritize but why prioritize a school below capacity over one that is way over? BTW, the 5th elementary school for the Richard Montgomery cluster has yet to be built. After further delays, it is slated to be complete in 2018. But that's not guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What about the MCPS teacher who sends her kids to the local parochial school? I would venture to say she is in it for the money...otherwise she would be teaching for less salary at the school where her kids are.

Do you work for pay? Do you like it when you get paid for your work? Generally getting paid is important to people who work for pay. Even to teachers! I don't think that's shameful. People should get paid for their work.

It's not about getting paid...all teachers are paid. It is about picking a position strictly because of salary level vs. a mission driven vocation which also pays a salary, but perhaps not as much.

Can you tell us what your profession is and how you chose a "mission driven" position rather than one that paid more money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's flatly silly. Not finding statistical significance does not mean there's no causal effect there. And the fact that you DO see a significant relationship when the class sizes get lower (under 20) means there's good reason to believe that in fact you just aren't able to capture the effect because of confounding factors. So, yes it's true that we haven't PROVEN a difference between 25 and 24, but it's not at all true that there's no evidence of a negative relationship between class size and student success.

Nobody said that there is a negative relationship between class size and student success (i.e., smaller classes are correlated with less student success)

The point is that the studies do not show a positive relationship between slightly lower class size and student success. I.e., the studies did not find a correlation between slightly smaller class sizes more student success. Might such a correlation exist anyway? Yes. But the studies do not show it.

You don't understand what a negative relationship is. It means when one goes up the other goes down. Please stop talking about statistics when you clearly have no background that would enable you to understand it.

Also you misstate the studies. The studies show a statistically significant relationship at slight decreases if that decrease is from 21 to 19. But not from 23 to 21. So you have mistakenly concluded that that means there's no relationship there. The more reasonable conclusion would be that there is a relationship, because otherwise it wouldn't be evident going from 21 to 19. The confounding variables are masking it at the higher numbers. As a side note, basic statistics should be a required course in high school.

Which studies show a statistically-significant relationship between student success and class sizes of 21 vs. 19? And what is the magnitude of that relationship? As you know, since you are well-versed in statistics, a relationship can be statistically significant but effectively meaningless.

Also, the studies do not show that the confounding variables (which the studies should have controlled for; why didn't they?) are masking the relationship at higher numbers. That's simply your hypothesis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about properly allocating resources, 19:56? You are a shameless BFES apologist.

What do you mean by "properly allocating resources", specifically? How do you think that resources should be allocated? What should MCPS have done with BFES?

Not PP but will respond to your question with a question. Should the county, in a supposed money saving move, have delayed construction in other clusters that were severely overcrowded and getting worse but move forward with a new school for Beverly Farms? That is what happened. The same year they moved forward with construction at Beverly Farms, the county delayed construction of a 5th elementary school to relieve overcrowding in the Richard Montgomery cluster. This despite a recommendation from the education board to move forward with construction of the 5th elementary school. Why should resources have been allocated to Beverly Farms but relief delayed for the Richard Montgomery cluster (or others that are overcrowded). True, the county has to prioritize but why prioritize a school below capacity over one that is way over? BTW, the 5th elementary school for the Richard Montgomery cluster has yet to be built. After further delays, it is slated to be complete in 2018. But that's not guaranteed.

Because there are other reasons for renovating a building, besides over capacity. For example, if the building is in bad shape. What shape was the Beverly Farms building in? It was over 40 years old and had never been renovated, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Our elementary school was built just a few years ago"

Not pp but ours was built 2 years ago and is already almost full. School population has ballooned since the new school.

Which school?

I'm not the PP, but Garrett Park ES was reopened 3 years ago and was almost at capacity last year, predicted to be over capacity this year.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP16_Chap4_WJ.pdf

Flora Singer opened 3 or so years ago and they've had to take away rooms previously used for specials to make way for new classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Flora Singer ES has a capacity of 652. Garrett Park ES has a capacity of 753. Do you want elementary schools to be planned to be bigger than that?

[Anonymous]

The Beverly Farms building was a boondoggle, and a clear gift to the well-connected families in that area. The PP made a good point - why would MCPS approve spending millions for a new facility for an underenrolled school that had no business being replaced, when other clusters need more facilities to relieve overcrowding. It's ridiculous and shameful. To make matters worse, there are middle schools that desperatealy need expansion, but the county just put in brand new campuses at Hoover and Cabin John. It's a clear bias.