Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Search the older threads. We've done this before. All peer-reviewed journals, along with government studies.

Bottom line is the educators find one thing, the economists find another. The educators tend to be split on the relationship between class size and achievement, while the economists tend to be pretty uniform in concluding there's no statistically significant benefit for smaller size.

But, again, search the threads. We've done this many times before. Recently.

Nice try at the backpedal. You have the facts on your side, but you are not prepared to show them. Not my job to support your claim. You have no proof, you have no case.

As for your so called bottom line? Yes, it looks like that extensive research isn't as conclusive as you asserted up thread.

Fact is, there is no conclusive evidence on your assertion. There is no overwhelming understanding that you are right. There is plenty of research out there, and most of it draws, at best, qualified recommendations for certain populations and admissions that there is no way to isolate class size as a single factor in achievement and control for other factors.

+1

I teach in FCPS and I am in a trailer. I actually like it. The trailer is much newer and nicer and brighter than my old classroom. We can control our own air conditioning and heat which we could not in the regular classroom so it would often be really hot or really cold. The students don't seem to mind being out in the trailers at all - they have gotten used to walking back and forth to the main building (I teach HS). The only downsides are: no running water, no bathrooms (although I think elementary trailers have them), and a long walk to all the stuff in the main building (main office, bathrooms). ANd it sort of stinks when it is raining. It has taken some getting used to this year, but overall I am happy to be in the trailers.

Anonymous wrote:

Search the older threads. We've done this before. All peer-reviewed journals, along with government studies.

Bottom line is the educators find one thing, the economists find another. The educators tend to be split on the relationship between class size and achievement, while the economists tend to be pretty uniform in concluding there's no statistically significant benefit for smaller size.

But, again, search the threads. We've done this many times before. Recently.

Nice try at the backpedal. You have the facts on your side, but you are not prepared to show them. Not my job to support your claim. You have no proof, you have no case.

As for your so called bottom line? Yes, it looks like that extensive research isn't as conclusive as you asserted up thread.

Fact is, there is no conclusive evidence on your assertion. There is no overwhelming understanding that you are right. There is plenty of research out there, and most of it draws, at best, qualified recommendations for certain populations and admissions that there is no way to isolate class size as a single factor in achievement and control for other factors.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Fellow Jamestown parent here - oh, yes, it is hilarious. I've been a parent at Jamestown for so long that I remember the last time the school had trailers...but I don't remember anyone having such a fit about them. I just don't get it....problems pf the 1% I suppose.

Love this - +1!!!

Anonymous wrote:I have never understood the issue with trailers. I grew up in Fairfax County and even back in the early 80's they had trailers.

I hate trailers when these big school districts can do boundary changes. FCPS builds additions rather than move boundaries. Such bullshit.

FINE, you lazy PP. See that "Search" function on the upper left-hand function? I ran the search for you. To wit:

I've done plenty of research. The empirical research shows time and time again teaching methods matter, not class size, and that teachers generally don't change their methods based on class size. So proud that you can Google, but you skipped the more relevant literature.

There are some exceptions when lower income populations are involved, but that's not relevant to FCPS.

You're the one who's dead wrong. Don't chime in when you're ignorant of the facts.

Here's one meta analysis: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/115/4/1239.short. Right in the abstract (since I know you wouldn't understand the report itself): "The estimates indicate that class size does not have a statistically significant effect on student achievement."

Or maybe you prefer: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini...SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ431933 Abstract: "Reduced class size may improve school tone and morale, but it is not an adequate policy alone for significantly accelerating student achievement"

Dutch study points out research from educators is different from that of economists: http://www1.fee.uva.nl/scholar/wp/wp04-99.pdf


You are wrong, I am right. Please, in the future, don't post about things you don't understand.

Search the older threads. We've done this before. All peer-reviewed journals, along with government studies.

Bottom line is the educators find one thing, the economists find another. The educators tend to be split on the relationship between class size and achievement, while the economists tend to be pretty uniform in concluding there's no statistically significant benefit for smaller size.

But, again, search the threads. We've done this many times before. Recently.

Nice try at the backpedal. You have the facts on your side, but you are not prepared to show them. Not my job to support your claim. You have no proof, you have no case.

As for your so called bottom line? Yes, it looks like that extensive research isn't as conclusive as you asserted up thread.

Fact is, there is no conclusive evidence on your assertion. There is no overwhelming understanding that you are right. There is plenty of research out there, and most of it draws, at best, qualified recommendations for certain populations and admissions that there is no way to isolate class size as a single factor in achievement and control for other factors.

How is security handled for the kids in these trailers? In our school, visitors must be buzzed in through the main entrance. Can anyone access these trailers from the street?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. We aren't in Arlington. My only concern with trailors is what the kids are exposed to. When the government provided trailors to all the people who lost homes in Louisinna-didn't people get really sick because the trailors had crazy levels of something?

The trailers that FEMA purchased for emergency housing were never designed for that purpose. These were trailers designed for short-term use, like overnight lodgings at a campground or something similar. They were made with less expensive materials including particle board and composite woods that had toxins like formaldehyde in. These were relatively new trailers and hadn't had time for the materials to outgas and release their fumes. If they had purchased them some time before and they had outgassed, or if they were made with better materials, or if the inhabitants were truly short-term, then there wouldn't have been the problems. But, alas, new composite materials plus long-term exposure lead to those illnesses.

I have no idea the condition of the new school trailers, but hopefully, they are better construction and use materials such as real whole wood instead of composite and other materials that need to outgas.

I'm sure the county outsourced a "study" establishing no outgassing (at levels toxic to an elephant).

Anonymous wrote:NP. We aren't in Arlington. My only concern with trailors is what the kids are exposed to. When the government provided trailors to all the people who lost homes in Louisinna-didn't people get really sick because the trailors had crazy levels of something?

The trailers that FEMA purchased for emergency housing were never designed for that purpose. These were trailers designed for short-term use, like overnight lodgings at a campground or something similar. They were made with less expensive materials including particle board and composite woods that had toxins like formaldehyde in. These were relatively new trailers and hadn't had time for the materials to outgas and release their fumes. If they had purchased them some time before and they had outgassed, or if they were made with better materials, or if the inhabitants were truly short-term, then there wouldn't have been the problems. But, alas, new composite materials plus long-term exposure lead to those illnesses.

I have no idea the condition of the new school trailers, but hopefully, they are better construction and use materials such as real whole wood instead of composite and other materials that need to outgas.

NP. We aren't in Arlington. My only concern with trailors is what the kids are exposed to. When the government provided trailors to all the people who lost homes in Louisinna-didn't people get really sick because the trailors had crazy levels of something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Frankly, I would have preferred larger class sizes, since there's not correlation between class size and achievement. But, I can live with the trailers. They don't bug me.


What makes you believe that? Some research? Or is it just your feeling?


Extensive empirical research.

Cite some of this extensive empirical research, please. make sure it is peer reviewed and published and all those generally accepted indicators of quality are respected.Thanks!

Search the older threads. We've done this before. All peer-reviewed journals, along with government studies.

Bottom line is the educators find one thing, the economists find another. The educators tend to be split on the relationship between class size and achievement, while the economists tend to be pretty uniform in concluding there's no statistically significant benefit for smaller size.

But, again, search the threads. We've done this many times before. Recently.

Anonymous wrote:
Frankly, I would have preferred larger class sizes, since there's not correlation between class size and achievement. But, I can live with the trailers. They don't bug me.


What makes you believe that? Some research? Or is it just your feeling?


Extensive empirical research.

Cite some of this extensive empirical research, please. make sure it is peer reviewed and published and all those generally accepted indicators of quality are respected.Thanks!

I have never understood the issue with trailers. I grew up in Fairfax County and even back in the early 80's they had trailers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're at Nottingham and we have a bunch of trailers. They are really actually kind of nice. It sucks that we lose some field space, but it is what it is. Personally, I'd rather have the trailers and smaller classes than the field and bigger classes.

The real issue, imho, is the cafeteria. It's only so big and there's no trailer for that so some of the kids are eating crazy early and some super late to be able to accomodate all the classes.

OP here:

You know, the cafeteria's the only thing that concerns me too.

Frankly, I would have preferred larger class sizes, since there's not correlation between class size and achievement. But, I can live with the trailers. They don't bug me.

It's like the Jamestown parents are looking for an excuse to take up arms. It's hilarious.

You are way in the minority on that. Most parents would rather have their kids get that much extra attention, even if there is supposedly no correlation to "achievement."

No, actually, I have the facts on my side. You may have intuition, but it's not supported by facts. The research is irrefutable that there's no correlation between class size and achievement.

who cares about achievement in K/1/2? it's the attention the snowflake gets that matters, stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're at Nottingham and we have a bunch of trailers. They are really actually kind of nice. It sucks that we lose some field space, but it is what it is. Personally, I'd rather have the trailers and smaller classes than the field and bigger classes.

The real issue, imho, is the cafeteria. It's only so big and there's no trailer for that so some of the kids are eating crazy early and some super late to be able to accomodate all the classes.

OP here:

You know, the cafeteria's the only thing that concerns me too.

Frankly, I would have preferred larger class sizes, since there's not correlation between class size and achievement. But, I can live with the trailers. They don't bug me.

It's like the Jamestown parents are looking for an excuse to take up arms. It's hilarious.

You are way in the minority on that. Most parents would rather have their kids get that much extra attention, even if there is supposedly no correlation to "achievement."

No, actually, I have the facts on my side. You may have intuition, but it's not supported by facts. The research is irrefutable that there's no correlation between class size and achievement.