When I was in 4th-6th grade we had 150 kids in a classroom. 6 teachers. It was public school in the 1960s and they were experimenting with open classrooms. I kind of liked it; it was a real hive of activity, but we weren't working on the same thing all at once.

Can't say I'd sign my kid up for that gig though.

I have a child in the classroom being discussed.

The teachers involved are smart, capable, creative, flexible and motivated, and as we heard clearly at back to school night, if this-as with any aspect of their classroom teaching- doesn't work, they would change it.

There is rampant inaccurate speculation on this thread about what motivated the decision to have a combined approach to teaching some of the class sessions.

sound like first year college English, biology or math! Unbelievable!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all i can say in reaction is....most of the educational research shows that small class size is the biggest predictor of student success. literally, the number of people in the room. not student/teacher ratio either. just the overall number. there was some magic number that predicted success. i think it was 14. so 1 teacher and 13 students was actually better than 2 teachers and 14 students, for example.

interesting stuff.

That is actually not true. The greatest predictor of success is the quality of the teacher. An excellent teacher with 25 students will produce much greater learning than a mediocre teacher with 10 students. That being said, it would obviously be better to have an excellent teacher with 10 kids!

This is actually a mantra rather than a research finding. You have clearly drunk the Koolaid.

I once co-taught an elementary science class of 45 children with two teachers. It was OK but certainly not ideal. And it was only for 1 hour.

We were supposed to be co-teachers but in reality it was quite tempting to have one teacher teach and one teacher grade papers. Or run out for coffee, etc.

At Oyster we used to have two separate classes going at the same time in one room (Spanish and English). It was fun! They have stopped that practice, but sometimes a little noise/chaos/liveliness keeps children awake.

OMG - I don't know why I keep feeling compelled to post, but here goes: of COURSE there will be a substitute teacher during one teacher's maternity leave. And, this fall the class will also have a student teacher. Any other questions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'd love to know why (budget, most likely).

That makes no sense. The change is to move to (2 teachers for a class of 50 kids) from (2 teachers for 2 classes of 25 kids each). It's still 2 teachers. Budget is not driving this unless the plan is that one of the teachers will be exiting. We've seen no indication of that in any of the postings

one of the postings says one of the teachers will be on maternity leave later this year

So???? Is the new DCPS policy not to provide substitute teachers during maternity leave?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, yes. It's very important not to discuss changes in how the schools operate. That's the best way to improve the schools and prevent bad ideas from being replicated in other classrooms.

Seriously. Same sentiment came out in a thread last year about Murch, which my kids attend. Didn't understand it then, don't understand it now. Such a weird, cultish way of viewing things.

And I wonder how tone would change if we were debating the same circumstance at an elementary school in SE. Something tells me the "don't air our dirty laundry posters" wouldn't be quite so circumspect.

Nobody in this thread has said or implied "don't air our dirty laundry". Why are you purposely misstating others' views?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, yes. It's very important not to discuss changes in how the schools operate. That's the best way to improve the schools and prevent bad ideas from being replicated in other classrooms.

Nobody is saying it's not very important to discuss changes in schools. All we're saying is that we should a discussion based on accurate information.

Running hysterically to DCUM before doing a little research is not the right approach.

What was inaccurate about the information? I haven't seen any posts disputing the situation

The OP did not know:
- the rationale for this approach (from the principal or the teachers)
- what the other teacher will do while the 50-person class is being taught by one teacher.

My comment stands. Get all the info first, then run hysterically to DCUM as required

Well, how about this? I'll go to Back to School Night on Wednesday and report back on how this is working. Until then, I'll leave my mind open to how it will work and how it's going 1 week in. Since I actually do have a kid in this class, I feel like I can comment on this.

This experiment in grouping kids is not new. It is part of the Open Classroom Movement in the 70's , which did not work well. There is an interesting article from New York Times from a few months ago about grouping 60 kids with 4 teachers in one big classroom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/education/11class.html?pagewanted=all

It didn't work then, it won't work well now for most students. (I can imagine a kid who is shy peeing in her pants instead of announcing that she has to go in front of 49 other kids.) While a few kids will thrive, the noise level and extra distractions will lead to a terrible learning environment for most. Then the added problem of one teacher going on maternity leave will lead to an even more chaotic environment. Did they handpick which students would do well in that environment or were the students randomly enrolled in that class? Did parents have the right to opt out of that placement? I used to teach elementary school in California in the 90's when they reduced class sizes in early elementary. Eight weeks into the school year I went from having 32 first graders to only 20 (they pulled 12 kids out of my class). It was by far the best day of my teaching career. The classroom was quieter and calmer which wouldn't have happened if they stuck 8 more kids in the classroom and assigned a second teacher (something that did happen at other schools). The whole chemistry of the classroom changed for the better. I pity the kids in that classroom with 50 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'd love to know why (budget, most likely).

That makes no sense. The change is to move to (2 teachers for a class of 50 kids) from (2 teachers for 2 classes of 25 kids each). It's still 2 teachers. Budget is not driving this unless the plan is that one of the teachers will be exiting. We've seen no indication of that in any of the postings

one of the postings says one of the teachers will be on maternity leave later this year

Anonymous wrote:Yes, yes. It's very important not to discuss changes in how the schools operate. That's the best way to improve the schools and prevent bad ideas from being replicated in other classrooms.

Seriously. Same sentiment came out in a thread last year about Murch, which my kids attend. Didn't understand it then, don't understand it now. Such a weird, cultish way of viewing things.

And I wonder how tone would change if we were debating the same circumstance at an elementary school in SE. Something tells me the "don't air our dirty laundry posters" wouldn't be quite so circumspect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, yes. It's very important not to discuss changes in how the schools operate. That's the best way to improve the schools and prevent bad ideas from being replicated in other classrooms.

Nobody is saying it's not very important to discuss changes in schools. All we're saying is that we should a discussion based on accurate information.

Running hysterically to DCUM before doing a little research is not the right approach.

What was inaccurate about the information? I haven't seen any posts disputing the situation