>>In fact, I think schools are less of an assembly line now than they used to be. There's far more hands-on education going on, and far less regimentation (straight lines, kids seated alphabetically, etc., etc., etc.). Class sizes are smaller than when I was a kid, and much smaller than 100 years ago.
>
>Yeah, we are now more concerned about the touchie-feelie stuff instead of core subjects and discipline. As for class size when I was in school versus now, I would say there really is not much difference. The ratio is still about 20 kids to 1 teacher in a class. I do not really see class size as a relevant argument since I believe standards have declined as well as the quality of the overall education in the public schools. More funding and smaller class sizes were supposed to help raise the quality. The only way to improve quality and reduce costs is true competition and school choice.

Elementary schools tend to do a lot of teaching by doing. As you move up in grade, this tends to fall away. But I saw my own kids get more of it later than I had.

As for class size, I went to school with about 35 per class in Philadelphia. Thanks to the teachers union, the limit there is now 30. In the district where I live, the policy at the elementary level is a building average of 25 per class; in the last few years, there's also been a push to keep primary grades (can't remember it it's just K and 1 or K-2) down to 22 maximum.

This is one area where there is solid research. The magic number is 18. Put 18 or fewer kids in a class and they do better than the kids in a larger class. Unfortunately, Americans aren't prepared to pay for that.

>
>>As for your money argument, that's true for private schools (who, nonetheless, turn away many special needs kids), but not for public schools, unless the child is diagnosed with a disability that requires the school to provide education in a special setting. If they err in this regard, most public schools do so by trying to keep kids in the mainstream rather than paying for specialized schools. When a kid leaves public school for home schooling or private school, that's one less kid the district has to educate with the same money.
>
>That is certainly not true here, and I doubt that is true in most areas. Public schools funding is tied to enrollment numbers. This is why they take roll at certain times of the day. The school gets a so much funding for each pupil. So a lost pupil is lost $$$ to the District. "Special needs" kids usually bring in more funding to the District. So it is definitely not in the school's best interest to be losing kids, and the more "special" needs kids they have the better.

We're each partly right. I forgot to account for things like federal and state dollars, which do tend to come in on a per-head basis. But local tax dollars (which in PA account for the vast majority of the school budget) don't change per kid.

As for special ed, yes, there is outside money for those kids, but often it's not sufficient to cover their needs. And, fwiw, returning to what brought me into this discussion, ADD/ADHD does not qualify as special ed.

Tamar