Student-teacher ratio

Student-Teacher ratio refers to the number of teachers in a school or university with respect to the number of students who attend the institution. For example, a student teacher ratio of 10:1 indicates that there are 10 students for every one teacher. The term can also be reversed to create a teacher-student ratio. In the previous example, the teacher-student ratio would be 1:10.

A low student-teacher ratio is often used as a selling point to those choosing schools for tertiary education. On the other hand, high student-teacher ratio is often cited for criticizing proportedly underfunded schools or school systems, or as evidence of the need for legislative change or more funding for education.

In the United States, some states have enacted legislation mandating a maximum student-teacher ratio for specific grade levels, particularly kindergarten. When such figures are stated for schools, they often represent averages (means) and thus are vulnerable to skewing. For example, figures may be biased as follows: if one classroom has a 30:1 ratio and another has a 10:1 ratio, the school could thus claim to have a 20:1 ratio overall. In some cases Child care management software may be used to help monitor student-teacher ratios.

In schools, such ratios are indicative of possible staff chages. If the student-teacher ratio is 50:1, the school will probably consider hiring a few teachers. If the ratio is very low, classes could be combined and teachers fired. In extreme cases, the school may close, due to its apparent redundancy.

Classes with too many students are often disrupting to education. Also, too many students in a class results in a diverse field of students, with varying degrees of learning ability and information uptake. Consequently, the class will spend time for less academic students to assimilate the information, when that time could be better spent progressing through the curriculum. In this way, student-teacher ratios are compelling arguments for advanced or honors classes.

The issue of students' ability to work effectively in groups (as opposed to time-waste and chatting) and peer-teaching is a complex and controversial issue.

Numerous sources argue that lower student to teacher rations are better at teaching students complex subjects such as physics, mathematics and chemistry, than those with a higher ratio of students to teachers. Commonly the schools with lower student to teacher ratios are more exclusive, have a higher attendance of non-blacks, are in non-inner urban areas and/or fee-paying (non-government) institutionsBrookings Institute Press 1996:118-119. Scholars from a variety of disciplines debate the evidence of the link between school resources and educational and economic outcomes.] .

The manifold arguments and controversies of funding and student-teacher ratios have been the basis for a multitude of studies and debates. One view is illustrated below:

Many analysts have found that extra school resources play a negligible role in improving student achievement while children are in school. Yet many economists have gathered data showing that students who attend well-endowed schools grow up to enjoy better job market success than children whose education takes place in schools where resources are limited. For example, children who attend schools with a lower pupil-teacher ratio and a better educated teaching staff appear to earn higher wages as adults than children who attend poorer schools.

Governments tend to argue, perhaps with an eye on cost-savings and limiting public expenditure, that higher student-teacher ratios have no net negative on outcomes. This may be considered by some as not only cynical and counter-intuitive but disproven by certain facts. Furthermore, the complex inter-relationships of socio-economics, class, race, ethnicity and achievement are all key factor in the debate. It remains a highly contentious debate and unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved.

References

* "Teachers: Supply and demand: United States".Erling E. Boe Dorothy M. Gilford. National Academies Press, 1992. ISBN 0309047927. (Examines policy issues, projection models, and data bases pertaining to the supply of, demand for, and quality of teachers in the United States from kindergarten to twelfth grade. This book identifies additional data needed to clarify policy issues or for use in projection models.)
*"Bold Plans for School Restructuring: The New American Schools Designs". Sam Stringfield, Steven M. Ross, Lana Smith. Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0805823409.
*"Bridging the Achievement Gap". John E. Chubb, Tom Loveless. Brookings Institute Press, 2002. ISBN 0815714009.
*"Projections of Education Statistics to 2008". Debra E. Gerald. DIANE Publishing, 1999. ISBN 0788183648.
*"Does Money Matter?: The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement". Michael, H editor. Brookings Institute Press, 1996. ISBN 081571274X

jacquiasis.muyltiply.com ů