Indiana law requires "intellectual diversity"

[Wahoo Redux]

My understanding is that the correlation between class size and outcomes is weak; the correlation between range of ability in the classroom and outcomes is much stronger. (In other words, if the group is homogeneous, then a bigger class is fine. When there are all kinds of different needs and degree of preparation, the class size matters.)

That's interesting.  Do you actually have a citation for that? 

[ciao_yall]

More conservative desperation.

Sure, but the fact that it can even be framed in terms of expanding intellectual diversity rather than the much more obvious requirement that they adopt the government approved viewpoint is unprecedented. (For contrast, consider the legislation that has been discussed here to prevent public schools from teaching certain viewpoints. That's the much more "normal" action historically.)

If you're saying the the universities have ceded much of the high ground in intellectual freedom debates, and made themselves into easier targets for those who wish them ill, there's a lot of truth to that.

That's it exactly. You said it more clearly that I did.

Define "intellectual diversity." Scientific creationism? The Laffer curve? That researcher who claims class size and per-pupil spending have no impact on student outcomes?

That's an interesting example. My understanding is that the correlation between class size and outcomes is weak; the correlation between range of ability in the classroom and outcomes is much stronger. (In other words, if the group is homogeneous, then a bigger class is fine. When there are all kinds of different needs and degree of preparation, the class size matters.)

It's a perfect illustration of the kind of discussion that can be suppressed because of ideological goals, like the desire to put all kinds of students in the same class to avoid stigma associated with differences. Intellectual diversity welcomes the discussion of the trade-offs in making any sort of decision like this. (So, for instance, how much more can be spent on education to keep the whole range of students in the same classroom? When are a student's needs so acute that it isn't reasonable to have them in a non-specialized classroom?)

Alternatively, let's say you have 30 kids - 15 are seemingly above average, 15 seemingly below.

30 kids of mixed abilities is a lot. 30 kids of any ability is a lot.

If you put the 15+ kids in one class and 15- kids in the other, they would come out about at the same relative levels in which they came in.

If you mixed them up, the + and - kids get a chance to learn from each other, because they all come with different strengths and weaknesses. The + kids get a chance to model good learning to the - kids, the - kids get a chance to show the + kids other skills they might have.

Oops, hit send at the wrong time. Two classes of 15 kids of mixed abilities is best for all kids - enough individual attention, enough learning from each other. And, best for society - more accomplished kids = better overall society. Yay.

[marshwiggle]

My understanding is that the correlation between class size and outcomes is weak; the correlation between range of ability in the classroom and outcomes is much stronger. (In other words, if the group is homogeneous, then a bigger class is fine. When there are all kinds of different needs and degree of preparation, the class size matters.)

That's interesting.  Do you actually have a citation for that? 

I didn't have a specific one, but here's one I just found:
Class Size and Academic Achievement

Initial correlation analyses indicated a positive relationship between class size and
academic achievement. Regression results indicated that the percentage of gifted
students, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and the class size were
significant predictors of reading achievement levels. For mathematics achievement
levels, regression results showed that the percentage of gifted students, the percentage of
Black students, and the class size were significant predictors. Further analyses involved
filtering the data to only include class sizes of at least 15 students per teacher. For both
reading and mathematics achievement, class size was not associated with achievement.
Regression results indicated that the percentage of gifted students and the percentage of
economically disadvantaged students were significant predictors of reading achievement.
For mathematics achievement, regression results showed that the percentage of gifted
students and the percentage of Black students were significant predictors of achievement.

There is a difference between research on K-12 and post-secondary, since they have different goals, etc.

Here's another one:
Secondary school class sizes and student performance in Canada

The systemic difficulty in any attempt to assess the effect of class size is
the presence of many other variables affecting classroom dynamics and student outcomes, all of which inevitably interact. Smaller classes can improve
learning environments, but the research has shown that not all teachers take
advantage of the opportunities created. Class activities will also be influenced
by the availability of learning materials, the presence or absence of disruptive
students, more or less supportive school climates, and so forth.
John Hattie's (2005) extensive examination of student achievement
research found smaller class sizes to be among the least effective intervention.
Hattie's analysis of 164 class size reduction studies found an average effect
size of 0.13, essentially mirroring the Project STAR results. He notes the variance across the findings reviewed is small and concludes "the typical effect of
reducing class sizes from 25 to 15 is [effect sizes of] about 0.10–0.20" (p. 396).
His comparative synthesis of research into other ways of increasing achievement ranked class size 40 out of the 46 different classroom interventions
considered (table 1). Providing feedback to students and using direct instruction methods each had the highest average effect sizes of 0.81. Other notable
influences included general quality of teaching, with an effect size of 0.67, and,
in the more modest range, homework and teacher questioning with average
effect sizes of 0.35 and 0.17 respectively (table 1).6
As Hattie and others point out, the policy implication is not that smaller
class sizes make no difference but that they make a smaller difference, for
fewer students, at much greater cost than most other ways of seeking classroom improvement.

If you mixed them up, the + and - kids get a chance to learn from each other, because they all come with different strengths and weaknesses. The + kids get a chance to model good learning to the - kids, the - kids get a chance to show the + kids other skills they might have.

Oops, hit send at the wrong time. Two classes of 15 kids of mixed abilities is best for all kids - enough individual attention, enough learning from each other. And, best for society - more accomplished kids = better overall society. Yay.

This is nice in theory; the reality is that some students are better in many areas than other students, especially the ones with behaviour problems. Teachers' unions are claiming they need more resources because of the diversity in their classrooms. They wouldn't be doing that if more diversity made for more students learning more from other students.

[jimbogumbo]

Gold standard for grades K-3: https://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/old/STAR.pdf

[dismalist]

The effect of resources on school outcomes has been researched since the Coleman Report [1966]. Here is an analysis of 400 papers by Eric Hanushek Of course one sees positive effects here and there, but here is no systematic evidence for more resources leading to better outcomes overall. This is mainstream.


In time series, inflation adjusted spending per pupil in the US increased by 280 per cent between 1960 and 2020.

Why more spending does not have a systematic effect on outcomes is not hard to understand: Spending for non-teaching resources have increase much more rapidly than spending overall. Also, it could well be that increases in spending from 1900 levels had a positive effect but not so much spending increases since, say, 2000. [Law of Diminishing Returns]

[And as an aside, mixing well performing kids with poorly performing kids leads to the poor performers beating up the well performing kids. Turns everyone into a poor performer. Happened in my Junior High School. Been there, done that.]

[Wahoo Redux]

I didn't have a specific one, but here's one I just found:
Class Size and Academic Achievement

Very interesting.  Of course, we have to be careful unless we have multiple studies which produce the same results, but there is a lot to think about there.  Good job.

[Wahoo Redux]

The effect of resources on school outcomes has been researched since the Coleman Report [1966]. Here is an analysis of 400 papers by Eric Hanushek Of course one sees positive effects here and there, but here is no systematic evidence for more resources leading to better outcomes overall. This is mainstream.

It's also 27 years old.  There is a lot of other material which suggests exactly the opposite.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2023/5/16/23724474/school-funding-research-studies-hanushek-does-money-matter/

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/policy-briefs/school-spending-policy-research-brief-Jackson.pdf

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/student-outcomes-does-more-money-really-matter/2019/06

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-not-nothing-the-role-of-money-in-improving-education/

https://www.ppic.org/publication/understanding-the-effects-of-school-funding/

And so on.  There's a lot more that a simple Google search brings up.  I've got stuff to do, so I didn't do an Ebscohost search, but I suspect I know what I would find.

Don't go cherry-picking, Big-D.  B'sides, it is only common sense.  You got what you pay for in this world.  Don't pretend otherwise.

[Hibush]

NPR's report on the https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/senate/202/detailslaw.

A new Indiana law allows universities to revoke a professor's tenure if they don't promote so-called "intellectual diversity" in the classroom.

Supporters of the measure say it will make universities more accepting of conservative students and academics. But many professors worry the law could put their careers in jeopardy for what they say, or don't say, in the classroom.

I don't imagine this will lead to more communists being hired in business schools or economics departments.

If its objective is to get more conservatives hired, I'm not sure that the law can actually do that consistently, rather than simply requiring you to hire a bunch of rando wackos. But also, how will this "intellectual diversity" be measured? By political party membership?

If the law says "intellectual diversity", it isn't literally about political or economic outlook in the liberal-conservative, or establishment-anarchy axes (even if that was the intent). It may functionally require faculty to be more accepting of students whose intellectual abilities cause them to fail their courses. Administrators might become helpless in their efforts to award passing grades to failing students because that is not accepting of the legally mandated diversity. Who will volunteer for the implementation task force?

[Parasaurolophus]

NPR's report on the https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/senate/202/detailslaw.

A new Indiana law allows universities to revoke a professor's tenure if they don't promote so-called "intellectual diversity" in the classroom.

Supporters of the measure say it will make universities more accepting of conservative students and academics. But many professors worry the law could put their careers in jeopardy for what they say, or don't say, in the classroom.

I don't imagine this will lead to more communists being hired in business schools or economics departments.

If its objective is to get more conservatives hired, I'm not sure that the law can actually do that consistently, rather than simply requiring you to hire a bunch of rando wackos. But also, how will this "intellectual diversity" be measured? By political party membership?

If the law says "intellectual diversity", it isn't literally about political or economic outlook in the liberal-conservative, or establishment-anarchy axes (even if that was the intent). It may functionally require faculty to be more accepting of students whose intellectual abilities cause them to fail their courses. Administrators might become helpless in their efforts to award passing grades to failing students because that is not accepting of the legally mandated diversity. Who will volunteer for the implementation task force?

Lmao, I hadn't considered that!

[dismalist]

NPR's report on the https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/senate/202/detailslaw.

A new Indiana law allows universities to revoke a professor's tenure if they don't promote so-called "intellectual diversity" in the classroom.

Supporters of the measure say it will make universities more accepting of conservative students and academics. But many professors worry the law could put their careers in jeopardy for what they say, or don't say, in the classroom.

I don't imagine this will lead to more communists being hired in business schools or economics departments.

If its objective is to get more conservatives hired, I'm not sure that the law can actually do that consistently, rather than simply requiring you to hire a bunch of rando wackos. But also, how will this "intellectual diversity" be measured? By political party membership?

If the law says "intellectual diversity", it isn't literally about political or economic outlook in the liberal-conservative, or establishment-anarchy axes (even if that was the intent). It may functionally require faculty to be more accepting of students whose intellectual abilities cause them to fail their courses. Administrators might become helpless in their efforts to award passing grades to failing students because that is not accepting of the legally mandated diversity. Who will volunteer for the implementation task force?

Lmao, I hadn't considered that!

So the worry is DEI for Whites! May well be justified. Hence the desirability of competition, between States and higher education institutions. Only competition can provide diversity along many dimensions, and only those institutions that do will prosper, if that's what people want.

[jimbogumbo]

So the worry is DEI for Whites! May well be justified. Hence the desirability of competition, between States and higher education institutions. Only competition can provide diversity along many dimensions, and only those institutions that do will prosper, if that's what people want.

No, that is not it. The worry is that some idiot legislator gets a bee in their bonnet over something and you get canned. Indiana has had a Republican super majority for several election cycles and it regularly pumps out bizarre legislation. The author of the bill is in the district which includes Purdue (no hotbed of liberal pollution), and as is always the case these things seemed aimed at the IU system and all regionals. It is the worst symbiosis of national talking points and regional feuding.


BTW, I in no way mean to imply that Purdue is on board with this; it is not connected to the effort. The bill's author is a conservative Mormon, a BYU graduate. If you've ever been to Utah you experience the closest thing to a church state that we have in the US.