Subject: Carrying Capacity

Posted by Bill Braun on 11/15/2010
In Reply To:Carrying Capacity Posted by Janis Dutton on 11/15/2010

Message:

Tim's original post was a query into capacity and, I interpret, overshoot and collapse.

If we assume that for a given academic year the number of students and the number of teachers is constant, then capacity for teachers is the sum of real and normal minutes per time period being studied (day, week, etc.) . By constant I do not mean a literal unchanging number, but a number within a relevant range. By real and normal I include any and all time that teachers devote to preparedness in the classroom (work prior to class and work after class).

Tim also mentioned a curriculum redesign. In simple terms, total demand on capacity equals (all discreet activities the curriculum requires of teachers X the time required for each discreet activity X the number of students) for each relevant period of time (day, week, month, etc.). The second element is a function of process. So, what must be done and the processes by which required work is done are both independent variables to demand.

If carrying capacity is defined only as the number of teachers, then the conversation is for the most part over (unless you are the beneficiaries of a generous community that acts quickly).

If capacity includes teachers autonomously a) defining the elements of work (i.e., the work effectively created by the design of the curriculum) and b) defining the way work is done, then content and process are part of the definition of capacity, the conversation is open to thinking about the future possibilities for having the educational impact teachers want to have/carry. If teachers do not have autonomy in these areas, the conversation is over.

The current level of alertness or drowsiness of the public has to do with their preferences for governance. Governance may in turn have more or less to say about content and process. That in turn may affect carrying capacity.

Bill Braun