What do you think about having one teacher teach one hundred students in all classes?

Ok for adults. Terrible for children.

So the teacher has to prepare 6-8 different lesson plans every day and be knowledgeable enough and comfortable enough to teach every subject themselves?

All while trying to keep 100 kids focused and on task?

0 out of 10.

Discussions or lectures, sure. Education without TAs to provide more attention, terrible.

What this means in grade school. 5-10 kids bored because the lesson is far too slow.
5-10 kids actively disrupting the class.
10-15 kids actually learning despite interruption.
30 kids learning some parts of the lesson, would benefit significantly from reduced distraction or increased attention.
20-25 kids that aren't getting it and need significant attention to understand the lesson.
10-15 kids that are hopelessly struggling and have no chance of learning in such an environment.

0

My kids are autistic, so this would be a -11/10 for them.

(Assuming young students, since you said "all classes")

How likely will a teacher be able to control a class of a hundred? Will any student that needs attention to handle their education ever receive it? What happens if an incident occurs and the teacher needs to leave to deal with it? If a child leaves the room crying, does the teacher abandon 99 kids or leave a child crying?

How long will it take for the class to give presentations? How long will it take for the teacher to mark tests? Do you imagine the teachers will be fairly compensated for the added workload, or do you think it's a cynical ploy to hire fewer teachers?

So, in short, it's a terrible idea. Zero out of ten. Criminal neglect of children, inhumane work conditions for the teachers, and just shit logistically.

In college, I had classes with a bigger ratio. 1:300, 1:400. It can be done, but they had grad students help with grading.

5/10. Not good, not bad, it's just a fact of life.

For younger kids? 0-2 out of 10. They need the structure.

What age are you referring to?

If discussing 1:100 there is no individual attention, so why not 1:1,000 or 1:100,000 or just YouTube videos one can watch at their own pace.

In my college lectures of 1:200, there were still separate sessions of 20 students or fewer, led by grad students working for the professor, to offer more individualized help. If that doesn't happen and it's just a lecturer talking to a crowd, the ratio is irrelevant.

0/10

0 More friend possibilities, but also much more bullying, because no teacher would be able to work reasonably with such a large collective. The teacher would be totally overpowered by the students, so the quality of the education would be minimal.

the teacher will be fine, if the goal is just lecturing. students, on the other hand, will need more that sheer willpower if they want to absorb anything lectured.

i think the sweet spot should be lesser than 40 as I had my struggles learning in a class of 40ish.

Do you know anything about what makes an effective school? Smaller class sizes is good schools 101.

I don't think that's feasible for a single person

ideally it would be tailored to the student. money being no object, those lacking self regulation or other issues requiring greater guidance should be able to receive those services while those more suited to self-teaching could be given those opportunities.

but we dont value education

Firstly, the more students there are, the less time the teacher can devote to them individually. When there's a comprehension problem, it's really in the interaction that things can be sorted out: understanding why the person doesn't understand, explaining from different angles, etc.

And all the time spent with one person leaves the rest of the group on its own, which can very quickly dissipate all the group's attention, with a few whispered personal discussions turning into hubbub.

What's more, the larger the group, the easier and more tempting it is for weak and shy students to hide in the crowd. In a small group, the teacher should regularly check that no one is left behind. With 100 people, this is strictly impossible.

Finally, I don't believe in the argument that the more people you have, the more friends and studying partners you can find. Socially, we get together in small groups (between 2 and 6, roughly speaking) no matter what's going on. I think that beyond this limit, there's a diminishing return (unconsciously): a new person brings less than reinforcing the group's cohesion. If the group gets any bigger, it's going to reshape itself by affinity into smaller, tighter-knit groups.

Rating: I don't believe in rating system. If I say 3/10, can you change 20% of your idea to reach 5/10? What's 20% of an idea ? Would 5/10 be good enough? Can you change 70% of an idea to reach perfection? In this case, why don't we live in a perfect world?

Even gym class?