[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by jeffmo

well,all i can go on is what i read.if the issue is brought up like i highlighted below,then i think that it definately WAS meant to bring unions into the issue.the statement implies that there is an ulterior motive toclass sizes.i just disagree and my main reason for that isn't because I am a union firefighter,it's because as the parent of a special needs child my wife and I have worked very closely with every one of his teachers and the school during his education.i've seen the problems the teachers face every day and in my honest opinion,the lack of parental involvement is one of the lager problems in our schools today:

"As much as I hate to go in this direction, the only thing that I can think of is the teachers union. Think about it.. if you have 500 students, and each class size is 35, then you need 14 teachers (union members paying dues) to teach those students. But if each class size is 20 students then you need 25 teachers to teach those same 500 students. A net gain of 11 union paying members making the teachers union that much richer. I'm not saying this is the only reason that teachers unions want smaller class sizes, but it certainly smells a little fishy to me that the single biggest voice in wanting smaller classes is also the one that stands to gain the most money from it. Just one more thing to think about."


And btw,no hard feelings whatsoever.i have discussed these issue MANY times over the last year with alot of people.it is what it is and sad to say,it's politics.(worst part of my job!)

You should have highlighted the following words also

I'm not saying this is the only reason that teachers unions want smaller class sizes

I'll listen to any other reasonable reason that is put out on the table, but lacking one so far, I cannot help but think that what I said is pretty close to the truth. Also, as perviously discussed, I was (he's out of school now) the parent of a special needs child also, and, like you, I worked very closely with all of my sons teachers. This was not a comment about the teachers. By and large they were a group of very dedicated people. You're correct however, it was a comment about their union and was definetly meant to bring them into the discussion as one of a number of different reasons that are all contributing to the decline of our childrens education. Unions + politics = bad for our children. One only has to look at "no child left behind" to see that glaring truth. The teachers unions in Washington lobbied for that law harder than any other group. But there is a huge difference between a teacher and the union that rules him/her.

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

As for the class size. You cannot use Japanese education at 60 plus per class as a benchmark as to what works in American children. The culture is very different. Americans are independent minded and the children act that way, discipline problems and lack of focus. Not so in Japan. The Japanese children are taught to tow the line and the family unit is a strong part of their heritage.

Of course I can use it as a benchmark. The whole rest of the world does. That was my point exactly. Class size has NOTHING to do with how well an education a child does or does not receive. It has everything to do with, as you just said, "children are taught to toe the line and the family unit is a strong part of their heritage." Which brings us right back to one of the main reasons our children are not getting a good education... Namely, that we, as parents, and as citizens, are not doing our job of working as hard as we can to insure that our children learn in school. That includes community action, political action and parent-teacher interaction. As Jeffmo said, "parental involvement"