Very sad

[RWilson2526]

Destroyer...my sincerest apologies for my poor use of vocabulary. Know that I would never use that term to describe somebody that actually had a disability. Strangely that word has transformed in our pop culture to mean somebody that's just a knucklehead and or doesn't use the common sense that god gave them which was how I was using it. But still that is not the origin of the word and I should have been more responsible putting it out there to a large audience knowing that it could hit home with somebody.

[phatdaddy]

ridge, i had to quit giving homework help when mine got to the 6th grade, after that i had to send them to their mother. i am the ditch digger in the family.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by RidgeRunner

It isn't all bad. The teachers we have experienced have a sincere desire to teach my student. As a parent, the time spent every evening with my third grader and her homework is "together time" and I love it. Nothing better than working with my little one and seeing the lights come on.
Everyone on here is right on the money IMHO. Yes the teacher has to teach to the least advanced student in her class. At least there isn't 45 students to deal with. Our educators also use a couple of assistants and mentor/volunteers to help the students that need additional help. Overall, they seem to be ahead of where I was when I was in the third grade...

This is one of those topics (Talking about class size) where I personally have very mixed feelings.. On the one hand I can see the wisdom of smaller classes. In theory, it lets the teachers give more time to each student. And that's certainly a good thing. But on the other hand, I recall when I went to school that our average class size was 34-39 kids per classroom, and truthfully, we learned more back then than kids are learning now. So the arguement that smaller classes = better learning for our children really doesn't hold water in the harsh light of reality. (And I would also like to point out that the average class size in Japan is 50 children per classroom). So why are we constantly being told that smaller classes = better teaching?

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.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by RWilson2526

Destroyer...my sincerest apologies for my poor use of vocabulary. Know that I would never use that term to describe somebody that actually had a disability. Strangely that word has transformed in our pop culture to mean somebody that's just a knucklehead and or doesn't use the common sense that god gave them which was how I was using it. But still that is not the origin of the word and I should have been more responsible putting it out there to a large audience knowing that it could hit home with somebody.

Rob, you're a good friend. I owe my very existance on these forums to you. I know that politically we don't see eye to eye on every subject, but then again, who does? I'm sure that you didn't mean any ill will or harm, and that, to me at least, is far more important than the words themselves. Since no harm was meant, your apology is not necessary.
Also, I acknowledge that it takes a real man to step up to the plate and offer one, so thank you for it.

[willy]

Eh, Rob's all right, as long as you don't have to ride 14 hours straight with him, twice.

[lumberslinger178]

Rob I knew what you were trying to put forth ....I think this tread need to be put to bed..

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by lumberslinger178

Rob I knew what you were trying to put forth ....I think this tread need to be put to bed..

I concur.. I also knew what he was trying to say, which is why I took no offense to it. When I made my comment about hating that word it was not directed at Rob, but rather at the word itself. As to putting this thread to bed... well, ....it's true that we've hashed it out for several pages, but personally I think that it was a good discussion, and I don't really like closing off discussions... I'd rather see them die off naturally, rather than be closed. but that's just me.

[jeffmo]

well,i don't see the situation as that of a "union" issue or for that matter even an issue of a union simply trying to garner more members to make their local "that much richer".that is what has been portrayed as the problem across the country by some.
some of the facts are that teachers today do not have the authority in the classroom that they had in past years.couple that with so many states dictating that teachers have to spend so very much of their time getting students ready for proficiency tests and it's little wonder that SOME kids are behind.but remember this,what we OLD people consider common sense skills,the younger generation has little use for.we may be able to use tools and our hands to fix things but those aren't the skills required in THEIR world today.things have changed somewhat.
can a system be tweaked to insure that financial responsibility is maintained? sure,and it should be because it is tax money that we are talking about in the public sector and safegaurds should be in place and monitored.here in Ohio though,one of the big points that was being made was that public sector pension systems weren't maintaining solvency as they are suppose to by the stipulations of the laws governing them.In the case of our police & fire pension system,some politicians were wiping their feet on the truth though.because of the economic downswing,our pension system was not maintaining solvency because of failed investments.BUT,the powers that be in the financial end of our pension system had submitted proposals to the state that would have brought the system back into compliance(added member contributions,more years of service,etc).the problem occurred when these politicians refused to act on the proposals because it would not have allowed them to use the solvency as an argument to further their bill proposal.since the bill has failed,the proposals are now being heard.
btw,i have witnessed 1st hand,and have participated in the fight against the assault on public sector unions here in Ohio that happened over the last year.I received a hell of a lesson about politics and to be truthful,i hope that i never have to get involved with it to that degree again.i'd rather just finish out my career then fish whenever i want to!!
Here in Ohio though,the lies that were told about public sector workers and the unions that represent us were numerous and in the end,the truth came out as it usually does when lies are told. we were told that it was "all about financial responsibility".well,then we found out that contained in this bill proposal were articles that would not have saved our state ONE RED CENT but were included for one purpose,to weaken public sector unions. these articles were meant to initially lessen the number of public sector union members,make it very difficult for locals to collect dues,and to reduce the percentage of votes needed to de-certify a union local down to 30%. the voters here saw right through the bill proposal and voted it down with 63% of the voters saying NO to it.
If this post ruffles some feathers then so be it but that isn't my intent.I'd much rather leave this forum than to sit back and not state my opinion since i have been very involved in the issue here from the introduction of the bill to it's defeat and have witnessed those in my profession be villified for no other reason than politics,and it stinks.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by jeffmo

If this post ruffles some feathers then so be it but that isn't my intent.I'd much rather leave this forum than to sit back and not state my opinion since i have been very involved in the issue here from the introduction of the bill to it's defeat and have witnessed those in my profession be villified for no other reason than politics,and it stinks.

Jeff...this is a discussion. No lies, no ill will, no right or wrong position. It is only by people talking and listening and observing that anyone learns anything. You are entitled to your opinion and you are just as entitled to to state it as much as anyone else. As long as you are not publically slandering anyone or lying you never have to worry about leaving the forums. Personally, I may not agree with everything you or other people state, but that doesn't mean you don't have the right and the obligation to state your opinions. Just as I'm sure that not everyone will agree with everything that I have an opinon about.

As to the subject at hand, if you look again at what I said, I said that it was a road that I really didn't want to go down but it was also the only reason that I could think of for the unions championing smaller class sizes. I'll stand by that comment until someone else can give me a reasonable explaination for wanting to reduce class sizes to 20-22 students per class, and also having one or two teachers aides in the same classroom as the teacher. I mean, wtf? 3 adults in one class to teach 20-22 kids?

BTW, don't, for a minute, think that I'm anti-union. Although I don't choose to be a part of one at this stage in my life, I used to work for the power and light company and was a member of the IBEW for 10+ years, and was a member of other unions before that. My own personal take on unions is that they can be a great source of protection for their members. Indeed, I think that at one time they were absolutely necessary in our culture. I also think that there are a lot of them that have abused their power over the years, and because of that they have hurt their standing in a lot of peoples eyes. Like everything else in this world, there are good and bad unions.

But this really isn't a discussion on the good or the bad of unions... it's a discussion about the children in our schools getting sub-standard educations and what we, as parents, think are possible solutions to that problem. Lets stick to that discussion in this thread and leave the union discussion to a different thread.

[RidgeRunner]

I am management and therefore unions are bad.. and that is another thread entirely.

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.

My point was that if the ratio of special needs children to regular needs children is somewhere near 1 in 20 or even 1 in 10. The burden of the teacher to handle 1 or 2 special needs children out of 20 is manageable compared to 3 or 4 children in a class of 45. To be clear there are 2 Teaching Assistants for the entire elementary school K thru 5 that float about the school and help the slower students on an ad hoc basis. Not sure how many mentors this year. It appears that any gain the teacher had with a smaller class size (ie. more 1 on 1 with students) seems to be lost due to mainstreaming the special needs children in with the rest of the class. IMHO.

Jeffmo, please comment all you like. It is just a blog amongst Snaggers.