Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[jc456]

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

Why don't you believe that the middle class and poor shouldn't have the same school available as the rich? WTF is wrong with you?

I do believe this, I just don't think it should work the way around that you think it should work. I think all schools should be good, not just private schools.

why are private schools better than?

Why are you against vouchers again?

 

[jc456]

Get rid of all unions, cut overtime pay, social security bad....same old swamp.

You forgot bring back slavery.

When did it go away? Just look at the democrat party


.

I don't see slavery...

been to an inner city? LOL. under their thumb, the rolling stones had the dems in that song, I feel for the inner city folks, not sure why they continue to vote for people who enslave them.

 

[jc456]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

why are you okay with a child interfering with another child's time in school? If a child misbehaves, kick them out. WTF. Why are you for allowing mischief in class to disrupt the majority? Wow.

 

[jc456]

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?

No, that's not a good reason for me to pay for it. Everyone benefits from the military, everyone benefits from mass education. This isn't debatable, this is the case. You can go to countries where kids don't get a free education, or get a much weaker education, and you'll see a country that is weaker.

wtf did that have to do with Ray's post?

 

[jc456]

Now raybo, if teaching is that easy why didn't you become one? Conservative mantra says don't be envious. You are losing this debate quickly. Why should we pay for good roads so big trucks can ruin them?

who said teaching was easy? Why do you want undisciplined kids interfering with teachers and students? Seems you are just babbling to babble.

 

[jc456]

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?

No, that's not a good reason for me to pay for it. Everyone benefits from the military, everyone benefits from mass education. This isn't debatable, this is the case. You can go to countries where kids don't get a free education, or get a much weaker education, and you'll see a country that is weaker.

Doesn't everybody benefit by having an automobile so they can get to work in the morning? Doesn't everybody benefit by having nicely painted homes? Doesn't everybody benefit by having the internet where they can apply for jobs, pay bills, or even learn new things?

There are dozens of things that everybody benefits from, but that doesn't mean we should pay for all those things.

The better questions would be:

Does society as a whole benefit by everyone having an automobile?
Does society as a whole benefit by everyone having nicely painted house?
Does society as a whole benefit by having a military?
Does society as a whole benefit by having an educated populace?

and that has to do with vouchers how?

 

[jc456]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

60K a year isn't bad for a part-time job. The last time I had all summer off was when I was a kid in school.

It depends on where she lives and they aren't really "off" all summer. Teachers are required to do "continuing education" courses - at least in my state.

Yes, my former tenant did the same thing. Out of his three months off, he went to class part-time for one month in the summer, and it was only every couple of years it was required.

They also don't get paid for those 3 months.

so?

 

[jc456]

Big trucks cause most of the damage. Why should we pay so they have good roads?

why not? It's our choice right? We need goods and services, we need road repairs, we need snowplows. Dude you're a funny guy.

 

[jc456]

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?

No, that's not a good reason for me to pay for it. Everyone benefits from the military, everyone benefits from mass education. This isn't debatable, this is the case. You can go to countries where kids don't get a free education, or get a much weaker education, and you'll see a country that is weaker.

Doesn't everybody benefit by having an automobile so they can get to work in the morning? Doesn't everybody benefit by having nicely painted homes? Doesn't everybody benefit by having the internet where they can apply for jobs, pay bills, or even learn new things?

There are dozens of things that everybody benefits from, but that doesn't mean we should pay for all those things.

No, I don't benefit from you having a car to get to work in the morning. I benefit if I have a car.

You're taking the wrong way on this argument.

I benefit if your kids get an education. I don't benefit if you have a car. I do benefit if there is a road on which you can drive your car.

so if you benefit from a kid getting an education, why wouldn't you benefit more if a kids get the best education available? And we all know that isn't a public school. So why are you against poor kids achieving the same success as rich kids? I still don't get your rationale.

 

[jc456]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Have you ever taught a class with 39 kids; I have. In such an environment, kids that need any extra help don't get. There is not enough class time to cover the material and have any interaction with the kids. Most teachers in that environment, hardly even know their students. On parent teacher night, a parent wants to discuss the problem Johnny is having in math and you can't remember which Johnny is their son. Thankfully, I only had to spend two years teaching in the zoo. Frankly, I wish every parent had the opportunity to teach an overloaded class of 3rd graders.

In private schools, larger class sizes may well be tolerable since the school has the opportunity to select their students, no special ed kids, no juvenile delinquents, no kids that can't speak English, no kids that are 3 grade levels behind. Public schools have to take whatever walks in the door.

why don't you extend the class times then? why are you against an eight hour class schedule?

 

[Nia88]

If you give a poor kid a voucher, it doesn't fix all the other problems.

The other end of it is that school choice usually means that the charter or private school cherry picks the kids they want. I went to Catholic Schools in the 1970's. You know what happened to the kids who were trouble makers, who had learning disabilities, etc.

They got fobbed off on the public schools.

So, no, taking money from the Public Schools and giving them to private schools doesn't really fix the problem.

You hit the nail on the head.


Immigrant children excel in the same public school American children have but the difference is their parents instill the importance of education in them. They don't allow their kids to bring home Cs.

Conservatives don't how important the public school education is. The focus should be on bettering them. In Finland their teachers are treated like doctors. They have to have masters degrees and education is give top priority in terms of budget.

 

[jc456]

So who do you want to do the investigation, Ronald McDonald?

An independent body with no connection to the police.

Nope, Cleveland called Independence for a reference and got a good one.

Unlikely... but even if they did, they should have asked for a complete copy of his personnel file...

If you get a white guy with no criminal record that is totally honest and remorseful for his crime, he's going to get a much lighter sentence than a black guy who was rolling his eyes during the trial, shaking his head back and forth, dressed like he was going to a rap concert, and has a criminal record a mile long.

But none of those things should be factors. If the black and white guy did the SAME crime, they should get the same prison sentence. Not "The White Guy dressed nicely, he must be totally innocent."

You see, you are going through a lot of trouble to deny what even you know is true.. The "Justice" system has no "Justice" if you are black.

that can't be backed up by statistics. more fake propaganda.

 

[jc456]

Our Leftist pals are quick to blame cops, white folks, Republicans, whatever, but I have yet to see any of the tunnel-vision crowd try to explain this phenomenon"

In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

Keep scrubbing, honey, it don't come off.

Of course, when the police act like occupying armies, you are going to have more shootings. (That is, if you have an insane policy of letting average citizens own guns to start with, which no other country does.)

so you do blame the citizens for crime with guns. but note they are mostly illegal guns. how do you supposed the populace gets illegal guns?

 

[Nia88]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Have you ever taught a class with 39 kids; I have. In such an environment, kids that need any extra help don't get. There is not enough class time to cover the material and have any interaction with the kids. Most teachers in that environment, hardly even know their students. On parent teacher night, a parent wants to discuss the problem Johnny is having in math and you can't remember which Johnny is their son. Thankfully, I only had to spend two years teaching in the zoo. Frankly, I wish every parent had the opportunity to teach an overloaded class of 3rd graders.

In private schools, larger class sizes may well be tolerable since the school has the opportunity to select their students, no special ed kids, no juvenile delinquents, no kids that can't speak English, no kids that are 3 grade levels behind. Public schools have to take whatever walks in the door.

why don't you extend the class times then? why are you against an eight hour class schedule?

Extending school hours will do nothing. If you have 30+ kids in the class it is impossible to help all especially if you don't have an assistant. Smaller classrooms are the key to quality education. Especially the younger they are.

 

[jc456]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Have you ever taught a class with 39 kids; I have. In such an environment, kids that need any extra help don't get. There is not enough class time to cover the material and have any interaction with the kids. Most teachers in that environment, hardly even know their students. On parent teacher night, a parent wants to discuss the problem Johnny is having in math and you can't remember which Johnny is their son. Thankfully, I only had to spend two years teaching in the zoo. Frankly, I wish every parent had the opportunity to teach an overloaded class of 3rd graders.

In private schools, larger class sizes may well be tolerable since the school has the opportunity to select their students, no special ed kids, no juvenile delinquents, no kids that can't speak English, no kids that are 3 grade levels behind. Public schools have to take whatever walks in the door.

why don't you extend the class times then? why are you against an eight hour class schedule?

Extending school hours will do nothing. If you have 30+ kids in the class it is impossible to help all especially if you don't have an assistant. Smaller classrooms are the key to quality education. Especially the younger they are.

that's merely a cop out. Then the class schedule is bad. The teacher is then bad. dude, why is it majorities can learn in the environment and minorities don't seem to? Extra time gives the ability to go to those who need help right?

 

[Nia88]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Have you ever taught a class with 39 kids; I have. In such an environment, kids that need any extra help don't get. There is not enough class time to cover the material and have any interaction with the kids. Most teachers in that environment, hardly even know their students. On parent teacher night, a parent wants to discuss the problem Johnny is having in math and you can't remember which Johnny is their son. Thankfully, I only had to spend two years teaching in the zoo. Frankly, I wish every parent had the opportunity to teach an overloaded class of 3rd graders.

In private schools, larger class sizes may well be tolerable since the school has the opportunity to select their students, no special ed kids, no juvenile delinquents, no kids that can't speak English, no kids that are 3 grade levels behind. Public schools have to take whatever walks in the door.

why don't you extend the class times then? why are you against an eight hour class schedule?

Extending school hours will do nothing. If you have 30+ kids in the class it is impossible to help all especially if you don't have an assistant. Smaller classrooms are the key to quality education. Especially the younger they are.

that's merely a cop out. Then the class schedule is bad. The teacher is then bad. dude, why is it majorities can learn in the environment and minorities don't seem to? Extra time gives the ability to go to those who need help right?

Ok. So how about you teach a class of 30+ 1st graders and see how easy it is.

Class size needs to be smaller. Not hours extended. High school students may be able to handle an eight hour school day but definitely not elementary and middle schoolers.

 

[jc456]

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Have you ever taught a class with 39 kids; I have. In such an environment, kids that need any extra help don't get. There is not enough class time to cover the material and have any interaction with the kids. Most teachers in that environment, hardly even know their students. On parent teacher night, a parent wants to discuss the problem Johnny is having in math and you can't remember which Johnny is their son. Thankfully, I only had to spend two years teaching in the zoo. Frankly, I wish every parent had the opportunity to teach an overloaded class of 3rd graders.

In private schools, larger class sizes may well be tolerable since the school has the opportunity to select their students, no special ed kids, no juvenile delinquents, no kids that can't speak English, no kids that are 3 grade levels behind. Public schools have to take whatever walks in the door.

why don't you extend the class times then? why are you against an eight hour class schedule?

Extending school hours will do nothing. If you have 30+ kids in the class it is impossible to help all especially if you don't have an assistant. Smaller classrooms are the key to quality education. Especially the younger they are.

that's merely a cop out. Then the class schedule is bad. The teacher is then bad. dude, why is it majorities can learn in the environment and minorities don't seem to? Extra time gives the ability to go to those who need help right?

Ok. So how about you teach a class of 30+ 1st graders and see how easy it is.

Class size needs to be smaller. Not hours extended. High school students may be able to handle an eight hour school day but definitely not elementary and middle schoolers.

why would I do that? I have no desire to do that. I pay for teachers who go to school get educated on how to do that. I don't expect them to go around crying cause they have to actually work to earn a living.

BTW, do you have a study on why class time is what it is?

 

[bodecea]

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

Why don't you believe that the middle class and poor shouldn't have the same school available as the rich? WTF is wrong with you?

I do believe this, I just don't think it should work the way around that you think it should work. I think all schools should be good, not just private schools.

why are private schools better than?

Why are you against vouchers again?

"than"..........

Give Public Schools choice. Or better yet, let's allow the Public schools in this country do the same things that schools in those other countries do.

 

[jc456]

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

Why don't you believe that the middle class and poor shouldn't have the same school available as the rich? WTF is wrong with you?

I do believe this, I just don't think it should work the way around that you think it should work. I think all schools should be good, not just private schools.

why are private schools better than?

Why are you against vouchers again?

"than"..........

Give Public Schools choice. Or better yet, let's allow the Public schools in this country do the same things that schools in those other countries do.

"than" public schools right? they are better than public school. Right? You all claim they are, you can't seem to get your stories to line up. Which is it? BTW, why are you against vouchers, which was my question.

 

[Flopper]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Have you ever taught a class with 39 kids; I have. In such an environment, kids that need any extra help don't get. There is not enough class time to cover the material and have any interaction with the kids. Most teachers in that environment, hardly even know their students. On parent teacher night, a parent wants to discuss the problem Johnny is having in math and you can't remember which Johnny is their son. Thankfully, I only had to spend two years teaching in the zoo. Frankly, I wish every parent had the opportunity to teach an overloaded class of 3rd graders.

In private schools, larger class sizes may well be tolerable since the school has the opportunity to select their students, no special ed kids, no juvenile delinquents, no kids that can't speak English, no kids that are 3 grade levels behind. Public schools have to take whatever walks in the door.

Then maybe get rid of all teachers and hire nuns. They seemed to have no problem with it.

Typical response from a conservative, fix education by getting rid of the teachers.