Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2003 | 8:41 a.m.
After teaching junior high school in a depressed area of New York City for 30 years, I retired to Las Vegas. I considered doing occasional work as a substitute teacher until I discovered that many Las Vegas secondary schools had as many as 45 students in a class. This persuaded me to enjoy the quietude of retirement.
Letters from readers suggesting that class size is irrelevant to learning leave me exasperated. I have never met a teacher who believed this nonsense.
Recently a letter by Ed Dordea headlined "Education is a Money Pit" claimed that it is in the interest of the teachers union and the superintendent "to keep the system from improving -- if there's no crisis there's no increase in funding." I wonder where people get these ideas.
New teachers, most of whom would receive higher pay in other fields, go into teaching believing that they can make a difference in the lives of children.
Does any rational person think there is a single teacher who wants to keep children illiterate in order to demand more money? Common sense defies this reasoning.
Money is certainly not the only answer. Leadership by a school's principal is probably the most important factor; training of teachers is also vital. But without sufficient funds to attract decent teachers and keep class size reasonable, we cannot expect success regardless of the effort of teachers.
HOWARD GINSBURG
archive
