Opinion: Smaller classes will exacerbate education woes

Let's be realistic about what the class size amendment means to our public schools. If it passes, just how will our schools come up with the physical space to house all these smaller classes? Most likely by giving up the art room, music room, media center and other specialists' areas for regular classes. I'm sure the art teachers will be happy to show fewer kids at a time how to paint, but giving up their classroom may not make up for it.

Possibly the space will come from making athletic fields smaller and adding portables there. Weren't we politicizing portables just four years ago in the last election, and all the evils that they might be bring to our kids' education? Ask any principal of an overcrowded school teeming with portables if they think it's a good solution.

And where are all these new teachers going to come from? It's hard enough to recruit and maintain quality professionals right now. I'd rather have my child taught by a qualified educator in a class of 28 students than an unqualified one in a class of 20.

Having a smaller class size sounds wonderful, but it just isn't sound. We have no land (let alone money) on which to build new schools. Add the choice plan to the mix, and smaller class sizes bring even less choice to parents as the more desirable schools may have even fewer available seats.

If California has had difficulties implementing smaller class sizes to only select grades, why does Florida think it can do better with our whole K-12 system? Smaller class sizes are a wonderful dream. So is higher teacher pay, enough textbooks and materials for all, and students who are ready to learn.

For those who want to make smaller classes a reality, put your child in a private school. Our public schools have enough issues already.
-- Christy Nelson, St. Petersburg

We can't afford smaller classes

Florida's teachers are fleeing across the state line like rats deserting a sinking ship, seeking greener pastures in Georgia, Alabama, and yes, even Mississippi, the poorest state in the union, where it is a violation of the law to pay a teacher as little as some Florida teachers are getting. What possible good will it do to build the tens of thousands of classrooms needed to reduce class sizes to the level required by the initiative if we cannot find qualified teachers to staff them? Local school boards are already struggling with problem of having to hire unqualified people.

Forget about the estimates that you have read about the cost. To staff all of those new classrooms, we are going to have to increase salaries big time for all teachers. Do you have any idea how much it would cost just to put us ahead of Alabama? A lot more than you think. Get ready for a state income tax, or a huge increase in the state sales tax -- it's coming. We also have a high-speed rail system to pay for (which will lose money consistently, because no one will use it).

If pay could be increased to a level at which we would no longer have to employ the incompetent and unqualified, would this not do more to improve educational quality than would the employment of tens of thousands more of the same?

The reality is that a vote for smaller classes is a vote for lower pay. You can count on the Legislature to do no more than it is absolutely required to do. Then wait until you see who they have teaching your kids.
-- William E. Collins, Inverness

Class size amendment a no-brainer

When computing the cost of the class-size amendment, we need to compute the cost of rejecting the amendment. With classes at their present size, we have many students not learning; some drop out, some are passed to keep them in their age group. These students grow older and become unemployed, underemployed or illiterate people in minimum-wage, futureless jobs. Also, some become criminals.

What does society pay for these people? Compare that to the cost of the class-size amendment. I think we have a no-brainer.
-- Natalie Whirler, St. Petersburg

Much to learn from California, indeed

The sub-headline in your Oct. 6 article (Class size cap experiences instructional) declared, "Florida can learn plenty from California." The good news is that the framers of Amendment 9, the initiative for smaller classes, have already learned several lessons from California's class size law. These lessons are reflected in the amendment and are designed to maximize the benefits to Florida's children and schools.

First, all children in Florida will benefit under Amendment 9's smaller classes, unlike California's program, which did not require all school districts to participate. Second, the California program has been funded only partly by the state, leaving some low-income districts unable to cover the difference. Under Florida's Amendment 9, class-size reductions will be funded entirely by the Legislature, not by local districts.

Additionally, California's class-size limits were implemented immediately, without a phase-in period. Florida's Amendment 9 phases in smaller classes over eight years, providing ample time to construct new facilities and recruit additional teachers.

Finally, the most important lesson to be learned from California is that class-size reduction improves learning and, contrary to the rhetoric of amendment opponents, does so without causing the sky to fall.
-- Ralph G. Neas, president, People For the American Way, Washington, D.C.

What will they blame next?

Go ahead, make their day.

The teachers union and their political panderers want taxpayers to vote to cap class size at 18 (K-3), 22 (4-8) and 25 (high school), costing up to $28-billion. Today's Florida classes average 23 (through grade 5) and about 26 in middle and high school. The back pages of newspapers point to other localities where smaller class size has produced no noticeable improvement.

My children attended parochial school where there were 60 children per class. However, teachers had discipline, fully supported by the school administration and parents. It was pay attention and behave, or else. Did my children suffer from a teacher/child ratio over twice that of Florida schools? I think not. They are now all professionals with two college degrees each.

My guess is that you will vote to throw more misdirected tax dollars down the sinkhole. What will they blame when that fails?
-- William Quesenberry, Sun City Center

Celebration reopens wounds

Re: Columbus Day.

Each year, as Columbus Day approaches, I am filled with the same anger and disgust. I wonder how many Americans realize that this country continues to celebrate a man who, to the American Indians, was on par with Osama bin Laden or Hitler. A man who was directly responsible for the massacre of thousands of my ancestors and literally wiped out tribes of indigenous peoples.

I see the Southern states changing their flags in order to promote healing among the African-American community, and that is good. It occurs to me, though, that the healing of the first peoples of this land is just as important. I suggest that Columbus Day be abolished and in its place institute Indigenous Day. Perhaps then, the wounds of the "original American" can begin to heal.
-- Pam Davison, Clearwater

Equal justice for everyone

Re: No exemptions in drug court, editorial, Oct. 11.

The Times is right -- "That's not how America's court system is supposed to work."

Unfortunately, today, one need only observe to know that America's court system favors the rich and powerful.

Is nice to know the editors of the Times use their power of the press to try to persuade those in control that equal justice in America is for everyone and should not be preferential for a few.
-- Russell Lee Johnson, St. Petersburg

Energy bills reward polluters

The frequent revelations of corporate wrongdoing have triggered a stock market decline that has wiped away trillions of dollars from the pensions and retirement savings of hardworking Americans. The only comfort is the expectation that corporate misconduct will not go unpunished.

Unfortunately, Congress has other notions about corporate accountability. In fact, Congress is poised to actually reward many of the same companies that have filled the headlines with tales of questionable accounting or sham energy trading. Both the House and Senate versions of the energy legislation, now in conference committee, contain billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for some of the worst corporate polluters in the nation.

Our national energy policy is in serious need of revision. Polluters like CMS Energy, Halliburton, Duke Energy and Mirant, which are under investigation for questionable accounting or sham energy trading, do not deserve further reward. The proposed policy favoring polluting industries is dirty, dangerous and doesn't deliver for taxpayers. We need instead a smarter, cleaner, cost-effective energy future that emphasizes increased efficiency and favors renewable sources.

Mirant, a multibillion-dollar energy corporation, stands to gain tremendously from both the House and Senate versions of energy legislation. On Aug. 15, it announced that an accounting review had turned up mistakes that may have inflated figures on its balance sheet by as much as $1.1-billion. Nonetheless, Mirant is poised to gain tens of millions of dollars from several of the coal tax breaks and subsidies for so-called "clean" coal. Burning coal -- the dirtiest of all fossil fuels -- means more smog, soot, mercury and heat-trapping pollution for America.

In his second week in office, President Bush established the National Energy Policy task force, ostensibly to meet the need for a comprehensive energy policy, and Vice President Dick Cheney was placed at the helm. As the former CEO of Halliburton, one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries, the vice president was a natural for the task -- inviting a steady stream of former industry colleagues to the planning table. Representatives from CMS Energy, Reliant Energy, El Paso Corp. and other companies that have been implicated in recent financial scandals were major energy task force contributors.

After meeting with many dirty energy representatives, but not a single environmental group, the vice president released the National Energy Plan in early 2001, which became the blueprint for the House energy bill.

The tax breaks alone in the House energy bill come in at a whopping $36.5-billion and cost Florida taxpayers over $2-billion. Why would Congress consider awarding billions of dollars in tax breaks to large corporations at a time when the federal government can't pay its bills? There is a firm consensus among both environmentalists and fiscal conservatives that the House and Senate energy bills will increase the federal deficit by rewarding some of the nation's worst corporate citizens in the energy industry.

There can be no doubt that our energy policy is a mess, but these energy bills don't solve any of our problems. On the contrary, they reward the very companies who are causing our environmental and economic woes. U.S. Rep. Michael Bilirakis, a member of the House Energy Conference Committee, should vigorously oppose any energy bill that wastes taxpayers' dollars by rewarding polluting and irresponsible energy companies.
-- Daphne Sorensen, Florida PIRG, and Jill Lancelot, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Tallahassee

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page