To make schools safer, we need

more classroom teachers. You've got to take the long view. 58% 60 votes
more armed guards on campus. 23% 24 votes
more therapy on campus. 17% 18 votes
102 total votes

Vote in this poll »


Independent Discussion Guidelines

How will more teachers make classrooms safer from a Newtown style shooter?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2013 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Less FBI on campus.

Less drugging children on prescriptions.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2013 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this all we have to choose from?

dou4now (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2013 at 4:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Indy is never very complete in its choices in these polls.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2013 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

agreed; why not add "reduce class size" and "reduce school size" and ....

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course, the Indy never wants you to make an easy choice. They either want you to make the choice they prefer, or make you look like an idiot by not making that choice.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2013 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with all the above comments. For what it's worth, when I was a kid we had about 30 kids in our classes and we never had to worry about school violence. Additionally, kids were better-educated.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sure, BC, but the society was more homogenous then, civility and civics were taught across the curriculum, and there was some school violence "back then" but more rarely of the Newtown variety. As you must know, we're now involved with a second generation of public school teachers who themselves are products of a woefully deficient public school system in this country. I will not jump on my hobbyhorse about lack of funding, there are many other causes, too. Just harking back to the past will not help us very much.
A recent NYTimes article by Sara Mosle [5/5/13 "Does Class Size Count?"] notes that OF COURSE class size does indeed matter, but it helps especially economically disadvantaged students and minority students. That author notes that most of this discussion is moot since "[all] students will continue to languish in ever larger classes."

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2013 at 4:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

...therefore, we need to return to what we were doing when we didn't have these problems.

Blaming kids because they are non-white isn't going to cut it.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2013 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

who is blaming kids because they are non-white, Bill?? Your comment makes no sense.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A recent NYTimes article by Sara Mosle [5/5/13 "Does Class Size Count?"] notes that OF COURSE class size does indeed matter, but it helps especially economically disadvantaged students and minority students."

The article above keeps labeling "minority" (non-White) students.

When I read about "low test scores" I keep hearing about how the issue is often the ethnic background of the kids, but then the same people who mention this often claim the academic system is culturally biased. It's a no-win situation in trying to deal with people with social agendas.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

but BC, reading Mosle's article shows she is mentioning why class size DOES in fact matter, but the only major study of class size that we have can only confirm that reducing class size certainly impacts poor children [her politically correct "economically disadvantaged"] and "minority students". This is a description, Bill, not a criticism.
My angle is that we need to reduce class size for all children in order to enhance learning. You commented that "30" was your class size decades ago and "kids were better-educated." Class sizes have increased and will unfortunately continue to increase: it hurts the learning of all students, but the only big stud of this notes how it specifically hurts the learning of poor kids and "minority" kids. What other descriptive term would you employ?
There are other studies showing that even at 5 years of age, when children of middle-income and higher incomes enter kindergarten they're already years ahead of kids from poorer backgrounds.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2013 at 3:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To what number has the class size increased, and what is their goal in terms of numbers?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2013 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well, we've drifted off what makes schools safer, but class size reduction can make schools emotionally safer and academically much more challenging. So Bill, this site
gives good info. From 1996 to about 2007 Calif spent real money to reduce class sizes, trying to get to 1:20 at least in lower elementary grades. But the Great Recession of 2008 made our state backtrack a lot. In Calif. in 2010, the class sizes (as measured by teacher:student ratio) are now the highest in the nation. So, we aren't doing it at all in Calif.; trying to make the teacher:student ratio better and lower is a dead issue here, and this was openly admitted by Tom Torlakson, our State Supt. Education. A fairly useless position, BTW.
My angle is ALL the students need better public education, and reducing the teacher:student ratio to at least 1:25 will help our kids a lot. Coupled with better teaching, clear curricular goals, and improved facilities our students would compete much more effectively in the global arena.
My point is ALL the students need these better

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vaud and the Villains

This 19 piece 1930s New Orleans orchestra and cabaret will ... Read More