Maryland is just one of just nine states where class size is an illegal subject of bargaining

[Anonymous]

Is this correct? Are there any non profits actively working to change this?

My DC has 31 in their 2nd grade class this year.

[Anonymous]

I do not know what an illegal subject of bargaining is?

[Anonymous]

How could it be subject to bargaining? The Board can't control the overall budget, the number of students, or the number of available teachers to hire.

[Anonymous]

You also can't just create classrooms out of thin air.

[Anonymous]

I teach high school, but I’ve had classes over 40 in a core subject.

I’ve been teaching long enough to know nothing is going to get fixed. It’s what I’ve come to expect since the people who make decisions aren’t the ones impacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not know what an illegal subject of bargaining is?

It means unions can't negotiate on that topic.

Considering 26 states are right to work states it should be 34 states outlaw the negotiation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not know what an illegal subject of bargaining is?

It means unions can't negotiate on that topic.

Considering 26 states are right to work states it should be 34 states outlaw the negotiation

not necessarily, that means in those 26 states an individual could negotiate their own terms. If those schools ever wanted me as a teacher, I'd definitely have class size in my contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not know what an illegal subject of bargaining is?

It means unions can't negotiate on that topic.

Considering 26 states are right to work states it should be 34 states outlaw the negotiation

not necessarily, that means in those 26 states an individual could negotiate their own terms. If those schools ever wanted me as a teacher, I'd definitely have class size in my contract.

lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not know what an illegal subject of bargaining is?

It means unions can't negotiate on that topic.

Considering 26 states are right to work states it should be 34 states outlaw the negotiation

With an exception for civics/government class apparently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not know what an illegal subject of bargaining is?

It means unions can't negotiate on that topic.

Considering 26 states are right to work states it should be 34 states outlaw the negotiation

With an exception for civics/government class apparently

And/or math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not know what an illegal subject of bargaining is?

It means unions can't negotiate on that topic.

Considering 26 states are right to work states it should be 34 states outlaw the negotiation

not necessarily, that means in those 26 states an individual could negotiate their own terms. If those schools ever wanted me as a teacher, I'd definitely have class size in my contract.

Yeah good luck with individual bargaining in a right to work state

[Anonymous]

Honestly it’s insane that we simply accommodate anyone who moves into the area past kindergarten. If you move into a school area, you ought to have to find a school that has room for you. That’s the way they do it in England. And you just figure it out.
I know that’s a fantasy, but it’s nearly impossible for schools to plan year over year with the constant increases and decreases in class size

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it’s insane that we simply accommodate anyone who moves into the area past kindergarten. If you move into a school area, you ought to have to find a school that has room for you. That’s the way they do it in England. And you just figure it out.
I know that’s a fantasy, but it’s nearly impossible for schools to plan year over year with the constant increases and decreases in class size

It's far easier for schools to accommodate those small enrollment changes than expecting parents to be able to find affordable housing near jobs and schools with available seats.

This country is anti-parent enough as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it’s insane that we simply accommodate anyone who moves into the area past kindergarten. If you move into a school area, you ought to have to find a school that has room for you. That’s the way they do it in England. And you just figure it out.
I know that’s a fantasy, but it’s nearly impossible for schools to plan year over year with the constant increases and decreases in class size

It's far easier for schools to accommodate those small enrollment changes than expecting parents to be able to find affordable housing near jobs and schools with available seats.

This country is anti-parent enough as it is.

You shouldn’t move to an area where you can't afford to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it’s insane that we simply accommodate anyone who moves into the area past kindergarten. If you move into a school area, you ought to have to find a school that has room for you. That’s the way they do it in England. And you just figure it out.
I know that’s a fantasy, but it’s nearly impossible for schools to plan year over year with the constant increases and decreases in class size

It's far easier for schools to accommodate those small enrollment changes than expecting parents to be able to find affordable housing near jobs and schools with available seats.

This country is anti-parent enough as it is.

You shouldn’t move to an area where you can't afford to live.

Right. And if the areas with affordable housing don't have seats in schools, then what?