UFT President Randi Weingarten makes an important point in her letter to the N.Y. Sun this morning, chastising the paper for slamming the union's drive for smaller classes while noting that one reason many parents like sending their children to charter schools is they tend to have small class sizes. Why aren't charter schools similarly criticized for making small classes a priority, she wonders.

In practice, many charter schools do whatever they can to keep class sizes manageable. Having attended many information sessions for parents, I can also tell you the size of a charter school's classes is one of the first questions raised by parents (no matter what neighborhood you're in,) so there is some pressure to do so at the consumer-end, even if you aren't convinced by what studies X,Y, and Z say or don't say.

Weingarten is correct to question the double-standard, but I also think a fair point can be made that there is currently very little stopping the NYC schools from reducing class size, if that is really the top priority. It would obviously involve some very difficult decisions elsewhere in the school system's budgetary framework, but the charter school experience suggests it is possible if that's the ideal you want to build your schools around. Nearly every parent/teacher I know believes that a reasonable class size is important, but many of them have never been asked to weigh that importance against other important things that may have to go to make it happen. Smaller classes could indeed be the way to go, but it seems like the whole discussion is calling out for a much meatier discussion about costs, benefits, and where it fits among overall spending priorities.

That's the way successful charter schools do it, isn't it?