Class size is the second largest predictor of student success, second only to parental involvement (which itself is made even more difficult in overcrowded classrooms). Despite knowing this, education administrators are happy about crowded classrooms because of the per-pupil money.
In addition, the resulting teacher shortages mean more burnout and earlier retirement, leading to a pipeline of inexperienced teachers straight from college to the worst performing schools. Very often they get a hiring bonus or start at a higher rate, which understandably creates resentment among teachers who have been there for years. Vicious cycle, rinse and repeat...
The teachers who do manage to succeed quickly learn that there's far more money to be made in administration, which results in an even smaller percentage of talent among the teaching staff.
The story seems to be that schools have fewer immigrant children, resulting in less revenue, and that we have fewer immigrants in the United States overall. Those are the facts the AP reports. Whether the children were legal or illegal immigrants, how do the schools and the AP know? And how do you know the children aren't or weren't in the United States legally, and how do you determine it? Some students are likely legal, some illegal. In June 2025, the Department of Homeland Security directed about 500,000 individuals who entered the U.S. through humanitarian parole to "self-deport" after their legal status was revoked. Are you suggesting that children in general, who have little or no say in where they are living, shouldn't be in school?
Thank you for your comment. Nowhere did I suggest that children were in school illegally. “Less revenue” going to schools, as you put it, means a savings to taxpayers, which is the real story and a positive development, unlike how the AP reports it. Fewer students means schools get, and need, less revenue from the government. The clear point is that if we had always aggressively enforced immigration laws as is finally being done, the children of illegal immigrants would never have been in school here in the first place, resulting in smaller classrooms, a savings for taxpayers, less strain on school budgets, and more individual attention for students from parents and families who are legal citizens. AP is pushing a pro-illegal immigrant narrative in this story and completely ignoring the clear benefit of enforcing our immigration laws to taxpayers and to families living here legally.
Class size is the second largest predictor of student success, second only to parental involvement (which itself is made even more difficult in overcrowded classrooms). Despite knowing this, education administrators are happy about crowded classrooms because of the per-pupil money.
In addition, the resulting teacher shortages mean more burnout and earlier retirement, leading to a pipeline of inexperienced teachers straight from college to the worst performing schools. Very often they get a hiring bonus or start at a higher rate, which understandably creates resentment among teachers who have been there for years. Vicious cycle, rinse and repeat...
The teachers who do manage to succeed quickly learn that there's far more money to be made in administration, which results in an even smaller percentage of talent among the teaching staff.
The story seems to be that schools have fewer immigrant children, resulting in less revenue, and that we have fewer immigrants in the United States overall. Those are the facts the AP reports. Whether the children were legal or illegal immigrants, how do the schools and the AP know? And how do you know the children aren't or weren't in the United States legally, and how do you determine it? Some students are likely legal, some illegal. In June 2025, the Department of Homeland Security directed about 500,000 individuals who entered the U.S. through humanitarian parole to "self-deport" after their legal status was revoked. Are you suggesting that children in general, who have little or no say in where they are living, shouldn't be in school?
Thank you for your comment. Nowhere did I suggest that children were in school illegally. “Less revenue” going to schools, as you put it, means a savings to taxpayers, which is the real story and a positive development, unlike how the AP reports it. Fewer students means schools get, and need, less revenue from the government. The clear point is that if we had always aggressively enforced immigration laws as is finally being done, the children of illegal immigrants would never have been in school here in the first place, resulting in smaller classrooms, a savings for taxpayers, less strain on school budgets, and more individual attention for students from parents and families who are legal citizens. AP is pushing a pro-illegal immigrant narrative in this story and completely ignoring the clear benefit of enforcing our immigration laws to taxpayers and to families living here legally.