This much is true: the B.C. Teachers Federation and the BC Public School Employers' Association still need to compromise.
Much of the rhetoric on the government side, however, doesn't add up.
It is true - partially - that cutting class sizes back to the 2002 levels, before the Liberals tore up the teachers' right to bargain on class sizes, would not be a magic bullet.
Not every student will learn better, not every student will be left behind if there are two or three extra kids in the class.
But the government has gone far, far beyond this argument.
They are now openly arguing, it seems, that cutting class sizes would be bad for kids.
"The class size issue is an oxymoron... because all the research in the world says size does not determine outcomes," said Education Minister Peter Fassbender.
At issue are outcomes - grades are better and graduation rates are better than they were 12 years ago. The Liberals would like the public to believe that this is because of, apparently, larger class sizes.
Of course, correlation does not equal causation, something you'd think the Liberals would have learned, as many of them are highly educated.
For instance, after years of talking up the amount they spend on education, the Liberals are suddenly silent on all the things they actually have done to help out kids.
StrongStart and all-day Kindergarten programs came in under their watch, as well as the annual Raise-A-Reader program.
If you actually create initiatives to help kids do better in school, you can't then turn around and claim that refusing to reduce class sizes is the cause of all the improved outcomes.
Maybe all those other projects, plus lower class sizes, would actually help if they actually tried it.
