Governor Locke is understandably passionate about improving student academic achievement in our state’s K-12 schools. Reducing class size and increasing teacher quality are two of his proposed solutions.
Reducing class size across the board, however, will have a negligible impact on increasing student performance. It is worth noting that the governor’s reduction formula requires approximately 33 percent more classrooms. Other than Seattle, few districts have that much empty space, so where will these classrooms come from?
Each new classroom will need a teacher, yet we are told a teacher shortage exists. Where will these new teachers come from?
Furthermore, nothing in the governor’s current class reduction proposal actually ensures smaller classes. He forwards money in a funding mechanism that allows districts to use the money for other purposes—a repeat of what has happened before.
Our state spends $7,933 average per student per year for K-12 education, yet an average of only $2,812 is spent on "basic education." Perhaps lawmakers should examine current education expenditures to determine if they are properly prioritized before allocating more resources to projects with minimal outcomes.
In addition to reducing class size, the governor proposes an initiative to test new teachers for competency in instructional content and practices. In concept this is a good idea. If the governor truly believes that one of our current problems with K-12 quality is a shortage of excellent teachers, why would we not test teachers already in the classroom as well. After all, if one out of every ten planes was crashing, would we opt to test only new pilots?
While Governor Locke is heading the wrong direction with his class size reduction efforts, he is pointed in the right direction with his concern for teacher quality. It is politically sensitive, but politicians and researchers generally agree that the best (controllable) solution for increasing student academic performance is to insist on excellent teachers in every classroom. At some point in time, our children’s educational welfare will have to take precedence over political fallout.
Prepared by Lynn Harsh, Senior Research Analyst (360) 956-3482 or lharsh@effwa.org
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"