Just in time for Christmas, Governor Locke yesterday submitted a supplemental budget loaded with goodies guaranteed to touch nearly every heart and pocketbook. One of the governor’s proposals is an addition of 1,000 new teachers to reduce K-12 class sizes.
"The governor’s proposal to reduce class sizes strikes us as odd," said Lynn Harsh, EFF’s Executive Director. "He does not know how many students are currently in our classrooms, so how could he possibly know if or where reductions are needed? Besides, as important as class size is, hundreds of studies prove that the most important controllable factor for student success is the quality of the teacher in the classroom, not how many children are in it."
Last September, when Sen. Patty Murray and Gov. Locke urged federal and state lawmakers to commit to lowering class sizes in elementary grades, EFF staff asked the governor for the number of children in an average Washington state classroom, as well as the data he and Murray were using that indicated success in increasing student learning through class size reductions.
After repeated, unsuccessful attempts to get a response, EFF staff asked the Governor’s Policy Staff to provide the information. Finally, on November 16, a spokesperson for the Governor’s budget office (OFM) called to say that nobody at OFM, the governor’s office, or the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) knew how many students are in an average classroom. He said OSPI and OFM were "really trying to find an answer" for us. As of today, no answer has arrived. (The 20-students-per-classroom number the governor is using is incorrect.)
"We have new questions for the governor now," said Harsh. "Reducing class sizes by the governor’s formula would require 33 percent more classrooms and teachers. Where is the money coming from to build the necessary new classrooms? In this era of teacher shortages, where will the new teachers come from? Furthermore, providing funding for 1,000 new teachers for one year makes little more than a dent in class size. If state surpluses decline in future years, who will continue paying the salaries of these new teachers?"
How bad does it have to get for students in our K-12 classrooms before our governor will call for what we already know works to improve student learning: Better teacher preparation, higher teacher standards, the purging of bad teachers, and more pay for teachers who can prove excellence through the academic success of the children entrusted to their care?
In the meantime, promising a better education for children through short-term funding of 1,000 new teachers is little more than a lump of coal in our Christmas stockings.
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]?"