PROPOSAL MAY UNDERMINE
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN
A REPORT PREPARED BY THE
Commonweal
Institute
(650) 330-1395
PROPOSAL MAY UNDERMINE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF
EDUCATION IN
By Leonard Salle
President, Commonweal Institute
In 1996 California passed a bill (SB 1777) that established
a Class Size Reduction (CSR) program for kindergarten and grades 1 through 3
(K-3). The goal was to improve the quality of education in
Some of the changes
AB 42 would make in the CSR program are subtle, but they could have potentially
serious implications for the quality of education in
· Stand to lose approximately 6,000 teachers in K-3;
· Risk a setback in future teacher recruitment, which in turn could have an impact on the quality of education; and
· Lose substantial investments that have been made in recruiting, preparing, developing, and hiring new teachers.
Understanding the
Legislation
Let’s first look at the proposed legislation, and what it
means in terms of number of students per class. Under AB 42 all
To understand what the proposed legislation will mean, we first have to understand the existing legislation. Under current legislation, for all but a few small districts, districts that participate in the CSR program cannot have more than 20 pupils per teacher. To have no more than 20 pupils per teacher means that the average number of students per teacher for all districts has to be less than 20. Why is that so?
The primary reason that the average is less than 20 pupils
per teacher is the growing population in
For these reasons and based on experience, funding of the CSR program was adjusted for an anticipated average of 18.8 students per class. Funds have been provided to school districts on this basis.
For 2001-02, the average for 970 districts and charter
schools was actually 18.73[1] pupils
per teacher. This is 1.27 fewer pupils per teacher than the 20 pupils per
teacher average called for by AB 42. The proposed legislation, which
would permit an average of 20 pupils per classroom, can therefore be expected
to increase the number of pupils in a classroom by an average of approximately
1.27 pupils, or almost 7 percent. Because of the classroom size increase, the
proposed legislation will also mean that
|
|
Number of classrooms |
Number of students |
Students per classroom |
|
Current CSR |
98,528 |
1,845,205 |
18.73 |
|
AB 42 |
92,260 |
1,845,205 |
20.00 |
|
Difference |
6,268 |
0 |
1.27 |
Based on the reasonable assumption that there is one teacher per classroom
(teaching aides or substitutes are not counted), it can be seen from the above
table that approximately 6,268 teachers could lose their jobs as a result of AB
42. The 6,268 number is an estimate of what
may happen based on the time period evaluated, 2001-2002, the most recent
academic year for which data are available.
Programs in Other States Show That Smaller Classes in K-3 Are Beneficial
The well-known Tennessee STAR Project[3] and
Although there can be legitimate discussions about how best
to implement a CSR program, it must be recognized that the net affect of AB 42
will be to increase class size and to reduce the pool of K-3 teachers. With
California’s growing population of those who would be traditionally disadvantaged
in education[5],
an even more aggressive CSR program, i.e., one with smaller class size and one
that addresses other issues such as special teacher training to take fuller
advantage of CSR, would be desirable[6]. Thus AB 42 would appear to be a move in the wrong
direction in terms of
The Loss of Teachers
is a Critical Issue
The potential loss of approximately 6,000 teachers if AB 42
becomes law is critical with respect to being able to recruit qualified
teachers in the future and the corresponding impact on the quality of education
in
Table 1: California
See Appendix for Details
There are a myriad of programs working to reduce the nationwide teacher shortage, including federal programs, state programs, and local programs funded by block grants. Given the difficulty of obtaining and analyzing all relevant data, Table 1 reflects only the data that were readily available. Therefore, the amounts attributed to each category reflect just some of investments and programs initiated. Additionally, investments in professional development are not explicitly identified in Table 1, because it would be difficult to segregate the portion of professional development that might be reasonably assigned to recently recruited teachers. However, Table 5 (see appendix) is included to provide a sense of the cost of this effort.
Also not included in Table 1 are private investments made by teaching students and non-government organizations. For example, the amount attributed to teacher preparation only includes the amount subsidized by the government, not the amount invested by the students who are studying to be teachers to pay for their tuition, fees and books. In addition, there is an “opportunity cost” lost by these students as they forego other opportunities to study education in expectation of a secure career in teaching.
The investments identified in Table 1, which do not include
professional development as well as other investments referred to above, still
total over $1.4 billion for the last five years. During that same period, all the various
investments noted helped
It can readily be concluded that
Teachers who are laid off will not want to sit around, waiting and hoping to get re-hired. With families to support and financial responsibilities to meet, they will likely find alternative employment. Steve Lilly, Dean of Education at California State San Marcos, which will produce roughly 500 new teachers this year, expresses this concern, “We are in danger of losing some high-quality teacher talent out there. If people get their notice, they find alternative employment; it may be a 10 to 20-year decision if they stay in that new career field,” warned Lilly.[11]
Other experts also express concerns. The San Diego Union Tribune reports, “
Teacher preparation institutions are already readying
themselves for fewer applicants to the credentialing program over the next two
years. Said
Indeed, Margaret Gaston of the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning may have said it best: “Over the past several years we have invested hundreds of millions not only into new teachers, but also into developing and strengthening our teacher pipeline. The quantity as well as the quality of teachers in training is impressive. However, the message delivered by large teacher layoffs is one of instability, which could scare off many well-qualified potential educators. When teaching candidates see the state and districts climbing the walls for teachers one minute, and then issuing mass layoffs the next, how can they help but ask themselves, “Why should I pursue a career in which my employment is so insecure?”[15]
The impact of teacher layoffs under AB 42 will be most apparent
as
School Districts Are Facing Difficult Choices
Because of the shortage of funds, each
Although it is understandable that school districts are
currently making choices driven by the need to operate with reduced funds, the
decision to lay off teachers would appear to be shortsighted. The decision by
some districts to opt out of the CSR program will unfortunately affect all
districts in
Conclusions
If AB 42 becomes law, K-3 class
sizes will increase in
References
Study Contributor
Brian Tanner of Capital Resources Group in
