By Tom
It took a while for the results to trickle in, but after nearly a week it’s become clear that the voters have decided to lower class sizes in Washington. I voted yes, with all the passion as a 1988 vote for Michael Dukakis.
Why the lack of enthusiasm? Three things: implementation, allocation and expectations.
Implementation: Now that the initiative passed, none of us can expect our classes to suddenly shrink. I certainly don’t. Class sizes aren’t going to get any smaller unless and until there’s someplace to put those extra kids. And in my school, there simply isn’t. Every one of our classrooms is being used, along with the two portables that were brought in over the summer. And it’s the same all over our district. If I understand the Initiative correctly, there are workarounds for schools that don’t have room to create new classrooms; it involves hiring extra teachers until the average class size goes down. It sounds to me like my district will be hiring a fleet of learning support teachers, which is a good thing; as long as we’re careful about how it plays out. This is definitely something all of us need to pay attention to and get involved in. It could be a great thing for our schools or it could be a mess.
Allocation: 1351 is going to be really expensive, which is a problem, since lawmakers don’t run the state like a restaurant. “I hope you enjoyed your lower class sizes, citizens; here’s the bill. I’ll be your cashier when you’re ready.” What they do instead is move money around so that as few voters as possible notice. My guess is that the people who will end up noticing the most will be teachers. I worry about my salary, my benefits and my National Board bonus. I also worry about the state’s ability to pay for other important education programs, specifically those that involve college readiness.
Expectations: Once we get these smaller classes – or whatever workaround we end up with – all eyes are going to focus on outcomes. And I don’t think they’ll be waiting for the class of 2028. In fact, as a fourth grade teacher I’m looking forward to 2016, when I get a class of kids who all came out of 17-student third grade classrooms, all of whom had the benefit of more teacher attention. And my expectations will increase each year. But that’s nothing compared to what “outsiders” will be looking for. And by “outsiders” I probably mean the Seattle Times, who were relentless in their opposition to 1351, both in and out of their editorial page. I don’t seriously doubt that we’ll have the data to show that the Initiative led to student improvement, but I have no doubt that the doubters will be looking really hard to prove that it didn’t. And that worries me.
So I guess it’s time to celebrate. But briefly, because there’s a lot of work to be done to make sure this turns out well.
I actually voted no and did so proudly. It’s clear that WEA struggles with getting everybody on board and this vote was no exception. Even at the Representative Assembly, there is no working across the Cascade Mountain aisle. With the initiative passing barely, people are tired of the union pushing the voters around. Just because we are teachers does not mean that everyone is going to agree with us all the time. This should be a warning to the union leadership that they need to think long and hard next time about proposing an initiative that caters specifically to the urban school districts leaving the rural and more Republican districts and counties in the dust.
Otherwise, they may find themselves voting alone.
My hope is that accountability is built into the implementation of this bill. There are far too many ways to “game” class size numbers in ways that do not benefit kids. I’m thinking particularly of Teacher Assistant “classes” that are considered 1:1, 50+ student gym classes walking in parking lots, and pressing kids towards free periods to bring down the sizes of other classes but hurt their educational experience and the transcripts they send to colleges. The question is: when class sizes go down, where are those students and what are they doing?
I like your analogy of the enthusiasm of your vote. As our local head union goon I too supported I1351 and as the good soldier I am , I was enthusiastic about it and tried to get my members involved.
But first I think that the initiative process is a deeply flawed way to make legislation. And I understand entirely the issues around how it will be paid for, building space and so on. But what I did get fired up over and how I would respond to folks who pointed out the issues you raise, was that as flawed as I1351 is does force the legislature to do something. I tell them it is a “down payment ” on McCleary . And I think that is a good thing.
I too voted yes. And, I was hesitant. Education is about much more than what happens in my classroom. It is about well-fed kids. It is about kids who are not living on the street. It is about kids who see a pathway to college and beyond. All of these things are funded by state as well. My smaller class sizes (if they every materialize) will only work if my kids come to school ready to learn. We need revenue in our state to support everything the state says it will provide.
I promise to vote for any legislator who votes to raise taxes, especially if it is closing loophole tax breaks, a capital gains tax, or an income tax on people who make much more than I. But, I will also vote for raising my own taxes. Our kids need this revenue.
Well stated, Lyon.
Too true, Mark. Unfortunately we’re used to “firing” the lawmakers who ask us to pay for the stuff we ordered.
I suppose on one hand this is a gesture from the voters, again. However, what we really need is not to just rob Peter to pay Paul (steal from one piece of the budget pie to fill another)… we need to accept that if we as taxpayers want something different than what we have, we need to be willing to pay for it. The state needs revenue in order to fund (literally) everything it funds.
If we want a different school system than what we have–no matter what the change is that we desire–we (taxpayers) need to be willing to sacrifice, either by giving up more in taxes OR by sacrificing some of the services the state provides (infrastructure, safety, schools, social services, etc.).