The Washington Education Association (WEA) is running radio and television ads decrying the fact that our state is 46th in the nation for class size, and 42nd in the nation for per-pupil spending. The ads, part of a campaign dubbed “Take the Lead,” are meant to generate sympathy for increased education spending.
Unfortunately, they’re misleading. And shallow.
A moment’s consideration of the facts shows us the WEA’s campaign is without substance. Consider the facts behind two of the union’s claims (which are featured in television ads this week) ...
1. Washington ranks 46th in the nation in class size.
Rankings are interesting, but they’re meaningless without baselines. Ranking “high” or “low” doesn’t answer the real question: What is Washington’s average class size? The WEA’s own national affiliate admits that “no state-by-state actual class size information exists.”
What we do know is that our state legislature allocates funding to pay for a student/teacher ratio of 18.8 to one. And according to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the state employs 55.7 K-12 classroom teachers for every 1,000 students, which means there is one teacher for every 18 students.
Many teachers will tell you their classes are larger than 18 or 19 students. Yet the WEA doesn’t seem interested in figuring out why this is and where current dollars are going.
Further, while class sizes are certainly important, they are only meaningful in context with the factors that matter most in student learning: quality and experience of the teacher, curriculum, school leadership, classroom discipline, and parental involvement. Some teachers can handle larger classes without difficulty; some subjects require more intensive interaction than others; some students learn with more ease than others. Class sizes should be determined by local teachers and administrators, not mandated at the state level.
2. Washington ranks 42nd in the nation in education spending.
Again, rankings are interesting, but they don’t tell us much without baselines. The important questions are: How much is Washington spending per-pupil, and how much is enough?
According to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington spent an average of $10,103 per K-12 student last year. That’s a lot of money. Is it enough to do the job? It’s hard to answer that question without meaningful performance audits of our K-12 schools, but it’s interesting to note that it rivals the tuition at some of our state’s elite private schools.
It is well documented that higher education spending doesn’t necessarily mean higher student achievement. Washington, D.C. spends more than any state, yet has the lowest student test scores. Utah spends less than most states, yet has some of the highest student test scores.
It costs money to provide a quality education, but how you spend that money is just as important as how much.
I will publish a more detailed response to the WEA’s misleading “Take the Lead” campaign next week. In the meantime, the union’s ads should be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted by Marsha Michaelis at February 27, 2006 10:23 AM | Email ThisDaughter in 2nd grade.
We, as parents, are expected to teach kids to read books, teach the 1 plus 1s of math at home, etc.
What are the schools teaching?
It was nice during Black History Month to hear of a special person of color during something good in a historical contest.
But, the daughter never was told of the American Revolution and other things that were part of my curriculum as a youngster. There is too much time teaching these other things, in my opinion, and the kids aren't learning the basics.
The black lady she was told about did some nice things in that era, but certainly not historic. It was similar in this area to say, the Space Needle, the original Monorail, or the Ellis' METRO Sewerage Plan in the 50s. Cool stuff, but definitely not worth a whole lot of time in school.
Posted by: swatter on February 27, 2006 11:16 AMThat begs the question why are almost half the teachers not teaching? Just what are they doing? Add in the number of non-teaching positions (admin, facilities, etc...) and the number of full-time employees to students drops closer to 9:1.
Last time I looked South Dakota had one of the lowest cost per student, and was top in graduation and college enrollments. While such garden spots as D.C. spent the most and had the worst results.
Money does not equal results.
Posted by: JCM on February 27, 2006 11:32 AMRather than working to figure out why the $10,000/student doesn't make it into the classroom, the WEA prefers to pour their members' $$$ into the ad blitz hoping to "shame" us into more and more spending.
And it will probably work.
Posted by: Shaun on February 27, 2006 11:38 AMGenerously assume $50k is being spent on a teacher's salary.
Where is all the rest going and why?
For any government spend, I have the porta-potty rule- because I'm in that business. If you see the "name brand" porta potty at a school, you know they made no attempt to find the best price. In Thurston we have 4 local companies who outprice/outserve the "name brand" company, but at all of our schools you see the most expensive supplier. This might seem trivially small, but across the county that adds up to 1/2 of an entry level teacher salary- on toilets alone, which is a very limited spend of the total budget. I can only imagine the waste on big ticket expenses.
Educators need to realize they are in the business taching, and if the kids are not learning, the teachers have not produced the product they were paid to produce.
If I don't perform at work, I get shown to the door. It should be the same for educators. Why do they think they should be isolated from getting fired for non-performance?
Posted by: Libertarian on February 27, 2006 12:26 PMThat's part of the problem it hard to parse the numbers and come with a real teaching-teacher vs. student ratio. WEA will say 36, but look at the Dept. of Ed and FTE to student ratio is 18. The truth lies in-between.
What is need is more honest reporting, accuracy and resolution in staffing reports.
Full time class room teachers.
Non-class room teachers (library, PE etc...)
Part time and support teachers.
Support staff: assistant, office, clerical, etc...
Facilities support: Janitor, maintenance, IT etc...
Admin.
That would be a lot more informative. The last time I was in a Elementary School the first three office I walked by were for 3 different flavors of counselors.
Posted by: JCM on February 27, 2006 12:29 PMMoney could buy smaller class sizes, but would WEA trade raises for that?
The nature of the WEA argument is this:
If we paid more, a better quality of teacher might be in the classroom.
Questions:
Which teachers who are in the classroom now at today's wage should be replaced by better teachers who would only work for a higher wage?
How will we know those teachers when we see them?
Will WEA let us test them to be sure?
Will WEA allow principals the ability to jettison the poor quality teachers they can identify?
Will WEA let the public decide which teachers are best by letting the education dollars follow parental choices?
If we knew what made a teacher "better", why wouldn't we simply mandate that all teachers be like that?
Without any of the above remedies, WEA is merely advocating raises for existing teachers to keep doing what they currently are doing. Which is no surprise, since that is what they collect dues to do.
The shame is that they decieve when they suggest their effort is related to student achievement.
Posted by: Anon on February 27, 2006 12:30 PMGraduation Rate.........97%
Students going on to post-secondary education...............................91%
National Merit Scholar commended, semi-finalists and finalists ..66
Percentage of graduates obtaining scholarships..............................34%
Average ACT score..........................................................................................21.7
Average SAT scores:
Verbal 573
Math 575
Not one public school district in Washington has those numbers.
Posted by: robnix on February 27, 2006 12:45 PMClass size had to be that size for the war kids.
The other issue is that the WEA wants to protect its own more than it wants to educate the kids.
If they were *really* interested in jacking up the quality of instruction, they'd loosen the restrictions on becoming a teacher. Say someone has a Ph.D in Engineering...he/she'd probably do a decent job teaching high school physics or calculus.
Why should someone like that, with some industry experience, or a retired millitary member, have to go out and jump through the WEA's hoops?
Posted by: Steve_dog on February 27, 2006 01:40 PMPrivatize schooling ASAP.
This is great to watch because even with their enormous power, eventually most of the voters will turn against the WEA. The numbers simply don't add up. Folks are not going to tolerate an expensive, yet crappy product forever, and this is one place where we have some say.
I would bet that if there were positions that needed to be filled (and a shortage of applicants), they would consider hiring people who did not have teaching certificates. I don't know how the WEA would figure into that sort of situation. Does anyone out there know of any non-certified instructors?
Posted by: Peggy U on February 27, 2006 02:36 PMUnfortunately industry experience does not mean that you can teach, especially younger children. A real world example (or at least stereotype) is what poor managers engineers make.
With that said, I think you are absolutely right that they should not have to jump through all the WEA hoops, but some basics could be given for instruction - even if it is a self-study course with a test.
Posted by: fred on February 27, 2006 02:40 PMThat Hales Corners School had 17 of us get Masters degrees or better. No drugs, no arrests, no pregnancies. Most boys had unattended paper routes.
Posted by: Keb on February 27, 2006 03:48 PMHow is any of this good for our kids?
Posted by: Hindu on February 27, 2006 04:03 PMhttp://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/pog/pdf/pogfall05kickoff.pdf
I think we need a federal review of our state budget........
Posted by: Deborah on February 27, 2006 04:05 PMI don't believe our main problem in Washington is teacher's....it's administrative bullsh*t and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Teacher's are easily sucked in however. They tend to take every single criticism of Public Education personally. Their Union is to blame for that.
Start with this #1......
Turn that PINHEADED KLOWN Terry Bergeson and the LEFTIST Superintendent of Public Instruction office into TEACHERS!!!! That will improve things.
They paid less than $12,000/yr. in High School. SAT scores were off the map. Over 80% of students went on to 4 year colleges.
The bureaucratic goo in Washington is overwhelming. They need accountability for EXISTING dollars first. Unfortunately, the Union THUGS lie and intimidate any teacher that questions there position of MORE & MORE money.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 27, 2006 04:46 PMI don't need to say who is for it and who is against it...
Posted by: fred on February 27, 2006 05:07 PMhttp://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/highlights/assets/pdf/expenditures.pdf
In the 2006 proposed state budget, over half of the general fund is alloted to education; 40.9% for K-12.
Just how much more does the WEA think it needs for their "featherbedding" and raises?
Posted by: Shaun on February 27, 2006 05:10 PMI was required to join WEA as a condition of teaching at a state college (which I later left due to the bureaucracy and incompetence of several peers who fiddled as enrollment plummeted). The union's internal propaganda was designed to constantly fuel an atmosphere of "us" versus "them" - and "if it were not for your union, you'd be suffering". The union created an environment of animosity between staff and admin solely for the purpose of justifying the union presence. Very little that came out of the mouth of union leaders was accurate.
Posted by: Ed on February 27, 2006 08:45 PMWell said Ed. From someone who knows...
Posted by: cc on February 27, 2006 09:21 PMThere was a study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in 1999 that Washington is relatively high in pupils per staff because it is also relatively high in compensation per staff, especially for fringe benefits.
As Marsha points out, what any of this has to do with student performance is very far from clear. It's just the NEA/WEA beating the same old drum. More money for more staff for more union members for more dues revenue to the organization.
Posted by: stu on February 27, 2006 09:45 PMI just saw a blurb on the news - FL is instituting a bonus plan for teacher based on (horror of all horrors) performance as measured by students' grades.
I don't need to say who is for it and who is against it...
Fred, I can't make out if you think this is a good idea or a bad idea. Obviously it is a bad idea because it is the teachers who assign grades to their students, and this would lead to grade inflation. Report cards would start looking like egg cartons: A, AA, AAA
Posted by: huckleberry on February 27, 2006 10:07 PMAnother thing out of teacher's control is what the student's environment at home is. Many children are abused or don't live in a caring environment, and they can't learn. Doesn't mean that their teacher is at fault.
Another reason is that there will always be some level of favoritism. Many of us here don't trust school administrators (for good reason), and putting more money into a pot that they can use to reward and punish is not a good idea.
If they are based on standardized tests then it would be better than private industry, as that takes more subjectivity out of it.
The union's response was bad idea, raise salaries for everyone. The good teachers, that already had high performance liked it, as they would like to be paid what they are worth instead of subsidizing the least capable.
Posted by: fred on February 28, 2006 06:54 AMUnfortunately the public school system continues to be the big elephant in the living room demanding to be fed more and more and leaving a bigger mess. The money spent by the state is actually the money spent by the taxpayers. Check out your property taxes and ask yourself if you are receiving value. Are the schools meeting expectations. After all they are producing future generation of leaders and workers.
Quibbling about the ratio of teachers to students, is missing the point. Size of class has little to do with results. Obviously. Funding has little to do with results. Obviously. I suspect the state outspends private schools and home schoolers. Yet consider the results. Now ask yourself the reasons why. Perhaps it has something to do with the divisiveness caused by the unions. "Them or us", circle the wagon attitude doesn't help. Striking for better contracts sets a rather poor example and doesn't help. Perhaps one of the root causes for failure is "them or us". Union verses management.Union verses society. Remember we the taxpayers are Washington State. The State budget is the plan to spend the hard earned money collected from the people.The schools are receiving over half of the money. Thank God they don't build planes, trains or automobiles.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 28, 2006 07:35 AMI once read the write up of a study in Science News that looked at what factors determined whether an abused child would succeed or fail in life. The authors of the study concluded that children who focused on their talents and were encouraged by even a few people to pursue their individual interests were the most likely to succeed.
Any teacher worth his salt should be able to identify those kids in his class who lack support at home (and I believe in most schools they will be a small percentage of students). One gripe I have with the public school system is that they do not attempt to pinpoint kids' talents. I think they should make some effort to do this early on, as it could improve individual student performance and reduce discipline problems. Kids who engage in what they are good at will function better and be more focused on succeeding.
So much time is spent on test prep, reading programs, remediation and counseling, but I think if some of that time was spent on identifying and encouraging talent it would eliminate the need for support in other areas.
Posted by: Peggy U on February 28, 2006 10:10 AMThe PTA at Medina raises so much money that every classroom has a full-time aide, paid for by the PTA. My wife got about $100 from the PTA for the year. She's taught kids who live in an environment where the live-in boyfriend abuses the girls. The dad's in prison, and the mother's a dancer who works at night. No urban legend, fact. Yes, individual attitude matters, but it's difficult for some students to concentrate on their education when some, perhaps not many, are trying to just survive.
Go to the Bellevue School District and take a look at the WASL scores. Compare Medina and Somerset Elementary scores with Stevenson and Lake Hill. Unless designed properly a pay for performance system will do one of a few things. One, it may reward teachers at schools with better scores. Two, it may drive teachers to those schools, depriving the poorer schools of good teachers (administrators knows which teachers are better than others). Three, it may drive teachers to "correct" student's test answer sheets (read "Freakonomics" for a good read on how a group of cheating teachers were caught). Four, it would drive teachers to teach to the test.
In general I'm for pay for performance, I've benefited from it at work, and if the union opposses the idea it must be the right thing to do. It sounds good, but it's not an easy solution to a difficult problem.
Also, the focus seems to be on social services, but does not do what would serve these kids best: teaching them to fish, rather than giving them a fish. It's easy to say that because a kid comes from a bad background, he is doomed to fail. What would be better is if they would actually attempt to identify the strengths of these individual children, then encourage them to capitalize on their talents to improve their lives. I don't think most schools do this. Furthermore, I believe those success stories you hear about, the inner city schools whose students are poverty stricken but excel in spite of it, do this - by accident or design. And, they don't cut slackers any slack (they flunk them or expel them) because that would undermine the efforts of those who wanted to move ahead. People who are truly motivated (including children) will go to great lengths to accomplish what they desire. There are many examples of people who have had horrible childhoods, but ultimately succeeded in life. Smart kids recognize that self-sufficiency is the ticket out of their miserable environment, and that education is necessary toward that end.
Posted by: Peggy U on February 28, 2006 12:31 PM