Education Interim Committee Meeting

Listening in on the Education Interim Committee meeting held on May 21, I am struck, once again, by the continual contradictions expressed by certain legislators. Two not-so-shining examples reared their heads in this meeting.

But first, some background. Item 4 on the committee's agenda was a discussion of class-size reduction. Two legislative auditors presented a brief summary of their December 2007 audit of school district use of class size reduction money. The auditors reminded the body that it reduced any reporting requirements for districts in 2002. The auditors were able to track fund uses for 18 districts and found that 100% of the money had been used on teacher salaries. The auditors also noted that the class-size reduction has been underfunded for three of the last seven years and not funded at all for four of those seven years.

The auditors made at least one very sound recommendation–allocate class-size reduction money based on need rather than the current system which gives the money to all schools based on enrollment. This means that schools with declining enrollment and charter schools, which cap their enrollment at a set number, receive the funds despite a lack of need.

Now to the examples of less than clear legislative thinking: In response to the audit recommendation, one legislator suggested that legislation is needed to ensure that districts use the money to meet set targets or they can't participate in the program. This legislator is also known, however, for pushing unlimited open enrollment for schools. How schools are supposed to open their doors to all while still maintaining classroom targets was not explained, and the contradiction in these positions was not questioned.

A second legislator suggested that charters with enrollment caps should still get class-size reduction money because they "make tough choices" in order to keep class sizes small. Actually, charters set their enrollment in their charter application, allowing the schools to plan every year for the exact number of students that will attend. Charters are also able to avoid providing expensive extras, such as football teams, and send students who want those programs to the local district school. District schools, meanwhile, are expected to be open to any and all who want to attend at any time during the school year and still have workable class sizes.
The sheer audacity of these legislators who regularly and publicly announce their assumptions that all districts are misusing class size reduction funds while actively advocating for charters to receive the funds despite their already smaller class sizes–and therefore lack of need for the funds-- is appalling.

District schools will never be able to institute enrollment caps. And charter school funding needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. But fiscally responsible legislators should be working to ensure that limited class size reduction funds are used by schools with the greatest need, and proposing legislation that assists with class size reduction without also advocating for greater class sizes through other legislation.