Below are talking points being distributed by the Idaho Parents and Teachers Together group that organized yesterday’s rally. Please see the State Department of Education’s response after each point.
- The plan would eliminate almost 800 public-school teachers across the state, even though Mr. Luna has himself stated that no educational tool is more effective than a good classroom teacher. Boise School District would lose 102 teachers and more than 40 other staff.
Our state is facing an economic crisis. The K-12 public schools budget alone is facing a funding cliff of between $35 million to $80 million or more. We cannot sustain more cuts to the public education system. Instead, we must spend what we currently have differently. By increasing our student-teacher ratio by roughly 1 to 2 students, we will save $500 million over the next five years. This money will be immediately reinvested back into the classroom to fill the budget gap, increase teacher pay, invest in technology for classroom teachers, and pay for dual credit courses for high school seniors. We will not just increase class sizes, but we will give classroom teachers the tools they need to manage more students. Increasing the class size will reduce the number of teaching positions needed in grades 4-12 over the next two years by about 770 fewer positions statewide. However, most, if not all, of these positions can be absorbed through attrition. Every year, about 1,600 teachers leave the public education system. Over the next 2 years, about 3,200 teachers will leave the Idaho public school system, and we will not replace 770 of those positions. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2014, some of these positions will begin to be refilled because of the anticipated growth in student enrollment. Therefore, over a five-year period, the net loss of teaching positions is estimated to be around 320 in total statewide.
- Luna's plan would increase class sizes across the state from fourth grade up, ignoring powerful evidence that smaller class sizes benefit children (see https://outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=e67848d133274eca8ccb1d00ace0e8e5&URL=https%3a%2f%2fexmail.sde.idaho.gov%2fowa%2fredir.aspx%3fC%3dfa9daaf154414f39b509c7a5bcf4aa3b%26URL%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fcreatesend.membershipmailer.com%252ft%252fr%252fl%252fyhjthtl%252fodhzhhil%252fr). While he claims that average class size statewide would be 19.8 students, his numbers are smoke and mirrors. The Boise School District’s analysis states that class sizes would increase from between 24.3 and 26.8 students currently to between 28.7 and 30.5 students, varying across grades. Read that very thorough analysis at https://outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=e67848d133274eca8ccb1d00ace0e8e5&URL=https%3a%2f%2fexmail.sde.idaho.gov%2fowa%2fredir.aspx%3fC%3dfa9daaf154414f39b509c7a5bcf4aa3b%26URL%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fcreatesend.membershipmailer.com%252ft%252fr%252fl%252fyhjthtl%252fodhzhhil%252fy. It is alarming.
Every year, school districts report to the state the number of classroom teachers on staff and the number of students enrolled. From this data, we calculate the student-teacher ratio for the state and each district. We understand this will vary from actual class sizes, which are determined at the local level. The student-teacher ratio in the Boise School District currently is 17.4, as reported to the state. This figure only accounts for classroom teachers. It does not include other certified staff, such as counselors, school psychologists, or administrators. Research overwhelmingly supports that the most important factor in a student’s academic success is the quality of the teacher in the classroom, not class size or textbooks or a student’s socioeconomic background. In his book What Works in Schools, Dr. Robert Marzano researched this issue thoroughly, finding that a teacher’s impact in just one academic year is significant. An average student with an effective teacher can climb academically from the 50th percentile to the 96th percentile. An average student with an ineffective teacher for a single academic year will drop from the 50th percentile to the 3rd percentile. The fact is a great teacher can handle one or two more students in the classroom; a poor-performing teacher should not be in the classroom.
While there are many within the education community, that support class size reduction as a methodology for improving student performance, there is little support from other sectors, especially economists. The most vocal critic of class size is Eric Hanusek of the Hoover Institute at Stanford. Dr. Hanusek is cited in almost every dialog dealing with class size reduction. Hanusek was joined most recently by Matthew Chingos of Harvard who studied Florida’s class size reduction program and found no correlation between smaller class size and increased student achievement. Interestingly a report prepared by an economist (Russell Chuderwicz) was located by this researcher and submitted to the Council of Economic Advisor Meeting at the Florida legislature that clearly states there was no conclusive evidence to support class size reduction and yet the movement went forward in Florida. Spyros Konstantopoulos, an assistant professor of education and social policy at Northwestern University, in Evanston, Ill., is quoted as saying “it’s ‘tempting’ to think that having fewer students assigned to a teacher will reduce the achievement gaps between students…manipulating class size doesn’t appear to narrow those gaps. In fact, the range from the lowest achievers to the highest achiever was greater in the smaller classes of 13 to 17 children than it was in larger classes of 22 to 26 students.”
- The plan mandates that ALL high-school students take some courses on-line rather than in the classroom, a method of teaching that does not work for all kids.
The fact is, our students must know how to learn and work in a digital environment in order to succeed in the 21st century. More and more colleges and universities and workplaces across the United States now expect this of high school graduates. We have to prepare Idaho students for this world that awaits them. To do this, the state will require every student to take 6 credits online over the course of their high school career in order to graduate, beginning with the Class of 2016. Districts will determine the best delivery model for online courses, whether it is through the Idaho Education Network, an online provider such as Idaho Digital Learning Academy, or a blended model developed at the local level. The legislation also allows the districts to put students on an alternate graduation route if it is determined they cannot complete online courses for graduation.
- Instead of keeping teachers, the plan would spend money on providing laptop computers to all high-school freshmen statewide—with no consideration of parents' concerns about whether their teenagers are prepared for that responsibility and associated risks. The plan offers virtually no details on how the state would cover this continuing cost, which is certain to increase every year.
The classroom technology does not replace the teacher. In fact, the Students Come First plan focuses on highly effective teachers in every classroom and principals in every building, not replacing them. To do this, the state is giving Idaho teachers more technology to help create the 21st Century Classroom and to manage more students. When the state invests $6,000 per classroom in technology, 20 percent of that funding will go toward professional development for teachers. In addition, the laptops specifically will be used to enhance a student’s education experience while in the classroom with the teacher. The funding for the laptops includes money for professional development for teachers on how to incorporate the laptops into the curriculum and daily lesson plans. It is true that the investments in technology, teacher pay and dual credit will be paid for by increasing class size by 1 or 2 students, but the technology will in no way replace teachers in our classrooms. The ongoing funding for all technology, including tech support, maintenance and security, is in the proposed budget for Students Come First.
For the mobile computing devices, local districts will develop local usage policies that will decide whether the students can take the devices home or only use them in the classroom. To ensure these devices are secure, the state will embed requirements in the contract to provide Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) compliant filtering software on all devices that will be enabled from any location. These devices will also follow the internet usage policies that every district is required to have in place under Idaho Code.
- Mr. Luna argues that this "reform" plan is necessary because of decreasing state revenues, and yet it does not save any money.
The Students Come First plan does save money. Instead of further cutting the state budget without reducing district expenditures, the state will spend the money the state currently has differently and reduce expenditures at the local level by increasing class size by 1 or 2 students, on average. This ensures districts are not left footing the bill, nor does the state have to continue cutting critical classroom programs. Instead of cutting the current system, we can invest in the current system. What are our other options? Idahoans have made it clear in public opinion polls and at the ballot box that they do not want increased taxes, nor do they want to see further cuts to education. Therefore, we must change the system to spend what we currently have in a different way that will put our students’ education first.
- This plan was put together by Luna's office with no input from school administrators, who first heard about it only the day before Mr. Luna submitted it to state legislators. It is now being rushed through the state Legislature without, we fear, appropriate consideration of the impacts on the quality of public-school education in Idaho.
As State Superintendent, I have worked closely with all stakeholder groups since I have been in office to move education forward in the state of Idaho. I worked with the educational stakeholder groups, including school administrators and the Idaho Education Association, on the Education Alliance of Idaho, to develop recommendations for transforming our education system. The Students Come First plan is built on these recommendations. In addition, I worked with the leaders of the IEA and other stakeholder groups for more than a year to develop and reach agreement on the pay-for-performance plan that is now part of the Students Come First legislation. I have worked with Idaho teachers in many other ways since I have been State Superintendent and will continue to do so in the future. The fact is, we are now facing an economic crisis in the State of Idaho. We cannot cut our public schools any further. The time for action is now. No other stakeholder group has put forward another option or solution to the budgetary problems we face. Instead, they have only suggested more of the same – further cuts to the current system. That is unacceptable. Therefore, based on the recommendations of the Education Alliance of Idaho, I developed the Students Come First plan to put students first in our public education system. If we do nothing, schools will face further cuts to teacher pay, more furlough days, and more cuts to critical classroom programs for students. We cannot continue down this path.
- Luna's proposals would radically overhaul public education as we know it in Idaho, implementing changes that are not only untested, but have many school administrators and parents seriously concerned that the results could be disastrous.
This plan is not “radical.” It’s not radical to put more technology in our classrooms; teachers have been asking for it for years. It's not “radical” for students to take online courses; more than 15,000 Idaho students currently choose to take online courses and have done so for more than 10 years. It’s not “radical” to increase teacher pay or work to improve the way teachers are paid in Idaho; we have all been working toward this for years. The only thing that is really “radical” about this plan is that it puts students first. Somewhere along the way we forgot that public education is supposed to be about the students – not about propping up the current system and funding the ongoing bureaucracy. This plan is based on research. From the mobile computing devices to phasing out tenure, research shows these are effective ways to raise student achievement.
A summary of the research pertaining to each portion of the Students Come First plan can be found on our website.
- Perhaps most troubling, this plan usurps local control of education from school-district administrators and teachers and hands it over to state bureaucrats far removed from the classroom.
