Students Come First? (An Idaho Taxpayer's Perspective)

Idaho Public Education Superintendent Tom Luna recently unveiled a controversial education budget proposal entitled "Students Come First." As an Idaho taxpayer and citizen, I am extremely interested in any legislation that impacts what I consider to be one of the most important social programs in our entire political system - the public schools. Much of his plan looks attractive on paper and uses appealing rhetoric. However, The Boise School District asks, “Are there elements of the SDE [State Department of Education] proposal that advance our students’ preparation for college and career?” At what expense do we blindly accept this proposal of reform to our public education system?

If students truly come first, these are the questions that should concern us - the taxpayers, the parents, the students, the general public - the most.

Luna's proposal includes increased funding for technology. Sounds promising. But these funding "efficiencies" are contingent upon raising class sizes and requiring online courses.

Raising the Average Student-Teacher Ratio

Luna states on the SDE website, "Fact: When you take a comprehensive look at all the credible research available, you will find no substantial correlation between class sizes and student outcomes. The studies referenced in Tennessee and Texas have been dispelled by more in-depth studies in California in [sic] other states."

I have not seen the "in-depth studies" alluded to by Superintendent Luna which were apparently conducted in California and in other states. I also did not find links or parenthetical references to these studies on the SDE website. But I am not a master researcher, just an Idaho taxpayer.

However, I was able to track down several research articles, including a few studies that occurred in California regarding the positive impact of smaller class size upon student learning and achievement. Refer to http://classsizematters.org/research.html and "The 7 Myths of Class Size Reduction -- And the Truth."

On the January 20 broadcast of Idaho Public Television's Dialogue, Luna contended that most of the average student to teacher ratios in surrounding states surpass Idaho’s ratio. Idaho actually falls somewhere in the middle. If the student-teacher ratio is increased to the proposed 19.8, Idaho will have the second highest compared to the surrounding states.

Does raising the average student-teacher ratio “advance students’ preparation for college and career?” Probably not. Unless raising class sizes (via the average student-teacher ratio) has a positive educational impact on our Idaho students, comparing these numbers to the surrounding states, as Luna does, is inconsequential.

Mandating Online Courses

Luna states on the SDE website, "Fact: Under Students Come First, the state will just require that just eight of the 46 credits a student must take to graduate are online. That means of the six courses a student takes each semester, one will now be online."

Point of clarification: According to the January 20 broadcast of Dialogue, Luna has tweaked his plan. Students will now be required to take six courses online (as opposed to two per year) between grades 9-12.

Many districts already offer online courses for students who need to repeat coursework, free up electives, and take courses that they can’t fit into their schedules. But online coursework is an option, not a mandate.

Mandating online classes limits a parent's and student's ability to choose the method of delivery and instruction. The plan inhibits the amount of personal interaction between a teacher and his/her students and replaces it with a virtual model.

An interesting side note: Luna received a $25,000 campaign donation from the political group Idahoans for Choice in Education. The money came directly from the for-profit Virginia-based K12 Management Inc., a private corporation that provides curriculum for Idaho’s Virtual Academy, an online charter school that often services home schooled families. Which begs the question: Is Luna's online course mandate motivated by political donations or purely by the needs of our Idaho students?

For more information regarding the impact of private corporate dollars on our American public school system, see Diane Ravitch's The Death and Life of the Great American School System.

If the implementation of mandated online courses does not specifically “advance our students’ preparation for college and career,” (as opposed to allowing private corporations to steer the course of public education) then should it be considered?

Conclusion

A public school reform proposal should promote equal education for the masses. If technology is the answer, perhaps we should provide equal access to classroom technology in districts that lack interactive whiteboards, projectors, high-tech calculators, lab probes, school computers, educational software, and clickers (which have been mentioned as part of the SDE proposal). I do not dismiss the importance of technology in our public schools, but it should not be dependent upon increasing class sizes and reducing teaching positions.

And anyway, will our Idaho students - most of them already fully equipped with technological expertise - acquire 21st century knowledge and skills by simply being handed a laptop and being forced to take a few online courses?

Please contact your legislator to voice your opinion on this matter: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/howtocontactlegislators.htm

Postscript: How Arts Education Will Fare Under Luna's Proposal

Several Idaho parents, students, and educators, who had experienced the elimination of various arts programs across the state, testified at the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) public hearing on Friday, January 21. One Hansen mother tearfully proclaimed this to be the first year that the senior class would graduate without the school band's accompaniment of "Pomp and Circumstance."

Let us remember that the SDE has established Humanities Standards (Dance, Music, Theater, Visual Arts, and World Languages) which are rarely - if at all - being met in our public schools.

Arts programs face further danger under Luna's proposal. As currently written, only salary and benefits will be negotiated under Luna’s plan.

In some districts, this could mean the elimination of prep times. Prep time is often covered by music and/or P.E. instruction, especially at the elementary level. The absence of mandatory prep time would reduce the need for those classes (at least in the eyes of our bureaucratic system). Whether or not they provide prep time, the arts are imperative academic disciplines with cognitive, emotional, and cultural benefits that should never be dismissed.

"Music making not only supports the development of math skills, but of all skills, for all kinds of students (Catterall, et al. 2000)" from Eric Jensen's Music with the Brain in Mind (p. 35).

If the state of Idaho truly wants a competitive education system, as Luna's current proposal purports, arts and music education should be reinstated immediately in the public schools throughout the state.

For further reading:
Jensen, E. (2000). Music With the Brain in Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jensen, E. (2001). Arts With the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.