Please vote No on Initiative I-1351.
Initiative I-1351 calls for the lowering of class size in Washington State .
CURE does not support I-1351, not because we like large class sizes, but because it is an expensive remedy for education problems, and in austere times, policy-makers must make careful, cost-effective choices.
It would be wonderful if class sizes in Washington were small, and teachers could devote their attention to each student’s needs. However, the Washington state Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates that over four years this initiative could cost as much as $6.6 billion in state and local funding—higher taxes and levies for you, the taxpayer.
According to a 2011 Brookings Institute report “There is no research from the U.S. that directly compares CSR (Class-size Reduction) to specific alternative investments, but one careful analysis of several educational interventions found CSR to be the least cost effective of those studied,“(emphasis added). The same report also states that supporters of smaller class sizes “cherry-pick their evidence”.
There are other considerations. An Education Week commentary explains that in California , when a new class-size reduction law went into effect in 1996, teachers had to be hired quickly, and many inexperienced teachers, some with only emergency credentials, were brought on board causing major problems. In addition, the lack of a sufficient number of classrooms resulted in the use of non-classroom spaces such as closets, and more portables had to be brought in—an additional cost.
- eliminating or at least scaling down the costly and anxiety-producing system of assessments,
- eliminating preschool and kindergarten assessments, including preschool data-collection efforts,
- eliminating the intrusive and costly collection of personal student information from preschool through college,
- improving the curriculum (e.g. rejecting the Common Core) which would eliminate the need for extra tutors, summer school, and other remedial measures,
- improving discipline so that classrooms can better focus on academics,
- eliminating some of the “in-service” time periods during which students are not in school,
- eliminating the “double-dipping” policy whereby retired administrators can return to work and collect a salary in addition to their pension,
- scaling back the emphasis on all-day kindergarten,
- eliminating the push for universal preschool, especially since studies show that preschool advantages fade out by second or third grade, and that preschool children suffer socially and emotionally the longer they are away from their parents.
- A related savings could be achieved by eliminating the entire Department of Early Learning, without which the states’ private and governmental preschool system functioned well until the department’s creation in 2006.
In summary, the Brookings Institute report states that the question is not,” ‘Does this policy have any positive effect?’ but rather ‘Is this policy the most productive use of these educational dollars?’ “
I would say, “No.” Please reject Initiative I-1351.