Seize the Opportunity for Smaller Class Sizes

California ranks last in the nation in public school class size. On average, nearly 40 children compete for the attention of a single, overworked teacher in many fast-growing urban and suburban districts. Now, at last, Sacramento can afford to address this disgrace.

Capitalizing on higher-than-expected state tax revenues, Gov. Pete Wilson is proposing to spend $678 million to reduce class size to 20 children per teacher in the all-important first, second and third grades. Smaller classes would allow greater individual attention for students and would relieve overburdened teachers.

No one disagrees on the need to reduce class size. Democrats such as Assembly Democratic Leader Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) and state schools Supt. Delaine Eastin have long pushed for smaller classes. So have the California Teachers Assn. and the state PTA. Yet Wilson’s proposal has become part of the budget stalemate because politicians and educators disagree on the best way to achieve this goal.

The Wilson program, with some fine-tuning, should proceed. School districts should do their best to take advantage of the opportunity to cut class size. Teacher unions and others cannot, on one hand, demand that the state find a way to decrease the number of children in classrooms and then, once the money to do that is found, whine about how hard it is to implement the long-sought change.

The governor’s incentive program would give districts $500 for each child assigned to a class of 20 or less. Smaller bonuses of $250 per child would be paid to districts that reduced the number of students in each primary reading or math class. That approach would favor districts that already have small enrollments or those that have plenty of room to grow and no problem recruiting teachers.

The biggest challenge is how overcrowded districts would add the teachers and classrooms needed to offer smaller classes. Wilson’s initiative is expected to require as many as 15,000 additional teachers by January. What’s the rush? Wilson should relax this deadline to allow more time for new teachers to gain state credentials. The state certified only 5,000 new elementary teachers last year. More teachers can be made available this year by speeding up the process, awarding more emergency credentials and using more interns. But those are stopgap measures that cannot provide the phonics-trained reading teachers who are needed in every primary classroom.

Districts also need greater flexibility to assign children to classes in office buildings and other structures off campus as long as state earthquake standards are met. Year-round schools, too, deserve special consideration.

This ambitious investment in California’s public schools is not charity. Proposition 98 requires the state to spend a certain percentage of revenues on schools, from kindergarten through community college. That amount increases in flush years. Wilson has even more money on hand to dole out to the schools because, with the Democrats’ prodding, he backed off from his proposal to cut taxes 15% across the board over three years. Instead, the governor and the Legislature wisely agreed to targeted cuts in corporate and banking taxes. Money that would have gone for personal income tax cuts becomes available for reducing class sizes.

California once boasted the best schools in the nation. Reading and math achievement is now embarrassingly low. Reducing class size is necessary, and energy should be expended toward making that happen, not in complaining about how tough it would be to accomplish.