Class-Size Reduction Politics

In 1996, then-Gov. Pete Wilson proposed, and the Legislature approved, the Class Size Reduction Program, one of the most significant educational reform initiatives in the country. The program took the lowest four grades in elementary school, a time when children’s minds are the most fertile for learning, and greatly reduced the number of students per classroom.

Before 1996, kindergarten through third-grade classes averaged 31 students. In a bold move, Wilson proposed that class sizes in those grades be reduced to no more than 20 students. This meant that teachers would have more time to provide individual attention to students.

When class-size reduction was first implemented, the state did not pay the full cost. Wilson wanted local school districts to make a conscious decision to apply to participate and to pay a portion of the cost out of their local discretionary budget. During the first year, the Capistrano Unified School District assumed 10% of the cost, with the state picking up the rest. Because of how financing was structured, however, today the district assumes 24% of the cost, with its local percentage share continuing to rise each year.

The ever-increasing gap between the state’s share and the actual costs that districts must assume exists because, when the program started nearly six years ago, districts throughout California hired thousands of new teachers. As those “beginning” teachers gained years of experience, they also received automatic salary increases.

In Capistrano Unified, for example, for their first 12 years of experience, teachers receive automatic annual increases of about 3.5%. Through collective bargaining, the district then grants all teachers a general raise, an increase that is in addition to the “step” increments already built in for less-experienced teachers.

The bottom line is that the payroll costs to support those who provide the services for class-size reduction are accelerating at a higher rate than the very nominal increases that the state funds.

To appreciate a second problem, it must be understood that all funding to support schools in California comes directly from the state. Unlike most other states in our nation, California school districts have no ability to generate any portion of their operating revenue independently.

Although the amount of money school districts receive from the state is increasing significantly each year, a growing amount of that funding is earmarked by the state, which specifies how it must be spent. With dwindling discretionary dollars received by school boards, the ability of districts to assume their increasing local share of class-size reduction costs is greatly compromised.

As an illustration, in 2001-02, districts receive an additional $888 for every student involved in class-size reduction. In the governor’s proposed budget for 2002-03, that figure is to increase a modest $19. Meanwhile, the cost to enroll students in class-size reduction classes in Capistrano Unified is $1,255 per student. This adds up to $3.6 million in out-of-pocket expenses for our district. With fewer discretionary dollars, it becomes more and more difficult to assume this additional cost unless other parts of the budget are cut.

The slow demise of class-size reduction is sad for the youngest children in California schools. In some ways, it is a natural but unfortunate result of the political process. Class-size reduction was the cornerstone education initiative of Wilson. Gov. Gray Davis, elected in 1998, has his own initiatives. These initiatives include such things as technology enhancement, child nutrition, the high school exit exam, charter-school block grants, professional development institutes run by the University of California, and four types of bonus programs to teachers whose students perform well on the State Accountability Program.

Clearly, Davis wishes to concentrate on fully supporting the success of his own initiatives, rather than ensuring the sustained viability of a program begun by his predecessor.

As class-size reduction costs grow higher and discretionary funding continues to decrease, many districts have had to make cuts to support their portion. At Capistrano Unified, we recently eliminated elementary library clerks. We also increased class size in grades four through 12. You can make cuts in other programs only for so long, however. One logical way to salvage class-size reduction might be for the governor and Legislature to defer some of their projects to allow districts to use this funding to keep some class sizes small.

If something drastic doesn’t happen soon, I fear that one of the most significant educational reform initiatives this country has seen will die a slow but certain death.