School Class Size Doubts

Here at the Burlingame Voice we have a fine appreciation for the Law of Unintended Consequences.  It's a pretty iron-clad law.  Some side effect you did not expect will arise and often counter whatever good thing you were trying to accomplish.  Today's Wall Street Journal has a piece about the 20+ year experiment in reducing school class sizes to improve learning.

A generation ago, a landmark experiment in Tennessee found that shrinking the number of children in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms led to improved test scores.  California limited classes to 20 students in kindergarten through third grade.  Over the years, at least half the states have used mandates or incentives to reduce class sizes, but the reductions are one of the most expensive interventions in education, and lately, some places are backing off.

"Small classes do provide modest benefits to the students with respect to academic achievement," said Martin West, an associate professor of education at Harvard, "but the benefits are less strong than being assigned to a particularly effective teacher."  “California implemented its program almost overnight,” said Dominic Brewer, dean of New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, who followed the reduction. “It created a dramatic increase in the demand for teachers.”

Inexperienced or in some cases uncertified teachers were hired to staff new classrooms, and with so many additional jobs to fill, wealthier districts were able to lure better teachers away from poorer districts.  Space also became an issue.  “You did end up with kids in small classes,” Dr. Brewer said, “but often they were in a trailer and not necessarily with a quality teacher.”

We have Measure M on the ballot this time and the focus is on facilities as you can read here.  B'game has a well-deserved reputation for great schools and that enhances our attractiveness on a number of fronts.  And overall spending is up quite a bit while the split between city government and school governance continues.  My guess is M will pass since B'gamers resonate with taxes that stay local.  I just hope we are spending it in the right way.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

One impetus for this latest BSD bond measure I suspect is the statewide school bond measure also on the November ballot. Apparently this is one of 184 local school bond measures in November; districts are attempting to line up for state matching funds should the state school bond measure pass. See comments in this article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-election-ballot-idUSKCN11S2GY

[DeweyDecimal]

"but the benefits are less strong than being assigned to a particularly effective teacher."

There is nothing stronger in education than an effective teacher.

Nothing.

BIS and BHS students can go through an entire day (or year) without an effective teacher. One great teacher can improve a student's performance a class and the other classes where the student is enrolled.

An effective teacher creates a supportive environment, challenges students, and motivates them to learn. A great teacher can motivate six or sixty students in a classroom.

The local economy is challenging to attract and retain effective teachers. The local school should be "cherry picking" great teachers from surrounding districts as the salaries in Burlingame and SMUHSD are stronger than others.

[Andrew]

1. This will be the 5th school bond tax in the last 15 years. There seems to be no financial planning if there is a new tax every two to three years.
2. When the last school bond tax was passed I was told it was to acquire and rebuild the Hoover School. The budget was 16 million. The final cost was 26 million.
3. This tax will affect senior citizens and people on fixed income.
4. The tax is for 25 years and based on a 2 million dollar home ( the average price now in Burlingame) the total cost will be over $5,000 per home owner.
5. The School Board has not given an specifics on how the new 56 million dollar bond would be spent. Would you give over 56 million to a group that will not be specific on how the money will be spent?
6. There has already been 122 million in school bond money passed. Where did all the money go?

I am voting NO on Measure M (more Money)

[Account Deleted]

Here's more background from a recent NY Times article re: the state-wide school bond measure (Prop 51). Provides some additional context as it may relate to our own local school bond measure and BSD subsequently seeking state matching funds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/us/california-today-school-construction-bond-measure.html?_r=0

[DeweyDecimal]

Gov. Jerry Brown called it a “developers’ $9 billion bond” that would deepen school inequity. This is Governor Spender speaking!

This is a measure to put more money in the pockets of construction, not schools. Its just like the ad for fixing roads and bridges... brought to you by CalTrans, where it takes four people to dig a hole and three to supervise... all on overtime. NO!

[Ian]

I'm inclined to support Measure M, partially due to the info in this thread and the linked articles (of course I've also read the measure itself).

Two aspects in particular seem positive:
- gets us in line for matching funds, so that the money raised locally by the measure would be amplified by money from the state measure (which, face it, we'll be contributing to anyway, so we may as well get some back)
- average cost of ~$220/yr for a $1M home (this is from the measure - I think Andy's numbers may be based on market value, not assessed value) - given the extent to which Burlingame home values are due to school quality, an additional 0.02% of home value doesn't seem an unreasonable annual investment

Furthermore, these bonds are all subject to oversight by a committee of local community members, not just the school district administration. I've personally known a number of people who've been involved in this in the past, and I know several of the supporters of this measure - I trust them to provide reasonable oversight.

[Bruce Dickinson]

Guys, to keep it as simple as possible, if you care about the education of ALL children in Burlingame, this measure M makes a ton of sense. Bruce Dickinson is a big donator to the key Burlingame school fundraising organization, aka the "BCE" and like any large benefactor, I make sure I have one of my guys provide great continuous oversight of the monies spent and let me tell you this: people really care about Burlingame schools from both the families' and the district's perspective. The district is a pretty lean operation, and how they are able to provide the quality of education at such a small amount per student is mind-boggling.

Further funding schools is good for education, it's good for homeowners, and especially is fantastic for those in the lower income brackets, whose kids are effectively getting big subsidies from those who are better off economically who donate a lot to keep class sizes small, allow specialists teachers, and provide the best in technology and facilities to our kids. Everyone I know who donates realizes this and contributes with the utmost charitable intentions. While it may be argued that Hoover was an expensive school to open, the mere fact that a new school can be opened in a mature urban area in California is a rarity, indeed. The other schools in the district really need capital improvements and that is one investment that Bruce Dickinson strongly endorses, as this district has proven that it knows how provide a "return" on that investment, if you will, in more ways than one.

[Thomas Hornblower]

The U.S Dept of Education has 5,000 employees. It has an annual budget of US$73 Billion (2016). As far as I'm concerned, that money gets pissed away and never makes it to our local schools, at least that's what my friends who are teachers tell me, and so here we are with Measure M which will rob me as a homeowner of more of my money. I say abolish the U.S. Dept of Education and distribute that annual budget of $73 Billion to our local schools and we won't need Measure M. I'm voting NO on Measure M as I've obviously paid enough out of my Federal taxes for education.