Holding the state accountable

Leadership, Sept, 2001 by Fred Tempes

3. Increase professional development time for teachers. Without doubt the most common request WestEd's external evaluators heard from teachers in the schools we worked with was a desire for more non-classroom time to work together to improve instruction. Standards-based instruction requires that teachers have time to learn new instructional strategies, plan the year's instructional program, review periodic student assessments, discuss which lessons worked well and which didn't, and design appropriate interventions for students in danger of falling behind.

Non-instructional time is a rare commodity in all California schools. We could go a long way toward improving instruction in our most challenged schools by not only increasing instructional time, but also increasing non-instructional time for teachers.

4. Reduce class size. Reducing class size has not only been a popular reform effort, evidence from across the nation suggests that where smaller classes are staffed by competent teachers, it can help improve student achievement. Although almost all schools in the state now have class sizes down to 20:1 in kindergarten through grade three, an effort to reduce class sizes further in high-poverty schools should be undertaken.

Coupled with the initiatives described above, reducing class sizes to 20:1 at all grades in these schools would increase the chances that allocated instructional time would be converted into academic learning time. Class size reduction in these schools would also make teaching assignments there more attractive to our best teachers.

Such an agenda would obviously face some pretty tough sledding, not only politically (the parents and guardians of the children for whom these actions are intended have little political clout), but for three very real reasons.

First, this agenda proposes the disproportionate allocation of resources to our state's most challenged schools and districts. Although many will object to this unequal division of wealth (after all, if some get more, others will get less), the principle that it takes additional resources to make some schools competitive is well established at both the federal level through Title I and other programs and the state level through Economic Impact Aid and other efforts.

Even if one accepts that our scarce educational resources must be redeployed to close the achievement gap, the financial magnitude of the task will no doubt scare some off. Class size reduction and a significant increase in both instructional and non-instructional time are both big-ticket items. This seems a clear test of our willingness to make substantial short-term investments in order to reap long-term benefits, something our political machinery is not particularly adept at doing.

Finally, if the concerns about redeployment of funds can be overcome and the dollars found for investment, it will be difficult to find the resources necessary to carry forward this agenda. We already have a shortage of teachers, especially in these schools. Where will the additional teachers come from? And these additional teachers will need classrooms, air-conditioned to make learning possible in the extended school year. Where will those facilities come from?