Classrooms are crowded, but paying for fix will be costly

OLYMPIA — Voters will get the chance this fall to require smaller classes in Washington public schools, and there’s every indication they will do so.

Initiative 1351 would shave the average number of students in classes at every grade level, a move supporters say will improve student achievement, increase graduation rates and reduce the number of drop-outs.

But with an ultimate cost of $2 billion a year for additional teachers and school staff, plus an unknown amount for classrooms, there’s concern the state cannot afford it — at least not without the Legislature raising somebody’s taxes.

“The state cannot afford not to do this. We’re 47th in the nation” in the ratio of students per teacher, said Kim Mead, president of the Washington Education Association, the statewide teachers union whose money and members pushed the measure onto the ballot.

It might be difficult for lawmakers, said the Edmonds resident. “It is even more difficult for that child sitting in a classroom that is overcrowded.”

Opponents say they, too, want smaller classes, but this would be a budget-buster. The Legislature is already searching for money to comply with a state Supreme Court order to fully fund elements of the public school system like books and supplies. Paying for the initiative, as well, could force lawmakers to cut spending on social services, higher education and other non-education programs.

“The question I think voters should ask themselves is where the money will come from,” said Dave Powell, executive director of the education reform group Stand for Children. He signed the ballot argument against the initiative.

Voters should be prepared to help lawmakers meet the challenge, said Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, a member of the Senate education committee.

“It’s up to the people to decide,” she said. “If they say they want smaller class sizes, they have to help us figure out how to pay for it.”

What it does

Backers of the initiative turned in petitions with nearly 350,000 signatures, about 100,000 more than needed to earn a spot on the November ballot.

It is pretty straightforward. It says that by Sept. 1, 2018, average class sizes in kindergarten through third grade must be no more than 17 students, and for grades 4-12, no more than 25 students.

Today, the average is around 25 students per class in the lower grades and nearly 29 in high school, supporters said.

But it is not uncommon to find beginning readers competing with 27 other students for the attention of their teacher, or 34 high school students sharing a science lab designed for 25, said Mary Howes, manager of the initiative campaign.

I-1351 prescribes even fewer students for classes in high-poverty schools, where more than 50 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. For grades K-3 the average number of students would drop to 15, and for grades 4-12 it would be 23.

Those figures are cribbed from the 2010 recommendations of the Quality Education Council, a panel created by the Legislature to chart a course for reforming Washington public schools. The panel of education professionals and Democratic and Republican lawmakers provides annual reports addressing the financing and operation of public schools.

What it costs

It’s pretty easy to see why Initiative 1351 is expensive. If you reduce the number of students in each class, you will wind up with more classes. That will require hiring teachers and, under the initiative, more counselors, librarians, reading assistants and other instructional staff.

The state Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates 25,334 full-time jobs will be created, including 7,453 more teachers, 17,081 school-based staff and 1,027 workers in school district offices. A couple of hundred jobs in small schools will be eliminated, as well, according to the analysis.

While everyone doesn’t have to be hired right away, lawmakers must allocate money starting next year under the timeline of the ballot measure. At least half of the necessary funding must be included in the 2015-17 budget, and all of it in the 2017-19 spending plan, according to the wording of the initiative.

OFM estimates it will require spending $2 billion in the next two-year budget and another $2.7 billion in the one after that. In the future, maintaining the average class sizes spelled out in Initiative 1351 will cost $3.8 billion per biennium, according to OFM.

Those are big numbers when you consider the Legislature is looking at needing about that same amount of money to meet constitutional obligations by 2018, as well, under the Supreme Court’s decision in what’s known as the McCleary case.

“Do I think smaller class sizes would be a bad thing? No. But I’m working on how to fund the basic requirements in McCleary,” said Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. “Then you’ve got to figure out how to fund this.”

The initiative does not address how to provide classrooms or portables for what could be an explosion of additional classes.

It does envision situations in which schools cannot break up large classes into two because they lack the space. In those instances, a school can obtain an exemption allowing two teachers in a class of, say, 30 students, or to pair a teacher with one or more instructional assistants.

Howes said the intent is to give schools flexibility to achieve the goal of providing students more direct attention to boost learning.

“We want to get more school-based staff working with kids as soon as possible,” she said. “As a former teacher, I would take any adult help I could get.”

Been here before

In 2000, voters approved Initiative 728 with a whopping 72 percent yes. It was a vehicle to smaller classes and, like I-1351, did not include a method of paying for it.

In the ensuing years, lawmakers suspended it several times, citing a lack of money. Eventually they repealed it.

The statewide teacher’s union is betting this year’s measure plays out differently.

Of the $1.5 million raised for the campaign, roughly $1.1 million is from the Washington Education Association. The National Education Association chipped in $283,000 and the Public School Employees of Washington put in $100,000.

There is no organized opposition.

“You would think with the amount of support from the public that we see, I think they are going to have to listen and do something,” Mead said. “They can’t ignore the will of the voters.”

But they might.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn, who backs the initiative, said when it passes it will catalyze the conversation on education funding.

And even if lawmakers try to amend the initiative to delay its costs, they will be forced to consider where they will eventually get the money to pay for it. That might push them to pursue new revenue, which is what Dorn said the public school system desperately needs.

“If you get the public to say, ‘This is what we want,’ it puts more pressure on the Legislature,” Dorn said.

Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, one of the few Democrats to publicly oppose the measure, said lawmakers might have to consider amending or suspending the measure because of the cost.

“It’s a great concept, but there’s no way to pay for it,” he said. “I don’t know how you come up with the money. I don’t know how you do it.”

Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623; jcornfield@heraldnet.com.