As much as I love to hate the Seattle Times editorial board, the truth is I actually agree with much of what they write. Sure, sometimes they’re just plain awful, like their shameful “death tax” lies. And sometimes they’re just hamfistedly insensitive and stupid, like Wednesday’s editorial that came off as placing more value on Black Friday than on black lives. But much of the time, and on many issues, I more or less agree with their general sentiment, however incoherently stated.
Take for example yesterday’s editorial urging legislators to protect funding for early and higher education:
MORE money will flow into Washington’s kindergarten through high-school programs in the next two years, but state lawmakers must ensure that doesn’t come at a cost to early and higher education.
The state’s education system should foster student success from ages 3 to 23…
Well, of course. Who could disagree with that? It’s great to see such commonsense advocacy coming from the editorial board of our state’s paper of record. And 3-to-23 education isn’t the only worthwhile program on which the editors have advocated spending more money. The problem is they’re missing in action when it comes to advocating for raising the revenue necessary to pay for it. In fact they’re worse than missing in action—they’re goddamn obstructionists!
The editors assert that it will cost the state an additional $10 billion over the next two biennial budgets to fund both McCleary and Initiative 1351. Whether you trust their numbers or not (and you usually can’t) it’s a lot of money. And the editors’ only revenue suggestion? “Raising the sales tax another percentage point would be unpopular, but effective.”
Unpopular, maybe, but effective, not so much. A percentage point increase in the sales tax would raise about $1 billion a year. So even in that unlikely scenario in which we pass a sales tax increase through the Republican-controlled state senate, where’s the other $1.5 billion a year coming from, let alone any additional money to fund early and higher education? On this the editorial board is silent.
What’s so frustrating about this editorial is that they’re almost there! They recognize the need to spend billions more on 3-to-23 education, and they even appear to understand that it will require significant sources of new revenue. But they just can’t bring themselves to take the lead in moving our state closer toward an actual solution. Which is what we need—especially after their years of knee-jerk obstructionism on revenue issues.
Washington is a very affluent state. We can easily afford to invest in education. But more importantly, our future prosperity depends upon it. It is past time to stop arguing about whether to raise taxes, and to start arguing about which taxes we’re going to raise. And if our editorial boards really want to live up to the civic role they claim for themselves, they might want to start leading this debate.
A billion bucks for the class room initiative passed in the last election?
That unfunded initiative was a mistake. Smaller class sizes is not uniquely correlated to better student performance. To single class size out in an initiative was a mistake.
I’m for raising revenue, but I hope it doesn’t go to fund that initiative.
Who say smaller class size is not effective?
@2
Bill Gates.
The point was that it is not uniquely correlated. There are many factors that have an impact on classroom performance by students, and to focus on just that one was a mistake.
What was it? A teacher’s union relief act? General contractor relief act?
@3 Well if our lord and savior Bill Gates says it, it must be fact- especially given that he is most well know for being a professor and scholar of pedagogy, not making absurd amounts of money.
Every institution of higher learning to which I ever applied bragged about their student:instructor ratio — if it was in the single digits. Rich people have hired tutors for their children forever. Educators and parents sure as hell act like class size — the smaller the better — matters.
Oh, and whatever else he might be, Bill Gates attended a very expensive private high school. His father and grandfather, millionaires both, were among the generations of rich parents who paid extravagantly for their progeny’s educations.
I have an idea, let’s make Bill Gates pay state income taxes, that will solve the problem.
@3
At one point a couple of years ago, the Gates Foundation released a report that said that they had spent $9b on this idea of reducing class sizes and it had not had a measurable effect.
@4
Bragging about classroom/teacher ratios is proof of nothing.
Teacher/student ratio is not singularly correlated to better student performance.
“Bill Gates”
You mean the guy who benefitted from the small class sizes at Lakeside High?
“AVERAGE CLASS SIZE: 16”
http://www.lakesideschool.org/aboutus
@6
I would be okay with Microsoft and all of the other corporations just paying what they owe instead of stashing their money in offshore banks.
@8
Do you really think that Gates classroom performance was due solely to that ratio?
Would that be the same Bill Gates who said this?
“Finally, I had great relationships with my teachers here at Lakeside. Classes were small. You got to know the teachers. They got to know you. And the relationships that come from that really make a difference…”
http://seattleducation2010.wor.....vironment/
@11
That coincides with my point. The Gates Foundation led that push for smaller class sizes based on Bill Gates’ perceptions, spent $9B and didn’t move the needle.
Is that so hard to grasp?
When I attended the first year of the Lakeside LEEP summer school we had only five students per class. I’m sure it would have made no difference if they’d of put us all in one class. I wonder why they didn’t think of that?
Bill Gates, “Classes were small. You got to know the teachers. They got to know you. And the relationships that come from that really make a difference”
Huh! That’s exactly what happened to me when I attended LEEP at Lakeside. Got to know the teachers. Did it make a difference? Changed my life. Came damned close to changing it in very huge ways, as in, Harvard, here I come!!
R.I.P. TJ Vassar, “pioneering AfricanAmerican educator”, LEEP classmate and friend.
http://seattletimes.com/html/l.....itxml.html
@13
And Lakeside has a select student body. Do you think that the low teacher to student ratio is the singular reason that Lakeside students score well on standardized tests like the SAT?
“Is that so hard to grasp?”
Having benefitted greatly from small class sizes, it’s horseshit, as in something Lakeside nor any other elitist prep school is falling for, and for damned good reason.
@15
“Having benefitted greatly from small class sizes, it’s horseshit, as in something Lakeside nor any other elitist prep school is falling for, and for damned good reason.”
Unclear.
What is the antecedent of ‘it’ in that first sentence?
“Do you think that the low teacher to student ratio is the singular reason that Lakeside students score well on standardized tests like the SAT?”
Singular? Please, of course not. But it was certainly one of the reasons. It’s why they had the small class sizes then and it’s why they have them now.
@17
I predict that the Lakeshore students would score well on standardized tests, such as the SAT, even if they had larger class sizes.
Sine students from public schools score well on those tests, even when they are educated in classrooms where the student to teacher ratio nears double that of Lakeside.
“What is the antecedent of ‘it’ in that first sentence?”
The very notion that smaller class sizes make no difference. Look, even elite prep schools have budgets. They also know what’s in the Gates Foundation report. Do you see them increasing class sizes?
Wait a minute. Are you Steve, AKA Seattle Jew?
“I predict that the Lakeshore students would score well on standardized tests, such as the SAT, even if they had larger class sizes.”
Of course they would. Not just anybody can get in there, you know?
No, I’m Steve as in, “Republicans fuck goats”.
@21
“Of course they would. Not just anybody can get in there, you know?”
You obviously agree, that this effectively invalidates Lakeside as a candidate for inclusion in the discussion of small student/teacher ratios.
@19
Also, you misrepresent what I have said here: “The very notion that smaller class sizes make no difference. ”
I have never argued that, only that it was not the singular or main correlation for student performance.
“You obviously agree, that this effectively invalidates Lakeside as a candidate for inclusion in the discussion of small student/teacher ratios.”
Good grief. No, I don’t agree.
“I have never argued that, only that it was not the singular or main correlation for student performance.”
Of course it isn’t. But does it make a difference in a kid’s education? Of course it does. That’s one reason why elite prep schools have small classes, but it’s certainly not the only reason.
@24
By not agreeing with regard to Lakeside, you indicate that you are impervious to logic, especially since you laid out the case for ignoring Lakeside in this context.
Also, merely believing that low student/teacher ratios have a more than incidental impact on educational performance does not make it true. If believing things made them true, Creation would be true along with evolution.
Private schools like Lakeside, along with being very selective with students, charge a lot of money. Would you buy a $100k car with cheap seats? Probably not. Lakeside parents are buying a luxury education for their children and expect a luxury experience. There is no indication that the students who qualify for Lakeside would not also do well in a public school.
Going to speak anecdotally (vs statistically) here, but I think Robinson wins the debate by a nose. I went to a private (Catholic) HS with a student-teacher ratio about double that of Lakeside. I went to Catholic grade school where some class sizes were huge (almost double again: baby boomer here). In both cases, I “got to know the teachers” well, got a quality education (but not a luxury one), etc. Underfunding generally is the issue: no more free music classes, other extracurriculars besides sports, etc, plus loading teachers up with meaningless burdens like too much testing. In college I had both large lecture classes and small seminars, both worked in context.
There are many factors which are better predictors of student performance than student/teacher ratio.
+ Family socio-economic status
+ Family emotional state
+ Teacher performance
The argument about student/teacher ratio has been tendered axiomatically and accepted prima facie. The data does not support it.
http://parentsacrossamerica.or.....e-matters/
Googling it class size is like global warming studies, there is studies supporting what ever position you want to take.
Class size is not the single most important factor in increasing education., but its part of the set that is.
Dan you dont see the benefits of smaller class size so that would you advocate?
“By not agreeing with regard to Lakeside, you indicate that you are impervious to logic”
No, but I am impervious to the use of logical fallacies.
“If believing things made them true, Creation would be true along with evolution.”
In future conversation with me, please try not to confuse empirical evidence gained from experience with religious faith.
“Private schools like Lakeside, along with being very selective with students, charge a lot of money.”
Really? I had no idea. Call me enlightened.
“Googling it class size is like global warming studies, there is studies supporting what ever position you want to take.”
Indeed. Thank you, Better. Unfortunately, for some, they read one report about one study and, for them, the case is closed. One report on one study will not lead me to give empirical evidence the ol’ heave-ho.
In this case, strange enough, it’s a study funded by a college dropout who used to fondly recall how the small classes at Lakeside were greatly beneficial to him. It’s not like Gates is withholding donations to Lakeside until they increase class sizes because they’re blowing his money.
“Class size is not the single most important factor in increasing education., but its part of the set that is.”
Yes.
If one argues that good teacher are the most important aspect, consider this.
A good teacher with 50 elementary students will be spread thin and able give much attention to any given kid unless they want to play favorites, while a good teacher with 5 students will be amazing. A terrible teacher with 5 elementary students will be at most screw up 5 kids, while a terrible teacher with 50 students can screw up all 50.
I find Daniel’s tone, lack of other options, and choice of weasel lawyer words to be a strong sign that he doesn’t care a damn about education, he just don’t want to pay for teachers or do anything that might increase the power of the teacher’s union.
Eat the peanuts out of my shit.
It’d be my guess, Better, that Daniel’s last comment was directed at both of us.
32 I guess that’s the cheap conservative alternative to smaller class size.
If anyone really cares about what Bill Gates thinks about class size, there is this http://www.eschoolnews.com/200.....lass-size/
Also see “Building a Better Teacher”, by Elizabeth Green, from the NY Times Magazine, March 2, 2010.
End all corporate tax breaks. Abolish the state sales tax. Establish a flat, no deductions, income tax rate. Give every adult who has lived in the state for at least a year $1500 every month, tax free. All income apart from this is subject to the income tax rate, whether it’s from employment or capital gains.
Kudos to D.R. for his attempts to patiently explain the class size findings – even if it is to no avail.
The only proven advantage of a smaller class size, as the study shows, is something that anyone who actually has a kid in the public school system knows empirically. A smaller class size reduces the probability that you will have 1-2 students repeatedly acting out during class and disrupting the class for everyone else. The study also determines that adding extra supervision to a big class will not solve this problem. This is the failure of the class size initiative. Instead of mandating a smaller class size for all, it is the kids with behavior problems who should be identified and placed in the smaller classes with solid (unionized!) teachers. They are the individuals that will benefit from the smaller class size – and removing them from the big class (rather than suspending them) benefits the big class as well. GOPsters will not go for this because it sounds like a reward for bad behavior but it will solve the problem and raise performance for everyone. It also means, kids in poorly performing districts with more troubled kids need more teachers than in rich privileged districts. Nevertheless, to solve the problem – that is where the resources should go.
Most of the parents I know who elected to send their kids to places like Lakeside did so specifically (and cynically IMO) to avoid disruptive kids – not to access better teachers or even smaller class sizes.