a study to study the plan of the study

Is this proposal to go in-depth and compute what it'd take to fully fund education just another legislative "punt," or progress?

The group would also explore ways to provide stable and adequate financing to fully pay for basic education and report back to lawmakers with options by the beginning of next year.

The bill passed 43-5, with one senator excused. It now heads to the House, and Gov. Chris Gregoire has indicated she would sign it into law.

"It is not a study, it is a plan of action," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, chairwoman of the Senate's Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee.

But some Republican senators argued that developing a way to better pay for schools was the job of the 18-month-long Washington Learns study, which was co-chaired by Gregoire.

"Here we go again," said Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, as he held up a series of studies that the state has done on school financing through the years, including the Washington Learns final report.

"If you gave people two years, the power of the governor's office, what would you give them for a grade when they came back incomplete?" Schoesler said. "Why would you do this again?"

Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley, said the task force was "clearly just another study" and that the Legislature was "just punting again."

"It's a step, I'm not sure if it's forward or not," Pflug said. "Frankly, I think we've been going around in circles for quite a long while."

I'm not so certain things would be any different--or any better--with Republicans in charge. For every Cheryl Pflug there's a Val Stevens.

with the proper motivation

Gregoire, flush with a 1.9 billion surplus, proposes dumping $197 million on extra math and science funding. The plan:

• Reduce class size. The state already is working to reduce elementary school class size via a citizen-approved initiative. Gregoire's new plan would send districts money to hire more middle and high school math and science teachers, with the goal of having one teacher per 25 students. Cost: $90 million.

• Recruit 750 more math and science teachers, including faculty who are teaching other subjects and didn't major in math and science in college. Additional college and teacher training would be available.

• Offer math and science scholarships to college students who agree to teach in those areas. Cost is $14 million.

• Pay annual bonuses of $5,000 to nationally certified teachers who teach in a "challenging" school and another $5,000 if they teach math or science. Currently, 900 teachers have this extra certification.

• Expand the alternative path to certification for non-teachers in the private sector who are experts in math and science, or paraprofessionals.

The professional development proposals total $62 million.

• Provide hands-on science learning for 1,000 K-8 classrooms, using the Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) program. Cost is $12 million.

• Provide extra help to students who are struggling with the WASLs. Gregoire proposes $12 million.

• Standardize math curricula across the state.

I have a better solution. We teachers are always grousing about parental involvement, and wondering why folks can't be more accountable. Want to see test scores go up? Promise parents a $1000 tax break when their lovable lump passes the WASL, at an overall cost of $82 million per annum. In two years, math scores will rise like rent on Boardwalk.


[cross-posted here]

Oregon's standards: up to standard?

While we're debating Washington Learns' recommendations here in the Evergreen State, our Beaver State friends have similar issues on the table.

With the state Department of Education swamped with more than 100 e-mails a day on the topic, the Board of Education announced this week that it would push back the final vote on the proposal until mid-January.

The state has beefed up the number of credits students need to graduate. Legislators boosted the English and math credits to four and three, respectively, in 2005.

Chairman Jerry Berger said the board seems to be leaning toward requiring students to take higher-level math classes rather than letting pre-algebra courses count toward a diploma.

The new proposal also would boost the science requirement from two credits to three, including two years of laboratory science.

Good in some ways--all students deserve a challenging education--but I fear for electives and vocational programs, which are already at risk because of increased emphasis on standardized testing. I'm not yet convinced that all students need advanced study in science and math, as interesting as those subjects are to me, and as economically useful as a degree in either can be. Aren't there better incentives, college- or market-wise, that would draw in more students to Science and Its Language? Or is there a good argument to be made that all students should take Calculus and Physics?