myshortpencil

By SCOTT PARKS / The Dallas Morning News

This problem is going to spiral out of control, just as it did with perks and pay-offs to military personnel in the 1960s and '70s. Ultimately, perks and "consulting fees" are added to the cost of education products, so the companies aren't paying these costs, but the taxpayers, who purchase the products for their schools, are paying them. The U.S. Navy has extensive rules about the financial relationships between military personnel and private sector vendors. Public schools need to get onboard. Now.

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. – The Resort, perched on a sandy hillside and surrounded by purple-hued mountains, sat baking under the desert sun last week.

Inside the luxury hotel on Frank Sinatra Drive, school superintendents from across the United States – including the Dallas-Fort Worth area – spent three days talking business with companies that want to sell their wares to school districts.

Textbook publishers, food-service vendors, computer manufacturers and many other companies all want to increase their share of the lucrative educational market. The school superintendents came to California's desert to help them.

TODAY'S BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE A LIST OF THIS WEEK'S COMMENTARIES
• More Stories on Ethics Issues in Education
• Compare your salary to any teacher's

In return, the superintendents got an all-expenses-paid trip and a $2,000 consulting fee.

Why are the superintendents worth this kind of consulting fee? Simply because they have a great deal of control over deciding how billions of dollars of public money is spent. It's access to public money that makes superintendents worth $2,000 for three days, not their expertise in creating materials and programs for public schools. Public schools should require that all consulting fees paid to year-round school employees in excess of $25 a day be deposited with the district treasurer.

Business ethicists say the conference creates the appearance that companies and superintendents have formed an exclusive club with the potential to affect the contracts awarded by districts.

It goes well beyond this. In essence, superintendents are being paid to spend their time listening to one company's sales pitch as opposed to listening to another company's sales pitch not participating in the conference or doing something entirely different. The "consulting" rationale is, in almost every case, a partial, if not complete, deception. Moreover, it temps superintendents to spend their time doing activities for which they receive additional pay rather than working harder and longer on the problems covered by their public paychecks.

"I find it troubling that money from the private sector is finding its way into superintendents' pockets," said Diane Swanson, a business professor and founding chair of the Ethics Initiative at Kansas State University. "There is something wrong with blurring that boundary with a cozy group of people who may not be operating at arm's length."

* * *

Annette Griffin, superintendent of Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, said interacting with company executives gives her a chance to stay on the cutting edge of product developments that help students learn. She said she donates some of the money she earns to a scholarship fund.

Supers can stay on the cutting edge on their own time and without receiving $2,000 in pay. Donating "some" consulting fees to "a scholarship fund," which may even benefit her own children exclusively, doesn't fix the problem.

"I'm looking for the magic bullet," Dr. Griffin said during a brief interview in a meeting-room lobby overlooking the hotel pool.

Anyone who runs a school district and believes in magic bullets should be fired. It's the ultimate in lazy thinking.

* * *

In some states, the law requires superintendents to disclose their sources of income on publicly available questionnaires. Texas does not require financial disclosure for superintendents.

The Dallas Morning News has examined employment contracts for superintendents in 26 of the largest school districts in Texas. Twenty of them, including the contracts of Drs. Otto and Moses, contain language that allows outside employment. Dr. Griffin's contract also allows her to take outside employment, said John Tepper, president of the Carrollton-Farmers Branch school board.

Some contracts require superintendents to get school board approval before accepting consultancies. Others say the outside work cannot interfere with the superintendent's official duties.

Pots of money

Big dollars are at stake.

Most people view school districts as places that educate children. But they also can be viewed as big pots of taxpayer money with plenty of companies trying to get their share. The annual operating budget for Dallas ISD is $1 billion.

The U.S. Department of Education says the combined budgets for public school districts exceed $500 billion a year. Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, is less than half that size. The gross domestic product of Argentina is less than $500 billion.

Education is the new military-industrial juggernaut. Spending on education in the 21st century is as spending on the military was in the 20th century.

A big chunk of a school district's budget goes for teacher and staff salaries. But another big chunk also goes for a multitude of contracts with private companies.

* * *

Privately owned

Educational Resource [sic, should be "Research"] and Development Institute Inc., a privately owned company in Grand Island, Neb., brings superintendents and company executives together twice a year: a summer conference and a winter conference.

* * *

Because ERDI is not publicly traded, little information about its finances is available. For example, Mr. Kneale declined to discuss how he structures the fees he charges his client companies.

* * *

In addition to paying all expenses for superintendents to attend the conference, ERDI pays up to $400 to defray the expenses for a spouse, Mr. Kneale said. Each superintendent gets a flat $2,000 fee to attend. A "full participant" who attends both summer and winter meetings earns $4,000 a year in fees, he said.

* * *

Karen Mortensen, executive education consultant with Sagebrush Corp., said membership in ERDI is well worth the fee. She said Sagebrush, which sells software and school library products, pays $22,000 a year to attend two conferences.

"What we get is dedicated time with key school leaders from across the country," she said. "And we get to mingle with them and other reps in social settings. It would not be acceptable to be pushing product while I'm at ERDI. I would be building relationships."

And the best way to push a product is by doing what? Altogether now, "Building relationships!"

* * *

Carol Wolf, another Harcourt Achieve vice president, initiated a conversation with the superintendents on an issue not on the agenda. How, she asked, does a sales rep determine whom to contact first in a district? All bureaucracies are different, and superintendents in large districts are notorious for not taking most vendor phone calls.

Which makes my earlier point that superintendents are being paid not for consultations but for accepting a sales call!

Suppose a superintendent routinely declines all sales calls. But suppose s/he also has a private consulting business with a publicly listed telephone number. When the sales rep. comes to school, s/he is politely rebuffed. The rep. does some checking, finds the telephone number for the super's private consulting business, and calls the super on that telephone line. The super reiterates her/his policy about not accepting sales calls but indicates a complete willingness to meet with the rep. in her/his capacity as a consultant at the standard hourly rate of $150 plus any expenses.

Is this ethical?

Suppose a year after starting his/her consulting service, the superintendent has earned a trival amount of income. S/he decides to change the long-standing policy of meeting with vendors by appointment to not meeting with them at all during working hours. As a result, vendors seek out the superintendent through his/her consulting services and income soars to $200,000 in the second year. How does this change your analysis, if at all?

* * * *

2004 winter and summer participants
Education Research & Development Institute documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News list the following school leaders as participants in its 2004 winter and summer programs. * * *

Arlene Ackerman, San Francisco Unified School District
Anthony Amato, New Orleans Public Schools

Brian Benzel, Spokane (Wash.) Public Schools
Ken Bird Westside (Neb.) Community Schools
Ed Brand, Sweetwater Union (Calif.) High School District
Ken Burnley, Detroit Public Schools

Billy Cannaday Jr., Chesterfield County (Va.) Public Schools
Rudy Castruita, San Diego Office of Education

Gerald Dawkins, Saginaw (Mich.) City Schools
Ken Dragseth, Edina (Minn.) Public Schools
Debra Duvall, Mesa (Ariz.) School District

Jim Easton, Lafayette Parish (La.) Public Schools
Mark Edwards, Henrico County (Va.) Public Schools
Barbara Erwin, Scottsdale (Ariz.) Unified

Greg Firn, Milford (Conn.) Public Schools
Steve Farrar, Lincoln Unified (Stockton, Calif.)
Mike Flanagan, executive director, Michigan Association of School Administrators
Karen Forys, Northshore (Wash.) School District
Alton Frailey, Cincinnati Public Schools
John Fryer, Duval County (Fla.) Public Schools

George Garcia, Boulder Valley (Colo.) Public School District
Carlos Garcia, Clark County (Nev.) School District
David Gordon, Elk Grove (Calif.) Unified School District
Peter Gorman, Tustin (Calif.) Unified School District
Carmen Granto, Niagara Falls (N.Y.) City School District
Terry Grier, Guilford County (N.C.) Schools
Annette Griffin, Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD
Barb Grohe, Kent (Wash.) Public Schools

Bill Habermehl, Orange County (Calif.) Department of Education
Jim Hager, Washoe County (Nev.) School District
Joe Hairston, Baltimore County (Md.) Schools
Beverly Hall, Atlanta Public Schools
Bill Harrison, Cumberland (N.C.) County Schools
Patricia Harvey, St. Paul (Minn.) Public Schools
Howard Hinesley, Pinellas County (Fla.) School District
Peter Horoschak, South Orange-Maplewood (N.J.) School District
Sandy Husk, Clarksville-Montgomery Schools

Carol Johnson, Memphis Public Schools

John Kriekard, Paradise Valley (Ariz.) School District
Nadine Kujawa, Aldine ISD

Michael Lannon, St. Lucie (Fla.) County Public Schools
Pam Lannon, Lake County (Fla.) Schools
Mary Leiker, Kentwood (Mich.) Public Schools
Earl Lennard, Hillsborough County (Fla.) School District
Dave Long, Riverside County (Calif.) Office of Education

Ben Marlin, Collier County (Fla.) District School Board
Elfreda Massie, District of Columbia Public Schools (former interim)
Larry Maw, San Marcos (Calif.) Unified School District
Max McGee, Wilmette (Ill.) School District
Bill McKinney, Region IV Education Service Center (Houston)
Frank McKinzie, Elmwood Park (Ill.) School District
Gail McKinzie, Indian Prairie (Ill.) School District
Ray McMullen, Department of Defense Education Activity
Maggie Mejia, Sacramento (Calif.) City Unified School District
Leonard Merrell, Katy ISD
Hector Montenegro, Ysleta ISD
Mike Moses, Dallas ISD
Monte Moses, Cherry Creek (Colo.) School District
Jim Murphy, executive director, New Jersey Association of School Administrators

Connie Neale, School District U-46 (Ill.)
Ruben Olivarez, San Antonio ISD
Doug Otto, Plano ISD

Stan Paz, Tucson (Ariz.) Unified School District
Dennis Peterson, Minnetonka (Minn.) School District
Lane Plugge, Iowa City Community School District
Gerrita Postlewait, Horry County (S.C.) Schools

Jim Rickabaugh, Whitefish Bay (Wis.) School District
Stewart Roberson, Hanover County (Va.) Public Schools

Stan Scheer, Littleton (Colo.) Public Schools
Rick Schneider, Pasadena ISD
Darlene Schottle, School District Five (Mont.)
Althea Serrant, U.S. Department of Education, Region 2
John Simpson, Norfolk (Va.) Public Schools
Kevin Singer, Grapevine-Colleyville ISD (recently left to lead Manheim Township (Pa.) School District)
Dennis Smith, Placentia Yorba-Linda (Calif.) Unified
Keith Sockwell, Northwest ISD
Tony Stansberry, Lee’s Summit (Mo.) School District
Jim Surratt, Klein ISD

John Thompson, Pittsburgh (Pa.) Public Schools
Frank Till, Broward County (Fla.) Public Schools

Doris Walker, Clover Park (Wash.) School District
Gene White, Washington Township (Ind.) Metropolitan School District
Robert G. Witten, Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16 (Pa.)

Alvin Wilbanks, Gwinnett County (Ga.) School District
Clayton Wilcox, East Baton Rouge Parish (La.) Public Schools
Joseph Wise, Christina (Del.) School District

SOURCE: ERDI documents

AFT Salary Survey Press Release w/Links to Data

The AFT is crying over the 3.3% average salary increase given to teachers between 2001-02 and 2002-03. Never mind that during these years few employees saw pay increases this high. In fact, many workers saw their wages or their jobs cut, and the vast majority received pay increases of 2% or less.

The AFT reports, "The 2002-03 average teacher salary was $45,771. . . ." The AFT doesn't say whether it is reporting total salary or base salary. Based on the numbers and the incentive of the AFT to make teachers look as poor as possible, I'd say the data excludes salary add-ons, which typically add at least 5% to base pay and as much as 20%, particularly in places like Washington that have TRI pay supplements.

TODAY'S BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE A LIST OF THIS WEEK'S COMMENTARIES
• More Stories on Teachers' Unions & Salaries
• Compare your salary to any teacher's

Twice each year, the public is treated to reports by the NEA and AFT about how poorly teachers are paid. Never do you see other professionals in the news endlessly bellyaching about their salaries. When's the last time you read about nurses, accountants, public defenders, engineers, auditors, chemists, foresters, economists, librarians, or any of a hundred other professionals who have government jobs, report their national average salaries and complain about them?

For reference, the 2002-03 average teacher salary of $45,771 is $3,777 (9%) above the national 1999 median household income of $41,994. In other words, on average, the (base salary?) income from one teacher amounts to the median total household income of U.S. families. And this says nothing about teacher benefits and pensions, which are far more generous, on average, than those earned by private sector workers.

So, what does the AFT have to say about the sorry state of teacher pay?

"Exorbitant health insurance costs are taking an intolerable bite out of already inadequate teacher salaries," AFT secretary-treasurer Edward J. McElroy warned following release of the AFT survey. "Even as teachers are being asked to do more, compensation packages are nothing short of insulting and fail to take account of growing healthcare and other out-of pocket costs to teachers."

The AFT provides no data to support the assertion that rising health insurance costs are "taking an intolerable bite" out of teacher salaries. If the data showed that, I presume the AFT would publish the data, but it hasn't. Forgetting (1) that teachers, on average, contribute about half as much to the cost of their health insurance as other workers, (2) that teachers haven't been asked to increase their contributions as much as other workers, on average, and (3) that health insurance is simply salary paid in-kind which must be earned, health insurance contracts belong to employees, just like car insurance, and just because employers have traditionally covered the cost increases in one but not the other, doesn't mean that workers aren't responsible for paying the increased costs of both.

The AFT salary survey reports starting salaries and mean salaries. Unlike its 2003 Public Employees Compensation Survey on the salaries of other public employees, it does not report the maximum salaries of teachers. If top salaries were appallingly low, you can bet the AFT would publish them. It never does because it doesn't want the public to know what the top pay for teachers is.

In the following chart, I have combined the AFT's tables for starting and mean salaries. I have estimated the average top salary by state by subtracting the starting salary from the mean salary and adding it to the mean salary. On average, I'd be surprised if the estimate is off by as much as 15%. Keeping in mind that the AFT salary survey probably excludes thousands of dollars in pay for "add-ons," here's the AFT numbers, along with my estimate of top pay:

State	Starting Salary	Mean Salary	Est Top Salary
California	$34,805	$55,693	$76,581
Michigan	33,596	54,020	74,444
Connecticut	28,848	53,962	79,076
New Jersey	35,673	53,872	72,071
District of Columbia	35,260	53,194	71,128
New York	35,259	53,017	70,775
Rhode Island	31,025	52,879	74,733
Massachusetts	33,168	51,942	70,716
Illinois	34,522	51,496	68,470
Pennsylvania	32,897	51,425	69,953
Maryland	32,939	50,410	67,881
Delaware	33,811	49,821	65,831
Alaska	37,401	49,694	61,987
Oregon	32,804	47,463	62,122
Ohio	28,866	45,515	62,164
Georgia	33,919	45,414	56,909
Indiana	29,144	44,966	60,788
Washington	29,118	44,961	60,804
Minnesota	28,600	44,745	60,890
Virginia	31,414	42,778	54,142
Hawaii	34,000	42,768	51,536
Colorado	32,063	42,679	53,295
North Carolina	27,572	42,411	57,250
Vermont	25,240	42,038	58,836
New Hampshire	26,479	41,909	57,339
Nevada	32,169	41,795	51,421
Wisconsin	27,277	41,617	55,957
South Carolina	28,672	40,362	52,052
Florida	30,491	40,281	50,071
Texas	31,874	39,972	48,070
Arizona	23,548	39,955	56,362
Idaho	26,072	39,784	53,496
Alabama	31,000	39,524	48,048
Tennessee	29,045	39,186	49,327
Maine	24,631	38,518	52,405
West Virginia	26,692	38,497	50,302
Kentucky	28,886	38,486	48,086
Utah	27,135	38,268	49,401
Kansas	26,855	38,030	49,205
Iowa	26,967	38,000	49,033
Nebraska	27,127	37,896	48,665
Wyoming	25,694	37,789	49,884
Missouri	28,075	37,641	47,207
Arkansas	24,972	37,536	50,100
Louisiana	29,288	37,116	44,944
New Mexico	28,120	37,054	45,988
Montana	23,052	35,754	48,456
Mississippi	26,120	35,135	44,150
North Dakota	23,591	33,869	44,147
Oklahoma	27,684	33,277	38,870
South Dakota	24,311	32,414	40,517

Now, despite NY's lowly ranking of #6 in this table, average teacher salaries in NY are the highest in the nation, exceeding the national average by 34%. This is based on unbiased data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Neither the AFT nor the NEA ever compare the salaries of public school teachers to those of teachers in the private sector, who are typically not unionized. The AFT does report, "State employees with collective bargaining rights earn salaries up to 63 percent higher than their colleagues in states without collective bargaining . . . ." You can be assured that unionized public sector teachers are earning a lot more than private sector teachers. Taxpayers are paying a huge premium in salaries, benefits and pensions to public sector teachers without getting much, if anything, in return.

As mentioned above, the AFT did a salary comparison between teachers and other public employees in 2003. The following table shows the results of that survey.

Job Title	Mean Salary
Psychologist Sr/Lead	$60,740
Environmental Eng Sr/Ld	59,517
Economist Sr/Lead	57,638
Programmer/Anal Sr/Ld	54,243
Architect	53,153
Systems Analyst	51,493
Educational Specialist	50,839
Psychologist	50,465
Civil Engineer	50,107
Geologist Sr/Lead	49,852
Tax Auditor Sr/Lead	49,403
Environmental Engineer	47,972
Chemist Sr/Lead	46,965
Accountant Sr/Lead	46,228
Economist	45,719
Class & Comp Analyst	45,013
Forensic Scientist	44,638
Teacher (State)	44,508
RN	44,345
Programmer/Analyst	44,145
Buyer Sr/Lead	42,715
Personnel Analyst	42,437
Bridge Inspector	42,164
Financial Examiner	41,679
Biologist	41,591
Forester	40,594
Tax Auditor	40,110
Geologist	40,053
Accountant	38,921
Employee Benefits Analyst	38,798
Parole Officer	38,790
Chemist	38,772
Librarian	38,638
Social Worker	38,355
Correctional Officer Sr/Ld	37,960
Research Analyst	36,754
Employment Counselor	36,526
Buyer	36,091
Substance Abuse Counselor	35,946
Agricultural Inspector	35,493
Family Support Specialist	33,482
LPN	31,903
Correctional Officer	31,580
Data Processing Clerk	24,386

These jobs vary by college degrees required and actual hours worked (despite what job descriptions say). The data also do not reflect the ability of teachers to supplement their income by "volunteering" to teach summer courses, to coach or advise teams and clubs, or to attend teacher development training on non-contract days.

Notice that although most librarians work year-round and are required to have a master's degree, while most teachers need only a bachelor's degree, the mean salary of librarians is $5,870 below teachers. The approximately 15% lower salaries of public librarians (and social workers) comes as close as anything to representing the economic value of the political advantage of working in a job that requires nearly all children to consume the services of the profession. Were all children required to use the services of social workers and librarians, they, too, would have the political clout to increase their salaries to be on par with teachers.

Whatever else you might conclude from this table, it's extremely difficult to support the AFT claim that teacher salaries are "inadequate," and that "compensation packages are nothing short of insulting."

Overall, the AFT and NEA salary surveys swamp readers with a deluge of data calculated to make teacher compensation look as small as possible. The portion of the compensation picture revealed is as misleading as it is informative.

My recommendation is for readers to find a public school website near where they live that provides the current salary schedule, a list of salary "add-ons," and a list of benefits, and then use that data in the Lifetime Earnings Calculator to see how much public school teachers in their area are really making and to draw their own conclusions about the adequacy of teacher compensation.

Peter Berger / Gazette

Peter Berger teaches English in Weathersfield, Vt. Read more Peter Berger articles.

Everyone has heard the old grandfather's tale about trudging 10 miles to school, uphill both ways. This is accompanied by the image of the antique schoolmarm, teaching 57 kids while she feeds the woodstove with her free hand.

Exaggerations aside, typical class sizes are substantially smaller than they used to be. Where they're not, many experts urge that they should be.

TODAY'S BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE A LIST OF THIS WEEK'S COMMENTARIES
• More Stories on Class Size
• Compare your salary to any teacher's

Opponents of reducing the size of classes recall that as recently as the 1950s, 30 students in a high school class was typical and viewed as educationally practical. They assert that reductions in class size over the past 40 years have not yielded proportional improvements in student performance.

Peter is rewriting history. As recently as 1970, class sizes of 30 to 35 students were typical in high schools. In 1970, 45.5 million students attended public schools, compared to 46.9 million in 2000. These students had 2.2 million teachers, compared to 3.7 million in 2000. While class size is not the same as the pupil-teacher ratio, they are correlated. In 1970, we had 20.7 pupils per teacher, compared to 12.7 in 2000. In 1950, we had 25.1 million students and 920,000 teachers, or 27.3 pupils per teacher. The further back in time you go, the less likely it was that a teacher would be doing something other than teaching in a classroom filled to capacity.

They also cite schools in Japan and other industrialized nations where classes are larger and test scores are higher than ours.

Any broad comparison involving nations and decades is potentially misleading. Clearly, a lot more distinguishes the United States from Japan than student-teacher ratios. And a lot more happened in American schools between my fifth and 50th birthdays than smaller classes.

In addition, class size isn't the same as student-teacher ratios. Owing to the expansion of special education and social services, you'll find more adults in school buildings today. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll find fewer students in each classroom.

Too many experts

The surplus of variables has led to a surplus of expert conclusions. Advocates of class reduction, citing Tennessee's STAR Project, contend that students in small classes consistently scored higher on achievement and basic skills tests."

This is oversimplified. (See, The Truth About Class Size.) The research shows that some students in some kinds of classroom environments benefit from smaller class sizes and those benefits are greater for some than for others. In general, students who have more difficulty learning and who are in disruptive classrooms see their test scores in some subjects improve by about one-half a standard deviation when repeatedly placed in elementary classes of 17 students over several years. Half a standard deviation amounts to about a three- to six-point improvement on tests, or 3 to 6 more questions right out of 100--enough, for example, to move a student from a B- to a B or B+. For the students performing in the top third of the class, their scores improve very little, if any, compared to learning in disruptive classrooms with 30 students.

To improve learning for the bottom two-thirds of the class, when reducing class sizes from 25 to 17, a 47% increase in the number of teachers and nearly the same increase in per-pupil spending is required. The research has nothing to say about whether similar gains can be achieved through alternative means that are far less expensive. For example, a ten minute daily regimen of student massages used in the United Kingdom, where elementary students give each other massages, may reduce disruption and improve learning to the same extent at significantly lower costs.

Smaller class sizes have three important negative consequences. First, the increase in the number of teachers means digging further down into the talent pool for teachers. As teacher talent declines, so does learning, even in small classes. Second, the high costs of reducing class sizes forces students in the top third of the class to consume education resources in ways that do not benefit them. Class size reduction has high opportunity costs for these students. Third, when class sizes get to 17 students, "there isn't enough diversity for students to make different types of friends and develop socially."

Moreover, reducing class sizes for gym, recess, lunch, etc., makes no sense, but that's what we do when we reduce the size of all classes. In Japan, the size of classes are reduced only for the core subjects. Our implementation of small class sizes is terribly inefficient. We do it for all students--good learners and poor learners--in all classes--whether disruptive or not--for the entire school day. We do this primarily out of "fairness," but there is nothing "fair" about wasting education resources that could be used more effectively. The primary beneficiaries of "fairness" are teachers, who want equivalent workloads. Teachers are simply unwilling to have some teach classes of 30 well-behaved, high-performing students, while others in the same grade teach 17 students, even though the practice would free up resources that could be spent with greater benefit to the 30 well-behaved, high-performing students.

Finally, when it comes to reducing effective class size, nothing beats the effective class size of 1, which is the hallmark of schools designed to teach The 21st Century Student.

Skeptics prefer a 1998 study compiled by Eric Hanushek, an economics professor. He argues that STAR produced benefits primarily at the kindergarten level, and that overall there is "no relationship between class size and student performance."

He concludes that "achievement for the typical student will be unaffected" by smaller classes and that the resulting increase in cost will be "unaccompanied by achievement gains."

Two important points need to be made. First, we have very poor tools for determining whether learning is improving in ways that make a practical difference at the end of a K-12 education. In other words, the research is preliminary and inconclusive. Despite this, teachers have latched on to smaller class sizes with a religious fervor, primarily because it benefits teachers and unions regardless of whether it benefits students.

Second, it's interesting that teachers who oppose high-stakes state testing and say, "There is so much more to learning that cannot be assessed by a paper-and-pencil test," completely forget themselves when the testing done in some studies shows that reducing class size improves student learning. These results are accepted at face value without any caveats about the limitations of tests in revealing true learning and knowledge.

Positioned in the middle, Johns Hopkins' Robert Slavin notes that shrinking classes from 22 to 18 probably won't make a big difference. Not surprisingly, reducing from 30 to 18 will probably "make a much larger difference."

Following a 1996 class size initiative, California's Public Policy Institute reported improved scores for students "who had the benefit of both a small class and a veteran teacher."

Unfortunately, reducing class size often meant hiring inexperienced teachers for the additional classrooms. Their students' scores declined, so the net result was "no appreciable effect" on statewide averages.

Here's a review of the literature on class size reduction.

Other factors

California's experience demonstrates how misleading averages can be and how easy it is to discount or ignore factors affecting student achievement.

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the signal difference between Japanese and American classrooms isn't class size. The problem for American classrooms is "student misbehavior," coupled with the fact that "many public schools do not allow teachers to use effective methods of controlling students."

Right. Reducing class size is not about improving learning through greater teacher contact. It's about improving learning by reducing disruptions. There are far less expensive ways to reduce disruptions. See Peter's article, Disruptive students need booting out, not 'time out'.

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., voiced her approval of France's school system, The New York Times observed that "many American parents probably would not be satisfied with the regimentation and discipline needed to make large classes productive."

See, e.g., Learning Is Rich at a Poor School in Mexico. U.S. students simply don't have the social and cultural experiences of students from past decades. Most have not been required to sit quietly in church for long hours. They have not been raised to be "seen but not heard." The lack of these dramatically decrease the abilities of students to learn in classroom settings. It's a core reason why education must be re-formed to teach The 21st Century Student.

I've taught junior high classes as large as 30 students. Conditions vary from group to group, but in my experience, 22 marks the frontier where class size begins to interfere with learning. Fifteen to 20 is ideal.

I have no data to justify my magic numbers, but I can testify that the number of students in the room makes a difference.

The teaching strategies needed to teach 30 students are different from the ones needed to teach 15 students. When class sizes were 30 or more, teachers knew what these strategies were and how to use them for effective learning. Primarily, these strategies use a combination of small-group peer learning, regular testing to ensure students are doing the work and accurate grading with no aversion to giving Cs, Ds and Fs. In larger classes, students have more of the responsibility for learning, and that's not a bad thing.

Class sizes of 15 students permits teacher-centered learning and increased personal contact. The style of teaching often changes in smaller classes--with both good and bad consequences for student learning habits. It doesn't necessarily improve a student's eduction, but it often makes teachers feel better, especially the teachers who feel better when they have more control.

It affects how many behavioral brushfires I have to extinguish. It affects how many papers I have to read and grade, how thoroughly I can comment on them, and how quickly I can return them.

Class size reduction is primarily a teacher quality of worklife issue. Professionals don't let the quantity of papers affect the thoroughness of review and commentary. Moreover, teachers in decades past read and commented on far more papers than today's teachers. See, e.g., Individual help of teacher’s red pencil now sadly missing and 2 Rs Left in High School. As Peter notes, there are "other factors" that affect learning, and among them are the amount of work modern teachers are willing to do for the dramatically higher real wages they earn.

It affects how many chances students have to participate in discussions, to test their knowledge, and to hone their skills.

It shouldn't and it needn't.

Many other factors influence learning and achievement. Hanushek holds that "the quality of the teacher is more important than class size." I'd add that the effort and intention of each student is also more critical.

Score a three-pointer for Peter. Despite all the research claiming teacher quality is most important or that parental participation is most important, the inescapable, irrefutable truth is that nothing is more important in the learning process than the effort and intention of the student. Students driven to learn can do extremely well even in extremely poor schools or with extremely incompetent or lazy teachers. Students who are disconnected from learning learn little, even when class sizes are 15.

The most critical issue in education is increasing individual student effort and intention. To do that, you have to understand The Root Cause of Education Mediocrity. And then you have to re-form public schools to teach The 21st Century Student.

But the existence of arguably more crucial factors doesn't give us license to pretend that class size isn't crucial, too.

Class size reduction is an expensive bullet with insufficient magic. There are better ways to achieve even better results. Unfortunately, teachers are fixated on the plan that has the greatest benefits for them, not for the students. See, e.g., Reform Blockers. This is just another in a long series of mediocre reform fads. But this one will not fade so quickly because teachers like the benefits it provides to them.

By LYNN STRATTON / St. Petersburg (FL) Times

When I was in first grade, my teacher made me take a note home to my parents. When my father read it, an expression I remember as amusement crossed his face.

Then he told me very seriously that I probably should not discuss in school the books I'd been reading at home. My crime, in this particular incident, had been using the term "whorehouse" in class.

My father and I agreed that I would keep my reading to myself during school hours, although of course I could continue to read what I pleased, including Gone With the Wind, the book from which I had learned the unmentionable word. I tell this story not to show that I was particularly smart, but that my father was. I had started reading at 3 because he'd taught me to read, as his mother had taught him at the same age.

TODAY'S BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE A LIST OF THIS WEEK'S COMMENTARIES
• More Stories on Education by subject
• Compare your salary to any teacher's

My father never went to college; his mother was a teacher, but she never went to college, either. She taught in what was literally a one-room schoolhouse in the coal fields of Kentucky, with children of every age crammed into a tiny ramshackle building beside a creek.

But my father taught me to read, and his mother taught him.

I've been thinking about these things now that school is out and many parents are wondering how best to help their children with their summer reading lists. Here's why: We have convinced ourselves that only those with a degree in education, particularly those with specialized training and certification in reading education, can teach our children to read.

The specialized knowledge educators have isn't about the content and skills K-12 students must learn. Everyone should know that content. The specialized knowledge is mostly about classroom management, teaching children with special needs and a little bit of testing and curriculum sequencing . . . none of which is necessary for parents to know in teaching their children to read or learn almost any other elementary skill.

Yet I know that can't be true. My own experience tells me that. And countless parents over the centuries, both here and abroad, have taught others, both children and adults, to read. Although it can lead to rocket science, teaching someone to read isn't, in fact, rocket science. If it were, no one would have learned to read before the advent of certification and specialization, and clearly they did. Teachers colleges as we know them are a product of the 20th century - but still, Americans learned to read.

We are impressed by credentials. The people to whom we entrust our young are certified, we say; they are experts. How then to explain the successes of children who are homeschooled? Many not only keep up with their peers in the government-sponsored educational system, they often surpass them in reading ability and other skills. Some even go on to attend quite adequate colleges.

Parents are, and should be, their children's first teachers. I'm afraid that many of us have forgotten that, even though we don't hesitate to teach our children to speak, eat, play, walk or ride a bike. It is possible, I imagine, that some parents are simply so burdened with keeping the family going that it becomes easier to pass the chore on to professionals. Other parents, I imagine, may feel inadequate to the task, particularly those whose educational backgrounds may not include college, or even a high school diploma.

But we are putting the most important responsibility a parent or guardian can have into the hands of people who have many other children to attend to in our often-overcrowded schools.

Overcrowded? Nary a school in the country has as many students in elementary classrooms as teachers did during the 1960s and 1970s. Many have half as many students. The problem isn't too many children; it's teachers using a lot of their time to help slower students. Teaching to the middle has been replaced with teaching to the bottom. Why would any parent want this for their child?

We put it in the hands of - no offense meant to those teachers who take their jobs seriously and truly wish to help our kids - people unrelated to us, people whose commitment to our children is, by necessity, less strong than our own.

Make no mistake: Teaching a person to read is an enormous responsibility. Reading helps shape who we become and what we think. In handing over that incredibly important task to others, we allow those others to choose for us the subjects that we think about. We allow them, to a great degree, to shape what we think about those subjects.

The very act of reading is such a strong influence on who and what we become that even now I am grateful to my parents for not leaving the task to my otherwise wonderful, well-meaning teachers. During the years I taught writing and literature to college students, I saw a very clear difference between the students who read and those who didn't. The readers were overwhelmingly better writers and communicators. They were overwhelmingly more skillful in expressing their ideas; they were more curious, more imaginative. I have no qualms about stating this as fact, because I saw it consistently, wherever I taught, whomever I taught.

Yet we allow ourselves to forget the importance of reading, then we wring our hands when our children do poorly on reading tests, when they are held back in third grade because, by then, their own language is very nearly foreign to them. And we forget that, for good or ill, children emulate their parents. After working all night, my father would come home and make coffee in an old percolator. Afterward, he would stand at the kitchen table and read until it was time for the rest of us to get up. Clearly, if my father spent so much time doing it, it had to be important.

If you wish to help your children be successful in school - and more to the point, successful in life - read where they can see you. Read often. Read widely. Even if you don't enjoy it, even if you have other things to do, even if you're tired.

If you want to leave a legacy for your children, the love of reading is, I think, the most important gift you can bestow. Our schools can't do it all, and those who leave this job to our educational system are handicapping their children in a terrible way. Their children most likely will never catch up to the kids who come to school knowing how to read and how to learn. They almost certainly won't catch up to the ones who come to school not only knowing how to read, but loving it.

Given the difficulty that so many children are having with reading, I am grateful beyond words that my parents left me to my own devices after having provided me with the simple tools needed to read, on my own, a book. Or an article in a magazine. Or a story in a newspaper. Yes, my teachers routinely scolded them, but my parents held their own and refused to back down, refused to allow others to dictate what I could read and when.

And they accepted the responsibility of being their children's primary teachers. When that happens on a larger scale, we as a society will be the better for it.

I agree. But one must ask, "If parents must teach their children to read, why are we paying teachers up to $100,000 a year (including benefits)? Isn't that just a touch ridiculous.

And it's not just reading. I had to teach my child math in a school district that was a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence!

And it gets even more ridiculous. If you teach your child to read and do math and your child is above grade level, the reward teachers will lavish on your child for your hard work is to IGNORE him or her while s/he helps out other students who aren't doing as well! Eventually, your child will be leveled by the great equalizer of public education. It's insanity and it has nothing to do with education. System needs trump student needs.

To get parents more involved with reading and math, here's what I suggest: Test students for their reading and math levels upon entering kindergarten. Whatever level the child tests at, the parents get paid what the teachers would have been paid to get the child to that level of performance. If the child is reading at the second grade level, the parent is paid what the district would have paid a teacher for reading instruction to the second-grade level.

Then, place the child in a second-grade level reading course.

The same goes for math.

All of this would be so easy to do if we had schools that could teach The 21st Century Student.

Lynn Stratton, a St. Petersburg Times database editor, taught writing at the University of South Florida for 15 years.