Education reform: big promises and big price tag

This editorial was published April 24, 2009.

Without question, improvements must be made in the way this state handles the basic requirements of public education.

For too long, funding has dried up and costly new requirements for school districts have been added, resulting in a system that penalizes the poor and protects the wealthy. For too long, far-flung schools have been burdened with higher expenses of transporting students over long distances. For too long, improving the skills of teachers and rewarding the very best in their profession have been sidetracked by union fears and legislative bickering. For too long, low-income children have not had the chance to enjoy the benefits of an early-childhood education.

That's about to change with a series of sweeping education reforms that lawmakers are sending to the governor for her signature. The fundamental changes to basic education are dramatic.

We do not take issue with the impetus behind the reforms. But we do take issue with the fact there's no funding mechanism to pay for them.

The measure that the Senate passed last week would require breathtaking changes to the K-12 system: state-backed preschool for low-income children, all-day kindergarten, longer school days and more credits for high school students, and a more equitable way to dole out funds to school districts, improving the prospects for depressed property-tax districts like those in the Yakima Valley.

It also sets up a process to determine adequate standards for teachers and provides support for libraries, counselors, nurses and transportation demands.

A timeline is part of the measure, requiring full implementation by 2018. That's nine years away. A considerable amount of time, but time is not the issue here. Money is. And for this profound change in public education, no funding source is established.

The potential price tag for this measure is staggering. According to figures provided by state Sen. Curtis King, R-Yakima, costs to cover everything from new programs to increased salaries could range from $7.5 billion to $10 billion by 2018. That's on top of the $14 billion the state is now spending on K-12 education during each two-year budget cycle.

Since these reforms affect what is defined as basic education for public schools, funding for the reforms would be constitutionally mandated.

However, in the face of a looming revenue shortfall of $9 billion over the next two years, why push for these reforms now?

We fully support the move to improve the skills of teachers and the expectation of merit pay for those who are the very best. But can we entertain such a discussion when hundreds of teachers face possible layoffs? What's the point of that?

The measure also seeks to improve the recruitment of science and math teachers. Bravo for that. Without question, this state and the nation fail miserably in these two core subjects. A recent study of problem-solving skills of 15-year-olds in 30 industrialized nations places the U.S. 25th in math and 24th in science. We are on par with Portugal and the Slavic Republic. Not a great report card.

Yes, we need to make marked improvements in our basic education mandates. But without a way to pay for them, we are no better off than we are today -- promising big dreams and providing little or no means to reach them.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Barbara Serrano, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.