2:25pm-3:25pm
Dr. Bergeson was back for the final proposal of the day, which focused on supports for specific groups of students, namely: struggling students, English language learners, guidance/advisory/learning support, career/technical education, and college-prep/highly capable students. In the beginning of the end, Dr. Bergeson spoke to struggling students and ELLs, looking to increase funding for both — namely increase staff ratios and decrease class sizes. See the jump for further details. After the 10 minute break, we’ll tackle the remaining groups.
Struggling Students
Currently, the Learning Assistance Program allocates 3.46 staff per 1,000 low-income students, although no funds are set aside for materials. Dr. Bergeson recommends revised LAP allocations to include class size reductions for severe poverty, teachers for small group tutoring, teachers for intensive tutoring, program support, professional development for teachers, and instructional materials.
Rep. Priest asked the Task Force be mindful how decreasing class sizes inside and outside of LAP impacts K-12 funding.
Chairman Grimm again asked about the bottom line, and brought up the issue of LAP being a statutory program. According to Jennifer Priddy (OSPI), to implement the expanded LAP, it would cost roughly $420 million, nearly four times its current cost — some of which Ms. Priddy attributed to the inadequate base schools are working with now. This was a real WOW moment.
Rep. Hunter asked for clarification on the model, whether we would be allocating teachers based on LAP-eligible students or identifying students who would benefit from small-group instruction and funding those students. OSPI’s model is the former.
English Language Learners
Current allocation is $904 per ELL student, generating one teacher per 75 students. In Spokane, the district foots nearly two-thirds of the bill for its ELL program ($1.63 million of $2.475 million) and is achieving results, supporting the case that an increase in dollars can lead to results.
OSPI’s allocation proposal includes smaller class sizes for ELLs, floor funding for districts with few ELLs, high ELL/multiple language enhancement, middle/high school enhancement, professional development for staff, and instructional materials and assessments.
Rep. Priest asked about the time needed for professional development. In the proposal, PD days were set aside for specific ELL training for staff, however, these days would be phased out if 10 more PD days were added to the academic calendar.
Rep. Hunter expressed concern over the trade-off variables between the different programs and basic education overall (eg. having more of X, but not if Y is implemented).
We’ll be back after the break…
