By DAVE HAMRICK

Editor-at-Large

On first glance, it looks as if our new governor, Roy Barnes, is going to try and solve all of Georgia's problems by studying them to death.

Only time will tell whether that's an accurate impression. You have to give a guy a chance, after all.

Gov. Roy has appointed one group, with enormous power to act as well as study, to dig into our problems with the federal government over air quality and transportation. Could be a bold move to find and implement solutions at a time when that's growing more and more critical. Could be a bold power grab.

Could be both. We'll see.

Meanwhile, the study group that has my more immediate attention is the one that will be studying our public education system to find ways to improve it.

This group of 60-odd appointees has a fairly easy job, it would seem. At 48th in the nation, we have nowhere to go but up.

Then again, there are two states with worse education than Georgia's. I suppose things could get worse.

If the education study group takes off in one direction, it will confirm my opening suggestion. If it goes in another, it could actually do some good.

What I expect the group to do is meet for a few months and then come out with a bunch of very expensive recommendations that will concentrate more tax money and power in the hands of teachers' unions, school administrations and state educational bureaucrats.

If that's not the outcome, I will be pleasantly surprised, and you will see some praise for Gov. Roy in this space.

Among the buzz words I expect the education study committee to sprinkle liberally throughout its report is the phrase: “pupil/teacher ratio,” or interchangeably, “classroom size.”

Before I go any further, I'm sure critics will accurately point out that I am not an education expert. All I know about education I learned as a consumer, through 12 years as a student in Georgia's (well, mostly Georgia's) public schools and 15 years of trying to guide my children through public schools.

During my own career in the school systems, I was extraordinarily successful in some classrooms and pitifully unsuccessful in others. Some factors in that success or failure may not be easy to distinguish. It might take an expert to ferret out why little Davy learned in this class but didn't learn in that one.

But one thing would be clear to anyone: how many students were in those classrooms had absolutely nothing to do with how much I or any other student learned.

Zero, zip, nada.

A good teacher can work wonders with a classroom filled with 100 eager minds. A poor teacher can have no more than 15 students and still not manage to impart any knowledge.

The one benefit I see coming from smaller class sizes is less work for teachers. And that's not a bad thing. Teachers have a very tough job, and making it a little easier can improve morale and increase efficiency.

A drawback is that it's expensive, and it pumps up teachers' unions. To achieve lower pupil/teacher ratio, we have to build more classrooms and hire more teachers.

I'm not saying we should give no attention to class size at all. I'm saying it's a minor factor, and there's a point of diminishing return. There's an optimum class size based on economics and teacher morale, and we should determine what it is and let that be that.

I also imagine this group is going to spend a lot of time focusing on curriculum, encouraging a lot of new and different touchy-feely programs.

There's nothing wrong with innovation. New classes that challenge exceptional students should be developed.

But for the thousands who are finishing high school without a rudimentary knowledge of basic grammar, arithmetic, history and geography, paying some “expert” to rename all the courses and print up a fancy new color-coded curriculum guide is not going to make much difference.

If I hear the education task force talking about pouring resources into the first three grades so that children don't get out of third grade without demonstrating third grade or better knowledge, then I'll be cheering.

If I see them setting such difficult standards for the teaching profession that we have to have larger classes because we have fewer teachers, and THEN talking about higher pay for those who make the grade, I'll be mightily encouraged.

If the task force suggests giving parents the right to choose where their children will go to school, so schools that don't cut it will be cut, I'll be ecstatic to the point of delirium.

Can you imagine what school would be like if a teacher could take on as many students as he or she felt capable of handling, and then was paid based on how many parents and students chose that teacher? I can imagine a scenario in which a really good first grade teacher could make $100,000 a year or more.

And why not?

Either we have a task force that will use our poor education system as an excuse to soak taxpayers to pour more money into useless programs, or we have one that will be willing to go outside the box for solutions that work. Either we have a governor who will encourage the former, or one who will encourage the latter.

It will be fun to watch and see.

Back to News Home Page | Back to the top of the page