$1.5 Billion in construction.
This should be one of the less contentious issues and not tied to structural spending so the boost is a positive.
Small schools is a great idea–while I don’t believe it’s entirely a strong finding, there is a lot of evidence they can improve educational completion. Again, this is not a continuing cost so boosting spending in the short term is fine.
I’m skeptical of identity schools, but there is a lot of support for them and as long as local districts are making the decision, fine. Again, transition funding doesn’t create an ongoing category in the budget.
Consolidation is good, though still voluntary. The point of curriculum allignment is a big deal and shouldn’t be overlooked. Again, this isn’t an ongoing expense so it is a reasonable expense for short term expenditures.
Special ed funding–great idea and necessary, but the transition will be far longer than the projections.
Mentoring for teachers is probably one of the more effective ways to improving teaching quality. The key point here is to align requirements at all levels which is often difficult to do.
Improving Educational Colleges is all correct in the generals, but the details are incredibly difficult to address. I think this is an area that is going to be far more vexing than people think.
Performance Pay–eh. Whatever. Not a horrible idea, but difficult to effectively implement.
My personal feeling is that teachers need to better understand how to relate test results to pedagogical style and student needs. When teachers get test results they are often not well trained in using that to evaluate how they teach and so self-evaluation suffers.
The textbook plan is solid in general–and once on the new schedule, that funding should be continued making this a structural change in education funding. I believe the attempt is to sell it as a catch-up, but realistically, the need is always there and the state has skipped out on it for too long. What is extremely positive is the means test of the funds for Districts.
The technology bit is fine–I tend to think we oversell technology in the classroom so the devil is in the details. Students should have access to decent computers and reasonably up-to-date software so while I think there is probably too much in this category, it’s not an unreasonable position. If the tutoring for math and reading is done electronically, a lot of the results can better be tracked by school personnel.
Library and other financing is important for poorer districts especially. Libraries should be fun, vibrant places in schools and improving them potentially improves literacy.
Absolutely critical–revamping the state career and technical education curriculum. While this one won’t get much press attention, it should.
Extending the school year is another critical point of the plan and whether there is adequate funding is a good question. Ultimately, it’s a step toward year around school which is a far more effective calendar than one based on agricultural cycles.
The parental involvement piece is nice, but no one has solved that riddle yet so I’d don’t take it that seriously. Nice try though and perhaps something good will come out of it.
The real questions are probably on the financial end. While I have some serious reservations, the real position to critique it from is what are the new programs that are worthwhile in the plan? And from there, then fight over how to fund it or if it can be funded. The cheap answer is to simply say it’s a bad financing plan–that might be the case, but is it better to not have the programs or to find another way to finance it–I’d argue the second, this is a strong proposal on the merits even if the financing has many issues.
ArchPundit