Latest news with #KalmanHettleman
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Annapolis policymakers must be more class conscious
Class size matters, but state administrators and lawmakers have paid little attention to the issue, writes Kalman Hettleman. ( photo by smolaw11) Here's an oddity. For all that has been said about the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, there has been hardly a word about class size. The subject has not even been debated. That's a shocker. Common sense supports lower class sizes: The fewer the students in class, the more attention teachers can pay to individual student needs. Teachers almost unanimously think 'smaller classes would strongly boost student learning.' So why the omission in the Blueprint? For one thing, the Kirwan Commission ducked the issue, largely under the influence of its chief consultant who didn't think class size matters much if at all. For another, for decades, the importance of class size has been a raging battleground between liberals on one side (it matters) and conservatives on the other (it's a poor use or waste altogether of scarce funds). The controversy also endures because research is mixed. One summary of the research concludes 'Students often do better in smaller classes. But there's no agreement on exactly how much better, and it remains an open question whether or not class reduction is a particularly good use of funds that could go elsewhere.' The uncertainty is not surprising, given the many possible variations of the policies that are being researched. For example, class sizes may differ by the actual class-size limit, by grade level, and by targeted student population (usually students who are of color and low-income and in early grades). Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. Still, there is clear evidence behind selective limits on class size. Northwestern University economist Diane Schanzenbach sums it up: 'The payoff from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children, while any increases in class size will likely be most harmful to these populations.' Smaller classes in the early grades, in particular, matter a lot. That's the state of the research, but what's going on with state and local policies that govern class size? According to a survey by the National Council on Teacher Quality, 90% of local school districts have class-size limits, 'with state policy playing a direct role.' A majority of states have such policies; however, they're all over the map in their exact requirements. Regrettably, Maryland is one of the states without any kind of statewide class-size policy. We have regulations on staffing ratios in child care settings, but no statewide law imposing hard caps on pre-K to 12 classrooms. In the absence of a statewide policy, local school districts vary widely in their approaches. Unfortunately, there is no summary of the different local policies or reports on whether class-size policies are being implemented with fidelity. The most common argument against class-size reductions is the shortage of teachers. No doubt shortages are severe, and in the past session of the General Assembly, Gov. Wes Moore blamed teacher shortages for his attempt to slash funds in the Blueprint for Maryland's Future intended to hire more teachers for 'collaborative time' — to reduce the number of hours teachers spend teaching the whole class, allowing more time planning and tutoring. (His proposals were partially adopted – causing the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been redirected to fill big holes in funding throughout the Blueprint.) Moreover, teacher shortages could be significantly reduced by recruiting more teacher who only tutor small groups of students. Many teachers would be attracted by the chance to be full- or part-time tutors, rather than regular classroom teachers. One other fly in the class-size worthy of mention. Champions of smaller classes must overcome the frequent assertions by former U. S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and others that it's better to have a great teacher than a small class. But that's a generalization that hides the reality that some class sizes are now huge, often as high as 35 students; and classes with many low-performing students, especially in the early grades, must have low teacher-to-student ratios to meet student needs. What should Maryland do? End the long failure to study and debate a statewide class-size policy. Let voices on all sides of the debate be heard. Join most other states in allowing union bargaining over class size. According to the Maryland State Education Association, we are one of only nine states where class size is not negotiable at the bargaining table. MSEA has tried without success to get the General Assembly to change this. Focus on class sizes in the pivotal kindergarten to third grades. Fill up and speed up the teacher pipeline through incentives and focusing on tutor recruitment. Enforce existing and future class-size requirements. Too often, the laws are 'policy without consequences' because of non-compliance by school districts. If there's a political will to reduce class sizes, there's a way. Policymakers should follow the research and selectively lower class sizes based on evidence of where there will be maximum payoff.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
College isn't for everyone. Good pathways to good jobs are good options
Career and technical education may be the most important part of the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, writes Kalman Hettleman, but also the most-overlooked. (Photo by Getty Images) WARNING: This column may be hazardous to the comfort level of many readers. It's easy to get lost in the bureaucratic weeds of the many agencies at the center of the world of Career and Technical Education (CTE), as I have in my research. Still, please give the column a try. We must struggle to understand the serious growing pains that threaten CTE's success. The Career and Technical Education (CTE) provisions in the Blueprint for Maryland's Future are, arguably, the most important but most neglected part of the landmark legislation. They are intended to provide optional pathways for students to be well-prepared for well-paying jobs as well as for college. The focus is on Apprenticeships and Career Counseling. And expanding them should be a slam dunk. No one's against CTE, not even Trump. Students want good jobs and employers want skilled workers, and the Blueprint goes all out to connect them. Unfortunately, implementation of Apprenticeships and Career Counseling is moving more slowly than it should. And regrettably, the General Assembly did little about it, with two exceptions noted later. The CTE program can't succeed without two major improvements. One is to simplify and strengthen lines of authority and accountability among the incredible number of bureaucracies that populate the CTE universe. The second is lack of resources. Understand first that the CTE goals are extremely ambitious: Apprenticeships. By school year 2030-31, 45% of public graduates should complete the high school portion of a registered apprenticeship or other work credential. However, compare the 45% goal with the fact that in 2021 less than 15% completed the requirements. At the same time, the Apprenticeship program is saddled with problems. Among them: not enough employers; not enough funding; administrative hurdles within school systems; and interagency stumbling blocks. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. Lawmakers this year did provide $5 million additional funding per year for two years, but the administrative hurdles remain. Career Counseling. The Blueprint requires every middle and high school student to receive annually individualized career counseling about job pathways. But here too, daunting obstacles stand in the way of a sky-high goal. There is tension and confusion in the relative roles of school systems and workforce development boards under the state Department of Labor. Also, the goal of annual individualized counseling is impossible given the woefully limited funds to hire counselors. (Notwithstanding that the General Assembly extended current funding for two years.) An idea, advanced by Sen. Jim Rosapepe (D-Prince George's), is to amend the Blueprint to follow the Swiss model. It provides middle school students with broad exposure but not, as with high school students, individualized guidance. (Rosapepe's opinions deserve attention. He is the most knowledgeable and dogged voice in Annapolis for CTE.) The good news is that the involved agencies recognize the problems in the Career Counseling program. The bad news is that there are way too many such agencies. The list includes the Blueprint Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB), the state education department (MSDE), local school systems, state and local workforce development boards, the state CTE Committee and Apprenticeship 2030 Commission, and community colleges. That is a helluva lot of cooks in the CTE kitchen. The Kirwan Commission intended the CTE Committee under the Governor's Workforce Development Board to be the executive chef. Its position, influenced by Rosapepe, was that workforce development boards know infinitely more about job markets than school systems; also implicit was a lack of confidence in the competence of MSDE and local school systems. But, in my view, Apprenticeships and Career Counseling are markedly different in how school systems relate to them. Apprenticeship interactions with employers are beyond the normal orbit of school systems; counseling is a routine school function, and should be entrusted to schools, as advocated by the Public School Superintendents' Association. The key is for MSDE to develop smart standards, provide strong technical assistance and conduct tough monitoring, including assessing whether there is sufficient collaboration between school systems and workforce development boards. Rosapepe disagrees. He believes that workforce boards will be stronger and more accountable managers. What isn't in dispute is that implementation is falling far short. The MSDE 2024 Blueprint Implementation Plan reveals that CTE is generally lagging. The CTE Committee acknowledges 'it will take several years of building programming and capacity.' Finally, not to pile on but there is a big underlying and sometimes imperceptible hurdle: The widespread perception that CTE is a dumping ground for poorly performing students. John McWhorter, a regular New York Times op-ed contributor, has written: 'The idea that in our society the ordinary trajectory after high school is to attend another four years of school has become arbitrary, purposeless and even absurd.' Nonetheless, the absurdity is drummed into the heads of parents, students, and even some educators. Bravo readers (good job!) if you've managed to endure this foray into the deep weeds of CTE. It's worth it: CTE is indispensable to the future of large numbers of our students, and much more must be urgently done to raise awareness and political support. Its potential, envisioned in the Blueprint, is at great risk.
