Return common sense to class-size reduction

Gov. Charlie Crist and the legislative leadership want to loosen the costly handcuffs of Florida's class-size law.

The move, which will save the state more than $3 billion next year, is overdue.

The state already has spent nearly $16 billion to comply with the 2002 amendment. Much of that might have been more profitably invested in teachers, technology and students' specific needs.

Consider: Through 2009, the Hillsborough school district spent close to $1 billion on class-size reduction - $761 million on salaries and $217 million on construction. It's time to adjust priorities to better reflect classroom realities.

The law was well-intended but forced educators to focus more on classroom numbers than student performance.

Limiting the number of students per class doesn't work magic. You can have five students per class, but if the teacher is mediocre or the course material inadequate, students won't thrive. In contrast, an energetic teacher with a good support network can work wonders with a class of 30 or more.

Students do tend to do better in smaller classes. It allows teachers to give children more personal attention. It also is less stressful for teachers. Smaller class size is desirable, but hardly the overriding factor in students' success.

A Heritage Foundation study contrasted the math scores of African-American students in public and Catholic schools in Washington, D.C. Those in Catholic schools showed far more progress through the years, though the public schools had far fewer students per class.

California adopted tough class-size limits in 1996, with scant improvement in classroom performance. Nevada's class-size experience was similarly unimpressive.

Yet it was understandable that Florida voters embraced the class-size initiative, which was launched by Kendrick Meek, then a state senator, now a congressman running for the U.S. Senate.

It gave voters a tool, however blunt, to force lawmakers to fund public schools that had been chronically shortchanged.

School overcrowding reached a crisis point in the 1990s when many underfunded districts, including Hillsborough, were forced to cram campuses with portable classrooms.

Public outrage finally forced lawmakers to act, but voters understandably did not trust their long-term commitment.

So they supported the constitutional referendum, which allows no more than 18 students in kindergarten through third grade; 22 in grades fourth through eight; and 25 in high school. The measure has been phased in, and next year all school districts must comply with its numbers in every classroom.

This is excessive. Most schools already comply with the required numbers as overall school averages, though particular classes may exceed the limit.

The individual classroom mandate ignores the realities of class enrollments, where the number of students can go up or down through the year for a variety of reasons.

To force districts to build more classrooms and hire more teachers to prevent a class from exceeding the cap is a waste.

That is why Crist and some lawmakers favor a constitutional amendment that would establish the mandated caps as school averages. If adopted by lawmakers, it would go before voters in November.

The measure would not eliminate the class-size standards. It would make them flexible enough that taxpayers would not have to spend millions to avoid ever having a couple of extra students in a high school English class.

The state faces a possible $3 billion budget deficit this year. The rigid classroom rules are a dubious approach to education excellence in the best of times. They are an outrage during a fiscal crisis.

The Legislature should pass the constitutional amendment, and then voters should support it and bring common sense to Florida's education spending.