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.

<!-------------