In the classroom

The Clark County School Board last week moved to put in place a couple of changes approved by the Legislature earlier this year -- one that makes eminent sense, and one that doesn't.

First, the good news.

The board voted unanimously to implement a modest proposal to require that administrators actually spend some time in the classroom.

Under the plan, school district bureaucrats -- including Superintendent Walt Rulffes -- will teach or observe in a classroom for at least a half-day each school year.

No, a half-day isn't much, but it's a start toward recognizing complaints from teachers that administrators are out of touch with the day-to-day realities of the district's operations. And if administrators try to slide on this mandate -- for instance, by showing a video instead of actually trying to engage students -- let's hope teachers blow the whistle.

Predictably, Steve Augspurger of the Clark County Association of School Administrators union -- Question for another day: Why do bosses need a union? -- was whining about the requirement.

"If anybody should be observing classrooms, it should be the legislators who passed this law," he said. "We can't find enough qualified teachers. We can't find enough substitutes. So you exacerbate the problem by having administrators teach who may not have taught in a long time."

Forcing district desk jockeys to spend three hours a year in an actual classroom will cause problems? Boo hoo. Sell it to the rank and file.

Mr. Rulffes said he'd do his part, entering a classroom to teach algebra or maybe geometry. Perhaps he can concoct a formula to explain the relationship between school spending and student achievement.

Now, the bad news.

In approving the "administrators in the classroom" plan, the board also OK'd a provision raising the compulsory attendance age to 18 from 17. That means a student who hasn't yet completed his senior year in high school couldn't voluntarily leave until he turned 18.

Now, this isn't as bad as the plan floated earlier this year by the National Education Association to force kids to stay in school until the age of 21 -- really -- but it's certainly moving in that direction.

What exactly is the point? To lower the dropout rate? To encourage more students to attend college? Is there any evidence this will work? None that anybody offered to the board on Thursday evening.

And why do we want to clog up classrooms with 17-year-olds who obviously have no desire to be on campus? Is this good for the students who are truly trying to learn? How?

In fact, such students can cause disruptions that sidetrack teachers and distract other students.

Kids are already held in captivity by the public school system for 11 years. If the district hasn't succeeded by then in equipping a student with the basics he needs to survive in the real world, what good is another year going to do?

If this proposal is about easing the dropout rate or some other policy goal, it's doomed to failure. If it's a way for the district to secure funding by keeping more butts in the seats, it's shameful.