Most school districts applauded last week's congressional agreement to set aside more than $1 billion for the hiring of additional teachers to reduce class sizes next year. But their experience this fall spending a similar federal windfall has shown that it takes more than money to put an effective teacher in front of a classroom.
This fall, school districts began spending $1.2 billion that President Clinton and Congress allocated to poor and overcrowded districts as the first installment of Clinton's seven-year plan intended to recruit as many as 100,000 elementary school teachers.The federal assistance seemed to fall from the sky: Unlike most educational financing, which passes through state officials' hands first, the money for new teachers went directly to districts.
The president's plan was based on research suggesting that the greatest benefit from smaller classes comes in the poorest districts. The program would cap the number of students per class in the first, second and third grades at 18.
But the money has arrived in the midst of the worst teacher shortage in recent memory. Although there would be enough available teachers, if tallied nationally, to fill every available slot, districts have had difficulty persuading candidates to move from the Midwest, where there is a surplus of teachers, to inner-city districts and to districts across Texas and California, where the need is greatest.
School principals and superintendents have reported tripping over a number of hurdles: Many have had difficulty attracting qualified candidates, others have had to work hard to train those whom they have recruited, and still others have had little luck carving out space within crammed schools for new classes.
"Just the idea of stating 'We need more teachers' is great," said Peter Magnuson, a spokesman for the National Association of Elementary School Principals.