|
States sign on to '65% solution' for funding schools
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
By J.D. Pooley, AP
Dave Habegger, a guidance counselor and teachers federation president at Clay High School in Oregon, Ohio, thinks the debate on the "65% solution" will evolve over how in-classroom spending is defined. |
|
 |
|
| STATES TAKE ACTION |
|
• Georgia and Kansas have passed the 65% measure; Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order last week. Louisiana legislators have passed a non-binding resolution.
• A 65% measure is on ballots in Colorado this November, and supporters hope to send it to voters in Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon.
• Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wants a constitutional amendment requiring the 65% shift.
• Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt wants it on ballots; Minnesota legislators are weighing a 70% measure by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. |
|
|
A bid to force school systems to cut the fat by putting 65% of their dollars directly into classrooms has found favor in a number of states and is gaining momentum in others.
Versions of the "65% solution," so dubbed by columnist George Will, have been adopted in four states and are being considered in another six. Department of Education research shows that 61% of school dollars now go directly to the classroom for items such as teacher salaries, chalk, textbooks and computers.
A teacher's dream, right?
Education groups oppose the effort, saying it amounts to micromanaging schools.
The campaign, officially called First Class Education, is a quiet effort from Republican political consultant Tim Mooney and his pal Patrick Byrne, founder of the discount shopping website Overstock.com. For the past year, they've barnstormed the country, seeking to persuade governors and state legislators to back the idea.
They came up with 65% by looking at the top-performing states on federal skills tests and saw that they spend, on average, a little over 64% of school operating budgets in the classroom; those at the bottom spend as little as 49%.
"I was amazed nobody had gone down this alley," Byrne says.
School groups, including teachers unions, oppose the 65% bid, saying it invites lawmakers to squeeze school budgets without considering all that schools must provide. They also say it disregards guidance counselors, librarians, nurses, bus drivers and others.
"It's a simplistic attempt to deal with a real issue," says Ed McElroy, head of the American Federation of Teachers union.
Mooney and Byrne say schools should have some flexibility. Byrne, 44, a onetime apprentice of financial soothsayer Warren Buffett, says he's just trying to make schools get their priorities straight.
The 65% idea polls well across the board, but unions say it's simply a bid to divide them by pitting administrators against teachers. Mooney says: "If it does that, so be it, but that's not our goal here. Our goal is to get more efficiency into the dollars that are being spent on education." |
A CEO Challenges the Education Blob
 Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne was in Washington last week selling his "65% solution" to the nation's failing public schools -- the common-sense idea that at least 65 cents of every dollar spent should go to the classroom.
Astonishingly, when he set himself the task of researching America's troubled public schools, Mr. Byrne discovered that almost half of schools don't meet that standard. In some states, as much as 50 cents is spent on red tape, bureaucracy and administrators, or what has become known as the "education blob." That's at least $3,000 for every student spent on overhead.
Mr. Byrne stumbled across this depressing statistic two years ago when seeking to understand why business-style "best practices" hadn't made any impact on the public-school sector. "In standard 'best practices,' you study what the top 10% of performers are doing," he told me when he came by the Journal office. "Then you imitate those procedures to improve quality."
Mr. Byrne found that the most successful public schools devote at least 65% of their budgets to teachers and classroom instruction. Catholic school systems often do even better, spending less than 20 cents on the dollar on administration. The discovery prompted Mr. Byrne's movement called "First Class Education" to urge states to require schools that fall below the 65% threshold to increase the ratio by two percentage points a year until they reach it.
Though he met resistance at the beginning, First Class is now the rage among state legislatures and governors across the country. Colorado is likely to have a ballot initiative this year for the 65% solution. Ohio, Kansas, Louisiana and Washington State are looking at similar initiatives as well. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has implemented First Class Education through executive order. So has Rick Perry of Texas. Florida's Jeb Bush is a fan too.
It now appears that half the school children in the country will soon be covered by the 65% requirement within the next few years. "I expect eventually every state to adopt this rule," Mr. Byrne says. "It should be obvious to any policymaker that we can't compete as a nation without well trained and educated kids. Right now the schools are failing them."
School voucher proponents are lukewarm on the idea, saying it doesn't fundamentally alter the model under which public schools operate. But Mr. Byrne is a voucher fan himself and says his proposal doesn't stand in the way
of progress toward school choice. It's also reassuring that the education blob that virulently opposes vouchers also sees First Class Education as a threat. It's a national outrage that so few education dollars even get anywhere near kids in the classroom. That's probably why about 75% of voters say they support Mr. Byrne's 65% solution and why this reform may soon be coming to a school district near you.
-- Stephen Moore
January 18, 2006
Not Enough Money for Education?
By John Stossel
"Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue."
The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do.
Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools."
The NEA says public schools need more money. That's the refrain heard in politicians' speeches, ballot initiatives and maybe even in your child's own classroom. At a union demonstration, teachers carried signs that said schools will only improve "when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
Not enough money for education? It's a myth.
The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.
Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.
America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money.
In 1985, some of them got their wish. Kansas City , Mo. , judge Russell Clark said the city's predominately black schools were not "halfway decent," and he ordered the government to spend billions more. Did the billions improve test scores? Did they hire better teachers, provide better books? Did the students learn anything?
Well, they learned how to waste lots of money.
The bureaucrats renovated school buildings, adding enormous gyms, an Olympic swimming pool, a robotics lab, TV studios, a zoo, a planetarium, and a wildlife sanctuary. They added intense instruction in foreign languages. They spent so much money that when they decided to bring more white kids to the city's schools, they didn't have to resort to busing. Instead, they paid for 120 taxis. Taxis!
What did spending billions more accomplish? The schools got worse. In 2000, five years and $2 billion later, the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district's history.
A study by two professors at the Hoover Institution a few years ago compared public and Catholic schools in three of New York City 's five boroughs. Parochial education outperformed the nation's largest school system "in every instance," they found -- and it did it at less than half the cost per student.
"Everyone has been conned -- you can give public schools all the money in America , and it will not be enough," says Ben Chavis, a former public school principal who now runs the American Indian Charter School in Oakland , Calif. His school spends thousands less per student than Oakland 's government-run schools spend.
Chavis saves money by having students help clean the grounds and set up for lunch. "We don't have a full-time janitor," he told me. "We don't have security guards. We don't have computers. We don't have a cafeteria staff." Since Chavis took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst middle schools in Oakland to the one where the kids get the best test scores. "I see my school as a business," he said. "And my students are the shareholders. And the families are the shareholders. I have to provide them with something."
©2005 JFS Productions, Inc. Distributed by Creators Syndicate
Here's an Idea: Put 65% of the Money Into Classrooms
By ALAN FINDER
Published: January 4, 2006
The idea's appeal lies in its simplicity, proponents say. If school districts were required to make their administrative operations more efficient, they could free up money for use in the classroom.
Tim Mooney is chief organizer of First Class Education, which sponsors the proposal. Ranking States on Instruction Spending
The thought is at the root of an effort by a new advocacy group - First Class Education - to compel school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their operating budgets on classroom instruction.
Tim Mooney, a Republican political consultant from Arizona , was the driving force behind the creation of First Class Education. Patrick M. Byrne, an entrepreneur from Utah who founded Overstock.com, a retail Web site, is the group's prime financial backer, having pledged $1 million. And the columnist George Will has given their idea the descriptive name that has stuck, "the 65 percent solution."
The goal, Mr. Mooney said, is not to reduce school spending but to shift what he views as inefficient expenditures on administration and support services to teachers and students. "If you did this in all 50 states, it's $14 billion more a year," Mr. Mooney said. "It's enough for a new computer for every student in the country, or 300,000 new teachers."
"We're going to create some priorities," Mr. Mooney said. "We're going to say that the classroom - students and teachers - come first."
The idea already has adherents. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has issued an executive order making the 65 percent solution state policy. The Louisiana Legislature approved a resolution in June urging the State Education Department to adopt the standard as a statewide requirement. The Kansas Legislature adopted it as a policy goal in July, although there is no penalty for districts that do not comply.
But what supporters see as a common-sense proposal, critics view as misguided and misleading.
"This is an absolutely phony sound bite," said Anne L. Bryant, executive director of the National School Boards Association. "Schools have such a variety of needs, and they have very, very different spending habits. And there is no evidence that spending 65 percent of your budget on classroom spending will produce higher academic achievement."
Part of the problem lies in definitions, the critics say. Athletics counts as a classroom activity, including coaches' salaries, but librarians, guidance counselors, food service workers and school bus drivers do not, under guidelines created by the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the federal Department of Education.
"Would you not want to have a guidance counselor for your high school senior?" Dr. Bryant said.
Nationally, 61.3 percent of school operating budgets are spent in the classroom, according to the center. Only two states, New York and Maine , exceed the 65 percent standard.
In Texas , 60.4 percent of school districts' spending goes to classroom instruction, according to the center. Linda Bridges, the president of the Texas Federation of Teachers, said her group was among those that met recently with the Texas education commissioner, Shirley J. Neeley, to discuss the state definition of what is and is not a classroom expenditure, and other questions that need to be resolved to implement the governor's executive order.
Ms. Bridges said advocates of the 65 percent standard use definitions "that we think limit instruction, rather than to define everything that goes into instruction."
"It sounds enticing, but once you start peeling away the layers and start talking about what's in and what's out, in terms of the definition, and you start looking at the long-term implications, it raises a number of questions," she said.
Proponents of the standard contend, however, that it would provide a number of benefits. They say it would force school districts to become more businesslike in how they spend on things like consultants, food service, busing and maintenance. They say it would free up money to increase teachers' salaries without requiring tax increases.
"We put more money into the system, but it doesn't always get to the classroom," said State Representative Mike Powell, the Republican from Shreveport who introduced the resolution that the Louisiana Legislature approved unanimously.
"Once you put this into effect, then it gets people moving in the right direction," Mr. Powell said, "by setting some clear standards that you have to achieve."
If school districts in Louisiana were to meet the 65 percent standard, he said, teachers could get a raise of $5,000 to $6,000 a year.
Several independent experts said there was little evidence that increasing the proportion of money spent on classroom activities improved student achievement. Standard & Poor's, the bond rating agency, said in a recent report: "Student performance does not noticeably or consistently increase at 65 percent or any other percentage spent on instruction."
James W. Guthrie, a professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University , dismissed the proposal as "hocus-pocus."
"This is well intended, but misguided," said Dr. Guthrie, who is president of the American Education Finance Association. "Actually, it would be harmful, because it would add to the overlay of regulatory apparatus with which districts have to comply. Why do we want to restrict what school people spend?"
Mr. Mooney said, however, that if the states were ranked by their students' test scores on an achievement test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the states scoring in the top 10 percent would be those with the highest proportion of their spending going to the classroom.
There have been hints that some of those lobbying for the 65 percent solution are at least partly motivated by partisan political concerns.
The Austin American-Statesman reported in August that a memo from First Class Education listed a series of political benefits that would result from getting the 65 percent solution on the ballot. Among them, the newspaper reported, was that it would create divisions between teachers and administrators within education unions and that it would give Republicans greater credibility on public education issues, thus making it more likely that voters would support Republicans who are pushing for school vouchers and charter schools.
Mr. Mooney said he wrote the memo two years ago, before the organization was founded, and that it was intended for Republican legislators. Its guiding principle was simple, he said: "When politicians do popular things, it makes them more popular."
"Our organization does not have a position on charters and vouchers," Mr. Mooney said. "We're a one-issue organization."
His group, which was created in March, is hoping to make a more concerted splash in 2006. It says it has begun petition drives in four states - Arizona , Colorado , Oregon and Washington - for ballot initiatives that would make the standard mandatory. It hopes to have similar proposals on the ballot in as many as eight other states in November, and its goal is to have comparable rules in all states, either by referendum or legislative action, by 2008.
The American Federation of Teachers has not taken a formal position on the 65 percent solution, but Ed Muir, the assistant director of research and education services, indicated that the union was skeptical.
"We don't think this should be a battle between the services teachers provide and other services that are necessary for kids, particularly poor kids," Dr. Muir said. "If you have a problem with spending, you should do something about wasteful spending."
AFL-CIO outlines states it will focus on next year
By Jackie Kucinich and Kelly McCormack
The AFL-CIO yesterday announced its plan to target members of Congress in 10 pivotal states in 2006.
Richard Trumka, the labor union’s secretary-treasurer, said labor would campaign heavily in Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Maryland and Montana.
The AFL-CIO declined to comment specifically about which races it is focusing on, but the legislative report cards the federation released yesterday provide clues on which politicians it is gunning for next year.
“The report cards detail the voting records of every member of Congress,” AFL-CIO spokesman Steve Smith said. “At this point, there aren’t specific members who we’re targeting, but those with the most egregious records are obviously prime candidates for actions in the coming months.”
Each legislator was rated based on five categories: jobs and wages, retirement security, healthcare, tax fairness and education.
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) received an anti-labor rating in most of the categories, except regarding his support of the $286 billion transportation bill that passed in July. The AFL-CIO cited his opposition to raising the minimum wage and his vote in favor of Central America Free Trade Act (CAFTA) as two of the 13 issues in which the union group charged he was “against working families.” Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., who is expected to face Santorum in the general election, is leading the senator in recent polls.
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) received a mixed rating from the group, winning praise for supporting issues such as the transportation bill and opposing cuts to Medicaid. He was criticized for failing to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have given “workers protections to form unions,” according to the scorecard, and for his yes vote on CAFTA.
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) faced similar criticism. He also voted for CAFTA and against the Employee Free Choice Act.
Labor lauded DeWine for his refusal to back controversial legislation on Social Security and for supporting a measure seeking to shield senior citizens from a Medicare premium increase.
In the wake of accusations of ethical misconduct, Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) could face a tough race in 2006. The AFL-CIO said he failed to vote for a minimum-wage increase, voted to give Wal-Mart a “sweetheart deal” and supported $56 billion in tax cuts for “wealthy investors.”
Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) received some of the poorest marks on the report card. Among the 12 marks “against working families,” the organization cited Shaw’s opposition to protecting pension benefits for United Airlines personnel in June and his support for $56 billion in tax cuts for “the wealthiest Americans” in April. He received only one positive mark, for his vote for the transportation bill.
Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) was also highlighted. He obtained three marks “for working families,” but the labor group criticized him on 11 measures, including support for a tax break for companies that move manufacturing operations overseas.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) also attracted bad grades for his voting record this year.
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a major target for Democrats next year, received five positive marks and eight negative. The legislator voted against public-school funding cuts in November, a move that was applauded by the union. Fitzpatrick received bad marks for his CAFTA and minimum-wage votes.
Although the AFL-CIO almost always backs Democratic incumbents, it will not support freshman Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) because of her vote for CAFTA this summer.
Robert Traynham, a spokesman for Santorum, said, “It comes as no surprise that such an extreme partisan group takes a handful of votes instead of looking at the senator’s comprehensive record.”
Burns spokesman James Pendleton said, “It’s easy to pick any number of votes and turn around and say Burns is the reincarnation of the anti-Christ.”
Gail Gitcho, a spokeswoman for Shaw said, “These allegations are baseless and misleading. This is just more campaign rhetoric, and we expect a lot more of it before the next election cycle is over. “
“Sen. DeWine looks at all votes on the merits of the issue,” said DeWine spokesman Jeff Sadosky. “He weights each vote and how it could possibly affect Ohio families.”
Spokespeople for Talent, Ney, Fitzpatrick and Gerlach could not be reached for comment at press time.
65% is it a solution?
The spending plan says schools must pour most of their money into the classroom. Critics say extra cash doesn't bring students success and that other services would be cut.
TALLAHASSEE -- On its face, it sounds simple: Spend more money on teachers, schoolbooks and supplies, and students will get a better education.
But maybe it's not so simple -- especially if the extra money has to come from libraries, buses and lunches and with no guarantee that the schools will improve.
That's the heart of the debate over the "65 percent solution," a Republican-backed plan to force Florida schools to spend almost two-thirds of their operating budgets on classroom expenses such as teacher salaries and student supplies.
Advocates say it's a way to boost spending on students without raising taxes. But critics call the measure, which could go before voters next fall, a simplistic gimmick that could lead to cuts in other critical school services.
None of Florida's 67 school districts is at the 65 percent level, according to the federal figures the proposal's advocates are using. In 2002-03, Florida schools on average spent 58.8 percent on classroom expenses, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. That ranked it 41st in the nation. Florida House staff determined that figure increased to 59.2 percent the following year.
If the plan had been in place, advocates say, about $1 billion more would have been spent in Florida's classrooms.
"It's not just how much you spend," said Rep. Adam Hasner, R-Delray Beach, who is pushing the measure in the Legislature. "It's how you spend it."
The 65 percent proposal is part of a nationwide push by First Class Education, an organization started earlier this year by Patrick Byrne, founder of the online retailer Overstock.com. The group aims to make American schools more "effective and efficient" and now has campaigns under way in 15 other states and Washington, D.C.
In Florida, some see Hasner's push as an effort to distract teachers unions and Democratic lawmakers from defending the state's controversial class-size law adopted by voters in 2002. Republicans hope next year to convince voters to repeal the measure.
Nationally, the 65 percent proposal has been championed largely by Republicans, with Democrats and other critics arguing it is really an effort to divide the education community by pitting teachers against school administrators. They also don't like the one-size-fits-all approach.
"To have a nationwide idea foisted upon Florida schools and Florida teachers would be problematic," said Marshall Ogletree, a lobbyist for the Florida Education Association, the state's largest teachers union.
The association argues that Florida inadequately funds its public schools, but it doesn't see how this plan would help. "Sixty five percent of inadequate is still inadequate," Ogletree added.
Defining the spending
Part of the problem, critics say, is that the approach would label as nonclassroom spending traditional functions such as food service, transportation and teacher training, as well as salaries of school librarians and guidance counselors.
That could cause districts to scale back such services in an effort to meet the standard.
"That's all part of a well-rounded educational system," said Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Boards Association, which does not support the effort. "If you have to lay off people," he added, "you're damaging the educational system."
As lawmakers push for the measure to get on Florida's ballot next year, one of the key battles will be how to define in-the-classroom spending.
First Class Education is using federal guidelines for that calculation. Using those, House staff analyzed data for the 2003-04 school year and found classroom spending had risen slightly to 59.2 percent.
Across Central Florida, Orange County schools spent 58.4 percent of its operating budget on classroom costs; Seminole County, 62.7 percent; and Osceola County, 56.6 percent. Brevard County, with 63.5 percent, spent the most in the state, according to the House.
The Florida Department of Education calculates classroom instruction somewhat differently, determining schools spent an average of 61.2 percent of their operating money in the classroom that year.
Plan appeals to some
Seminole Superintendent Bill Vogel said his district would push lawmakers, if they proceed with the effort, to adopt a broad definition of classroom spending. Otherwise, officials fear voters might be encouraged to vote for something that sounds appealing but could end up hurting services at their children's schools.
Hasner, however, said the federal calculations are the ones he wants used. If the plan were approved, beginning in 2007, districts below 65 percent would have to start working toward that goal at a rate of 2 percent per year until the threshold is reached.
"This is a policy simple enough for everyone to understand, yet strong enough to make a difference in positive student achievement," he said.
That, like the definition of "classroom expenditure," is debatable. The troubled Washington, D.C., school system spent less than 50 percent of its operating money on classroom instruction in the 2001-02 school year. But the New York City school system, also considered rife with problems, spent nearly 75 percent in the classroom that same year, federal figures show.
Still, many like the idea of shifting more money directly into the classroom. Louisiana and Kansas recently set the 65 percent standard as a goal and Texas' Republican governor, Rick Perry, issued an executive order to make it mandatory in his state.
Republican Gov. Matt Blunt of Missouri, whom Florida Gov. Jeb Bush campaigned for last year, launched a push last week to have a referendum on the 65 percent plan next year.
Potential ballot measure
Florida lawmakers can put a proposed constitutional amendment before voters with three-fifths approval from both the House and the Senate. Republican majorities in both chambers exceed that, meaning a party line vote this spring could put the 65 percent plan on the ballot.
House Republican Leader Andy Gardiner of Orlando said the idea is gathering strength among party leaders and acknowledged the 65 percent proposal could help fuel voter interest in repealing the class-size initiative.
"I think if we want to take that away, we have to offer something as a promise for improvement," Gardiner said. "This might do that."
Bush, who has not endorsed the 65 percent plan, wants lawmakers next year to put a measure on the ballot that would repeal the class-size law. He argues the limits on class sizes are threatening to absorb most of the state's new education dollars.
The education association and many Democratic lawmakers favor keeping the class-size law in place, making them even more leery of the new proposal.
"This is a political gimmick. Bumper-sticker politics," said Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. "And it may be basically the Republican answer to the class-size amendment."
John Kennedy can be reached at jkennedy@orlandosentinel.com or 850-222-5564. Leslie Postal can be reached at lpostal@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5273.
School Funding Fight Could Complicate Life for Democrats, Labor
You may not have heard of a group called First Class Education yet. But that may soon change.
First Class Education — launched earlier this year by Patrick Byrne, who founded online retailer Overstock.com — is pushing states to require at least 65 percent of education funds to be spent in the classroom.
Already, Louisiana and Kansas have passed nonbinding versions of the “65 percent solution,” and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has instituted a mandatory policy by executive order.
The group wants such laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia by 2008. Already, it is working to place initiatives on the 2006 ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Washington state. Later this month, it will announce efforts to have legislators put the idea on the ballot in five states, said Tim Mooney, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based consultant who is managing the operations for the group.
With the national average for in-classroom spending currently at 61 percent, Mooney said, reaching 65 percent would produce an additional $14 billion without raising a dime in new taxes — enough to hire 325,000 more teachers at $40,000 a year, the group figures. Currently, just four states — Maine, New York, Tennessee and Utah — meet the 65 percent standard.
“This is a way to put more money into the classroom, and do it without a tax increase,” Mooney said.
Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who’s running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2006, recently endorsed the idea.
“Voters are getting increasinigly cynical about the money needed for education not getting there, or getting there and not doing the job,” said his spokesman, Gene Pierce. “This makes sure the lion’s share of tax dollars get into the classroom.”
That’s the policy part of the debate. But it is likely to be overshadowed by politics.
For years, conservatives have charged that education unions drain taxpayer wallets by protecting too many unnecessary administrative jobs. And the GOP has happily backed efforts to weaken teachers’ unions, knowing that they provide significant resources to Democrats.
On its Web site, First Class Education touts raves from such conservatives as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and David Keene of the American Conservative Union. In Arizona, Randy Pullen, a Republican national committeeman and a potential 2006 gu- bernatorial candidate, is leading the charge.
Byrne reinforced these conservative themes in an interview with syndicated columnist George Will earlier this year. “Educrats have become what City Hall was 50 or 60 years ago” — namely, sources of patronage and corruption, he said. Mooney would not say how much Byrne has given or pledged to the group.
Union leaders, for their part, have successfully countered that conservatives are recklessly pursuing lower taxes at the expense of America’s children and their teachers.
Teacher unions “have an uncanny ability to take any proposal and turn it into an attack on teachers,” said Garry South, a Democratic consultant in California. “They will turn whatever you propose into an attack on Mrs. Paulson down the street who buys chalk with her own money.”
Could the 65 percent solution be different? At first blush, the message appears to be a winner. Not only is it simple — spend education money in the classroom, where it counts — but it also has the potential for crossover appeal.
“It’s smartly crafted language that sounds pretty progressive,” said Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. “Teachers’ unions in particular are really worried about the level of activity they see and what it could mean for public-education dollars.”
Indeed, the issue has so much appeal that one potential Democratic presidential contender proudly said that he got there before First Class Education did.
In 2002, when Democrat Bill Richardson ran successfully for governor of New Mexico, he emphasized the need to spend education dollars in the classroom.
It even became the topic of his first campaign ad, recalls Richardson’s chief of staff, Dave Contarino. In recent months, he’s cited the 65 percent figure as a goal — though independently of First Class Education.
The 65 percent solution also passed muster with Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D). A state official said Sebelius was mainly focused on achieving a major spending increase for schools during a special legislative session earlier this year. The nonbinding 65 percent goal that was packaged with the spending increase did not end up being especially controversial, the official said.
In some places, the proposal could drive a wedge between teachers and administrators.
When Blackwell came out for the 65 percent proposal, Tom Mooney, the president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, agreed that school districts were spending too much on administrative costs. That clashed with the view of other education groups, including the Ohio School Boards Association and the Ohio Association of School Business Officials.
Mark Hatch, of the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, told the newspaper that he considered the proposal a “gimmick.” “We are certainly letting our members know that it’s bad public policy,” said Kay Coles, state policy specialist at the National Education Association. “When you look over the landscape of school finance, you see that states haven’t kept promises to adequately fund the schools. This doesn’t increase funding. It just rearranges it.”
And not all the critics’ arguments are colored by self-interest. Skeptics say a one-size-fits-all plan doesn’t make sense when schools within a state may face very different needs. (First Class Education does support a waiver for school districts where structural reasons prevent a rapid shift to 65 percent, but only a temporary one granted by an elected official.)
And while the definition of “in-class” spending comes from the federal government’s National Center for Education Statistics, critics say that many items that fall outside that definition go far beyond paper-shuffling bureaucrats.
Outside-of-class costs include security, heating bills, transportation, libraries, nurses and lunches. Indeed, schools could conceivably hit the 65 percent mark by creating gold-plated athletic programs; the formula considers them “in-classroom.”
Of course, any proposal backed by a wealthy outsider is likely to face steep odds. While Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has spoken highly of the 65 percent plan, it’s drawn little attention in the state. “My sense is that Minnesota public policy makers could give a rip what the CEO of Overstock.com thinks,” said Sarah Janecek, co-publisher of the newsletter Politics in Minnesota.
Backers of the idea might have improved the odds of passage if they’d paired a 65 percent solution with a boost in education spending, which is what Kansas and New Mexico did.
Moreover, moderates and liberals aren’t likely to support an idea, no matter how smart, if it’s touted by Norquist, who once urged shrinking government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
But Norquist said that “if Democrats are willing to break” with teachers’ union orthodoxy, “then they have to make that break — they can’t ask me to hide and pretend it was their idea. What they should say is, ‘Why should I let the right wing be the only ones to care about education spending?’”
South, who has been involved in many contentious ballot initiatives in California, said it’s common for intriguing policy initiatives to suffer because they were written with underlying political motives.
“The political operatives who write these kinds of measures do so in the name of good public policy, but the underlying rationale is to mess around with Democratic interest groups,” he said. “They’re often addressing issues that need to be addressed, but doing so in a way that has as its motive draining their opponents’ money.”
In other words, if the proposal fails to catch on, the culprit may be politics as usual.
Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
Group pushes for 65-cent school standard
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 (UPI) -- An advocacy group is pushing for every U.S. state to adopt a requirement that 65 cents of every dollar spent on education go directly to the classroom.
First Class Education, founded earlier this year, argues that the amount of money spent on schools matters less than curbing spending on administration, Stateline.org reported.
"Taxpayers want to make sure that before we're asked for more dollars, we know we're getting the most out of our dollars that are currently being spent on education," said Tim Mooney, a Republican political consultant from Arizona, who founded the group with backing from Patrick Byrne, president of Overstock.com.
Byrne pointed to the schools in Washington, D.C., which spend about $12,000 per pupil and have average test scores near the bottom.
Nationally, an average of 61.5 percent of the education dollar goes to the classroom. Maine, New York, Tennessee and Utah are the only states that meet the 65-cent standard, down from seven states four years ago.
Is Oregon education ready for 65 percent solution?
Oregon has yet to draw the attention of First Class Education, a national movement devoted to the idea that 65 percent of funds collected by school districts should be spent on classroom instruction. But at least one Oregon lawmaker is already thinking along the same lines.
Sen. Chuck Starr, R-Hillsboro, introduced a bill during the 2005 session that would have required schools to keep 65 cents of every education dollar in the classroom. The bill died without having received a hearing. Starr wasn't available to discuss if he will revisit the topic.
First Class Education, led by Patrick Byrne, the president and chairman of Overstock.com Inc., aims to pass laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia requiring public schools to spend at least 65 percent of their budgets for K-12 education on classroom instruction. It set a deadline of 2008. The movement originated in Washington , D.C. , and is active in more than a dozen states, including Washington and California .
It has not actively targeted Oregon -- yet. But given the state's easy ballot access, it's not impossible that the movement would arrive as a ballot measure, or that a legislator such as Starr could come forward as an advocate for the movement locally.
Ed Dennis, chief of staff for the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, said he wasn't aware that anyone is championing the cause here, at least, not yet. In Arizona , the Republican Party championed the idea, but local Oregon Republicans say it would be up to lawmakers to take the lead.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics , Oregon spends an average of 59.4 percent of operating dollars on instruction. The national average is 61.8 percent.
That doesn't mean the remaining 40 percent goes to administration. The instruction figures don't include such things as transporting children to school or paying school nurses and librarians. Figures vary, too, by region.
Rural districts, for instance, spend more for transportation because they travel greater distances and move fewer students. Their administrative expenses also tend to seem high because they serve fewer students.
But a 65 percent campaign could jump-start an important discussion about school spending here.
The average Oregonian thinks schools spend almost that amount on administration, according to a poll commissioned earlier this year by Citizens for Oregon 's Future, which educates the public about how tax dollars are spent.
The survey, conducted in early May, indicated voters estimate that schools spend 34 percent of their budgets on administration. In reality, district-level administration expenses accounted for 1.4 percent of the average school district budget in Oregon , according to a 2002 education spending audit by the secretary of state. School-level administration averaged 6.4 percent.
Steve Novick, director, said a 65 percent campaign could be valuable if it stimulates a statewide discussion on how schools spend money. But he worries that it could oversimplify a complex topic.
"I'm kind of happy to see it discussed as a way to explain how schools spend money," he said.
Ed Edwards, government relations director for the Oregon School Employees Association , believes a 65 percent campaign would be bad for schools.
"It's a great sound bite: 65 percent to direct classroom activity. But it's ignoring this whole other segment of what it takes to make the classroom work," he said. The association represents 20,000 school employees in 130 districts statewide, most of them custodians, secretaries, food service workers, education assistants and technology support staff. Those are the employee groups most likely to be cut if schools had to shift resources to the classroom.
"Today, teachers teach because secretaries are answering the phone," he said.
wculverwell@bizjournals.com | 503-219-3415
65-cent plan renews school funding debate
Many Ohioans don't have faith in how school leaders spend money.
When a school district faces a financial crisis, the typical solution is seeking a new levy - many times very large. But taxpayers want school administrators and boards to spread the pain.
Districts that prove they can make the hard choices eventually will get loyalty from voters. Those that don't likely have leaders who will confront a steady stream of complaints about their inability to let high-paid administrators go when pennies must be pinched.
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell is seizing on this sentiment at a time when he hopes to be the Republican Party's nominee for governor in 2006.
He will push a ballot initiative that requires the state's 612 school districts to spend at least 65 percent of its operating budget on instructional expenditures. He hopes to have the proposal before Ohio voters in November 2006.
Blackwell claims "The 65-Cent Solution," as some now call it, would increase classroom spending by more than $1.2 billion without a tax increase.
The state clearly needs a system of school funding that can be understood by more than education department bureaucrats, school district treasurers and just a few others. The existing system relies heavily on property taxes by creating a mathematical maze established by several laws.
Despite Ohio Supreme Court decisions and frustrated taxpayers, state lawmakers have failed to accomplish fundamental reform of this system for nearly a decade.
Blackwell's idea could shape part of a renewed debate on changing Ohio's method of funding schools.
And many Ohio taxpayers would argue it's not unreasonable to expect a minimum of 65 percent of a school district's revenues to instruct children.
But Ohio ranks 47th nationally, with only 57.4 percent of education money reaching Ohio's classrooms.
Few Northeast Ohio school districts come close to spending 65 percent on "in-the-classroom" expenses, according to information from the Ohio Department of Education. The Ashtabula City School District came closest, spending an average of 62 percent over fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004. Painesville City School District was next closest, achieving 62 percent in fiscal year 2004.
These figures were tabulated according to the DOE's definition of instructional expenditures: teachers, teacher aides or paraprofessionals, as well as materials, computers, books and other consumable materials that are used with students in the classroom setting.
Blackwell's definition differs by including the DOE items plus: field trips, athletics, music, arts and varied costs for special needs students.
School administrators counter that Blackwell's idea further decreases the amount of money school leaders actually control. And they ask why transportation, food service and classroom space don't count as instructional expenditures.
Arguments also can be made that those are far more important to "instruction" than athletics. A clear definition is needed. If we can't agree on what constitutes an education, how are we ever going to agree how to pay for it?
But maybe Blackwell's idea gives Ohioans some hope that the stalled school funding debate can finally receive a much needed jump-start.
Analysis: State struggles to get money to students
By Brian Bowling
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, October 2, 2005
Pennsylvania school districts rank in the top 25 percent nationwide in spending, but are among the worst at getting money into the classroom, federal figures show.
Districts statewide channel an average of 54.2 percent of their revenues to the classroom, compared to 57.9 percent nationwide. Three-fourths of Western Pennsylvania's 113 districts lag behind the national average.
A Washington, D.C., nonprofit group called First Class Education has launched a nationwide effort to require all districts to spend at least 65 percent of their money in the classroom, on such things as teacher salaries, textbooks, computers and anything else that helps kids learn. Three states have adopted the standard and another half dozen are considering it.
Backers argue that more money in the classroom results in better education.
"That's been a tradition of this district for some time," said North Hills Superintendent Joseph Clapper.
The North Hills School District had the sixth highest classroom-spending ratio among the 113 districts in Western Pennsylvania, according to federal figures from 2002-03, the latest school year for which statistics were available. North Hills spent 61.4 percent of its money in the classroom.
Although other school officials say more money in the classroom doesn't always translate to better schools, Clapper said he believes the two are linked.
"I feel good we're among the best, but I feel we can do better," he said.
First Class Education, formed in March, says its plan -- known as the 65-Cent Solution -- would force school officials to slash bureaucracies, rein in spending on support services and other extras and ultimately put teaching kids first.
Lawmakers in Louisiana and Kansas have urged schools to hit the standard. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has made the target mandatory. Supporters are gathering signatures to put the standard on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Washington.
Pennsylvania has not signed onto the idea. If it did, school officials would have to make dramatic changes in the way they spend taxpayers' money.
Moon Area, which spent 65.9 percent of its money in the classroom, was the only district to reach the 65 percent mark in 2002-03. That could change, however, with the district set to launch a $76.5 million plan to build a new high school and renovate its existing high school into a middle school.
Pennsylvania districts had the nation's highest long-term debt per pupil in 2002-03, much of it on building projects.
Investing in buildings rather than kids can pose problems, said Maureen McClure, administrative and policy studies professor in the University of Pittsburgh's School of Education.
"When the boys get construction fever, they jeopardize the amount of money that's available for students," she said.
Another factor driving down classroom spending in the region is fragmentation, McClure said.
"People in Western Pennsylvania have made a political choice to have small districts, and that's a very expensive choice," she said.
Average district enrollment nationwide in 2002-03 was 3,509. The average for Western Pennsylvania was 3,119.
Smaller districts offer real benefits, including a stronger education, said Stephen Whisdosh, superintendent of Ligonier Valley School District in Westmoreland County.
"There's a lot of research that's coming out that says small school districts are terrific," McClure said.
Ligonier Valley spent just 44.7 percent of its money in the classroom in 2002-03. But about three-fourths of the graduates from the district's two high schools went on to college that year.
"Statistics don't tell the whole story," Whisdosh said. "You have to look at what's going on."
And size doesn't necessarily matter when it comes to classroom spending.
The Monaca School District in Beaver County ranked third in the region, spending 63.2 percent of its money in the classroom in 2002-03. With 800 students, Monaca is the smallest district in Beaver County that operates a high school.
The region's largest district, Pittsburgh Public Schools, had the fifth lowest classroom spending ratio at 45.3 percent.
Pittsburgh Chief Financial Officer Peter Camarda said comparing an urban system to a suburban district is unfair. Pittsburgh has services that aren't needed in suburban areas, he said.
The district, for example, has its own police force, and it has many older buildings that require constant upkeep. Pittsburgh also offers magnet schools and other programs that increase its overhead but improve education.
"I would not recommend reducing those to the point where you can't provide quality education," he said.
The call for a classroom spending mandate also fails to account for the importance of adequate facilities and other factors such as rising fuel costs, said Frank Thompson, business manager for the Riverview School District in Armstrong County.
"You have to pay for everything. You can't have regular educational instruction without proper classrooms, proper buildings, heat, air conditioning and lighting," he said. "How can somebody say we need to spend a certain amount of our budget (in the classroom) when all these other costs are rising? If somebody could wave a magic wand, that would be fine."
Brian Bowling can be reached at bbowling@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7910.
Editor's Commentary: Are we shortchanging our school children?
Audit blasts expenditures of Phoenix school district
Karina Bland
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 1, 2005 12:00 AM
PHOENIX - Too much money is spent on administration, transportation, food service and plant operations in the Phoenix Elementary School District compared with its urban counterparts, according to a new state audit.
The audit, based on data from the 2003-2004 school year, suggests school officials tighten such spending and instead funnel more money into classrooms.
Districts are chosen randomly for audit, said Mike Quinlan of the auditor general's office. So far, 15 districts have been audited. State auditors will review the Phoenix district's progress in six months.
Many of the problems cited in the audit already have been fixed, says Sara Bresnahan, district spokeswoman. School officials have no arguments with the recommendations.
Administrative costs, at $991 per pupil, are 61 percent higher than the average $556-per pupil cost at five nearby districts. Because the district operates more schools - 15 - than similarly sized districts, it has more principals and office staff, driving up administrative costs.
Still, the audit suggests the district could have up to 29 too many administrative employees. Since the 2003-04 school year, the district has eliminated 27 of those positions.
School officials also have cut costs in the other areas, Bresnahan said. For example, more efficiently routing buses; consolidating duties of maintenance workers; and improving food-inventory practices.
The audit suggests the district could close six schools because of declining enrollment. The board did close one school last year, but Bresnahan said the school board is committed to keeping small, neighborhood schools open in downtown Phoenix.
In 2003-2004, the district spent 54 cents of every $1 in its classrooms, compared with the state average of 58 cents. Pupils in the Phoenix district are among the state's poorest, with 91 percent qualifying for the federal free- and reduced-price lunch program.
That means the district must offer more support services, such as counseling, reading specialists, speech pathologists, English language emersion, and special education, which aren't included in the classroom-spending tally.
School nurses, nutrition and transportation also are considered non-instructional costs.
"Our students need those services," Bresnahan said.
The Arizona Office of the Auditor General began reviewing school spending in 2003 after passage of Proposition 301, which gave schools more money for teacher salaries.
|
