The 65 Percent Solution is No Solution At All for School Plant Management
  -NSPMA Legislative Committee

A proposal to require school districts to allocate 65 percent of their operating budget to the classroom has been a topic of conversation in at least 21 states, is currently being enforced in three states (Texas, Georgia, Louisiana), and was on the ballot in 2006 in five states, though defeated. What does spending “in the classroom” mean to First Class Education, the group lobbying to change laws in every state and the District of Columbia? It includes funding teachers, instructional aides, general instruction supplies, and activities. It also includes spending on band uniforms and coaches’ salaries. You won’t find any spending on administrators, librarians, counselors, nurses, teacher training, or student support. No money here for transportation, food service, or utilities. And it most certainly does not include spending on plant operations and maintenance.

The National School Plant Management Association does not support this mandating rule. Tom O’Reilly, former NSPMA president, in a NSPMA Position Statement, commented that “providing the best education possible is the goal of every school district. From giving raises to teachers and support staff to buying books and supplies and keeping school facilities safe, clean, and sanitary to promote a healthy atmosphere conducive to learning. That should be the goal, not a factitious percentage that does not include the real costs of the products we produce.”     NSPMA Position Statement

Education groups unanimously oppose the effort, saying it amounts to micromanaging schools. The National PTA described the 65 Percent Solution as a “shell game where no child wins,” and is fatally flawed for three reasons: 1) the initiative gives the appearance of increasing classroom spending but does not in fact increase funding for public education at all; 2) a one-size fits all model is unworkable in a country that has 51 state education systems and 14,000 unique school districts; and 3) independent research shows that student performance does not noticeably or consistently increase at 65 percent or any other minimum percentage spent on instruction. The American Federation of Teachers calls the 65 Percent Solution “100 percent deception.” The National Education Association warns “don’t be fooled.” The Oregon Center for Public Policy describes the 65 Percent Solution as “100 percent phony.”

In giving the 65 Percent Solution “The 100% Smokescreen Award” Gerald W. Bracey, author of the 2006 Rotten Apples in Education Award, states that “the real purpose of the 65% solution never was to improve education but to elect Republicans. The 65% solution is 100% politics.” How does Bracey know that? A First Class Education memo obtained by the Austin American-Statesman pointed to the “political benefits” of campaigns calling for the 65 percent rule for public education opponents. “Republicans will have a viable answer to ‘in the classroom improvement of education’ without the need to call for a tax increase, offsetting budget cuts in other popular programs, or gimmick accounting and deficit spending.” The memo claimed that the 65 percent rule will split education unions by pitting administrators against teachers and will make voters more disposed to support school vouchers and charter schools.

SIDEBAR ~ You can read more about the 65 Percent Rule:
American Association of School Administrators
http://www.aasa.org/edissues/content.cfm?ItemNumber=5368&snItemNumber=5374
American Federation of Teachers
http://www.aft.org/topics/65percent/index.htm
Association of School Business Officials
http://asbointl.org/asbo/files/ccLibraryFiles/FILENAME/000000001178/SBA-Feb06-65-Percent-Solution.pdf  
National Education Association
http://www.nea.org/65percent/index.html
Rotten Apples in Education Awards
http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/rottenapples2006-final.pdf
SchoolMatters
http://www.schoolmatters.com/pdf/65_paper_schoolmatters.pdf