65 Percent Solution - Education Funding
The 65 Percent Solution is a new education funding proposal receiving attention in many states and is currently enforced in three states (Texas by executive order, and Kansas and Louisiana by legislation.) Under this plan, school districts would be required to spend at least 65 percent of its education operational budgets on classroom instruction. National PTA believes that it is critical for schools to direct every dollar possible to classroom instruction. National PTA believes, however, that the 65 Percent Solution is fatally flawed and will hinder, not help our nation’s schools in accomplishing the goal of providing every child with a well-rounded, high-quality education.
The 65 Percent Solution is being promoted by a newly formed organization, First Class Education (FCE). The goal cited by FCE is laudable, “require that at least 65 percent of what taxpayers spend on K-12 education actually makes its way into the classroom.” FCE suggests three potential benefits of the 65 Percent Solution: 1) increasing the amount of money spent in the classroom without increasing taxes; 2) reducing the amount spent on “wasteful” administrative costs by making districts accountable for how they spend their money; and 3) improving student performance by focusing on classroom activities.[i]
National PTA believes that it is critical for schools to direct every dollar possible to classroom instruction. However, the 65 Percent Solution 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 country that has 51 state education systems including the District of Columbia and over 14,000 school districts that are as unique as snowflakes; 3) independent research shows that student performance does not noticeably or consistently increase at 65 percent or any other minimum percentage spent on instruction.
One of the basic objectives of the National PTA is to secure for all children the highest advantages in education. Every child must be provided with a well-rounded, high-quality education and that schools must place priority on student performance and achievement. To this end, adequate funding must be provided and schools must be held accountable for ensuring that all children succeed. The 65 Percent Solution does neither.
The 65 Percent Solution is a new idea in how to increase student achievement that is being promoted by the newly formed organization First Class Education. According to FCE’s website
“America’s children will enjoy a first class economy in their future only if we ensure every student an opportunity for a first class education in their immediate present.
“If we want a first class education, we must change our educational priorities to first, class education.
“ ‘In the Classroom’ education includes most anything that directly impacts the child … whether teaching a child to read a book, read Braille, read music or read a football defensive pass pattern.
“Classroom education is the only activity that can possibly increase test scores and dynamically impact our students.”[i]
FCE’s stated goal is for each school district in a state to spend at least 65 percent of its operating budget on classroom instruction as defined by the National Center for Educational Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Department of Education. According to FCE’s proposal
-
If a school district is currently spending less than 65 percent on classroom instruction, it would need to increase that amount by 2 percent or more per year until the 65 percent goal is reached.
-
If a school district felt special circumstances prevented it from reaching either the 2 percent annual increase or the 65 percent goal, it could ask the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (or the state's highest-ranking elected education official) for a renewable one-year waiver.
-
The State Superintendent would have the sole authority to grant-in-full, grant-in-part or reject the school district's one-year waiver request.
-
The State Legislatures will be specifically left the task to set penalties to encourage compliance to the measure.
What are “In the Classroom” Expenses?
The National Center for Educational Statistics provides the following definitions
In the Classroom Expenses
- Classroom teachers, personnel (salaries)
- General instruction supplies
- Instructional aides
- Activities — field trips, athletics, music, arts
- Special needs instruction
- Tuition paid to out-of-state districts and private institutions for special needs students
Outside the Classroom Expenses
- Administration (salaries and expenses)
- Plant operations & maintenance
- Food services
- Transportation
- Instructional staff support
- Student support — nurses, therapists, guidance counselors
Why 65 Percent is NOT the Solution
The 65 Percent solution is fatally flawed for several reasons.
First - No new money. The initiative claims that by requiring school districts to spend 65 percent of their budget on classroom instruction, billions of additional dollars would be available for teachers and students. This gives the appearance of increasing classroom spending but does not actually increase funding for public education. Rather, money would be shifted from the funding that pays for vital school services such as school nurses, counselors, librarians, and teacher training and curriculum to “in the classroom” purposes.
What is considered to be “in the classroom” expenses was defined by the National Center for Education Statistics in 1980. There have been significant changes in instruction costs in the past 25 years. Speech therapy is not included in instruction, yet it is an integral part of the strategy to teach reading to students with speech problems. Health care such as nursing services is not included although it is an instructional cost, not a medical cost, according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Cedar Rapids and Tatro cases.[ii] What’s more, school libraries and librarians are not included in the definition of instruction but uniforms for the football team are.
Second – One size does not fit all. There are 51 state education systems including the District of Columbia School and more than 14,000 school districts in the United States. School districts are as different as snow flakes – in their shape, their size, and their complexity. Districts can enroll over a million students, like in New York City, or fewer than 600 students, like one third of all school districts. District expenses differ based on climate, geography, and types of students. School districts can serve very rural areas that will have high transportation costs, or serve only disabled students and incur high facilities and health care costs. Schools in areas where heavy snowfall is common will have high operational costs, and schools that enroll a super-majority of Free and Reduced Lunch eligible students will have high food services costs.
Third – 65 is not a magic number. In November 2005, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) reported that student performance does not noticeably or consistently increase at 65 percent. In fact, S&P concluded that there is no significant correlation between spending any minimum percentage of a district's budget on instruction and state reading and math proficiency rates. Instead, S&P found that some of the highest-performing districts spend less than 65 percent, and some of the lowest- performing districts spend more than 65 percent.[iii]
Further evidence of the lack of connection between a minimum percentage of spending on instruction and student achievement can be found in the most recent scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Not one of the states listed in the top 10 average scores on NAEP tops 65 percent spent on instruction, and not one of the bottom 10 states tops 65 percent for instruction. Further, there is only a 1 percent difference in spending on instruction between the top 10 and the bottom 10 but both the average spending on instruction for both groups are below 62 percent.[iv]
Though S&P found no evidence to support a minimum instructional spending allocation, it notes “these findings do not suggest that “money doesn’t matter,” or that school districts should not dedicate as much of their resources as possible to the classroom.”[v] Instead, the report suggests that the specific ways that schools use their instructional dollars may have as much, if not more, to do with student achievement as the percentage of dollars spent on the classroom.
[i] Ibid.
[ii] Examples from the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) November 2005 “Leaders Edge.”
[iii] School Matters, a service of Standard & Poor’s. The Issues and Implications of the “65 Percent Solution.”
[iv] NAEP information and analysis from the AASA November 2005 “Leaders Edge.”
[v] Standard & Poor’s.
In order to ensure that schools and districts can provide a quality education to all children, meet the high accountability standards set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act, and prepare students for employment in the high-tech economy in which they will work, greater financial resources are needed. Most states are recovering slowly from severe budget crises, and schools are strapped for funds to carry out basic educational services. Yet demands are being placed on schools to improve student achievement, without sufficient resources to hire teachers, expand compensatory education programs, upgrade technology, repair facilities, or address any of the other challenges they face.
To accomplish the goal of providing every child with a well-rounded, high-quality education, adequate funding must be provided and schools must be held accountable for ensuring that all children succeed. The 65 Percent Solution does neither. The 65 Percent Solution is an input-driven initiative, without any measurable outcome, such as student achievement, student retention, or return on resources. What’s more, the 65 Percent Solution places arbitrary restrictions on states and districts that are already struggling to make ends meet with the limited resources they have.
Investing in America’s children is an investment in both the current and future economic well-being of our nation. We need real solutions for real problems. We need 100 percent and nothing less.
*****************
The above information has been made available by National PTA to provide guidance to state and local leaders based on National PTA’s existing positions and resolutions, as well as research on the merits of the issue. For additional information, questions, or concerns, please contact the Programs and Public Policy Office or (202) 289-6790.
