Parents: Beware of the ‘65% Solution’

by Tula Connell, Mar 28, 2006

Today in Florida, the state’s Senate Education Committee is voting on a joint resolution
that essentially would repeal the state’s amendment limiting class size and replace it with the so-called 65% Solution. By mandating that 65 percent of a school district’s education is spent on “classroom” expenditures, the amendment would lead to mass layoffs for school support service personnel such as school nurses, bus drivers, librarians, food service workers and security officers while eliminating $15 billion in constitutionally guaranteed revenues, according to the Florida AFL-CIO.

Florida isn’t the only state where extremists are shopping what the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department (TTD) calls a “public-school smear campaign.” The poll-tested proposal sounds like a sure bet—Georgia has passed it, with many other states proposing similar bills.

But as the Progressive Legislative Action Network notes:

The problem is that their definition of spending “inside the classroom” excludes teacher training, speech therapy for students, curriculum development and school libraries, while athletics and field trips count as “in the classroom.”

In a statement adopted last week at its biannual meeting, TTD members said the campaign

…paints a picture of waste and corruption in public schools and offers an unworkable, one-size-fits-all solution that claims to require no additional resources and no adaptation to local needs.

The state-by-state attack on classrooms is headed by the Washington, D.C.-based First Class Education, a group of anti-public education activists who claim their plan will reduce school waste while improving student achievement. The group also claims the measure will increase money for schools without requiring an increase in overall spending or taxes. 

Neither claim is accurate. AFT President Edward McElroy and National Education Association President (NEA) Reg Weaver, whose unions represent the vast majority of the nation’s public school teachers, both agree the plan is full of falsehoods:

Despite its seductive claims, [it] is no solution at all. Rather, it is 100 percent deception, a simplistic and arbitrary gimmick that would actually harm schools and students.

Further:

There is zero evidence linking classroom spending at 65 percent to higher student achievement. School Evaluation Services, the nonpartisan school analysis unit of Standard and Poor’s, recently conducted an extensive analysis of district spending and student achievement in nine states. The report finds that…many districts that spend less than 65 percent in the classroom do quite well on state tests, while others that exceed 65 percent do poorly.

But helping kids isn’t the goal of the plan’s pushers. AFT reports:

An internal memo obtained by the Austin American-Statesman newspaper shows the purpose of this project is not to help kids. Instead the 65 percent rule is intended to create divisions within education unions; divert resources from the goals of the “education establishment”; and send a message to soccer moms that the Republican Party supports a more efficient public education, making Republicans seem more trustworthy when they support vouchers and charters.

According to the NEA, the National Parent Teacher Association, a steadfast champion for increasing resources for classroom instruction, flatly opposes the plan.

The PTA says the scheme 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.”

Members of the AFL-CIO Executive Council oppose the fraudulent plan, calling it  

another untested proposal that does nothing to guarantee greater student achievement or that school districts will adjust their spending in a manner that creates greater efficiency—a stated goal of this initiative.

Like so many cleverly worded proposals from the extremist right, the 65% Solution doesn’t make the grade.
 

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (0)