Education "65% Solution" Spending Plan is 100 Percent Phony
Chuck Sheketoff
An initiative has been filed for the November 2008 election that would require school districts to spend 65% of their funds on "classroom instruction expenditures." Some candidates for the Oregon Legislature have embraced the plan and are using the proposal in their campaign literature (PDF).
The Oregon Center for Public Policy studied the plan and concluded it is 100 Percent Phony: The “65 percent solution” is a political gimmick that will do nothing to improve student performance in Oregon.
Read OCPP's news release and the report's executive summary, both of which have links to the full report, 100 Percent Phony: The “65 percent solution” is a political gimmick that will do nothing to improve student performance in Oregon (PDF).
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 31, '06
The Oregon Center for Public Policy knows another plan is 100 Percent Phony: Ted Kulongoski's “61 percent solution” is a political gimmick that will do nothing to improve student performance in Oregon.
But since it's a Democrat being 100% phony it's the right thing to do.
Oct 31, '06
This is the ultimate in campaign ploys. Everyone would love to get something for nothing. That is why this arguement is appealing.
It is funny that these candidates use the arguement that just throwing money at the problem without significant reforms is not the answer.
Their answer: Throw more money in the classroom and that will fix the problem. They don't realize that the reason Democrats have been fighting for money in classroom is to lower class size so that teachers can give the individual attention to each student so they can set a better foundation for learning at a young age.
The fact is that in order to dedicate more money to classrooms and make that a priority, and without raising taxes, we would need to de-prioritize other programs.
And guess what is missing from their plan? You will find no suggestions of what programs would be cut, or how they calculated the 240 million figure.
It seems like a pretty exact figure, as if it were calculated from waste that they had identified, but rather than speak in specific or even generalities...They rather elude to the popular idea that the waste is lurking in administration and other extraneous activies like busing.
And That isn't even the tip of the iceberg.
Oct 31, '06
I still think that cutting the salaries of superintendents (sp) and administrators will do a better job than this garbage.
3:56 p.m.
Oct 31, '06
This thing surfaced out here in the Senate race during the primary. I got literature from Carol York calling it "her 65% solution, and heard her push it in person.
Went to Tim Mooney's (Arizona branch of Norquist's Hairclub for Growth) website and he has a pdf up on the site that adimts that there is no empirical evidence that this plan is useful regarding education. In the next paragraph he explains that it is designed to push vouchers and charter schools.
<hr/>Then, I start seeing the 65% thing popping up in lit put out by Dalto and other repubs.
The really sad part of all of this is that atleast some of these candidates actually think that this is legit. It's really depressing to realize that we do in fact have a legislature comprised of "average citizens", who apparently don't know enough to go to Google and type in:
65%, school
Where's Menken now that we need him.......
Oct 31, '06
What Republicans really want is for public schools to go away, but they can't campaign on that. So they contrive goofy plans and complain about waste, fraud, and abuse that doesn't exist.
Every organization, like every individual is less than 100% efficient. My experiance has been that public schools put their scarce dollars to good use.
Oct 31, '06
I'm pretty sure the plan isn't predicated on finding waste in schools. The basis is the fact that schools who put at least 65% of their budgets into the classroom have better-performing, more prepared-for-the-real-world students.
I'm not sure where the extra money is going to come from. I'm sure efficiencies will have to be found and priorities re-prioritized. We can quibble over the amount and how to do it, but I think more money needs to go to the classroom, and this is one concrete idea on how to get it there.
red.
Nov 1, '06
"I'm not sure where the extra money is going to come from. I'm sure efficiencies will have to be found and priorities re-prioritized."
I must say, that's one hell of a "concrete idea on how to get it there"! Keep 'em coming Ronnie!
Nov 1, '06
I have many problems with our school system and administration of such; but Tom is right on the money when he says..."What Republicans really want is for public schools to go away, but they can't campaign on that. So they contrive goofy plans"... I don't know enough about this new 65% measure to speak for or against, but I will look into it very closely before voting. It's bewildering how the fanaticism comes out about schools on both sides.
10:44 a.m.
Nov 1, '06
It's bewildering how the fanaticism comes out about schools on both sides.
In my opinion there are several things that drive the right wing fanatacism about public schools.
Separation of church and state. Conservative evangelical Christians, a big piece of their base, are against it. Adamantly against it. Think prayer in schools, Christmas programs, evolution--even science itself. They believe their particular religion should be the foundation of all education and hate the way religion has been removed from the classroom.
Teachers Unions. They are powerful political forces that often oppose the conservative agenda.
There are other practical and philosophical reasons why many conservatives oppose public education but I think those two drive most of the fanatacism.
As for left-wing fanatacism, we lefties believe that high quality, freely available public education is the most important building block of the American dream. Without it we don't have any chance of giving everyone a fair shot at success. We also think it drives our economic success as a country. Given that it shouldn't be surprising that we react strongly when the right sets out to destroy it.
As for the 65% thing, it turns out that buses for getting the kids to school, chairs for them to sit on and repairs for broken windows or leaky roofs don't count as "classroom expenditures" but football does.
Nov 2, '06
Red asks, where will the money come from? Take a look at a school district's budget (Portland Public School's is downloadable). Out of the general fund, a bit over 60 percent goes directly to the classroom. Another 19 percent goes to "classroom support", which includes principals, school secretaries, librarians, counselors, therapists, and curriculum development. Another 16 percent goes to "building support"--maintenance, cleaning, school buses, information systems. A bit under five percent goes to central administration. Shifting more money to classrooms sounds good, until you consider where it would have to come from. Where would you cut--librarians? Speech therapists? Building maintenance? Computers? And if you think cutting administration is the solution, would you want less fiscal accountability, less efficient purchasing, less communication, fewer bodies evaluating principals, and no one leading the charge to improve education?
<h2>There are nickel and dime efficiencies to be found in any organization, public or private. But there's very little waste in school budgets these days.</h2>