I am an avid reader of Joe Smith’s writing on texasisd.com. He has had some terrific legislative insight during the past year. I have corresponded with him on several items most recently concerning the 65% Rule.
Mr. Smith has put together an incredible resource library on the 65% Rule, and I am flattered that he has included my posts on this topic among the materials. To access the resource library, click here. He has additional valuable comments today here.
Good Morning - October 18 - Updates and Comments"“The 65% Solution” by Joe Smith
By Joe Smith
Oct 18, 2005, 08:45
“The 65% Solution”
A solution to a bad assumption is a waste of time. The real issue in “the 65% solution” is not about how to improve educational opportunity for Texas Students, but how to increase classroom spending in Texas by $1.296 billion a year without a tax increase. This is a proposed 4.6% increase to classroom spending based on the proposed definitions. Sounds like an easy sell to taxpayers. You could accomplish the same thing by cutting transportation, food service, air conditioning, custodial staff (teachers clean rooms) and numerous other items that may not directly impact instruction.
Think long and hard before you say this is not such a bad idea. It may not be so bad today if you are already at 65% instructional spending, which many of the urban schools are, but it will get worse in the future.
Education policy in Texas lately is similar to riding a roller coaster as we change directions without warning or reason. The 65% solution is another one of those thrilling experiences for educators that promise nothing other than the thrill of changing directions while going full speed. In 1995, the education code was re-written based on the foundation principle of “local control.” Today’s issue removes local control. Student performance was the guiding principle for justifying all decisions local boards made. Today we are considering substituting a baseless number as guide for local schools in decision making. School districts find themselves already reeling financially from legislative mandates requiring spending in areas not recognized by the NCES definition of classroom instruction. Yes, mandates in the 35% area will be the worst kind as they will require $2 spending in the instructional area every time there is a $1 mandate in the 35% classification. According to First Class Education, one of the groups that created this movement, Texas school district spending is an average of 60.4% and this is the basis for the 4.6% increase in instruction to bring it up to 65%. Don’t forget on the flip side this will require a 4.6% decrease in the defined non-instructional area or the raising of a tremendous amount of new money.
If you read all the propaganda from all the websites and foundations supported by wealthy philanthropist promoting vouchers and privatization of Texas public schools, you will be able to identify the real agendas and players. These agendas include pitting administrators and teachers at odds with one another since money will not flow to the school districts as a whole, but from one section of the district to another. It will also create a platform to criticize public schools, therefore, making vouchers and the concept of public money going to private schools more acceptable.
As you can tell, I see no educational merit in this movement but, in a sick way sort of way, I admire the work, the re-packaging and selling of a concept to accomplish something the Legislature could not, cutting the funding of Texas Public Schools.
In our articles today is one from the Austin American Statesman that is critical of Commissioner Neely’s staff for recommending that the task force (due to meet tomorrow) read the First Class Education website for more information. This is something I have been recommending for months. I have an article dedicated to making available many of the sites funded by these closely related political groups. Its good stuff and any educator worth their salt will see red flags everywhere when they read this information. The more research you do, the clearer it becomes that this is just another diversion to keep from addressing the real issues facing Texas. Begin your research by a close examination of the links we have in the 65% Library.
I will share a chuckle related to this issue, I thought it was so true and simple and even funny in light of the “roller coaster” direction that the Texas education agenda has taken the past few years. I asked a friend and colleague what he thought about “the 65% solution”. He immediately said, we could do better if we had more administrators. After talking for a while it makes just as much sense as the 65% proposal. Why do most beginning teachers leave teaching? It is not money. It's dissatisfaction with administrative support. According to an NCES survey this is the number one reason. Since principals and other instructional leaders are not included in instruction under the proposed 65% rule, this situation will get worse if we adopt any part of this concept. There will be less instructional supervision, less training, less support staff, and hence more teachers will leave the profession if this concept is adopted. I believe the campus principal is the most important instructional position in a school district and this position is not included in the instructional cost. – js – [email protected]
Comments