65% Solution--Dead in Washington State
Heard of the 65% solution yet? It's a plan masterminded by the president of Overstock.com that would require schools to spend 65% of their budgets on classroom spending. This sounds swell, but there's two really big problems:
1) There's no correlation between classroom spending and high student achievement. You can spend less than 65% and be stellar; you can spend more than 65% and be quite poor. Standard and Poor's did the definitive study on the issue; it's good reading.
2) The areas that don't qualify as classroom spending are irresponsible. Schools need counselor and nurses, but they would be part of the 35%. Schools need principals, but they too are not classroom spending. We need electricity and gasoline, but they also would count against the 65% cap.
Governor Rick Perry signed the 65% solution into law in Texas, so it will be interesting to see what happens down there. Here in Washington the plan was to take it to a ballot initiative, but per this article in the Seattle Times it looks like that's not going to happen. One interesting thing to look at is the funding discrepency; it really shows you the power of the WEA. From the article:
According to reports filed with the (Public Disclosure) commission, the group received $9,100 in contributions in January — $5,000 of which came from Janssen. The group did not file a report by March 10, the deadline to report any contributions over $200 for February. Under PDC rules, the group did not have to file a report if it didn't receive contributions over $200 during that time period.
The Washington Education Association had helped launch a counter-campaign against the initiative. The WEA was the main contributor toward a ballot committee group called "No Gimmicks for Kids" and authorized $50,000 for polling and attorney fees to fight I-924.
It's reminiscent of the California Teacher's Association fighting Arnold's ballot measures, if not nearly on the same scale.
1) There's no correlation between classroom spending and high student achievement. You can spend less than 65% and be stellar; you can spend more than 65% and be quite poor. Standard and Poor's did the definitive study on the issue; it's good reading.
2) The areas that don't qualify as classroom spending are irresponsible. Schools need counselor and nurses, but they would be part of the 35%. Schools need principals, but they too are not classroom spending. We need electricity and gasoline, but they also would count against the 65% cap.
Governor Rick Perry signed the 65% solution into law in Texas, so it will be interesting to see what happens down there. Here in Washington the plan was to take it to a ballot initiative, but per this article in the Seattle Times it looks like that's not going to happen. One interesting thing to look at is the funding discrepency; it really shows you the power of the WEA. From the article:
According to reports filed with the (Public Disclosure) commission, the group received $9,100 in contributions in January — $5,000 of which came from Janssen. The group did not file a report by March 10, the deadline to report any contributions over $200 for February. Under PDC rules, the group did not have to file a report if it didn't receive contributions over $200 during that time period.
The Washington Education Association had helped launch a counter-campaign against the initiative. The WEA was the main contributor toward a ballot committee group called "No Gimmicks for Kids" and authorized $50,000 for polling and attorney fees to fight I-924.
It's reminiscent of the California Teacher's Association fighting Arnold's ballot measures, if not nearly on the same scale.
posted by Ryan at 5:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home