Governor Matt Blunt recently went on a two-day, nine-city PR campaign touting a public school education initiative cooked up by an organization from Washington, D.C. The governor’s proposal aims to mandate that 65 cents of every educational dollar be spent on “classroom instruction” – the “65 percent solution.” The proposal uses the National Center for Educational Statistics’ definition regarding classroom instruction, which does NOT include teacher training, food service, transportation, librarians, school operation and maintenance, and health services – all of which are vital to providing a quality education.
This proposal is a slick political move designed to drive a wedge between various public education professionals. It’s being promoted by a governor who received 2004 campaign support from a pro-school voucher political action committee (All Children Matter) worth nearly $200,000 in advertising expenses.
The EYE questions the motivation behind a public school scheme sponsored by a man who is so strongly supported by an organization that overwhelmingly promotes private school education.
In a written statement, Blunt said, “Missouri taxpayers and parents expect their money to be spent on students, not bureaucracy.” Bureaucracy? We are talking about school librarians, bus drivers, school health workers and teacher trainers. We are talking about modestly paid individuals crucial to a functional public school education.
Blunt also is stumping to funnel state money into private education. He has not said whether or not the same spending requirements are to apply to private schools.
Examining the roots of the 65 percent proposal reveals that the plan was conceived out of dubious intentions.
The “65 percent solution” was the creation of a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, First Class Education. The face of First Class’ 65 percent solution is a man named Patrick Byrne, chief executive officer of Overstock.com. In an April 10, 2005, Washington Post column, conservative columnist George Will relates a story in which Byrne attacks the National Education Association, the largest public education employees’ union in the country. Will writes that Byrne “relishes the prospect of the 65 percent requirement pitting teachers against other union members who are in the education bureaucracy.”
Blunt’s statement demonstrates similar disdain for “education bureaucracy.” If the 65 percent proposal was adopted, however, it would not affect “bureaucrats,” it would sap funds from librarians, teacher trainers and school nurses, just to name a few.
It is also important to note that Byrne contributed $50,000 in 2004 to All Children Matter, the same group that supported Blunt’s 2004 election campaign.
The 65 percent plan does not make practical sense, as it offers a single solution for the many varied districts in Missouri. The number of students educated in a Missouri school district varies in size from 30 to 42,000. Local districts should have some leeway in allocating funds – one solution cannot possibly fit all sizes.
The 65 percent solution makes no mention of adopting strategies that directly address the challenge of improving the overall quality of public school education. After-school programs are not discussed; there is no talk of improving teacher qualification regulations; improving teacher training programs receives no lip service (in fact, such programs would likely lose funding under the mandate).
The 65 percent proposal is simply a plan that will cause public education professionals to compete for funds. It offers no solutions and provides no incentives to improve the quality of public school education. It will not help our local school districts nor will it improve the education of public school children. Blunt is selling it hard, but don’t buy it.
