No to a 65 percent solution for K-12

Plan doesn't belong in constitution

Published February 23, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

An initiative likely to make the ballot in November would require school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their operating expenditures on classroom instruction.

We're not certain whether a law like that would be good public policy. That's a discussion we'd be willing to have. But making it a constitutional mandate? That's a recipe for disaster.

Have people already forgotten Amendment 23? As a statute, it might have been defensible, but then state revenues dropped 15 percent in a year and Amendment 23 barred lawmakers from fairly distributing the budgetary sacrifice.

This plan is part of a national push for "the 65 cent proposal" urged by a group called First Class Education, whose definition of classroom instruction is based on one used by the National Center for Educational Statistics.

The writers of the initiative have tweaked the language a bit - they allow spending on libraries and librarians to count toward the 65 cents, while the center's definition explicitly excludes libraries. But suppose more tweaking becomes necessary after the measure is passed? Too late. It's in the constitution. Another statewide vote would be required.

"Multi-disciplinary learning," whatever that means, is explicitly mentioned, but online learning is not. Thousands of Colorado students are enrolled in online programs. Can districts take 65-cent credit for the cost of those programs? If a court says "no," what happens? Change the definition? It's in the constitution.

The initiative says that a district that spends less than 65 percent in the classroom in 2006-07 must increase the amount by 2 percent each year until it reaches the goal. Read literally, that means that the less a district is spending, the more slowly it is required to improve. Could that possibly be what the drafters meant, or should it have been "two percentage points"? Change it? It's in the constitution.

The 65-cent figure is somewhat arbitrary, and we'd say it was picked out of a hat except we doubt the process was that organized. Only a handful of states apparently spend more, with New York and Maine topping the list. But the states involved collectively don't offer much evidence that 65 is the optimal number. The current national average is 61.5 percent.

But lack of evidence is no deterrent. In answer to one "frequently asked question," First Class Education says, "This we know, no amount of money spent outside the class has any opportunity to help improve classroom achievement. It intuitively makes sense that results will improve by placing more resources where the learning process takes place - in the classroom."

This we know: That's nonsense. Money spent outside the classroom can boost achievement. Feeding poor children breakfast, so they're not struggling to learn when all they can think of is how hungry they are. Giving them eye exams so they can get glasses and see the chalkboard. Offering free transportation to higher-performing schools in a different part of town.

We're not arguing for more bureaucracy and against pushing a larger share of resources into the classroom. We do insist, however, that the amendment is a blunt instrument unsuited for the effort.

Alas, the proposal appeals to lots of people who ought to know better, including Gov. Bill Owens, who made a big show Monday of signing the initiative petition. How soon they forget.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News