Sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to fix the education system. Would work great if they could do they same in Washington too, but that would be asking for the impossible. link While America's taxpayers are spending more money for K-12 public education - a lot more money - the percentage reaching our classrooms, teachers and students has fallen for the past four years. Only 61.3% on average now reaches classrooms. In 20 states, less than 60% reaches classrooms. ADVERTISEMENT Related: Our view For too long the question has been, "How much money for education?" I want it to be reversed: "How much education for our money?" If we could make classes, teachers and students the first priority by setting a goal of 65% reaching the classroom, we could place $14 billion more into classrooms without a tax increase - enough for a computer for every student or 300,000 additional teachers, or doubling classroom supplies. With the future of our children at stake, the tales of waste in education spending are more than frustrating. In Florida alone, the Miami-Dade district has 240 administrators making $100,000-plus a year (not one a teacher). Broward district has more than 100 cars. Lee district's administrators spent $563,000 on out-of-town travel in the past 10 months. The Collier district's superintendent demanded a mid-contract renegotiation of his compensation to more than $400,000 a year, while classroom budgets were being cut and taxes raised. Yet not one of these districts places 65% in its classrooms. The five states with the highest standardized test scores place the highest average in the classroom (64.12%). The five states with the lowest test scores place the lowest percentage in the classroom (59.46%). Perhaps that's why governors from Bill Richardson, D-N.M., to Sonny Perdue, R-Ga., favor placing 65% into their classrooms. Better yet, ask teachers you know these three questions: Do you spend money out of your pocket for basic classroom supplies? Can you cite areas of waste outside the classroom? Would you, your classroom and your students be better off cutting the waste and placing the money into the classroom? Making classrooms, teachers and students the first priority is no fad. Seeking value for taxpayers' money is no distraction. Ensuring that 65% of education funding reaches our classrooms is just common sense.
Here is the counter pointer, but I would think there are a lot of waste in the education system which could be reduced. link Resist '65% solution' fad Updated 4/30/2006 9:11 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this When you think of fads you think of diets. The cabbage soup diet was a classic. The Subway diet, the Special K diet, the grapefruit diet. For the most part, they are harmless, and they're occasionally helpful. Related: Opposing view Education fads are far less likely to be nourishing. In the late 1980s, the "whole language" reading instruction fad, which spurned teaching phonics, sent California students plummeting to the bottom of national reading rankings. Other education fads have included stuffing school material into video games for kids to take home, creating grade 6-8 "middle schools" to isolate sensitive adolescents and now, creating K-8 schools so those students won't be so isolated. The latest in education fads is the "65% solution," pushed by an online entrepreneur and rapidly gaining political traction. The idea is alluringly simple: Require schools to spend 65% of their education dollars for instructional purposes, presumably cutting administrative waste. Politically, who can resist? Not Texas, where the governor recently imposed the rule statewide. It's being widely discussed in other states. Opponents are easily demonized as champions of bureaucracy. But like most simple ideas for solving complicated problems, the 65% solution doesn't look as appealing under scrutiny. It ignores fundamental issues: Common-sense rules. On average, schools spend about 61% of their budgets on "instructional" activities. But only about 8% of the remainder goes to the education bureaucrats in the central offices. The balance goes for librarians, bus transportation, school lunches, special education services, etc. If schools do nothing but squabble over what's in or out of the 65% bubble, it becomes a useless distraction. Rural districts with expensive bus routes could find themselves drained of students. Proof of effectiveness Proponents say national test scores prove their case, but that's dubious. A Standard & Poor's evaluation shows that districts spending less than 65% on "instructional" activities are just as likely to turn in good or bad scores as those spending above that level. Money does make a difference in education, the S&P analysis concludes. But the key is what you spend the money for, not what category it falls in. Flexibility Teacher professional development falls outside the 65%. That's a problem. Few teachers' colleges, for example, pass along effective reading instruction methods, leaving that task to local districts. But if districts can't pay for reading instruction, Johnny won't turn into a proficient reader. The 65% solution looks apple pie-good. But in fact, schools are likely to find it about as tasty as the cabbage soup diet.
Anyone seen the football stadium/basketball arena that CFISD is building? Actually I think it is supposed to be called "academic support center" because it has a few "academic" things in it.. but yeah there is a way to spend a TON of money
some of the things in it were probably needed, but with projects like that I can see why it would be hard for all money to end up in classroom.. Personally, I think as much as possible needs to end up in classroom.
I think 35% would be enough to pay for professional development. If they tinker with the numbers a little and make it 60% go into the classroom, that is still a big boost. I am a teacher, and what the schools, don't have, and teachers have to spend out of their own pockets is saddening. But it won't make all the difference. It will still come down to students, their families, and teachers along with the money.
If the government cold mandate that parents have to spend an hour a night working with their children on their schoolwork, I bet it would have a much bigger effect than futzing with where 4% of the education budget is spent. God forbid we ask parents to raise their children though.
It has been proven by numerous adminstrative bodies that every institution must have at least 7-layers of management for each and every layer of working people in order to function on par with other institutions. Because, without all those layers, what would we do with the innumerable hordes of excess businesspeople who would end up roaming the streets, or, worse, end up as Subway sandwich artists? The 65% rule does not make sense, because in order to keep our scarce supply of business majors happy (true, they probably outnumber everyone else - but they make the charts, so trust them, they're necessary), they must be paid far more than regular people like teachers/nurses/etc., who only do the actual work and never type up memos or order office supplies or organize company picnics or other important stuff like that.
[channeling basso] They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else Spend all their time feeling sorry for themselves Victim of this, victim of that Your momma's too thin and your daddy's too fat Get over it! [/channeling]
That is probably true, but mandating parents work for an hour with their kids at night, AND spending 65% in the classroom, would do more good still. Although it is more than 4%. Even in the best cases it is about a 9% increase. You have parents of some of these kids in the poorest districts that work 2 or 3 jobs, and the only time they could spend with their child doing homework would be at 3 in the morning. I don't think in those cases it would help the children. In addition we can't mandate what parents do with their time, so the fact that spending more money in the classroom, does work, I have no problem spending more money in the classroom. As a teacher in a 100% Title I school, I know my classroom could use it.
You are correct. I was looking at the statistic for how much better the students did, rather than the one I should have been looking at regarding the actual spending. I apologize.
