Stand Up for Public Education™ Toolkit January 2007
“65 Percent Rule” Talking Points
You may use these talking points to pitch story ideas to local reporters or to respond to queries from local media outlets. You may supplement the information provided here with data from your own school district. AASA grants permission to AASA members to use and reproduce this material, in whole or in part and by any means, without charge or further permission.
Gimmicks don’t improve achievement. Leadership improves achievement. The 65 Percent Rule, which would require school districts to spend 65 percent of their operating budgets on “instruction expenses,” is nothing more than a sound bite that does nothing to improve outcomes for students. A Standard & Poor’s study found no correlation between the percentage of funds spent on instruction and student proficiency—either at the 65 percent level or at any other level.
What improves achievement? Leadership. Increasingly, research indicates that district leadership is needed to support improvement at all levels.
In fact, the National Center on Education Statistics updated its reports on spending this year to include “instruction related expenses,” and the number of states spending 65 percent or more on instruction went from two to 30—showing just what an arbitrary gimmick this spending requirement really is.
School leaders know that how they spend money matters. But they also know that research shows there’s no one prescription for spending that works. The 65 percent proposal imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate on school districts. This mandate treats all schools and school districts the same—rural, urban, suburban, wealthy and poor. It forces all schools, even successful schools, to make cuts that will hurt children.
For example, a school district that is spread over a wide geographic area will spend a larger proportion of its budget on student transportation; a district with many students with disabilities may spend more of its budget on counseling and psychological services and speech therapy; and a district where student safety is a concern may hire new security staff, all of which affect the proportion of the budget spent on instruction.
Spending mandates don’t work. The bulk of a district’s budget is spent on personnel, so the non-personnel budget is very small and difficult to change. Price spikes such as the cost of heating and cooling schools, the cost of fuel for buses, or a one-time cost like a new roof can have a huge impact on a district’s budget as well.
All district staff contribute to the improvement of student achievement. This mandate hurts children by forcing school districts to lay off librarians, counselors, nurses, bus drivers, food service workers, custodians and others. Children suffer when caring adults who work in our schools lose their jobs.
Because of federal mandates, the administrative workload in schools and districts is increasing dramatically. In order to improve student achievement, district staff must spend more time than ever analyzing data and implementing policies that improve instruction.
When administrative budgets are cut, school principals are often forced to take on additional administrative duties or are even forced to work in more than one school. This keeps them from being the instructional leaders they need to be.
These mandates threaten the ability of public schools to provide services for our most vulnerable children. The limiting definition of instruction used by the NCES fails to include educational services aimed at students with disabilities and students who are learning to speak English, such as speech therapy, therapies and devices for hearing, and health care and nursing services.
The 65 Percent Rule is politically, not educationally, motivated. The people behind this mandate have a long history of trying to undermine public education. For years this same group has been trying to give public funds from public schools to exclusive, private schools. Now these people seek to give elected officials a way to look supportive of education without spending any new money. Their goals are not limited to improving outcomes for students; they’re about driving wedges between educators, increasing support for vouchers and questioning all public spending.
American Association of School Administrators ● Stand Up for Public Education™ Toolkit ● Jan. 3, 2007 ● www.aasa.org