Blunt deals devil’s hand to Missouri’s public schools

66.6 percent is still a D by most educators’ standards.

In November, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt announced his 65 percent education proposal, a plan that public education advocates have nicknamed the “65 percent deception.” After receiving negative pressure regarding the measure, Blunt has changed his 65 percent mandate to a 2/3 or 66.6 percent goal, which added librarians and guidance counselors to the list of qualifying “classroom” expenses.

“This proposal was alarming to educators in its initial form as a mandate,” says MNEA President Greg Jung. “As a mandate, it would be devastating to public schools. Now it’s morphed into a political ploy to allow Gov. Blunt to tout that he’s done ‘something’ for public schools even though that something has no impact on improving public education. Furthermore, if the legislation passes, the issue will go to the people for a vote and give the illusion that we have done something to help children and education. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not only pushing bad policy, it’s deceiving voters. It’s dishonest and makes no sense.”

No new money
The plan does NOT put more money into Missouri public schools, and it will do nothing to improve achievement in Missouri’s schools. What it would do, however, is establish a goal that local school districts reallocate existing money—not new money—by cutting from direct services to students to reach a 66.6 percent spending benchmark on what it defines as “classroom expenses.”

Narrow view of classroom expenditures
The plan narrowly defines “classroom spending.” A key problem with the proposal is defining which expenditures in a school district are supportive of student instruction. Many expenditures that support instruction and are essential to operating any school are not included in the definition of “classroom expenses.”

A shift from local control
A 66.6 percent plan could strip local decision making from elected school boards, local educators and parents who know best what is needed to educate their children. Instead, it imposes a one-size-fits-all plan on every school district regardless of size or special needs. The plan brings no new money to the table; yet it tells districts how to use the money they have. In many cases, that money is from local taxpayers, not the state. With this plan, a school district that receives only five percent of funds from the state would be required to spend 100 percent of its revenue the same as a district that receives over 50 percent of its funds from state aid. This is not local control.

Loss of jobs
To achieve the goal, many schools would have to terminate thousands of school personnel who provide critical services to children. Essential school employees who work in areas left out of the definition of classroom expenditures—including school nurses, bus drivers, cooks, custodians, attendance clerks and others—would need to be cut for districts to achieve the 66.6 percent threshold for classroom expenditures. It is the work of these school employees that allows teachers to focus their time and energy on helping students achieve high standards.

No tie to student achievement
Blunt’s plan shows no correlation to student achievement. In 2005, the state legislature modeled its new school funding formula on 100 of the state’s top-performing school districts. More than 80 percent of those school districts currently do not meet the 66.6 percent spending benchmark proposed in the plan. Furthermore, of the 112 districts that currently reach the 66.6 percent threshold, some are only provisionally accredited by the state. The school district that is currently in top compliance—spending 76.23 percent of its funds the way First Class Education defines “classroom expenses”—is a district of 41 elementary students that scored only 36 out of 54 on its Annual Performance Report from the state, meeting only the minimum requirements for accreditation.

More information about 65 percent solution