So it’s no surprise that the latest silver-bullet-type “reform” for public education being promoted by Will and a national organization that calls itself First Class Education—an idea that Will dubbed the “65 percent solution”—is really a diversion that could end up squeezing vital services from schools and shortchanging the students who need those services the most. On its surface, the 65 percent idea is appealing. It asks states to require all of their school districts to direct at least 65 cents of every dollar they spend on education to classroom instruction. The result, supporters say, would be millions more dollars to hire teachers, raise salaries and buy computers and other equipment. Theoretically, this money would come from cutting spending on administration and eliminating waste.

Currently, schools nationally spend about 61.5 percent of their budgets in the classroom, as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and built into the First Class Education proposals. Only four states already meet the 65 percent threshold. It’s important to note how NCES defines classroom instruction. Some expenses are obvious—teacher and instructional assistant salaries, instructional supplies, and activities such as music and arts. Others are more debatable, such as athletics. On the other side, some of the “outside the classroom” expenses are the very things that help children succeed in the classroom: professional development for teachers and other staff, library and media services, guidance counselors, nurses, social workers, food service and transportation. What’s more, there’s growing evidence that many of these vital services do, in fact, directly benefit students. (See the box on page 5.)

So far, 65 percent solution proposals have been adopted in only four states, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana and Texas. But First Class Education and its supporters are gearing up to push the proposals through many more state legislatures or to place initiatives on the ballot in a number of states this fall. The group’s own communications boast that the idea has a powerful appeal because of its simple, one-size-fits-all nature. But an internal memo shows some of the true political aims of the group, which are far more troubling. Ultimately, these proposals are not about getting more money to underfunded classrooms but rather are about attacking education unions, promoting vouchers and squeezing government spending on essential public services. (See the box below right for more about the people behind First Class Education.)

The AFT executive council was alarmed enough about the rapid rise of the 65 percent solution movement that it passed a resolution at its meeting in February opposing the idea. AFT vice president Lorretta Johnson, who heads the union’s PSRP division, describes the dangers this way: “This misguided scheme to shift education dollars around is a direct attack on the important support services provided to students—inside and outside of the classroom—by our members. It will put all children at risk by cutting into the services, like transportation, nutrition, security, libraries and health programs, that enhance student achievement.”

The resolution says the AFT will continue to oppose arbitrary approaches, such as the 65 percent solution, “that are focused on the imposition of rules rather than on understanding what our schools and children need and on providing them with necessary resources.” (The AFL-CIO executive council passed a similar resolution at its February meeting.)

It’s ironic that in the age of No Child Left Behind—where a central theme is that schools should have flexibility in spending in return for meeting student performance standards and other accountability measures—this idea would impose strict rules on how schools can spend their money. The nation’s 16,000 separate school districts have vastly different populations and needs that determine out-of-classroom expenses. Large, sparsely populated districts, for example, often have higher transportation costs; small districts have higher administrative costs because they don’t benefit from economies of scale like larger districts; urban districts that serve more low-income students have to provide more supplemental services, such as health, nutrition and family outreach; and districts with older facilities often have higher maintenance costs. In other words, one standard on classroom spending makes little sense.

Perhaps the most compelling argument against the 65 percent solution is that there in no evidence that setting classroom spending at that level leads to higher achievement. School Matters, the nonpartisan school analysis unit of Standard & Poor’s, recently conducted an analysis of district spending and student achievement in 34 states. The report concluded that “mandating a specific spending allocation is not likely to provide a ‘silver bullet’ solution to raising student achievement.” In fact, the researchers found that many districts that spend less than 65 percent in the classroom do quite well on state tests, while others that exceed 65 percent do poorly. “The percentage allocated to instruction may need to vary from one district to another for legitimate reasons,” the report says.

One other argument of First Class Education is that their proposal will somehow eliminate waste and fraud in school spending. As with student achievement, there’s no reason to believe that setting arbitrary spending levels will make school budgets more efficient. If waste is a problem, the most effective way to reduce it is through means such as stricter oversight of education budgets, greater transparency in school spending and a commitment to accountability for results—all approaches that the AFT and its affiliates have supported.

While countering the appeal of the 65 percent solution will be a challenge, especially on state ballot initiatives, many organizations are joining the AFT in opposing it. In addition to obvious allies such as the National Education Association and the AFL-CIO, other groups that have expressed concerns include the American Library Association, the National PTA, the American Association of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association. The AFT will be reaching out to many more potential allies in coming months.