Miracle Cure or Snake Oil?...Or How the 65% and 100% Solutions Lack Potency for Rural Schools
Beware! There are some new and very serious pathological syndromes going around our country. This outbreak is being spread by illogical belief systems, catchy terminology, and unidentified political agendas. And unfortunately these disorders are quite contagious.
I'm referring the latest new "cures" being proposed to solve our (perceived) national problems of low achievement and funding inequities, namely The 65% Solution and The 100% Solution.
In case you missed the headlines, the 65% Solution is supposed to cure low academic achievement by mandating that at least 65% of educational expenditures go directly into the classroom. By contrast, the 100% Solution proposes to attack funding inequities by attaching money to each child based on the achievement challenges that child brings with him or her – poverty, special needs, poor English speaking -- and letting this funding follow the child to any school of choice.
Both treatments are characterized by faulty diagnostic categories, anemic data, ineffective cures and irrational theories of causality. Sounds ominous? You bet.
Here are a few of the menacing warning signs:
Diagnostic Flatulence:
This particular delusion is the foundation of the 65% Solution. It is based on the false premise that putting 65% or more of educational budgets into classroom expenditure will increase academic performance. Designed to eliminate "waste," this solution proposes that other expenses must be eliminated or reduced if they total over 35% of the school budget. The leftover 35% includes "non-essential" items such as administration, student services (e.g. counselors, librarians, nurses), food services, transportation and professional development. That's right. This solution proposes to increase academic performance while cutting down on guidance, school nurses and transportation. Don't worry about Johnny's nosebleed, just keep his No. 2 pencil sharpened for the standardized test.
This is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it should come as no surprise that there is not a scintilla of research to support the magic 65% classroom spending quota. Most public schools, including the best, don't currently meet this threshold and data on student achievement does not support the theory behind the proposal. Sixty-five is not a miraculous number. This “solution” is about the shock and awe its proponents hope to engender among the public when people discover that, horror upon horror, most schools don’t already meet the standard. It’s about as helpful as plastering leeches on a feverish patient to suck out impure blood.
Percentile Dysfunction:
This is an affliction that is common with funding formula solutions. It consists of a lethal combination of Numerator Obsession and Denominator Phobia.
Both proposals seek to obsessively manipulate the "numerator" of education funding. The 65% Solution obliges every school to spend at least 65 out of every 100 educational dollars in the classroom. The 100% Solution proponents covet all education dollars, 100 out of every $100, and assign this amount as per-pupil costs that migrate with the child, even if those costs support buildings that serve other children.
Both procedures, however, ignore the denominator---or how much money do we actually have to spend on children's education. It is as if these folk are afraid to tackle the big question: How much will it take to provide all kids an excellent education? Certainly a classic and serious case of "bottom line" phobia.
Displacement Syndrome:
Lastly, both treatments suffer from an irrational and noxious denial of the importance of “place.” The 100% Solution is premised on the assumption that all costs are inherent in the child. Just implant this funding amount into a student's buttocks and allow him/her to choose where to sit. (Ouch!) This simplistic notion ignores that some per-pupil costs vary substantially in different settings. Schools located in cold places cost more to heat than schools in warmer locales. Try teaching Algebra in International Falls, Minnesota on January 15th with the thermostat set at 60 degrees. A chilling prospect.
And both Solutions assume that what works in urban/suburban areas will work in rural locales. For example, proponents of the 65% Solution imply that over-paid district superintendents are prime sources of the high costs of education. Tell that to rural superintendents who earn a whopping $70,000, drive the school bus, teach a few classes, organize the food services and plow the parking lot.
The 65% and 100% Solutions have a simple, if austere and even unpleasant ring. We don’t like it, but it’s good medicine. But like blood sucking leeches, they don’t work.
They are impotent snake oil, not miracle cures. Prolonged exposure to these false cures will result in a spread of anti-public school sentiment, a lack of will for adequately funding public schools and decreased energy for pursuing meaningful and effective education reform. For rural students, these solutions are especially toxic since they are a back-door route to forcing consolidation of small schools by financial starvation. The anorexic approach to education reform?
Given how infectious this outbreak appears to be, we are alarmed. We need effective remedies for real educational problems, not worthless placebos, false promises and dangerous myths.