Question: What do you get when a pack of policy wannabes and special interests – who have absolutely no background in education – decide they can fix public education?
Answer: A concept that backers – led primarily by Washington, D.C.-based First Class Education – dub the “65 percent Solution.”
In reality, their concoction can be more appropriately described as the “65 percent Myth.”
It’s a myth because 65 percent is a completely arbitrary and random number, most likely chosen because it sounds good in a poll or looks better on a TV ad than 63.7 percent or 86.2 percent.
It’s a myth because there’s no direct correlation between a 65 percent mandate and improved student achievement, according to research from Standard & Poor’s.
It’s a myth because one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work in a diverse state. School district budgets don’t start with cookie cutters. Amendment 39 treats Colorado’s 178 school districts – urban, suburban and rural; small, medium and large – the same.
It’s a myth because it strips authority away from local school boards and the parents and community members who elect boards to set budgets.
Out-of-state special interests are pushing 65 percent mandates for political gain and to advance their narrow views on public education.
Amendment 39’s deceptive mandate would actually harm the education environment in our schools. To understand this, let’s review what’s not included in Amendment 39’s formula.
Its definition of classroom spending doesn’t include nurses, counselors, food-service workers, bus drivers and security personnel, nor maintenance, transportation and utilities.
However, the dedicated professionals working in and leading Colorado’s school districts understand that a balanced, enriching school environment supports and enhances the classroom. Teachers are not the only ones interacting with students and working to deliver a quality education to students.
Take counselors as an example. Counselors resolve conflicts within the classroom and between students and deal with troubled kids. Just imagine a school without counselors. One or two disruptive students could quickly grind a classroom to a halt. That’s where a counselor becomes an active part of the classroom, allowing the teacher to focus on those eager to learn.
Or consider school nurses. The nurse’s office is not just the place for sick students. Nurses are charged with promoting a healthy and fit environment where students are ready to learn. They monitor the spread of disease and watch out for environmental hazards. School nurses also have a significant role in the education of special-needs children.
But, according to First Class Education, these educators are the chaff in our schools, drawing valuable resources away from students. Amendment 39’s backers argue that there’s plenty of money on the 35 percent side, but if Amendment 39 passes, what happens if energy prices continue to skyrocket? Schools still need the lights on and the furnaces running. Buses must continue to transport children. We’d just have to pay those fluctuating costs out of a predefined pot.
School boards ultimately could reduce transportation services or redline nurses and counselors out of the budget. We could cutback on nutritious meals and building maintenance.
But what kind of educational environment are we creating if we cannot get students to school or keep them healthy?
That’s why teachers, school board members and other education professionals oppose Amendment 39. Its passage would ultimately diminish the classroom environment. Teachers would lose the key support personnel who help them reach out to students.
There’s no doubt that as much funding as possible needs to go directly to students. Schools exist solely for their education. Educators understand this, but they oppose Amendment 39 because local Colorado communities know best how to educate their children.
Theresa K. Pena is president of the Denver Board of Education.
