Background

The 65% proposal is part of an out-of-state movement called First Class Education. AEA opposes the 65% initiative drive because it is an attempt to divert the public's attention away from the fact that Arizona public schools are woefully under funded and draw educators and the public into a divisive conflict over how our inadequate funds are spent. In the words of AEA President John Wright, "65% of inadequate is still inadequate."

The Goal of First Class Education 

The proponents want to have all 50 states and D.C. mandate that 65 cents of every education dollar be spent "in the classroom" by 2008.  In Arizona, supporters of the proposal filed initiative language with the Secretary of State on October 19, 2005 to put the issue on the 2006 ballot.  It is also likely to move in referendum form when the Arizona Legislature convenes in January 2006.

The Proposal

This deceptive measure would amend Arizona Law so that every school district will be required to spend a minimum of 65% of their budget “in the classroom” beginning in school year 2007-2008. “In the classroom” includes classroom teachers, instructional supplies, instructional aides, field trips, athletics, music, art, and tuition paid to out-of-state districts and private institutions for special needs students.  School districts that fall below the 65% goal will be required to increase that percentage by a minimum of 2% a year until the 65% goal is met.  The Arizona Legislature will be charged with implementing “punitive measures” for districts not meeting the 65% goal. Charter schools are not included in the mandate, thus only traditional public schools must adhere to the 65% requirement.  (Note: Using this definition of “in the classroom”, school districts in Arizona spend an average of 58.6 cents out of every dollar in the classroom.)

 Facts About The 65% Proposal

The 65% deception is an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Arizona’s public schools are woefully under funded. By pretending to do something to help by mandating 65% of funding go to instructional needs, backers of the proposal hope nobody will notice that Arizona continues to lead the nation in lowest per-pupil funding. 65% of inadequate is still inadequate.  Proposals such as this one fail to address the central issue--adequate and equitable funding.

The group’s definition of “in the classroom” spending specifically excludes funds for school nurses, counselors, librarians, transportation, food service, teacher training and curriculum, administration, and plant operation and maintenance.  Thus, if the “65% proposal” were enacted, all of these areas would be seriously damaged by budget cuts.

The 65% mandate sounds too good to be true, because it is. This proposal lays the ground work for the argument that the schools wouldn't need additional funding if they just used existing funds more efficiently.

The organizations promoting the 65% mandate nationally have said the goal of the 65% gambit is pitting different groups of educators against each other in a fight for dwindling resources.

Those Behind The Proposal

Nationally
PATRICK BYRNE: He is the CEO of Overstock.com; Salt Lake City, UT. He contributed $50,000 in 2004 to All Children Matter, the pro-voucher PAC that worked to defeat Utah state legislators who voted against tuition tax credits. Byrne’s real motivation was revealed when George Will wrote: "(Warren) Buffett also advised Byrne to ask himself this: If you had a silver bullet, what competitor would you shoot, and why? Byrne says he would shoot the National Education Association — the largest teachers union." Byrne relishes the prospect of the 65 percent requirement pitting teachers against other union members. He said that "’educrats’ have become what city hall was 50 or 60 years ago—dens of patronage and corruption."

GEORGE WILL: In his April 10, 2005 column, George Will endorsed the concept called the "65% solution." While the column ran in major daily newspapers, it was simultaneously posted on numerous right-wing blogs, ranging from the Christian Coalition of Alabama to Brothers Judd to Coldhearted Truth. It also appeared that day on Republican websites and blogs.

GROVER NORQUIST: He is the leader of the national anti-tax movement. He made the first endorsement of the First Class Education concept on the group's web site.

In Arizona
TIM MOONEY: He is listed as the Executive Director of First Class Education and an Arizona "political consultant". He was once a political director for the Arizona Association of Industries. He had ties to the California ballot vote on paycheck protection as he was, at that time, a regional political director for National Federation of Independent Business.

RANDY PULLEN: He is a member of the Republican National Committee and the primary backer of Arizona’s Proposition 200 in 2004 election (the initiative that denies illegal immigrants state services and makes public employees legally accountable for providing services to these individuals).

SENATE PRESIDENT KEN BENNETT & HOUSE SPEAKER JIM WEIERS: They held a press conference in April 2005 to announce a plan to introduce the 65% proposal as a bill. Outcry from fellow Republican Caucus members stopped them from ever dropping a bill on the issue. The issue is likely to resurface in 2006 legislative session.

Reasons To Oppose The 65% Proposal

1. Arizona ranks near at the bottom nationally in overall funding for education (see comparisons).  Arizona schools are already operating on a shoestring budget.  While education experts agree that teachers deserve to be paid more and that we need better funded classrooms, if schools end up having to shift money around, they will be trading one set of problems for another.  Our children deserve a bigger pie, not one with different sized slices.
2. This proposal for spending 65% for direct classroom instruction does not include heating the classrooms, breakfast or lunch programs, school buses, bus drivers, counselors, school nurses and security guards; nor does it include teacher training, background checks on teachers, testing programs or technology.  These essential services would have to be cut by a fifth if the 65% measure passes.
3. Local school boards strongly oppose the 65% measure because it’s a rigid, one-size-fits-all mandate that creates red tape for schools and takes local control away from communities.  School board members are elected by their communities because they are in the best position to decide what their local schools need.
4. The 65% proposal will ultimately hurt children.  Children’s schools will be less safe, not as clean, and instruction will suffer from a lack of continuing teacher training.  There may not be school lunches available or after-school programs, and schools won’t have security guards, nurses or counselors available for children if they need help at school.
5. School districts spend a greater percentage on “in the classroom” expenses than charter schools; however, charter schools will be excluded from adhering to the 65% mandate even though charters are public schools funded with taxpayer dollars.
6. The 65% proposal means that some school districts will have to privatize school services and turn them over to for-profit companies.  This will mean that school bus drivers, security guards, secretaries, and others will become minimum wage jobs with high turnover and these school employees won’t get to know our kids.
7. The 65% proposal will have long-term consequences for public schools.  It is a one-time change in the allocation of school resources that will make it harder to increase the overall funding for schools in the future.  If the resources that are reallocated to the classroom fail to result in better student achievement scores, it will be harder to fight off the pro-voucher movement.
8. The 65% proposal is a gimmick being promoted by an out-of-state interest group that wants to privatize school services and ultimately replace public schools with vouchers and private schools.  Documents from the sponsors of the 65% proposal show that one aim of the proposal is to divide the education association, pitting teacher against counselor, and teacher aides against all other support staff.