Measure aims to put money in classrooms

Proponents say it could redirect hundreds of millions of dollars toward doing a better job of educating students in public schools.

Many in the education community aren't so sure.

A statewide campaign to require school districts to spend at least 65 cents of every dollar on classroom instruction kicked off last week as volunteers began gathering the 224,880 signatures necessary to put the initiative on the November ballot.

First Class Education for Washington, part of a national movement, calls the initiative a way to instantly put more dollars toward teaching children. But the proposal has so far failed to gain significant support among educators or legislators.

Brian Janssen, state chairman of First Class Education Washington, chalks much of the opposition up to districts' resistance to implement a "business model" on administrative costs laced with fat.

"The fact is, this is a gentle benchmark for districts to try and reach, and if they can't, there are safeguards in place," Janssen said. "It's important for the public to become engaged and trustful of how their tax dollars are being spent."

The Washington Education Association (WEA), the state's largest teachers union with 76,000 members, opposes the initiative, saying that while it could mean higher salaries for teachers, it would undermine a school district's ability to pay for such basics as buses or food services.

"This might give teachers some things they might like," said Charles Hasse, WEA president. "But fortunately, our members look beyond their own self-interest and see the damage this would inflict."

The movement is built on the theory that spending more in the classroom and less on administration would give students and teachers the resources they need to increase student test scores and achievement.

The state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction says schools in the state on average spend 62.4 to 64.8 cents per dollar on classroom instruction.

According to First Class Education estimates, if Washington schools redirected 5.5 cents more of every school-budget dollar to classroom instruction, more than $400 million per year would be available, without a tax increase.

The problem, education advocates say, is how you define "in the classroom."

Under the proposal, expenses not considered part of classroom instruction include counselors, nurses, buses and other transportation, food services, utilities, custodians, grounds keepers and administration, including principals.

Accepted costs would include teachers, instructional aides, classroom supplies (including textbooks and computers), activities such as athletics, music, art and field trips, librarians and library resources, and special-education instruction, including private instruction for special-needs students.

"We think the measure too narrowly defines what is classroom funding," said Peter Daniels, spokesman for Seattle Public Schools. "We know that kids who aren't healthy mentally or physically, or if they have special needs that requires nursing support — if they don't have those things, they won't do their best in the classroom."

Charlie Hoff, a Federal Way School Board member, said he supports the initiative as a means to get a dialogue going about where money is being spent in education.

But he doesn't agree with how the initiative has defined classroom instruction, and plans to lead an attempt to hire more career counselors for his district.

"We need to take a closer looker at how we budget in education," Hoff said. "We need change — we [as a nation] are getting our clocks cleaned by the education systems in some third-world countries."

Career and guidance counselors are overwhelmed with the number of students they assist, said Pam Metcalfe, the only career counselor for Inglemoor High School's 1,900 students.

"Everything we do is connected to curriculum," she said. "We talk about comparing career choices, and we can connect that to their service learning project or align them with job shadowing or other intern experiences."

OK'd elsewhere

Georgia, Texas, Kansas and Louisiana recently passed similar measures, and First Class Education groups are working in 18 other states and the District of Columbia to implement the so-called "65 percent solution."

The group has been largely organized by Tim Mooney, a GOP political consultant from Arizona. Patrick Byrne, the president and chairman of Overstock.com, is listed as the group's chairman.

Washington chairman Janssen is the retired co-founder of Onyx Software in Bellevue. Now a self-described full-time dad of three children under the age of 6, he works on philanthropic causes and community volunteering.

He said he got involved because he believes in public education but doesn't think it's living up to its potential.

According to an analysis by Standard & Poor's, there is no correlation between the percentage of funds districts spend on instruction and the percentage of students who score proficient or higher on state reading and math tests.

Bellevue School District Superintendent Mike Riley analyzed the proposal and sent a lengthy rebuttal to local legislators.

"We are to assume that athletics and extra-curricular activities — which are included in the category 'instruction' — have a greater impact on academic performance than teacher training and curriculum development, which are both excluded from the category," Riley wrote to legislators. "On its face, this is an implausible assumption."

Legislators seemed to draw similar conclusions.

First Class Education for Washington's first proposal was an initiative to the state Legislature. It died because the group didn't have time to get enough signatures, Janssen said.

It also failed to gain the backing of legislators who could have sponsored it as a bill.

Unfair to some?

Sen. Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland, said he looked into proposing legislation on the "65 percent solution," but the more information he read, the more it seemed like a bad idea.

"I think the goal is a good one," Finkbeiner said.

"But there are problems with this [initiative]. We need to create a formula that will improve resources spent in the classroom but not penalize districts for factors they can't control."

Rural districts or smaller districts face challenges that may drive up their overhead costs, he said.

Those challenges include transportation, such as paying for buses. Also, smaller and rural districts may not benefit from the "economy of scale" that larger districts have — they still need administrators, food services, nurses and counselors, and they may not have the same levy or tax base as school districts in a larger metropolitan area.The initiative should not force school districts to choose between keeping school nurses at the peril of cutting off the utilities, Janssen said.

"School nurses and counselors are important, but I don't think parents send their children to school because of great nurses," he said.

"It's primarily the relationship between teachers and students."

Many districts already are making the 65 percent grade, he said, and those that can't meet that requirement could apply for an annual renewable waiver.

Rachel Tuinstra: 206-515-5637 or rtuinstra@seattletimes.com