Guest Viewpoint: The 65 percent classroom mandate disregards the true cost of schooling

A law enacted by the Kansas legislature during the 2005 session recommends that 65 percent of state aid go directly to the “classroom.” This bill was part of the nationwide “65 percent solution” movement promoted by an organization called First Class Education, headed by Patrick M. Byrne, president of Over­stock.com Inc.

Louisiana and Texas also have enacted policies calling for at least 65 percent of education funding be directed to the classroom. Similar legislation or ballot measures have been proposed in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington.

At this point, the legislation enacted in Kansas does not include any mechanism to enforce the 65 percent rule. With absolutely no research substantiating that a nebulous percentage of funding pulled out of the air will help improve student achievement, it becomes even more important to clearly define what limiting funding “to the classroom” means.

Of course, the first and most important expenditure for the classroom should be for a highly qualified teacher. In my school district, as well as most others in Kansas, it takes a teacher 10 years and a master’s degree before he or she can earn $34,000 per year. That is simply unacceptable.

Most other professions that require a four-year college degree, plus continued education for the duration of a career, have starting salaries that are well over $34,000. And other professionals certainly don’t have to wait 10 years to earn that much.

With many of our teachers nearing retirement age and a looming shortage of people choosing a career in teaching, it is imperative that we be able to offer competitive salaries. Our society must decide whether education is important to our country, and if it is, educators should be paid like the professionals they are. So, we absolutely must put more dollars into teacher salaries.

But that is not all that goes into the “classroom.” For students to be successful in the “classroom,” we must provide nurses, librarians, and counselors. Food service operations prepare breakfast and lunch so students are not hungry when they are in the “classroom.”

With so many students using computers in the “classroom,” schools must provide technical support. Schools must provide secretaries to support the work that takes place in every “classroom.”

The district provides transportation to make sure students get to the “classroom” and back home every day safely. The “classroom” has to be cleaned, so we need custodians. The “classroom” has to be heated, cooled, furnished, and maintained, so we need maintenance personnel and capital improvement dollars.

The building and staff need to be insured with policies that have risen in cost by as much as 100 percent over the past four years. To provide a well-rounded education, coaches and other staff must be hired to manage co-curricular activities.

And for teachers to be effective in the “classroom,” administrators must provide curriculum guidance, staff development, discipline support, and facilities management.

The point is that the definition of a “classroom” is not a simple answer. The “classroom” includes whatever it takes for students to be successful, and with the No Child Left Behind Act, this is becoming increasingly complex. It is no longer acceptable to simply teach the material; we must now make sure that every student learns the material.

Mandating an arbitrary percentage of money that must go into the “classroom” will not improve our schools.

Unfortunately, there are people in Kansas who would like to provide a very narrow definition of the “classroom” to avoid providing the necessary funding for education, as mandated by the state Supreme Court.

A Kansas legislative post-audit committee submitted a report to the state legislature Jan. 9 outlining what it actually costs to educate students in Kansas and recommended that state funding for education be increased up to $469 million a year. With that recommendation will come increased pressure to mandate the “65 percent classroom solution.”

One argument heard over and over is that administrators’ salaries are taking away from the money that could go directly to the “classroom.”

Besides being an important part of the “classroom,” all administrator salaries in my district (central office, building principals, and departmental directors) make up only 5.82 percent of the district’s budget. We have one supervisor for every 24 employees. That compares to one supervisor for every 3.5 employees in general public agencies, such as city or state government.

In a recent article in School Administrator magazine, communications consultant Arch Lustberg offers a good explanation of education administration: “When your daughter leaves home, a school bus picks her up. That’s administration. The driver is sober, drug-free, and qualified. Administration.”

“She is dropped off at the cafeteria where there is a warm nourishing breakfast ready. Administration,”.Lustberg continues. “She goes to the rest room. It is bright, equipped, and sanitary. Again, administration. Then she goes into the classroom and who’s waiting for her? A teacher with no other responsibility than working with your daughter and her classmates. That’s administration at work for you and your children.”

Administrators, secretaries, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, nurses, counselors, librarians, custodians, food service personnel, and teachers are all integral parts of the “classroom.”

So, as the debate continues, state lawmakers should put more money into the “classroom.” Our state slogan is “Kansas, as big as you think.” I urge our state lawmakers to view the classroom as “bigger than you think.”

 Michael Mathes is superintendent of Seaman Unified School District 345 in Topeka, Kan.