Several weeks ago Bob McDonnell and I announced a bold, new education funding proposal to increase classroom spending by $484 million annually without raising taxes. We would do this by transferring money from the central office bureaucracy to the classroom.
According to the most recent federal guidelines, Virginia currently spends 61% of our education dollars in the classroom. The fact that Virginia spends nearly 40% of our education dollars in the central office bureaucracy, instead of the classroom, is a disservice to Virginia students and teachers.
The McDonnell/Bolling proposal is simple - increase instructional spending from 61% to 65% by shifting an average of 4% over 4 years from the central office to the classroom. This would provide an additional $484 million to increase teacher salaries, reduce class sizes, improve textbooks and technology, etc.
Our children will get the best education by having the best teachers, best textbooks and best technology in the classroom, not by having excessive spending on administration and bureaucracy. Students learn in the classroom, not in the central office.
We need to focus as much of our money as possible in the classroom to give our children the knowledge and skills they need to compete for the high-quality jobs of the future.
On average local school districts would be required to increase the percentage of classroom spending by 1% per year during the four years of the McDonnell/Bolling administration. Each district would be given the flexibility to determine the best way to reach this goal in their locality.
This is a reasonable and attainable goal that will provide the best results for our children. In fact, sixteen cities and counties - large and small; urban, suburban and rural - have already met the challenge.
Unfortunately, not all school districts spend their education resources efficiently. Several localities actually spend less than 50% in on classroom instruction.
To suggest that waste does exist is the central office and that we cannot direct more of our existing educational dollars to the classroom is simply not true. It can be done if we make it a priority.
While a vast majority of Virginians support increasing instructional spending by shifting money from the central office to the classroom, our Democratic opponents and certain members of the education establishment have been critical of the McDonnell/Bolling plan.
They claim that Virginia is already spending 64.5% in the classroom. Under the state’s broad definition of classroom spending, this is true. However, the state considers expenditures such as “office of the principal”, “social work services” and “media services” as instructional spending. While these may be worthwhile expenditures, we do not consider them classroom expenditures.
The McDonnell/Bolling plan uses a more sensible, nationally-uniform federal definition of instructional spending, which includes activities dealing with interaction of teachers and students in the classroom, such as teacher salaries, textbooks, equipment, co-curricular activities and activities of teachers and teaching assistants engaged in regular instruction, special education and vocational education programs.
However, whether we move from 61% to 65% or from 64% to 68%, we need to dedicate more dollars to the things that help children learn - teachers, text books and technology. Unfortunately, our opponents’ only solution is throwing more money at the whole system instead of prioritizing expenditures to meet the needs of teachers and students.
Our critics also claim that there is no relationship between 65% classroom spending and student performance. While we have never claimed that 65% classroom spending is the panacea to our education ills, test results prove that student performance improves when more money is spent in the classroom. For example:
- 15 of the top 20 school districts with the highest average on the English/Science/Math Proficiency federal benchmarks spent at least 65% in the classroom.
- 17 of the top 20 school districts with the highest average on the English Proficiency federal benchmarks spent at least 65% in the classroom.
- 13 of the top 20 school districts with the highest average on the Math Proficiency federal benchmarks spent at least 65% in the classroom.
- 18 of the top 20 school districts with the highest average on the Science Proficiency federal benchmarks spent at least 65% in the classroom.
Unfortunately, critics of the McDonnell/Bolling plan are largely members of the education establishment and the politicians beholden to them. We understand that they may have something to lose if our plan impacts the status quo, but they should not let their own self-interest stand in the way of providing a better education to our children.
No one should disagree that our goal should be to put more money in the classroom.
The McDonnell/Bolling plan to redirect $484 million from the central office to the classroom will better position our schools to provide our children with a first class, world class education - an education that will give them the skills they need to compete for high-quality jobs in the global marketplace of the 21st Century.
Bill Bolling is the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia and is running for re-election on the Republican ticket against Jody Wagner.
Why is it though that across the state we spend 40% on something other than instructional spending? How does this compare between small school districts and large ones? Is there economy of scale? And if so, is this something the state could fill in as shared service provider to give the benefits of scale to smaller school districts?
I would be interested to know what it is that school districts are doing that is non-essential and can be shifted to classroom instruction. And why haven’t school boards picked up on this? We elect school board members to do exactly that.
The other dollars are spent on administration, attendance and health, pupil transportation, operations and maintenance, food services, summer school, adult education, facilities, debt service, contingency and reserves.
I thought the state already did some centralized procurement. So, is this an area where the state could do more? Or are we already maxed out on that efficiency? Would we gain something from centralizing fleet operations, facilities management, and/or other O&M activities?
I think the problem here is poorly defined though and that was what I was looking for clarification on. It seems that the problem as stated is that we allocate too much money to something other than classroom instruction. Consequently, we need to do something about that (whether a state mandate is the solution is questionable, I think). But why is spending on these other things a problem? Also, looking at the results of a correlation for a judgmental sample of schools, I would not think would yield a valid result or something that could be extended to the entire population anyway. And, of course, even with correlation, that doesn’t necessarily establish causation.
How can we be reasonably sure that this will have an affect on student performance? Keeping overall spending constant and then just shifting 4% of that to classroom instruction, does that materially change the quality of teachers in the classroom or of classroom instruction generally?
What happens if student performance does not improve? What if a school district cannot meet the target due to size or demographics?
Thank you for the clarification though, Mr. Jones. I do have a question on that though. Why is adult education and summer school not considered to be a part of classroom instruction?
If we considered summer school and adult education in the instructional category, the number of school divisions exceeding 65% would jump consideralby abore the current 88.
The categories are defined in the code. I suspect that the adult ed and summer school categories were added well after the SOQ were initially implemented, and that the were just kept “stand alone” as time went on.
Shouldn’t the cost of constructing a classroom be an instructional cost as well?
This should all be decided by the local school board and not based on an arbitrary figure from Richmond. Different divisions have different needs - for example rural divisions have to spend more on transportation.
The arbitrary nature of the 65% is confirmed when Mr. Bolling says, “whether we move from 61% to 65% or from 64% to 68%.”
Your are moving money around, but providing no new funds. It is a sham and a hollow promise.
I graduated from a Fairfax County publlic high school over 30 years ago. My oldest son graduated from a Fairfax County high school 15 months ago. I have seen, first hand, the growth of the edu-cracy in the central office of Fairfax County public high schools. And this has nothing to do with student transportation. It has everything to do with an explosion of administrators, guidance counselors, assistant principals, etc.
Not only do the edu-crats suck up a fortune in costs they also complicate their organizations to the point that change becomes more difficult and less frequent.
McDonnell and Bolling are on the right path - less for edu-crats, more for teachers.
[...] thearticle online by Lieutenant Governor Bolling in which he states his case for the plan. In it, he uses the phrase [...]