Excellent: 65% Instructional Study

http://www.schoolmatters.com/pdf/65_paper_schoolmatters.pdf


Conclusion and Further Considerations
Standard & Poor’s analysis reveals that there is no minimum spending allocation that is a “silver
bullet” solution for improving student achievement. Spending more on instruction is generally
thought to help raise test scores; however, the data reveal no significant relationship between
instructional spending at 65% or any other level and student performance. While the data do not
support mandating a minimum instructional spending threshold applied uniformly across all
districts, monitoring the percentage districts allocate to instruction is a useful benchmark in
assessing the district’s return on resources. To that end, the definitional debate surrounding the
65 Percent Solution is instructive in defining that ratio. As policymakers search for ways to
ensure that districts are minimizing inefficiencies and optimizing the effectiveness of their
resources, transparent data reporting is an essential first step. Additionally, examining how the
most resource-effective districts (i.e., high achieving, lower spending districts) have allocated
their instructional resources will offer invaluable insights into the particular instructional
activities that tend to result in higher student performance.
Questions for Policymakers:
(1) If you support implementing a 65 percent solution in your state, what are your goals in
doing so? Tax relief? Reducing administrative spending? Improving student
performance?
(2) What evidence do you have that mandating a minimum instructional spending threshold
will achieve those goals?
a. What evidence do you have that districts have sufficient flexibility to reallocate noninstructional
spending to instructional activities?
b. If your goal is to increase classroom spending, how would districts use that money so
as to have the greatest impact on student learning? For example, by raising existing
teachers’ salaries and benefits? By hiring additional teachers to reduce class size,
assuming space is available for new classrooms? By hiring classroom aides? By
purchasing additional books, equipment, or computers?
c. If some of the state’s highest performing districts spend less than 65% on “classroom
instruction,” could a forced change in resource allocation be detrimental to the
districts’ performance?
(3) Does your state require districts to publicly report their financial data? Do the reports
clearly explain how districts are spending their funds? If not, are the inadequacies
caused by insufficient reporting detail? Lack of uniformity in applying definitions? Lack
of easy accessibility?
(4) What measures does your state currently use to monitor districts’ spending allocations?
(5) Does your state have a ratio measuring the percentage each district allocates to
instruction? If so, how is that ratio currently calculated? Does the ratio the state uses
consider only the percentage each district spends directly on instruction? Or, does the
ratio include other instruction-related spending as well?