2005 House Joint Resolution L: Mandate 65 percent of school spending for “instruction”

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Jacob Hoogendyk, Jr. (R) on June 21, 2005, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to require at least 65 percent of all public school operations budgets to be spent on instruction (rather than administration). “Instruction” is broadly defined, using a U.S. Department of Education standard. The governor could waive the requirement for a particular school district.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on June 21, 2005.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 21, 2005.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on September 28, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Football before dyslexics needs by Anonymous Citizen on April 15, 2006
It upsets me to see money go toward football and cheerleaders before the needs of our dyslexic stakeholders in public education. I think this is a very good idea. Dyslexics shouldn't be second class citizens with the sports and entertainment needs of non-dyslexics coming before the education of dyslexic students. If we don't use taxpayer money now to take care of dyslexic needs, we'll being paying more tax payer money down the line if they can't be independent workers ready for a college education so that they can support THEMSELVES.
Reply

Line

2) But Is It Necessary? by Anonymous Citizen on June 23, 2005
This resolution includes the following definition:

“As used in this section, ‘instruction’ means an activity dealing directly with interaction between pupils and teachers or other classroom and instructional personnel, tutors, books, computers, general instruction supplies, instructional aides, and learning support staff such as librarians, and also includes school activities such as field trips, athletics, arts, and multi-disciplinary learning.”

Surely, the definition recognizes that “instruction” is a labor intensive service, and so embraces the compensation paid out to personnel engaged in providing instructional services. It’s hard to imagine any school district (even those that are marginally competent) not devoting at least 65% of its annual budget to such activities. This raises a question: Could it be that HJR 65 a solution in search of a problem? In other words, is it just more political posturing that in the end would change little or nothing, or is there real need for such a mandate that would burden every school system in the state with more reporting requirements?

Let’s be conservative and demand to see the facts before saying HJR is a good and necessary thing.
Reply

Line

3) Mandate 65% of operating budget spent on instruction by Anonymous Citizen on June 23, 2005
Currently 85% of a school's budget is spent on salaries and benefits. My fear is that if you designate the majority of funds to instruction (assuming this does not include salaries), schools will struggle to keep good teachers. A school's biggest asset/resource is the teacher. They need to be compensated for their expertise. Leaving 35% of a school's already dwindling budget for salaries and benefits will inevitably injure the school.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation