With the conservative movement, the first question always seems to be “What is good politics?” not “What is good policy?” And the results are consultant-driven distractions, not real programs to help the American people.

Having realized that Americans aren't rushing to embrace their agenda of dismantling public schooling in favor of vouchers, right wing consultants came up with a new gambit—"The 65% Solution" -- a name that brings to mind such other conservative framing feats as “Healthy Forests” and “No Child Left Behind.”

The premise behind the 65% Distraction is a simple one and it is one that plays to gut instincts about education: namely, that a minimum of 65% of school funding should be spent “in the classroom.” In other words, the problem with education is that too much money is going to those darn administrators.

It's a nice poll-tested message but there are two problems.

First, the proposal’s definition of "in the classroom" manages to include uniforms for the football team but excludes new books for the library – a position that you would think was a typo if it wasn’t already clear that these folks just really don’t care about students.

Second, even with a good definition, the 65% Distraction would simply be bad policy.

Standard & Poor's, the company that evaluates the credit rating of public corporations, was asked to do a statistical review of school districts and they concluded that no spending level is “a ‘silver bullet’ solution.” Across the country, there are some highly successful school districts that spend less than 65% of their budgets in the classroom. There are unsuccessful districts that spend more. The PTA has described the proposal as a “one size fits all” bludgeon that ignores the needs of differing populations. Rural programs would see transit funds slashed while poorer districts could lose school nutrition programs that are a clearly documented aid to learning.

Of course, none of this is surprising, because the 65% Distraction was not crafted to meet the needs of students, parents, or teachers, but of rightwing ideologues who are seeking to dismantle public education.

Consider this: Not only does the 65% Distraction include football uniforms, it also considers all vouchers to be spent “in the classroom,” nevermind the profits sure to be taken by the companies lining up to benefit from corporate-conservative privatization efforts. Those profits? Classroom spending.

And the backers of the 65% Distraction have even be admirably honest with their true goals. As laid out in a leaked memo, Tim Mooney and Patrick Byrne, the leading advocates of the bill, make it clear that they see this move as a political one, to create division among teachers and administrators and begin laying the groundwork for vouchers, all while providing an opportunity to funnel soft money into ballot issue campaigns.

Here’s a good rule of thumb: People who write memos about how to take political advantage of children should not be responsible for writing education policy.

Of course, the fact that the 65% Distraction was crafted by political hacks and not by serious policy experts is unsurprising. Despite a massive rightwing network of think tanks, you would be hard-pressed to find serious education work being produced.

For another example, take the annual "Report Cards" issued to states by the corporate-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which invariably seems to argue that more spending for poor districts is useless and vouchers would be a better alternative. The author of the 2005 report, Andrew LeFevre, has no serious education training and his background is as a public relations flack for the private prison industry. Unsurprisingly, his work is misleading and ignores studies by federal agencies, the U.S. Congress, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which all emphasize that while funding isn't all that is needed for schools, more money is crucial for students in poor districts to thrive.

The story is no different at other prominent rightwing think tanks writing about education. The recently launched Think Tank Review Project at Arizona State University was created to get a handle on misleading and politicized think tank research by “education scholars” at conservative organizations like the Cato Institute, Friedman Foundation, Hoover Institution, and the Manhattan Institute.

Maybe if the policy debate wasn't being dominated by such corporate-backed policy outfits, we could actually have a debate on the reforms that would help our children: expanding early childhood education, more equitable funding for poorer districts, better retention of good teachers, and accountability that amounts to more than a mandate to "teach to the test."

Slapping down the 65% Distraction in the states where it is being proposed is the first step in getting back to a discussion of real reforms for our schools.

Nathan Newman is policy director of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN), an organization founded last year to promote progressive policy in the states.

###