March Newsletter – ESD # 113
Superintendent’s Letter
As I write this letter the legislature is just wrapping up the 2008 session. Those of you who follow our state’s legislative process know that this was a short session. The supplemental budget that’s developed in this session is viewed as a correction of case loads or other errors that were built into last year’s biennial budget.
Those who were hoping for significant improvement in K-12 education funding were undoubtedly disappointed with the outcome of this session. Given the economic forecast and the supplemental nature of the budget, significant improvement just wasn’t in the cards.
Any hope that educators have for improved funding is more likely to begin taking shape in the 2009 session. That is when the recommendations of the Basic Education Finance Task Force are scheduled for presentation to the legislature.
Since this is only the latest in a long series of studies which have sought to redesign Washington’s K-12 funding system, a skeptic could well question whether this study will result in any changes. Clearly, not much funding reform has occurred since Governor Booth Gardner formed the Governor’s Council on Education Reform and Funding in 1991.
But momentum does seem to be building toward an overhaul of the state’s public school funding system. One element in that momentum was Judge Michael Heavy’s recent summary judgment ruling supporting the Federal Way School District lawsuit brought in King County Superior Court. In his ruling Judge Heavy’s stated:
“In conclusion this court finds that the disparate funding to school districts violates the constitution of the State of Washington because it is not general and uniform. Further it finds that the disparate funding violates the constitutional equal protection rights of Federal Way's teachers, students and taxpayers.”
Even with that ruling, true reform of the state’s funding system is not guaranteed. The article on page @, Washington’s School Funding Dilemma provides more information on the challenge facing our state in this regard. Since any solution to those problems will likely require voter support, it is important for all educators to understand and begin communicating about these issues to their friends and family.
The article in this newsletter is a good starting point. More information will be available through the various education associations in the coming months. Please take advantage to these information resources to inform yourself and others about the funding crisis facing our schools.
Sincerely,
Bill Keim
Superintendent ESD #113
Washington’s School Funding Dilemma
In 1991, as a response to the statewide teacher’s strike, Gov. Booth Gardner established the blue-ribbon Governor's Council on Education Reform & Funding (GCERF). The recommendations developed by GCERF led to the passage of HB 1209 which set Washington on a path of significant education reform. But the work of the GCERF failed to achieve its other goal, significant improvement in education funding.
Since GCERF several other studies have been conducted, each of which recommended significant increases in the state’s support of basic education. These studies include:
· The Realities of Education Funding, League of Education Funding, 2003
· What Will It Take?, Rainier Institute, 2003
· Adequate Funding Study, Washington State PTA, 2003
· School Finance Redesign Project, University of Washington, 2003-07
· The Ample School Funding Project, Washington Association of School Administrators, 2004-05
· Washington Learns, Chaired by Governor Gregoire, 2005-06
A ball park figure that is often cited as the amount of additional K-12 funding called for in these studies is $2 billion. To give some sense of scale, the total 2008 State Operating Budget is about $15 billion. Clearly, it would be difficult to come up with an additional $2 billion without a significant increase in the state’s revenue. Given potential negative voter reaction, adding revenue is something our legislature has been reluctant to do for many years.
A strong case must be made, therefore, if legislative will and voter support for this need is to be realized. Each of the studies cited above utilized their own methodology for making that case. As a way of checking the reasonableness of those proposals, one could look at the ranking of Washington’s adjusted per student expenditures. According to the information provided in Education Week’s 2008 Quality Counts report, the adjusted expenditure data reflects regional cost differences and is weighted for student needs (p. 57).
Based on data available through the National Center for Education Statistics, in 1993 Washington ranked 11th in it’s adjusted per student expenditure. In 2005, according to data presented in the 2008 Quality Counts report, Washington State had slid to a ranking of 44th with a total per student expenditure of $7,432. Moving Washington back into the 11th ranked position would require an additional $2,553 per student or a total of $2.46 billion dollars. While that’s a lot of money, it’s amazing to note that’s how much ground we’ve lost as a state in relation to the nation since the start of our education reform initiative.
Another quick way to determine the magnitude of need was provided by the Washington Learns Final Report (2006). One of the recommendations in that report was to use a set of “Global Challenge States” as benchmarks to measure our progress. Those states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia.
When the report was written, Washington was ranked 7th in K-12 expenditures per student. In the 2008 Quality Counts Report we had slid to 8th among those eight states. Targeting the median adjusted expenditure per student among these benchmark states would require an additional $2,397 per student in Washington. That increase would require a total of $2.31 billion in added funding.
It is interesting to note that both of these rough measures support the same range of additional K-12 funding that resulted from the various funding studies. The question is really more about voter and legislative commitment than the needs of the education system. It is up to each one of us to communicate that need as a way of building the commitment that will be required to adequately fund Washington’s schools.