Sign up to receive our emails

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Helping students find their way with online learning

by Leave a Comment

Online learning is an increasingly attractive option for students. Initially hailed as a game-changer in higher education, over time school districts across the country have brought the e-learning platform into the K-12 arena. Here in Washington over 30,000 students take advantage of this option. Most are high school students (over 70 percent) and most take fewer than five courses.

As a newer education platform, online learning presents opportunities and challenges for teachers and students alike. We talked to a current teacher and two former students to get a better sense of what life is like in a virtual school.

Teachers and students – online and plugged in

Mary Lou Roels teaches English, psychology, sociology and Washington State History with K-12,  a tuition-free online public school that operates in Washington and across the county. She works with about 600 students total over the course of a three-semester school year, along with a homeroom class of about 40 students.

K12 teacher Mary Lou Roels

In her homeroom class, Roels uses the 7 Mindsets curriculum to teach organizational skills, foster accountability and facilitate social-emotional learning. “They don’t have other students around them to keep them going,” said Roels. “So that’s our job.” Homeroom teachers also are responsible for keeping track of how students are doing academically and whether they are on track to graduate.

In academic classes, Roels makes sure to mix and vary her techniques to keep students engaged, using videos, slide presentations, and in-class surveys. “When I log on the students see me. I tell the students – ‘I want you to see me [and] know there’s an actual teacher here.’”

Powering through classes you enjoy

Geni Steadham enrolled in K12 as a full-time student for her senior year of high school, taking courses in psychology, criminology and forensic science. For Steadham, then living in Napavine (a small city located outside of Centralia) the choice was clear: “I wasn’t doing very well socially in public school. And I wasn’t really reaching my potential. So, my parents and I decided to try something else.”

Just like students in brick-and-mortar schools, Steadham started each morning online with her assigned classes. But, unlike her traditional school, on most days she could “power through” the materials and complete assignments much faster (especially in the classes she liked, such as psychology) which then left time for other work or pursuits.

Overall, Steadham explained she preferred her online school because she could enroll in what she eagerly described as “cool classes” not offered at her regular school, such as criminology or forensic science.

When your school is too much to handle

Starting in 5th grade, Elliana Currie and her family noticed a trend. She needed more and more time to finish her daily homework. This only worsened in middle school.

When it was time to start high school, Currie, who lived in Redmond at the time, enrolled in one of Lake Washington School District’s choice schools, but that didn’t help either. “I got depressed. It was too much stress for me to handle.” She switched to an online school – Washington Virtual Academy – so that she could go at her own pace.

From Currie: “I really liked how it was easy to access the classes. I had five to six assignments per day, but I didn’t have to spend an hour each day in class” on top of the time to do the assignments. Currie found the teachers were all supportive of her work, which also made a big difference. “You could email or call them,” said Currie. “Some of them you could even text. You could even have an extra session with your teacher or get FaceTime help.”

Later on, Currie realized that online learning helped prepare her well for life as an adult after school. “Online school cemented a lot of important organizational skills,” said Currie. “It also taught me a lot about what motivates me . . .. [I]t taught me to be independent.” Currie now attends Bellevue College.

One platform meeting different needs

Online classes aren’t for everyone, but teachers and students who have tried it point to two types of students who do well in this setting.

  • Busy and self-directed – Students whose schedules don’t align with spending an entire day, every day, sitting in a brick-and-mortar building often embrace the freedom afforded with online learning.
  • Needs individual help – Students who struggle in a traditional school setting with large class sizes often benefit from the individualized attention they can receive through online learning, so long as they are willing to seek it out.

Other students use online school to work ahead and finish graduation requirements early, or to make up a class they failed or dropped. Some students enrolled in the popular Running Start program also take online courses to fill gaps in requirements or electives.

Benefits and drawbacks

Overall, as a teacher, Roels finds the flexibility of online learning is “definitely a plus.” Students can more easily make up a missed class since all materials are online. Teachers can add extra sessions or classes for topics that students need more help to understand.

The downside? Because K12 students are located all over the state, it’s practically impossible to meet them in person. This also rules out other in-person learning experiences, such as field trips.

According to Currie, some online teachers facilitate social interaction online through group work projects. OpenBoard, an interactive whiteboard, has features that facilitate meet ups outside of class, such as coffee, lunch groups or clubs. And at K12, graduating seniors participate in a traditional ceremony at Bellevue College each year.

Moving forward

Roels cited genuine concerns about school safety, as well as crowded classrooms, as two of many examples of why online learning will continue to expand. “I think online learning is going to grow exponentially.”

Every child is different. Online learning helps some learners thrive, including those who may get lost in the shuffle of a big school or are frustrated by the one-size-fits-all pace of learning. These tuition-free options approved by the state of Washington are one way for students to explore different subjects or potentially chart a new academic course.

Want to learn more about online learning in Washington state? Read our background Q&A here.

Final results – Feb. 2018 levy and bond measures

by Leave a Comment

The results are in from the Feb. 2018 levy and bond measures for school districts across the state. Locally, most agreed these elections had a decidedly different vibe than ones in past years, as school districts and taxpayers adjust to a new education funding plan passed out of the legislature in 2017. During this “bridge” year of implementing the plan, state property taxes are going up while school districts begin the process of dialing back local levies.

Despite these somewhat turbulent tax crosswinds, voters appear to have mostly passed their local levies (which primarily go towards supporting school operations). According to analysis from the Washington Education Association, voters across the state approved 95 percent of local levies for school operations. Bonds – which fund school building construction and require a 60 percent +1 margin for passage – did not fare as well. Locally, bonds in Everett, Lake Washington did not pass, while Northshore’s measure did.

Here’s are the final voting results from EEN’s districts (based on results provided at county election sites as of Feb. 24, 2018):

Bellevue

Replacement education programs and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 54%

NO: 46%

Replacement technology and capital projects levy (Proposition 2)

YES: 52%

NO: 48%

Bus levy (Proposition 3)

YES: 55%

NO: 45%

Everett

Replacement education programs and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 55%

NO: 45%

Capital bond (Proposition 2)*

YES: 55%

NO: 45%

Issaquah

Renewal educational programs and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 51%

NO: 49%

Renewal capital projects levy (Proposition 2)

YES: 54%

NO: 46%

School bus levy (Proposition 3)

YES: 57%

NO: 43%

Lake Washington

Replacement education programs and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 55%

NO: 45%

Renewal capital projects levy (Proposition 2)

YES: 55%

NO: 45%

Capital bond (Proposition 3)*

YES: 54%

NO: 46%

Mercer Island

Replacement education maintenance and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 72%

NO: 28%

Northshore (includes King and Snohomish counties)

Renewal education programs and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 62%

NO: 38%

General obligations bonds (Proposition 2)*

YES: 61%

NO: 39%

Renewal capital projects technology levy (Proposition 3)

YES: 62%

NO: 38%

Riverview

Renewal education programs and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 52%

NO: 48%

Renewal technology and capital projects levy (Proposition 2)

YES: 53%

NO: 47%

Transportation vehicle fund levy (Proposition 3)

YES: 55%

NO: 45%

Snoqualmie Valley

Renewal education programs and operations levy (Proposition 1)

YES: 52%

NO: 48%

Renewal capital projects (Proposition 2)

YES: 53%

NO: 47%

*Under Washington state law, school construction bonds require 60 percent +1 for passage.

King County Feb. 2018 election results: click here

Snohomish County 2018 election results: click here

Eight Washington districts earn AP honor roll distinction

by Leave a Comment

This week The College Board announced its 8th Annual AP District Honor Roll. The award recognizes school districts in the U.S. and Canada for “increasing access to AP for underrepresented students while simultaneously maintaining or increasing the percentage of students earning AP Exam scores of 3 or higher.”

Here are the Washington school districts awarded Honor Roll status by The College Board: Arlington, Everett, Lake Washington, Longview, Orcas Island, Peninsula, Shoreline, Walla Walla.

Learn more about the criteria for inclusion on the AP Honor Roll here.

First time honors – The Seattle Times’ education reporter Claudia Rowe writes this is the first time the Walla Walla school district has earned a spot on on the honor roll. The majority of students there are from low income families and a plurality are Latino. From Walla Walla High School principal Ron Higgins: “About six years ago was the epiphany when we said, ‘Let’s bring down the walls and remove the barriers to AP for kids you might not consider as advanced, just because their binders weren’t completely organized or whatever.’ ” Read more about Walla Walla’s commitment to enrolling minority students in AP classes here.

Repeat winners – Everett, Lake Washington and Shoreline all were recognized by The College Board for achieving honor roll status over multiple years.

What are AP exams and why do they matter? Developed and administered by The College Board, AP classes and their end-of-course tests are taken by well over two million high school students each year, covering over 30 different subject areas. Some universities give college credit to incoming freshmen for earning certain scores on the test.

Most importantly, AP classes remain one of the best ways to prepare for college. According to a leading researcher “AP courses have become the primary avenue for delivering advanced coursework in public high schools.” And this is important because research shows our high schools aren’t getting enough of our kids ready for college.

In school districts like Bellevue, it’s common to see practically every inch of available non-classroom space (e.g., gyms, libraries) devoted to students taking AP (or International Baccalaureate) tests. Here’s how the Bellevue School District describes the value of AP courses on its website:

  • High school graduates who do not take any AP courses graduate from college at a rate of only 33% by age 30.
  • Students who take only one AP course nearly double the likelihood of college graduation to 59%.
  • Students who take two or more AP courses raise the likelihood to 76%.

Learn more – You can find plenty of useful information about AP courses from The College Board at their website here. And you can learn more about your district’s participation and exam scores at OSPI’s website AP page here.

In Snoqualmie Valley, filling the gap between learning and doing

by Leave a Comment

Washington is home to an impressive array of industries, including national and global leaders in aerospace, software, online retail, agriculture, biotechnology, global health, forest products, tourism and more. This year CNBC named Washington “America’s Top State for Business.”

Yet many businesses in Washington, particularly in the Puget Sound area, struggle mightily to fill employment vacancies due to a “skills gap.” Put simply, we’re not graduating students (or retraining current workers) at a rate fast enough and with the right credentials to keep pace with job openings in our growing economy.

Here are a few eye-opening statistics from the statewide business group Washington Roundtable, and their education foundation, Partnership for Learning.

  • Washington is expected to have 740,000 job openings by 2021, the majority of which will be filled by workers who earn some type of credential after high school.
  • Thirty-five percent of these positions are classified as “career jobs” meaning they are higher skill, higher paying jobs with a salary range of $60,000 to $100,000+. More than nine-in-10 workers who fill these positions will have a postsecondary credential (73 percent) or completed some college (18 percent).
  • Forty-five percent of jobs are defined as “pathway jobs” with salaries of $30,000 to $45,000 per year. These offer a potential path to a career job. Nearly two thirds (64 percent) of pathway jobs will be filled by workers with a postsecondary credential (34 percent) or some college level course work (30 percent).

Across the state some school districts are partnering with local and regional organizations to help students learn more about potential jobs and the pathways to get them there. In Snoqualmie Valley, a new program “Career Exploration Fridays” plans to do just that. We spoke with one of the main architects of the project, school board member Carolyn Simpson.

Two hats and three goals – as a Snoqualmie Valley School District board member and as president of the Snoqualmie Valley Chamber of Commerce, Carolyn Simpson understands both the school and business perspective of education and workforce training. At statewide gatherings of school board members, Simpson learned about programs that helped connect students to potential careers. And through her work with the Chamber of Commerce she’d also heard from business leaders about the substantial jobs/skills gap employers were seeing.

Inspired by what she learned, Simpson forged ahead with an effort to help high school students explore employment opportunities available to them. A partnership between the school district, chamber of commerce and a local non-profit came together and developed “Career Exploration Fridays” with these goals:

  1. Show students real job sites – The connection between academic work and the real world at times can be murky. Even if a student has some idea of what jobs interest them, they often don’t know what degrees or credentials they need or what the job entails. “There’s usually no straight line” when it comes to working and a career, observed Simpson. “There are jumping off points. Not everything requires a college degree.” Visiting job sites where professionals explain what they do and how they got there helps students better understand the process, and can make academic work seem more relevant.
  2. Try it out – No doubt about it, learning by doing remains one of the best teaching tools. “Hands-on experience with local employers enables students to explore their interests, understand job opportunities, and connect what they’re learning in the classroom to the skills they’ll need in their futures,” says Brian Jeffries, policy director for Partnership for Learning. And as Simpson observed, more trial-and-error up front can help students avoid wasting time, energy and tuition dollars preparing for a job that may not be a good fit.
  3. Train teachers, too – By encouraging teachers to visit job sites, they return to the classroom with a better sense of how to connect academic coursework to real-world employment experiences. Mount Si High School Engineering teacher Ashley Hutchison, in a video about the program, stressed the importance of showing students “there is more than one path to get to whatever career you are trying to reach.”

Community support – While the local school district and chamber of commerce were logical partners, a less obvious ally emerged when Snoqualmie Valley Community Network – a local non-profit that supports healthy youth and family initiatives – expressed interest. Simpson noted that with expertise in conducting focus groups and community surveys, they helped the program figure out prior to launch what students wanted and whether it could work. More importantly, they saw an opportunity to support students who have lost hope feel inspired about their future, a key part of their mission in supporting children’s health.

How it works –  Located about 30 miles east of Seattle, Snoqualmie Valley School District is home to two high schools: Mount Si, a comprehensive four-year high school for grades 9-12, and Two Rivers, an alternative program for grades 8-12. On select Fridays students travel via district bus to sites where they meet with employers, ask questions, observe production or manufacturing processes and learn what future employment prospects are like in that industry.

According to Simpson, so far student conversations with employees and employers appear to have the biggest impact. She recalled one student who was especially motivated when shown how he could apply his graphic design skills at a company that made medical monitoring equipment. She hopes to eventually make the program part of the regular curriculum during the school day so that students can rotate through many industries. She also sees the potential for connecting students via Skype or similar video access for regional employers that are too far to reach in person.

Mission completion – The mission of Snoqualmie Valley School District is to “educate all Snoqualmie Valley children to prepare them for college, career, and citizenship.” Helping connect students to an eventual career through hands-on experiences in real jobs is an effective way to further that aim.

“With 740,000 job openings in our state by 2021, our students are graduating into a strong economy,” said Jeffries. “When students understand the jobs available in our state and the skills they’ll need to succeed in those jobs, they’ll be better prepared to take advantage of the opportunities Washington has to offer.”

Learn more – Here are some resources about career-connected learning:

Ready Washington

Partnership for Learning

Video: Career Connected Learning – Creating Pathways and Opportunity

Washington STEM

Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board

In their own words: State Supreme Court justices weigh in on school funding

by Leave a Comment

This week the State Supreme Court issued an important ruling in the long-running school funding case known as McCleary. We’ve analyzed what this decision means here, and we’ve shared reactions from state elected leaders here.

In this latest ruling the Court gave its constitutional blessing to the school funding plan recently adopted by the legislature, and found that the State had adequately funded the components of basic education.

Because the opinion resolves the Plaintiffs’ most complex claims in favor of the State, it means we may now finally have a exit strategy out of this ten-year-old dispute. The only remaining issue is the timing – the Court wants the new plan rolled out faster – by one year – than the State had originally planned.

Below are key excerpts from the 46-page decision that provide the framework for the Court’s holding.

Significant progress funding schools – “[O]ver the past several years the State has made significant progress in fully funding the program of basic education, including by amply funding most of its components. Further, the 2017 legislature enacted a funding system that, when fully implemented, will achieve constitutional compliance according to the benchmarks that have consistently guided judicial oversight.” p. 1

Missed court-imposed deadline – “However, by its own admission, the State will not meet the established deadline of September 1, 2018, as to all components. Instead, the funding system adopted in [2017] . . . delays by over a year implementation of a constitutionally compliant salary model, a critical part of meaningful reform. While the court can appreciate the political and budgetary challenges that may explain the State’s decision to postpone full funding of the salary model, it cannot accept part compliance as full compliance.” pp. 1-2

“The court’s constitutional responsibility is to the schoolchildren of this state who have an enforceable right under article IX, section 1 to an amply funded education. We cannot erode that constitutional right by saying that the State is now “close enough” to constitutional compliance. The goals have long been clear, the deadline has long been clear, and the meaning of “amply fund” has long been clear. Until the State enacts measures that fully implement its program of basic education by the September 1, 2018 deadline, it remains out of compliance.” p. 2

Role of court and legislature – “This court in retaining jurisdiction has not purported to take over public education. Rather, the court is fulfilling its constitutional obligation as a member of the judicial branch of the state to determine whether the legislative branch, which controls the State’s purse strings, is complying with its positive constitutional duty to make ample provision for the basic education of all children in the state; it must order compliance if it finds the legislature is falling short. The court has consistently emphasized its deference to the legislature as to the proper means by which to fulfill the State’s constitutional duty, and it has refused to dictate specific guidelines for components of the basic education system.” p. 21 (citations omitted)

State funding formulas for schools are constitutional – “[T]he court generally agrees with the State as to the framework of the prototypical school model and what the State must do to fulfill its constitutional duty. ESHB 2261 [the “basic education” statute] is not designed to dictate reimbursements to school districts for their actual expenditures on the components of basic education. Rather, the prototypical school is a prospective allocation model encompassing evidence-based formulas that take account of the actual costs of supporting the program of basic education. It is designed to calculate the amount of state funding necessary to provide for the program of basic education while maintaining the ability of individual school districts to decide how best to spend the allocations to meet local needs.“pp. 26-27

“This court has never held that to meet its constitutional obligation, the State must precisely account for every school district’s actual expenditures in providing basic education.” p. 28

Basic education fully funded – “In sum, with respect to the components of basic education addressed above, the State has satisfied the court’s mandate to fully fund the program of basic education established by ESHB 2261 in accordance with the formulas and benchmarks set forth in SHB 2276 and this court’s orders. The legislature’s actions as to these components are not perfect, but the legislature has acted within the broad range of its policy discretion in a manner that ‘achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve’ the constitutional end of amply funding K-12 basic education. At this point, the court is willing to allow the State’s program to operate and let experience be the judge of whether it proves adequate.” p. 37 (citations omitted).

Teacher/staff salaries fully funded – “The court is satisfied that the new salary model established by EHB 2242 [the new education funding law] provides for full state funding of basic education salaries sufficient to recruit and retain competent teachers, administrators, and staff. This is consistent with the standards established for constitutional compliance.” p. 40

State missed deadline to fund plan by one year – “The program of basic education cannot be said to be ‘fully implemented” by September 1, 2018, when it puts off full funding of basic education salaries until the 2019-20 school year. If compliance by 2019-20 is close enough, why not 2020-21 or the following year? Further, the argument that the current legislation establishes the steps that will automatically result in full funding of salaries by the 2019-20 school year is undermined by the State’s acknowledgment that funding for that year will depend on the legislature making the necessary appropriation in the 2019-21 biennial budget. However confident the court may be that the legislature will fulfill its duty to make the appropriation, a program that depends on action being taken in 2019 is necessarily not ‘fully implemented’ by September 1, 2018.” p. 42

State should have met the Court-imposed deadline – “The opportunity to take timely action did not suddenly present itself in the 2017 legislative session. The court is not insensitive to the political considerations and compromises that necessarily characterize the legislative process, but there is the political question and there is the constitutional question. It is the court’s responsibility to give meaning to constitutional rights and ensure the State complies with its constitutional duties, particularly its paramount duty to amply fund K-12 public education.” p. 43

Court will keep jurisdiction until plan is fully implemented – “As things stand today, the salary allocation model . . . complies with the State’s obligation to fully fund K-12 basic education salaries, but it will not be implemented by September 1, 2018. The State thus remains out of full compliance with its constitutional duty under article IX, section 1. Accordingly, the court will retain jurisdiction to ensure full constitutional compliance by the established deadline, and it will maintain the sanction of $100,000 per day’ with the expectation that the State will enact measures to achieve full compliance during the regular 2018 legislative session.” pp 43-44 (citations omitted)

Supreme Court maps out exit strategy in school funding case

by 1 Comment

This week the State Supreme Court issued another ruling in the ten-year-old education funding lawsuit known as McCleary.

At this point in the long-running case, the Court is trying to figure out whether the new education funding plan enacted in 2017 meets the State’s “paramount duty. . . to make ample provision for the education of all children” under the Washington constitution.

Because the new plan isn’t fully implemented by the Court-imposed 2018 deadline (by the State’s own admission the plan is completely rolled out by 2019 – one year later), the Justices opted to keep jurisdiction and continue the $100,000-per-day sanctions against the State.

But that’s not why this new opinion is a critical one. In the 46-page ruling, the Court resolved several complex legal issues that could have extended the dispute for many more years, and narrowed the State’s to-do list down considerably. Here’s how they did it.

1. The Court blessed the legislature’s school funding plan – In the 2017 legislative session, lawmakers enacted a plan that overhauls how we pay for schools, with the aim of ensuring the state – not local districts – pick up the bulk of the tab for teacher salaries and other components of basic education.

The Court held that, when fully implemented, the new funding plan “will achieve constitutional compliance.” The Court’s endorsement of the new plan means the legislature will not have to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the law. And that moves everyone closer to the finish line.

2. The State’s funding formulas are constitutionally sound – one of the more complex aspects of the case involves funding formulas. The State relies on a “prototypical school” model to determine how much money to send to each district, then leaves it up to those districts to allocate funds accordingly. But plaintiffs sought a different formula – one that would require reimbursement of actual costs for all 295 school district (that’s 1.1 million students across the state).

In siding with the State, the Court held the prototypical model is an “evidence-based” formula that supports the “actual costs” of the program of basic education while giving districts the flexibility needed to meet local needs.

The reimbursement model proposed by plaintiffs did not define a precise dollar amount, and by plaintiffs’ own admission would have required more time (and more legal briefs, more hearings, etc.) to gather data from each school district. Again, by resolving this issue in favor of the State, the Court moved the case further along to closure.

3. Achievements unlocked – basic education’s components are now funded – There’s a bundle of required components rolled into what’s commonly-referred to as “basic education.” The Court analyzed these one-by-one and determined that each discrete element is now adequately funded. Again, this finding helps bring the case to a close, as the legislature will not have to revise these complex formulas.

Exit strategy – While the Court recognized the State’s substantial investments in schools, the Justices took issue with the timing of the plan. Put simply, the State missed the mark by one year. And that’s why the Court kept jurisdiction and ordered the State to figure out how to implement the funding sooner – by September 2018.

But given the complexity of the issues, and especially considering plaintiffs’ push to expand the scope – and by extension the duration – of the case, the Court’s ruling suggests the Justices very much want a solution and closure.

Now it’s up to the legislature to figure out next steps and report back to Court by April 2018 with a plan.

We’re almost there.

Elected leaders react to State Supreme Court ruling on education funding

by Leave a Comment

The State Supreme Court handed down an important decision yesterday in the now ten-year-old school funding lawsuit known as McCleary.

In their ruling, the Justices mostly gave their constitutional blessing to the new education funding plan enacted in the 2017 legislative session. That complex plan overhauls how the state funds schools, with the aim of ending years of over-reliance on local levies to pay for basic education.

The ruling – The Court held that the plan meets the state’s constitutional requirement to amply fund schools, but took issue with the legislature for missing a court-imposed deadline by one year. Because the plan as written will not be fully implemented until 2019 (the Court had imposed a deadline of 2018), the Justices retained jurisdiction and will continue to impose a $100,000 per-day fine.

What happens next? – The Court ordered the state to report back in April 2018 – the end of the 2018 legislative session – on its progress speeding up implementation of the plan. Right now various options are being floated around to meet the Court’s deadline.

Here are reactions to the decision from elected leaders:

Gov. Jay Inslee

“I’m encouraged the court recognized the incredible progress we’ve made toward fully funding basic education. As the court noted, the plan the Legislature adopted, but for the timing, will meet constitutional requirements.”

You can read the rest of Gov. Inslee’s statement here.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal

“The Supreme Court largely affirmed the state’s position that most of the mechanisms for full funding of basic education are in place. I agree with that. As the Court wrote, the state “has made significant progress” toward that goal. . ..

I applaud the Legislature’s work. They have substantially increased basic education funding during the past three biennia. . ..

But I don’t believe the work is done.”

You can read the rest of Superintendent Reykdal’s statement here.

State Sen. John Braun (Centralia) – budget writer in the 2017 session and member of 2017 education funding negotiating team

“Providing students with the support they need and deserve required us to solve a generational problem with a generational solution, which resulted in a historic funding infusion for our schools. The Legislature brought this situation on itself by shirking its responsibility to public schools for decades. Over the past five years we have demonstrated that only by making education our top priority could we pay for schools in a way that works for students, teachers and taxpayers. Judging from today’s ruling, our way also works for the court.”

You can read the rest of Sen. Braun’s statement here.

State Sen. Christine Rolfes (Bainbridge Island) – incoming chief budget writer and member of 2017 education funding negotiating team

“We are very pleased that the Legislature and the Supreme Court are in strong agreement that the state has made significant progress on basic education policy, and that some important work remains. Many lawmakers, myself included, have had conversations with our school districts since the 2017 session concluded. We know some steps need to be taken to ensure they have the flexibility and funding they need to provide students with the best education possible and in the fairest way for taxpayers.”

You can read the rest of Sen. Rolfes’ statement, along with a statement from Sen. Andy Billig (Spokane), here.

“What do you want this Court to do?”

by Leave a Comment

The Washington State Supreme Court recently held an important hearing about progress in the long-running education funding case known as McCleary.

Here are three main questions the Court tried to resolve:

Question 1 – It’s clear a lot more money has been allocated to schools. Is that enough to end this case?

Both the state’s attorney (Alan Copsey) and the attorney for plaintiffs (Tom Ahearne) were on the receiving end of many questions about whether the State has fulfilled its duty under the Washington State Constitution to make ample provision for the education of all children.

State’s position – The State argues, and previous rulings from the court have agreed, that “ample provision” means funding the formulas set out in a law passed in 2012 that overhauled our state’s education system.

The State points to recently enacted budgets to show it has either met or gone well beyond those formulas. So, over half of the state budget now goes to education, and by 2019 public schools in Washington will see an unprecedented $4.6 billion in spending. In fact, over the next four years the state will invest $7.3 billion in new spending on our K-12 schools. State Senate staff estimate that by SY 2019-20, Washington will rank 5th nationally in state funds per pupil.

Plaintiffs’ response – Funding increases notwithstanding, Plaintiffs believe the legislature should engage in more fact-finding to figure out, and then reimburse, actual costs for every school district (that’s 295 districts). Note that some justices focused mostly on the narrower issue of whether the legislature could speed up its rollout of the new teacher pay system to meet the court-imposed 2018 deadline.

Why this matters – If there’s still no agreement on how to measure “ample,” and if as Plaintiffs’ attorney suggested there should be more fact-finding (or, as the state characterizes it, “moving the goal posts”), this case could drag on for many more years. Other states are instructive. In New Jersey, school-funding litigation first filed in 1981 continues to this day.

Question 2 – How can we bring this case to an end? – The justices in their questions sought specific recommendations from both parties about how to resolve the case.

State’s position – The State offered two solutions: dismissal or continued oversight through 2019 to ensure implementation of the plan that passed out of the legislature in 2017.

Plaintiffs’ response – Attorney Ahearne struggled to set out a clear remedy, prompting several pointed queries (emphasis added):

Justice Wiggins: “Mr. Ahearne – I’m not sure what you think we should do. . .. Do you think we should remand this . . . to take evidence and make a finding of fact as to what’s ‘ample’? I guess I just don’t know, especially in light of the fact that I think is undisputed that a great deal more money is going into the K-12 education system now, but I’m not sure. So, what is it you think we should do to second guess or recalculate?”

Justice González: “I still don’t hear you answering the direct question: ‘What do you want this Court to do?’ Not repeating what you think the shortfalls or the problems are, but tell us specifically, ‘Court, I want you to order this, that and the other thing’ so that we know what the request is, so that we can decide whether to grant it or deny it.”

And the consensus among veteran Olympia reporters covering the case? The justices are frustrated with both parties.

Question 3 – Can the Court make these types of fine-grained policy decisions? – Whether they realized it or not, some questions from the bench show just how ill-suited courts are at choosing which policies are best for the state’s 1.1 million students. One exchange between Justice Mary Yu and Copsey about a new provision to help attract and retain teachers shows why:

Justice Yu: “Should I be concerned about the state adding this regionalization measure to the salary formula? I mean – I just have to say that – at a common-sense level – that doesn’t make any sense to me. . ..”

Copsey – “This is a policy choice the legislature has made. The idea is to put every school district on equal footing. . ..It was an attempt at equity – at fairness – to give every school district the money it needs to fund teachers. . ..The constitutional question is not is it the best policy judgment.”

Have we lost our vision? – Courts are well-equipped to resolve issues of access in education, such as whether students with disabilities are entitled to an education alongside their peers. But when it comes to policy, the wheels of justice (still) turn slowly. That means every back and forth between the legislature and the courts about policy choices (even those tied to funding) inevitably lead to analysis paralysis that’s not conducive to building a world class school system.

State Schools Superintendent Chris Reykdal recognized as much when he launched an ambitious long-term plan for Washington’s schools earlier this year. In his proposal, Reykdal acknowledges that after many years slogging it out over funding, we’ve lost sight of the big picture (emphasis added):

The goal of Washington’s public education system is to prepare every student who walks through our school doors for post-secondary aspirations, careers and life. To do so, we must embrace an approach to education that encompasses the whole child. In the ongoing struggle to amply fund our schools, we have lost this larger vision. The challenge to amply fund schools to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court is not the final goal – it is merely the first step in a much larger transformation that will propel Washington state’s K-12 schools atop the national conversation in quality, outcomes and equity.

“It is time for this case to end”

by Leave a Comment

The Temple of Justice: Washington State Supreme Court

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson recently updated the State Supreme Court in two legal briefs (see here and here) on the State’s progress funding education as part of the Court’s oversight in the long-running McCleary dispute.

Today the State Supreme Court will hear from lawyers on both sides of the case in oral arguments scheduled to last about an hour.

Here are key takeaways from Ferguson’s two updates to the Court:

Massive increases in school funding – Ferguson argues that with passage of three state budgets since 2011, along with a new 2017 law to overhaul how we fund schools and pay teacher salaries, the state has increased education spending by record amounts and has fulfilled its constitutional obligations. From the briefs (emphasis added):

  • “The Legislature has doubled state K-12 education funding since this Court’s 2012 decision. . .. The massive increase in funding supports numerous policy improvements and fully implements the educational reforms this Court endorsed in 2012.” (July 31st brief, p. 1)

  • “The legislation enacted in 2017 implements a new system of compensation that allocates state funding to support the full cost of salaries for staff.“ (July 31st brief, pp. 8,9)

  • “The legislature has increased funding for K-12 education from $13.4 billion in the 2011-13 biennium to $26.6 billion in the 2019-21 biennium – well beyond what enrollment and inflation would have required.” (Sept. 8th brief, p. 1)

State budgets versus local control – Ferguson addresses confusion around repeated claims that some school districts – even with the state’s record investments in education – need more money.

Under Washington law, the state funds education allocating dollars using an agreed-to model (the “proto-typical schools model”). But under our system of local control, it’s up to each school district to figure out how to best spend the allocated dollars. That’s because what works in Spokane may not work in Bellevue, and what students need in Kirkland might be different from students in Pasco.

According to Ferguson, Plaintiffs in McCleary rest their claims on the untenable premise that the State is obligated to reimburse every local expenditure. From the brief:

“Under their [the Plaintiffs] model, the State would be obligated to pay whatever amount of money each of the 295 independent school districts has expended. This is not a model for financial or educational accountability, and it has not been mandated by the Court.” (Sept. 8th brief, pp. 4,5)

Legislature, not courts – Plaintiffs, and more recently other advocacy groups, have argued for the adoption of new and different policies for how we pay for schools. Many of these proposals would require an overhaul of the state’s taxation system (e.g., adoption of a capital gains income tax, closing certain tax preferences, or a state income tax). But as we all learned in Schoolhouse Rock, the legislature – not the courts – is where laws are made – and Ferguson makes this point directly in his brief (emphasis added):

“The State does not in any way discount the value of information received from advocates for education. . .. But no such proposal – even an excellent one advocated in the course of litigation – automatically becomes an element of the State’s program of basic education or establishes a constitutional requirement. . .. Amendments to law should be accomplished by lobbying the legislature, not the Court.” (Sept. 8th brief, p. 35)

State is committed to funding – Although a recent poll showed over half of likely voters had never heard of the McCleary case, passions among those involved run high. At times that’s resulted in needlessly hostile and divisive rhetoric, including Plaintiffs’ attorneys comparing state legislators to segregationists and Nazi propagandists. But any final solution to McCleary necessarily requires trust that the legislature’s commitment to education will continue, as it has since 2012. From the brief (emphasis added):

“The time has come in this case for the Court to trust the commitment made by a co-equal branch of government, a commitment that is accompanied by unprecedented increases in funding for K-12 education over a course of years, and by a history of steadfast adherence to the deadlines committed to. . .. The State is in compliance. No further remedy is necessary. The Court need not retain jurisdiction any longer. It is time for this case to end.” (Sept. 8th brief, p. 42)

In Washington, a surge in teacher hiring

by Leave a Comment

Recruiting and hiring high-quality teachers is one of the most important jobs a school district has. And while many districts continue to struggle to fill high-demand teaching positions in specific areas, such as special education, math or science, two items of note show the state is starting to turn the corner when it comes to staffing our schools and classrooms.

Thousands more teachers hired – A new report from the State Senate’s Ways & Means Chair, Sen. John Braun (Centralia), shows that since 2012, the state has added an average of 1,508 new teachers per year since 2012, for a total of just over 6,000 teachers. Looking at long-term trends, over the past four years the rate of hiring has increased significantly, with more classroom teachers added during that time than in the previous 12 years combined. And while each school and school district make staffing decisions based on local needs (and some state mandates), overall the increase in teacher hiring has translated into lower student-to-teacher ratios. According to the same Senate report, as of this past school year (2016-17), the statewide ratio was 1 teacher for every 17.9 students.

Moving forward, the recently enacted 2017-19 state budget includes investments to hire approximately 2,400 more teachers. While it is up to districts to decide at the local level how to allocate money from Olympia, the legislature has made a clear commitment in the state budget to hiring more educators.

Leveraging experienced staff already in schools – a new state law enacted in the 2017 legislative session could help address the shortage in special education teachers by providing an alternative path to teacher certification for para-educators already working with students with disabilities. Neal Morton of The Seattle Times reports the legislation provides a simpler path to teacher certification for some experienced para-educators, which allows school districts to tap into a “deep recruiting pool of thousands of educators who already work with special-needs and other at-risk students.” The bill also provides more training to current para-educators.

According to data in the bill’s language, para-educators provide over 60 percent of instruction to students who either have a disability, are learning English, or are from low-income families. Read more about the new law and how it can help address some teacher shortages, here.

What else could help? – Better pay for teachers in science, math and special education, and for those working in schools with significant number of students living in poverty is one approach consistently cited by policy experts as key. But a recent report suggests that states like Washington are unlikely to see meaningful pay differentiation among teachers anytime soon because of the strong political presence of the state teachers’ union and their commitment to collectively-bargained wages based mostly on seat time and paper credentials and less on expertise in high-demand areas.

Learn more about understanding and addressing teacher shortages here and here.