Bellevue – February 2018 ballot overview

Jan 31 by Eastside Education Network Leave a Comment

Proposition 1 – Educational Programs & Operations Levy (Renewal)

Quick look – the proceeds from this levy go fund day-to-day classroom and operational needs that are not funded by the state. Total collected in four years = $304 million.

7th period classes and tutorial at middle schools and high schools
Additional nurses, counselors, and security
Special Education
Gifted Programs
Orchestra, band, music, and art in elementary schools
World languages in middle schools
Athletics and after school activities

Proposition 2 – Technology & Capital Projects Levy (Renewal)

Quick look – proceeds from this levy go towards the programs it currently funds. Total collected in four years = $163 million.

Proceeds will fund:

Classroom technology and training for teachers
Laptops for middle school and high school students
Large scale school improvements like the carpeting, roofs, and heating and cooling systems
Integrated digital curriculum
Collaborative STEM learning
Access to new technologies that support student learning

Proposition 3 – School Bus Levy

Quick look – proceeds from this levy go will address growing enrollment by increasing bus capacity for 7-10 years Total collected in one year = $8 million.

Proceeds will fund:

Less crowded buses
Increased convenience with more bus routes
Reduced traffic congestion around schools
Continued safe travel for field trips and extracurricular activities

Financial impact – The local school tax rate will decrease from $2.93 in 2017 to $2.58 in 2022. This amount includes the cost of bonds previously approved by voters for the construction of new buildings.

Note: The Bellevue School District website did not include information about changes in state property tax rates to pay for education across the state.

Want to learn more?

Bellevue School District February Levy Measures Information Page

About this series: EEN’s School District Ballot Measure Overview provides voters with information about the February 2018 levy/bond ballot measures, compiled from each school district’s website. EEN intern Cami Brix contributed to this series.

Northshore – February 2018 ballot overview

Jan 31 by Eastside Education Network 1 Comment

Proposition 1 – Renewal Educational Programs & Operations Levy

Quick look – This levy provides 20 percent of the school district’s budget for educational programs, services and daily operations. Total: $234 million.

Proceeds will fund:

Special education
Academic support for advanced learners
Transportation not funded by the state
Interventions for struggling learners
Enrichment and extra-curricular activities including music, drama, sports and clubs
Basic education needs not funded by the state and federal government’

Proposition 2 – Capital Projects Bond

Quick look – proceeds from this levy help ease overcrowding now, while also planning for the future growth of the district. Total: $275 million.

Proceeds will fund:

Provide safety and security upgrades at every school in the district
Build a new K-5 school near Maltby
Add 30 classrooms at the Skyview Middle School and Canyon Creek Elementary School campus. View rendering of the proposed building’s side view
Create a performing arts and instructional building at Inglemoor High School, ensuring accessibility and equity among high schools
Provide maintenance, operation upgrades at many schools

Proposition 3 – Renewal Technology Levy

Quick look – the proceeds from this bond ensure every student has access to technology, and to also make sure teachers and students have the skills to use technology as a valuable learning resource. Total: $62 million.

Proceeds will fund:

1:1 access to computes/tablets for all grades, which may consist of
- K-5 graders accessing a cart of devices in their rooms
- 6-12 graders assigned a device to take to classes
- Assistive technology for students with special needs
- District engagement of parents to determine an implementation strategy
- Training for teachers for classroom technology use
- Continued student training for online safety, digital citizenship
- Technology to improve district communications to families

Financial impact – The total local property tax rate for schools is projected to decrease in 2018, increase in 2019 and then continue to decrease from that point forward.

	Current tax rate (per $1,000 AV)	New estimate tax rate (per $1,000 AV)	Total generated
Educational Programs & Operations Levy	$1.93	$1.82	$234 M
Capital Projects Bond	$1.78	$1.59	$275 M
Technology Levy	$0.30	$0.48	$62 M
	$4.01	$3.89

Note: The Northshore School District website did not include information about upcoming changes in the state property tax rate to pay for education.

Want to learn more?

2018 Northshore Bond and Levies Overview

Financial impact of local and state levies

Riverview – February 2018 ballot overview

Jan 31 by Eastside Education Network Leave a Comment

Proposition 1 – Educational Programs and Operations Replacement Levy

Quick look – The four-year replacement levy would provide $8,450,000 in 2019, $7,800,000 in 2020, $7,820,000 in 2021 and $7,820,000 in 2022.

Proceeds will fund:

Additional Classroom
Teachers
Special Education Services
Librarians
Music Specialists
Physical Ed Specialists
Counselors
Gifted/Remediation Program
Educational Assistants
Extracurricular Activities
Textbooks/Library Books
Support Staff
Coaches/Advisors
Student Transportation
Food Service Staff
Custodial/Maintenance
Staff Training
After-School Programs

Proposition 2 – Technology and Capital Projects Replacement Levy

Quick look – This four-year replacement levy would provide $2,845,000 for collection in each year of 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Proceeds will fund:

Student-Issued Devices grades 6-12
Classroom Laptop Carts grades 3-5
iPads grades K-2
Student Learning Software
Staff Computer Replacements
Classroom Modernizations
Wireless Display Panels
Increase & Upgrade Wireless
Network/Infrastructure Upgrades
Replacement Security Cameras
Community Notification Software
District Robotics Program
Career & Technical Education (CTE) Program Equipment
Continued Staff Training
Portable Additions and Replacement
Technology Support Staff
Facility Repair and Maintenance

Proposition 3 – Transportation Vehicle Fund Levy

Quick look – the proceeds from this bond will purchase new buses to serve growing student enrollment and to replace existing buses that no longer adequately meet transportation and student safety needs. This is two-year levy that would provide $640,000 in 2019 and $640,000 in 2020.

Financial impact

Approx. local levy tax per $1,000 AV	Current 2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Prop #1 Replacement EP&O	$2.22	$1.93*	$1.65*	$1.53*	$1.42*
Prop #2 Replacement Technology & Capital Levy	$0.46	$0.65	$0.60	$0.56	$0.52
Prop #3	$0	$0.15	$0.14	$0	$0
Total $/year per $1,000	$2.68	$2.73	$2.39	$2.09	$1.94

*Current state plan will change the amounts above to $1.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation

Note: The Riveriew School District website did not include information about upcoming changes to the state property tax rate to pay for education across the state.

Want to learn more?

Riverview School District School Board Approves Ballot Resolutions

Riverview Ballot Resolutions Overview

Everett – February 2018 ballot overview

Jan 31 by Eastside Education Network Leave a Comment

Proposition 1 – Replacement Educational Programs and Operations (EP&O) Levy

Quick look – Average annual amount per year: $49 million. This is less than the $51 million average per year of the levy expiring on Dec. 31, 2018.

Proceeds will fund:

Early learning
Summer school
Extended-day programs
Teaching materials and equipment
Transportation
Music
Art
Drama
Athletics and extracurricular activities
Competitive staff salaries
Professional training for staff
Special education
STEM programs
Highly Capable programs
Ongoing facilities and maintenance

Proposition 2 – Capital Bond

Quick look – proceeds from this $330.6 million bond will fund:

Adding 36 permanent elementary classrooms districtwide to lower class size.
Improving safety and access at Emerson and Jefferson elementary school, including new parking lots
Everett HS cafeteria building modernization and expansion
Cascade HS science building modernization and expansion
Electrical systems upgrades districtwide
HVAC upgrades at four schools and maintenance facility
Land for a future elementary school #20
Jackson HS classroom retrofits
HVAC unit upgrades for 12 portable classrooms
Modernizing portions of existing high school space to transform into career-connected learning centers focused on Aerospace and Advanced Manufacturing (Cascade HS), Health & Medical (Everett HS), Communications and Information Technology (Jackson HS) and Energy and Sustainability (New HS #4)

Financial impact

If both the Capital Bond and Replacement Educational Programs and Operations Levy are approved, tax collections to complete those projects begin in 2019. That year the local school tax rate is projected to be $4.89 per each $1,000 of property value. That rate is the lowest local school tax rate for property owners in the district since 2013. The projected tax rate is expected to remain stable at $4.89 through 2024.

Note: The Everett School District website did not include information about upcoming changes to the state property tax rate to pay for education across the state.

Want to learn more?

Everett School District bond/levy information page

Snoqualmie Valley – February 2018 ballot overview

Jan 31 by Eastside Education Network Leave a Comment

Proposition 1 – Educational Programs and Operations (EP&O) Replacement Levy

Quick look – The Proposition 1 levy would authorize an average of $15.5 million per year for 2019 through 2022.

Proceeds will fund:

School nurses, counselors, STREAM teachers, support staff
Instructional coaches and training to improve teaching
Educational programs and curriculum supplies
Substitutes
Food services
Pupil transportation
Student activity programs (music, art, club, sports, extra-curricular)
Summer school
Materials, insurance, utilities, other operational costs
Locally-bargained compensation and supplemental work
Community use of facilities

Proceeds will also fund these future costs and improvements:

Opening new high school (2019)
Transition to 7-period HS schedule
Reinstating third middle school (2019)
Opening preschool facility
School start times adjustments
Enhancing communications
Program enhancements: world language, music, art, positive behavior interventions and supports, STEM
Behavioral health services
Reduce student fees for classes/labs, extracurricular, supply lists
Increase school unit budgets
Collective bargaining to attract and retain staff
Staffing support to increase focus on student data collection and analysis

Proposition 2 – Technology Replacement Levy

Quick look – continues funding for technology, equipment, support, infrastructure needs, training for students and staff and expanding STEM learning opportunities. The levy would authorize an average of $4.7 million per year for 2019 through 2022.

Proceeds will fund these current programs:

School technology equipment and programs for students and staff
Network/wireless infrastructure upgrades and expansion
Emergency communications, safety and security systems
Professional development and training for staff

Proceeds will also fund these improvements:

One-to-one computers for students grades 6-12 for school/home use
Computers for classroom use grades K-5
Computer science instruction in elementary and middle school
Replace aging classroom projectors with interactive displays

Financial impact – The combined local school levy tax rate is expected to decrease an estimated $0.67 per $1,000 assessed property value (AV) in 2019. The state portion of school taxes will increase an estimated $0.94/$1,000 AV in 2019.

The combined 2019 EP&O and Technology levy rates are decreasing compared to 2017 rates of the expiring levies. The state is increasing its statewide property tax to fund additional staffing for K-3 class size reduction and teacher/staff pay.

	2017 rates	2019 rates (estimate)	Difference
EP&O Levy	$2.26	$1.50	-$0.76
Tech Levy	$0.35	$0.44	$0.09
State Schools Tax	$2.03	$2.97	$0.94
Combined Total	$4.64	$4.91	$0.27

Calculating estimated costs: Assessed Value/$1,000 x Rate

Snoqualmie Valley School District website levy info page

About this series: EEN’s School District Ballot Measure Overview provides voters with information about the February 2018 levy/bond ballot measures, compiled from each school district’s website. EEN intern Cami Brix contributed to this series.

Mercer Island – February 2018 ballot overview

Jan 25 by Eastside Education Network Leave a Comment

Proposition 1 – Replacement educational maintenance and operations levy

Quick look – The levy would collect $11.75 million and $12.75 million per year from 2019 to 2022. It will continue to fund 20 percent of the Mercer Island School District general fund, including 38 percent of special education funding.

Proceeds will fund:

Transportation (backfilling what the state does not cover)
Qualified substitute teachers
7 period day at HS
Expanded electives at HS and MS
FTE to support students in the online learning program at CREST
Smaller class sizes for “focus” sections for struggling students
Ongoing professional development opportunities for staff in a myriad of areas
Stipends for staff to offer additional opportunities for students
Afterschool clubs and activities at all grade levels including Destination Imagination, student interest clubs such as coding, community service, etc.
Athletic opportunities beyond what ASB covers
Enhanced library collections
Some curriculum materials
Classified support in classrooms with overloads, additional Special Education/English Language Learning students, as well as student supervision and safety
Special Education, 38% of Special Education funding comes from local levy
Elementary K-5 Music, Art, PE and Spanish

Financial impact

Collection year	Est levy rate/$1,000 AV	Levy amount
2019	$1.00	$11,750,000
2020	$1.00	$12,000,000
2021	$1.00	$12,300,000
2022	$1.00	$12,750,000

Note: The Mercer Island School District website did not include information about upcoming changes to the state property tax rate to pay for education across the state.

Want to learn more? Mercer Island School District bond/levy information page

Eight Washington districts earn AP honor roll distinction

Jan 4 by Beth Sigall 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

Dec 15 by Beth Sigall 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:

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.
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.
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

Nov 19 by Beth Sigall 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

Nov 18 by Beth Sigall 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.