|
Legislative committees continued to plow through
education reform issues on Wednesday. This afternoon,
the House Education Committee held a public hearing on
the House version of the legislation to enhance
Washington’s eligibility for federal Race To The Top
funds. Unlike the Senate, which introduced an “omnibus”
bill,
SB 6696, as requested by Gov. Gregoire, the House
chose to divide the issues into three separate bills:
HB 3059,
HB 3035 and
HB 3038. In brief, the package of bills would do the
following:
- Establish a new teacher and principal evaluation
system, with an emphasis on student learning
- Extend of the provisional period for new
teachers from two to three years, and provide
additional teacher support.
- Strengthen parent involvement and feedback.
- Expand alternative certification providers for
teachers and principals.
- Implement a new system of district and school
performance accountability, including authority for
school turnarounds, known as “required action.”
- Require movement to national common core
standards.
- Add “innovation” to teacher “TRI” pay, aimed at
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) and the achievement gap.
WSSDA spoke specifically on the accountability bill,
HB 3038. As we did in the Senate on SB 6696, we reminded
Committee members that WSSDA helped drive discussions on
the need for an education accountability system in 1993
when HB 1209 was adopted. HB 1209, broadly, had three
steps: (1) establish high standards and assessments; (2)
provide districts with additional flexibility and
financial resources; and (3) hold districts and school
accountable for student achievement. The first step has
been accomplished and the second step has been
consistently neglected, yet the Legislature continues to
want to move to the accountability step. While we
supported accountability in 1993 and continue to support
accountability now, we reiterated our concern that
schools and districts should not be held accountable
when they are not given the opportunity to succeed. With
that as a backdrop, we outlined some of our concerns
with the new accountability system, as outlined in HB
3038. We limited our comments to three specific
concerns:
- Academic Performance Audits – We stressed that
these audits need to be conducted by “experts” who
understand the school system (specifically,
Washington’s education system) and who understand
local communities and local issues. Elected school
directors, as leaders in local communities, should
be a part of these audit teams.
- Required Action Plans – We stated our concern
that plans must be submitted to OSPI to ensure
consistency with federal guidelines, and then must
be submitted to the State Board for its acceptance
or rejection. We suggested that the plans should
only be required to “fit in the federal box” and SBE
should not have veto authority over the plans. In
additional to having an unnecessary extra step in
the process, we mentioned that for the last few
years, the State Board has consistently argued that
the agency doesn’t have the time, the resources or
staff to meet all its legislatively mandated
requirements — and this just adds to the Board’s
responsibilities.
- Title I funds – The SBE originally discussed the
withholding of Title I funds if a required action
plan was not accepted. They backed off that idea and
adopted a recommendation that SBE direct OSPI to
redirect a district’s Title I funds, if a required
action plan is not in place. We noted that local
school boards make local decisions on behalf of its
local constituents and federal funds due them should
not be redirected by someone else. We stated our
concern about the SBE having the authority to
redirect Title I funds — and also questioned whether
SBE should have the authority to direct another
agency, OSPI, to redirect funds.
The Senate Ways & Means Committee held a work session
on school district levy lids and Local Effort
Assistance, then held a public hearing on the three
levy-related bills as adopted earlier this week by the
Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee: SB
6502, SB 6488 and SB 6518.
-
SB 6502 would restore school district levy
bases. The bill would enhance school district levy
bases by assuming Initiative 728 (Student
Achievement) and Initiative 732 (educator COLAs)
were fully implemented by the Legislature. The
I-728/I-732 levy base enhancement currently in law
is set to expire at the end of calendar year 2011;
SB 6502 would extend this sunset to December 2017.
The bill would also allow K-4 class size enhancement
funding to continue to be counted in the calculation
of school district levy bases if the funding is
eliminated (which is proposed in the governors two
budget plans).
-
SB 6488 is the levy proposal we’ve discussed
previously requested by Gov. Gregoire. The bill
would temporarily (calendar years 2011-2017, as
amended in the Senate Ed Committee) increase all
school district levy lids to 36 percent and allow
districts to request a “supplemental” levy from
voters if they already had a levy in place and were
in the middle of a levy collection period. The bill
would also increase the allocation for Local Effort
Assistance from the current 12 percent levy rate to
an 18 percent levy rate, but ONLY for the top
quartile of those districts with the highest rates
necessary to raise a 12 percent levy (the remaining
LEA eligible districts would continue to receive the
current 12 percent match). Finally, the bill also
includes the I-728/732 levy base restoration through
calendar year 2017. As amended by the Senate Ed
Committee, the bill would also allow K-4 class size
enhancement funding to continue to be counted in the
calculation of school district levy bases if the
funding is eliminated.
-
SB 6518 would temporarily (calendar years
2011-2017) increase school districts’ levy lid to 28
percent (grandfathered district lids would also
increase by four percent) and allow districts to
request a “supplemental” levy from voters if they
already had a levy in place and were in the middle
of a levy collection period. The bill would also
temporarily increase LEA allocations to 14 percent
for all LEA eligible districts through calendar year
2017. Finally, the bill also includes the I-728/732
levy base restoration for levy collections through
calendar year 2017. As amended by the Senate Ed
Committee, the bill would also allow K-4 class size
enhancement funding to continue to be counted in the
calculation of school district levy bases if the
funding is eliminated.
As we did in the Senate Ed Committee, we supported
the levy base restoration in SB 6502 (as well as the
levy base restoration in SB 6488 and SB 6518). We
strongly opposed SB 6488, arguing that the levy lid
increase goes too far and the increase in LEA only
assists some of those districts that need additional
assistance. We argued that solutions should be found for
all 295 districts — for all one million students — and
not just solutions for those select districts that can
raise money on their own or those few districts on the
other end of the scale.
In testimony on SB 6518, we expressed our historical
position of opposing increases in the levy lid because:
boosting the local levy lid relieves the pressure on the
Legislature to fulfill its constitutional obligation to
fully fund Basic Education; and increasing the levy lid
serves to exacerbate the current inequities between the
so-called “property rich” and the so-called “property
poor” districts. It is clear, however, that given the
financial distress in which most districts find
themselves, some type of emergency assistance is needed.
And given the state’s financial woes, it is clear the
Legislature will not provide the needed support any time
soon. The only option currently on the table is an
increase in the levy lid. So, with much reluctance, we
(along with WASA) supported SB 6518. We made it clear
that our support of the bill was very much conditional:
(1) the levy lid increase in the bill must remain
temporary; and (2) the enhancement in Local Effort
Assistance (for ALL eligible districts) must remain.
Questions have been raised about why WSSDA took this
position. WSSDA’s Standing Legislative Position states
our ongoing opposition to increasing the levy lid;
however, it also states that if an increase in the levy
lid is adopted, a commensurate increase in LEA must be
included. Legislators know they don’t have the resources
to assist districts and the governor and many key
legislators are desperately looking for a way to help
struggling school districts. Their “solution” is to
allow school districts to help themselves by forcing
districts to go back to their local voters for more
support (the same “solution” is being used with
struggling cities and counties: letting them help
themselves by raising their own local funds). Given the
circumstances, it seems to be inevitable that the levy
lid WILL be increased. The questions are: How much? How
long? And coupled with what? With a presumed
increase in the levy lid, WSSDA’s leadership felt it was
a more realistic and strategic approach to support SB
6518 (with conditions) and be a part of the discussion,
rather than yelling, “No” and being excluded from the
conversation. Our conditional support of SB 6518 allows
us to strongly advocate for maintained and enhanced
funding for LEA — and provides us with the credibility
to strongly oppose the governor’s plan to assist only a
minority of the “rich” districts and a minority of the
most “poor” districts, while doing nothing (excepting
exacerbating disparities) for the remaining majority of
school districts.
Finally, today the House Environmental Health
Committee held a public hearing on one bill of interest
to school directors:
HB 2818. The bill would require state agencies to
purchase and use cleaning products which have properties
that minimize potential impacts to human health and the
environment. School districts are specifically defined
as “state agencies” for the purposes of this bill. We
testified in opposition to the bill, stating that we
understood the intent of the bill; however, we argued
that 295 independently governed school districts operate
much differently than a state agency and we questioned
the potential list of unfunded mandates that may come
with the bill’s requirements. HB 2818 specifically
exempts “local governments” from the provisions of the
bill, although they would be “encouraged” to review
their purchasing practices. We requested, if the bill
moves forward, school districts be removed from the
definition of state agency and be included in the local
government category.
|
