Education

WPC's Center for Education conducts objective research and makes practical policy recommendations to improve Washington State's ability to carry out its paramount duty to educate every child within its borders.

Research Centers / Education / Research Centers / Education / What's New

What's New

The Senate takes an important step to restore arm's length transactions with unions

April 14, 2009 in Blog

Last night the Senate voted 30-20 to pass an amendment to a bill, HB 1329, which considerably slowed down the union-led effort  to force small day care workers into a union.  A study will now be undertaken to determine if collective bargaining improves quality of day care or benefits for workers, or not.

Richard Roesler's blog points out that critics of the bill were also uncomfortable with a provision of the bill that would have taken union dues directly out of the state's subsidy payments, instead of directly from workers.  (This involves a considerable sum of money---$6.1 million in dues from subsidy payments to the union of family day care providers.)

Last legislative session, we pointed out in the Seattle PI here that the proposed bill would turn the state into a bill collector for the union, essentially allowing the state and union to act as one party for the purpose of dues collection, threatening the interest of the public and taxpayers to understand what is really going on.  I said : "When you have a contract, you are supposed to have an arm's length relationship so that the interests of the parties are clearly defined and not veiled to the public."

Another analogy can be made here to illegal contracts of adhesion, which are contracts so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained, for example, a rich landlord imposing onerous contract provisions on a poor tenant, or a large and powerful union imposing onerous contract provisions on small day care centers.

By passing this amendment, our legislators have demonstrated their understanding of the need to put a powerful union at arm's length from the state.  The legislature is wise to prevent the deduction of union dues from state subsidy payments.  The legislature should consider that the same lack of arm's length, the same appearance of impropriety, exists when the state directs day care centers to deduct union dues from workers' paychecks. 

Every other professional organization (Bar Association, the American Institute of Architects, the Professional Engineers, the Association of General Contractors, to name just a few) has to collect dues from its members without help from the state.   Why is the state in the business of helping unions collect their dues?

Legislators should extend this arm's length thinking to other contracts with other unions.  Local school districts automatically deduct teachers' union dues from their paychecks.  This allows powerful unions to act like rich landlords, forcing school districts to agree to contracts they cannot afford. 

Retraining teachers has not worked to improve student learning

April 13, 2009 in Blog

Today, the Port Orchard Independent published two letters reacting to my editorial "Our schools need better teachers, not more money." The first letter concludes that "the entire education system is out of whack, and money isn't what it will take to fix it."  The second letter states that in order to have good teachers, we have to pay extra education dollars for "coaching, training, development, performance management, classroom audits" and such.  

More money will not fix our schools.  Only better hiring and spending decisions at the local school level will improve our schools.

We have already spent billions of dollars to raise teacher quality.  Between 1993 and 2008 the legislature spent over $5 billion in 80 education reform programs aimed at teacher training and other efforts--see Appendix to our Education Reform Plan.

Yet only 19 students out of every 100 manage to earn an associate or four year college degree. Many of the kids who make it to college drop out, as they have not been prepared for the rigor of college by their K-12 education.

As the most important factor for student learning is the quality of the teacher, why can't we allow principals to hire the best possible teachers (by not limiting the hiring pool to those who hold a credential) for the classroom?  And why can't we allow principals to control their budgets, so they can spend education dollars in the best way possible to reduce student loads on classroom teachers--a reform which is now working in other states to raise achievement?

Pouring more money into a dysfunctional, broken system will not improve our schools. 

More and more money for education doesn't mean better education for kids

April 10, 2009 in Blog

Since 2004, lawmakers have increased spending on K-12 education by 30%, from $7.7 billion to $10.1 billion.  Lawmakers have found it easier to ride the wave of increased tax collections during the good times than to pass substantive, systemic school management reforms that produce better academic results for kids.

Students have not benefited from this 30% increase in school spending.  Today's Alliance for Excellent Education conference held in Seattle, and sponsored by the College Success Foundation, revealed that 70% of Washington 8th graders are reading below grade level, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

The chart below shows that despite a 30% increase in education spending, academic outcomes for students haven't improved at all.  More spending simply doesn't help.  School administrators need to make better use of the money taxpayers are giving them now, not just ask for more.

NAEP-graph

 

The Governor wants to raise your property taxes

April 8, 2009 in Blog

In today's Seattle Times, Governor Gregoire urged lawmakers to lift local levy lids to allow 75 school districts to collect an additional $68 million more in local property taxes.  The Governor justifies lifting of levy lids by claiming that voters have previously approved these increases, but that the lids capped the amount voters approved. 

How does the Governor know what the voters intended?  Perhaps voters knew that the levy lid would cap their tax exposure.  Let's have a vote today on these property taxes to see what taxpayers intended:  would taxpayers approve a bailout for the governor or not?

Changing the levy lid rules now is like changing the rules in the middle of the game, violating all standards of fair play and responsible leadership. The Governor and legislature increased state spending on education by 30% since 2004, knowing that such a rate of increase was unsustainable for long.  Had the Governor and legislature restrained itself and saved more in the Rainy Day and other funds, some of these school districts wouldn't find themselves in financial trouble today. 

What Washington’s “Green” Schools Tell Us about HB 2334’s $3 Billion Spending Plan

April 7, 2009 in Publications
By

Todd Myers, Director, Center for the Environment

, April, 2009

In an effort to promote “green” jobs and to encourage energy savings in schools, universities and public buildings, the legislature is considering HB 2334, which would send a $3 billion bond proposal to voters this fall.  The money would fund projects designed to save energy, as well as improve health and safety in public buildings. Supporters claim the bill would create 90,000 new jobs in 2010-11.  Funding to repay the bonds would come in part from expected energy savings.

How to End the Math and Science Teacher Shortage

April 7, 2009 in Publications
By

Liv Finne, Director, Center for Education

, April, 2009

Washington public schools face long-term, persistent shortages of qualified math and science teachers. In 2001, the legislature realized the state’s rigid certification requirements limit the supply of qualified teachers. That year lawmakers passed a bill to create an Alternate Route program to make it easier for mid-career math and science professionals to enter the teaching profession.

Though K-12 school spending will increase by 4-5%, school districts may be forced to lay off teachers

April 6, 2009 in Blog

School districts are complaining about having to lay off teachers. 

If these layoffs happen, it is not due to lack of funding, but rather because school districts have little control over the way they spend their money.  Under either the House or Senate budget proposal, taxpayers will be providing increased funds to public schools.  The numbers demonstrate that under either budget proposal, total public school spending will increase.  The House budget would increase state spending on public schools by 5.3% and the Senate budget by 4.5%.  (Remember that the state provides approx 70% of all spending on public education, as local districts and the federal government provide the rest.  Total per pupil funding from all sources was $9418 in 2008.)

                                                            House Budget                        Senate Budget

                                                            Total Budgeted Funds             Total Budgeted Funds

                                                    Basic Ed and NonBasic Ed             Basic Ed and NonBasic Ed

2007-09 Estimated Expenditures            $15,167,950,000                            $15,167,950,000

2009-11 Budget                                     $15,979,517,000(5.3% increase)     $15,858,968,000(4.5%incr.)

Teacher layoffs, however, may happen despite these increases in spending because school districts are forced by funding formulas to spend their ample resources in ways dictated by the legislature.  School districts should be allowed to use increased funding to Basic Ed, the largest silo of money (which amounts to 81% of K-12 funding by the state), to offset reductions to NonBasic Ed, a smaller silo of money for programs such as Initiative 728 (class size reductions of approx one student per class statewide) and Initiative 732 (teacher pay increases).

The House and Senate budgets both increase General Apportionment (82% of Basic Ed)  as follows:

                                                        House Bill                                    Senate Bill

2007-09 Estimated Expenditures        $9,265,714,000                             $9,265,714,000

2009-11 Budgets                             $10,465,371,000(13% increase)      $10,747,319,000(16% increase)

School districts will have plenty of money with which to avoid layoffs to teachers, but may be prevented by their funding formulas from doing so.      

Our legislators continue to increase spending on public schools.  They should be giving local districts the flexibility they need over spending.   

Senate budget proposes increases to Basic Education spending and decreases to Non Basic Ed spending

March 31, 2009 in Blog

Since 2004, the state has increased spending on K-12 education by 30%. Now that revenues are not growing at double-digit rates, the Legislature has to reduce its rate of spending on education. 

Under yesterday's proposed Senate Budget, state spending on Basic Education would increase, and spending on Non-Basic Education programs would be reduced, with an overall reduction to state spending on K-12 education of 3.5%.  This budget describes federal "stabilization funding" totaling $1.42 billion for education. You can read an overview of the Senate budget here.

 

Here is a quick summary of this budget: 

In 2007-9, the total budget for public schools approximately $18 billion from all state, local and federal sources.  

 

Of the $15.1 billion provided by the state in the last biennium, about $11 billion is for Basic Education programs.  The balance of about $2.6 billion is spent on Non-basic education programs, which include  I-732 (teacher pay increases) and I-728 spending (class size reduction and other efforts), and a miscellany of education reform and other programs. 

The Senate budget released yesterday would increase spending on Basic Education by 16% to $12.9 billion. 

 

The Senate Budget would reduce Non Basic Education spending by $1.87 billion.  These reductions would include elimination of I-732 costs ($396.3 million), reducing I-728 (by $728 million, though maintaining $300 million in I-728 spending through federal funding), saving $297 million on K-4 reductions in class size (possibly restored in part through increased staffing ratios under Basic Education general apportionment), and saving $410 million on eliminating local effort assistance, professional development, and other education reform programs.

 

It is unclear from this budget exactly how the $1.42 billion in federal funds and $360 million from a one-time state funding source will be allocated to offset these reductions. 

 

More on this as budget discussions continue.

 

Liv Finne, Director, Center for Education, Washington Policy Center

Private Legislative Session Update Reception with WPC Research Center Directors

March 26, 2009 in Events
Date: 
Thursday, March 26th, 2009
Time: 
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Place: 
Bellevue, WA
Google Maps

Washington Policy Center held a private reception with WPC board members and other key supporters on Thursday, March 26th in Bellevue. WPC’s research center directors discussed the issues being debated in Olympia as we entered the homestretch of our state’s Legislative Session. Topics included the state budget shortfall, transportation, small business issues, education and the environment.

Watch the videos:

Introduction by WPC President Dann Mead Smith

The National Council on Teacher Quality gives Washington State a C- for retaining effective teachers

March 25, 2009 in Blog

The National Council on Teacher Quality has issued its 2008 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, which  evaluates all 51 states (including the District of Columbia) for creating policies aimed at the retention of effective teachers.  Its report on Washington State gives Washington an overall C-, an average of the following grades:

    1) a D- for policies which identify effective teachers;

    2) a C- for policies which retain effective teachers;

    3) a B- for policies which exit ineffective teachers. 

These grades are for policies which exist on paper for achieving these goals, and do not evaluate Washington's actual success or failure on these measures. 

I found one of the findings about tenure--which gives teachers job security for life-- to be particularly telling:

Washington does not require any process to ensure that tenure decisions are meaningful. Washington has a two-year probationary period for new teachers, but there is no indication that at the conclusion of this period any additional process evaluating cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness is required for tenure.  The awarding of tenure appears to be virtually automatic. See page 13.

Clearly, this needs to change.  The entire concept of tenure for K-12 teachers should be re-evaluated. Why do we permit K-12 teachers lifetime job security when they are arguably performing one of society's most important functions---the preparation of our youth for tomorrow?