In education, we're getting increments, not excellence
Fundamental questions remain even after a judge rules the state isn't fully funding K-12 education: What should our schools aspire to, and how can we pay for improvement? We'll have to think big.
Seattle Public Schools
Let’s suppose that after the state exhausts all its likely appeals, the judgment of the courts remains what Superior Court Judge John Erlick determined last month: the State of Washington is failing in its “paramount duty… to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders” — that is, adequately fund K-12 education.
Where do we go from there?
Well, let’s further suppose that the legislature honestly tackles the problem. Quite a few legislators, led by Ross Hunter (D-Bellevue) among others, will make the effort. They’ve already blazed a trail with last year’s education reform bill (HB 2261), notable for its “to be funded later” approach, the only condition under which a coalition for the bill could be assembled. (Hunter says on his blog that the legislative study leading up to HB 2261 shows that full funding for K-12 might be as much as 40 percent above today’s levels.) The Erlick decision should at least strengthen the reformers’ hand.
In that case, what would success look like?
Sadly, it’s likely to look a lot like the K-12 system we have now unless fundamental questions are addressed — questions that go beyond what Erlick meant by “ample provision for the education of all the children,” and beyond the hopes of HB 2261, even assuming the legislature doesn’t gum it into mush trying to make it real over the next half-dozen sessions. In other words, arguments about the level of funding for this or that educational activity, the questions raised by the lawsuit, are not going to be arguments about what should be done to improve public schools; they’re going to be arguments about how much more, if any, the state can afford to pay for what they’re already doing.
Of course, more funding for public schools even as they are is worth fighting for, and in a post-recession world even without tax-structure changes there might be money to strengthen the basics. The most likely victories will be more money for high schools to pay for the six periods of instruction needed to meet the state Board of Education’s proposed CORE 24 graduation requirement (the state pays for only five now), and state funding for all-day kindergarten (only a half-day is supported now). Both of these deficiencies are typically made up for with voter-dependent local property tax levies.
But beyond these things, which are the low-hanging fruit, the going gets tough. It’s clear that even in good times the state’s tax structure can’t “amply” supply the needs of education. And in the current recession, we’re seeing that the system can’t manage the level of services we want elsewhere, either. Every recession has this impact, though not as severe. But the result is clear: Better, stable K-12 funding can’t be guaranteed in competition with other general fund needs and the demands of other political constituencies.
That means the underlying question, whether driven by the Erlick decision or not, is whether the legislature can find dedicated funding for K-12 education in addition to the current approximately 40 percent share of the general fund. That means new taxes, or a radical restructuring of existing taxes supporting education.
It’s not quite impossible.
In current law, the state provides what are called “levy equalization” funds to help small, mostly suburban and rural school districts where the tax base is so small that without help the levy rate would be crippling to local taxpayers. For example, Seattle’s school levy tax burden is about $2 per $1,000 of assessed value (the lowest in King County), thanks to the value of downtown office buildings and industrial properties. Imagine the tax rate without the assist from the city’s commercial tax base. What equalization does is provide state funds for communities whose tax base is insufficient to support their schools. And it’s not a freebie. Local voters must approve a levy at a certain level to qualify for the state funds.
So basically, K-12 currently has two sources of money: the state general fund (mostly from sales, B&O, and property taxes) and locally voted property taxes. It’s from the latter — or as a replacement for local levies, really — where some faint hope for increased K-12 revenue may arise. Suppose the legislature proposed to end local levies and replace them with a statewide dedicated “school tax” on property that would raise at least as much money as all school levies are allowed to raise now. Property taxes in Seattle would go up. In communities with small tax bases, they would go down. The money would be distributed by the state based on enrollment, the way most state school funding is currently doled out.
Of course, this is fantasy, or nearly so, given the constitutional and legislative hurdles facing new tax structures, not to mention Tim Eyman’s willingness to pounce on behalf of the know-nothing-and-don’t-care folks. But is it really a greater fantasy than any other proposal that would cement foundational funding for our K-12 schools — as the constitution in its ideal world requires?
Then there are the other issues, the ones that go beyond better support for what schools are doing now. To mention only two: What should be the state’s role in Pre-K education, and how should we go about improving teaching? There’s no missing the consensus that better Pre-K programs, especially for the children of low-income families, is essential to closing the achievement gap that’s contributing so alarmingly to social stratification in this country. But can we fund it?
There’s also a tremendous consensus right now that whatever else is going on, the surest contributor to student success is an excellent teacher in the classroom. The corollary, of course, is the (mostly tacit) admission that this is too often not the case. As a result, programs for teacher “professional development” abound. These days, practically every school district is investing in some kind of training, sometimes several kinds, for its teachers. It’s important and mostly helpful, but this is not exactly the kind of “continuing education” you find in other professions. Underlying most teacher professional development is the unspoken assumption that there is something here, somewhere, that if we could just get everyone to do it, there would be lots more excellent teachers, there would be huge and noticeable improvement. It’s a search for the holy grail. But all we’re going to get is increments, not excellence.
Almost as unrealistic in the pursuit of excellence is another option, one pretty much ruled out by current and foreseeable limits on school funding, not to mention labor agreements. It might work, though, by increasing teaching’s competitiveness and status relative to other professions: dramatically increase teacher pay. Raises of $20,000 to $30,000 above current levels would be in order. But there’d have to be a deal. Teachers accepting the raise would have to agree to serve at will. That is, they would be subject to year-end layoff for poor performance. (There might be options such as a half-year’s automatic severance built into this system, and changes in the hiring and firing of principals, as well.)
Such suggestions are only examples among a long list of reforms that that might make K-12 schools better and improve the outcomes for students, perhaps dramatically. But they and other options aren’t necessarily part of what’s now included in “basic education.” Nor does Judge Erlick’s decision require real changes in the tax structure. That’s why even full legal affirmation of his decision isn’t likely to produce much change in our schools.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Mar 15, 10:31 a.m. Inappropriate
I had PTA-budgeting sessions last week, like that described by Janet Pelz in the Times, that just make you want to cry. Because you realize what you are spending your money on is not new carpet, but basic education, and that many school don't have that option.
Dick, when will somebody step up and say the STATE UNDERFUNDING IS A SIGNIFICANT DRIVER OF INEQUALITY? If the state doesn't pay for kindergarten, or a counselor, those that can pay will have it and those that can't will have to go without.
Somehow, radical (not incremental change) is desirable w.r.t. education, but not even thinkable when it comes to tax structure. How about incremental tax structure changes so we can add back something every year to basic education, reversing the trend of the last decades? Starting with elementary counselors and kindergarten.
Posted Mon, Mar 15, 10:41 a.m. Inappropriate
A reader, Janet Pelz, sent this heartfelt comment to Dick Lilly's article:
I so appreciate the fact that you continue to analyze and report on public school issues. I’m saddened that SPS and the state Legislature move on these huge issues with so little review and reporting from the print media.
I want to bring to your attention the current and terrible state of funding in schools today. The main point to raise in respect to your article – before the state looks to make major improvements and expansions to its interpretation of basic education - it has to catch us back up to where we were just a few years ago. Before we add another period of high school, or all-day Kindergarten, we’ve got to have enough bodies in a school to provide recess for the kids there already! And math instruction, and library skills and counselors.
My son goes to Lowell Elementary. Last year, half of our community was sent to a different school in order to make room for TT Minor students. The District said Lowell was the only place all these students would fit and the only way to make room for them was to get rid of half of the student body that was at Lowell (only about a third of TT Minor actually made the move). Several problems occurred as a result, most criminal among which was that the students at TT Minor lost their Federal Title 1 support as a result of the move. In a school of about 200 students, that amounted to $185,000, which provided math instructors, reading coaches, tutors, nutritionists, full time librarian and other types of academic and family support. When they moved to Lowell, a school that didn’t reach the 40% Free/Reduced lunch threshold, they got a sum total of 0. Goose egg. Next year, as a result of the influx of APP students into Thurgood Marshall, that school will be in the same position.
So, now at Lowell where we once had two principals for two programs (APP plus the most significantly disabled students in the city) we now have one principal for 3 programs. Where last year we had a full-time librarian and a full-time counselor, next year we receive funding for a half-time librarian – no counselor. And because so few TT Minor families chose to come to Lowell, there are not enough students in any classroom for a full grade. Thus, we’ll have 4 split grade classes next year. Teachers say there is no way to teach math to two different grades at the same time, so this year, we’ve used our crumbs to employ a part-time math coach to work with half of those split-grade classes.
For next year, our school is faced with a painful decision – retain the half time math coach or lose that position for a half-time counselor. The ALO community wants the math coach, the APP community wants the counselor. And the loss of all those bodies, who used to supervise kids on the playground, means we can’t afford recess for the kids next year.
Funding basic education starts with funding the bare bones of basic education, which is not happening now. When I wrote a recent Seattle Times op-ed, I was besieged with comments from parents, teachers, librarians and counselors saying, finally! Someone is pointing out what we’re dealing with! I was amazed at what little it took to be seen a hero. So, join me in hero status, will you, and help tell the story of the abysmal depths our school funding has fallen to AS WE SPEAK!
--Janet Pelz
Posted Mon, Mar 15, 11:37 a.m. Inappropriate
I learned from following the saga of the Island Girl that 1/3 of the parents in Seattle send their children to private school. That might be part of the reason for both the situation and the lack of reporting and consequent outrage.
Posted Mon, Mar 15, 11:49 a.m. Inappropriate
There are a lot of unanswered questions hanging over this issue. Fees on public land timber sales used to fund education in Washington. Then that collapsed. Then it was argued the Lottery was supposed to provide so much revenue we wouldn't have to worry about funding education. So where is all the money going? In the intervening period, what, about 40% percent of parents have taken their kids out of the Seattle public school system because they refused to put up with all the social engineering B.S., wasting millions, and federal dollars shrunk. Parents who, if they were engaged in the system, would make an enormous difference. There are fewer kids in the system now to pay for. Why does a school district like Seattle run an huge bureaucracy compared to 40 years ago, with about half the student population? A structural analysis of the way school systems are operated is way overdue. But in the end, regardless of how much the state provides per student, which I don't believe has changed significantly, the stark truth is its the parents level of committment, in time and money, that makes the difference between good schools and bad ones.
Posted Mon, Mar 15, 1:20 p.m. Inappropriate
As someone who would NOT, under any circumstances, send a child to Public School (our 7th grader attends private school), I've grown tired of the discourse on education. So much so, that I am actively and openly hostile to increased funding of public education. The only viable option in the minds of advocates is increased funding, despite the inability to produce acceptable results with the resources on hand. The irony is that the evidence shows that more resources will not produce higher quality students, but instead, a larger quantity of average students. In the end, talk of new funding is besides the point, and a distraction from the task of making necessary reforms with the resources at hand. The demographic crunch society is now entering makes new funds a dubious prospect and can be summed up by the growing discrepancy between the cost to educate a child, and the cost to maintain a retiree.
Posted Mon, Mar 15, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate
Dick Lilly's essay and the subsequent comments are pretty interesting. They demonstrate the difference between the issues upper middle income people deem important and those research suggest kids need to be successful in school. Counselors and lots of administrators are all very nice but they do almost nothing to raise student achievement. The same is true of paying more for the system we currently have. Research supports putting well educated and trained teachers who hold children to high standards in classrooms. It also shows the difference parental involvement can make. Most of the rest of it is on the margin, if that.
Washington's paramount duty is educating its kids. We don't need to raise or restructure our tax system to do that, we just need to step up and do it. But defining basic ed to include a boatload of counselors, librarians, nurses, physical therapists, security guards, social workers, parental liaisons, assistant superintendents and the like complicates the funding issues the state faces. In order to define the perfect definition of basic ed, we may have created a more expensive system that looks great on paper but doesn't improve student achievement.
Again.
Posted Mon, Mar 15, 2:07 p.m. Inappropriate
Back in the days when Mossback and I got our good public educations in Seattle, K-12 was adequately funded by public lands timber AND, I could be wrong, but I do not believe basic education had to compete with Basic Health, etc. If the federal legislators of both parties ever got their act together and figured out how to manage the nation's health without violating the principles of sustainable actuary, states could again focus on their constitutional charge of growing citizens.
What goes around comes around, or however that saying goes.
Posted Tue, Mar 16, 8:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Since I am firmly on one side in Crosscut's ongoing discussion of whether or not to require real names on comments, I don't reply to individual unsigned notes. However, I want to thank you all for a thoughtful and illuminating series of comments. And particularly, I want to thank Janet Pelz for her email. In showing how closing TT Minor lost the Title 1 (low-income, federal) money for that group of kids, and weakened the school they moved to (Lowell), Janet brought out something all of us missed during the arguments with the district over closing elementary schools.
Posted Sun, Mar 21, 11:31 p.m. Inappropriate
So if a Court determined that I was violating the state constitution, do you think they would give me six years to stop doing it? If I were breaking the law, would the Court allow me to continue breaking it for six years as a figured out a way to obey it?
Posted Sun, Mar 21, 11:34 p.m. Inappropriate
Also, with every single politician in Olympia claiming that they care deeply about education, who are the ones - yes, please name names - who are voting against fully funding public K-12 education. I can name one: Christine Gregoire.
Posted Mon, Mar 22, 10:27 a.m. Inappropriate
"But what makes a good teacher? There have been many quests for the one essential trait, and they have all come up empty-handed. Among the factors that do not predict whether a teacher will succeed: a graduate-school degree, a high score on the SAT, an extroverted personality, politeness, confidence, warmth, enthusiasm and having passed the teacher-certification exam on the first try. When Bill Gates announced recently that his foundation was investing millions in a project to improve teaching quality in the United States, he added a rueful caveat. 'Unfortunately, it seems the field doesn’t have a clear view of what characterizes good teaching,' Gates said. 'I’m personally very curious.'
"When Doug Lemov conducted his own search for those magical ingredients, he noticed something about most successful teachers that he hadn’t expected to find: what looked like natural-born genius was often deliberate technique in disguise. 'Stand still when you’re giving directions,' a teacher at a Boston school told him. In other words, don’t do two things at once. Lemov tried it, and suddenly, he had to ask students to take out their homework only once.
"It was the tiniest decision, but what was teaching if not a series of bite-size moves just like that?"
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.