Civic Cocktail: A guide to Washington's education funding debate

What you should know about public education in Washington before attending Crosscut's newest televised event.
Given new (positive) developments in contract talks, looks like school may start on time after all.

Given new (positive) developments in contract talks, looks like school may start on time after all. Photo: Don Brubeck

Susan Enfield, Highline School District Superintendent and former Seattle Public Schools Interim Superintendent.

Susan Enfield, Highline School District Superintendent and former Seattle Public Schools Interim Superintendent. Seattle Public Schools

‘Tis the school enrollment season, during which parents and students try to gauge their chances at receiving the best education public money can buy. Should they stick to their neighborhood school or play the odds of being accepted to a school in another part of town? Should they move to Bellevue? Move to Shoreline? Go private?

Parents throughout our state can diligently tour schools, compare school “report cards” issued by the State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, try to enroll their kids in specialized programs or schools, follow their gut feelings or rely on the experiences of trusted friends. But in the end, there is only so much control a given school or school district has over the quality of our kids’ educations.

Now, more than ever, decisions that will impact your child’s education from pre-school through university are being made in Olympia.

Here’s some of what’s on the table:

In January 2012, the State Supreme Court determined that Washington had failed to meet its constitutional duty to fully fund basic education. Following this determination, known as the McCleary decision, a joint task force on education funding was established by the Washington State legislature to figure out what it would take to remedy the situation. In its final report, issued last December, the task force estimated that it will take $1.4 billion in the next biennial budget cycle, and $4.5 billion by 2017-19 to fulfill the McLeary obligations.

Where will the money come from? That’s the billion dollar question.

On February 28, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that Initiative 1053, which required a supermajority vote in the legislature to raise new taxes or close tax loopholes, is unconstitutional, thus opening the door for revenue increases. Let the rhetoric and legislative wrangling begin.

The legislature’s deadline for passing bills out of their committee of origin has come and gone. Representatives in Olympia will consider a host of proposals on the education spectrum, including:  

  • Developing an integrated early learning system 
  • Tracking students’ “educational health”
  • Enabling automatic academic acceleration for students who meet grade level standards 
  • Fostering STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) literacy 
  • Providing professional development for teachers in support of the new teacher evaluation system and
  • A variety of measures geared towards closing the academic opportunity gap. 

They’ll also deliberate on the Joint Task Force’s phase-in implementation plan for the McLeary decision. 

Higher education funding is also under scrutiny. What does the future hold for the Guaranteed Education Tuition Program? Should higher education institutions be rewarded with financial performance incentives?

Our State Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn says our opportunity gap remains too wide and we are in funding crisis mode. Our communities are grappling with the frequency and efficacy of standardized testing. In Seattle, union leaders and District administrators will soon come to the table to negotiate a new teachers’ contract. Our state high school graduation rates have improved slightly, but still hover at around 75 percent. Our businesses say they have to import qualified workers. And for better or for worse, charter schools will debut in our state.

Time for a cocktail; a civic cocktail, that is.

Dr. Susan Enfield served as vice-chair of the legislature’s Joint Task Force on Education Funding. She also currently serves as Superintendent of the Highline School District, whose vision is that every student graduates prepared for college, career and citizenship. Enfield previously served as Interim Superintendent of the Seattle School District and as that District’s Chief Academic Officer.

Bringing the funding conundrum perspective from Olympia, her experience running the state’s largest public school district and her goals for Highline schools, Dr. Enfield will serve as the catalyst for a civil, civic conversation about the future of education in Washington state.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Mar 4, 12:12 p.m. Inappropriate

I've been giving a lot of thought to the conundrum presented by the McCleary decision. I read the decision and read the 1993 legislation that set it up. It seems to me that the Legislature created a no win situation for itself in 1993 by making it a law that all students have to demonstrate a level of proficiency. Don't get me wrong, our public schools can do a lot better than they now do. But there's no way the 1993 standard of ALL students demonstrating proficiency can ever be reached. http://www.k12.wa.us/dataadmin/pubdocs/GradDropout/10-11/GradDropoutStats_2010-11.pdf indicates that more than 20% of all Washington high school students drop out or fail to complete within 4 or 5 years. And despite the dumbing down of the WASL and the change in its name, no schools have a 100% pass rate.

Now McCleary buys into prescriptive solutions like reduced class size and more hours in class, and you've got to find a way to pay for it. That's not going to meet the 1993 standard. At Bellevue High, they claim that 96% of students will go on to college. Bellevue High does not have a 100% WASL pass rate, and not all the kids who attend graduate. The International School has a higher pass rate, but you could argue that folks who self select into their lottery and are willing to provide their own transportation to school are somehow different than the demographics at other Bellevue high schools. Still, while International shows the best performance in the district, that performance is still based on the same district wide curriculum, class sizes, and number of classroom hours.

I think the Legislature needs to redefine what it means to deliver basic education. It has to be about the quality of the curriculum and the qualifications and performance of the teaching corps, and not so much about measuring student performance. Tom Stritikus, the Dean of Education at the UW, can tell you about how to teach teachers to teach in ways that enhance student learning. I'm not saying that students shouldn't be evaluated to ensure that they're learning, but hanging the definition of success solely on student performance is never going to get us there. Now you're tasked with finding $1-2 Billion to fund smaller class sizes and more instructional hours. If you do that and the court finds that all kids still aren't demonstrating proficiency, what then?

gadfly

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »