"Republicans are dead set against any tax increases..."

So is the Governor. Remember?

Thanks for the excellent overview. A few thoughts:

- "Republicans stress their slogan of "reform before revenue." Their argument is that not much more money is needed, but it needs to be spent smarter." And we wait and wait for them to tell us - okay, how would you spend the money and better yet, what are district spending on that you would cut? Because honestly, districts have cut back and cut back. Seattle has no summer school. No college/career counselors. Most of the elementary counselors were cut. Ever larger class sizes.

What would they cut further?

Second, that "reform" costs money. They don't like to say that but it does.

Third, you left out the costs of charter schools, both direct and indirect. It is going to cost districts money when they lose students (and, of course, via conversion charters, actual buildings that they no longer control but must pay to maintain) and lose levy dollars.

And there's the direct cost of charters in the form of oversight.

I support what Highline Superintendent Susan Enfield has said repeatedly. She has said that the state wants a lot from her district in terms of outcomes but will not give her the funding to do it. One example she uses is the state not funding full-day kindergarten. You want these kids to be on-track to learning (especially for reading) and the State only funds half-day kindergarten?

The ed reform movement is slowly starting to collapse on itself. With any luck, this will happen before Washington State gets too sucked into this black hole.

Fund what works (and what parents and teachers - you know the real people on the ground - know they want):
- full-day K
- smaller class sizes
- direct interventions to struggling students (K-12)
- direct interventions to high school students in danger of dropping out (Everett and Tukwila have done this and their graduation rates? Up to 80%.
- assessments that give real and useful feedback to both parents, teachers and students

"The ed reform movement is slowly starting to collapse on itself. With any luck, this will happen before Washington State gets too sucked into this black hole."

That is worth repeating. Washington's economy will suffer. Time to follow the lead of Indiana and get rid of the common core, pronto.

How about removing 40,000 illegal aliens and children of illegal aliens from the schools? How much does that save? How about removing the requirement for union personnel in non-teaching school jobs. Does a union Janitor really clean better than a non-union janitor? How about removing State Sales tax on school construction projects with artificially inflates the costs to the taxpayers.

Cameron, no problem removing non-citizens from the public schools. All you have to do is amend the state constitution which now requires the state to pay for their education. You get right on that, okay? Until the constitution is changed, however, I'd prefer the state complied with it.

Even if districts hired non-union janitors, those janitors would have the right to organize themselves and join a union. They don't surrender their rights just because they took a job with a school district.

I agree with the state sales tax exemption for school districts. I would totally support that.

Washington State schools have been on a downward spiral for decades. We've thrown money and more money at it and the results are dismal. There is no proof that more money will increase graduation rates or turn out better educated students in the current situation or any of the lame manifestations that system the WEA and their supporters tout as real change. It's a bogus claim.

The only way more money would help is to hire new smarter teachers and administrators. The current crop of both is lackluster and we have the results to prove it. The teaching programs at our state colleges and universities turn out wooden widgets from programs that lack both rigor and standards. I'd be for paying teachers 100k/year and never think twice about it. The trouble is that teaching as it stands today is the occupation for those who are one step removed from being competent shovel operators. Sure there are some good ones, even great ones, but the total number of them in the system wouldn't fill a short bus.

Education reform is about reform not continuing down the same path with the same system. You can't tweak broken. The graduation rates would be the same no matter if the class size is 10 or 22, the only difference is that we'd have more widgets in the mix.

What we're looking for are teachers. Real ones not pretend ones, like those that populate the system now.

Your post is full of anger and not backed up by a whit of data or analysis. Why do you hate teachers? // I'm a parent of former Seattle Public Schools students. The teachers are generally very good. So are the principals. The administration, not so much, but if they stay out of the way and provide adequate resources, the schools do fine. // Again: Why do you hate teachers? Are you an anti-union regardless of the facts widget yourself?

Your post reeks of the usual Seattle "progressive" arrogance and smugness. Why do you hate anyone who disagrees with you?

I suggest you re-calibrate your crystal ball, disagreement doesn't equal hatred. I don't invest my emotional capital in hating, I'll leave that to you.

The state wide graduation rate hovers around 75%, which means one in four kids don't graduate. What more facts do you simpletons need? It's broken and your lame excuses about money, parents, and students being the main cause of the problems within the system is just crap.

When those responsible for educating our kids refuse to accept any of the blame for the dismal performance of the school system, don't expect those whose wallets you're trying to fleece to blindly accept your nonsense. Been there done that got the lousy t-shirt.

In your mind teachers are generally good. They might possibility maybe produce generally good results, where's your supporting data and analysis for this claim, but they certainly don't produce excellent results.

State graduation rates found here
http://www.erdc.wa.gov/indicators/pdf/07_hs_graduation.pdf

Is there any data at all to support any of these claims? No. None.

In fact, all of the data proves these statements false.

Djinn and other anti-teacher, anti-tax, and anti-education trolls are not reality-based and should ignored.

Come back when you have some data.

You're just a teacher who wants a raise. Get your hand out of my wallet.

Um. No. I'm not a teacher. And you still don't have any data to support your lies.

You are definitely grinding an axe.

Feast your eyes on this

http://www.joshuakennon.com/sat-scores-ranked-by-intended-college-major-show-teachers-are-below-average/

Balls in your court.

That fails to support the contention that "Washington State schools have been on a downward spiral for decades."

Any data to support that? No.
Just as there is no data to support the contention that "the results are dismal" or "The only way more money would help is to hire new smarter teachers and administrators." or "The current crop of both is lackluster and we have the results to prove it." or "Sure there are some good [teachers], even great ones, but the total number of them in the system wouldn't fill a short bus."

There's no data to support this claim: "The graduation rates would be the same no matter if the class size is 10 or 22, the only difference is that we'd have more widgets in the mix."

I also seriously doubt "I'd be for paying teachers 100k/year and never think twice about it."

Ball is right where it started - you are responsible for supporting your claims. But you can't because they are false.

Shoving money into the schools obviously hasn't worked.

It works for private schools. We have yet to try it for public schools.

The following:

1. There is no evidence that reducing student-teacher ratios does anything to improve outcomes.

2. The Washington Supreme Court has no authority to tell the legislature how much money to appropriate for the schools, or anything else. McCleary has no practical force, and the legislature can safely ignore it.

The Supreme Court ruled the State wasn't fulfilling its constitutional mandate. McCleary -- just as every other Court ruling on constitutional grounds -- has force.

"Force" is different than the ability to make appropriations.

The Washington State Supreme Court has informed the legislature that it is their job to provide for opportunity, not outcome.

The State should step-up and begin paying for full day K and 6 periods of middle and high school per day. At this time, the state is failing to pay for both.

It is a shame that the Republican Senate Education Committee has spent a lot to time trying to get ALEC bills passed that won't get through the House.

If providing opportunity doesn't lead to better outcomes, there's no point in it. The money is best spent elsewhere.

Providing opportunity probably will lead to better outcomes. We haven't tried it yet. Or haven't you heard of the opportunity gap?

Also, even if it didn't, there would still be a point. It would still be worthwhile because that's what we, as Americans, believe. We believe in equal opportunity. Or does NotFan not believe in equal opportunity? Does NotFan choose not to participate in that element of the American creed?

Equal opportunity doesn't have to mean spending more money. And if all they do is pour money down a rathole, then they should spend it elsewhere. A lot of this push winds up being the teachers wanting a raise, anyway.

It is a shame that the Democrat controlled Senate Education Committee has spent the last ten years getting bills passed that got through the Democrat controlled House and still didn't fully fund Education.

I would suggest that the state legislate that education spending be tied to the cost of living and the median income. Money spent on education should be proportional to money spent on other things and proportional to income. Education spending should rank nationally about equal with cost of living and median income.

toughbretts, that might make sense if we were fully funding education now. Since we aren't, that solution would doom us to never providing education with the funding it needs.

Actually though, wouldn't it be better if education spending were tied to education costs?

"Fully funding education" = "Giving the teachers a raise"

I suggest you get off this loop and actually read how the legislature has defined basic education. That would be fully funding education.

What median income and what cost of living? That of King County/Seattle? That of Coupeville?

I was thinking the state. I think the state funds schools on a per student basis.

So if the cost of living in WA is 20th in the nation(or whatever we are), the state should be spending about 20th in the nation.

Re: smaller class sizes:

A large portion of the class size reduction research has not only demonstrated that when qualified teachers teach students in smaller class sizes the students in the smaller classes learn more and according to Finn, Fulton, Nye, and Zaharias (1992), Konstantopoulos and Chung (2009), and Finn and Achilles (1999) these students retain this advantage over other students who attend larger classes but also shown how smaller class sizes help to significantly close the achievement gap among minority and majority students. According to Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2000a), Konstantopoulos (2009), and Schanzenbach (2007) smaller class size seems not only to increase achievement for all students but also to benefit most those students who are minorities, eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, or attend urban schools in low income districts.

Learning is not a mechanical process; it is a cultural and relational process. We are motivated to learn what the culture around us values, and that culture is primarily mediated to us by our families and the immediate social world in which we grow up. In other words we learn what our social world tells us it's important to learn. For some what we learn on the streets is more important than what we learn in a classroom. I don't think it's hard to understand why.

Kids who grow up in families with college-educated parents have a significantly greater chance of making it to college and graduating than those who don't. That doesn't mean that other kids can't; it's just harder because no one they know or care about models that possibility for them.

The only sane reason to pay $20K+/yr for a private school is because it buys you a lower student teacher ratio. This does two things. When a kid is sitting around a table with 12-15 kids It's hard for him or her to hide in the back row--he gets attention--and it increases the possibility that the kid will make a connection with a teacher, and because the teacher, who is not overwhelmed by having a huge course load and 150 other students, has the time and energy to cultivate those relationships. Nothing is guaranteed. But it increases the chances of a good outcome, and increases the chances that such a relationship might wake a kid up. That's common sense, and it also points to why online courses won't work for many kids because they can't work until the kid is first awakened and motivated to learn. You'd be crazy not to want smaller class sizes for all our kids.

We hear from Rodney Tom and some of the commenters here that money isn't going to improve educational outcomes, but I would ask these people if they think anything changes for kids who grow up poor until they have access to a social world where they are exposed to people who care about them and whom they care about who model for them the kind of learning that we all hope for them. One of those social worlds is school, and teachers are one possible model, and clearly the better position that these teachers are in, particularly in middle school and high school, to get to know and develop relationships with their students the more likely it will be that they will be motivated to learn. That's why smaller class sizes matter, and I believe there is a direct correlation between the way we structure teacher/student relationships in middle school that accounts for student motivation plummeting during those years. See this Gallup study: http://thegallupblog.gallup.com/2013/01/the-school-cliff-student-engagement.html

But that obviously isn't enough. There have to be good curricula and support in the schools. There have to be after school programs and summer programs to provide that alternative learning world, and they have to provide real learning opportunities in areas that link these kids to a positive future. There have to be preschool programs, better nutrition programs, and parent education programs. And all this cost money.

So when I hear Tom saying we need to use the money smarter, I agree, and it starts from getting away from these reform ideas that testing, and teacher accountability, and common core, and online learning are going to change anything. They aren't going to improve outcomes because they don't get to the core problem. These are all needlessly expensive, futile, top-down bureaucratic impositions that will change nothing until we come to grips with the challenges of how the culture of poverty is a culture of school failure. And at some point we have to come to grips with the fact that if we're serious, really serious, about improving the life prospects for these kids, we have to be willing to pay for it. Anyone who says it doesn't have to cost more is either delusional or disingenuous.

I am amused by the definitive statements of armchair experts about school funding.
Especially since most of em obviously havent been in a school for fifty years.

Tell you what- go volunteer in your local elementary school. Just one morning a week, for, say, a year.
And observe a teacher trying to deal with 30 kids, some of whom are ADD, some who live with their drunken grandmother, some who come to school without shoes or a coat, some with serious mental or emotional issues.

One kid like that can take all the attention of the single adult in the room, the teacher, for the entire class period. And even "good" schools have way too many kids like this- kids who need one on one help with reading, math, and writing.

Go ahead, just go work with the third graders- we all can do that level of math.

Then come back and tell us how schools are overfunded.

you guys are all obviously retired, or living in mom's basement anyway- you got the time.

I'd agree here as well. I do volunteer in a K-8 school. It is amazing how much time the teachers and administrators put in. Generally 10 hour days every day and at least 8 hrs on the weekend. All those week-long breaks? Planning or grading. Or maybe finally catching up on sleep.

Private school classes are smaller and they do not have to take all comers - they don't have to deal with non-english speakers, kids from dis-functional homes, ADD kids, or Aspergers kids as an example. That is what you are paying for - smaller class sizes and a more controlled classroom environment.

Yes, by all means. Go volunteer to get a wider view of the world - and to help out! The schools need you.

Excuse me, but we already pay ridiculous taxes for underperformance, incompetence, fraud, and corruption. Now you want us to donate labor too, and if we don't then we have no right to comment? No way. Tell these people to do their jobs, or to quit so we can find some others who will. And drop the self-righteous, condescending #$%@&% while you're at it, and for once in your life take responsibility for failure.

Except that there is very, very little incompetence fraud, or corruption and there is very little failure on the part of the professionals in public education. Our schools do a terrific job with the students who arrive prepared, supported, and motivated. They always have.

You have a right to comment, but your comments are so obviously un-informed or mis-informed that they carry no credibility. You have a right to comment, but you have a responsibility to inform yourself before you do.

NotFan

What have I told you about playing nice with the other kid?

It's amazing the wealth of knowledge you have brought to this discussion. Oh, that's right you haven't (notice no spelling, grammar or punctuation errors now that I know it's the only thing your concerned about).

"The only thing your concerned about."

And you teach? God help your students. I won't even start on your lack of composition skill.

Apparently your under the delusion that your ability to compose is any better. Not even close and I am qualified to actually say that. I suspect (rightly so) that you are not.

You don't know anything about me or my students just like you don't have any idea about what your talking about most of the time. So do yourself a favor and bone up before you stick you foot in yourouth again. As far as I'm concerned you will make a fine goose stepper some day as you seem to buy into what others say without reasoning through issues on your own. I think you probably don't have anything to say, know your wrong and have to go to plan B which probably stems from the fact you didn't pay attention in school or didn't actually attend much. It makes complete sense that you don't like teachers after that kind of an experience.

NotFan

The Tax Foundation (a fairly reliable source) has a chart which tracks those ridiculously taxes you talk about. You are correct about Washingtonians paying a high rate. Most of our state's revenue is generated based on a sales tax. The more you buy the more you pay. If your a home owner the news gets worse due to local property taxes (based on assessed value). Local levies, factored into your property taxes, contribute to what one pays out over time too.
Taxfoundation.org/article/state-individual-income-tax-rates-2000-2012

Here I've provided a basis for your argument of why you think you pay so much. Notice how your claim is backed up? Less emotional, more fact based. This a much better way of supporting your point of view than what your doing.

Please. Learn YOU'RE for YOU ARE, not YOUR.