Transcript Slide 1

Updated: January 7, 2015

2014 Election Update

WASA 2015 Legislative Platform
◦ Comply with the Paramount Duty
 McCleary v. State Implementation
◦ Expand Available State Revenues
 2015-17 Budget Outlook
◦ Ensure Competitive Employee Compensation
 Compensation Work Group Recommendations
 State Underfunding of Salaries
2
Legislative Elections

Pre-election party strength:
◦ House: 55 Democrats, 43 Republicans
◦ Senate: Controlled by Republican-led “Majority
Coalition Caucus”
 2013: 23 R’s + 2 D’s vs 24 D’s
 2014: 24 R’s + 2 D’s vs 23 D’s

Post-election party strength:
◦ House: 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans
◦ Senate: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats
 Majority Coalition: 25 R’s + 1 D vs 23 D’s
3
House Elections
Democratic Losses:

Kathy Haigh (Shelton)
◦ Chair, House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Education

Dawn Morrell (Puyallup)
◦ Chair, House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Health & Human Services

Larry Seaquist (Bremerton)
◦ Chair, House Higher Education Committee

Monica Stonier (Vancouver)
◦ Vice Chair, House Education Committee
4
Senate Elections
Key Seats:

Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way)
◦ Co-Chair, Senate Transportation Committee
(did not run for re-election)

Rodney Tom (D-Medina)
◦ Leader, Majority Coalition Caucus
(did not run for re-election)
5
Initiative 1351 – K-12 Class Size Reduction
I-1351 Implementation

New state revenue = $0

New state expenditures:
◦ 2015-17 = $2.0 billion
◦ 2017-19 = $2.7 billion (plus HB 2776 $1.3b)
◦ 2019-21 = $3.8 billion

Local revenues increase by $4.7 billion (5 years)
Local expenditures increase by $6.0 billion (5 years)
Levy capacity increases by $1.9 billion (5 years)

No capital assistance provided


7
Staffing Unit Comparison
Impact of I-1351 plus statewide Full-Day Kindergarten (2018-19)
Name
K-12 Enrollment*
K-12 Enrollment*
(All)
1,024,518.79
1,024,518.79
Sum of Change
Estimated 2014-15
Current Law
Teachers
Teachers
45,035.47
14,057.87
45,035.47
14,057.87
Principals
2,929.09
161.71
Librarians
1,287.44
874.22
Counselors
2,129.58
707.46
Teachers Total
School Based Staff
Nurses
162.51
1,306.69
Social Workers
64.65
453.66
Psychologists
26.38
147.72
Teaching Assistants
1,770.70
1,790.81
Office Support
4,859.49
2,006.32
Custodians
4,123.26
189.08
Student and Staff Safety
196.24
582.42
Parent Involvement Coordinator
110.80
2,050.85
Technology
587.20
2,094.49
1,695.20
2,135.77
310.43
1,509.29
1,137.54
777.46
Facilities, Maintenance, and Grounds
Warehouse, Laborers, and Mechanics
CTE/Skill Center Classified
CTE/Skill Center Certificated Administrative Staff
Small School Bonus Unit Reduction
School Based Staff Total
District/Central Staff
Additional Staff Units
(I-1351)
278.18
22.23
0.00
(233.57)
21,668.70
16,576.62
Central Administration - CAS
840.15
389.39
Central Administration - CLS
2,458.40
1,139.45
District/Central Staff Total
Grand Total
http://bit.ly/1zaymQL
3,298.54
1,528.84
70,002.71
32,163.33
Source: OSPI, 11/14
WASA 2015 Legislative Platform

Comply with the Paramount Duty

Expand Available State Revenues

Ensure Competitive Public School Employee
Compensation
9
Comply with the Paramount Duty
McCleary v. State

2005: The Network for Excellence in Washington
Schools (NEWS) is formed
◦ Comprised of many organizations and school districts
committed to improving the quality of public
education in Washington (430+ members in 2014)

2007: McCleary v. State of Washington filed in
King County Superior Court
◦ NEWS filed a lawsuit, asking the courts to order the
State of Washington to live up to its paramount
constitutional duty to make ample provision for the
education of all Washington children
11
12
Dollars in Billions
Source: NEWS, 6/10
13
Local levy revenue at the same level
as before Doran Decision
90.0%
80.0%
Percent of State and Local Revenue Sources
(excludes federal and other revenue sources)
70.0%
60.0%
State Revenue
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
Local Revenue
20.5%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Source: OSPI 5/10
McCleary v. State


2009: McCleary v. State of Washington heard
in King County Superior Court
2010: Judge John Erlick rules for the
plaintiffs, declaring the State’s failure to fully
fund public schools is unconstitutional:
◦ “This court is left with no doubt that under the State’s
current financing system, the state is failing in its
constitutional duty. “
15
McCleary v. State
“State funding is not ample, it is not stable,
and it is not dependable…local school
districts continue to rely on local levies and
other non-state resources to supplement
state funding for a basic education.”
“Paramount means preeminent, supreme, and
more important than others. Funding K-12
education…is the state’s first and highest
priority before any other state programs or
operations.”
- Judge John Erlick
16
ESHB 2261 – Program Changes Required
17
SHB 2776 – Funding Changes Required
18
SHB 2776 Resource Phase-in
School Year
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
219
Schools
More
funding
can begin
More
funding
must
begin
Continues
to ramp
up
Continues
to ramp
up
Continues
to ramp
up
Continues
to ramp
up
Fully
Funded
$0
More
funding
can begin
More
funding
must
begin
Continues
to ramp
up
Continues
to ramp
up
Continues
to ramp
up
Continues
to ramp
up
Fully
Funded
More
funding
can begin
More
funding
must
begin
Continues
to ramp
up
Continues
to ramp
up
Funded at
new level
Funded at
new level
Funded at
new level
More
funding
can begin
More
funding
must
begin
Continues
to ramp
up
Fully
Funded
Fully
Funded
Fully
Funded
Fully
Funded
Full-Day Kindergarten
1
Must be fully funded statewide by
2017-18
Phase-in based on FRPL
K-3 Class Size Reduction
2
3
Must be fully funded statewide by
2017-18
Phase-in based on FRPL
Materials, Supplies,
Operation Costs (MSOC)
Must be fully funded by 2015-16
$ per student basis
Basic Transportation
4
Must be fully funded by 2014-15
% of formula funded basis
Source: OSPI, 5/10
19
McCleary v. State

Supreme Court rules (January 2012):
◦ The State “has consistently failed” to provide the
ample funding required by the Constitution.
◦ “Reliance on levy funding to finance basic
education was unconstitutional 30 years ago in
Seattle School District, and it is unconstitutional
now.”

Supreme Court Orders State to:
◦ “demonstrate steady progress” under ESHB 2261;
and
◦ “show real and measurable progress” towards full
Article IX, Section 1 compliance by 2018.
20
2013-15 Operating Budget
(as adopted, June 2013)
Total Resources
$33.54 billion
Total Spending
$33.49 billion
Ending Fund Balance
$53 million (0.2% of spending)
Budget Stabilization Account
$578 million
Total Reserves
$630 million (2.0% of spending)
K-12 Education 2011-13
$13.65 billion
K-12 Education 2013-15
$15.21 billion
Total K-12 increase
$1.56 billion (11.4% increase)
Basic Education Enhancement
$982.2 million
(including transfers of $520 million)
21
2013-15 Operating Budget
(as amended, March 2014)
Total Resources
$33.95 billion
Total Spending
$33.65 billion
Ending Fund Balance
$296 million
Budget Stabilization Account
$583 million
Total Reserves
$879 million
K-12 Education 2011-13
$13.65 billion
K-12 Education 2013-15
$15.27 billion
Total K-12 increase
$1.62 billion
Basic Education Enhancement
$1.07 billion
(including transfers of $420 million)
22
Education Funding Task Force
Adopted Spending Plan
Source: Joint Task Force on Education Funding, Final Report, 12/12
23
Initial McCleary Basic Education Investment
2013-15 Operating Budget
$5
Billions
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
25
2015-17 Operating
Budget Proposal
26
Gov. Inslee 2015-17 Budget Proposal
K-12 Education Policy Enhancements
Basic Education (HB 2776)
$1.3 billion
MSOC
$751.8 million
K-3 Class Size
$448.1 million
Full-Day Kindergarten
$107.6 million
Promoting Student Success
$40.7 million
High School Graduation Rates
$18.1 million
High-Quality Teaching/Instructional Leadership
$30.4 million
Compensation
$596.6 million
K-12 Total
$1.99 billion
27
Gov. Inslee 2015-17 Budget Proposal
Basic Education Enhancement, HB 2776
Source: OFM, 12/14
2015-17 Operating
Budget Proposal
29
Superintendent Dorn 2015-17 Budget Proposal
K-12 Education Policy Enhancements
Basic Education (HB 2261/HB 2776)
$7.2 billion
Basic Education: CTE
$169,800,000
High School Graduation Rates
($29,360,000)
Dropout Prevention/Student Support
$31,730,000
Technology Literacy
$139,000,000
Professional Learning Support System
$10,990,000
WaKIDS Grants
$1,492,000
Bus Depreciation
$676,604
Seattle Children’s Hospital
$931,378
Student Information/Customer Support
$410,700
Data Privacy
$442,000
CTE Course Equivalency
$250,000
Certification Fee Increase
$1,787,000
PESB Cut
($594,704)
0.41
30
Supt. Dorn 2015-17 Budget Proposal
Basic Education Enhancement, HB 2261/HB 2776
Expenditure Category
School Year
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
Early Elem. Class Sizes
$202,812,515
$458,130,044
$789,926,548
Later Grade Class Sizes
$133,333,329
$283,414,747
$454,901,508
Support Staff
$355,610,606
$717,775,681 $1,086,485,908
Program Hours
$103,507,914
$243,698,593
$475,794,541
Prof. Development
$144,351,361
$305,633,637
$490,144,289
Compensation
TOTALS
Source: OSPI, 10/14
$2,489,265,379
$2,767,697,512 $3,336,149,391
$3,428,881,103
$4,776,350,213 $6,633,402,184
31
State’s K-12 Funding Promises
Testimony Under Oath During McCleary Trial
(Per Pupil State Funding)
Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14
32
State’s K-12 Funding Promises



$7,279 per pupil funding, as adopted in
2ESSB 5034 (2013-15 budget)
$9,710 per pupil funding by 2017-18, as
testified in trial—does not include market rate
salaries, inflation after 2007-08 or capital
construction needs
$12,701 per pupil funding by 2017-18,
promised funding including market rate
salaries ($2.9 billion) as recommended by
Compensation Technical Working Group (June
2012)
◦ Calculation: $9,710 + $2,991=$12,701 per pupil
33
Real and Steady Progress Towards Full Funding
— State Testimony vs. Actual Funding, 2013 —
(Per Pupil State Funding)
Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14
34
Real and Steady Progress Towards Full Funding
— State Testimony vs. Actual Funding, 2014 —
(Per Pupil State Funding)
Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14
35
Real and steady progress towards full funding
— Investment needed to meet State promises—
(Per Pupil State Funding)
Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14
36
Legislature in Contempt!


September 11, 2014: “The Court cannot stand
idly by while its lawful orders are
disregarded….Accordingly, the Court
unanimously finds the State in contempt.”
Sanctions are postponed, providing the State
an opportunity to purge the contempt during
the 2015 session. If the contempt is not
purged by adjournment of the 2015 session,
“the Court will reconvene and impose
sanctions or other remedial measures.”
37
Comply with the Paramount Duty

WASA believes the Legislature should be held
accountable for complying with its “paramount
duty” to provide ample funding for all K–12
children by implementing the new basic
education finance system as adopted in ESHB
2261 (2009) and SHB 2776 (2010). To ensure the
new system is completely implemented—with full
and equitable funding—by 2018, as ordered by
the Supreme Court in McCleary v. State, the
Legislature must demonstrate steady progress
towards compliance with the constitution.
38
Expand Available State Revenues
Where will the Legislature find the
funds to enhance K-12 Education?
Revenue Growth?
Spending Reductions?
Tax Increases?
Preliminary Four-year Budget Outlook
(Dollars in Millions)
Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 11/14
41
General Fund-State Revenue
Forecasted Growth
Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 11/14
2015-17 Budget Outlook
$4.45B
Source: Office of Financial Management, 11/14
Spending Reductions? Two-thirds of the state
budget constitutionally or federally protected
Source: Office of Financial Management, 8/14
44
Source: Office of Financial Management, 9/12
General Fund-State Revenues as
Percentage of Washington Personal Income
46
Source: Office of Financial Management, 12/13
Taxable Sales as Percentage of Personal Income
Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 9/14
47
In 1995, Washington ranked 11th in State and Local
Tax Collections; by 2011, Washington ranked 35th
Source: Office of Financial Management, 8/14
48

The current state budget structure cannot
accommodate the required—and needed—increases
in basic education to comply with the Supreme
Court’s McCleary decision, nor allow the state to
address educator compensation or capital costs in a
comprehensive way. WASA supports the enhancement
of state revenues to ensure the Legislature is able to
fully comply with the constitutional paramount duty
with “regular and dependable” sources of funding and
also prevent drastic reductions of other necessary
government services—which would have significant
direct and indirect impacts on K–12 education.
49
Ensure Competitive Public School
Employee Compensation


In 2009, ESHB 2261 adopted, establishing a
new definition of basic education and a new
education funding system.
ESHB 2261 stated the Legislature’s intent to
“enhance the current salary allocation model,”
with the understanding that “continuing to
attract and retain the highest quality
educators will require increased investments.”
51
Compensation Technical Working Group

Enacted in 2009, ESHB 2261

Convened in July 2011

Statutory Charge: Recommend the details of an

Report submitted in June 2012
enhanced salary allocation model that aligns
state expectations for educator development
and certification with the compensation system.
52
Compensation Technical Working Group
June 2012 Recommendations
1) Increase the Starting Salary for Teachers and
Educational Staff Associates to $48,786
2) Provide Fair Market-based Salary Allocations for all
K-12 Staff
3) Maintain Comparable Wage Levels through an
Annual Cost of Living Adjustment and Periodic
Wage Analysis
4) Align the Salary Allocation Model to the Career
Continuum for Educators
5) Invest in 10 Days of Professional Development
53
Compensation Technical Working Group
June 2012 Recommendations
6) Allocate Mentors and Instructional Coaches in the
Basic Education Funding Formula
7) Provide Appropriate Staffing Levels and Increased
Program Support for Basic Education
8) Amply Fund State Basic Education Salary
Allocations and Limit Locally Funded Salary
Enhancements to No More than 10% of the State
Allocation
9) Ensure School Districts receive the Same or Higher
State Salary Allocations per State-funded Employee
Full Report at: http://bit.ly/1qeFvcb
54


Supreme Court expressed concerns that the
2011-13 salary reduction forced increased
reliance on levies to fund salaries.
In its January 2014 order, the Court stated it
is “deeply troubling” that the 2013-15 budget
does not address “this component
[compensation] of ESHB 2261.”
55
School District Employee Salaries
Average Base State Allocation vs. Average Total Salary Paid
$58,703
$60,000
$(1,400)
$52,856
$50,000
$38,732
$40,000
$45,301
$(800)
$36,634
$33,175
$26,053
$29,762
$20,000
$(1,000)
$41,723
$32,767
$30,000
$(1,200)
$45,987
$(600)
$25,832
$(400)
$10,000
$(200)
$-
$1987-88
1992-93
Total $ Underfunded
Source: OSPI, 9/14
1997-98
2002-03
Average Base State Allocation
2007-08
2012-13
Average Total Salary Paid by Districts
Note: Salaries are for all programs and do not include benefits
School District Employee Salaries
Percentage of Average Salary Paid by State and Local District
100.0%
90.0%
$(1,400)
99.2%
$(1,200)
90.8%
80.0%
85.7%
79.7%
70.0%
78.9%
77.2%
60.0%
$(1,000)
$(800)
50.0%
$(600)
40.0%
30.0%
20.3%
20.0%
10.0%
21.1%
22.8%
$(400)
14.3%
$(200)
9.2%
0.8%
0.0%
$1987-88
1992-93
Total $ Underfunded
Source: OSPI, 9/14
1997-98
2002-03
% of Average Salary Paid by State
2007-08
2012-13
% of Average Salary paid by District
Note: Salaries are for all programs and do not include benefits
Local Funding Workgroup
Key Recommendations:



Fund the full cost of basic education labor
first, followed by other improvements as
outlined in ESHB 2261 and SHB 2776
Update and implement recommendations of
Compensation Technical Working Group
Recognize and mitigate impact of any
reduction to local levy authority on districts’
ability to meet financial obligations
58

WASA urges the Legislature to fully fund a
competitive compensation system to ensure
the state not only meets its responsibility to
establish an equitable and ample allocation
system, but maintains the present benefit and
pension offerings.
59
WASA 2015 Legislative Platform

Comply with the Paramount Duty

Expand Available State Revenues

Ensure Competitive Public School Employee
Compensation
60
WASA’s Message


An educated citizenry is critical to the state’s
democracy; a well-educated population is the
foundation of our democracy, our economy,
and the American dream
Public education plays a critical role in
promoting equality, operating as the great
equalizer; public education provides
unprivileged citizens with the tools they need
to compete on a level playing field with
citizens born into wealth or privilege
61
WASA’s Message



Education plays a critical role in building and
maintaining a strong economy; public
education builds the well-educated workforce
necessary to attract more stable and higher
wage jobs to the state’s economy
Washington’s duty to education is
constitutionally declared to be its paramount
duty
In summary: Public education is a wise
“investment” in the future
62
Daniel P. Steele
Assistant Executive Director,
Government Relations
825 Fifth Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98501
360.489.3642
[email protected]
2015 Legislative Preview
Updated: January 7, 2015