Post on 19-Jun-2020
NEWASA Member Meeting Spokane, September 18, 2014
WASA 2015 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
COMPLY WITH THE PARAMOUNT DUTY ◦ McCleary v. State of Washington
◦ Education Finance Reform
◦ 2013-15 Budget Overview
EXPAND AVAILABLE STATE REVENUES ◦ 2015-17 Budget Outlook
ENSURE COMPETITIVE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ◦ Compensation Work Group Recommendations
◦ State Underfunding of Salaries
2
3
Comply with the Paramount Duty
Expand Available State Revenues
Ensure Competitive Public School Employee Compensation
WASA 2015 Legislative Platform
Comply with the Paramount Duty
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
5
McCleary v. State
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
State Funding Actual District Costs
Statewide Funding – all 295 School Districts
2007-08 School Year
State’s “basic education” funding
Other State funds
School facilities
Classroom teachers
Pupil transportation
Librarians, counselors, safety personnel, health
Principals, etc.
Utilities, insurance, etc.
Extracurricular Food service
Capital Project Fund expenses
ASB Fund expenses
Dollars
in B
illions
Local levy revenue at the same level
as before Doran Decision
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%Percent of State and Local Revenue Sources
(excludes federal and other revenue sources)
State Revenue
Local Revenue
20.5%
Source: OSPI 5/10
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. “
8
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
9
McCleary v. State
10 10
ESHB 2261 – Program Changes Required
11 11
SHB 2776 – Funding Changes Required
12
SHB 2776 Resource Phase-in
School Year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
1
Full-Day Kindergarten
Must be fully funded statewide by
2017-18
Phase-in based on FRPL
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
2
K-3 Class Size Reduction
Must be fully funded statewide by
2017-18
Phase-in based on FRPL
$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
3
Materials, Supplies,
Operation Costs (MSOC)
Must be fully funded by 2015-16
$ per student basis
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
4
Basic Transportation
Must be fully funded by 2014-15
% of formula funded basis
More
funding
can begin
More
funding
must
begin
Continues
to ramp
up
Fully
Funded
Fully
Funded
Fully
Funded
Fully
Funded
Source: OSPI, 5/10
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.
13
McCleary v. State
14
2013-15 Operating Budget (as adopted, June 2013)
Total Resources $33.54 billion (including transfers of $520 million)
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
15
2013-15 Operating Budget (as amended, March 2014)
Total Resources $33.95 billion (including transfers of $420 million)
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
16
Education Funding Task Force Adopted Spending Plan
Source: Joint Task Force on Education Funding, Final Report, 12/12
18
$0.0
$1.4
$3.3
$4.5
$0.0
$1.0
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
2013-15 2015-17 2017-19
Task Force
Proposal
Legislative
Investment
Initial McCleary Basic Education Investment 2013-15 Operating Budget
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
Billions
19
Supt. Dorn’s McCleary Plan
Note: Pupil Transportation “fully funded” in 2014-15
Source: OSPI, 4/14
20 20
Real and Steady Progress Towards Full Funding -- State Testimony vs. Actual Funding—
(Per Pupil State Funding)
Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools response to 2013 Post-Budget Filing, 1/14
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.”
21
22
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.
Comply with the Paramount Duty
Expand Available State Revenues
Real Per Capita General Fund-State Revenues (2009 Dollars)
Source: OFM, 12/13
25 25
2013-15 & 2015-17 Budget Outlook (Dollars in Millions)
Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 4/14
26 Source: Washington State Budget & Policy Center, 3/14
2015-17 Projected Budget Shortfall (March 2014)
Source: Washington State Budget & Policy Center, 6/14
2015-17 Projected Budget Shortfall (June 2014)
Source: Office of Financial Management, 8/14
2015-17 Preliminary Budget Outlook (August 2014)
29 29 29
Additional Revenue Necessary to Sustain Investments in Education and Other Priorities
30 Source: Office of Financial Management, 8/14
Spending Reductions? Two-thirds of the state budget constitutionally or federally protected
31 31
General Fund-State Revenues as Percentage of Washington Personal Income
Source: OFM, 12/13
32 Source: Office of Financial Management, 8/14
In 1995, Washington ranked 11th in State and Local Tax Collections; by 2011, Washington ranked 35th
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.
33
Ensure Competitive Public School Employee Compensation
Enacted in 2009, ESHB 2261
Convened in July 2011
Statutory Charge: Recommend the details of an enhanced salary allocation model that aligns state expectations for educator development and certification with the compensation system.
Report submitted in June 2012
35 35
Compensation Technical Working Group
36 36
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
Compensation Technical Working Group June 2012 Recommendations
37 37
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
Compensation Technical Working Group June 2012 Recommendations
Full Report at: http://bit.ly/1qeFvcb
$25,832
$29,762
$33,175
$36,634
$41,723
$45,301
$26,053
$32,767
$38,732
$45,987
$52,856
$58,703 $(1,400)
$(1,200)
$(1,000)
$(800)
$(600)
$(400)
$(200)
$- $-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
1987-88 1992-93 1997-98 2002-03 2007-08 2012-13
Millions
Total $ Underfunded Average Base State Allocation Average Total Salary Paid by Districts
Note: Salaries are for all programs and do not include benefits Source: OSPI, 9/14
School District Employee Salaries
Average Base State Allocation vs. Average Total Salary Paid
Note: Salaries are for all programs and do not include benefits Source: OSPI, 9/14
School District Employee Salaries
Percentage of Average Salary Paid by State and Local District
99.2%
90.8%
85.7%
79.7% 78.9% 77.2%
0.8%
9.2%
14.3%
20.3% 21.1% 22.8%
$(1,400)
$(1,200)
$(1,000)
$(800)
$(600)
$(400)
$(200)
$-0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
1987-88 1992-93 1997-98 2002-03 2007-08 2012-13
Millions
Total $ Underfunded % of Average Salary Paid by State % of Average Salary paid by District
Note: Salaries are for all programs and do not include benefits Source: OSPI, 9/14
School District Employee Salaries
Percentage of Average Salary Paid by State and Local District
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.
41
42
Comply with the Paramount Duty
Expand Available State Revenues
Ensure Competitive Public School Employee Compensation
WASA 2015 Legislative Platform
Daniel P. Steele Assistant Executive Director,
Government Relations 825 Fifth Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98501
360.489.3642
dsteele@wasa-oly.org
NEWASA Member Meeting