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

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


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



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.


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

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



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



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




WASA 2015 Legislative Platform

Daniel P. Steele Assistant Executive Director,

Government Relations 825 Fifth Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98501

360.489.3642

[email protected]

NEWASA Member Meeting

mailto:[email protected]



NEWASA Member Meeting Spokane, September 18, 2014 · 2014-09-26 · 12 SHB 2776 Resource Phase-in...

Documents

Transcript of NEWASA Member Meeting Spokane, September 18, 2014 · 2014-09-26 · 12 SHB 2776 Resource Phase-in...