Post navigation

Prev: (09/20/15) | Next: (09/21/15)

What’s next for Seattle schools budget fight? Making Washington pay for its teachers

83% of teachers -- and even higher percentages of other represented staff -- voted to approved the new contract Sunday night (Image: SEA)

83% of teachers — and even higher percentages of other represented staff — voted to approved the new contract Sunday night (Image: SEA)

Sunday night while much of the city was glued to the screen watching football, members of the Seattle Education Association overwhelmingly approved a new three-year contract calling for longer recesses, more teacher control in testing, and a raise for educators.

So, now what? Democratic legislators from the Seattle area including Representative Brady Walkinshaw and Senator Jamie Pedersen say the Olympia negotiating team convened by Governor Jay Inslee must “reach an agreement that addresses teacher compensation and supports urban school districts as soon as possible.”

“One major hurdle remains:  teacher compensation, and more specifically, who should be funding teacher salaries,” the group of legislators writes in a statement released as the Seattle teachers strike came to a close.

In the simplest terms the state is constitutionally obligated to pay teacher salaries. But, for decades, the Legislature has underfunded these allocations forcing school districts to use local levies to make of the difference. On average across the state, districts are paying about 25% of the cost of teacher salaries.

The multi-billion-dollar tussle need to be settled by the 2017/2018 school year. The complete statement from Seattle’s Democrats in Olympia is below.

The Seattle educators’ strike has highlighted that it is the responsibility of the Washington State Legislature to fully fund education and avert future strikes.  If the state had done its job of fully funding education, our kids would already be in school. The lack of funding runs contrary to our core value that public education is the ladder for opportunity in our society.

We call on the negotiating team convened by the Governor to reach an agreement that addresses teacher compensation and supports urban school districts as soon as possible.

As representatives whose districts cover Seattle, many of us are either current or former Seattle Public School parents. We are committed to fully funding our public school system, but must do so without making devastating cuts to our social safety net. We support state programs that keep kids fed and housed since we know that hunger and homelessness are major obstacles to learning.

In 2012 the State Supreme Court ruled that our state was not meeting its paramount duty of fully funding basic education. Since the original ruling, the state increased K-12 education funding for important elements of basic education such as student transportation, K-3 class size reduction, materials and supplies, and all-day kindergarten. The Legislature is on pace to fully comply with these components of the McCleary ruling by our next budget cycle.

One major hurdle remains:  teacher compensation, and more specifically, who should be funding teacher salaries. In the simplest terms the state is constitutionally obligated to pay teacher salaries. But, for decades, the Legislature has underfunded these allocations forcing school districts to use local levies to make of the difference. On average across the state, districts are paying about 25% of the cost of teacher salaries.

This cost, which needs to be addressed by the 2017-18 school year, is estimated to be $3.5 billion over a two-year budget cycle.

There are several solutions on the table, but there is no single magic bullet. It will take the commitment of all four caucuses (House and Senate Democrats and Republicans) and the Governor over the next months to develop a solution that addresses teacher compensation and provides additional resources for urban school districts. Every year we wait is another year our children are not receiving the education they deserve and that we expect as a society. Our kids, our teachers, and our families deserve better.

 

 

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
harvey
harvey
8 years ago

Sigh. They will never be happy. What is the right salary for a person with a BA, no experience and 14 weeks vacation? Once we establish that, extra degrees, seniority, etc. can be established. The teachers evaluations are no longer tied to test results in any way. In other words, there will NEVER be a way to get rid of bad teachers. And despite what they wail about on the picket line, there are bad teachers.

fig
fig
8 years ago
Reply to  harvey

Harvey, I doubt you’re particularly interested in hearing this, but for anyone else that’s curious: no one becomes a teacher in Washington state with just a BA– you also need a teaching certification, which is an additional year on top of a BA, and some teachers fold it into a master’s degree. So that’s a minimum of five years’ education.

Furthermore, Washington’s Supreme Court held the state in contempt for chronically underfunding schools, which is the main thrust of the italicised statement in the article. The state seems to have ignored it until fines were levied to the tune of $100,000/day, which started back in August and to the best of my knowledge is still ongoing.

There is a lot to criticize in WA schools, but it seems wise to have a good idea about how they function (or don’t) on a minimal level.

moleskin
moleskin
8 years ago
Reply to  fig

Check it out:
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Income_Tax,_Initiative_1098_(2010)

2010 initiative aimed at higher income earners; > $200k and $400k for couples. Reduce statewide property tax by 20%. Increase B n O tax up to $4,500.
Proposal by 2010 estimate would have brought in $2 billion per year to state coffer.

If education sector wants money, it needs to come up with a workable proposal with details. Be public about them. By standing on the sideline on this make the sector looks as if they are good at being heroics with rhetoric while complaining, pointing finger, but offers little solution. There are many people who work without union protection, at much lower pay scale, with poor benefits, but whose income and taxes will be affected to fund teacher’s pay. Be smart with the campaigning and show facts, transparency, and stop wasteful spending. When you start to dip into people’s pocket, they want accountability and they deserve it. The do it for the kids schtick goes only so far.

JayH
JayH
8 years ago

This is fundamentally an argument about whether State or Local property taxes are used to fund schools. The simplest, and admittedly simplistic, solution is to raise the State portion and reduce the Local portion of property taxes. Of course that would mean “raising taxes” while ignoring that they were also lowered. Truth: taxes only come from one place-your pocket. All the arguments are about how to get it, not whether.

MarciaX
MarciaX
8 years ago

Actually there IS a “magic bullet.” It’s called a state income tax. Too bad even our supposedly more “progressive” Democrats are terrified even to bring it up for debate, even though the vast majority of states have one.

moleskin
moleskin
8 years ago

The last time we voted on the state income tax was 2010 and it failed. WEA must push to get it on the ballot again. They have the money and influence. Union dues are going up.

SEA needs to correct a couple of boo boos though. Urban school districts aren’t the poor ones. It’s poor, rural places like Omak where property tax doesn’t bring in enough for schools, unlike hi price Puget Sound area. Additionally, local voters here supported school levies to top off state funding. These are the reasons we have inequity and lack of uniformity in basic education funding which supported the McCleary decision.

Seattle school district is very lucky. Seattle is rich with fewer poor and ESL students living in the city than neighboring school districts like Renton or Highline. The working poor are leaving this city for cheaper places and soon more and more of the middle class too. We are our way to become the next San Francisco.

MarciaX
MarciaX
8 years ago
Reply to  moleskin

The 2010 initiative was hobbled by two things: (1) it didn’t lower the sales tax, and (2) it occurred during a severe recession that allowed opponents to argue persuasively that regardless of the proposal’s merits, Washington’s lack of an income tax gave it a needed edge in attracting out-of-state investment and jobs. While this argument will always resonate with some, it likely won’t be as determinative at a time when the state is grappling with the effects of too much growth rather than too little. Still, lowering the sales tax is key.