The good news on Wednesday was that, as Doug announced, the paraeducator bill (SB 5070) passed the Senate without amendments. As well, in an odd turn of gamesmanship, the levy cliff bill (ESB 5023) was brought forward by the Republicans; but more on that in a moment.
What was most interesting was watching the battle for status quo play out over the paraeducator bill. What many may not know is that not all education stakeholders are on board with SB 5070. In fact there are two very powerful lobby groups, one education labor union and one state wide labor union, that are working in direct opposition of our efforts and interests. Status quo is about power, those who have the power fight for status quo, those who don’t work for change. I admire those senators who resisted in the fight for status quo and stood up for paraeducators across our state. Doug and I watched this battle play out right in front of us when several senators changed their votes from “Yay” to “Nay” after receiving a sign from the opposition labor unions observing the debate. Fortunately there was strong bipartisan support and the effort was thwarted.
ESB 5023 was an entirely different situation, remember the gamesmanship earlier. In the proverbial eleventh hour the Republicans brought forward the levy cliff bill, a Democrat bill. By all appearances the Democrats were caught off guard by this maneuver. Then it got weird. While all 10 pages of the bill were being read out loud each party left the floor to caucus and were gone for an hour. Doug had warned me that odd things were often done at the last minute but even he had not seen this before. By all appearances this was a move by Republicans to extend an olive branch to Democrats and end the session in a strong bipartisan manner by bringing up the Democrat’s bill. In the end it provided a great PR moment and a necessary bill passed 48-1.
Senator Mark Mullet, along with Senators Takko and Hobbs, has sponsored their own solution to the McCleary Supreme Court decision. SB 5825 is an attempt to be a midpoint between the House and Senate solutions (see earlier entries on HB 1843 and SB 5607).
According to Senator Mullet it would:
1) Every district would have permanent local levies.
2) Doubling of LEA (local effort assistance).
3) Districts can go out for an extra $1,000 per pupil in excess levies but they must submit to OSPI a plan to ensure they are not for basic education.
4) Per Pupil model that is a hybrid approach that still uses some prototypical school inputs.
5) Starting teacher salary of $45k
6) Universal hold harmless clause – nobody can go backwards.
7) Guarantees $11,500 per pupil between state and local (we exclude the federal part as we have no control over those dollars)
Though the bill may not get a hearing, it is likely to affect some of the discussions from this point forward.
As I mentioned in an earlier entry, Senate Republicans did something unusual that I can’t recall happening before. Over the years, I have seen numerous teacher housing allowance bills. When I would ask why they didn’t include classified employees, I would get a variety of responses but normally it was, “after we get it for the teachers, we will try to get it for classified employees”. Well, right out of the gate, Senate Republicans included us in their housing allowance bill, SB 5534! The bill would grant employees, certificated and classified employees, full time and part time (a pro-rated portion) a $10,000 housing allowance if the average residential value in the school district is above the statewide average.
Though this may affect only a couple school districts, and not that many classified employees, it is refreshing to see that Senate republicans think about classified employees while drafting a bill rather than an afterthought when I come to complain and it is too late to fix it.
The bill passed the Senate Ways and Means committee on a split vote and is next going to the floor for a full Senate vote.
I was unable to testify at last Monday’s House Appropriations committee hearing on HB 1843/SB 5607 because I was snowed in. Below is what I sent to committee members after the hearing which captures what I would have said on behalf of PSE’s 30,000 classified employees had I been at the hearing:
PSE signed in support of both bills because each of them have positive impacts on classified school employees.
What we like in 1843:
• Increasing the classified employee salary allocation
• Professional development for classified employees
What we would like to see changed in 1843:
• Change the classified employee basic education funding formula so that the state, not local levies, are paying for 5,000 classified employee FTEs (see this chart).
• Change levy system to promote levy equity
What we like in 5607:
• The state will be fully funding classified employee services (5,000 FTE are currently funded by local levies)
• Implementing a comprehensive paraeducator development program
• More flexibility to hire paraeducators as teachers
• Housing allowance includes classified employees
• Implements the 3:1 insurance payment ratio so that employees with families pay $3 for every $1 a single employee pays
• Levy changes that promote levy equity
What we would like to see changed in 5607:
• 3 year implementation of 3:1 insurance ratio so that in the first year it would be 5:1, second year, 4:1, and third year, 3:1.
• Use the Seattle CPI (consumer price index) as the inflation index rather than the National IPD (implicit price deflator).
• Include an insurance inflation factor that reflect premium increases.
• The requirement that school expenses for compensation not go beyond 80% will harm classified employees since teachers will consume whatever capacity school districts have to spend money. Change this so that classified employees are not left out of staffing, salary, or benefit capacity.
Yesterday, the Appropriations committee voted 1843 out of committee on a partisan vote of 18-15.
House appropriations committee members got an earful during the nearly 3 hour hearing on the House and Senate McCleary solutions. Make no mistake, it is very difficult to compare and contrast the two competing proposals. The best part of this early release of the opposing solutions, is that we, and legislators, will have plenty of time to discuss and debate the differences over the next 75 days.
Positive classified employee features of the House proposal are:
….increased allocation for salaries from $33,898 to $54,084 in equal increases (19.8% increase each year) over the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years. Starting again in 2020-21, the COLA is reinstated.
….professional development days: one day in 2017-18, two days in 2018-19, four days in 2019-20, six days in 2020-21, and ten days in 2022-23.
Concerns with House proposal:
….no change to the classified employee staffing formula. As a result, school district local levies will continue to fund 5,000 basic education classified employee FTEs.
….no change to levy equity (property poor school districts will continue to struggle).
….no funding source is included in the bill. A separate tax bill (or in this case, several new tax bills) must be passed to fund any or all of the House proposal.
If you are interested in my analysis of the classified employee impacts in the Senate solution, go to this earlier entry.
Here is a good “side by side” analysis completed by House staff of the major differences between the House and Senate solutions.
If you don’t have anything to do for three hours, here is the hearing on the competing solutions:
Over the last weekend, Senate republicans published their McCleary solution in the form of SB 5607. This innovative and comprehensive 122 page bill covers a variety of important topics including funding, levies, compensation, insurance, teacher quality, and paraeducators in the classroom that it takes some time to understand how it will work. Since they are largely throwing out the current funding formulas for nearly everything and going to a simple, per student funding formula, it is to say the least, radical.
Last night the Senate Ways and Means committee heard SB 5607. My testimony is at 1 hour 10 minute and 35 seconds of the 2 hour hearing but I recommend you listen to the staff presentation for a verbal presentation of what the bill intends to do along with Senator’s questions and staff answers to how it would work. Though Senate republicans are proposing to replace a complicated funding system with a simpler system, it is just a little bit scary to leave what we know and go to something so different.
Here are some of my testimony points:
Here is the nearly 2 hour hearing…
Last night’s hearing on the levy cliff bill, SB 1059, was a good sign that the levy cliff will be resolved one way or another by April. I testified that if anyone has something to worry about if legislators are unable to change the law and avoid the levy cliff, it is classified employees. Though they may not hear much from the press or school officials, classified employees are heavily dependent upon local levies, unlike principals and teachers. And when there are cutbacks, it is classified employees who are most affected with little publicity.
Here is the hearing testimony:
Legislators started the 3rd week of the legislative session debating how best to deal with the levy cliff. HB 1059 was supported by democrats and opposed by some republicans in a vote of 62-35. Arguments from republicans was the same as in Appropriations committee: we have several more months to correct the problem. Now the bill goes to the Senate where it is likely to sit for a time as republican leadership decides how they want to address the issue.
If you are interested in watching the debate, here it is:
On a 17-15 party line vote, HB 1059, a bill to extend the levy cliff to 2019 passed this afternoon. Democrats voted in support, republicans opposed the measure. Though the opposition was united, their opposition was not strong. Their only point was that by delaying the cliff one year, we are taking the pressure off legislators to make a decision this year. Next sighting of the bill will be when they vote on it on the House floor.
At last night’s Senate Ways and Means committee, they took testimony on Governor Inslee’s proposed “McCleary full funding” budget. I testified that we supported the classified employee compensation improvement, the increased insurance funding and paraeducator training spending. However, I reminded the committee that Inslee’s “McCleary Fix” neglected to fix a major problem with how the state funds basic education classified employees. While we have always known that the state seriously underfunds classified employee services, it wasn’t until the Education Funding Task Force received the Third Section Intelligence report on November 15, 2016, that clear evidence of the extent of the problem surfaced.
Here’s the chart that shows that school districts receive funding from the state for 53,463 CIS (Teachers) FTE but they hire 53,677 (almost right on). On the other hand, school districts received funding for 4,023 CAS (principals) but only hired 3,991. How could someone miss the fact that the State underfunds classified employees by 30%. In fact, school districts are not funded anywhere close to what they hire. Over 5,000 FTE’s are funded by local levies, not by the state.
Why did the Governor ignore this problem? Hard to say, but since this is the year to fix it, we have plenty of time and opportunity to remind legislators that this should be fixed.