Kitsap Education

8 Responses to “Suspend education initiatives in tough times?”

1. Kathryn Simpson Says:
   November 26th, 2008 at 10:10 am

   If the Legislature and the Governor need to reduce funding to K-12 education, then eliminate the unfunded and underfunded mandates first! Then, empower school districts by eliminating the hundreds of colors of money in our “budgets” and expand our ability to use discretion with those funds to make decisions that will best move student achievement forward in our districts!

   Here is what happens with $1,000 of education money apportioned by the state… School District, you can spend $100 of it in Pot A, $50 in Pot B, $30 in Pot C, $10 in Pot D… Doesn’t matter that Pot A needs $150 and Pot B doesn’t really need to be funded at all in our district. But we can’t legally move the money from one pot to the other, so we provide a Pot B program that doesn’t meet student needs as well as a Pot A program could if it were funded at $150. It is the same amount of money… but we would have DISCRETION to do what best meets the needs of our students!

   Get rid of the multitude of POTS (colors of money). Set achievable standards, fund to that level of expectation and get out of the micro-management business and let school districts get about the business of educating our children so that every child is challenged and no child is left behind!

   If the state wants success and accountability in public education, the state must afford some autonomy to accomplish the task at hand without micro-managing it to death at the state level! Give us the flexibility to meet the needs of our students instead of insisting that we have a student body that exactly matches your statistical aggregates!

   If you want great things, you must either provide great funding for it or empower school districts to do great things with meager financing. If the latter is the reality then the best thing the state could do is to open the doors wide for innovation by eliminating the mandates that we do our job, with less funding, the same-o-same-o manner.

   As an example… if we have a teacher willing to teach and continue to challenge a class of 45 high schoolers who are high achievers eager to expand their skills in math (for example) so that another teacher can focus on teaching a class of 15 high schoolers who need more attention to meet minimal student achievement marks in the same subject, so be it. The needs of all 60 students are being met and we would be able to exceed expectations with both groups!

   I believe that many teachers would buy into such innovation if they knew that the kids were actually being “sorted” into these classes by the needs of the kids instead of meeting the ‘needs’ of mandated colors of money.

   Governor Gregoire, please empower our districts to be leaders with innovation instead of prescribing a same-o-same-o mold and expecting better results!!

   Regards,
   Kathryn Simpson

2. Bob Meadows Says:
   November 30th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

   The Seattle Times has a news article suggesting that huge cuts in education funding may be considered — cuts in I-728 and levy equalization funding would have big impacts on South Kitsap School District.
   http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008451090_budgetcuts30m.html

   I’m wondering if the projected $5 billion shortfall for the 2009-2011 biennial budget that is prompting such talk of cutting state school funding is based on the current budget or on current spending.

   I suspect that the huge shortfall is based on projecting future budget amounts starting from current budget amounts rather than current spending.

   I notice that spending in the current biennium (2007-09) is not nearly as much as the budget amount. The September forecast projected general fund spending at $29.8 billion, which is $3.8 billion less than what the Seattle Times reports as the current budget total of $33.6 billion.

   It appears that actual spending during the current budget period is substantially less than the budget, so why not start from the estimated current level of spending when writing the next budget?

   The latest forecast for revenue in the current budget period is $28.6 billion, while the same forecast projects revenue in 2009-11 at $30.1 billion (an increase of only 5.24 percent, but an increase nonetheless).
   http://www.erfc.wa.gov/pubs/rev1108.pdf

   There seems to be no need to make huge cuts in school funding, unless one wants to make big increases in funding for something else.

   Perhaps our school district directors need to find the actual figures, then grab our legislators by the lapels for some educational talks about the coming budget deliberations. There’s still time, and they probably could use some education.

3. Kathryn Simpson Says:
   November 30th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

   Bob,

   Though I didn’t grab him by the lapel (I’m nice that way), Rep. Larry Seaquist assured us at a candidate forum on K-12 education issues in October that he would not vote “yes” on anything that cut K-12 education funding.

   We are watching things very carefully and look forward, with great anticipation, to the Governor’s budget proposal which is supposed to come out in about two weeks. Members of WSSDA (State School Directors Association) are meeting with the Governor this week. We hope to have more information soon.

   I am also hearing that we may be closer to $6 Billion before the start of the next session. I also hear that revenue for the current budget cycle may not meet expenditures by June even with the Governor’s orders to curtail spending.

   Anxious times.

   Regards,
   Kathryn Simpson

4. Bob Meadows Says:
   November 30th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

   Kathryn, there is no way to “be closer to $6 billion” unless the projected budget starts with the current budget total rather than the current spending after the cuts that have already been made.

   The current spending has already apparently been reduced by close to $4 billion below the budget to try to avoid a deficit during this budget period.

   Since the cuts that have already been made didn’t apparently include levy equalization funding (which would hurt SKSD and others who receive it, but not leave a scratch on those who don’t) or I-728 funds, my point is that cuts in those funds aren’t needed — unless you want to increase funding for other things.

5. Kathryn Simpson Says:
   November 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

   Bob,

   From the Seattle Times link you provided:
   “State officials project a $5 billion shortfall in the next two-year budget, though Gregoire said recently the gap could grow to $6 billion due to the deteriorating economy.”

   From: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/news/release/2008/081119.asp
   “We are in the process of developing our budget for the next two-year period, establishing priorities and identifying the programs that are most beneficial and effective,” said Victor Moore, director of the state budget office. “We will use the numbers released today to identify which programs we can afford to keep, mindful of the governor’s commitment to not raise taxes or fees.”

   “The revised forecast creates a $413 million deficit in the General Fund for 2007–09. The Rainy Day Account proposed by Gregoire and passed by the voters in 2007 will contain about $430 million in constitutionally protected reserves.”

   Are you saying that if spending is down now and we don’t engage in increased spending next bi-ennium, we might be able to weather the storm without significant cuts? That would be nice. However, the Governor and the Legislature have made a lot of commitments for 2009-2011 (salary increases for state employees and teachers, health care coverage for children and low income families, transportation initiatives, etc) that will increase next year’s budget. Not to mention the increasing costs of funding retirements that are hitting all state and local budgets hard.

   I don’t see how the Governor is going to avoid substantial cuts. I can only hope that she prioritizes appropriately and has a good plan. She is our elected Governor.

   An aside… She had the opportunity to speak to school board directors at our annual conference a week ago. It is the largest gathering of elected officials in the State each year. She chose not to do so. Very disappointing. I guess she is too busy with the deficit issues to talk to the elected officials who have responsibility to engage in the state’s paramount duty in these challenging economic times.

   Regards,
   Kathryn Simpson

6. Bob Meadows Says:
   November 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

   Kathryn, I think I see now that the Seattle Times has included “Near General Fund State” funding in what it calls the current budget, but without saying so. I’m not sure but “near” seems to be the subsidized health coverage offered by the state. Without that, the “General Fund State” budget is just under $30 billion.

   I went looking, because I couldn’t figure out how the state could have already cut almost $4 billion from the current biennial operating budget — and it turns out they apparently haven’t.

   So, if there is a projected shortfall in 2009-11 of about $5 billion, wouldn’t that mean the current $29.8 billion “GF-S” (not including “NGF-S”) is slated to increase by about $5 billion? The projected revenue for 2009-11 as of the November 2008 forecast is just over $30 billion. How could they plan to increase spending by $5 billion in the next biennium? Wouldn’t that be an increase of about $2.5 billion, or a little more than 8 percent, in each year of the two-year budget period? Hard to believe, so am I misreading the figures again (even without the “help” of the Seattle Times)?

7. Kathryn Simpson Says:
   November 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

   Bob,

   I’m not a state budget expert by any means. I have learned quite a bit serving on the legislative committee with WSSDA. But I’m rudimentary at best.

   What was explained to me is that the “deficit” is the difference between what the state would spend in the next bi-ennium if programs and projects in progress and in the works (planned) were to occur versus the revenue expectations for the same period.

   With that in mind, the 5 billion dollar deficit reflects the gap between revenue and anticipated spending for 09-11 if all things stayed in motion and the planned projects came online at their alloted times.

   The budget the Governor will propose in a couple of weeks will be far different than than anticipated plan a year ago because of the economic changes. I would imagine that a lot of projects that were in planning and preparation stages (construction and transportation) will be put off.

   As for education, this will be interesting. The State is facing a lawsuit that will go to trial in June regarding basic education funding. The economic conditions could help their case because the State could plead poverty. However, the State Constitution seems rather clear about it’s “paramount duty”.

   Regards,
   Kathryn Simpson

8. Bob Meadows Says:
   November 30th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

   Construction and transportation projects can be postponed, but that won’t reduce the projected deficit in the “General Fund-State” part of the budget, since those projects aren’t funded from GF-S revenue.

   It will be interesting to see if the governor’s office explains what would have caused them to project GF-S spending increases of 8 percent a year for the coming biennial budget — and what drives such big increases, and which of those “drivers” can be eliminated.