Last month the Final Report of the Joint Task Force on Basic Education Funding was released. It recommends sweeping changes to what basic education is and to how it would be funded under these proposed changes. Career ladders would be established and the current salary schedule would be replaced with a schedule based on attaining three levels of certification; residency, professional, and master teacher. Degrees would be replaced with stipends for individual and school incentives and include a regional wage adjustment. One of the stipends would be given to teachers who become peer reviewers, those who must endorse a teacher's transition through the career ladder.
The responsibility and incentive components of TRI would disappear and the time component would need to be documented and clear as to how much time would be included for compensation. The work year for teachers would be 190 days that would include ten LID days. Staffing levels are identified for all positions, local levy amounts would be established based on dollars per student and the list goes on. Basically, it includes significant change to most components of basic education established in 1978.
There are currently two bills before the legislature, Senate Bill 5444 and HB 1410. With the current economic situation I don't know how much traction either will get because the estimated price tag is $6.3 to 7.5 billion in the first biennium. The changes would be phased in over a six year period. Changes to the current funding formulas are overdue. I like much of what is included in the report while questioning and disagreeing with some of what is being recommended. One missing component is a funding source, something the Governor specifically requested the task force include. There are, however, some funding recommendations in the minority reports that are attached to the report.
I encourage you to review the report and the bills. They have the potential to result in significant changes to our schools and school district. Please consider sharing your thoughts by posting comments to this entry. Perhaps we can create a dialogue around the merits of the recommendations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Dear Mike,
The bills that are currently being discussed in Olympia have one critical piece missing, funding source. In an education system that is already filled with unfunded mandates, this is just going to put our school systems in more dire straits, as we continue to be one of the worst funded states per pupil in the country. These bills only bring back bad memories of the education reform from over 15 years ago. Back in 1992, Governor Booth Gardner created the Governor’s Council on Education Reform and Funding (GCERF). This Council was formed in response to a WEA member campaign highlighting the lack of adequate State funding for public education. GCERF recommended plenty of education reforms but little funding to pay for them. We got Essential Learning Requirements (ELR’s), the Certificate of Mastery (for high school graduation), onerous certification rules (Pro-Cert), the Commission on Student Learning, WASL, and several other bureaucratic mandates without resources to carry them out. GCERF punted the funding issue to the Legislature, and the Legislature dropped the ball. School districts were left to fund these mandates out of local resources (local property taxes).
These bills would do the same thing, drop the funding ball. As the president of TEA I could get caught up in the anti-union portions of this bill that I disagree with but I am more interested in those things that would affect our school district funding in times when they are already facing budgetary cuts. These bills would repeal the I-728 class size money, it would increase graduation requirements (Core24) with no additional resources to support it, it repeals levy equalization which decreases district funding sources, changes the teacher licensing system for the 4th time in 12 years, and it leaves the entire funding problem for future legislation to take care of. My personal opinion is why do we keep looking at ways to improve a system but provide no money to go with the reform.
To me this seems just like a bad plan until we have a funding source actually connected to it. Once we have a funding source attached to it then I would be more then willing to critically look at the positive parts included in the bills but it seems like a road we have already traveled down before and look where it has gotten us. 45th in the nation in per student funding, $548 less then spent per student then in 1992 (GCERF days), and 46th in the nation in class size. It sounds to me like unfunded mandates and reform are the last thing we should be focusing on until we actually fund our schools where we should. There is an old saying that says if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. But like everything else in this world if it is broke f then please fix it but if I remember the last time I took my car in to get fixed, it had a hefty price tag attached and I can guarantee you the mechanic would not have fixed it if I told him I no funding source to pay for the fix. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic and I would ask anyone reading this to give the bills a good read and if you feel so motivated, e-mail and call your legislators to not vote for these bills.
Scott Mitchell
Scott makes some good points about the lack of specified funding in the bills. We're lucky to have his thoughtful leadership for our association!
I don't share all of his concerns about the ramifications of the Task Force's bill, however. Certainly it's not perfect, and I don't agree with everything in it. But I know I'm not the only one excited at the prospect of turning our state's antiquated basic education definitions and formulas on their ear(s).
I'm actually energized by a lot of the ideas put forward in the bill. I think it seeks genuinely to address the needs of teachers, as well as students, in the 21st century. Certainly these proposals would have bugs to work out, just as "past" education reforms are still a work in progress.
The passage of the Task Force's bill(s) would mean a lot of change for all of us, but those changes actually seek to address things I've wished for: meaningful support for teachers at the beginning of their careers; advancement, leadership, and salary enhancement opportunities for experienced and master teachers; recognition of higher costs of living; more effectively meeting the needs of both special education and highly capable students...
Washington Learns told us what most of already knew about the way our state defines and funds basic education: it IS broken, and it has no place in today's world. In my view, maintaining a flawed status quo isn't a better option than thinking big and out of the box, even in our dire financial times. On the contrary, I think that, just maybe, some of the ideas in the Task Force's bill could give public education the PR traction it needs to get the public behind better funding.
I encourage people to take a look at both of the bills before the legislature (5444 and 5607) and to have a conversation with their legislator. No matter your position on the particular bills, it's an important time for you to help your lawmakers understand what support you need to be an effective teacher and what kids need in order to learn.
Scott,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I don’t disagree with the funding argument; the committee certainly missed the mark by not including any options for legislators to consider. It is also unfortunate that there was not better alignment with the Full Funding Coalition recommendations captured in SB 5607 and HB 1819. Having multiple measures focused on changing basic education makes it more difficult to create focus and consensus. In some ways it makes it easier for legislators to simply do nothing.
Though I agree with you on the funding I still believe that there are components of the plan that deserve consideration. This is a much more comprehensive change than what we have seen in the past. The focus is on redefining basic education and the formulas that make it possible to achieve the goals embedded in the definition. As I shared in the post, the current formulas are archaic and must be changed.
Though I do not agree with the direction of Core 24, it at least requires a funding source before implementation and, since Core 24 is the driver for the new basic education definition it makes sense that nothing will happen until they make decisions on funding. It would be a mistake to leave this session without some agreement on the components of the plan that need to move forward while they struggle with the economic situation.
Mike
There's a reasoned look at both bills from the perspective of funding for low-income and ELL students and compensation models for teachers on the Stories From School blog:
http://www.storiesfromschool.org/2009/01/yes-we-can.html#more
Before I say anything, I think it is important to note how truly blessed we are to have educators at all different levels that care about the craft of education as the people here in the Tahoma School District. The current state of things has brought forth some great conversation that helps us all define what is important in our profession, and for this I am thankful. The funding crisis in Tahoma (and the rest of the state, for that matter) has brought forth many worries in our small community which many revere as a family. We are worried about losing our friends, we are concerned about the continuation of programs that set us aside from other districts, and, most importantly, we care about the level of support our students will receive in the future. Tahoma is a special place that I have been happy to call my home as a student, and now as a teacher. I can honestly say that I am worried about Tahoma and what the budget shortfall may cause. In addition, I am very concerned what could happen to this district if these bills pass as they currently stand.
With all of the innovations placed within SB 5444 and HB 1410, many of which I personally agree with, as Scott said, the piece that is lacking is the funding. Since 1978, the governors of our state have been proclaiming that, to lump their quotes into one, “Now is the time to fully fund education.” 1978. I was 1 year old in 1978. We all know what the state constitution says and yet since the decisions that were made by Judge Duran in 1978 concerning the full funding of education, we have yet to receive it. In fact, funding has slowly decreased as our demands have steadily increased. Scott also talked about GSERF and the promise of funding with decisions made in ’93. Has the legislature and the senate improved the funding since those decisions? We know the answer. My concern is simply this: we are consistently promised full funding when education reform comes around, yet we never get it. Tahoma has suffered financially because of these demands, and now we are about to face another round. To quote the review and response to proposed SB 5444 and HB 1410 as written by the Washington Association of School Administrators, “In SB 5444 and HB 1410 specific items that are added to basic education without funding include:
1. Increased hours of instruction;
2. Increased graduation requirements from 19 to 24 credits;
3. Increased supplemental instruction time;
4. Early learning program included in the definition of basic education
5. A new educator certification program with mentors and peer evaluators;
6. A new compensation system based on a comparative labor market analysis;
7. Increased LID days (from 2 to 10);
8. New National Board teacher bonuses;
9. A new accountability system with an accountability index, bonuses, a “comprehensive” system of support and assistance…
10. A new data accountability system for financial, student, and educator data;
11. A new levy/LEA system, and capping levy lids at 24%.”
I personally cannot support such drastic changes when there is no guarantee for funding it. We know the financial troubles we are in as a district. I would be very afraid of what would happen to our district if half of these items came to fruition without the funding. As a state, we are facing a $6 billion deficit that could stretch to $8 billion, yet there are forty provisions that become active within 90 days after the bill has passed, and another forty become active by September 1st, 2011. The final six will be in place one year later. With numbers like these, I do not see the funding improving enough to enact the measures listed above. When it becomes law, though, it must be enacted. We, as a district, will be shouldered with that burden.
I am a firm believer that it is never time to talk about education reform when the current programs in place are not adequately funded. To me, it is putting the cart before the horse. I guess when it comes down to it, I don’t trust our government to fix the problem. They have had 31 years, and now we come around again on this merry-go-round. Let’s fix the funding piece first before we talk about education reform. There is currently a senate bill (SB 5607) proposed by the Full Funding Coalition that does just this. It is focused on reforming the funding system in Washington. I urge everyone to read that bill. Once we finally have education financially covered, then it will be the time to talk about reform. Until then, though, I must say that I am adamantly against the current versions of SB 5444 and HB 1410. I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter, and I continue to look forward to the honest dialogue that has been put in place by the examples of our leaders in Tahoma.
Post a Comment