Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Education policy: State funding battles and local responses (2016)
From school choice to teacher merit pay, funding is key to realizing any education policy effort. At the same time, exactly what states are trying to encourage or discourage through budget changes can be a tangle to unravel. School districts rely on revenues from federal, state, and local taxes to fund their operations, and local superintendents and board members frequently testify before their state legislatures to for advocate education policy and spending changes.
When a state adjusts its funding formula—the calculation that determines how much state funding each particular school district receives—there is an opportunity to set criteria that tie district funds to compliance with particular policies. Legislators cast the votes to set state budgets and funding formulas, but not without comment from local school district leaders. When funding from the state is tied to policy change movements, districts may have little choice but to participate, or they may have to increase local funding to compensate for shifts in funding.
No single effort to change educational funding policies operates in isolation. Efforts aimed at raising teacher pay can simultaneously seek changes to tenure policies, merit pay, student-teacher ratio changes, and more. Ballotpedia tracked education funding policies across the United States throughout 2016, particularly as they connected to school board elections in the nation's largest districts.In 2016, 648 of America's largest school districts by enrollment held elections for 1,959 seats. These elections took place in 38 states across districts that collectively educated a total of 17,179,972 students during the 2013-2014 school year—34 percent of all K-12 students in the United States.[1] The tabs below outline key budget issues in states across the country and how those issues are tied to attempts to reform education.
Alabama
Teacher pay raise granted in Alabama—evaluations challenged in California
During its 2016 legislative session (February 2, 2016-May 4, 2016), the Alabama State Legislature passed HB121, which secured a four percent pay increase for Alabama educators and support staff. Those eligible for the four percent raise had to earn less than $75,000 annually and be active employees. Educators and support staff earning more than $75,000 annually received a two percent pay raise. The bill also granted principals and assistant principals a four percent pay raise, even if they earned more than the $75,000 annual cap.[2] According to the Alabama Political Reporter, educators in Alabama had not received a significant pay increase since 2007.[2]
The final version of HB121, signed into law by Gov. Robert Bentley (R), was a compromise between Alabama House and Senate Education Committee members. Sen. Del Marsh (R-12) amended the bill to limit pay increases for teachers that sought an advanced degree but who did not choose to teach in that subject area after obtaining the degree. The House Education Committee, led by Rep. Bill Poole (R-63), also omitted a provision to grant bonus checks to retired educators during the 2016-2017 school year.[2]
In 2015, Sen. Marsh introduced the Rewarding Advancement in Instruction and Student Excellence (RAISE) Act, which would have granted pay increases to all educators but offered larger increases to teachers who would agree to a performance-based merit pay scale without tenure. Although the bill died in committee, the RAISE Act would have used annual evaluations for teachers, principals, and assistant principals to set pay rates based on three criteria: classroom observations, student and parent surveys, and growth in student achievement as measured by the ACT Aspire examination. Had the bill become law, a ruling by California judge Barry Goode could have been used by opponents to fight its assessment provisions. In September 2016, Goode ruled that California school districts could not mandate the use of student test scores in teacher evaluations. The California ruling highlights the preemption conflicts that often arise between state and local governments.[3]
Kansas
New education funding bill deemed equitable
- See also: Kansas school board elections, 2016
Four local school districts brought an end to Kansas' temporary block grant funding system when the state supreme court ruled in their favor in February 2016. In 2015, a looming state budget deficit of $600 million led the state legislature to approve the block grants as a replacement for the state's per-pupil funding formula while a new formula was written.[4] On February 5, 2015, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) proposed that $44.5 million be cut from state education funding to make up for budgetary shortcomings.[5] The court ruled against the replacement system, stating that the block grant system did not meet the state's constitutional requirement for education funding and caused undue stress on poor school districts.[6][7][8]
The Kansas Supreme Court gave state lawmakers until June 30, 2016, to replace the block grant funding system or the state's schools would have been closed by court order. The state legislature convened in a two-day special session on June 26, 2016, and reworked the Brownback-supported education funding bill to increase state public school funding by $38 million during the 2016-2017 school year.[9] After review by the Kansas Supreme Court, the new funding system was deemed to be equitable and Kansas elementary and secondary public schools were able to continue operations without interruption.[9]
2015 cuts proposed by governor
- See also: Kansas state budget and finances
Of the total cuts Brownback suggested in 2015, $28 million would have come from elementary and secondary education funding, while another $16 million would have been taken from higher education funding. Critics of Brownback pointed to his campaign promises to support education in 2013. Kansas State Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley (D-19) called the move “just another deception [Brownback] put upon the voters of Kansas." Brownback's spokesperson, however, has stated that the governor “has consistently maintained that the education funding formula is broken and reform is needed to ensure more money goes to the classroom to benefit Kansas students."[5]
Income taxes blamed and defended
Some blamed the income tax reductions signed into law by the governor for the significant shortfall that had loomed for the fiscal year that began on July 1, 2015. Income tax cuts were championed by Brownback and passed by the legislature in 2012 and 2013. In 2015, the state had to reassess its spending and consider new forms of revenue. Possible revenue sources that were considered included raising taxes on cigarettes and alcohol or changing tax assessments for farmland, gasoline, and sales and passive income.[4] In 2013, the state collected $2.96 billion in individual income taxes, which made up 38.80 percent of the state's tax collections.[10]
Brownback defended the income tax cuts and pushed for consumption taxes to replace lost funds in April 2015. “I still want to get away from the income tax. Over time, I would like to see us move toward the consumption basket of taxes," he stated at the time. He also voiced support for a higher sales tax. The governor did not say exactly which consumption taxes might be used but noted his support for tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol.[10]
At the same time, Brownback responded to criticisms regarding budget information he shared with David Kensinger, his former chief of staff and current lobbyist for Reynolds American tobacco company, prior to the legislative session. Brownback defended the move, saying, “What I try to do is get as much input from people as possible. I’ve tried to operate most of my public career in trying to solicit lots of input. I wish he wasn’t lobbying for that group. He’s free to do what he’s doing.”[10]
Legislative response
In response to Brownback's proposal, the Republican-dominated Kansas State Legislature revealed a plan to fund public schools with block grants for two years while they rewrote the school funding formula in March 2015. According to The Kansas City Star, the block grants provided an increase of more than $4.2 billion for the 2016-2017 school year, which represented a 9 percent increase from the 2013-2014 allocation. Additionally, the block grants returned the 2014-2015 district allocations to the amounts they were set at before Brownback announced his planned budget cuts. Whether or not these funds actually indicated an increase in classroom spending and how the legislature would pay for the increase funding remained unclear at the time of the bill's introduction.[4] Democratic legislators criticized the bill, arguing that the majority of the additional funding would go toward pension funds and meeting the requirements of a 2014 Kansas Supreme Court ruling mandating more funding for schools. Sen. Hensley argued, "Their proposal does not do what they claim it’s going to do. It does not allocate $300 million in new money, nor does it put more money into the classroom.”[4]
In a 64 to 57 vote on March 13, 2015, the House of Representatives approved Senate Bill 7, a plan to overhaul the state's 13-year-old school finance system. State law required at least 63 votes in favor of the measure for it to pass the House. The bill was immediately moved back to the Senate. This prevented any motions to reconsider the House vote. On March 16, 2015, the Senate approved the revised bill 25 to 14. Because the bill sent back from the House had been a Senate bill with amendments from the House, senators only had to vote yes or no to the House revisions and were not able to offer additional amendments. The bill was signed into law by Brownback on March 25, 2015.[11][12]
The approved bill replaced the funding system with block grants for two years while the funding formula was overhauled. Republican leaders argued that the state's funding formula, which was based on a per-pupil formula and included weighting for bilingual and low-income students, was broken. Senate President Susan Wagle (R-30), who voted in favor of the old formula in 1992 and in favor of SB 7, said, "We are no longer talking about student outcomes and student achievement. We’re fighting for money."[12]
Not all of her colleagues agreed that SB 7 was a solution to education funding woes. Some senators objected to how quickly the bill was passed and to the lack of discussion before the final Senate vote on the matter. Sen. Tom Holland (D-3), who voted against the measure, alleged it was encouraged by Charles and David Koch and praised the re-opening of a school funding lawsuit to allow the state's courts to weigh in on the matter.[12]
Judicial response
| Gannon v. State of Kansas ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court on February 11, 2016 |
Holland was referencing judicial action taken the same day the House passed SB 7, when a three-judge district court panel ordered the reopening of a school funding lawsuit that had been settled in 2014. The lawsuit was settled after the legislature equalized funding between districts through increased allocations, but the new court order reopened the equity portion of the case. It also added new state officials to the list of defendants in the case, including the state treasurer and revisor of statutes. The panel announced that it might issue temporary orders blocking the recent legislative action if necessary "to preserve the status quo and to assure the availability of relief, if any, that might be accorded should the Court deem relief warranted.”[12][13]
On February 11, 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against the block grant system because it fell $54 million short of meeting the state's constitutionally mandated funding requirements. The court set a deadline of June 30, 2016, for a new funding law to be written. The ruling was made on lawsuit by the Dodge City, Hutchinson, Kansas City and Wichita school districts, which started back in 2010.[6][7][8]
Kansas City Kansas Public Schools, which could have lost about $1.4 million as a result of Brownback's initial proposal, received a pointed note when the governor announced the cuts.[5] In his statement on the matter, Brownback's office said, "Recent media coverage of the purchase of a $48,000 grand piano is symptomatic of the inherent flaws in the current formula. That money could and should have been used to hire another teacher to reduce class sizes and help improve academic achievement."[14]
This statement referred to a piano purchased by the district to replace a piano used at Sumner Academy. District Superintendent Cynthia Lane responded to the governor's comment saying that the piano that the school replaced could no longer be repaired. The district also responded to the governor's suggestion that the funds should have been used to hire another teacher by noting that it used capital outlay funds to purchase the piano. Those funds, by law, cannot be spent on salaries.[15]
New Jersey
Gov. Christie proposed “Fairness Formula” plan
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) unveiled a new education funding plan for the state on June 21, 2016. He proposed a "Fairness Formula" that would equalize per-pupil funding statewide. Rather than continue funding districts at different levels, Christie called for a flat rate of $6,599 per pupil per school year to fix a system he called "broken." If the proposal were approved, Christie said 75 percent of towns would receive more state aid and see their property taxes decrease.[16][17]
The rate of $6,599 per pupil was calculated by dividing the $9.1 billion the state spent on education funding in 2016 by the number of students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Christie said a disproportionate amount of funding had gone to underperforming schools in the state, beginning in the 1980s.[17]
| Gov. Chris Christie (R) proposes a new education funding formula. |
| “ | No child in this state is worth more state aid than another. No family in this state should have to disproportionately pay — you’ve got a bigger house, you’re going to pay more in property taxes, you’ve got more land, you’re going to pay more in property taxes — that’s not what I’m talking about...We’re talking about 546 districts having to divide $88 billion over the last 30 years and 31 districts dividing $97 billion. Where did the money go? And what did you get in return for it? But an even more important question than what did you get in return for it — what did those children and their families get in return for it?[18] | ” |
| —Gov. Chris Christie (June 21, 2016)[17] | ||
The New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) called Christie's funding proposal “despicable” and said it would "set the state’s progress in education back decades," according to the Newark Patch.[16] NJEA President Wendell Steinhauer also called the plan a distraction from Christie's record on education policy. “Having never once funded the state’s existing formula, he has no basis for assessing its effectiveness," said Steinhauer.[17]
The proposal entailed up to a 1,714 percent increase in state aid, in the case of North Caldwell Public Schools, or as much as a 78 percent decrease, in the case of the Camden City School District, according to a study by NJ.com.[19]
In 2016, Jersey City Public Schools received approximately three-quarters of its funding from the state and had a per-pupil funding rate of $15,235.[20] Christie's proposal entailed that the funding rate for the district would drop by roughly $8,600 per student—an almost 57 percent decrease from the 2016 funding levels. The Jersey City Schools Board of Education had three seats up for general election in November 2016. All of the candidates expressed disdain for Christie's funding plan, though Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop (D) and district superintendent Marcia Lyles declined to comment on either proposal.[20]
“By sending equal dollar amounts per pupil to each district, regardless of need, his plan would subsidize those who have the most at the expense of those who have the least. That is the opposite of fair; it’s despicable,” said Steinhauer.[17] Christie's administration said that money was not the solution to education. “More money does not guarantee better academic performance, and the Christie Administration is determined to forge a new path that provides equal funding for the education of each student,” said a spokesman for the governor's office.[17]
North Carolina
Salary reform tied to raise discussions
In January 2016, North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson (D) presented her plan for a 10 percent teacher pay increase to the state legislature, but the plan was rejected by lawmakers. The legislature was instead focused on the state's critical teacher shortage and on concerns about teacher licensing raised by local school district leaders.[21]
The pay raise plan proposed by Atkinson also called for a teacher merit pay system that would have included bonuses for leadership roles and excellent performance evaluations. Incentive pay would have been offered to draw teachers to low-performing schools. With a projected cost increase of approximately $540 to $580 million, House Speaker Tim Moore (R-111) called the move unrealistic: “We’ve got to be responsible with the numbers that we talk about with employee pay raises."[21][22]
Superintendents voice vacancy concerns
On January 28, 2016, the House Select Committee on Education Strategy and Practices discussed raises and salary structures for teachers. A group of local superintendents spoke to the committee about the hurdles they face in filling teaching vacancies. In addition to low salaries, the superintendents cited the difficulty level for earning a state teaching license and a lack of acknowledgement and leadership roles for strong teachers.[21]
Cumberland County Schools Superintendent Frank Till stated at this hearing that his district had 50 vacancies at the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year. Wilson County Schools Superintendent Sean Bulson called for an across-the-board raise for teachers as a way to increase the pool of candidates that school districts have to choose from when hiring teachers. Bulson stated, "Despite the shortage, we’re working to push our least effective - and in some cases, least effective is the nice word - teachers out the door. Because the pool isn’t so deep, we’re not going to push that mediocre teacher out that we might be able to do when we had some bench strength."[21]
Falling salaries statewide
After adjusting for inflation, North Carolina's average teacher salary fell 17.4 percent between the 2003-2004 and 2013-2014 school years, according to the National Education Association (NEA). Several parties called for pay raises. North Carolina Justice Center public policy analyst Cedric Johnson noted the state's larger financial picture, saying that a raise for teachers "will likely entail the need for additional revenue simply because the budget did not provide a huge cushion of unspent revenue."[23]
Terry Stoops of the John Locke Foundation also argued for the inclusion of incentive pay in any pay raises; otherwise, he said, "We are essentially allowing those poor teachers to stay in the profession and not really rewarding our best teachers."[23]
South Dakota
Teacher salary increases proposed; student-teacher ratios worry smaller districts
| Proposed South Dakota education funding formulas | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Key criteria | The Blue Ribbon Task Force | Governor Daugaard (R) | Democratic Party |
| Target average salary | $48,000 | $48,500 | $50,000 |
| Student-teacher ratio* (low and high) |
14.1* | 12.5 to 15 | 11.3 to 14.6 |
| Funding source |
Unspecified state sales and use tax increase | 0.5% sales tax increase | 1% sales tax increase; ends sales tax on food |
| *The task force suggested a sliding scale for the student-teacher ratio based on district enrollment but did not reach consensus on a recommended scale. The governor's and Democrats' plans both include a sliding scale. The ratios above indicate the upper and lower ends of the respective plans' scales. | |||
South Dakota teacher salaries could be raised in hopes of addressing the state's teacher shortage. The proposal followed the recommendations of The Blue Ribbon Task Force, a plan from Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R), and a rebuttal plan from state Democrats. All three plans called for a new funding formula based on a target average teacher salary and target student-teacher ratios, as opposed to the per-pupil funding system.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force recommendations
In 2015, Daugaard commissioned The Blue Ribbon Task Force to evaluate education funding for the state in response to growing teacher shortages. Failed salary negotiations in the state's second-largest district, Rapid City Area School District, highlighted South Dakota's inability to compete with surrounding states for teacher recruitment based on salary. At least 100 personnel left the district at the end of the 2014-2015 school year due to retirement, attrition, or finding better compensation elsewhere. At least one left to take a pay increase of over 30 percent by moving to a Wyoming school district.[24]
The Blue Ribbon Task Force published its findings on November 11, 2015, including 29 consensus recommendations and three additional recommendations that fell short of a consensus. The recommendations included changing the state's funding formula from a per-pupil calculation to one based on a target average teacher salary of $48,000 and a target student-teacher ratio of 14.1. The task force also recommended that the student-teacher ratio be set on a sliding scale with lower ratios for smaller school districts and higher ones for larger districts, but it did not agree on a recommendation about the range of that scale.[25]
Gov. Daugaard's plan
| South Dakota Public Broadcasting, "Governor Dennis Daugaard's 2016 State of the State Address," January 12, 2016 |
Daugaard chose to open his 2016 State of the State address with the findings of the task force. In his speech, he voiced support for the suggested changes in the state's funding formula, which "calculate funding based on a target average teacher salary and a target student-to-teacher ratio." He recommended a target salary of $48,500, an increase of approximately $8,500 from the state's average in 2015 and $500 more than the salary recommended by the task force. To fund the increase, the governor proposed raising the state's sales tax by 0.5 percent to 4.5 percent. His plan also included increasing the state's average student-teacher ratio from 13.9:1 to 14.5:1.[26]
The proposal received mixed responses from local school district leadership. The Associated School Boards of South Dakota voiced support for the governor's plan following the address. Executive Director Wade Pogany said, "Gov. Daugaard has listened to our pleas for help with the teacher shortage and, along with input from the education community through the work of The Blue Ribbon Task Force, developed a plan we believe will help us solve this growing problem. We’re grateful for Gov. Daugaard’s leadership and partnership on the matter."[27]
Some smaller districts, however, voiced concerns about being able to meet the ratios, even with a sliding scale to compensate for their lower enrollments. At least one district official questioned if the ratios were a push to consolidate smaller districts, which has shown mixed success for districts in the state. The governor's chief of staff, Tony Venhuizen—who served on The Blue Ribbon Task Force—acknowledged that the plan could force smaller districts to raise local taxes, which could include opt-out votes by the public. According to the Argus Leader, about half the state's districts were already using opt-outs as of 2013, with a higher rate among districts with small student-teacher ratios. The controversy surrounding Rapid City's defeated opt-out vote in 2015 highlighted the struggle that even large districts face when seeking public approval for tax increases.[28]
Democrats' plan
State Democrats responded with their own take on the task force's findings. The party's plan would seek a target salary of $50,000, $1,500 more than the governor's proposal. It would also maintain the current student-teacher ratio, as opposed to the increased ratio under Daugaard's plan, claiming that an increase would affect class sizes and cause teacher layoffs. In a press release, the party's executive director, Suzanne Jones Pranger, was quoted as saying, "Governor Daugaard’s proposal would force the unnecessary choice between raising teacher pay and retaining the teachers we have."[29]
Tennessee
Metropolitan Nashville School Board votes to sue the state over education funding
- See also: Tennessee school board elections, 2016
The Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education approved a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee over public education funding on June 14, 2016. Six members voted in favor of the lawsuit. Two board members—Elissa Kim and Mary Pierce—abstained from the vote, and member Jo Ann Brannon was absent from the meeting.[30] The lawsuit was filed on September 1, 2016, but it was denied by Chancery Court Judge Ellen Hobbs Lyle on September 22, 2016. Lyle said the lawsuit was not actionable as previous cases against the state over education funding had not requested immediate funds as the Nashville lawsuit did.[31][32]
The lawsuit sought additional education funding for the district, specifically for teaching English as a second language. Jon Cooper, director of the Metropolitan Nashville Department of Law, asked the state in a letter why the school district had received less money for English language learners for the 2016-2017 school year. Maryanne Durski, local finance office director for the Tennessee Department of Education, responded to Cooper's letter on June 3, 2016. She said that "the funding allocation through the fiscal year general appropriations act provided adequate funds," according to the The Tennesseean.[30]
Board Vice Chairwoman Anna Shepherd and fellow board member Will Pinkston, who previously advocated for suing the state, expressed frustration at the letter. "This is state law, and they are just being flippant about it," said Shepherd. "And I don't think this is a flippant topic."[30]
"The idea that these schools — which literally sit in the shadow of the state Capitol — are getting intentionally short-shrifted by the state is frankly maddening," said Pinkston. "Local taxpayers are doing our part, and the state Department of Education sends us a blow-off letter."[30]
In August 2016, over 30 members of the Nashville City Council signed a letter supporting the district's lawsuit. The letter urged the district to resist the state's urging to withdraw the lawsuit.[33]
The Metropolitan Nashville school district was not the only district to sue the state over education funding. Two other large urban school districts—Shelby County Schools and the Hamilton County School District—sued the state in 2015.[30] Hamilton County, along with six surrounding county school districts, filed a lawsuit against the state that stated it had not provided sufficient funding for schools. Shelby County's lawsuit said that the state's lack of funding had disproportionately hurt the district's poorer students and that the state's funding model failed "to take into account the actual costs of funding an education." Hamilton County's lawsuit was denied class-action status in 2016, but a judge also ruled against the state's motion to dismiss it.[34][35]
The state did not respond to Shelby County's lawsuit until July 2016, when officials submitted a 25-page response that denied that the state's funding model was the cause of the school district's financial problems. The response also detailed that the funding model met the state's responsibilities to maintain a public school system “that affords substantially equal educational opportunities to all students in Tennessee."[35]
Pinkston said about the lawsuits in other Tennessee school districts that, "Hamilton County and the other area districts showed tremendous courage by doing what they did and when they did it and it emboldened other school districts to follow along." He also said that he expected the three lawsuits, and any additional lawsuits filed by other districts, to be rolled into one. Between 1980 and 2016, the state had lost three education funding lawsuits.[34]
At issue in the three lawsuits was the state's funding formula, known as the Basic Education Program (BEP). Metropolitan Nashville, Shelby County, and Hamilton County said they did not receive the funding due to them under BEP. The 2016 budget that was signed into law by Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) marked the second year for "substantial increases" to the state's public education funding, according to The Tennesseean. It added $261 million to the Basic Education Program, $104.6 million of which was dedicated to raising teacher salaries.[30] What the budget did not do, however, was set up BEP 2.0, a program that changed the funding formula to help larger school districts.[34]
Haslam said he was disappointed that the Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education had approved the lawsuit. He said the state had added $14 million in funding for English language learners and that Metropolitan Nashville received the largest share of that funding. Tennessee Commissioner of Education Candice McQueen said the district's "use of taxpayer dollars to sue the state only serves to remove funds from classrooms and the very students the district is attempting to help."[34]
Board votes to join Shelby County's lawsuit against state
The Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education voted 7-0 on October 17, 2017, to join a lawsuit filed by Shelby County Schools against the state of Tennessee over education funding. Two members were absent from the vote.[36]
Shelby County first filed its lawsuit against the state in August 2015. It said that the state had not adequately funded its schools and had hurt the district's most vulnerable students as a result, according to The Tennesseean.[36] Shelby County said it did not receive the funding it was due under the state's funding formula, known as the Basic Education Program (BEP). Since Shelby County's lawsuit was filed, the state did increase the state's public education funding, but it did not change the funding formula.[37][38]
In September 2018, Davidson County Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman, appointed by Gov. Phil Bredesen in 2003, upheld a previous decision denying the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.[39]
Washington
| Voting on Education | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Policy | ||||||
| Education policy | ||||||
| Ballot Measures | ||||||
| By state | ||||||
| By year | ||||||
| Not on ballot | ||||||
|
Teachers protest over state funding, class sizes and pay
- See also: Washington school board elections, 2016
State legislators and Washington school teachers faced off over funding disputes, which led to teacher strikes and threats of pay retribution from Republican politicians. On May 19, 2015, teachers from Seattle Public Schools, Issaquah School District, and Mercer Island School District staged a one-day walkout protest in response to the state's handling of classroom sizes, cost-of-living pay increases, and other concerns related to public education funding.[40]
The crowd of at least 2,000, including district parents, students, and community members, demanded that the state legislature fulfill the requirements of two Initiatives to the People and court decisions. These issues were highlighted across the state through a series of one-day walkouts beginning in April 2015.[41][42]
Initiative 1351, which was passed narrowly by voters in 2014, required "the legislature to allocate funding for smaller K-12 class sizes, with extra class-size reductions for all grades in defined high-poverty schools and for grades K-3 in all schools; and for increased student support staffing, including counselors, teaching assistants, librarians, and others." At the time of the protests, neither chamber's budget proposal included funding for this initiative's requirements.[40]
Initiative 732, passed by a 25.38 percent margin in 2000, was supposed to secure cost-of-living salary adjustments for teachers and other school district employees. However, the legislature suspended those increases from 2009 through 2015. As The Seattle Times explained, "That doesn’t mean teachers’ pay has not increased at all over that time—teachers early in their careers still get yearly increases, and some districts have provided raises to all teachers through local tax levies."[40]
Education spending initiatives were also proposed in 2015; Initiative 1388 sought to prohibit the legislature from spending increases in state revenue unless two-thirds of the increase was spent on education programs. The measure failed to reach the ballot.
- See also: Washington 2015 ballot measures
Republican legislators threaten consequences; Democrats walk out
As education protesters marched the streets, Democratic committee members walked out in protest of a measure seeking to punish teachers who participated in such strikes. The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee met to consider Senate Bill 6116, which would not allow educational employees to receive pay or benefits for the days they strike. Committee Chair Sen. Michael Baumgartner (R-6) argued that strikes were illegal.[40]
While other Republicans joined in voicing dissent against teacher strikes, most of their Democratic colleagues walked out of the hearing. The departure was not altogether quiet; Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-11) stated the bill would have "countless legal, moral and logistical flaws." He further claimed, "This bill offers no solutions to our historic funding challenges and it is clearly only useful as a messaging tool. The message is that there is more will to attack teachers and their families than come up with real solutions to our funding challenges."[40]
The measure, despite the attention it garnered, seemed unlikely to move forward. Not all Senate Republicans supported the move, and Gov. Jay Inslee (D) expressed doubt that it would gain traction. Local media noted that school districts seemed somewhat passive to the walkouts. Bill Keim, executive director of the Washington Association of School Administrators, stated, "With a one-day walkout, it would virtually be over before they could even get the paperwork filed." Alan Burke, executive director of the Washington State School Directors’ Association, expressed similar views.[40]
Legality of strikes questioned and defended
Whether public school educators should or should not strike became a matter of legal concern to some. Republican senators called the walkouts illegal starting in April 2015, and former Attorney General of Washington Rob McKenna (R) argued there were no legal circumstances for teacher protests.[40][43]
McKenna's claims, in particular, rested on a section of Washington state law pertaining to collective bargaining rights, which states, “Nothing contained in this chapter shall permit or grant any public employee the right to strike.” The Washington Education Association (WEA) argued that the section did not prohibit strikes. Some teacher contracts contained clauses that prohibited them from causing strikes, but the WEA argued for a distinction between protesting a district versus protesting the legislature.[40]
Wisconsin
State education funding and a voucher program expansion drew criticism from a number of local school leaders across Wisconsin heading into the 2016 election cycle. Budget changes branded as expanding school choice by proponents were knocked as a burden on taxpayers, who fund the difference in local school districts where state funds were redirected to vouchers.
Opposition to Gov. Walker's budget proposal
The budget battle in 2015 marked the continued tension in the state over education spending and local control. The underlying tension between state lawmakers, educators, and local districts had not dissipated since the recall attempt against Walker failed in 2012. A number of school district officials in Wisconsin voiced opposition to a proposed 2015-2017 budget from Gov. Scott Walker (R). The plan, which was neither enacted nor submitted as the final version of the governor's budget, included a proposed reduction in per-student funding by $150 for the 2015-2016 school year followed by an increase of $165 per student for the 2016-2017 school year. According to the 2014-2015 Wisconsin budget, the state support per pupil was approximately $6,991 during the 2014–2015 school year.[44] The table below compares Wisconsin's spending on K-12 education to other states in the region and to the national averages.
Superintendents from 18 school districts wrote a letter to the governor and the Wisconsin State Legislature, expressing concerns that such a budget cut would require cutting staff, salaries, or benefits to keep districts afloat financially. The letter also cited concerns over the impact of budget cuts on teacher retention. The authors stated that inflationary growth was necessary to sustain educational programs in their districts.[45]
| Comparison of financial figures for school systems, fiscal year 2013 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Percentage of state budget | Total per-pupil spending | Revenue sources (% of total) | ||||
| Federal | State | Local | |||||
| Wisconsin | 16.2% | $11,071 | 7.7% | 44.8% | 47.5% | ||
| Illinois | 13.3% | $12,288 | 7.9% | 35.4% | 56.8% | ||
| Michigan | 27.2% | $10,948 | 9.4% | 56.9% | 33.7% | ||
| Minnesota | 29.2% | $11,089 | 6.1% | 63.5% | 30.5% | ||
| United States | 19.8% | $10,700 | 9.1% | 45.6% | 45.3% | ||
| Sources: NASBO, "State Expenditure Report" (Table 8). U.S. Census Bureau, "Public Education Finances: 2013, Economic Reimbursable Surveys Division Reports" (Table 5 and Table 8). | |||||||
The final budget did not include the proposed per-student funding cuts, but it did keep per-student funding flat for the 2015-2016 school year. Funding was scheduled to increase by $69 million statewide for the 2016-2017 school year. Although the cuts were not implemented, some argued that the budget would not match inflation. Pat Deklotz, superintendent of the Kettle Moraine School District, called it a "shallow victory."[46]
Voucher program expansion
The final Wisconsin budget expanded a state program to allow more students to attend private schools with publicly funded vouchers for the 2016-2017 school year. The budget removed a statewide cap of 1,000 students who would be allowed to participate in the voucher program. Instead, the cap for the 2016-2017 school year was 1 percent of each school district’s total enrollment. This cap will continue to rise by 1 percent each year over the following 10 years until the 2025-2026 school year, when the cap was scheduled to be eliminated.[47] Wisconsin had 872,436 total students in the 2012-2013 school year, 1 percent of which would amount to a cap of 8,724 total students statewide allowed to participate in the voucher program.[48]
School Choice Wisconsin Vice President Terry Brown voiced support for the voucher expansion in June 2015, saying, "School districts need to learn how to compete and hold down their costs for taxpayers." Critics countered that the high cost of public schools could be attributed to programs, like special education, which their competitors are not required to provide.[46]
Previously, the voucher program was paid for out of a separate state fund. Students who attended private schools with vouchers were counted as part of the public school district's total enrollment for the first time in 2015 and were funded from the district's budget. Because these students attended private schools, state aid was funneled directly to the voucher program instead of to the public school districts. This decreased the state aid given to most districts. According to the Fond du Lac Reporter, $16 million was directed away from public schools and toward voucher students statewide.[49] Under Wisconsin law, districts are permitted to increase property taxes to make up for the loss of funding. For instance, the Fond du Lac School District increased its tax levy by 11 cents per $1,000 of property value for a total projected revenue increase of $379,407.[50]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ National Center for Education Statistics, "Elementary/Secondary Information System," accessed February 26, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Alabama Political Reporter, "Education Budget and Pay Raise Bill Passed by Legislature," accessed October 17, 2016
- ↑ Alabama State Legislature, "Rewarding Advancement in Instruction and Student Excellence Act of 2016 (Draft)," December 18, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 The Kansas City Star, "Legislative leaders unveil plan to fund Kansas schools with block grants," March 5, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 The Kansas City Star, "Gov. Sam Brownback is cutting aid to Kansas schools by $44.5 million," February 6, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Lawrence World-Journal, "Kansas Supreme Court strikes down block grant school funding law," February 11, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 WIBW, "KS Supreme Court Rules State has not funded schools equitably, gives legislators deadline," February 11, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 The Witchita Eagle, "Kansas Supreme Court: School funding inequitable," February 11, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Leavenworth Times, "School officials breathe sigh of relief," June 30, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 The Kansas City Star, "Brownback advocates consumption tax as income tax alternative in Kansas," April 2, 2015
- ↑ Open States, "SB 7 - Kansas 2015-2016 Regular Session," accessed March 26, 2015
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Lawrence Journal-World, "Kansas Senate passes Brownback’s school funding overhaul," March 16, 2015
- ↑ The Wichita Eagle, "Court reopens lawsuit as Kansas House narrowly passes school finance overhaul," March 14, 2015
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Media Releases: Governor Sam Brownback outlines additional budget actions," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ 41 Action News, "Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback cites Sumner Academy's $47K piano in announcing cuts," February 6, 2015
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 Neward Patch, "Newark Students May Pay For Property Tax Cuts In Wealthy Essex County Towns," June 24, 2016
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 Morristown Patch, "Christie Unveils New School Funding Plan; NJEA Calls It 'Despicable'," June 21, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ NJ.com, "How Christie's school aid proposal could impact your district," June 22, 2016
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 New Jersey, "Jersey City schools face threat of changes in state funding," September 8, 2016
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 The Charlotte Observer, "No 10 percent raise for teachers, NC House speaker says," January 28, 2016
- ↑ North Carolina Public Radio WUNC, "NC Superintendent Seeking 10 Percent Salary Raise For Teachers," January 27, 2016
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 Citizen-Times, "NC legislature looking at teacher pay," January 31, 2016
- ↑ South Dakota Public Radio, "Rapid City Teachers Hit Impasse With Administrators," May 15, 2015
- ↑ Blue Ribbon Task Force on Teachers and Students, "Final Report," November 11, 2015
- ↑ South Dakota Governor, "State of the State Address of Governor Dennis Daugaard," January 12, 2016
- ↑ KSFY, "Mostly positive reaction to Daugaard's education funding plan," January 12, 2016
- ↑ Argus Leader, "School funding plan leaves winners and losers," November 23, 2015
- ↑ South Dakota Democratic Party, "Press Release- South Dakota Democratic Party leaders announce education plan," January 12, 2016
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 The Tennessean, "Nashville schools to sue state for education funding," June 15, 2016
- ↑ Nashville Scene, "Metro Files Education Funding Lawsuit Against State," September 2, 2016
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Judge denies Nashville schools education funding complaint," September 23, 2016
- ↑ Nashville Patch, "Metro Council Backs School Board's Suit Against State," August 30, 2016
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 Chattanooga Times Free Press, "More lawsuits expected as frustration grows over Tennessee education funding," June 21, 2016
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 Chalkbeat Tennessee, "Tennessee affirms its school funding formula in response to lawsuit over Memphis schools," July 11, 2016
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 The Tennessean, "Nashville schools board votes to join Shelby County Schools in lawsuit against state," October 17, 2017
- ↑ Chattanooga Times Free Press, "More lawsuits expected as frustration grows over Tennessee education funding," June 21, 2016
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Nashville schools to sue state for education funding," June 15, 2016
- ↑ Chalkbeat Tennessee, "After three years, the fight to spend more money on Tennessee schools inches toward trial," September 25, 2018
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 40.5 40.6 40.7 The Seattle Times, "Thousands of teachers hit streets in Seattle — and Dems walk out, too," May 19, 2015
- ↑ Reuters, "Thousands of Washington state teachers strike over pay," April 22, 2015
- ↑ Al Jazeera, "Thousands of teachers strike across Washington State," May 21, 2015
- ↑ Smarter Government Washington, "Teacher strikes not justified," April 24, 2015
- ↑ Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, "DPI's Summary of 2013-15 Biennial Budget, 2013 Wisconsin Act 20, Comparing DPI/Governor/Joint Finance/Legislature," accessed January 25, 2016
- ↑ School Administrators Alliance, "Uploads," accessed January 20, 2016
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, "Suburban superintendents decry state budget for public education," June 4, 2015
- ↑ fdlreporter.com, "Taxpayers pay for area voucher students," November 20, 2015
- ↑ National Center for Education Statistics, "ELSI Table Generator," accessed April 16, 2015
- ↑ fdlreporter.com, "FDL schools lose funding through program," October 17, 2015
- ↑ Kenosha News, "Local schools capitalize on voucher program," October 28, 2015
| |||||||||||||||||
