Education Finance Structure

Comparison of the Two Bills Which Address the Work of the Basic Education Finance Task Force On January 14, 2009 the Legislature’s Joint Task Force on Basic Education Finance (JTFBEF) issued its final report, laying out a framework for dramatically reforming the funding of public education in Washington State. Many education funding studies have been conducted, but none have held this much promise for meeting the challenges of preparing our children for the 21st century. The Washington State PTA strongly endorses this report and encourages the Legislature to follow through on its recommendations. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two bills which address the work of the task force. This is not meant to be a comprehensive comparison, but is meant to highlight the similarities and differences between the two reports which relate to the principles developed by the WSPTA Steering Committee for Basic Education Funding last summer.

Please note that these proposals were developed before the severe economic downturn. Proponents of both bills have indicated that there are dates that need to be changed to reflect current realities. WSPTA Principles

House Bill 1410 and Senate Bill 5444

House Bill 1817 and Substitute Senate Bill 5607

Targeted pre-K and Core 24 included Beginning with the 2011-12 school year, the recommendations of the Basic Education Finance Task Force are phased-in over a sixyear period re-defining the instructional program and funding of basic education

  

Small change to definition. Does not include CORE 24 program Does not include pre-K

Staffing formulas for 2009-2012 increase right away the number of CIS per student using old methodology 2011-2012 recommends use of a prototypical schools model; not much difference between 2 bills here Full implementation of all day Kindergarten by 20122013 Implements an 10-member permanent Commission to annually determine the resources necessary to amply provide a basic K-12 education based on prototypical schools and provide annual report to the public as well as the legislature Prototypical schools model Some additional data to be collected, but not a common system Calls for multi-level accountability/performance measures to be developed by OSPI, PESB and the State Board of Ed. by Dec. 2010. Does not include State Board of Education program

A redefinition of Basic Education to provide early learning programs for students from low income families, and implement more rigorous high school course and graduation requirements

 

An identification of the staffing and resources needed to meet the needs of all children

To include but not be limited to:  Enhanced funding for class sizes, low income schools, librarians, counselors , Non-Employee Related Costs (NERC) based on prototypical schools model  Phase in of all day Kindergarten  Phase in of Core 24  Creates a Steering Committee and 5 work groups including the funding formula work group, the compensation work group, the early learning work group, the local funding work group and the data work group.



  

 

Increase to the transparency and accountability of the entire system

Prototypical schools model Common fiscal and student data system System of support and assistance/Innovation Zone being developed by the State Board of Education to work with struggling schools

  

 

Elimination of the existing irrational levy and Calls for Local Funding Work group to develop options teacher salary inequities for a new system of local supplemental funding to be implemented by 2012, which will include the (Grandfathered teacher salary inequities are elimination of historic grandfathering of local levy being addressed by a separate bill which is authority. making its way through the legislature. This work is being done right away to respond to a lawsuit.) Teacher Compensation to recruit and retain  New mentoring and peer review system highly qualified professionals, which consider  New salary schedule based on career ladder state labor market factors as well a  Regional labor market data characteristics that have been demonstrated  School –wide bonuses to contribute to improved student outcomes (Some direction is given, but much of the detail for these 4 bullets is to be worked out by the Compensation Work Group.)

 

No attempt made to address levy inequities 2010-2011 schools will need to account for levy expenditures separately



3% cost-of-living adjustment above I-732 amounts in 2009-10 and 2% in 2010-11 Future salary adjustments to be recommended by the Commission Calls for multi-level accountability/performance measures to be developed by OSPI, PESB and the State Board of Ed. by Dec. 2010. It is unclear as to whether there would be any relationship between the performance measures and funding.

 

Student Assessment System must include periodic meaningful assessments that measure individual student growth and meet the needs of individual students, teachers and parents. Special Education funding must more adequately reflect district needs.



Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education the Professional Educators Standards Board to work on a statewide system of formative assessments

Not addressed.



Not addressed

A substantial increase in funding, phased in over a reasonable time period, beginning in the next biennium



Safety net oversight committee is appointed and, among other things, the committee shall consider extraordinary costs associated with communities that draw a larger number of families with children in need and shall do an annual district satisfaction survey and consider feedback. Calls for general increases in staffing and money beginning in the year 2011, but not fully implemented until 2016. Implementation schedule is yet to be developed. Funding sources are not specified.



  

Calls for specific increases in staffing and money in the year 2009 and 2010 with subsequent increases based on Commission recommendations. One funding source specified has been disqualified. Another possible funding source depends on future increases in state level revenue.