Unions riled at school chiefs' funding ideas

Local superintendents have banded together to suggest ways to fund schools as the Supreme Court’s 2012 McCleary decision deadline approaches.

The ruling found that Washington State’s school funding system is broken and that the state needs to step up to adequately fund educators.

In a letter dated March 23, superintendents representing Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Island and San Juan counties laid out seventeen different positions that they urged legislators in Olympia to adopt.

Changes included reforms on “collective bargaining,” so that local levy funds do not fund basic education, state funding for 10 professional development days added to a teacher’s 180-day school year, and increasing the minimum salary for beginning teachers. They also proposed transitioning teachers to a “statewide health benefits program.”

Not everyone is happy with their ideas, which were sent to the legislators and Governor Jay Inslee in hopes of influencing the final state education budget plan, still working its way through the Legislature.

The Washington Education Association, which represents the state’s teachers’ unions, is upset it was left out of the conversation and disagrees with several of the Northwest Education Service District 189’s recommendations in the “Educational Funding Position Paper.”

The association responded along with fourteen other labor groups in a letter of their own on April 14, addressed to the same Olympia legislators.

“As leaders of the unions representing most K-12 public school employees in Washington…we want you to know many of the superintendents’ recommendations do not reflect the interests of the school employees we represent, especially as they relate to our members’ longstanding collective bargaining rights,” the letter states.

They argued against any limits whatsoever on bargaining rights and say the McCleary decision does not require these to be reformed. Specific positions the unions opposed included “eliminating local health care insurance choices,” restrictions on the amount levy-funding districts can raise with voter approval and how that money is spent and limiting “TRI pay,” which is incentive pay to attract and retain quality teachers.

The unions also wrote that the objectional portions of the letter—other than the health care proposal—are embodied in the Republican budget passed by the Senate, which the signatories oppose.

Larry Francois from the Northwest Educational Service District Superintendent disagrees with the union’s characterization of the letter.

“They perceive it to be an attack on collective bargaining. We don’t believe that’s correct,” he said.

Francois said that with the multiple education proposals that have been introduced to the House and Senate, the superintendents felt it was important to weigh in without being partisan or supporting specific bills.

“This was intended to specifically represent the superintendent’s perspective,” he said, pointing out that the Washington Education Association is also active in Olympia.

In response to specific complaints, he said the current use of levies to fund teachers is unconstitutional.

Teachers who are worried that limiting levy use could result in pay decreases shouldn’t be concerned, he added—the “hold harmless” provision is supposed to make sure teachers don’t lose money in a system where the state, rather than local taxpayers, is supposed to be funding teachers and schools.

“We never intend for anyone to take a step backward,” Francois said.

Rich Wood, a media representative from the WEA, said the superintendent’s proposals would reduce local control of schools and place “more power to politicians in Olympia,” he said, “and that’s just a bad idea.”

Wood said such decisions are important to be made at a local level. He said he hasn’t heard from a single teacher who was happy with the superintendents’ suggestions, but has heard feedback from upset educators.

“They’re very upset and very concerned by the recommendations...There were a lot of problems with that letter,” he said. “It’s always unfortunate when superintendents don’t consult with their hardworking staff.”

La Conner union representatives Susanne Bruland and Lisa Thomas would not comment on the issue.

La Conner superintendent Peg Seeling was among the 32 regional superintendents who signed the letter. She said the superintendents are not against collective bargaining—but rather the current system, where the only way teachers can get raises is from local levies.

“If there aren’t some curbs and restrictions, it will happen again,” she said. “The rich get richer and in the poorer districts, the gap gets bigger.”

Seeling said some of the recommendations don’t work out as well for small districts, but overall the letter was a good way to send a message to Olympia as a unified voice. She refrained from weighing in on the health care proposal, but said something needs to be done because the cost of health benefits is out of control.

“Sometimes there’s a difference from a superintendent’s perspective of budgeting versus a teacher’s perspective,” Seeling said. “We have to look at ‘how do we pay for a whole district?’”

“The biggest thing is that there has to be equity across the state, for teachers and the students of Washington,” she said.

At the moment, legislatures are running overtime in setting the budget.

The McCleary decision means basic education is supposed to be fully funded by September 2018—the path to achieve that, however, is far from clear. Each day the state goes without meeting funding needs, the court adds $100,000 a day to Washington’s contempt fine penalty.