I get a lot of questions about education funding inequities, and that's really to be expected because of the complexity of the current funding formulas. Many community members know that the Issaquah School District gets considerably less funding than most districts, but there's more to this story.
First of all, let me state clearly that I'm proud that Issaquah continues to achieve some of the highest standardized test scores in the state while ranked 271st in per-pupil revenue out of 295 districts statewide in 2008-09. We have the lowest administrative overhead in King County, saving $4M/year compared to the average. We do more with less, and I wish that more government institutions would follow our lead.
The objection I have is that the current funding inequities have no rational basis and create an uneven playing field for school districts.
Our current funding formulas and levy lids were essentially hacked together in 1977 and included grandfather clauses to passify large influential districts that were paying
higher teacher salaries and collecting
larger local levies. The intent, of course, was to eventually equalize the rates by raising everyone up to these levels, but that never came to pass.
So what does this mean to Issaquah?
Currently, we would receive an extra $11.5M/year with the average state per-pupil funding. In addition, we lose an additional $7.3M/year vs. Bellevue and $10.6M/year vs. Mercer Island because of inequities in our levy authorization.
Ultimately, that means that neighboring districts can provide students more class offerings and offer teachers and principals more competitive pay.
For example, by recovering just $3.0 - $4.7M of these funds, we could offer an additional class period in our high schools enabling us to further raise graduation standards and offer electives that give our kids the edge they need to get the best jobs.
So is there hope for change?
ESHB 2261 established K-12
Funding Formula and Local Funding technical working groups to create a new set of funding formulas based on a model schools approach rather than political compromises from the 70s. Our expectation is that the new model will much more closely reflect the real costs of education, including adjustments for regional cost of living.
Unfortunately, the Local Funding working group doesn't meet until July 1, 2010, and we expect quite a bit of resistance to change from those districts benefitting from the current inequities, which are basically districts with grandfathered levy lids and smaller districts who receive levy equalization (LEA) funds and fear local funding disparity from perceived "property rich" districts.
What will drive change?
Our district lost an additional $7.3M this year to budget cuts and the expectation is that additional cuts will be forthcoming next year and the following state biennium budget when we will no longer have benefit of state fiscal stabilization funds from the federal government. Many districts like ours will become insolvent, especially if they hold back on budget cuts, retain too many employees, or agree to concessions they can't afford in collective bargaining.
Currently, there are two high-profile
legal cases drawing attention to state funding inequities, which makes me confident that the legislature will soon enact measures to address these issues next session when they have recommendations from the K-12 Funding Formula Technical Working Group and Quality Education Council. There are currently no legal cases highlighting the inequities in levy authorization, however, so I'm not as optimistic about seeing changes to the levy lids. If we want change here, we're going to have to drive it ourselves by participating in the K-12 Supplemental Funding Technical Working Group and raising awareness with the QEC, our legislators, and the general public.