Wondering about 1098?
The LEV blog had an excellent article by Hannah Lidman about what I-0198 will do for education.
She answers these questions:
She answers these questions:
- “What exactly does ‘education’ mean within the context of I-1098?
- Where would the money go exactly?
- Does it only go to K-12 and higher ed or does it cover early learning too?
Comments
Wow! When do we get to vote on these policy makers and will it ever end?
Its been no secret.
I am refering to 728 funds.
I'm dumbfounded by the negative spin on this one, especially by those who admit that our state's taxes are among the most regressive in the nation. I am sadly astounded by the number of my liberal friends and local organizations who would typically endorse something like this, yet are balking.
$200k a year as middle class? $400k for a couple? This is an expensive area in which to live, no doubt, but seriously, where are our priorities? I don't care how the money is divvied up, quite frankly, but we need to move forward with leveling the playing field in this state in terms of who is paying for what.
A Recall of four Seattle school board members was filed at the elections office today. MORE HERE.
Here is the link on I-728 (OSPI - state sup - website.) I was not in Wash in 2000, and can't attest to how it was pitched. But I find it continually annoying that mainstream media insists on calling it class-size reduction only. It is misleading.
I first looked into I-728 two years ago while working on education funding reform at the state level. My understanding is that in the late 1990s, the state mandated new grade standards. Local school districts said they needed more money to meet those standards, and I-728 came into play.
There is interesting analysis on LEV's site about what programs have been funded. Class size reduction is the biggest; but all-day K and access to preschool factor in; summer school, after-school remediation also factor in.
A lot of important funding was tied to this initiative, and because it was funded by initiative, it was vulnerable. "Basic" ed is constitutionally protected. Everything I-728 funded was "not basic" and thus vulnerable. It was also vulnerable because I-728 funding came from surplus state revenue.
That's why early learning, extended learning and significantly smaller class sizes in K-3 became focal points of basic ed funding reform. We wanted secure, stable funding for what kids needed.
If HB 2261 ever gets funded and implemented, "basic" ed funding would include the things I-728 paid for (they were rolled into it). And last year's follow up legislation phases in this funding first. But it means more money has to go to basic ed's slice of the pie.
And STILL not addressed is the much larger increase associated with funding a full day of school.
Our state won't cough up the cash needed to pay for 6 hours of school. It won't pay for the instructional hours kids need to qualify for college. And every proposal put forth to find the money is met with hewing and hawing.
When we had the extra state revenue and pumped it into education, the cry went up: Unsustainable spending! I've lived in really conservative places. I've lived in all regions (west, northwest, pacific northwest, south, midwest, northeast). Funding schools isn't a liberal thing. Lots of very conservative places put money into schools. But every increase proposed here is met with "bad for business."
I support I-1098. I would support an income tax on everyone, but I'm good with starting at the top. We rank 46th in college readiness. Tell me that isn't sending our state into the gutter.
If not an income tax, what?
Go read HB 2261,
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House%20Final/2261-S.E%20HBR%20FBR%2009.pdf
see if it covers the things you think every child should have access to (keep in mind the governor vetoed early learning, but is still pursuing it independent of basic ed funding). If it makes sense to you, please help secure the money to fund it.
I-1098 is a great start.
- Ramona Hattendorf
Yes it can fund other things, but the marketing and the citizen expectation was that the majority of it would go to class size reduction. Around the state, I believe that happened more or less well. In Seattle, the majority was given to schools for site-based management targets and therefore much did go to class size reduction, tailored to the specific needs and desires of that school's community.
In the last few years, under MGJ's administration, that shifted with more being held downtown per Strategic Plan priorities. Thus, in the last big year of I728, the 2008-2009 school year more than half of the almost 20 million dollars was kept downtown and used to boost the cadre of coaches, ie full time professional development team.
FWIW at the district level I disagree with your Seattle Times article yesterday. I am voting no on the levy. The reader comments posted after your article are more persuasive to me.
parent of two