Now It Will Get Real on McCleary Funding

The Dems will be releasing their proposal for the budget, including McCleary funding, today at noon. It will be televised on TVW.


Comments

Outsider said…
Just wondering -- what funding level would the pro-tax faction consider adequate? Leaving aside the issue of lump sum vs. per student funding, the proposed funding level of $12,500 per non-special student strikes me (naive as I am) like a lot. The amount actually spent on non-special students at the building level in Seattle is about half that. I assume that districts are still allowed to raise capital budgets via levy, so where is all this per-student money going? What is the rationale for saying indignantly that it's not enough?
3/27/17, 3:02 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Outsider, so that total is not all state dollars but yes, it is a large sum.

But let's go over what that provides:

- teachers
- other school staff including principal,custodian, office staff, counselors, etc.
- books and other supplies
- preventative and emergency maintenance
- building utilities
- headquarters and the staff there
- specialty staff like nurses
- technology (which has to be maintained and updated)
- testing

There's a lot more than that but you get the idea.

The capital levies - at least for Seattle - are way behind because of the number of buildings being served and the number of aging buildings that the district has.

It would be interesting to ask the district to break down the basic per pupil funding down to one student.

I note that when I hear GOP members say they want accountability, well, there is a budget for every single district. But when I ask the question - how would YOU spend the money differently? - I never have received an answer. Not a single time.
3/27/17, 5:18 PM
Anonymous said…
RE: Outsider - I agree that this $12,500 number in isolation is hard to gauge. For me, what puts this number into context are the stats that show how WA school funding compares to other US states.
-WA is the 10th wealthiest state but the 42nd in funding.
-WA puts less than 3% of GDP into education funding.That's less than 48 other states.

These stats embarrass and frustrate me. All of our kids deserve better than this.

-Mark
3/28/17, 8:20 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more