State Funding for Public Education Should Be Clear By End of Day
Sadly, what is clear is that, at least in the Senate, it appears that there are senators who want to drive more money to charter schools but then, don't really want to allow more money to go to traditional schools.
Charter School Amendment roll call:
Yeas: 31 Nays: 16 Absent: 0 Excused: 2
Voting yea: Senators Bailey, Becker, Billig, Braun, Brown, Carlyle, Cleveland, Fortunato, Hawkins, Holy, Honeyford, Hunt, King, Kuderer, McCoy, O'Ban, Padden, Palumbo, Pedersen, Rivers, Rolfes, Salomon, Schoesler, Short, Takko, Wagoner, Walsh, Warnick, Wellman, Wilson, L., and Zeiger
Voting nay: Senators Conway, Darneille, Das, Dhingra, Ericksen, Frockt, Hasegawa, Hobbs, Keiser, Liias, Lovelett, Nguyen, Randall, Saldaña, Van De Wege, and Wilson, C.
Excused: Senators Mullet, and Sheldon
So there's good news and there's bad news from the State Senate tonight.
Good news: They just passed ESSB 5313, the levy flexibility bill. It was a strangely close vote, 25-23 with 1 excused.
Bad news: They also adopted Palumbo's amendment that would give charter schools the same amount of money as public schools in a given district. Interestingly, that amendment passed with 31 votes, so 7 Senators - *including Palumbo himself* - voted for an amendment for charter schools and then voted against the bill itself, with that amendment, to help public schools.
Then there's the news that will take some time to figure out: What the bill actually does. Here's how the final numbers shaped up - allowable levy collection rates were raised to:
- The lesser of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed value or $2,500 per pupil for school districts with fewer than 40,000 FTE students;
That last provision appears to apply only to Seattle.
- or The lesser of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed value or $3,000 per pupil for school districts with 40,000 FTE students or more.
Mullet's amendment limiting collective bargaining rights is gone. But instead there's language asking the State Auditor to review levy expenditures and penalizing districts.
Here's the language:
"Requires that the State Auditor review of local revenue expenditures include a review of the expenditure schedule for certain supplementary enrichment activities.So, more stuff to figure out. And this bill still has to pass the House. It's a mixed bag, definitely good news for public schools, but really troubling that charter schools got to get a huge amount of new money by leveraging the threat of cuts to classrooms.
Requires that, should the State Auditor find a school district has used local revenues for non-enrichment activities, the school district's maximum enrichment levy collection authorized under law must be reduced by the unauthorized expenditure amount in the following calendar year."
Charter School Amendment roll call:
Yeas: 31 Nays: 16 Absent: 0 Excused: 2
Voting yea: Senators Bailey, Becker, Billig, Braun, Brown, Carlyle, Cleveland, Fortunato, Hawkins, Holy, Honeyford, Hunt, King, Kuderer, McCoy, O'Ban, Padden, Palumbo, Pedersen, Rivers, Rolfes, Salomon, Schoesler, Short, Takko, Wagoner, Walsh, Warnick, Wellman, Wilson, L., and Zeiger
Voting nay: Senators Conway, Darneille, Das, Dhingra, Ericksen, Frockt, Hasegawa, Hobbs, Keiser, Liias, Lovelett, Nguyen, Randall, Saldaña, Van De Wege, and Wilson, C.
Excused: Senators Mullet, and Sheldon
Comments
Question-How does this affect our recently passed levy? Sharing is usually good but not in this case.
Thank you, again, for writing. I look forward to seeing you soon.
Best,
Sharon Tomiko Santos
State Representative, 37th District
Washington State Legislature
Sleep well.
Education: This budget fulfills the bipartisan promise made by the Legislature to fund health care coverage for school employees through the School Employee Benefits Board (SEBB) program. This investment will cost $328 million in this budget and $837 million over four years.
$155 million for additional special education funding ($294 million over four years).
$61 million for additional levy assistance for areas with low property values.
$12 million for paraeducator training.
$2.5 million additional funding for student mental health and safety.
500K or less 1.1%
1.5M to 500K 1.28%
over 1.5 million 2.75%
JS
The way I understand it, the first 500K of anyone's home is taxed at the lower rate of 1.1%. So if your house is worth for example 750K, you pay 1.28% on only 250K.
The capital gains tax which did not pass even with a democratic majority. This tax would have exempted retirement accounts, home sales etc so it would not have hurt the majority of Washington residents. The house & senate each had a version and only the .04 % of Washington residents who make 200K or 250K (house versus senate proposal) per year on their investments would have been taxed.
Our current tax structure is ranked as one of the most regressive states in the nation at 50th least regressive. My understanding is that it did not pass as they did not want to base their budget on implementing a tax that would end up in courts being challenged as an income tax. Washington has lots of tax problems due to this situation.
JK
JK