Скачать презентацию 64 th Washington State Legislature 2015 Session Preview Скачать презентацию 64 th Washington State Legislature 2015 Session Preview

fa37db3615f83b0556b3c21a407441df.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 63

64 th Washington State Legislature: 2015 Session Preview Updated: January 7, 2015 64 th Washington State Legislature: 2015 Session Preview Updated: January 7, 2015

2015 Session Preview 2014 Election Update WASA 2015 Legislative Platform ◦ Comply with the 2015 Session Preview 2014 Election Update WASA 2015 Legislative Platform ◦ Comply with the Paramount Duty Mc. Cleary v. State Implementation ◦ Expand Available State Revenues 2015 -17 Budget Outlook ◦ Ensure Competitive Employee Compensation Work Group Recommendations State Underfunding of Salaries 2

Legislative Elections Pre-election party strength: ◦ House: 55 Democrats, 43 Republicans ◦ Senate: Controlled Legislative Elections Pre-election party strength: ◦ House: 55 Democrats, 43 Republicans ◦ Senate: Controlled by Republican-led “Majority Coalition Caucus” 2013: 23 R’s + 2 D’s vs 24 D’s 2014: 24 R’s + 2 D’s vs 23 D’s Post-election party strength: ◦ House: 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans ◦ Senate: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats Majority Coalition: 25 R’s + 1 D vs 23 D’s 3

House Elections Democratic Losses: Kathy Haigh (Shelton) ◦ Chair, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Education House Elections Democratic Losses: Kathy Haigh (Shelton) ◦ Chair, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Education Dawn Morrell (Puyallup) ◦ Chair, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Health & Human Services Larry Seaquist (Bremerton) ◦ Chair, House Higher Education Committee Monica Stonier (Vancouver) ◦ Vice Chair, House Education Committee 4

Senate Elections Key Seats: Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way) ◦ Co-Chair, Senate Transportation Committee (did Senate Elections Key Seats: Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way) ◦ Co-Chair, Senate Transportation Committee (did not run for re-election) Rodney Tom (D-Medina) ◦ Leader, Majority Coalition Caucus (did not run for re-election) 5

Initiative 1351 – K-12 Class Size Reduction Initiative 1351 – K-12 Class Size Reduction

I-1351 Implementation New state revenue = $0 New state expenditures: ◦ 2015 -17 = I-1351 Implementation New state revenue = $0 New state expenditures: ◦ 2015 -17 = $2. 0 billion ◦ 2017 -19 = $2. 7 billion (plus HB 2776 $1. 3 b) ◦ 2019 -21 = $3. 8 billion Local revenues increase by $4. 7 billion (5 years) Local expenditures increase by $6. 0 billion (5 years) Levy capacity increases by $1. 9 billion (5 years) No capital assistance provided 7

Staffing Unit Comparison Impact of I-1351 plus statewide Full-Day Kindergarten (2018 -19) Name K-12 Staffing Unit Comparison Impact of I-1351 plus statewide Full-Day Kindergarten (2018 -19) Name K-12 Enrollment* (All) Sum of Change 1, 024, 518. 79 Estimated 2014 -15 Current Law Additional Staff Units (I-1351) Teachers 45, 035. 47 14, 057. 87 Teachers Total 45, 035. 47 14, 057. 87 School Based Staff Principals 2, 929. 09 161. 71 Librarians 1, 287. 44 874. 22 Counselors 2, 129. 58 707. 46 Nurses 162. 51 1, 306. 69 Social Workers 64. 65 453. 66 Psychologists 26. 38 147. 72 Teaching Assistants 1, 770. 70 1, 790. 81 Office Support 4, 859. 49 2, 006. 32 Custodians 4, 123. 26 189. 08 Student and Staff Safety 196. 24 582. 42 Parent Involvement Coordinator 110. 80 2, 050. 85 Technology 587. 20 2, 094. 49 Facilities, Maintenance, and Grounds 1, 695. 20 2, 135. 77 Warehouse, Laborers, and Mechanics 310. 43 1, 509. 29 CTE/Skill Center Classified 1, 137. 54 777. 46 CTE/Skill Center Certificated Administrative Staff Small School Bonus Unit Reduction School Based Staff Total District/Central Staff Central Administration - CAS 840. 15 389. 39 Central Administration - CLS 2, 458. 40 1, 139. 45 District/Central Staff Total 3, 298. 54 1, 528. 84 Grand Total 70, 002. 71 32, 163. 33 22. 23 0. 00 (233. 57) 21, 668. 70 http: //bit. ly/1 zaym. QL 278. 18 16, 576. 62 Source: OSPI, 11/14

WASA 2015 Legislative Platform Comply with the Paramount Duty Expand Available State Revenues Ensure WASA 2015 Legislative Platform Comply with the Paramount Duty Expand Available State Revenues Ensure Competitive Public School Employee Compensation 9

Comply with the Paramount Duty Comply with the Paramount Duty

Mc. Cleary v. State 2005: The Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) is Mc. Cleary v. State 2005: The Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) is formed ◦ Comprised of many organizations and school districts committed to improving the quality of public education in Washington (430+ members in 2014) 2007: Mc. Cleary v. State of Washington filed in King County Superior Court ◦ NEWS filed a lawsuit, asking the courts to order the State of Washington to live up to its paramount constitutional duty to make ample provision for the education of all Washington children 11

12 Dollars in Billions 12 Dollars in Billions

Source: NEWS, 6/10 13 Source: NEWS, 6/10 13

Local levy revenue at the same level as before Doran Decision Source: OSPI 5/10 Local levy revenue at the same level as before Doran Decision Source: OSPI 5/10

Mc. Cleary v. State 2009: Mc. Cleary v. State of Washington heard in King Mc. Cleary v. State 2009: Mc. Cleary v. State of Washington heard in King County Superior Court 2010: Judge John Erlick rules for the plaintiffs, declaring the State’s failure to fully fund public schools is unconstitutional: ◦ “This court is left with no doubt that under the State’s current financing system, the state is failing in its constitutional duty. “ 15

Mc. Cleary v. State “State funding is not ample, it is not stable, and Mc. Cleary v. State “State funding is not ample, it is not stable, and it is not dependable…local school districts continue to rely on local levies and other non -state resources to supplement state funding for a basic education. ” “Paramount means preeminent, supreme, and more important than others. Funding K-12 education…is the state’s first and highest priority before any other state programs or operations. ” - Judge John Erlick 16

ESHB 2261 – Program Changes Required 17 ESHB 2261 – Program Changes Required 17

SHB 2776 – Funding Changes Required 18 SHB 2776 – Funding Changes Required 18

SHB 2776 Resource Phase-in School Year 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 SHB 2776 Resource Phase-in School Year 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017 -18 219 Schools More funding can begin More funding must begin Continues to ramp up Fully Funded $0 More funding can begin More funding must begin Continues to ramp up Fully Funded More funding can begin More funding must begin Continues to ramp up Funded at new level More funding can begin More funding must begin Continues to ramp up Fully Funded Full-Day Kindergarten 1 Must be fully funded statewide by 2017 -18 Phase-in based on FRPL K-3 Class Size Reduction 2 3 Must be fully funded statewide by 2017 -18 Phase-in based on FRPL Materials, Supplies, Operation Costs (MSOC) Must be fully funded by 2015 -16 $ per student basis Basic Transportation 4 Must be fully funded by 2014 -15 % of formula funded basis Source: OSPI, 5/10 19

Mc. Cleary v. State Supreme Court rules (January 2012): ◦ The State “has consistently Mc. Cleary v. State Supreme Court rules (January 2012): ◦ The State “has consistently failed” to provide the ample funding required by the Constitution. ◦ “Reliance on levy funding to finance basic education was unconstitutional 30 years ago in Seattle School District, and it is unconstitutional now. ” Supreme Court Orders State to: ◦ “demonstrate steady progress” under ESHB 2261; and ◦ “show real and measurable progress” towards full Article IX, Section 1 compliance by 2018. 20

2013 -15 Operating Budget (as adopted, June 2013) Total Resources $33. 54 billion Total 2013 -15 Operating Budget (as adopted, June 2013) Total Resources $33. 54 billion Total Spending $33. 49 billion Ending Fund Balance $53 million (0. 2% of spending) Budget Stabilization Account $578 million Total Reserves $630 million (2. 0% of spending) K-12 Education 2011 -13 $13. 65 billion K-12 Education 2013 -15 $15. 21 billion Total K-12 increase $1. 56 billion (11. 4% increase) Basic Education Enhancement $982. 2 million (including transfers of $520 million) 21

2013 -15 Operating Budget (as amended, March 2014) Total Resources $33. 95 billion Total 2013 -15 Operating Budget (as amended, March 2014) Total Resources $33. 95 billion Total Spending $33. 65 billion Ending Fund Balance $296 million Budget Stabilization Account $583 million Total Reserves $879 million K-12 Education 2011 -13 $13. 65 billion K-12 Education 2013 -15 $15. 27 billion Total K-12 increase $1. 62 billion Basic Education Enhancement $1. 07 billion (including transfers of $420 million) 22

Education Funding Task Force Adopted Spending Plan Source: Joint Task Force on Education Funding, Education Funding Task Force Adopted Spending Plan Source: Joint Task Force on Education Funding, Final Report, 12/12 23

Initial Mc. Cleary Basic Education Investment 2013 -15 Operating Budget Billions $5 $4 $3 Initial Mc. Cleary Basic Education Investment 2013 -15 Operating Budget Billions $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 25

2015 -17 Operating Budget Proposal 26 2015 -17 Operating Budget Proposal 26

Gov. Inslee 2015 -17 Budget Proposal K-12 Education Policy Enhancements Basic Education (HB 2776) Gov. Inslee 2015 -17 Budget Proposal K-12 Education Policy Enhancements Basic Education (HB 2776) $1. 3 billion MSOC $751. 8 million Full-Day Kindergarten $107. 6 million K-3 Class Size $448. 1 million Promoting Student Success $40. 7 million High School Graduation Rates $18. 1 million High-Quality Teaching/Instructional Leadership $30. 4 million Compensation $596. 6 million K-12 Total $1. 99 billion 27

Gov. Inslee 2015 -17 Budget Proposal Basic Education Enhancement, HB 2776 Source: OFM, 12/14 Gov. Inslee 2015 -17 Budget Proposal Basic Education Enhancement, HB 2776 Source: OFM, 12/14

2015 -17 Operating Budget Proposal 29 2015 -17 Operating Budget Proposal 29

Superintendent Dorn 2015 -17 Budget Proposal K-12 Education Policy Enhancements Basic Education (HB 2261/HB Superintendent Dorn 2015 -17 Budget Proposal K-12 Education Policy Enhancements Basic Education (HB 2261/HB 2776) $7. 2 billion Basic Education: CTE $169, 800, 000 High School Graduation Rates ($29, 360, 000) Dropout Prevention/Student Support $31, 730, 000 Technology Literacy $139, 000 Professional Learning Support System $10, 990, 000 Wa. KIDS Grants $1, 492, 000 Bus Depreciation $676, 604 Seattle Children’s Hospital $931, 378 Student Information/Customer Support $410, 700 Data Privacy $442, 000 CTE Course Equivalency $250, 000 Certification Fee Increase $1, 787, 000 PESB Cut ($594, 704) 0. 41 30

Supt. Dorn 2015 -17 Budget Proposal Basic Education Enhancement, HB 2261/HB 2776 Expenditure Category Supt. Dorn 2015 -17 Budget Proposal Basic Education Enhancement, HB 2261/HB 2776 Expenditure Category School Year 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017 -18 Early Elem. Class Sizes $202, 812, 515 $458, 130, 044 $789, 926, 548 Later Grade Class Sizes $133, 329 $283, 414, 747 $454, 901, 508 Support Staff $355, 610, 606 $717, 775, 681 $1, 086, 485, 908 Program Hours $103, 507, 914 $243, 698, 593 $475, 794, 541 Prof. Development $144, 351, 361 $305, 633, 637 $490, 144, 289 $2, 489, 265, 379 Compensation TOTALS Source: OSPI, 10/14 $2, 767, 697, 512 $3, 336, 149, 391 $3, 428, 881, 103 $4, 776, 350, 213 $6, 633, 402, 184 31

State’s K-12 Funding Promises Testimony Under Oath During Mc. Cleary Trial (Per Pupil State State’s K-12 Funding Promises Testimony Under Oath During Mc. Cleary Trial (Per Pupil State Funding) Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14 32

State’s K-12 Funding Promises $7, 279 per pupil funding, as adopted in 2 ESSB State’s K-12 Funding Promises $7, 279 per pupil funding, as adopted in 2 ESSB 5034 (2013 -15 budget) $9, 710 per pupil funding by 2017 -18, as testified in trial—does not include market rate salaries, inflation after 2007 -08 or capital construction needs $12, 701 per pupil funding by 2017 -18, promised funding including market rate salaries ($2. 9 billion) as recommended by Compensation Technical Working Group (June 2012) ◦ Calculation: $9, 710 + $2, 991=$12, 701 per pupil 33

Real and Steady Progress Towards Full Funding — State Testimony vs. Actual Funding, 2013— Real and Steady Progress Towards Full Funding — State Testimony vs. Actual Funding, 2013— (Per Pupil State Funding) Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14 34

Real and Steady Progress Towards Full Funding — State Testimony vs. Actual Funding, 2014— Real and Steady Progress Towards Full Funding — State Testimony vs. Actual Funding, 2014— (Per Pupil State Funding) Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14 35

Real and steady progress towards full funding — Investment needed to meet State promises— Real and steady progress towards full funding — Investment needed to meet State promises— (Per Pupil State Funding) Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 9/14 36

Legislature in Contempt! September 11, 2014: “The Court cannot stand idly by while its Legislature in Contempt! September 11, 2014: “The Court cannot stand idly by while its lawful orders are disregarded…. Accordingly, the Court unanimously finds the State in contempt. ” Sanctions are postponed, providing the State an opportunity to purge the contempt during the 2015 session. If the contempt is not purged by adjournment of the 2015 session, “the Court will reconvene and impose sanctions or other remedial measures. ” 37

Comply with the Paramount Duty WASA believes the Legislature should be held accountable for Comply with the Paramount Duty WASA believes the Legislature should be held accountable for complying with its “paramount duty” to provide ample funding for all K– 12 children by implementing the new basic education finance system as adopted in ESHB 2261 (2009) and SHB 2776 (2010). To ensure the new system is completely implemented—with full and equitable funding—by 2018, as ordered by the Supreme Court in Mc. Cleary v. State, the Legislature must demonstrate steady progress towards compliance with the constitution. 38

Expand Available State Revenues Expand Available State Revenues

Where will the Legislature find the funds to enhance K-12 Education? Revenue Growth? Spending Where will the Legislature find the funds to enhance K-12 Education? Revenue Growth? Spending Reductions? Tax Increases?

Preliminary Four-year Budget Outlook (Dollars in Millions) Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 11/14 Preliminary Four-year Budget Outlook (Dollars in Millions) Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 11/14 41

General Fund-State Revenue Forecasted Growth Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 11/14 General Fund-State Revenue Forecasted Growth Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 11/14

2015 -17 Budget Outlook $4. 45 B Source: Office of Financial Management, 11/14 2015 -17 Budget Outlook $4. 45 B Source: Office of Financial Management, 11/14

Spending Reductions? Two-thirds of the state budget constitutionally or federally protected Source: Office of Spending Reductions? Two-thirds of the state budget constitutionally or federally protected Source: Office of Financial Management, 8/14 44

Source: Office of Financial Management, 9/12 Source: Office of Financial Management, 9/12

General Fund-State Revenues as Percentage of Washington Personal Income 46 Source: Office of Financial General Fund-State Revenues as Percentage of Washington Personal Income 46 Source: Office of Financial Management, 12/13

Taxable Sales as Percentage of Personal Income Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 9/14 Taxable Sales as Percentage of Personal Income Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 9/14 47

In 1995, Washington ranked 11 th in State and Local Tax Collections; by 2011, In 1995, Washington ranked 11 th in State and Local Tax Collections; by 2011, Washington ranked 35 th Source: Office of Financial Management, 8/14 48

Expand Available State Revenues The current state budget structure cannot accommodate the required—and needed—increases Expand Available State Revenues The current state budget structure cannot accommodate the required—and needed—increases in basic education to comply with the Supreme Court’s Mc. Cleary decision, nor allow the state to address educator compensation or capital costs in a comprehensive way. WASA supports the enhancement of state revenues to ensure the Legislature is able to fully comply with the constitutional paramount duty with “regular and dependable” sources of funding and also prevent drastic reductions of other necessary government services—which would have significant direct and indirect impacts on K– 12 education. 49

Ensure Competitive Public School Employee Compensation Ensure Competitive Public School Employee Compensation

ESHB 2261 & Compensation In 2009, ESHB 2261 adopted, establishing a new definition of ESHB 2261 & Compensation In 2009, ESHB 2261 adopted, establishing a new definition of basic education and a new education funding system. ESHB 2261 stated the Legislature’s intent to “enhance the current salary allocation model, ” with the understanding that “continuing to attract and retain the highest quality educators will require increased investments. ” 51

Compensation Technical Working Group Enacted in 2009, ESHB 2261 Convened in July 2011 Statutory Compensation Technical Working Group Enacted in 2009, ESHB 2261 Convened in July 2011 Statutory Charge: Recommend the details of an Report submitted in June 2012 enhanced salary allocation model that aligns state expectations for educator development and certification with the compensation system. 52

Compensation Technical Working Group June 2012 Recommendations 1) Increase the Starting Salary for Teachers Compensation Technical Working Group June 2012 Recommendations 1) Increase the Starting Salary for Teachers and Educational Staff Associates to $48, 786 2) Provide Fair Market-based Salary Allocations for all K-12 Staff 3) Maintain Comparable Wage Levels through an Annual Cost of Living Adjustment and Periodic Wage Analysis 4) Align the Salary Allocation Model to the Career Continuum for Educators 5) Invest in 10 Days of Professional Development 53

Compensation Technical Working Group June 2012 Recommendations 6) Allocate Mentors and Instructional Coaches in Compensation Technical Working Group June 2012 Recommendations 6) Allocate Mentors and Instructional Coaches in the Basic Education Funding Formula 7) Provide Appropriate Staffing Levels and Increased Program Support for Basic Education 8) Amply Fund State Basic Education Salary Allocations and Limit Locally Funded Salary Enhancements to No More than 10% of the State Allocation 9) Ensure School Districts receive the Same or Higher State Salary Allocations per State-funded Employee Full Report at: http: //bit. ly/1 qe. Fvcb 54

The Court & Compensation Supreme Court expressed concerns that the 2011 -13 salary reduction The Court & Compensation Supreme Court expressed concerns that the 2011 -13 salary reduction forced increased reliance on levies to fund salaries. In its January 2014 order, the Court stated it is “deeply troubling” that the 2013 -15 budget does not address “this component [compensation] of ESHB 2261. ” 55

School District Employee Salaries Average Base State Allocation vs. Average Total Salary Paid $ School District Employee Salaries Average Base State Allocation vs. Average Total Salary Paid $ (1, 400) Millions $ 58, 703 $ 60, 000 $ 52, 856 $ 50, 000 $ 32, 767 $ 20, 000 $ 45, 301 $ 38, 732 $ 40, 000 $ 30, 000 $ (1, 200) $ 45, 987 $ 26, 053 $ 41, 723 $ (800) $ 36, 634 $ 33, 175 $ 29, 762 $ (600) $ 25, 832 $ (400) $ 10, 000 $- $ (1, 000) $ (200) 1987 -88 1992 -93 Total $ Underfunded Source: OSPI, 9/14 1997 -98 2002 -03 Average Base State Allocation 2007 -08 2012 -13 Average Total Salary Paid by Districts Note: Salaries are for all programs and do not include benefits $-

School District Employee Salaries Percentage of Average Salary Paid by State and Local District School District Employee Salaries Percentage of Average Salary Paid by State and Local District 90. 0% $ (1, 400) Millions 100. 0% 99. 2% 90. 8% 80. 0% $ (1, 200) 85. 7% 79. 7% 70. 0% 78. 9% 77. 2% 60. 0% $ (1, 000) $ (800) 50. 0% $ (600) 40. 0% 30. 0% 20. 3% 20. 0% 10. 0% 9. 2% 21. 1% 22. 8% 14. 3% $ (400) $ (200) 0. 8% 1987 -88 1992 -93 Total $ Underfunded Source: OSPI, 9/14 1997 -98 2002 -03 % of Average Salary Paid by State 2007 -08 2012 -13 % of Average Salary paid by District Note: Salaries are for all programs and do not include benefits $-

Local Funding Workgroup Key Recommendations: Fund the full cost of basic education labor first, Local Funding Workgroup Key Recommendations: Fund the full cost of basic education labor first, followed by other improvements as outlined in ESHB 2261 and SHB 2776 Update and implement recommendations of Compensation Technical Working Group Recognize and mitigate impact of any reduction to local levy authority on districts’ ability to meet financial obligations 58

Ensure Competitive Employee Compensation WASA urges the Legislature to fully fund a competitive compensation Ensure Competitive Employee Compensation WASA urges the Legislature to fully fund a competitive compensation system to ensure the state not only meets its responsibility to establish an equitable and ample allocation system, but maintains the present benefit and pension offerings. 59

WASA 2015 Legislative Platform Comply with the Paramount Duty Expand Available State Revenues Ensure WASA 2015 Legislative Platform Comply with the Paramount Duty Expand Available State Revenues Ensure Competitive Public School Employee Compensation 60

WASA’s Message An educated citizenry is critical to the state’s democracy; a well-educated population WASA’s Message An educated citizenry is critical to the state’s democracy; a well-educated population is the foundation of our democracy, our economy, and the American dream Public education plays a critical role in promoting equality, operating as the great equalizer; public education provides unprivileged citizens with the tools they need to compete on a level playing field with citizens born into wealth or privilege 61

WASA’s Message Education plays a critical role in building and maintaining a strong economy; WASA’s Message Education plays a critical role in building and maintaining a strong economy; public education builds the well-educated workforce necessary to attract more stable and higher wage jobs to the state’s economy Washington’s duty to education is constitutionally declared to be its paramount duty In summary: Public education is a wise “investment” in the future 62

Daniel P. Steele Assistant Executive Director, Government Relations 825 Fifth Avenue SE Olympia, WA Daniel P. Steele Assistant Executive Director, Government Relations 825 Fifth Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98501 360. 489. 3642 [email protected] org 2015 Legislative Preview Updated: January 7, 2015