With K-12 education accounting for about a third of state general fund expenditures, and a $5 billion-plus revenue shortfall projected over the next biennium budget, there’s little doubt that there will be at least some cuts in state funding of basic education… possibly as much as a billion dollars or more.
That could amount to over $1,000 per student, maybe two to three hundred thousand dollars a year out of your typical elementary school budget, a devastating cut that would result in larger class sizes and the elimination of “extras” like the arts, physical education, teaching assistants, tutors, counselors and other programs. But it doesn’t have to happen that way.
The state could raise additional revenues by eliminating billions of dollars in special purpose tax exemptions, and by extending the sales tax to some personal and business services (something the state will eventually have to do if it refuses to adopt an income tax). But if, as many observers assume, the Legislature and Governor lack the balls to do what’s necessary to give voters the services they want, they should just let local school districts raise the taxes themselves.
Currently, the maximum local levy for about two-thirds of the state’s school districts is limited to 24% of state and federal funding, with the remaining schools grandfathered in at a lid as high as 33.9% (Seattle is capped at 32.9%). There are a lot of sound reasons for maintaining this policy, and I’m not opposed to the school levy lid in theory. But in these desperate economic times we need to let local communities choose to adequately fund K-12 education if the state proves unable (or unwilling) to fulfill its obligation.
A temporary lid lift of say, an additional 10%, would give local school districts the flexibility they need to weather this economic downturn without cutting basic education services. And of course, local voters would always have the final say. Districts in areas of the state that oppose higher taxes might choose not to seek a higher levy, or might have any increase rejected at the polls, but there’s little doubt that the vast majority of districts here in the Puget Sound region would stand a good chance of passing a temporary levy hike if a compelling argument can be made to voters.
Governor Gregoire ran on a no new taxes pledge, and I don’t doubt she plans to try to keep it, but that shouldn’t keep her or the Legislature from granting local taxing districts the authority they need to ask local voters to tax themselves to make up for any cuts in state funding. It is simply unfair and unreasonable for anti-tax sentiment in the rest of the state to dictate local tax policies, or to impose a lowest common denominator approach toward something as crucial as K-12 education.
As we saw once again in last month’s election, Seattle voters have proven themselves extremely generous when it comes to funding the services and infrastructure projects we want. Given the opportunity to ease the impact of proposed state K-12 funding cuts, I’m confident Seattle voters will prove generous once again.
That is, assuming, the Legislature and the Governor gives us that chance.
DO IT – LEAD THE FIGHT GOLDY – GIVE IT A NAME – PAY YOURSELF
BRILLIANT – RUN FOR OFFICE
GOOD
BETTER
BEST BEST BEST
“…a devastating cut that would result in larger class sizes and the elimination of “extras” like the arts, physical education, teaching assistants, tutors, counselors and other programs.”
All these additional programs and Johnny still can’t read. It is past time to question teacher ability and implement merit pay,vouchers and charter schools. The teacher unions are the ones charged with delivering the “product” and they aren’t up to the job.
So, I’m working for a non-profit at the moment and in non-profit land we have a thing called a NPINO. Yep, you got it: Non-Profit In Name Only. A lot of NPINO’s get all or most of their funding from the state and don’t do much.
The state needs to tighten up on just who can be be considered a non-profit and have more thoroughgoing finical reporting requirements for non-profits.
Roll back spending……..
The state is taking in more tax dollars this year than last year……It’s the spending…
@4
Change that to carefully roll back spending and I’m with ya on that.
(sarcasm) No way, I’ll bill myself to pay for parks and pike place, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay extra so my kid can get a decent education. That is asking too much! That I cannot bear! How about we cut funding to cops and firemen and old folks homes and put that money into the schools!(/sarcasm)
All these additional programs and Johnny still can’t read.
You all always blame the teacher’s union. It’s not just them. How about the disruptive kids. How about the parent who won’t parent their kids, who treat school like a kid housing facility and don’t bother teaching respect and a love of learning. How about some authority to discipline the kids again?
Why is income tax such a dirty word in this state. Let’s just bite the bullet and have a state income tax. Then we can pay for education like we need to, we can fund foster care like we need to, we can fix the roads and bridges like we need to, we can incentivize new business like we need to.
Washington is one of the few states that doesn’t have an income tax. Let’s just do it and get it over with. Heck, when I lived in St. Louis, I had both a city *and* state income tax.
I am with you #8. I have been advocating for State income tax for years but of course it is dirty words to those that don’t want to have to pay for the civilized society that we live in.
What does investing in America mean? Roads? Bridges? How about education so we can raise productive, tax paying citizens down the road.
I agree with you Goldie! The levy lid has always pissed me off. Keep up the good work.
Washington is one of the few states that doesn’t have an income tax.
——————–
Only two states on this list don’t have income taxes:
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archi.....ult_w.html
Only seven states in total don’t have income taxes, but over 40 states are now facing budget deficits, many serious. Connecticut, for example, with a much smaller population than ours, has an income tax . . . and a projected deficit of 6 B – about the same as ours.
The data has grown worse since Kedrosky posted these results.
@10 so true, the income tax panacea is just nonsense.
Cut spending. if needed cut spending to 2007 levels. Is that SO difficult to do? did we grow government that much in just 1 year?
The state will take in more tax revenue this year than last….. Just spend at 2007 levels.
Goldy
I think the idea of local funding is VERY good, with a few wrinkles.
1. The current approach is a catch 22 because the effin State constitution guarantees our funding but then does not pay the bill.
the state guarantee by declaring a fiscal emergency. The amend to delete.
2. The main worry about relying on local funding is that it will produce disparities. Again this is nutty because we already have the disparities.
Require open enrollment across District Boundaries WITH an appropriate change in how taxes are levied.
Set thresholds that must be reached, e.g. class size, then require the State to finance any disparities that do not allow local Districts to meet these minimums
set schools levy by the numbers of kids in the District rather than the number attending the schools. The current law taxing everyone for those who do choose to use the schools automatically drives quality and funding down because it provides incentives to take kids out of the public schools.