Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com I recently attended the Battle Ground School District levy information session and heard one side of a debate. District Superintendent Shelly Whitten gave an overview of the levy proposal on the ballot, which calls for the collection of $116 million dollars over three years. T.J. Kelly, the chief financial officer from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the state, presented the state’s assessment of the district’s financial position if the levy is not approved. The Battle Ground School District would be unable to satisfy the Legislature’s un/underfunded mandates. The district would be driven into extended state financial oversight when the general fund balance would go negative during the current school year.
The audience was small, approximately 80 people, and consisted of employees of the district, the school district Citizen Advisory Committee, and a few parents and grandparents. The presenters took questions from the audience that eventually overtook the planned agenda. The main themes were that the cuts would reduce or eliminate programs for students in need of support, that the Legislature needs to allocate more money to the K-12 schools, and the community is responsible for supporting the public schools. Many comments were aimed at the inadequacy of the Legislature’s funding model. Eventually, the audience comments settled on talking points and emotional stories for convincing neighbors to vote for the levy proposal.
Larry Roe
The structure of the meeting was not about the academic or athletic priorities in the school district. It was not about the impacts of higher property taxes on different groups in the community. It was limited to advocacy for the one of four administration proposals that has been selected by the school board. A few creative ways of supporting school operations were highlighted: the support of security personnel needs on school grounds by the police department and the flexible classrooms and athletic opportunities for students whose families spend most of their time homeschooling.
Our K-12 school funding was set on good financial footing in 2018, less than 10 years ago, by the implementation of property tax changes that were consistent with the Washington Supreme Court McCleary case decision. This case was based on a double levy failure in King County. The resulting decision defined education as “the basic knowledge and skills needed to compete in today’s economy and meaningfully participate in this state’s democracy.” The courts directed the Washington Legislature to increase funding for education. The brinksmanship associated with these changes is remarkable. The basis of the McCleary judgement is that the school district spent more than it was allocated, therefore, it must need an allocation increase. Note that it was not the legislative branch that determined that more spending was needed, but the judicial branch. It is also noteworthy that the court chose priority for the words in the laws that granted the right to higher public-school expenditures for specific groups of students rather than the total number of dollars that the legislature raised and allocated to public schools. Thus, our public-school spending is based on meeting individual rights granted by legislative statements rather than budgets.
Also in 2018, all school district policies in the state were revised. Several laws passed in the last decade have been written to direct school districts to spend money and dedicate time based on formulas for items such as class size, number of employees, and required training for employees. At the same time, laws have been enacted to keep communities from being creative in addressing their public-school needs, for example, school district directors, your elected representatives, are personally, financially liable if they allow anyone to lead a class in a public-school without a state-issued certificate.
The increased state level funding driven by the McCleary decision was intentionally created to avoid impacts of local levy failures on public school funding. The Washington Supreme Court directed the state to run the public-school finances independently from levies that are subject to the “whim of the electorate.” I do not believe that three failed levies represent a “whim.” Certainly, a fourth failed levy should be interpreted as a message.
I am personally a strong supporter of public schools and also believe in ensuring that every student has opportunities to advance their role in our community. However, I think that we should be very careful in how we tax our neighbors to support enrichments to the basic educational opportunity that is advanced in our State Constitution. Our legislature has named many of these enhanced opportunities for specific segments in our community as the basic education that we all must support. I believe that anyone that votes against this current levy proposal is respectfully disagreeing with our legislature on their obligation to fund enhancements to a basic education.
For many in our community, the expense of this levy is a good value for the public benefits. However, for most of the families with children in our county, this represents much, if not all of their unallocated income. We give property tax exceptions to the elderly; there is no reason that we cannot craft a levy proposal to exempt families with school-age children from the property tax associated with our school levies. For those who would give more, most school districts (including Battle Ground) have foundations that will gladly accept contributions to fund educational enhancements in the public schools. If people believe that the donations will be used inappropriately, there are many people in our community who stand ready to help form educational charities to match the desires of segments of our community by supporting educational opportunities inside or outside of the public schools.
Larry Roe
Clark County
Comments
Loading comments…