Fund Education First legislation should be reality

After the state Supreme Court issued a scathing rebuke of legislative budgeting practices of the majority party based on the strong language on the priority of education in our state constitution, House Republicans again put forward their Fund Education First legislation. I cosponsored House Bill 2533, which would require budget writers to fund education first in a separate budget and have it signed by the governor before any other appropriations for programs and services.

Following up on House Bill 2533, this week we rolled out our proposal for an education-only budget, House Bill 2770, which spends $580 million more on basic education than the governor’s proposed budget. This represents more than 43 percent of the total state budget. In addition, our budget doesn’t play games by pushing $320 million in school apportionment payments from June to July to make it look like a “savings” in this budget year.

Our budget demonstrates that we can fund basic education first and within current tax revenue. This is a first step in shaping the debate on how we fund our schools and fund them first. The court has made it clear that treating education equally with other state programs and agencies in the budget is unacceptable. Our state constitution has some of the strongest language in the nation when it comes to education – it’s the “paramount duty” of the state to amply and equally fund basic education. Our budget does that.

I’ve heard naysayers complain we can’t create a separate budget for basic education. But, Washington state already has three separate budgets for specific areas of state government – the operating, capital and transportation budgets.

The education budget eliminates programs outside of basic education. However, those dollars are shifted into basic education funding sent out to local school districts, which would allow for more flexibility at the local level. I understand there are a lot of really great programs outside of basic education.

However, we felt the dollars spent on those programs could be better allocated at the local level to serve students in ways that fit the diverse populations in our schools. To be clear, we keep the funding that would go to those programs outside of basic education and send it to local school districts as basic education dollars. This would allow folks at the local school level decide how to use the funds to serve their students in the best possible way. Some people are calling these spending adjustments “cuts” to education funding, but the funding is still there – just more flexible. I call it a practical shift to allow for more local control.

The governor’s proposed budget cut four days from the school year and reduced levy equalization by $152 million. The House Republican education budget funds the entire 180-day school year and maintains funding in the following areas:

• Levy equalization: $600 million

• Full-Day Kindergarten: $5.02 million

• K-3 Class Size in High-Poverty Schools: $33.59 million

• Transportation: $5.0 million

• School District Hold Harmless Costs: $21.32 million

I believe it is critical that we fund levy equalization and keep the promises we made to our schools to ensure education funding is equal across the state.

Property-poor parts of the state are hurt the most when levy equalization funding is cut.

Also, our budget funds the entire 180-day school year, but gives local flexibility on the hours equal to the full year of school. Some areas want a longer school day and a shortened day once each week. Or, some want the ability to have a four-day school week with longer days to equal the hours in the 180-day school year. This budget does that. It doesn’t constrain school districts’ ability to serve the populations in their schools.

One final note: I’m hearing from some constituents who say they are voting “no” on their local levies. It’s important to point out that if the state was meeting its constitutional “paramount duty” (Article IX, Section 1, in case you want to look it up), local levies would not be so prevalent. The Washington Supreme Court pointed that out in the McCleary decision that local districts are now asking their taxpayers to fund basic education programs, which are the responsibility of the state.

We welcomed many visitors from home

Our friends from Lakeland Village in Medical Lake – Nicole, Billie, Kent, Gene, Claude and Chuck visited the Capitol this week and communicated their desire to remain in their home, one of the few remaining RHCs in Washington. We are always grateful for their visit and for their sincere expression of love for Lakeland Village and its dedicated staff.

The Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers spent a day at the Capitol sharing good news of the growth of their industry. Jason Schlagel from Prosser, who I had met last summer at the Benton-Franklin County Fair, was among the group that met with Reps. Maureen Walsh, Terry Nealey and me. The wine grape growers told us that by 2020, the Washington state wine industry plans to triple its economic impact through improved profitability and sustainability for growers and wineries in the production of world-class wines. Their legislative agenda includes concern for and opposition to House Bill 2413, a pesticide drift bill that could cripple the aerial application industry and have a devastating impact on our growers. I voted against the bill in the Labor & Workforce Development Committee.

Also this week, we met with community banks, credit unions, the National Guard, physical therapists, RSVP and Arts & Heritage representatives, pharmacy students, Legislative Youth Advisory Council members, health underwriters, Council of Firefighters and so many more. It is encouraging to welcome our friends from the district, and next week is looking just as busy.