Editorial: Progress, but work ahead on school funding issues

By The Herald Editorial Board

For a task that the Washington constitution considers the state’s “paramount duty” — and one for which state lawmakers were under a state Supreme Court mandate to fix until just last year — a final fix seems to keep eluding lawmakers.

The Legislature latest attempt to “make ample provision for the education of all children,” was an adjustment of its solution of two years ago — dubbed the levy swap — that increased the state’s portion of revenue from property taxes while reducing and capping what local school districts could ask their voters to support.

The swap and other provisions were intended to increase funding for “basic education” needs in all districts while alleviating some of the inequity among urban, suburban and rural districts that had occurred during the economic downturn — and the state’s abdication of responsibility for school funding — when districts that could pass levies used them to supplement what the state wasn’t providing.

The problem with the swap, however, was that after some number-crunching, about a third of the state’s 295 school districts determined they would soon see a loss of revenue and run into red ink that would force layoffs and program cuts, including a number of Snohomish County districts.

But the solution this year wasn’t obvious or unanimous, even among the Democrats who controlled both Senate and House, where competing bills — and opposition from Republicans — put off an agreement until the final minutes of the session on Sunday night.

What passed, Senate Bill 5313, raises the cap for all but one school district to the lesser of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed value or $2,500 per student. Originally, the cap was set at $1.50 per $1,000 or $2,500, which is lower. School districts of more than 40,000 students — in other words: Seattle — can collect the lesser of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed value or $3,000 per student.

The increase in the levy lid is expected to stave off cuts in districts that were preparing pink slips in the event that no deal passed, but it hasn’t satisfied all that the state has finally taken responsibility for funding basic education or preventing a return of inequity among school districts.

For example, although there was basic agreement among lawmakers that support for special education services had to be increased — and a $155 million increase was allocated over the next two years for special education — the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction estimates a total need of nearly twice that amount. And many districts are covering costs for students who need those services because the state caps its support at 13.5 percent of a district’s enrollment.

The Legislature also failed to adopt legislation that would have changed state law that is preventing many school districts from building the new schools and remodeling existing schools.

While lawmakers included about $1 billion for school construction in each of the last two capital budgets, much of that money is inaccessible to districts that have been unable to pass local bond elections to fund construction. Current state law requires school districts — and other taxing districts — to win the approval of 60 percent of district voters to approve bonds, rather than a simple majority.

In Snohomish County, that’s meant three failed bond attempts within a period of 13 months for Arlington School District, which needs to replace its middle school and improve security at schools throughout the district; and Everett School District’s failure to win approval in 2018 for bonds that would have built a fourth high school and other improvements in a growing district.

In both cases each had approval from a majority of voters, but not the 60 percent required, essentially handing veto power to a minority of voters.

The loss of construction dollars is compounded because some state funding meant to lower classroom size is contingent on schools having the necessary classroom space.

For more than a decade, lawmakers have worked each session and made significant progress toward ensuring the state meets its constitutional responsibility to K-12 students.

Yet the latest adjustments may prove as temporary as the solution in 2017. Republicans and others are concerned that the increase in the levy cap will mean a return to financial inequities among districts and yet another lawsuit. But failing to adjust the levy lid this session would have meant layoffs, program cuts and loses for students in scores of districts, losses that would have been immediately inequitable and damaging and might have triggered their own lawsuits.

Legislators have taken steps forward toward meeting their paramount duty; just not their last steps.