Category: Education

Superintendent Dorn to Policy Center: “You’re Wrong”

Stop Confusing “Education Reform” With “Funding Reform”

The Legislature defined basic education. The Court said, Fund it.

OLYMPIA (March 28, 2014) — Unfortunately, it is once again necessary to respond to Ms. Liv Finne of the Washington Policy Center about the meaning of the Supreme Court’s McCleary v. State of Washington decision. Ms. Finne continues to say the Supreme Court has ordered the State to adopt education reforms and that the Court has not ordered the State to fund its program of education identified in ESHB 2261 and SHB 2776.

Funding Reform

Ms. Finne is wrong. Here is the order issued by the Court in January:

…it is hereby ordered: the State shall submit, no later than April 30, 2014 a complete plan for fully implementing its program of basic education for each school year between now and the 2017-18 school year. This plan must address each of the areas of K-12 education identified in ESHB 2261, as well as the implementation plan called for by SHB 2776, and must include a phase-in schedule for fully funding each of the components of basic education.

Continue reading “Superintendent Dorn to Policy Center: “You’re Wrong””

Peter Callaghan: Education bill’s unheralded details will need attention | Peter Callaghan | The News Tribune

Peter Callaghan: Education bill’s unheralded details will need attention | Peter Callaghan | The News Tribune.

Peter does a good job here exposing some of the hard work remaining in figuring out school funding details for 2015. He drills into a number of key issues:

  • Local school levies being used for compensation. This is an unconstitutional shift of responsibility from the state to local taxpayers.
  • Weird levy caps that treat different districts differently.
  • Reliability issues with depending on local levies.
  • Complexity of the salary model the state uses.

I’m not sure I agree with some of his conclusions in the article, but he’s right about the list of issues to work out.

Lawmakers pass 24-credit HS diploma; NCLB waiver bill dies

Lawmakers pass 24-credit HS diploma; NCLB waiver bill dies.

Lawmakers pass 24-credit HS diploma; NCLB waiver bill dies

The first in a series of notes on this year’s session. I can no longer write a summary of what happens during the actual session, particularly in short sessions where the budget negotiations take until the last !@#$%^&* minute. (I will be less testy about this in a week or so.) I have been working on the 24-credit graduation requirement bill for many years. It’s the foundation of our restructuring of school finance in HB 2261 from 2009. I’m super-excited that we got it done. Over the next few years we will add more rigor to our curriculum, including additional lab science classes and enough mathematics that most kids will be set up for success in whatever they do next, be it a four-year college route or a more specialized program in one of our community colleges or trade schools.

I share the concerns of the Partnership for Learning here that schools in Washington will lose control over 20% of their “Title I” money from the federal government. Title I is a program that sends money to schools with a high concentration of kids from low-income families. This is around $40 million a year that won’t be available to districts if we do not get a waiver to the No Child Left Behind act, the modern incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, (ESEA) the federal legislation created in the 60s as part of the war on poverty and the civil rights era. Neither the Senate nor the House had the votes to advance the bill that fixed it. I would have voted yes in the House as I have said many times. Very frustrating.

Use of “economic models” to mislead the public

thumonscaleThe Washington Policy Center, a right-leaning think tank, published a report today with a terrifying title: “Economic model shows Superintendent Dorn’s proposed tax increases would cost 18,500 jobs“. This is “truthy”, AN economic model did show this. Of course, THIS economic model ALWAYS shows job losses from proposed public policy proposals.

Economic model shows Superintendent Dorn’s proposed tax increases would cost 18,500 jobs |Washington Policy Center  Economic model shows Superintendent Dorn’s proposed tax increases would cost 18,500 jobs | Washington Policy Center.

The model in question, the STAMP model, is often used by people who want to make a point. The Policy Center, and this author in particular often have their thumb on the scale when they describe the impact of actually funding our K12 system. For an alternate viewpoint on a similar discussion in Arizona, the link below discusses a comparison of three different economic models, models based on the same basic set of data about the economy.

They are looking at a remarkably similar issue – the impacts of a $1 billion increase in the sales tax in Arizona, an increase I believe they did in the end. The other two economic models showed the exact opposite – an increase in jobs in Arizona. The conclusion from the University of Arizona analysis is:

Both the model structure and the parameter assumptions suggest  that the STAMP model was both designed and specified in a way that biases the  results toward the findings of very low impacts of government expenditures and  very high impacts of tax increases.

UA Estimates of Tax/Expenditure Impacts Compared to those of the Goldwater Institute (prepared by Beacon Hill) and REMI. | Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, University of Arizona http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/articles/2010/compare_ua_remi_stamp_simulations.asp

You can say almost anything you want about economics and get a study to “prove” it. This article from the Policy Center is unlikely to say anything interesting because of its use of the STAMP model. It’s yet another example of the Policy Center not providing data and analysis in a way that can actually be used by policymakers. By not providing a balanced view of the variety of economic models out there it makes the analysis almost painful to read, and not trustworthy.

Improving Quality of Early Learning

OLYMPIA – The state House of Representatives approved HB 2377 today by a vote of 64-33, which will substantially improve the quality of early learning for kids in Washington State.

Legislative news from Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina (48th Legislative District)

OLYMPIA – The state House of Representatives approved HB 2377 today by a vote of 64-33, which will substantially improve the quality of early learning for kids in Washington State.

“If we want to improve school readiness outcomes for students, our best investment is in high-quality early learning,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ross Hunter of Medina.

“We now know how to assess the quality of pre-school programs and assess these outcomes. We just have to be serious about doing it. The evidence is really clear – quality early learning is the best investment we can make to close the achievement gap here in Washington.”

HB 2377, the Early Start Act of 2014, will use a balanced approach – a mix of incentives and requirements – to increase child care quality by getting more facilities to provide high-quality child care.

Washington State has done an excellent job creating and expanding our early learning network. We have nearly 7,500 child care facilities that serve about 174,000 children.

The focus now must be on improving the quality of care those children receive each day. Only high-quality child care provides a positive return on investment. It leads to positive outcomes like greater academic achievement, increased graduation rates, lower incarceration rates, less poverty, and less reliance on government assistance.

“McCleary talks about improving education outcomes for children,” said Rep. Ruth Kagi, chair of the House Early Learning and Human Services Committee. “This bill will do more to close the opportunity gap than anything we have done in a long time.”

HB 2377 has now moved to the Senate for consideration.

###

For interviews or more information:

Early Start Act summary

Early Start Act news release

Rep. Ross Hunter, 360-786-7936
Staff: Andy McVicar, 360-786-7215

Print-quality photo:http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/publishingimages/hunter.jpg

Photo credit: Washington State Legislative Support Services

For broadcast-quality audio or to arrange TV or radio interviews:

Dan Frizzell, 360-786-7208

How much do dropouts cost us? The real numbers behind ‘pay now or pay later’ | Education Lab Blog | Seattle Times

 

How much do dropouts cost us? The real numbers behind ‘pay now or pay later’ | Education Lab Blog | Seattle Times.

Good piece about quantizing future costs of kids dropping out of school. Makes me want to read the study they reference. So many studies, so little time…

It’s worth subscribing to the Seattle Times’ Education Blog. There’s a link in the story to get a daily email update on recent stories.

Suing schools when kids can’t read?

Interesting piece in the Seattle Times that questions if suing schools when students can’t read will work. My guess is no, it will not.

Suing schools when kids can’t read?.Suing schools when kids can’t read?

The law that defines basic education requires that schools provide a reasonable opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed, but does not guarantee a particular outcome. A large number of children coming out of a specific program not meeting rational expectations should lead to real questions, and a systemic inability to help kids attain reasonable goals seems to be behind the Supreme Court’s McCleary decision, but I can’t see how it could apply to an individual kid.

 

Pay It Forward

Pay it Forward: Debt-Free Access to Higher Education
Pay it Forward: Debt-Free Access to Higher Education

Recently a number of people have written to me about the “Pay it Forward” concept for funding higher education in Washington. The basic idea as described on the Economic Opportunity Institute website: (www.eoionline.org)

Pay It Forward: A Debt-Free Degree 

  • Students attend college with no upfront tuition or fees. Instead, students contribute a small, fixed-percentage of their income for a predetermined number of years.
  • Contributions are placed in a public higher education trust fund that funds education for the next generation of students, giving each new cohort the same opportunity to attend college

It’s a cool idea that provides upward mobility for more kids and doesn’t expose them to debt that many will have difficulty repaying. The implementation is a little more difficult. To make this work you have to forego tuition and fee revenue (over 60% of our higher education budget today) for a significant period of time, until the revenue from the payment stream catches up. This would be, most likely, at least a decade of covering well over a billion dollars a year. We don’t have this much money and are not likely to given our current obligations.

Continue reading “Pay It Forward”

Early Learning

Thomas The Tank Engine
Thomas The Tank Engine

I visited a family child care provider in Bellevue last week. I’ve been working with Representative Ruth Kagi on trying to figure out how to improve both the reach and quality of our early learning system for at risk kids, and seeing how stuff works in person is pretty valuable.

This wasn’t a facility for at-risk kids. In fact, it costs over a thousand dollars a month for preschool kids, more for infants and toddlers. (They require a higher staff ratio.) This isn’t an out of whack price – it’s what it costs to provide preschool here. We were looking at Washington’s new quality ranking system in action. The provider Bijay Singh has been working on getting rated, which is a long process. She’s been in the business for 30 years and it looked like a great place. I’d show pictures, but I always feel awkward taking pictures of other people’s kids and there are legal issues with legal releases. I have included the picture of Thomas the Tank Engine above, instantly recognizable to anyone who has had kids in the past 20+ years. (More people read posts with pictures – who knew?) I sat on the floor with a three-year-old and played with the boy and his trains for at least 10 minutes.

Continue reading “Early Learning”

Champion For Early Learning!

WP_000280

I’m pleased to report that the Children’s Alliance named me a “Champion for Early Learning” this year and presented me with this nice box of stale Wheaties.

We made significant moves in early learning for low-income this year and I’m glad to be recognized for it.

  • We expanded the state’s program for low-income 3 and 5 year old kids. our goal is to have all kids below 110% of the federal poverty level have access to a high-quality program by 2018. This year we expanded the program about as quickly as we think we can and still maintain high quality. We also increased the rate we pay providers by about 10% as we were finding that providers were unable to run an effective program on what we were paying.
  • We expanded the number of slots in what we call “Working Connections Child Care” and increased the rate we pay, including a step that is only available to providers enrolled in our quality improvement program.
  • The Department of Early Learning won a federal “Race to the Top” grant and we were able to protect it from the Senate Republicans who wanted to use the money we’re using to meet the conditions of the grant for something else.

Continue reading “Champion For Early Learning!”