Change the world. Change our schools.

Full Funding Coalition (WSSDA, WASA, AWSP, WEA, PSEW)

1:55p.m.  - 3: 10 p.m.

Randy Parr, WEA, illustrates our K-12 funding crisis in a few slides. First, expenditures per-student as a percent of the national average have declined since the state took over ‘full’ funding of basic education. Second, in terms of our student achievement, we are highly efficient (high performing despite low funding levels). Rep. Hunter claims ‘legislative rules’ and points out that if the chart accounted for demographics, our student achievement in terms of NAEP scores would be average by comparison.

Randy Parr moves on to state that our definition of basic education is already in place (legal and legislative reform). We simply need schools to get the resources to do the job assigned them by government.

Cutting to the chase, Mr Parr posits three funding proposals for the State to choose from: 1) students perform at higher levels, 2) students continue to perform at current levels, or 3) students perform at lower levels (Randy admits that this is their fear).

David Conely begins to answer the questions - what constitutes basic education? how much does it cost? what results can we expect if we spend the money? Answers to these questions are based in the Washington Adequacy Funding Study, published in 2007:

1. Major recommended additions: classroom-centered supports, educator supports, instructional supports, and learning environment supports
2. Creating a Commission for Quality Education in Washington, a nonpartisan commission that would determine the annual amount of money needed to make ample provision for the education of all Washington students (much like the K-12 Revenue Council proposed in A Way Forward).

Advantages of a system like this is that it is scalable and lends itself to ramping up full funding based on expected student performance levels.

Rep. Hunter interrupts to question the viability of the CQEM because we don’t have the data available to correlate spending with student achievement. David Conely points out that data now is much better than it was 15 years ago and will continue to improve. He admits that this might not be perfect - but this is a better way. This is a policy advisory tool.

Rep. Jarrret suggests that, because of our strong constitutional language, it might be difficult to move forward with a model that identifies what ample is and most likely not be able fund it.

Questions continue from Sup. Bergeson and Sup. Kowalkowski, Sen. Tom, Chair Grimm and so on. It is afternoon, after lunch, nearing the end of two long days of lots of information. It is a little hard to stay on task.

Getting back to the PowerPoint, Randy Parr underlines that they are proposing a new basic education funding structure. It is called the Foundation Formula.

• Like our proposal, local levy funds would only be used for their intended, supplemental use.
• Five categorical funds would remain: regular instruction, CTE, special education, learning assistance, and English language learners.
• Multi-Measure Accountability: multiple measures, reflection state goals, provide fair and scientifically accurate annual report cards for every school. Each school and district is held accountable fairly - in relation to student, school, and district characteristics (a growth model). Paul Rosier asks - how do we honor growth.

Time for a break… more later.

Washington School Nutrition Association

Time: 1:30 p.m.- 1:55 p.m.

The Washington School Nutrition Association started with a simple statement, hungry kids can’t learn. They recognized that the Task Forces has big issues to face and big asks - and that this would be a small ask.  Children from low-income families often still cannot afford the co-pay. Hunger is correlated with higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and (obviously) poorer overall health.

The ask: They want the 2009 legislature to eliminate the co-pay for Pre-K and 4-12 grade reduced price students. The cost would be $9.3 per biennium.

Principal Deborah Gary from  Auburn School District, was the recipient of a USDA grant that has ensured that the school has fresh fruits every morning. Every day the grant ensures that fresh fruits and vegetables are served to every student and staff member with a message about nutrition everyday. Deborah then went on to talk about how Pioneer Elementary School’s student achievement and closing the achievement gap in several grades. She did not directly correlate the two results, but the implication was clear.

Q&A: Rep. Tom recognized the importance of school nutrition, but the questions remains for basic education, where do you draw the line?

The Nutrition Association argued that just as transportation is part of basic eduation, so should nutrition. It prepares them to learn.

Washington Head Start and ECEAP, Joel Ryan

Time: 11:35 a.m.-12:00 noon

Mr. Ryan starts off by setting the framework for including early learning in the definition of basic education. He reminds the Task Force that three other states do this: North Carolina, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Additionally, 13 other states and D.C. include early learning in their school formula.

He asks: Why early learning? Is this just day care?

No. Early learning is about brain development. Research has provided a deeper understanding of how children’s brains develop and how quickly they develop. Research shows that factors in first grade predict drop out nearly as well as risk factors in high school. (My thought: WOW!)

His key point: If a child does not have a solid foundation entering kindergarten, than other investments will not pay off.

Mr. Ryan goes on to briefly discuss several well-known early learning return on investment studies. Gains are shown for the individual (especially low-income children) and society as a whole.

So, what should we do?

Step 1: Address Quality

Fund ECEAP at Head Start levels (from $6,630 to $8,725) = $17 million per year
Step 2: Cover ALL Eligible Children

An estimated 12,500 three and four year olds are eligible to receive services and do not because of a lack of resources. The cost to this would be an addtional $109 million a year

Q & A:

Rep. Hunter begins with two great questions. First, he points out that the fact that WA Head Start is targeted would create legal problems (basic education is, by definition, for all). Additionally, the State would have problems distributing funds in a mixed delivery system (for example, funds to church-based programs). Mr Ryan points out that he supports covering all children, his specific proposal would be the first step. He admits that there are constitutional issues that we’d have to iron out (to which Rep. Hunter laughed).

Rep. Hunter then asked why early learning should be in Basic Education rather than the General Fund. Many other programs that offer positive, proven results receive funding from the General Fund. Mr. Ryan reiterates his key point, research has proven that early learning provides a huge opportunity - and we cannot miss the opportunity to take advantage of it.

Rep. Hyde, who has done amazing early learning work in Bremerton, then asked about what results would we see if Mr. Ryan’s plan was implemented. Mr Ryan points to research from Head Start to show that children would enter school more ready to learn and gains would continue through the years. Gains would be rigorously monitored.

On a side note, Joel Ryan’s proposal is included within our proposal A Way Forward.

Washington Coalition for Gifted Education, Barbara Maurer and Irene Greve

Time: 11:05am-11:35am

The first group to, in their own words, not put forward an actual proposal or plan, but rather suggest what should be a part of any proposal moving forward. However, they then went on to say highly capable funding should move from a categorical program to being a part of basic education (which is arguably proposal like).

They began with some good news: Washington’s highly capable programs (which includes AP, IB, pre-AP, AVID and other programs, in additional to gifted/talented programs), according to this group, is well-regarded by other states, and is trying to make programs more expansive and inclusive (ie, serving more kids). Financially things are not as rosy, following the theme of every previous group; the State provided $6.7 million of the $37.5 million spent on highly capable students in 2006-07.

After some prodding from Chairman Grimm, the presenters made clear their ask from the Task Force. Namely, they would like more professional development for teachers, additional support for students in these programs, and program accountability.

After alluding that WASL scores do not adequately measure the growth of some highly capable students, Chairman Grimm asked if those students need a different type of assessment beyond the WASL. Ms. Maurer and Ms. Greve responded with the desire that WASL scores be disaggregated to more accurately measure the growth of students to better monitor their progress. They also suggested some students be allowed to take the WASL exams offered at higher grade levels.

LEV Foundation, A Way Forward Q & A

TIme: 10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.

Our proposal is bold and proposes significant changes. Task Force members were engaged and asked questions regarding price, phasing in, accountability (chart of accounts), bargaining at the state level, and teacher/principal evaluations. There were also key questions on the 13th year and early learning. A more comprehensive overview of the Q&A exchange will be posted a little later (if you listened in, you know there is a lot to cover!).

A key highlight was when Sup. Bergeson referred to our proposal, and more specifically to the bold reform in bargaining, as ‘eye-opening.’

Eye-opening indeed. No one ever said reform was easy. Besides, it is exciting to be on a path to answering these tough questions. We’re happy to have had the opportunity to frame the conversation this morning.

Posted by Heather
Time: 1:50pm-2:25pm

Group: Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson

Social Emotional Learning as Part of a Basic Education in Washington State

Rep. Dickerson made a presentation advocating basic education be expanded to include social-emotional learning (SEL). She went on to link the drop out rate with low social-emotional skills, positing students drop out not because of the WASL or curriculum, but because of poor attendance, lack of engagement, poor academic achievement, lack of adequate counseling and behavioral problems. In its favor, a study of school-based SEL skills programs found that students in the program not only demonstrated improved SEL skills, but also scored 11 percent higher than non-participating peers on standardized tests. Rep. Dickerson proposed SEL be incorporated into basic education by creating standards, selecting curriculum, conducting teacher professional development, offering support for teachers from counselors and other specialists, and providing financial resources. In the end, she hopes SEL will be incorporated into basic education so students can be successful academically and successfully.

Task Force members were respectful and listened, however, the bottom line ($$) became apparent as Chairman Grimm asked about funding dollar amounts and Dr. Bergeson about staffing ratios/needs.

Superintendent Hyde brought up Navigation 101, as a curriculum to consider — one that has seen success in Washington.

Posted by Heather
Time: 11:40am-12:30pm

Pages: 1 2