HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 455
BYRepresentatives Ebersole, Holm, Peery, Cole, Appelwick, Pruitt, Hine, Locke and Unsoeld; by request of Governor Gardner
Enhancing the financing and management of the states' schools.
House Committe on Education
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (20)
Signed by Representatives Ebersole, Chair; Spanel, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Betrozoff, Cole, Cooper, Fuhrman, Holland, Holm, P. King, Peery, Pruitt, Rasmussen, Rayburn, Rust, Schoon, L. Smith, Todd, Valle and Walker.
House Staff:Susan Patrick (786-7111)
Rereferred House Committee on Ways & Means
Majority Report: The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass. (27)
Signed by Representatives Grimm, Chair; Bristow, Vice Chair; Allen, Appelwick, Basich, Belcher, Braddock, Ebersole, Fuhrman, Grant, Hine, Holland, Locke, Madsen, McLean, McMullen, Niemi, Peery, Rust, Sayan, Silver, L. Smith, H. Sommers, Sprenkle, Valle, B. Williams and Winsley.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (3)
Signed by Representatives Brekke, Nealey and Schoon.
House Staff: Janet Peterson (786-7143)
AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS MARCH 7, 1987
BACKGROUND:
A series of levy failures in larger school districts during the mid - 1970's preceded the original Seattle school funding court case and the passage of the 1977 Basic Education Act. Also in 1977, the legislature enacted a plan to phase down districts' maintenance and operations levies to a maximum of 10 percent of state allocations. The 1977 act granted most districts "grandfather" levy authority above ten percent, in order to cushion the levy lid's immediate impact on district revenues. In the intervening decade, the levy lid statute has been amended a number of times to postpone the phase-down to 10 percent.
Most recently, in 1985, the legislature amended the Levy Lid Act to hold districts' maximum levy percentages constant for 1986 through 1988 at the district's 1985 levy percentage, or the 1985 state or Educational Service District average, whichever is greater. An effect of this change is that the levy lid is currently higher than 18 percent in all districts. The 1985 legislation retained the goal of a phase-down to 10 percent, however. Without further amendments, a phase-down in levy capacity would resume in 1989, with a 10 percent lid implemented in 1993.
The Governor also appointed an Advisory Council on School Funding in 1985, to study and make recommendations on school funding issues. In discussing the role of levies, the council addressed the issue of disparities in local taxing effort. Currently, a district with a low assessed valuation per pupil must assess a higher tax rate to support the same program level that a district with a high assessed valuation per pupil can support at a lower tax rate.
The Governor's Advisory Council also considered the issues of state allocation formulas and school employees' salaries.
In the legislative budget adopted in 1985, the staffing allocation for kindergarten through third grade was increased to 51 certificated staff per thousand students, effective in the 1986-87 school year. The statutory formula in the Basic Education Act remains at 50 certificated staff per thousand students.
Since 1981, the legislature has limited salary increases granted by school districts to the increases provided in the state appropriations bill. The state has controlled average salary levels for certificated and classified staff, and since 1984, has prohibited school districts from distributing salary increases disproportionately to administrators. Within these limits, school districts have maintained their own salary schedules. In the 1986 supplemental budget, the legislature provided funding to establish a minimum teachers salary of $16,500 for all districts.
SUMMARY:
SECOND SUBSTITUTE BILL: The bill addresses the areas of school levy lids, levy equalization, staffing ratios, and school employees' salaries.
The five-year phase-down of school levies to 10 percent of state allocations is eliminated, and replaced with an indefinite phase- down to a twenty-percent lid. Districts below 20 percent would be authorized to go up to 20 percent, effective for levies collected in calendar year 1989. Other districts would be authorized to retain current levy percentages up to 30 percent, with phase-down occurring only as state allocation formulas are enhanced. Enhancements in state allocations, other then enrollment or workload increases, compensation increases, or inflationary adjustments, count as "levy reduction funds".
Furthermore, the bill establishes a new base for computing a district's levy lid. Formerly, the district's lid was calculated by multiplying the levy percentage by the district's state allocations for the prior school year. The new base under the bill includes most federal as well as state allocations (Federal Impact Aid monies, or Public Law 874 funds, are not included). Also, the bill contains a statewide factor for adjusting districts allocations to a current year rather than prior year basis. While the other enhancements to the levy base are effective for levies collected in 1989 and thereafter, the current year adjustment also applies to levies collected in 1988.
The bill establishes a state program of levy equalization, to be implemented for levies collected in calendar year 1989. This program provides state matching funds, based on local effort, to districts with an assessed valuation per pupil which is below the statewide average. Levies above 10 percent would not be matched with state equalization funds.
In the area of state basic education funding formulas, the bill splits the certificated staff allocation of 50 per thousand students into 46 instructional staff and 4 administrative staff. In addition, for allocations based upon kindergarten through grade three enrollment, the instructional staffing ratio is increased to 48 instructional staff per thousand students in the 1987-88 school year and 49 instructional staff per thousand students in the 1988-89 school year.
Districts shall maintain minimum staffing ratios of 45 instructional staff per thousand students in the 1987-88 school year, and 46 instructional staff per thousand students in the 1988-89 school year and thereafter.
The bill establishes a base contract year of at least 185 days, for all certificated staff. Funds for certificated instructional staff salaries shall be distributed using a statewide salary allocation schedule, for allocation purposes only, established in the appropriations bill. Any salary factor in the statewide salary allocation schedule for an employee with a masters degree shall not be less than the highest salary factor for an employee with a baccalaureate degree and the same number of years of experience. No district shall receive an allocation which is less than its 1986-87 average salary level, and the legislature may grant minimum salary increases on that base.
Although the statewide salary allocation schedule is for allocation purposes only, minimum salary levels are established. No certificated instructional employee may be paid less than the statewide salary schedule amount for an employee with a BA and zero years of experience. No certificated instructional employee with a masters degree may be paid less than the schedule amount for an employee with an MA and zero years of experience.
The bill removes salary compliance provisions for school district administrative and classified staff. For certificated instructional staff, it prohibits school districts from providing an average salary which exceeds the average salary level allocated by the state. Also, fringe benefits which exceed the level funded by the state are to be considered salary for compliance purposes. Districts may exceed these salary limitations only by supplemental contracts for additional time, additional responsibility, incentives, or performance. Supplemental contracts shall be for one year only, and shall not be provided for services which are a necessary part of the constitutionally mandated basic education program.
Provisions regarding additional staffing allocations for grades K-3, 185 contract days, and higher salary factors for employees with masters degrees shall not take effect unless implemented in the appropriations bill.
SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL: The state-wide salary schedule which would place all basic education certificated instructional staff in the state on a single salary schedule is replaced by a state-wide salary allocation schedule which is for allocation purposes only. Actual salaries for certificated instructional staff shall be bargained at the local level. The legislature, however, shall adopt a state-wide salary allocation schedule in the appropriations act and set a minimum salary to be paid individuals with a baccalaureate degree and zero years of experience and a masters degree and zero years of experience.
The state-wide salary allocation schedule modified the Leap I document included in the original bill by making the BA + 135 and MA columns identical in factors for each year of experience and by making the MA + 45 column factors fall half way between the MA and MA + 90 columns.
A new method of figuring compliance for basic education certificated instructional staff requires that the actual average salary paid to basic education certificated instructional staff shall not exceed the district's average basic education certificated instructional staff salary used for the state basic education allocations for that school year. Benefits which exceed the amount per employee provided by the state shall be considered salary.
SECOND SUBSTITUTE COMPARED TO FIRST SUBSTITUTE: Levy equalization is based upon assessed valuation per pupil rather than ten percent levy rates. Allocation formulas for kindergarten through grade three are phased up to 52 certificated staff per thousand students in 1987-88 and 53 per thousand in 1988-89; rather than 55 per thousand from 1987-88 onwards. Districts are required to maintain staffing ratios of at least 45 instructional staff per thousand students in the 1987-88 school year, and 46 per thousand in 1988-89 and thereafter.
The salary allocation schedule would be included in the appropriations bill rather than in statute. Provisions regarding additional staffing allocations for kindergarten through grade three, 185 contract days, and higher salary factors for employees with masters degrees are made contingent on implementation in the appropriations bill.
CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS: Second substitute proposed.
Fiscal Note: Requested March 6, 1987.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: (Education) Dr. Frank Brouillet, Superintendent of Public Instruction; Michelle Radosevich, Washington Education Association; Ben Edlund, Washington State School Directors' Association; Del Cross, Superintendent of Tacoma Schools; Neal Kirby, Committee for Levy Equalization; Wilma Smith, Superintendent of Mercer Island Schools; Don O'Neal, Superintendent of Bellevue Schools; John Sullivan, Superintendent of Ridgefield Schools; Kris Van Gorkum, Washington Association of School Administrators; Dick Randall, Service Employees International Union; Al Burmeister, Washington Association of Vocational Administration; Harry Petersen, State Board of Education.
(Ways & Means) Tery Bergeson, Washington Education Association; Larry Swift, Washington State School Directors Association; Olaf Kvamme, Seattle School District.
House Committee - Testified Against: (Education) None Presented.
(Ways & Means) None Presented.
House Committee - Testimony For: (Education) It is essential that school districts have a realistic opportunity to go to the public with a reasonable levy rate, but that a district should not be penalized because its citizens are willing to support its schools with local effort. The 20 percent limit is realistic and by not requiring districts to phasedown until the state has replaced levy dollars with additional state funds the children and programs will not suffer.
Levy equalization is important to the small districts as a method of tax relief. Equalization attempts to reduce the disparity which results when funding is based in part on the differences in property wealth throughout the state.
A salary allocation system for certificated instructional staff and bargaining by the certificated administrative staff and classified staff assures that local districts can address local needs. The allocation method also eliminates the number of teachers who under a state-wide salary schedule would receive no increase because they are currently being paid above the proposed salary schedule. The simplification of compliance for instructional staff and the elimination of compliance for classified staff and administrators relieves the Superintendent of Public Instruction and school districts of a heavy burden.
Clarifying the distribution of certificated instructional staff, classified staff and administrators allows a more realistic approach to the needs of local programs.
The ability to bargain for salaries above those provided by the state is important to local districts. There is some concern, however, that problems arise when teachers are involved in individual incentive and performance programs. The incentive and performance conditions for supplemental pay from local funds should encourage the cooperation of teachers in a building toward common goals or district goals.
(Ways & Means) Same as in Committee on Education.
House Committee - Testimony Against: (Education) None Presented.
(Ways & Means) None Presented.