"N.E.W.S.", a coalition led by school employees, has filed suit to force the state to "fully fund education".
Like others who habitually demand that the state "fully fund education", NEWS won't say what "fully fund" costs, where the money should come from, what they expect to accomplish, or what assurances there are that the extra funding will deliver the results.
The complaint demonstrates there's no real legal case. It's a political appeal to the judicial branch by those who simply want more money than they could get from the legislative and executive branches.
The complaint all but calls Washington's government-run education system a failure. But it's the plaintiffs and their Democrat proxies who've been in charge of "public education" here for decades. Whatever the outcome, the lawsuit has already advanced the argument that it's foolish to expect monopolistic political institutions to be competent providers of education.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 12, 2007 10:49 AM | Email ThisI have had kids in both private & public elementary & secondary schools. In general, the level of "education" in the private schools was superior over the public schools. However, the private school tuition (which is over 95% of school revenue) is about half what the state pays now per student.
Public Education doesn't need more money. We need to spend it better.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 12, 2007 10:41 AMHow much is it going to cost: Whatever the WEA (Teachers UNION) demand. Smaller classes (hire more teachers -> more money to unions -> more money (forced contribution) to Democats).
Where is the money going to come from: Taxpayers - the biggest pockets around.
What will be accomplished: Better performance.
Assurance of results: NONE (Can't measure performance (might hurt someone whittle feelings) and no accountability (this is a UNION remember...)
Posted by: CrazyFool in Lynnwood on January 12, 2007 11:29 AMThere is already more than enough money available to teach our kids (of which I have two).
Posted by: Steven on January 12, 2007 11:41 AMI'm not sure what is meant by money following students. Currently, in Seattle, it does and parents can choose what school their child attends. If you are talking vouchers and charters, well, that's pretty unlikely to happen so I'd let that one go.
Posted by: westello on January 12, 2007 11:55 AMThe more we push the charter schools and vouchers, the better off we'll be.
The only viable option to breaking up the teaching monopoly of the WEA is through vouchers and charter schools. Otherwise, as school services continue to deteriorate while costs go up, those of us concerned about the problem will come off as complainers rather than as reformers.
Vouchers and charter schools ARE a viable option. Just because they aren't there politically doesn't mean they won't be.
Given the whining of the WEA lately and they way they are fast becoming a liability to the dems, don't be surprised if a backlash occurs. When that happens, don't be surprised if vouchers are introduced as a solution to the problem.
Posted by: johnny on January 12, 2007 12:02 PMI can guarantee you that performance would go up drastically if the parents are 'vested'. This free ride nonsense breeds non-performance.
Posted by: swatter on January 12, 2007 12:06 PMFor those possessing only a brain stem, there is nothing in the US Constitution that would forbid the use of voucher money at parochial schools. Too bad most moonbats never bother to read the Constitution before quoting it.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 12, 2007 12:11 PMI am Black and an educator. I disagree with you. The best states to be a Black student are those with school choice.
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2007 12:39 PMSo, if Dems believe schools need more money, what's stopping them from allocating it? Is there some WA Constitutional issue preventing them from simply allocating more money by majority vote?
Posted by: Truth_Teller on January 12, 2007 12:45 PMAt the beginning of the year, a list of required school supplies goes out. For us, the list went like this: (Disclaimer: we have two kids in Elem. school)
Child 1:
2 erasers
3 dozen #2 pencils
5 large or 10 small glue sticks
1 plastic pencil pouch
2 highlighter pens
1 ruler
1 package felt pens
1 package colored pencils
1 pair pointed scissors
3 black flair pens
Mead Durafiler - Nylon Material
3 packages white 8-1/2" x 11", 3 hole punched, wide ruled lined paper
1 box Kleenex
$2.00 for ink cartridges, etc.. & $3.00 for classroom supplies for a total of $5.00 cash or check
$5.60 check made payable to "Time For Kids"
$170 camp fee (in lieu of fundraising)
Child 2:
1 pencil box
1 package felt pens
1 pair pointed metal scissors
1 box crayons (24 or more)
3-ring binder with soft plastic cover (1 inch rings, w/o paper)
2 peechee folders with pockets on bottom
4 wide ruled spiral notebooks (70 or more pages)
Community use items (if you can believe that...)
1 pkg colored pencils
2 dozen sharpened #2 pencils
1 box Kleenex
8 jumbo solid glue sticks or 16 small
2 big pink erasers
3 large boxes of crackers
2 package wrapping paper (non-holiday, flat paper, not rolls)
Our school district just announced two school closures and to our credit, without the histrionics displayed in Seattle. I looked at some of the cost breakdowns presented in the meetings and was shocked to see that the district spends almost half a million dollars a year on two full time school custodians for each school.
Why in world would you pay almost 100k per year, per school plus pension and benefits for something that you could contract out to any number of companies for a fraction of the cost?
The education establishment needs to learn to spend it like it's their own before I vote to pony up another dime. It's way to easy to spend it when you don't know where it comes from.
Posted by: Robert on January 12, 2007 12:49 PMgive your employee a stick--he beats you with it and makes YOU apologize to HIM. his performance & results/responsibilities are brushed aside. "insanity. insanity." (for you Bridge on Kwai movie lovers)
this is like wife-beating: we (voters) either
1--like it.
2--dont know better.
3--have no self-confidence.
4--dont care about the perps & justice & effective results.
5--dont care--too busy--too apathetic.
Why should I be forced to give my money to a substandard service when I superior service exists at a lower price?
Posted by: Andy on January 12, 2007 12:55 PMi said this 'supply list' is esentially subsidizing deadbeat parents, since most (even poor) people have video games & get meals at a school rate of 5x the local poverty rate. they just make bad choices on spending--their right--but not my problem. i also said that as a financial professional, i never remember going through 3 dozen pencils myself, even during "busy season."
my comments politely taken like a lead balloon. i dont care anymore.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 12, 2007 12:59 PMOn the subject of custodians. Remember that if you contract out services like janitorial, you're giving business to a small business person. They vote republican.
If you put that same person on the government payroll, yes it might cost twice as much, but they are democrats for life.
The dems don't care that it costs more, of course, because they are buying the vote with your money!
Posted by: johnny on January 12, 2007 01:10 PMDear Dr. Terry Bergeson,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent discussions and plans to allow Washington State School Districts to apply for waivers which would allow them to not require to make-up the days missed because of this years storms, power outages, and snow. While many suffered and were inconvenienced due to the difficult weather we've had this year, I'm in opposition to allowing the schools to not be required to have the minimum number of school days. In my opinion it's bad for education and accountability in the State of Washington.
I'm a parent with two sons. My oldest graduated from Kentridge High School last year and my youngest is a Senior at Kentridge High School. They've attended schools in both Bellevue and Kent.
The first concern that I have regarding the waivers is that it's sending the wrong message to the kids (and to many parents.) They're told that they are required to attend school for 180 days. If we change the number to 175, 170, or some other number, all of a sudden we're telling the kids that it's not really that important anymore for them to go to school for 180 days. As I'm sure you aware, it's often difficult to get children that are struggling in school to attend. Often their absences can be partially attributed to a parent(s) who just doesn't think school is that important. Take for a small example the article in the Seattle Times, and the mother that said "My kids are still going to get taken out of school at the end of June, no matter what." I won't bore you with all of the details, but I also speak from personal experience. Prior to coming to live with me, my sons were tardy to school often, and missed many days of school each year. After they moved from their mother's home to Kent, their attendance dramatically improved.
There's also the issue of lowering the bar. Will the waivers make it easier for schools to decide to close the next time there's a storm, because they know they probably won't have to make up the days? My son even made a comment this morning that it's kind of ironic that the schools are closed today. He feels that the roads are clear, and that it's too bad they'll have to make up the days in June. Again, each and every day at school should be highly important to every individual involved in the school system, which is really every one of us. Children need the education. They are our next generation and we count on them to be our leaders in the community in the future, regardless of the weather. The teachers, administration and staff rely on the schools to be open so they can support themselves and their families.
Which brings me to my next point. If the schools are not going to be making up those days, will the teachers, administration and other salaried employees be returning the money they were paid for those days off? I don't think so. The powerful union groups would not allow it, but think of the millions of dollars the state of Washington could save if we were to close all the schools for an extra week or so and not have to pay anyone. (I am not, of course, advocating that the schools be closed. If anything the schools need less vacation breaks, holidays and days off.) On the other side, I would imagine that there were countless families that lost wages during the storms because they were required to stay home from work to take care of their children while they were not in school. They may not be given the opportunity to recoup their losses.
Finally, It appears now we're being sued by the Washington Education Association (and a few school districts and other union groups) for the way we're paying for education in Washington. It is my understanding that Governor Gregoire's education budget has been increased greatly again this year. In spite of that, a lawsuit has been filed. If the school districts and unions wants any kind of credibility or sympathy in their lawsuit in King County Superior Court, they would step forward and be supportive in making up those days, rather than apply for waivers to skip those days. Again, wrong message is being sent.
It seems that there is a dangerous cultural pattern of lowering the standards and accountability in education in Washington State. Students are passed on when they shouldn't be sent to the next level, WASL dates are being extended, and now the school year is danger being shortened.
However, we republicans are being a bunch of numbskulls, headed by Stefan's post, as a group we are out there trying to defeat public education, bad mouth it until the rest of the state thinks we are against it, instead of staking a position that the rest of the state perceives that we are in favor of the children's education, just not in favor of enriching the teachers unions.
Call this life-long republican a Marxist if you will, but if you want to take back this state you better not constantly attack the one thing that drives the votes the most.
Posted by: Doug on January 12, 2007 02:00 PMI don't think anyone says that government shouldn't pay for kids education - I think everyone says that our government has failed to provide a quality education for kids and the problem doesn't seem to be getting better no matter how much we spend. It's time to open up the system to competition.
Remember when things got better at the post office? It was about the same time that UPS and Fedx really ramped up operations. (And about the same time that Reagan let government unions know that they could be slapped around if they didn't behave.)
The opening of the market to competition helped remove the strain of too much business from the Post Office, gave the business and independant benchmarkt to evaluate itself with, and expanded the market for vendors creating supporting systems for people in the shipping business.
Now the US Post office benefits from innovations and new technologies pioneered by these independent carriers. The ability of these carriers to carry part of the load (especially during key seasons) helps the U.S. post office not get crushed by seasonal volume and it can manage its business better.
Competition is a good thing and it belongs in the conversation.
Posted by: johnny on January 12, 2007 02:24 PMAs a result, I don't purchase the community use items and my kids supplies are kept at home and managed by me and my wife. Needless to say, we've been able to make a 72-count box of pencils last 3 years.
I also know a few educators and almost to the one, they will tell you that administration is bloated.
Posted by: Robert on January 12, 2007 02:26 PM2. Competition in education involves not just vouchers, but charter schools as well. The problem is capacity and the ability of a system to provide good school choices. A charter school district where every school is a charter and schools are allowed to fail will address some of the competition issues.
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2007 06:34 PMHow idiotic can the Democrats get. They run the state, but sue the state for not getting what they want.
Cyclical Idiocy
Posted by: Scooby Don't on January 13, 2007 06:14 AMand not taxpayers paying--the plaintiffs' own personal accounts and land will be levied if lost.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 14, 2007 07:35 AMIf you put that same person on the government payroll, yes it might cost twice as much, but they are democrats for life.
The dems don't care that it costs more, of course, because they are buying the vote with your money!"
Not sure you are aware of this or not, but if Districts (or any governmental entity) contract out janitorial work, they are required to pay prevailing wages. While it is possible that it would still be cheaper than $100K, they would still be bound by these artificially inflated rates. See the following from a bulletin from the State Auditor's Office (FYI 2006-02, dated October 9, 2006):
"By statute, public works projects include
'maintenance when performed by contract', but not ordinary maintenance. The term 'ordinary maintenance' is explained in WAC 296-127-010(7)(b)(iii).
The WAC expressly states that janitorial and building maintenance contracts are not considered 'ordinary maintenance'. Under WAC 296-127-023, these
contracts “cover only work performed by janitors, waxers, shampooers, and window cleaners.” Therefore, entities contracting for these services should ensure that prevailing wages are paid to the workers performing the services."
Just remember the Auditor's Office is quoting from regulations passed by the legislature; they didn't make it up.
As I said before, it could still be possible to get the services for less than $100K, even if contracted out and having to pay prevailing wages.