OPINION: Who will pay for schools: state or local taxpayers?

This editorial was published in The Seattle Times.

It is a politician’s job to put their best spin on whatever issue is under discussion. And make no mistake, Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal, who oversees Washington’s 295 school districts, is most definitely a politician.

In his fourth annual address on the state of K-12 education, Reykdal used his bully pulpit to beat the drum for more funding, as usual, and to frame student performance in a rosy light. Parents with children in public schools may be experiencing a very different reality.

For instance, on student test scores. Reykdal heralded the “stubborn gains” Washington kids have made since the pandemic. Yet more than a quarter of them remain chronically absent, he acknowledged, and fewer young people are on track for college-level math than at any time in at least the past seven years.

This, in a state that prides itself on being a science-and-tech powerhouse.

Reykdal has always been more exercised about school funding than test scores, and on that point he was eloquent. Washington, despite its comparative wealth, devotes a smaller portion of its economic output to public education than many other states.

“It’s unacceptable,” said Reykdal, who has asked for a $3 billion increase this year.

That’s a familiar chorus, and not unwarranted. Underfunding of special education, transportation and basics like electricity has forced many districts into a precarious financial position. More and more, they are turning to local taxpayers to make up the difference.

But here’s the rub: The McCleary school funding plan of 2017 capped the amount schools are allowed to request of their home communities in levies. Lawmakers instituted this rule in the name of fairness, to ensure that fundraising in wealthier areas, like Seattle, did not soar beyond that of less affluent regions.

As a result, however, districts are hamstrung. Seattle, for example, is asking voters to pass two levies at rates well beyond what the state allows, banking on the Legislature to change school funding laws.

Reykdal agrees that it should. “It’s time to stop stepping on the toes of local communities,” he said.

But to do that equitably, the state would also need to shovel substantial pots of money toward poorer districts — during a period of fiscal austerity. It’s a mathematical conundrum. And raising levy caps will not endear lawmakers to local voters when they see the repercussion on their property tax bills.

Reykdal could have gone further. He could have pointed out that whatever way you cut it, Washington’s “prototypical schools” funding formula, which allocates money to schools based on general enrollment, is not meeting the specific needs of students.

That, of course, would require a level of advocacy well beyond politics.

TNS