Washington Liberals

Good public schools won’t solve all the problems we face — but public education is a crucial cornerstone for creating hope and opportunity for students, and for building stronger communities and a more prosperous, equitable economy.

Ensuring every child has equal access to this ladder of opportunity, from pre-school through higher education, is the most important work of our state government. And if our elected leaders aren’t up to that task, then it falls to us, the voters, to make sure it happens.

One of the most encouraging developments during the recent five-day strike by Seattle educators was the outpouring of support from parents, students and local businesses. People understood why teachers were striking — not only for paying professionals what they are worth, but also to ensure adequate recess time for kids to run and play and breathe fresh air; to reduce stressful and unreliable testing; to make sure there are enough counselors, nurses and other workers essential to educational progress.

Seattle teachers achieved much of what they were looking for — but unless state elected officials pass future budgets that fully fund public education, Seattle residents — and those in other districts — will find themselves back in the same situation, scrambling for contested funds and watching their compensation decrease.

In fact, the average teacher salary in Seattle fell by $4,470 just from the 2013-14 school year to the 2014-15 school year.  This year average teacher compensation was $8,728 less than it was in 2010. All told, teachers lost $22,600 over the past six years compared to their salaries in 2009. And while they got an increase in their contract, they will still be $4,000 short of what they earned in 2009, doing the same work.

This is no way to attract and retain a strong cadre of professionals who will dedicate their lives to helping kids reach their potential. Even if legislators don’t seem to recognize this, parents do. That‘s why Seattle parents started a new Facebook group, “Washington’s Paramount Duty,” which has garnered thousands of friends within a week.

When we talk about sustainable, predictable and ample revenue to fully fund basic education and tackle structural funding inequities, there is one simple, elegant and robust solution: a progressive income tax. Yes, in 2010 voters in Snohomish County clobbered an income tax on the wealthy, by a margin of 2 to 1.  But in Seattle, more than 63 percent of the voters supported this tax. Since then we have seen the accelerating escalation of income and wealth to the top 1 percent, and the stagnation of earnings for the rest of us. Without an income tax, we recoup none of that money from the top 1 percent to fund our schools.

A progressive income tax, with a $50,000 exemption, would raise $7.5 billion a year. That would be sufficient to fund K-12 education as the Supreme Court has ordered, reduce tuition by half at our public universities and colleges, fully fund early learning, including the compensation of early learning teachers, and enable the Legislature to lower the sales tax rate by 1.5 cents on every dollar.  It would shift taxes from working class families to high income individuals. It would bring equity to both education and taxation.

Our state legislators should vote a progressive income tax into law. That really is the only way to end the undermining of public schools. But if they just dawdle around the edges, shrugging their shoulders at the fines and contempt findings leveled on them by the Supreme Court, voters will need to take matters into their own hands. Our kids can’t wait.

[Original posted at the Everett Herald]

On September 24 2015, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a motion with the Washington State Supreme Court asking them to reconsider their decision that the billionaire funded charter school initiative 1240 violated the Washington State Constitution. Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Randy Dorn, issued a statement agreeing with Bob Ferguson. In this article, we will explain just a few of the flaws in the outrageous and misleading claims made by Bob Ferguson and Randy Dorn in their attempt to justify and promote charter schools. But before we get to the flaws in their claims, we will first address three important issues. First we will examine the claim that members of the public should not question the opinions of our elected leaders as they are the so-called “experts.” Second, we will briefly describe what charter schools actually are. Third, we will explain why Initiative 1240 does not represent the “will of the people” and instead represents the “greed of the billionaires.”

Does the Public Have a Role in Defending the Washington State Constitution? Some have argued that we should not question the opinions and actions of Bob Ferguson and Randy Dorn. They are the experts and understand the Washington State Constitution better than the rest of us. There are several flaws with this reasoning. First, is the fact that the Washington State Constitution, like our federal constitution, was not written by legal experts. It was written by ordinary people… farmers, shop keepers and homeowners just like the rest of us. It was written in plain words with plain meanings. It is not merely up to our State Supreme Court to defend our State Constitution. It is up to ALL OF US to defend our State Constitution. I therefore urge you to read our State Constitution for yourself and decide who is right or wrong in this dispute over what it really means.

I have not only read our State Constitution, I have compared our State Constitution to the Constitution of several other States. It is clear to me that the ordinary people who wrote our State Constitution understood that our public schools are the bedrock of our Democracy and the foundation of our economic prosperity. Did you know that our State Constitution has stronger protections for our public schools than the Constitutions of any other State? For example, our State Constitution is the ONLY Constitution in the nation that calls for the full and ample funding of our public schools to be the PARAMOUNT or most important duty of our State legislature.

No other state constitution in the nation assigns funding public schools as the single highest priority of the state. Here is a link to the Washington State Constitution so you can read it for yourself. This is a PDF file so you can save it to your computer and/or print it out and read it off line: http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Documents/12-2012-WAStateConstitution.pdf

Along with the US Constitution, the Washington State Constitution is the “supreme law” of Washington State. Our State Constitution is not merely a set of guidelines. It is the law. Yet, Bob Ferguson, Randy Dorn and their billionaire funded supporters in our State legislature are now treating it like some sort of toy to be manipulated in whatever way is needed to justify the privatization of our public schools.

After reading our State Constitution, read the Brief of the Plaintiffs (aka League of Women Voters) explaining why charter schools are contrary to our State Constitution. This brief also provides a good summary of why the wise drafters of our State Constitution in 1889 thought that a “uniform system” of fully funded public schools was essential to our democracy and to economic prosperity. Here is the link: http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A08/89714-0%20Brief%20of%20Appellants.pdf

Here is a quote from the League of Women Voters Brief to the Supreme Court:

(After quoting the State Constitution), “These constitutional obligations and constraints reflect the founders’ conviction that the State’s success depends on a centralized and uniform system of basic education subject to voter accountability. The Charter School Act (Initiative 1240) departs significantly from the and local funds. Charter schools are operated by private organizations not subject to voter control… are not required to follow most of the uniform laws and rules applicable to common schools, including components of the constitutionally required basic education and discipline provision…The trial court correctly held that charter schools are not “common schools” under article IX and, therefore, are prohibited from receiving constitutionally restricted funds…(because) the Charter School Act Creates a System of Publicly Funded, Privately Operated Schools. ”

Then read the ruling of the Washington State Supreme Court explaining why charter schools are contrary to our State Constitution. Here is the link: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897140.pdf

Here is a quote from the ruling: “We hold that the provisions of I-1240 that designate and treat charter schools as common schools violate article IX, section 2 of our state constitution and are void. This includes the Act’s funding provisions, which attempt to tap into and shift a portion of moneys allocated for common schools to the new charter schools authorized by the Act.”

Article IX, Section 2 of our State Constitution states: “The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.”

Here is another quote from the Supreme Court ruling: “A common school, within the meaning of our constitution, is one that is common to all children of proper age and capacity, free, and subject to and under the control of the qualified voters of the school district… because charter schools under 1-1240 are run by an appointed board…and thus are not subject to local voter control, they cannot qualify as ‘common schools.’ “

Then read Bob Ferguson’s motion for reconsideration. Here is the link: http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/89714-0_MotionForReconsideration.pdf

Finally, here is the link to Randy Dorn’s Press Release agreeing with Bob Ferguson: http://k12.wa.us/Communications/PressReleases2015/Statement-AGMotion.aspx

What Charter Schools Really Are… An Attempt to Privatize, Rob from & Destroy our Public Schools
Thanks to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, who understood that a Democracy can only work with the informed consent of the people, our nation built a strong system of public schools. The American people invest one trillion dollars per year in making sure that the next generation has a good education. Unfortunately, a few greedy billionaires do not care about our children, our democracy or the future of our nation. They see our public schools as a Gold Mine ripe for the plunder.

For the past 20 years, billionaires have spent millions of dollars lying to the American people about the wonders of charter schools. They argue that all we need to do to help our kids is to put billionaires and Wall Street speculators in charge of our public schools. They insist that we should run our public schools like any other profit making business. They ignore the fact that 90% of all new businesses go broke in three to five years. They ignore the fact that recent rise of uncontrolled rampant greed has destroyed our economy and lead to the highest concentration of wealth since the Great Depression.

Billionaires ignore the fact that they know nothing about children or how children learn. This is why nearly all charter schools turn into kid prisons. Eliminating publicly elected school boards allowing charter schools to ignore child safety laws has resulted in charter schools that subject our children to spending their days in what amounts to miniature prisons rather than their community school.

Charter schools are fraud factories that siphon off public funds that should be going to our public schools. The whole point of charter schools is to use tax payer money to increase corporate profits. Charter schools have recklessly stolen billions of dollars in tax payer funds that should have been spent hiring teachers and lowering class sizes. Allowing billionaires to divert funds away from our public schools makes our school funding situation even worse!

A study done of Florida charter schools found that only 40% of the funds went to pay teachers while 40% went to corporate profits. Meanwhile, real public schools focus 80% of the funds on paying teachers and do not divert any money to corporate profits. Thus, how charter schools make a profit is by cutting the pay for teachers in half. No wonder charter school operators want to get rid of teachers unions! Numerous members of the Florida State legislature benefited directly or indirectly from charter school kickbacks.
http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103316066537-1070/LWV+Final+Report+Statewide+Study+1-3.pdf

Despite all of these drawbacks, the world’s richest man, Bill Gates has pumped millions of dollars into promoting charter school lies. Here is a screen shot of just one of many donations from the Gates Foundation database:

Initiative 1240 represents the Greed of the Billionaires… Not the Will of the People
In his motion to the court, Bob Ferguson repeatedly claimed that the charter school Initiative 1240 was the “will of the people.” Bob Ferguson conveniently forgets that charter schools had been previously defeated in public votes in Washington State three times. The only reason it passed in 2012 was due to millions of dollars in false promotional ads paid for by Bill Gates in order to deceive the public about charter schools. Even despite pouring millions of dollars into promoting charter schools, Bill’s charter school initiative was nearly defeated for a fourth time. Here are the results:

Out of three million votes cast, Bill was able to fool just enough people to vote for this scam to have it pass by only a fraction of one percent of those who bothered to vote in this election. However, the real story was not the outcome of the election, it was how the outcome was obtained. For that story, we need to go to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.

Direct Spending on the Charter School Initiative
Even to get the charter school initiative on the ballot, Bill Gates and his billionaire friends paid petition signature gathers an average of $6 per signature to gather more than 300,000 signatures in June 2012 – for a cost of nearly $2 million.

Conversely, the “No on Initiative 1240” Campaign raised only $26,000 and spent $24,000. The “People for our Public Schools” committee raised $701,000 and spent $701,000. The total spent opposing the Charter School Initiative was $725,000. But this amount was dwarfed by what the billionaires spent to pass the initiative. The “Yes on 1240” group raised and spent $11,401,000. The billionaires outspent teachers and parents by a margin of nearly 16 to 1 just in direct spending. Thus, this was not an election. It was more like a bidding war.

Let’s look at the major donors for the charter school initiative. Bill Gates was the biggest promoter tossing in $3.6 million. Another Microsoft billionaire, Paul Allen, tossed in 1.6 million. A few other billionaires including Alice Walton, Nick Hanauer, Steve Ballmer, Mike Bezos, Bruce McCaw and Eli Broad tossed in the rest. Billionaires will always win bidding wars. But even this $11 million turns out to be the tip of the iceberg compared to what the billionaires really spent to pass this initiative.

Indirect Spending on the Charter Schools Initiative
The billionaire controlled media produced articles in favor of charter school over articles pointing out drawbacks of charter schools by a rate of 20 to 1. This included the State’s biggest newspaper, the Seattle Times, endorsing the initiative and pumping out dozens of articles (which were nothing more than “ads”) on the benefits of charter schools and/or the shortcomings of public schools. But the real heavy lifting in passing the Charter School Initiative was done by two Bill Gates funded fake “grassroots” groups called the League of Education Voters (LEV) and Stand for Children (SFC). Enter LEV into the Gates Foundation Grants Search Box and you will see 17 grants totaling $12 million.

What did the $12 million to LEV buy?
LEV used the money to hire dozens of fake “education advocates” who went around Washington state in the two years preceding the Initiative to nearly every one of hundreds of school district PTA groups with slide shows and handouts bashing teachers, condemning public schools and advocating “change.”

I attended several of these hour long propaganda sessions. Those giving the presentations claimed to be “concerned parents.” They never mentioned that they were paid by Bill Gates through LEV to travel around the state lying to parents. This group also attended PTA regional and statewide conventions and infiltrated and corrupted the Washington State PTA – a group that claims to advocate for and represent more than one million parents and has a massive email list to spread the vicious billionaire propaganda to unsuspecting parents. LEV was not the only front group promoting the charter schools initiative in Washington State in 2012. Enter “Stand for Children” into the Gates Foundation Grant Search box and you will see 10 grants totaling about $10 million

What did the $10 million to SFC buy?
Stand for Children worked side by side with LEV to push Gates propaganda to parents in meetings around Washington State – also focusing on the Washington State, regional and local PTA meetings. The goal was to create a dissatisfaction with public schools in our State. No mention was made at these meetings of the fact that school funding in Washington State had plunged from 11th in the nation to 47th in the nation – or that our State now has the highest class sizes in the nation. Instead, the focus was on “failing schools.” Ironically, most parents really like their own schools and their own teachers. So the real scare tactic was comparing how schools in the US do not “compete” with other schools around the world. The message was that the reason there was no jobs in the US is because our schools were failed to compete on the world market – not because billionaires have outsourced all of our jobs to sweat shops in China.

Just to make sure that LEV and SFC received a warm welcome at Washington State PTA meetings, Bill Gates also bribed the PTA. Enter PTA into the Gates Foundation Search box and you will see 5 donations for about $3 million. Here is one to the Washington State PTA in 2011 – the year before the Charter School Initiative was put on the ballot in Washington State.

The “key policy” Bill Gates was pushing at the Washington State PTA was charter schools. When you add up the $2 million for signature gatherers with the $11.4 million in direct spending and the $12 million to LEV and the $10 million to SFC, the grand total Bill Gates really spent buying the charter school election was about $35 million. Thus, Bill Gates outspent parents and teachers by a margin of 50 to 1.

It is therefore absurd for Bob Ferguson to claim that the charter school initiative was the “will of the people” when Bill Gates was allowed to spend $35 million in order to get his charter school privatization scam past the voters by a fraction of one percent of the vote.

Now that we have a better understanding of what charter schools really are and who is promoting them, let’s take a look at four of the arguments used by Bob Ferguson and Randy Dorn to promote charter schools and oppose the Washington State Supreme Court ruling against charter schools.

False Claim #1: Randy Dorn and Bob Ferguson claim that charter schools should be allowed to continue with public funding for the rest of the school year because “one thousand children would be harmed by closing their schools.”
In an argument that sounds more like “we should allow bank robbers to rob banks because otherwise they will have no money to feed their kids,” both Randy Dorn and Bob Ferguson abandon the “rule of law” which says that illegal conduct should not be condoned for any period of time (much less an entire school year). In their false concern for the one thousand children signed up to attend charter schools in our state, they turn their backs on the one million children attending REAL public schools in our state who would see their school funding go down in order to pay for the funding of private for profit charter schools. In fact, if Randy Dorn and Bob Ferguson really cared about the harm inflicted on students by closing their schools, they would oppose charter schools completely since charter schools are almost three times more likely to close than real public schools. The way to protect kids from school closures is to prohibit charter schools! http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/06/12859/charter-program-expansion-looms-despite-ongoing-probes-mismanagement-and-closed

In fact, Randy and Bob have nothing to worry about. Billionaires have plenty of money to keep their charter school scam operations running should they choose to do so. As for the impact of one thousand children returning to their local public schools, that is also a ridiculous argument. Every year, thousands of Washington State children move from one school to another. In fact, every month in Washington state, thousands of children move from one school to another in our state! We have more than two thousand public schools in Washington state. So adding one thousand children back into our public schools would be the same as adding one more child to a school that already has 600 children. Both Randy Dorn and Bob Ferguson should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this absurd nonsense on the public.

False Claim #2: Dorn and Ferguson claim that the Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes funding for many public school programs
Randy Dorn and Bob Ferguson both claim that the Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes funding for innovative public school programs such as “Running Start” and “Aviation High School.” This is also utter nonsense. The funding for both of these programs is run through and controlled by locally elected school boards. Funding for the Washington State Skills Centers is also based on agreements with local public school districts which are authorized and overseen by elected public school boards. Moreover some programs are outside the bound of common schools, a completely different from charter schools in that they are not a substitute for public schools - and therefore not subject to the Supreme Court charter school ruling. Here is the explanation on Page 33 of the Plaintiff’s Brief to the Supreme Court: “Charter schools cannot be equated with specialized schools and supplemental education programs designed to serve the special needs of certain students, such as incarcerated youth, ch. 28A.193, .194 RCW; and blind or deaf students, ch. 72.40 RCW. Unlike charter schools, these specialized schools are separate from and not subject to the “general and uniform” requirement of section 2… Charter schools, by contrast, are intended as a substitute for the local uniform public school, rather than a supplement to meet the educational needs of a discrete student population.”

Randy Dorn and Bob Ferguson both know all of this. But they bring up this obvious Red Herring argument in order to scare the public into believing nonsense that is simply not true. Again, they should be ashamed of themselves for misleading the public.

False Claim #3: Our State Constitution does not require “complete control” by a locally elected school board but only “some control”
Ferguson and Dorn claim that as long as a locally elected school board retains “some control” over charter schools, then charter schools should be allowed. The fact that charter schools are not required to comply with state law and that the school board would have no authority to require compliance with the state constitution seems to not matter to either Ferguson or Dorn. This is like saying it is okay for banks to rob from the savings accounts of their depositors as long as the depositors are allowed to have “some control” over some of the money left in their accounts! Locally elected school board members are the “eyes and ears” of the voters. They are the “checks and balances” that insure that the schools are run in a legal and financially sound manner. Publicly elected school boards must have complete control over what happens with public dollars assigned to school districts – not just some control. All “some control” does is open the door for charter school fraud and corruption.

False Claim #4: The State legislature can “fix the problem” simply by funding charter schools from funds not dedicated to public schools
Ferguson and Dorn have stated that, even if charter schools are not normal public schools or common schools, the charter school problem can be easily fixed simply by allowing the state legislature to fund charter schools from an account that is not designated for use by public schools. There are several problems with this claim. First, since 1967, the State legislature has paid for public schools out of the General Fund. It is therefore not possible to separate public school funds from charter school funds. Second, the Supreme Court has found that the legislature is not providing adequate funding for public schools. In fact, public school funding in Washington state is billions of dollars per year below the national average – forcing our students to endure some of the highest class sizes in the nation. Even one dollar spent on charter schools therefore is a dollar taken away from State funding for public schools that is already not adequate. Third, other sections of the State Constitution prohibit public funding going to line the pockets of private corporations. This transfer of funds from public schools to private corporations simply leads to more fraud and corruption. There is no “fix” for the charter school fraud problem. Merely putting organized fraud under the control of OSPI would not solve the problem. Merely having public dollars stolen from a different account would not solve the problem. The only solution is to completely prohibit fraud and corruption by prohibiting the charter school fraud factories.

Conclusion… The only way to “fix the charter school problem” is to replace Randy Dorn and Bob Ferguson with people who will defend our State Constitution and Protect our Public Schools
The drafters of our State Constitution wisely made both the Attorney General and Superintendent of Public Instruction offices elected positions. Every four years, the voters get to choose who should hold these important offices. Both of these offices will be up for re-election in 2016. It is time for citizens who care about our kids, our schools, and the future of our democracy to consider running against Bob Ferguson and Randy Dorn – who have abandoned our kids and our state constitution in their support of charter school fraud factories. It is time to elect people that understand the importance of defending public schools and the danger of allowing wealthy corporations to undermine and destroy our public schools. We look forward to your questions.

Originally published at Coalition to Protect Our Public Schools

Some Seattle School District administrators and school board members have claimed that they do not have money to pay Seattle teachers fairly. In this article, we will look first at the decline in school funding in Washington state compared to the national average during the past 20 years. Second, we will review the related decline in buying power of teachers in Washington state during this same 20 year period. Third, we will compare Seattle School District spending to similar school districts in Washington state. Fourth, we will present some potential solutions to these related problems.

I. Two Decades of Decline in Washington State School Operating Funding Leads to $3 Billion Per Year Shortfall and the Highest Class Sizes in the Nation!
The most common mistake made in assessing the school funding crisis in Washington State is to look only at actual dollars spent on public schools. Using this misleading measure, it appears that school funding has gone up nearly every year during the past 20 years. Of course, this measure ignores the increasing number of students and the decreasing value of the dollar during the past 20 years. The second most common mistake is to look only at “Per Pupil” funding. This measure is better than absolute dollars. But it still ignores the rising cost of living from year to year and the dramatic differences in the cost of living from state to state. A far more accurate way to assess school funding from year to year or from state to state is to use State Spending as a Percent of State Income. How many cents out of every dollar of income is spent on public schools? Below is a graph of school funding in Washington state from 1997 to 2013 as a percent of income compared to national average school spending.

The last time Washington state was at the national average in school funding was 1997. Washington state school funding fell sharply between 1997 to 2003. School funding has fallen so low that it would take more than $3 billion per year just to restore school operation funding in our state to the national average.

We would need to hire more than 10,000 teachers just to restore class sizes in our state to the national average! Seen as a percent of income, the 2015 legislature’s “increase” in school spending of $600 million per year does not even restore school funding to what it was in 2011 – much less restore school funding to the national average. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t1s_007.asp

WhyActual Class Sizes are Much Larger Than Student to Teacher Ratios
The most common mistake made when discussing class size is to confuse class sizes with Student to Teacher Ratios. The Student to Teacher Ratio is determined by dividing the total number of students in a school or a state by the total number of staff at the school or the state. For example, if you go to the Washington State OSPI website and click on Apportionment, then Publications, then Personnel Summary Reports, then select a year, then click on Table 46, you will get a report called “Ratio of Students to Classrooms.” This is the Student to Teacher Ratio. For the 2014 school year, this ratio was 18.2 students per teacher. http://k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/PER/1415/tbl46.pdf

A better estimate of class sizes comes from a national survey of classroom teachers in which teachers are asked how many students are in their average classroom. This survey indicates that for Grades 1 through 6, the national average class size is 21 students and the average class size in Washington state is 24 students. For Grades 7 through 12, the national average class size is 27 students and the average class size in Washington state is 30 students. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.30.asp

Here is a distribution of class sizes showing which states have low, average, above average or extremely high class sizes:

However, even this survey of teachers under-reports the actual class sizes in the nation and in Washington state because it includes Special Education teachers who often have classes of under 10 students. Excluding Special Education classes, the typical or median class size in the US is likely close to 29 students and in Washington state, it is likely close to 32 students. If the Class Size Initiative 1351 were fully funded, it would lower class sizes in Washington state down to 17 students in elementary school and 25 students in high school.

II. The Decline in Buying Power of Washington Teachers During the Past 20 Years… The Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAS) suspended by legislature now cost Washington teachers $2 billion per year
Closely related to Washington state school funding, the actual buying power of teachers in Washington state has been declining for over 20 years. This is due to the fact that since the 1990s, the State legislature has consistently failed to provide teachers with “Cost of Living Adjustments” more commonly called COLAs. For example, in the 1990’s, the Cost of Living increased about 15% but teacher salaries did not rise at all in Washington state. This meant that teachers took about a 15% real pay cut in the 1990s.

As a consequence, the teachers union and others sponsored Initiative 732 in 2000 which was approved by the voters with a margin of 63% to 37%. This Initiative required the State legislature to provide teachers with COLAs. Sadly, the State legislature suspended Initiative 732 and failed to provide teachers with COLAs for 8 out of the next 14 years. This was the equivalent of another 16% pay cut. Thus, teacher salaries have seen about a 30% pay cut in the past 20 years in terms of real purchasing power.

In 2009, the State legislature commissioned a report to determine how much it would cost to restore teachers salaries in Washington state to a level similar to other West Coast states such as Oregon and California. On June 30, 2012, the Compensation Commission issued its final 170 page report. The Commission recommended raising the starting salary for teachers in Washington state from $33,400 to $48,700. The Commission also recommended raising the pay of all other teachers by more than $5,000 per year in part to make up for the lack of COLAs during the previous 20 years. The total cost of these recommendations exceeds $2 billion per year. The legislature has failed to act on these recommendations ever since. http://www.k12.wa.us/Compensation/CompTechWorkGroupReport/CompTechWorkGroup.pdf

Here is a chart showing that the average teacher salary in Washington state has lost more than $5,000 in purchasing power just since 2008 (which was the last time teachers were given even a modest COLA). http://budgetandpolicy.org/schmudget/teachers-lose-in-the-final-budget

Since our State revenue is billions of dollars lower than the national average, our problem is not out of control State spending, but out of control State tax breaks for millionaires. In shifting the tax burden to our middle class homeowners, and causing the firing of thousands of public servants, these massive tax exemptions for the rich do not create jobs. Instead, they cost jobs.

We do not have an “out of control” State spending problem… We have an “out of control” tax breaks for billionaires problem.

III. Seattle School District Spending Compared to Similar School Districts in Washington State and the Nation
The most detailed and objective comparison of Seattle School District spending compared to other similar school districts in Washington state was published by the Washington State Auditor on June 6 2012. http://www.sao.wa.gov/state/Documents/PA_K12_Education_Spending_ar1007826.pdf

The 2012 Auditor study found that while some states spent up to 69% of revenue on classrooms, Washington state only spent 60% of revenue on classrooms.

The study also found that OSPI’s annual Report Card greatly overstated the amount Washington School Districts spend on teaching: “NCES data shows that Washington spent 60.2 percent of its education dollars on classroom instruction in 2009. OSPI’s annual Report Card for that year shows that it spent nearly 70 percent on “teaching.” In its Financial Reporting Summary, OSPI separately reports expenditures related to teaching (classroom instruction) and activities it categorizes as teaching support (curriculum development, student safety, nurses, counselors, etc.). For 2009, those figures were: Teaching – 61.4 percent, Teaching support – 8.6 percent. In its annual Report Card, however, OSPI combines those two categories and reports them under the heading “teaching.” Because the combined figure includes spending for nurses, counselors, student safety, and the like, it overstates the percentage of Washington’s education dollars that is spent in the classroom.

How the Seattle School District spending on teaching compares to other similar school districts
This 2012 State Auditor study grouped school districts into comparison cohorts based on size. The Seattle School District was grouped in Peer Group 37 with 6 other very large school districts in Washington state all with more than 20,000 students. These 6 other school districts were Evergreen, Federal Way, Kent, Spokane, Tacoma and Vancouver. The 2012 report found that, as a percent of total spending, the Seattle School District spent MUCH LESS on teaching than any other comparable school district in Washington State. At the same time, the Seattle School District spent MUCH MORE than any other comparable school district on Central Office Administration.

For example, while Federal Way spent 64% of their budget on teachers and less than 1% on Central Office Administration, the Seattle School District spent less than 60% of teachers and nearly 2% on Central Office Administration. The State Auditor recommended that Washington School Districts spend more on teachers and less on central administration. This advice was directed in particular at the Seattle School District – which appears to spend more on central administration than almost any large school district in the nation.

On October 7, 2009, a Seattle School District parent, Meg Diaz, issued a report which also showed that the Seattle School District had the highest administrative overhead of any school district in Washington state. This study also found that the Seattle School District had a much higher Central Administration burden compared to other large school districts from around the nation. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zodBLaj3dWyKNew5vR2P-qm87yfozqCv86OEUXDjbDU/present?slide=id.i0

Obviously, the Seattle School District has a problem of spending too much on Central Administration and not enough on teachers. But the real problem is that the Washington State legislature is under funding public schools in our state by about $3 billion per year compared to the national average. The only real way to restore teacher salaries in Washington State is to organize teachers to support a bill that will provide $3 billion per year in increased State Revenue.

In the 2015 legislative session, only one bill was submitted which would actually restore school funding in Washington state to the national average. That bill was Senate Bill 6093, sponsored by Senators Chase and McAuliffe. Teachers should thus look more closely at and organize support for that bill.

IV. Senate Bill 6093… A Simple Solution to the School Funding Crisis
The most reliable way to achieve a fair tax structure is to tax the wealth of the very rich by repealing a 1997 tax exemption which currently exempts the wealthy from paying their fair share of state property taxes. Senate Bill 6093, the School Funding Through Tax Fairness Act, sponsored by Senators Chase and McAuliffe, would provide an additional $3 billion per year to restore school funding and lower class sizes in our state to the national average and more than one billion per year to restore school construction funding. By comparison, the 2015 budget providesonly $700 million in additional school funding and less than $300 million in school construction funding. Senate Bill 6093 would place a referendum before the voters asking to repeal the current exemption on intangible property from the State property tax and tax intangible property at the same one percent rate as tangible property. Retirement accounts and personal intangible property up to $200,000 not in retirement accounts would be exempt. So closing this tax loop hole would only increase taxes for the top 5% of our wealthiest citizens. The other 95% would see a reduction in their State taxes of as much as four thousand dollars per year!Repealing this tax break for the rich would not harm billionaires because they could still deduct their state taxes from their federal taxes.

Comparing Senate Bill 6093 to the 2015 Band-aid Budget
Here is a table comparing Senate Bill 6093 to the State Budget passed in July 2015.

Senate Bill 6093 is the only bill introduced in the 2015 State legislature that addresses the concerns of our Supreme Court and fully funds the Class Size Initiative 1351. Senate Bill 6093 also provides billions of dollars for building schools to address the school construction shortfall. It also creates more than one hundred thousand urgently needed public and private sector jobs to restore economic prosperity here in Washington state. Equally important, it accomplishes these goals without raising taxes on our poor or middle class. Instead, it restores a fairer more stable tax system by requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share of state taxes. Here is a link to Senate Bill 6093 so you can read it for yourself:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6093.pdf

When did the drop in school funding occur?
We have not always had the lowest school funding in the nation. In 1997, Washington was near the national average in school funding. Something happened in 1997 to cause a huge plunge in state revenue and school funding. Where did all of the money go? One important clue is looking at when the sharp decline in school funding occurred. It turns out that there was a sharp decline in both school funding and state revenue that began in 1997. After some research on various large state tax breaks, it turns out that in 1997, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 5286 exempting all intangible property from our state property tax. Currently, our state taxes tangible property, such as houses, at a rate of one percent a year. By contrast, thanks to the 1997 tax break, intangible property, such as stocks and bonds, are not taxed at all.

While national average state revenue remained above 10% of income, state revenue in Washington state has fallen to only 9% of income. This does not sound like much of a difference – but it comes to a loss of more than $3 billion in revenue per year!http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/dqs_table_77.pdf

Concentration of Wealth in Washington State
Shockingly, as bad as wealth concentration is in the rest of the nation, it is even worse here in Washington state. The bottom 70% of our population – or 5 million people – own just 10% of the wealth. 57% of the wealth goes to the top five percent. But an amazing10% of all wealth in Washington state is owned by just five billionaires: Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen and Howard Schultz . Put another way, the these five richest people in Washington state own more wealth than five million people in Washington state put together. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/reports/income_wealth_report.pdf

Washington has become a Tax Haven for Billionaires
We are the only West Coast State where millionaires do not pay their fair share of state taxes. If millionaires in our State paid their fair share in State taxes, it would raise total State revenue by more than $6 billion per year. Half of this could go towards restoring school funding in our State to the national average, and the other half could go towards restoring school construction funding and other important State services to the national average.

Instead of funding schools, our current leaders give billions in tax breaks to billionaires and wealthy multinational corporations – at the same time that they tell us there is not enough money to hire teachers or build schools. As a consequence, our children are forced to endure some of the lowest funded and most over-crowded schools in the nation. Total annual tax breaks are currently $30 billion per year.

Conclusion… A Simple Solution to the School Funding Problem
Given that the current legislature continues to ignore the Supreme Court and ignore the will of the voters by continuing to kick the school funding can down the road, now is the time to begin a public discussion over the best way to balance the State budget while still protecting the future of our children and our communities. Funding our public schools should be more important than protecting tax breaks for billionaires. We hope parents and teachers will help us get this bill on the ballot. With the serious nature of our current school funding crisis, it is time to put all options on the table and begin a public discussion over the future of our schools and our State.

Senate Bill 6093 would also pump $3 billion per year back into our local economy creating more than 100,000 jobs in our State! Repealing the Intangible Property Tax Exemption is the best way to restore national average school funding without raising taxes on our middle class. It also has the benefit of not being a new tax. It is merely repealing an unwise and unfair tax exemption. For more information about the benefits of Senate Bill 6093, visit our website: Coalition to Protect our Public Schools.org

Originally published at Coalition to Protect our Public Schools

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, the Pro-life movement is a radical failure by the very metrics that abortion foes cite to inspire their base. What would a real anti-abortion movement look like?

U.S. women have obtained nearly 53 million legal abortions since 1973. That is because self-described abortion foes ignore or oppose the most powerful strategies for making abortion obsolete. The anti-abortion movement is dominated by religious fundamentalists whose determination to control sex—who has it, with whom, for what purpose—takes priority over their desire to reduce abortions. This focus has seriously interfered with eliminating the supply and demand for abortion services.

If the top priority of the Pro-life movement actually were to end abortion, both tactics and results would be radically different. Imagine a fictional person whose chief life goal is to reduce abortion by, say, 90 percent over the next twenty years. This person might devoutly believe that every fertilized egg has a soul and that fetal demise is a tragedy; or he/she might simply think that abortion is an expensive, invasive, emotionally-complex medical procedure that should be made obsolete. Either way, this person believes that moving society beyond abortion is the most valuable cause to which he or she can devote a lifetime.

It might come as a surprise to the audience of today’s anti-abortion theater—but our protagonist’s goal is attainable. Armed with just the information and technologies available today, someone genuinely committed to reducing abortion by 90 percent in 20 years could map out a plan to get there—and even make people’s lives better in the process.

Skeptical? Let me map it out. When someone gets serious about building an effective beyond-abortion campaign the strategic plan will look something like this:

Serious beyond-abortion advocates will ensure that all Americans have the knowledge and means to prevent the kind of pregnancies that lead to abortion.  

1. Since many parents had poor role models for birds and bees conversations, serious anti-abortion activists will promote programs that help parents to overcome discomfort and create healthy, age-appropriate conversations about genitalia, sexual health, sexual pleasure, intimacy and reproduction.
   
   Conversations between children and trusted adults delay the onset of sexual activity while increasing the percent of sexually-active teens who protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy (and so the need for abortion). Therefore, serious anti-abortion activists will help parents build trust and credibility on sexual matters. Despite the discomfort of aging traditionalists, who might prefer to avoid frank conversations about sex, serious anti-abortion activists will keep their eye on their prize, which is fewer abortions.
2. Since preventing abortion is a higher priority for them than promoting chastity, serious anti-abortion activists will promote open, honest conversations about sex within religious communities.
   
   Approximately 85% of Christian youth have sex before marriage and the rate of abortion is as high among Christian believers as non-Christians, so beyond-abortion advocates will work diligently to ensure that Christian young people are equipped to manage their fertility and thus initiate pregnancy only when they are prepared to carry forward a new life.Because beyond-abortion activists are single-mindedly intent on reducing abortion, they will take to heart the social science research showing that shaming—for example through abstinence-only sermons, books and classes—drives down intimate conversations and preparations for safer sex while doing little to delay or reduce more impulsive sexual activity. They will recognize that guilt and shame about normal sexual urges can lead to denial, wishful-thinking, church-avoidance and impulsive high-risk behaviors. They are also committed to helping young people understand and manage sexual desire and pleasure rather than simply trying to suppress those urges, which has been shown not to work. They will challenge old attitudes that treat youth contraception as “premeditated sin” or pregnancy as a punishment and will instead help young Christians to explore the spirit and purpose of ancient chastity laws. They will develop faith-compatible programs like Our Whole Lives, which was created by the Unitarian Church to integrate thoughtful, responsible family planning with other spiritual and moral wisdom.
3. Serious beyond-abortion advocates will treat the school system as part of the sexual education “village.”
   
   To quote a research summary from Advocates for Youth: “Evaluations of comprehensive sex education programs show that these programs can help youth delay onset of sexual activity, reduce the frequency of sexual activity, reduce number of sexual partners, and increase condom and contraceptive use . . . teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.”Recognizing that some families struggle with addiction, mental illness and other challenges that keep kids from getting excellent health information and care and recognizing that some children suffer unwanted sexual contact at home, serious anti-abortion activists will support school efforts to fill knowledge gaps. They will invest in accountable, effective sexual health curricula demonstrated to delay sexual initiation and reduce risky sexual behavior (as measured by self-report, STIs, pregnancy and abortion). They will also lobby for age-appropriate education that starts long before youth become sexually active. When public dollars are limited, they will fund these materials and programs through charitable giving. Beyond-abortion advocates will insist that family planning be integrated into educational and career planning, not because this helps students attain their goals but because preventing surprise pregnancy prevents abortion.
4. Serious beyond-abortion activists will recognize that attempts to restore traditional gender roles and the traditional family formation sequence (education-marriage-sex-childbearing) have largely failed. They will also recognize that abortion prevention must adapt to a shifting pattern of pair bonding and family formation. Expanding beyond abstinence-till-marriage, they will deploy whatever tools are necessary to reduce the pregnancies that lead to abortion.
   
   For over 20 years, advocates for child well-being promoted a return to traditional marriage as a means to ensure that parents get ready before getting pregnant. Lead advocate, Isobel Sawhill (National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, Generation Unbound) concedes that the changes in family structure are likely irreversible and that new methods are needed to support well-timed pregnancy and family flourishing. To reduce abortions, serious anti-abortion activists will adopt a pragmatic approach to intentional childbearing and family well-being, including community services for young families and access to better birth control.
5. Serious anti-abortion activists will drive a technology revolution in contraception—from every-day and every-time birth control methods to long-acting contraceptives like IUDs and implants that radically reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion.
   
   Long-acting contraceptives are the most dramatically-effective means to date of reducing demand for abortion. A St. Louis program that offered top-tier, long-acting contraceptives to 9,000 women and youth dropped unwanted pregnancy and abortion to less than half the local average. A Colorado program that provided long-acting contraceptives to sexually-active teens reduced teen pregnancy and abortion by 40 and 35 percent respectively. Serious anti-abortion activists will challenge the false perception that these methods work to end rather than prevent pregnancy and instead promote the science-based awareness that these methods are true contraceptives with bonus health benefits. They will work to reform liability practices that undermine development and distribution of better birth control.
6. Serious anti-abortion activists will ensure that young and poor women in marginalized communities have access to excellent reproductive health services free of charge, since these are the youth and women with the highest rates of unplanned pregnancy.
   
   While unsought pregnancy and abortion are declining for middle and upper middle income families, they are on the increase among those least able to absorb the impact of another child. But making excellent contraception available to teens at no cost can drop the abortion rate by three quarters. As is, Title X family planning services prevent 2.2 million unplanned pregnancies yearly, without which the abortion rate would be two-thirds higher.Drawing on tested models like A Step Ahead in Memphis, serious anti-abortion activists will create programs that recognize the complexity and financial challenges of life in poor communities. These programs will provide rapid response, single-visit services and they will systematically eliminate financial barriers to better birth control. They will address anxiety (and contraceptive avoidance) that is due to forced sterilizations and other bad history and ensure that women are freely able to choose and switch contraceptive methods, as well as have them removed as desired.
7. Serious anti-abortion activists will insist that medical practices be updated so that family planning becomes a routine part of adolescent medicine, family practice, prenatal care, and hospital labor and delivery services.
   
   Women and men are most likely to engage in effective pregnancy prevention when primary care providers and other doctors routinely assess family plans and fertility management as a part of all medical care. Serious anti-abortion activists will promote innovative and effective programs that treat pregnancy intentions like one more vital sign for both healthy and chronically-ill patients. They will ensure that continuing education programs teach doctors how (and why) to include family planning conversations in prenatal care and birthing services. They will monitor hospitals and other care systems to ensure that the best fertility management options are available on patient request.
8. As both unintended pregnancy and abortion decline, serious anti-abortion activists will ensure that any woman who does end up with a surprise pregnancy will never be driven by financial or educational or career concerns to terminate that pregnancy.
   
   Forty percent of women seeking abortions cite financial concerns as a factor in their decision to end a pregnancy. Serious anti-abortion activists will tackle structural barriers to broad family prosperity including policies that create income inequality and cause families to fall out of the middle class. They champion family-friendly workplace norms and public policies including maternity leave, paid family leave, affordable childcare, and mom-friendly education alternatives for youth and women who decide to carry forward a surprise pregnancy.
9. Serious abortion advocates will work to minimize maternal health problems and fetal anomalies by promoting pre-conception care and prenatal care and by ensuring that fertility management is integrated into care for chronic conditions such as diabetes and HIV.
   
   Only a small percent of abortion is triggered by threats to maternal health and life, or by fetal anomalies, but serious anti-abortion activists will work to prevent these difficult situations. They will raise awareness that preconception care can prevent some fetal anomalies and maternal health risks and they will make sure that medically-compromised women receive integrated care so that high-risk pregnancies occur only when a woman or couple actively wants a baby.
10. With an eye to the future, serious anti-abortion activists will aggregate $200 million in philanthropic dollars, public research funds and investment capital to develop better birth control for men and take it to market.
    
    A man is involved in every pregnancy and men are involved in many abortion decisions, but today male contraceptives lag behind female contraceptives by almost a century. As of 2015, the best reversible method for women has an annual pregnancy rate of 1 in 2000, while the best for men (the condom) has a 1 in 6 annual pregnancy rate. Serious anti-abortion activists will recognize that giving men better means to manage their fertility will result in fewer surprise pregnancies and fewer abortions.

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, the Pro-life movement is a radical failure by the very metrics that abortion foes cite to inspire their base—or would be if the goal were actually to eliminate abortion. Unintended pregnancy and abortion are in decline, thanks to a number of cultural and economic factors and better birth control. But American care providers still serve over a million women seeking abortions annually and over 900,000 of these women terminate a pregnancy.

Self-described abortion foes in Congress pass copy-cat TRAP laws (targeted restrictions of abortion providers) that drive up the price of abortion care. Other self-proclaimed abortion foes have launched a multi-year “yuck factor” media campaign aimed at triggering moral and physical disgust. Still others harry women and care providers, forcing them to walk gauntlets of posters and prayers at clinic entrances or stalking and doxing them online. Indeed, self-proclaimed foes have so stigmatized abortion care that most of us have no idea which third of our female friends have terminated ill-conceived pregnancies.

But, if a half century of evidence from around the globe is to be believed, no amount of shaming or harassing women, nurses and doctors—however well-organized and sustained—will produce anything close to a 90 percent reduction in abortion. Nor will another 800 restrictive laws like those passed in the last twenty years, even if they criminalize women and providers. Such approaches may force some women to carry forward unwanted pregnancies, but their effect is limited by the power of human desperation. Extreme restrictions and stigma in Eastern Europe filled orphanages with unwanted babies but also filled backrooms with bleeding women. In pre-Roe America, compassionate clergy became weary of burying dead parishioners and helped to create an underground railroad to safe. Around the globe, 22 million women each year undergo a back-alley abortion rather than carry yet another unwanted pregnancy to term and over 20,000 pay with their lives. More restrictions, more disgust, more stigma—these may feel righteous to some, but at best they produce an impasse that destroys dreams and hopes and even lives and that satisfies no one.

By contrast, we know what it would take to make most abortion simply go away. Ironically, the upstream solution lies in the common ground between those who oppose abortion care and those who support it—the value we all place on empowering young people to flourish, and parents to love and care for their children. The only question is whether an anti-abortion movement will emerge that takes this challenge seriously.

Originally published at ValerieTarico.com

Poll: Majority of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/252393-poll-majority-of-republicans-thinks-obama-is-a-muslim

 

 

But they protected the unfairly low taxes that the rich people enjoy in Washington State.