Spokane7
67°
November 10, 2011 in City
Schools asking voters to replace state funds
Spokane Public Schools’ board agreed Wednesday to ask voters in February to consider paying more taxes in a levy to compensate for potential state cuts to K-12 education.
The region’s largest district is not alone.
District officials throughout the Spokane area are planning to ask voters to approve three-year replacement levies for 2013-’15 plus a few dimes more per $1,000 assessed value for most districts. The increases will reflect the governor’s proposal to eliminate all or some levy equalization dollars – money used to help with revenues in poorer areas.
A 50 percent cut in levy equalization, which would take effect in 2013, would cost Spokane Public Schools $6.6 million per year, more money than in all but three other districts in Washington. Central Valley could lose $4.3 million; Mead would lose $3.4 million and East Valley $946,000. Double those amounts if the districts lose 100 percent of equalization funding.
Levies support programs such as sports, clubs, libraries, gifted-and-talented programs, elementary band and strings, classroom teachers, transportation, high school and middle school electives and special education. Levies and bonds – which pay for buildings and other infrastructure – are not interchangeable.
“We’ve been cutting back for 10 years,” said Spokane Public Schools Superintendent Nancy Stowell. “We are at the classroom door.”
For area school districts, levies amount to about 25 percent of their budgets. That’s about $76 million for Spokane Public Schools.
School officials are frustrated about potentially shifting even more of the burden to local property owners, but they fear if they don’t ask for more money and the state reduces or eliminates levy equalization, it would undoubtedly mean cuts to programs.
There’s a codicil in the levies districts plan to propose: If the state does not cut levy equalization funding, then districts will only collect taxes equivalent to the current levy rate. For example, Spokane Public Schools’ rate if the state funding is sustained would be $3.89 per $1,000 assessed value.
Districts have until Dec. 30 to finalize levy amounts. The Legislature is scheduled to go into special session later this month to begin work closing a $2 billion budget gap.
Spokane Public Schools officials are counting on a 65 percent reduction in levy equalization, which would make the tax rate an estimated $4.49 per $1,000 assessed value.
“We are having to guess on what the state’s going to do,” said Mark Anderson, Spokane Public Schools associate superintendent. “We did the same thing three years ago, and we ended up rolling back millions because the cuts didn’t happen.”
Recent stories by Jody Lawrence-Turner
School districts emphasize science, trades May 26, 2012 4- Students to pay, work for prank May 24, 2012
- Sandpoint High students vandalize school in senior prank May 23, 2012 7
- Spokane schools officials’ pay frozen May 15, 2012 18
- Redinger brings fresh direction, expectations to District 81 May 13, 2012 7
another_perspective on November 10 at 12:31 a.m.
What about cutting the pay of the 100 District 81 employees whom make more than $100K. You know all them administrators.whom add NOTHING to the classroom?
“We’ve been cutting back for 10 years,” said Spokane Public Schools Superintendent Nancy Stowell. “We are at the classroom door.”
Stowell must have sneaked in the back of the gymnasium, but she sure didnt get to the classroom door through the administrations offices.
DickAdams on November 10 at 12:39 a.m.
I`m voting NO. Let the bloated administrators, 1) take a pay cut and 2) abolish half of the district 81 crew where many roam the streets in the Lilac City and shop during working hours.
drywitt99 on November 10 at 12:48 a.m.
“….abolish half of the district 81 crew where many roam the streets in the Lilac City and shop during working hours.”
Proof Dickie…..any PROOF of these hyperbolic claims???
oneanddone on November 10 at 3:09 a.m.
While poorly phrased, drywitt, the core of the comment refers to the fact that much of this extra money wanted is likely for teacher and staff salaries. In this financial climate it seems wrong, especially for those without a salary of their own or wondering if the door will be locked when they show up for work.
WillyPeter on November 10 at 5:28 a.m.
Vote ‘no’!
The PDC is investigating District 81, and their corrupt Union, the Spokane Education Association (SEA), for illegal campaign activity…….and the country club policy wonks that comprise the School Board enable this entire criminal enterprise.
….and all the metrics show continuing, declining results in our schools’ pathetic downward spiral.
….and “for a few dollars more,” they promise, again, that this modus operandi will be able to happily continue.
SHEESH!
drywitt99 on November 10 at 5:43 a.m.
So its okay to make stuff up…..as long as you do so to bash educators???
Okay…..just wanted to know the rules.
greyhound2 on November 10 at 6:22 a.m.
With the school district, there is no correlation between the amount of money spent and the results produced.
teach4jen on November 10 at 6:26 a.m.
It’s not about the adults whether it’s administrators, staff, or even the union. It’s about the kids! Who will suffer if people vote “no” on the levy? It’s not the adults - it’s our kids.
Levies provide programs, resources, materials and staff for kids!
lillyhancock on November 10 at 6:53 a.m.
For the first time in my life, I will vote NO on a school levy! We were misled on the bond language regarding Jefferson, so I no longer trust the School District to do the right thing with our bond/levy money. Nancy Stowell said they have been cutting back for ten years. Why then does she get paid more than the governor?
Before our taxes are raised, AGAIN, under the guise of “it’s about the kids”, the pay of those many, many administrators making over $100K should be cut! The teachers deserve that money, not the bureaucrats!
It’s about time for someone to take a close look at the District and SEA! I’m glad the PDC has launched a formal investigation!
westerly on November 10 at 7:19 a.m.
Its all about the kids again! B.S….Cut their bloated salaries, the recession is here, Olympia is running out of money, poor folks can’t afford another levy “for the kids”, time for salary adjustments like the private sector has endured for 4 years now! District 81, sacred cows, arrogant like Treppedi!
DickAdams on November 10 at 7:30 a.m.
I wonder if Roco Treppiedi had his snoot in the trough on behalf of the administrators with this greedy decision? Why in heavens name do the voters continue to reelect the likes of Treppiedi to the school board knowing for several years he was involved in the cover-up of the Otto Zehm crime? And a city attorney, like Trepiedi pandering to the AG telling him to ask the legislators to change the public records law and stop giving the citizens so much information?
Miki on November 10 at 7:34 a.m.
I will vote no!
The_Seer on November 10 at 7:52 a.m.
So teachers, students and school districts are what collapsed the economy and they are the ones who should primarily pay the price for the resultant lost revenues?
Gotcha.
Sheesh, you guys don’t even need Duane Alton anymore.
RebeccaHeacox on November 10 at 8:03 a.m.
@ lillyhancock… This will also be my first no vote on a school levy!
District 81’s top priority is clear! It’s all about the money - - above all else, the salary of the administrators must be protected! If you don’t believe me, read the Spokesman’s article on Sept. 19, 2010 titled “Administrators out of school budget woes’ reach.” While the kids and teachers suffer from budget cuts, the administrators continue to line their pockets with HUGE salaries! IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
The_Seer on November 10 at 8:44 a.m.
rebecca: A person could equally validly take the opposite of your argument: The citizen’s priorities are clear! It’s all about selfishness… above all else, the extra sixty dollars most homeowners would pay should go away along with extravegant programs like head start, free lunches and after school sports. As taxpayers we want a return to OUR three “R’s”: Reacting, Reducing and Ruining.
Canada is looking better every second.
DDC on November 10 at 8:44 a.m.
You can’t take the offspring of a Nation that is the greatest free market society ever conceived, have them educated by a collective that abhors the very free market principles that fund it, and expect a different result than what is currently evident.
greenlibertarian on November 10 at 9:24 a.m.
“Levies support programs such as sports, clubs, libraries, gifted-and-talented programs, elementary band and strings, classroom teachers, transportation, high school and middle school electives and special education.”
Pure useless fluff. Eliminate it.
Back to the 3R’s and any kid who can’t cut it, beat the living daylights out of him/her until he/she can cut it.
THAT’S how you edumacate “the offspring of a Nation that is the greatest free market society ever conceived!”
Kids: either learn, or get beat down. It’s the American way.
Just like we showed those Injuns.
Coffee on November 10 at 9:58 a.m.
Teachers need to make a choice, take individual pay-cuts to make up for the loss of state funds or face layoffs.
I was faced with a choice this year either pay more for health insurance or drop it. I was paying $90 Bi-Weekly now I am paying $202 Bi-Weekly for the same insurance.
I am also paying higher prices for city and county services with no improvement in those services.
I am done whining now, but I am not going to vote for a reduction in my standard of living so government employees standard of living can go up or stay the same.
Lewis on November 10 at 10:00 a.m.
drive by shadle high some time and see the new baseball fields and football stadium they built with the last levy we voted yes on.
i vote no, they never put the money where it is needed.
woamike on November 10 at 10:45 a.m.
The public education “establishment” doesn’t get it. Hard-working tax-payers are tired of throwing good money after bad. REAL reform is needed in public education. Until that happens, throwing more money your way is not going to fix anything. I will not vote “yes” on another levy until you change your ways.
In our schools today, education has been replaced by indoctrination. Form is emphasized over substance. Poor teachers are retained. School administration is bloated with unproductive bureaucrats and over-paid functionaries who seem to care more about their fiefdoms than education. And what of the over-all environment in our schools? Is it conducive to learning? Hardly. In many cases, the halls and classrooms in our schools resemble the set of a dysfunctional “reality” television series rather than places of learning. The proof is in the pudding: many (most?) of our kids are not prepared to successfully enter the work force or continue their education in college (without taking remedial coursework).
There still are a few great teachers and students and even administrators. They are all to be commended and thanked. Those students will go far in this world (unfortunately the same cannot always be said of the great teachers). Of course, it’s all not just the “school’s fault”. MANY parents are to blame as is society as a whole. When parents fail to teach and discipline their kids at home, it makes a teacher’s job nearly impossible. And, a society that celebrates and even rewards mediocrity and failure does not make for a fertile ground to sow the seeds of education. That may be the real root problem… In any case, no more additional money until basic reforms are made.
The_Seer on November 10 at 10:54 a.m.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right wing talking points gleaned from Faux Noise and bleated by the likes of wormlike won’t educate your children. And he hasn’t ever worked in a school or probably even been in one for decades.
Keep saying no, Americans. You’ll get exactly what you stand for: nothing.
greenlibertarian on November 10 at 11:16 a.m.
I was faced with a choice this year either pay more for health insurance or drop it. I was paying $90 Bi-Weekly now I am paying $202 Bi-Weekly for the same insurance.
Praise be to God for our outstanding private for profit health insurance system.
The proof is in the pudding
The ignorant can’t even express this old saying properly.
You will search forever to find the proof in the pudding.
Unless, you’re not ignorant, and know that the saying is:
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
But lemme guess, ignoramuses, you “could” care less.
Looks like some of you dopes didn’t pay much attention in school. What a surprise.
woamike on November 10 at 11:31 a.m.
“The_Seer”
One “educator” that will never learn. . .
As long you as you are the face of public education, schools won’t get a nickel from any sane person. If I were a school administrator, I’d pay you just to just keep your mouth shut rather than ruining things for decent teachers.
Rather than trying to “advocate” for more money for public education, perhaps you could stick to what you’re really good at: regaling us with stories of your past (and present??) drug use, tax avoidance, Marxist political indoctrination of our children, twisted logic, straw-man creation, juvenile rants against those who disagree with you and general braggadocio on nearly every topic under the sun.
cdspokesreader on November 10 at 11:46 a.m.
I am by no means a conservative and can’t stand Faux News, but I have to agree with a lot of what woamike is saying. I have two kids in the school system currently. There have been some awesome teachers and then some who wanted to medicate my kids because they were bored in the classroom and weren’t paying attention because of it. My problem is still the overpriced administrators in the district office downtown. I also don’t understand why an elementary school principle gets $100,000 a year. When the levy’s are put out they always say it’s for the kids, but I have seen the service and programs for the kids decrease while the administrator wages continue to rise. Just ask a parent who has to spend money on school supplies every year. They buy items for the classroom like white board markers and kleenex. I agree it’s difficult with some of the parents using the school system as a free daycare where they don’t want to participate, but I really need to see some of the non-learning programs cut and some cuts in the district office before I will ever vote yes.
WillyPeter on November 10 at 11:47 a.m.
….woamlike, you forgot ‘name calling’ ……… :-)
lillyhancock on November 10 at 12:17 p.m.
@ Lewis, it’s not just Shadle, drive by Ferris!
Sadly, those of us who don’t want to automatically roll over and give the District as much money as it wants, any time it wants, are accused of being selfish, and/or not caring about the children. We do care deeply about children, and are not selfish. What we are trying to do is hold the District accountable for the proper use of OUR money!
I just read the article reccomended by Rebecca above. (Sept. 19, 2010 - “Administrators out of school budget woes’ reach” - The Spokesman-Review). That article explains the median Spokane income dropped from $45,551 to $42,195 in 2009. The average pay for state administrators is $59,929. Yet, at least 107 Spokane area school administrators make more than $100,000. Superintendent Nancy Stowell makes $222,576.48. And, on top of that, most of them got a raise of 3% or more! You should read that article! It has a lot of good information!
Spokane has a reasonable cost of living. School administrators don’t need over $100,000 a year, of our money, to live a very comfortable life here!
Times are tough for tax payers. Why do we need to give the district even more money when it already uses our levy dollars to pay high salaries to school district administrators, not teachers. The teachers and children have made sacrafices. It’s time for the administrators to do their fair share!
Coffee on November 10 at 1:05 p.m.
greenlibertarian : Normally I understand what you are getting at but to day I missed your point. Just make it simple for me please.
Are you in favor of a tax increase or against?
greenlibertarian on November 10 at 1:27 p.m.
lookie here, folks, you can read the 2010 article about obscene administrator salaries, why, just by clicking:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/sep/19/top-tier-out-of-school-budget-woes-reach/
greenlibertarian on November 10 at 1:43 p.m.
Coffee, I don’t think it’s the TEACHERS and student-centric, extra-curricular programs that should have to suffer the brunt of the cuts.
I would first cut the pay of any administrators making $200K or more by 15%.
I would next cut the pay of any administrators (not to include Principals) making $150K-$200k by 10%.
I would next cut the pay of any headquarters employee making $100K-$150K by 5%.
I would freeze or possibly roll back the number of administrators.
THEN we’ll see where we are with the budget, and if local levies need to be increased to make up for a loss in state budget support.
Coffee on November 10 at 2:39 p.m.
greenlibertarian, Best idea I have seen today and I now understand were you stand. Thank You
Miki on November 10 at 3:25 p.m.
greenlibertarian, Thanks for posting that link!
I noticed in the article you linked, the union’s representative, Jenni Rose, claimed to be unhappy with the high salaries of administrators and their pay raises. She also said some union members live below the poverty level. It makes me wonder why the union endorsed Deana Brower in the School Board race… At the Ferris school board debate, Deana said she supports the huge salaries of District administrators!
Here’s another interesting article - “Union broke law with Kids News ad”, The Spokesman, Oct. 22, 2011. This is a serious issue, and on Tuesday the PDC started a formal investigation into the union’s and District’s activities surrounding the election.
I agree with Coffee! Your idea sounds like a good place to start!
DDC on November 10 at 5:18 p.m.
Cutting pay won’t change the fact that the current system outputs students that rank 17th worldwide in reading, math and science skills.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading
The problem is beyond money and a non-competitive educational system will never produce better results for less of it.
wobble506 on December 13 at 8:32 a.m.
Wow! $202 dollars, that’s terrible. In the private sector, I don’t think I’ve paid that low since the 90’s. My biweekly is around $585. I think you have a long way to go before you start be-itching about how bad you have it!.
flyerd1 on February 02 at 4:32 a.m.
1. Irt it not being a new tax:
Anything with an end date (like a “3yr” levy tax or a mortgage) has to have a “new” one started in order to “remain” in place so it’s perfectly accurate to say it’s a new tax. What if, after paying off your mortgage, the bank said “we don’t want you to pay a new mortgage, we’d just like you to pay on this replacement mortgage” for another mortgage term…? How would that go over?
2. Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
The levy rate most often used by school districts is the smaller, LEF assisted one. However, with our current economy, this is a time when LEF funds could go away and people should plan accordingly (plan worst case scenario). That would cause the amount taken by this levy to be approximately 22% more than the school dist claims.
3. Irt A) It being 28% (mead) of their budget & B) What the levy $ is or is not used for:
A levy is meant to be a one time fill-gap revenue stream that may be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. It’s “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when they’ve gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending part of their budget.
It’s extremely disingenuous to say the money “is not” used for new buildings, repairs, pensions, etc. That’s a simple “shell game”. It’s like having a monthly budget (including $100 each for phone, power, alcohol, and gas) and saying “gee mom, I don’t have enough money to cover all my monthly bills; If you give me $100 I can pay my pwr bill”. There’s no way to realistically seperate that $100 out and stipulate it’s actually being used to pay “the pwr bill” as opposed to the gas, phone, alcohol, etc. budget items. Similarly, there is “no way to realistically separate” levy money such that it can be considered a “completely separate” (from all other budget items) funding amount. The exact part of the budget that the school dist “chooses to say” the levy money pays for is simply a matter of which shell they choose to say it goes towards… Again, its a simple shell game of distortions to say “a specific revenue stream” of any budget is only going to used “for select items” of that overall budget.
4. Despite how this may sound, I’m completely for education funding via a fair and equitable method. A much more equitable method of requesting additional funding would be to request it via a sales tax increase (whatever fraction of a penny required). That way, “everyone” casting a vote would actually be voting to increase “their own taxes” as well as other people’s taxes. If it’s going to be a property tax then either A) only property owners should have the levy on their ballots or B) it should be a supermajority vote. Right now many people vote who don’t even pay property taxes… Otherwise this type of a levy tax should require a super majority in order to be considered more of a fair vote (#5 below).
A cost cutting, as opposed to revenue generating, method of addressing the education budgets would be to address the underfunded TERS1 pensions and work to modify those pensions via negotiations and constitutional changes. The state already acknowledged that TERS1 (stopped in 1977) was unsustainable and a responsible re-negotiation could be done without undue harm to current pension beneficiaries. All other post TERS1 plans should be transitioned to 401K plans. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the charter schools that currently operate for less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.
See 5. below…
flyerd1 on February 02 at 4:33 a.m.
5. If it was a super majority vote this would at least be a fair vote. A super majority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that could be beneficial to them and that they are “not” directly impacted by (in a financially impacting way, i.e. they pay for it). For example (using property ownership rates of 60%), if 65% of “non-property owners” vote “YES”, a levy like this could pass with only 40% of property owners voting for it (even though the property owners pay it).
If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax by 2% you wouldn’t want people from Idaho to be allowed to vote because, as stated above, they would be a subset of voters that don’t have to pay for the tax but could actually benefit as their sales went up due to people going into Idaho to avoid the 2% increase.
The counter point of “renters pay these fees via rent” is ridiculous because only in a perfect system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can’t get a renter at a price that covers the levy costs he/she has to lower the rent in order to simply rent the unit out…