The cost of Washington school reform: $3.4 billion

While state lawmakers were debating plans to reform the state's education system, no one wanted to talk about how much the changes would cost and where the money would come from. They're talking now.

Sen. Fred Jarrett, D-Mercer Island, a leader of the Basic Education Finance Task Force that designed the reforms, says the state will need $3 billion to $4 billion more a year to pay for the new definition of basic education. Estimates during the session seldom went above $2 billion a year.

The reform plan would create smaller classes, full-day kindergarten and a longer high school day to give students a chance to meet higher credit requirements. It would also distribute state education dollars based on a new formula and it would tie some teacher pay to student performance and set up a standardized way to assess a teacher's skills in the classroom.

Staff members on the task force generally agreed on a rough cost estimate of $3.4 billion a year, said Jennifer Priddy, assistant state superintendent for finance.

But the actual cost hinges on more research and decisions that the Legislature has yet to make, such as how big classes will be.

"There are probably 200 assumptions that have to be nailed down," Priddy said.

The state uses sales, business and property taxes to pay 84.3 percent of the cost of educating Washington's 1 million school children. The other 15.7 percent comes from local levies and some federal money, primarily for education of special-needs children.

Most state dollars go to teacher salaries. The state also matches local bond money for school construction.

Before the bill passed, George Scarola, legislative director for the League of Education Voters, a citizens group that pushed for its passage, glossed over the cost.

"Don't get too hung up on the total price tag," Scarola said soothingly during a committee hearing on the bill. "The class size variables, the number of counselors, librarians and custodians used in the model school formulas are placeholders," he said.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn figures it could take several years before the state is able to look beyond the current economic crisis and find money to pay for the plan.

"I'm an optimist. I believe that we are going to reset government," Dorn said.

Jarrett said no one should panic about the need to add billions to the state education system. He has some ideas for that as well.

"I'm probably the only one who doesn't think that that's a big deal," Jarrett said.

Here's his math: the state currently spends just under $7 billion a year on public schools. The new system approved by lawmakers and awaiting the governor's signature will cost between $10 billion and $11 billion depending on teacher compensation.

Jarrett figures about half of the $3 billion to $4 billion increase is the extra money needed to add staff under the proposed new formulas that call for a certain number of teachers, librarians, administrators, etc. for a certain number of students.

Jarrett thinks $1.5 billion should be pretty easy to gather over the 8-year phase-in of the plan: by pushing most of the additional tax money the state takes in as the economy recovers toward education. The goal would be to bring education back to 50 percent of the state budget from the current 40 percent.

The rest of the money is more problematic because it would change the way the state pays teachers to a formula based on local economies. Phasing in the new pay structure is not an option because it is such a dramatic statewide change, so the new money would be needed in one year.

Raising that money will require a tax increase or a new source of money for the state. For example - and he was clear that he wasn't endorsing this idea - Jarrett said the state could generate about $1.75 billion by raising its portion of property taxes by $1.50 per thousand dollars of assessed value.

The hard part is persuading lawmakers and Washington's generally tax-averse voters that such an increase is a good idea.

"You have to demonstrate to them that the money will be well spent and that they'll get value in it," Jarrett said.

Persuading teachers to join in the campaign to raise taxes for education reform may be difficult. The Washington Education Association was the most vocal opponent of the reform package approved by the Legislature.

WEA President Mary Lindquist said she wanted to spend the 2009 legislative session talking about budget cuts required to deal with the state's expected $9 billion deficit and lawmakers were more interested in talking about "the false promises of these so-called reform bills."

"I don't know what they were thinking," Lindquist said.

The WEA opposed the bill for a variety of reasons, most notably the provisions that the union felt were designed to overhaul the teaching profession.

"This bill is a travesty and an insult to the education profession," Lindquist said in a letter to WEA members during the legislative session. "The groups behind it are vested interests masquerading as concerned citizens who care for children. Yet they're denigrating and dismissing those of us who actually educate our state's children!"

Jarrett, however, defends the package as a landmark reform.

"This was the most fantastic piece of work the Legislature has done for a very long time," he said.

----

On the Net:

Superintendent of Public Instruction: http://www.k12.wa.us

Education Finance Task Force: http://www.leg.wa.gov/joint/committees/bef