I-1351, an initiative to reduce class sizes in Washington, has just passed. In the aftermath, I am hearing concerns voiced about the initiative, even among my fellow teachers. I would like to address these concerns, best I can. First a bit of recent history.

A month before the election, the polls showed that 65% of likely voters supported the initiative. By Election Day those numbers dropped precipitously. Eventually, the initiative passed with 51% of the vote. What happened before the election that could cause such a change?

In the weeks leading up to the election, many local newspapers, and many ostensibly pro-ed organizations published positions against 1351. The talking points in virtually all of these positions were synthesized in a white paper produced by the Washington Policy Center (WPC). I invite you to examine their web page so as to appreciate their agenda. WPC is a “research” group whose primary funding sources is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC creates legislation for corporations and advances it in as many state legislatures as possible. ALEC is funded by large corporations and by the Koch brothers. (See ALEC Revealed.) WPC provides ALEC with “research” which is designed to support ALEC’s agenda. Another organization that mounted opposition to 1351 is the “Freedom Foundation”, the newly renamed Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

These organizations have an established agenda: Reduce or eliminate taxes, and create “Right to Work” (for less) laws in all 50 states. They are also advocates for charter schools and other privatization schemes. Perhaps it is a coincidence that all the WA newspapers picked up the talking points generated by WPC. Regardless, the effect was profound.

There is a reason they went after 1351. For the past two decades, Washington State has consistently underfunded education. This has happened concurrently with the creation of a number of corporate tax loopholes, along with the passage of a number of anti-tax laws (thank you Tim Eyman). In consequence, our state has experienced a choked revenue supply for two decades. Rather than working to create a revenue system that matches the needs of the state, the legislature has chosen to balance the budget by shifting funding from education to other state services. Incrementally, our share of the state’s revenue has diminished over the past two decades, bringing us to the point where our schools are dramatically underfunded – bringing us to the point where we had to use the initiative process to restore balance.

The need for 1351 was created by two decades of legislative neglect. Our legislature has decided to take money from children, and educators, so that they can fund essential programs and still give tax breaks to corporations. If you are interested in a more detailed analysis of how we came to the point, go to the Fair Schools Funding Coalition.

There were several talking points put forward during the election that damaged public support of I-1351.

1.) I-1351 doesn’t identify a funding source. In other words, we can’t afford it.

“Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I’ll tell you what they are.” – James W. Frick

“It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste or sex.” – Washington State Constitution, Article IX Section 1.

Those two quotes, taken together should end this argument. If it is paramount, then we fund it. Period.

It is not that we can’t afford it, it is that we are making choices. The argument should read, “Given that revenues are fixed, and we can do nothing to change them, there is no new source of revenue for education.” This is, of course, a tautology. There are plenty of places to look for new revenues. Washington taxes rich people less, and poor people more, than any other state in the nation (WA Tax Policy). A just society is one in which everyone pays their fair share. The wealthy gain more from our social infrastructure, and education for that matter. Shouldn’t they contribute? If you want to increase revenue, it makes sense to tax where the money is. In Washington, we tax where it isn’t, and complain that there’s no money there. Rather than trying to squeeze more water from that rock, I suggest we look where the money is.

To fund education, fix the tax code. The legislature is going to have to make a choice next spring. Who is more important, corporate CEOs or our children?

2.) We don’t have enough classrooms/schools for the new teachers to teach in.

This is true in many districts. While I-1351 recognizes this as an issue by allowing flexibility in the way staff are used, ultimately, we will need to build more schools. This is a good thing. Schools are good for kids and communities. School construction is also good for jobs and the economy.

3.) The “Teachers’ Union” is only backing 1351 because they want more members so they can collect more dues.

I am bothered by this whole “Teachers’ Union” or, the alternative, “The Powerful WEA” as an epithet. The WEA a member driven organization, dedicated to improving the lives of children, and those that serve them. We are not a self-serving organization, as is portrayed in the press (particularly in the Seattle Times). I am proud to be elected by our members to serve their needs. I was a part of the discussion leading up to the creation of I-1351. In all our planning, the best interests of students was our primary focus. Second to that was the reduction of workload, so that educators could focus more of their attention to the needs of students.
The idea that this is some sort of money grab is just silly. We set our dues based on what it costs to provide the services our members need. This argument presupposes that there is a profit motive to WEA. WEA is non-profit, for crying out loud. We aren’t about money, we are about union.

4.) 70% of the money will be going to hire staff other than teachers, including “administrators”. (Quotes from the WPC white paper, which implies that we are deliberately funding more bureaucracy.)

This sound bite was created by the Washington Policy Center in their white paper on 1351. It is simply not true. The staffing formulas used in I-1351 follow recommendations of Quality Education Council, which was commissioned by the legislature to create the targets their own education reform bills were designed to meet. These numbers are precisely what the McCleary decision demands. All 1351 does is demand of the legislature what they have already promised.

There are a number of “Grass Roots” organizations that came out against 1351.

1.) Stand for Children
Funded by the Walton Foundation (WalMart). Their motives are easy to understand.
2.) League of Education Voters
Heavily influenced by the Gates Foundation. Gates, along with other “Venture Philanthropists” have had a have hand in education for years. Their agenda is to push privatization models.
3.) Association of Washington Principals.
• Okay, this one was hard to understand. They cited the “We can’t afford it” litany as their primary objection. (AWSP Statement)
• They also point out that there is a shortage of high quality teachers. I concur. We will need to attract more high quality people to our profession. I suggest this would require making the profession more attractive. Increasing compensation and decreasing unfunded mandates on our time would be a start. Ending the excessive testing, coupled with an evaluation system designed to intimidate educators would also help.
• Their last argument is that the research supporting lower class size is inconclusive for grades 4-12. Yeah. Right. Ask any English teacher who has 180 papers to read over the weekend if class size matters. Ask any math teacher who has less than 2 minutes per student to provide individualized instruction if class size matters. Can’t find the research? Here you go: http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb_-_class_size.pdf . I had to go all the way to Google to find research. Once I eliminated the Seattle Times as an information source, pretty much everything supported lowering class sizes. See page 6 of the above article for information on class size grades 4-12.
4.) Alliance for Children.
This is a good outfit which is concerned that the legislature will take money away from other social services in order to meet the demands of McCleary and 1351. I appreciate their concern as well intended. WEA does not want to take money from services for children in order to fund the schools either. The basis of their concern is within the “given that revenues are fixed” argument.
5.) Many State Legislators and Governor Inslee.
Their concerns are obvious. 1351 forces Olympia to make difficult decisions that they have been avoiding for decades. Many politicians are worried that doing what is right for children will require them to look at revenue enhancements, thus angering the deep pockets they need to gain re-election.
In fact, it would have been preferable to have the legislature craft a solution. There has been no indication of their intent to do so. That is why the Supreme Court of Washington has held them in contempt. By passing 1351, we are giving more incentive to the legislature to do its job: run the government and fund education.
They don’t like it? Too bad. It is time for them to step up and do their jobs.

In the end, we were able to overcome powerful, but subtle, opposition. We passed 1351. While there are some significant hurdles ahead, it is a landmark achievement on behalf the children of Washington State. In the long run, it will make things better. In the short term, we have work to do to ensure the legislature gets it right.

What’s next?

In holding the legislature in contempt, the McCleary Court focused on compensation as a key indicator of the legislature’s failure to fund education. The court has made it clear that no cola, no health care premium increases and underfunding our pensions must stop. The legislature has until April to create a plan that will provide the revenues needed for education. This means class size AND compensation.

We will have to look at creating funding for capital projects in many districts in the state.

We will have to find ways to attract and retain more qualified educators. This means higher salaries. It also means recognizing that education “reform” is driving people away from the profession by increasing workload and decreasing job satisfaction. If you want high quality professionals in education, then attract them to it by making it worth their while.

Some of these issues will be addressed through legislation, some through local bargaining. We can look forward to a lot of activity in both arenas. I anticipate the upcoming legislative session to be difficult, to say the least. The legislature will continue to be reluctant to provide additional revenues for education. In addition, it is likely there will be some retaliatory legislation presented. We will have to fight to keep the legislature on track to fund McCleary and 1351. We will also have to fight off unnecessary “reforms.”

Our work isn’t done. We have accomplished a lot through both McCleary and 1351. This is WEA at its finest, supporting educators and children. However, the simple passage of a landmark initiative isn’t enough. The work ahead will be necessary to ensure that the will of the people, and the rulings of the courts are implemented. It won’t be easy. The legislature is likely to mount considerable resistance. There may be retaliatory “reforms” proposed. The legislature may try to find the votes required (2/3 of each house) to overturn 1351. There may be moves to “find” money by cutting our health care or pensions.

We will need to be vigilant. And, it is likely that in the next few months we will have to be present in Olympia, helping them to get it right.